Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 104 references

Review: Accretion Disk Evolution in Tidal Disruption Events

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A tidal disruption event's disk should undergo a thermal-viscous collapse from a thick hot state to a thin cool one, yet many observed X-ray transitions come later or not at all.

desk verdict A solid, honest invited review — no new result, but the observation comparison and the outside-in collapse timing idea are worth engaging; the instability claim is conditional on an unverified stress law. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07061 v1 pith:ZQGY5H6D submitted 2025-05-11 astro-ph.HE

Wenbin Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsaccretiondiskevolutionthermal-viscousinstabilityalphaviscosityfallbackX-raylightcurvesstatetransitionssuper-Eddington
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 review argues that the long-term evolution of a tidal disruption event (TDE) disk is set by viscous angular-momentum transport plus ongoing mass fallback, and that under the standard $\alpha$-viscosity law the disk is thermally unstable for most events with black hole mass below about $10^7\,M_\odot$. As fallback declines, the disk should collapse from a geometrically thick, radiation-pressure-dominated state to a thin, gas-pressure-dominated state, producing sudden order-of-magnitude drops in the accretion rate and X-ray luminosity. The paper reads the steep X-ray declines seen in jetted TDEs and in AT2018fyk and AT2021ehb as evidence for such state transitions, but notes the model predicts an outer-disk collapse at roughly 80 days whereas observed transitions cluster near one year, and some X-ray bright TDEs show no transition up to 500 days. It concludes that the current one-zone model is highly incomplete and identifies shock heating from fallback, a broad angular momentum distribution of the fallback gas, and a possible minimum disk thickness as the missing physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the S-curve of local thermal equilibrium solutions $g(T;\Sigma,r_d)=0$, built from the $\alpha$-viscosity prescription $\nu_{\rm vis}=\alpha H^2\Omega_K$, with viscous and shock heating balanced by radiative, advective, and wind cooling. The unstable middle branch of the S-curve is what makes the disk collapse from a thick radiation-pressure state to a thin gas-pressure state, and the critical accretion rates at the two S-curve boundaries set the collapse and revival thresholds. The overall evolution model is a one-zone tracking of disk mass and radius under mass and angular momentum conservation, supplemented by a spherization radius and a Bernoulli-limited wind to estimate the accretion rate reaching the black hole.

What would settle it

Measure a statistical sample of TDEs with long-term X-ray coverage and estimated black hole masses below $10^7\,M_\odot$: if most do not show an abrupt order-of-magnitude X-ray decline within about two years, or if the decline epochs do not correlate with the predicted fallback-rate threshold, the thermal-viscous collapse is not operating. A direct test of the mechanism would be to determine in radiation-dominated accretion flows whether the viscous stress is proportional to total pressure; a $\beta$-viscosity scaling would remove the instability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a radiation-pressure-dominated TDE disk built by fallback and governed by local alpha viscosity is subject to a thermal-viscous instability: for fixed surface density and radius the thermal equilibrium curve $g(T)=0$ is S-shaped, with an unstable branch separating a thick, hot stable solution from a thin, cool one. As the fallback rate declines over months to years, the disk moves onto the unstable branch and collapses vertically, dropping the accretion rate by a few orders of magnitude; after the collapse, mass accumulation can push it back onto the thick branch, producing repeated accretion bursts in a limit cycle that eventually stops when fallback is too weak. The paper uses a piecewise steady-state one-zone model with this instability to compute the outer-disk radius and mass, then compares the predicted accretion and shock luminosities with X-ray and UV/optical lightcurves. The model reproduces qualitative features such as a super-Eddington early phase, sharp X-ray drops, and possible limit-cycle behavior, but fails on timing: the outer disk should collapse near 80 days, while observed steep X-ray declines occur near one year, and some systems show no decline. The proposed resolution is that a large spread in the angular momentum of fallback gas delivers a fraction directly to the inner disk, whose collapse time of about one year matches the observations.

Load-bearing premise

The instability prediction rests on the assumption that the viscous stress is proportional to the total (gas plus radiation) pressure with a constant alpha; if the stress instead scales with gas pressure alone, or magnetic pressure stabilizes the disk, the predicted collapse does not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the alpha-viscosity picture is right, most TDEs around black holes below about $10^7\,M_\odot$ should show abrupt, order-of-magnitude X-ray drops as the disk collapses, so long-term X-ray monitoring of optically and X-ray selected samples directly tests the instability.
  • The observed steep declines in Swift J1644+57, Swift 2058+05, AT2018fyk, and AT2021ehb are explained as state transitions; the two rapid drops in AT2021ehb tentatively support the predicted limit cycle.
  • If the inner-disk collapse picture holds, the timing of the steep X-ray drop encodes the fallback rate and thereby the disrupted star's mass and the black hole mass, since the inner-disk collapse time scales as $M^{-1/5}M_*^{3/5}$.
  • The model predicts rapid accretion flares after the first collapse; their absence in the current sample means either the disk is kept thick by fallback interactions, magnetic pressure, or Lense-Thirring misalignment, or the limit cycle is yet to be seen.
  • Under beta viscosity or a magnetically stabilized stress law the instability disappears and the disk evolves on decade-long timescales, which would conflict with the observed rapid X-ray evolution; radiation MHD simulations of shearing flows support the alpha-like total-pressure stress, so the instability is expected to operate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A population-level test follows from the paper's inner-disk collapse scenario: if the one-year collapse time is real, the distribution of X-ray-drop epochs across a sample should shift systematically with black hole mass and stellar mass; a null correlation would point to a different trigger, such as an external obscuration event.
  • The model's tension with no-transition sources like ASASSN-14li could be resolved if the true circularization shock efficiency is high enough to stabilize the disk, suggesting a testable connection between observed optical/UV reprocessing luminosity and the disk's stability.
  • The limit-cycle prediction implies that very late-time (5-10 year) UV plateaus could be a signature of a thin disk that retains nearly all the fallback mass rather than a separate mechanism; multi-band late-time monitoring could distinguish that from a magnetically arrested state.
  • The paper leaves the angular-momentum distribution of fallback gas as an open input; if it is broad as the self-crossing shock picture suggests, the same model should predict a smooth radial mass-infall profile, and the ratio of early to late X-ray timing would indirectly measure that distribution.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of the long-term evolution of accretion disks in tidal disruption events (TDEs). It presents a local thermal-equilibrium analysis of an alpha-viscosity disk annulus, derives the thermal stability condition, and builds a one-zone model for the global evolution of disk mass and radius with ongoing fallback. The central claims are that (i) under total-pressure alpha-viscosity the disk undergoes a thermal-viscous instability for most TDEs with black-hole mass below about 10^7 solar masses, causing thick-to-thin state transitions and order-of-magnitude accretion-rate drops, and (ii) the current one-zone model is highly incomplete when compared with late-time X-ray observations, which show transitions later than predicted or none at all. The paper also discusses possible resolutions, including shock heating, direct fallback onto the inner disk, and magnetic pressure support.

Significance. If the central prediction is correct, alpha-viscosity TDE disks would provide a new setting for thermal-viscous limit cycles and explain sharp X-ray drops in several TDEs. The review has clear strengths: the local stability derivation in Section 2 is standard and internally consistent; the paper explicitly lists its own caveats (unknown shock-heating efficiency fsh, absence of a global disk model, uncertain wind cooling); and the comparison with AT2018fyk, AT2021ehb and jetted TDEs is concrete and falsifiable in principle. However, the headline instability is conditional on the total-pressure alpha-viscosity prescription, and the paper itself notes that beta-viscosity or magnetic pressure support removes the instability. Since the cited numerical support comes from shearing-box simulations rather than TDE-specific disk simulations, the central claim is not established as a robust property of TDE disks. The review is nevertheless a useful and honest synthesis; with explicit reframing of the conditional claims it can be made defensible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2 (Eq. 5)] The headline prediction that "the current model predicts a thermal-viscous instability for most TDEs with BH mass ≲ 10^7 M⊙" is conditional on the total-pressure α-viscosity prescription in Eq. (5). The paper itself states in Section 2 that under a β-viscosity prescription, or with a strong magnetic field, the disk remains stable, and the cited radiation-MHD support (Jiang, Stone & Davis 2013) comes from shearing-box simulations at parameters different from TDE disks. The Section 3.2 comparison with observed transitions (or their absence) does not break this degeneracy: a stably evolving β-viscosity disk would produce no transition, so both outcomes are consistent with either stress law. I ask that the central claims be systematically qualified as conditional on α-viscosity, and that the review include an explicit statement of what observations would discriminate between α- and β-type stress prescriptions.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (32)–(33)] The timing comparison between model and observations is built on two quantities with different epistemic status. Equation (32) has its normalization "numerically calibrated based on Fig. 4", so it is a fit to the one-zone model rather than an independent analytic prediction, while Eq. (33) assumes a flat angular-momentum distribution dMfb/dℓ ∝ ℓ^0, which is introduced as speculation. Consequently, the claimed mismatch between the predicted ≈80 d collapse and the observed ≈1 yr transitions should be presented not as a robust prediction of the model but as a property of the particular one-zone implementation with fsh = 0 and a δ-function circularization radius. Please mark these dependencies explicitly, and indicate how a global 1D calculation would test whether the timing discrepancy is real.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says "unstable (∂ g/∂ T < 0) ones in red"; since Eq. (19) defines thermal stability as ∂ g/∂ T < 0, the unstable condition should be ∂ g/∂ T > 0.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The typeset expression appears to be missing a division symbol; it should read Ω ≃ ΩK/(1+θ²) for a sub-Keplerian disk, and the subsequent use in Eq. (26) is consistent with that reading.
  3. [References] Several references (e.g., [38], [40], [98]) are cited in arXiv e-print form; please update to the published versions where available.
  4. [Section 3.2, item (3)] The sentence "These are in disagreement with the predictions from the one-zone model" would benefit from stating explicitly that the disagreement is evaluated for fsh = 0 and for the adopted α values; otherwise it reads as a stronger statement than the model permits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the instability prediction follows from standard alpha-disk equations and is honestly qualified; the sole self-citation supports an explicitly speculative scenario and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model prediction, not a first-principles derivation that reduces to its inputs. The thermal-viscous instability is derived in Section 2 from the local thermal-equilibrium condition g(T;Σ,rd)=0 (Eq. 18) and the stability criterion ∂g/∂T<0 (Eq. 19), using the standard Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity law νvis=αH^2Ω_K (Eq. 5) and the gas-plus-radiation pressure balance. This is a mathematical consequence of the assumed stress law, not an equivalence to the assumed stress by construction. The alpha-viscosity assumption is itself flagged as conditional: the paper states that under a beta-viscosity prescription 'the disk does not suffer from the thermal-viscous instability... and remains stable throughout the evolution,' and it also notes magnetic stabilization. That is honest qualification of an assumption, not circular reasoning. The closest candidate for a fitted-input-called-prediction is Eq. (32), whose normalization is 'numerically calibrated based on Fig. 4.' However, Fig. 4 is the model's own evolution output, not an observational data set used for fitting, and the equation is transparently a compact fit to that model output rather than independent evidence. The later comparison with observed X-ray transitions is an external benchmark, and the paper explicitly lists the model's failures, so it is not validating the model with its own predicted curves. The one self-citation, Lu & Bonnerot (2020) [59], is used to support the angular-momentum-spread speculation in the text: 'We speculate here... If this is confirmed by future global modeling of the disk evolution.' This is presented as a speculation and is not the load-bearing justification for the main instability result, which rests on earlier independent work by Shen & Matzner (2014) and standard accretion-disk theory. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fit to the data it is meant to explain. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for its central model-comparison claims, and no circular step is exhibited.

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

The model's free parameters are the standard uncertain dials of alpha-disk theory: viscosity alpha, shock-heating efficiency fsh, wind index s, penetration parameter beta, and details of the wind cooling prescription. The axioms are standard disk assumptions plus the specific choice of alpha-viscosity, which is the load-bearing one. No new physical entities such as new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the outside-in collapse scenario is a mechanism, not an entity.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (viscosity parameter) = 0.1 and 0.03
    Chosen within the plausible range of about 0.01 to 0.1, not fitted to data. The viscous time and collapse time scale inversely with alpha, so it is a central free parameter.
  • fsh (shock heating efficiency) = 0 in the main model; 10^-1.5 in the illustrative Fig. 3 case
    The paper states after eq. (12) that 'we do not have a good prescription for fsh'. The main evolution figures set fsh = 0, while Fig. 3 uses 10^-1.5 to show the stabilizing effect.
  • s (wind accretion power-law index) = 0.5
    In eq. (28), the accretion rate onto the black hole is reduced by (10 rg / rsph)^s; the paper picks s = 0.5 as a representative value between 0.3 and 1 from simulations.
  • beta (penetration parameter) = 2
    The fiducial model uses rp = rT/2, meaning beta = 2 for a full disruption. This choice sets the circularization radius and enters the collapse-time estimates in eqs. (31) and (32).
  • wind cooling parameters (fw and Delta Be) = Bernoulli-limited wind with Delta Be = 0.1
    Wind cooling is computed from a Sigmoid of the Bernoulli number with transition width Delta Be = 0.1; the paper says the results depend little on this choice.
  • initial disk mass Md,0 = 3 x 10^-3 solar masses
    Initial condition for the one-zone integration; the paper states it is forgotten within the first few days and does not affect late-time behavior.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Alpha-viscosity prescription: νvis = α H^2 Ω_K, with stress proportional to total pressure.
    Adopted in Section 2 (eq. 5). Under a beta-viscosity or magnetic pressure support the disk would be stable, so this assumption is load-bearing for the predicted instability.
  • domain assumption Quasi-thermal equilibrium: the disk satisfies Q+ = Q- and is not modeled on the dynamical timescale.
    Section 2, after eq. (10): the paper says the model is not to be trusted on a timescale of Ω_K^-1 and solves g(T) = 0 for thermal equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Efficient circularization of fallback debris through GR apsidal precession, so details of disk formation can be ignored for long-term evolution.
    Section 1 states that under the assumption that circularization is efficient, the disk formation process plays only a minor role in the long-term evolution.
  • domain assumption The disk feeding rate tracks the stellar disruption fallback rate, taken from Law-Smith et al. 2020.
    Section 3.1 lists assumptions (i) and (ii) and notes that Lense-Thirring precession can delay self-crossing and reduce the feeding rate for spinning black holes.
  • domain assumption Opacity is given by OPAL tables at solar metallicity and is Thomson-dominated in the relevant regime.
    Used in eq. (13) for radiative cooling; the paper notes κ is about 0.34 g/cm^2 in most of the parameter space.
  • ad hoc to paper Bernoulli-limited wind prescription with a Sigmoid transition for wind cooling.
    Defined in eqs. (15)-(17) and used for fw in the energy equation; the paper acknowledges that wind launching physics in super-Eddington disks remains uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review: Accretion Disk Evolution in Tidal Disruption Events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQGY5H6D

@misc{pith2026250507061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review: Accretion Disk Evolution in Tidal Disruption Events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQGY5H6D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07061}
}
read the original abstract

This is a brief review of the recent progress in understanding the evolution of the accretion disks in tidal disruption events (TDEs). Special attention is paid to (1) thermal-viscous instability that causes the disk to transition from a thick state to a thin one, and back and forth, (2) interactions between the fallback material and existing disk. Challenges to the current model from late-time X-ray observations are highlighted and possible solutions are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thermal equilibrium solutions (g = Q + − Q − = 0) at different radii rd in units of gravitational radius rg and surface densities Σ in units of ΣEdd = M˙ Edd/(α−1rgc) (as defined in eq. 9). The mass accretion rate M˙ acc (eq. 7) is expressed in units of M˙ Edd = 10LEdd/c 2 . The solutions shown in red are thermally unstable such that the disk will undergo a state transition in the vertical direction (preserving Σ an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Thermal equilibrium solutions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Disk evolution for the disruption of a Sun-like star by a BH of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Liska M

    Andalman Z. L., Liska M. T. P., Tchekhovskoy A., Coughlin E. R., Stone N., 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1627

    2022

  2. [2]

    Auchettl K., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, ApJ, 838, 149

    2017

  3. [3]

    A., Mummery A., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3348

    Balbus S. A., Mummery A., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3348

    2018

  4. [4]

    General Relativistic Stream Crossing in Tidal Disruption Events

    Batra G., Lu W., Bonnerot C., Phinney E. S., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2112.03918

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    C., Pringle J

    Begelman M. C., Pringle J. E., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1070

    2007

  6. [6]

    D., Begelman M

    Blandford R. D., Begelman M. C., 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

    1999

  7. [7]

    D., Znajek R

    Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  8. [8]

    S., et al., 2011, Science, 333, 203

    Bloom J. S., et al., 2011, Science, 333, 203

    2011

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Bonnerot C., Lu W., 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1374

    2020

  2. [10]

    Bonnerot C., Lu W., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2147

    2022

  3. [11]

    C., 2021, Space Sci

    Bonnerot C., Stone N. C., 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 16

    2021

  4. [12]

    M., Lodato G., Price D

    Bonnerot C., Rossi E. M., Lodato G., Price D. J., 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2253

    2016

  5. [13]

    F., 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4885

    Bonnerot C., Lu W., Hopkins P. F., 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4885

    2021

  6. [14]

    C., Levan A

    Brown G. C., Levan A. J., Stanway E. R., Tanvir N. R., Cenko S. B., Berger E., Chornock R., Cucchiaria A., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4297

    2015

  7. [15]

    S., Holoien T

    Brown J. S., Holoien T. W. S., Auchettl K., Stanek K. Z., Kochanek C. S., Shappee B. J., Prieto J. L., Grupe D., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4904

    2017

  8. [16]

    N., et al., 2011, Nature, 476, 421

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2011, Nature, 476, 421

    2011

  9. [17]

    K., Lee H

    Cannizzo J. K., Lee H. M., Goodman J., 1990, ApJ, 351, 38

    1990

  10. [18]

    B., et al., 2012, ApJ, 753, 77

    Cenko S. B., et al., 2012, ApJ, 753, 77

    2012

  11. [19]

    H., 2021, ApJ, 914, 107

    Chan C.-H., Piran T., Krolik J. H., 2021, ApJ, 914, 107

    2021

  12. [20]

    H., 2022, arXiv e-prints, p

    Chan C.-H., Piran T., Krolik J. H., 2022, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2201.03728

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M., Bogdanovi ´c T., 2014, Phys

    Cheng R. M., Bogdanovi ´c T., 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 064020

    2014

  14. [22]

    R., Nixon C

    Coughlin E. R., Nixon C. J., 2019, ApJL, 883, L17

    2019

  15. [23]

    Curd B., 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3207

    2021

  16. [24]

    Dai L., Escala A., Coppi P., 2013, ApJL, 775, L9

    2013

  17. [25]

    C., Miller M

    Dai L., McKinney J. C., Miller M. C., 2015, ApJL, 812, L39

    2015

  18. [26]

    C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M

    Dai L., McKinney J. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M. C., 2018, ApJL, 859, L20

    2018

  19. [27]

    De Colle F., Lu W., 2020, New Astronomy Reviews, 89, 101538

    2020

  20. [28]

    R., Kochanek C

    Evans C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1989, ApJL, 346, L13

    1989

  21. [29]

    P., Belloni T

    Fender R. P., Belloni T. M., Gallo E., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105

    2004

  22. [30]

    J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    Frank J., King A., Raine D. J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  23. [31]

    Gafton E., Rosswog S., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790

    2019

  24. [32]

    Gezari S., 2021, ARA&A, 59

    2021

  25. [33]

    B., Arcavi I., 2017, ApJL, 851, L47

    Gezari S., Cenko S. B., Arcavi I., 2017, ApJL, 851, L47

    2017

  26. [34]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2013, ApJ, 767, 25

    2013

  27. [35]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2015, ApJ, 809, 166

    2015

  28. [36]

    Guillochon J., Manukian H., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2014, ApJ, 783, 23

    2014

  29. [37]

    M., 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1004

    Hameury J. M., 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1004

    2020

  30. [38]

    arXiv:2203.01461

    Hammerstein E., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2203.01461

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hayasaki K., Stone N., Loeb A., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3760

    2016

  32. [40]

    T., et al., 2022, ApJ, 930, 12

    Hinkle J. T., et al., 2022, ApJ, 930, 12

    2022

  33. [41]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1996

  34. [42]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y .-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2013, ApJ, 778, 65

    2013

  35. [43]

    Jiang Y .-F., Guillochon J., Loeb A., 2016, ApJ, 830, 125

    2016

  36. [44]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y .-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2019a, ApJ, 880, 67

  37. [45]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y .-F., Blaes O., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2019b, ApJ, 885, 144

  38. [46]

    G., Stone N

    Jonker P. G., Stone N. C., Generozov A., van Velzen S., Metzger B., 2020, ApJ, 889, 166

    2020

  39. [47]

    Z., Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3919

    Kelley L. Z., Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3919

    2014

  40. [48]

    S., 1994, ApJ, 422, 508

    Kochanek C. S., 1994, ApJ, 422, 508

    1994

  41. [49]

    Krolik J., Piran T., Ryu T., 2020, ApJ, 904, 68

    2020

  42. [50]

    L., 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1729

    Kumar P., Narayan R., Johnson J. L., 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1729

    2008

  43. [51]

    Lan ˇcov´a D., et al., 2019, ApJL, 884, L37

    2019

  44. [52]

    Lasota J.-P., 2001, New Astronomy Reviews, 45, 449

    2001

  45. [53]

    Law-Smith J. A. P., Coulter D. A., Guillochon J., Mockler B., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2020, ApJ, 905, 141

    2020

  46. [54]

    P., Eardley D

    Lightman A. P., Eardley D. M., 1974, ApJL, 187, L1

    1974

  47. [55]

    J., Mandel I., Lodato G., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p

    Liptai D., Price D. J., Mandel I., Lodato G., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1910.10154

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K., Cao C

    Liu F. K., Cao C. Y ., Abramowicz M. A., Wielgus M., Cao R., Zhou Z. Q., 2021, ApJ, 908, 179

    2021

  49. [57]

    R., Pringle J

    Lodato G., King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 332 15

    2009

  50. [58]

    Loeb A., Ulmer A., 1997, ApJ, 489, 573

    1997

  51. [59]

    Lu W., Bonnerot C., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 686

    2020

  52. [60]

    M., Ogilvie G

    Lynch E. M., Ogilvie G. I., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4110

    2021

  53. [61]

    D., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1154

    Margalit B., Metzger B. D., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1154

    2016

  54. [62]

    Margutti R., et al., 2017, ApJ, 836, 25

    2017

  55. [63]

    D., Stone N

    Metzger B. D., Stone N. C., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 948

    2016

  56. [64]

    D., Piro A

    Metzger B. D., Piro A. L., Quataert E., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781

    2008

  57. [65]

    C., Armitage P

    Mishra B., Begelman M. C., Armitage P. J., Simon J. B., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1855

    2020

  58. [66]

    A., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655

    Mummery A., Balbus S. A., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655

    2020

  59. [67]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1994, ApJL, 428, L13

    1994

  60. [68]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1995, ApJ, 444, 231

    1995

  61. [69]

    F., Kulkarni A

    Narayan R., S ¨A dowski A., Penna R. F., Kulkarni A. K., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241

    2012

  62. [70]

    Narayan R., Chael A., Chatterjee K., Ricarte A., Curd B., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795

    2022

  63. [71]

    R., et al., 2015, ApJ, 805, 68

    Pasham D. R., et al., 2015, ApJ, 805, 68

    2015

  64. [72]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  65. [73]

    S., 1989, IAU Sympo., 136, 543

    Phinney E. S., 1989, IAU Sympo., 136, 543

    1989

  66. [74]

    Piran T., 1978, ApJ, 221, 652

    1978

  67. [75]

    M., Shiokawa H., 2015, ApJ, 806, 164

    Piran T., Svirski G., Krolik J., Cheng R. M., Shiokawa H., 2015, ApJ, 806, 164

    2015

  68. [76]

    J., 1988, Nature, 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, Nature, 333, 523

    1988

  69. [77]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49

    2006

  70. [78]

    M., Stone N

    Rossi E. M., Stone N. C., Law-Smith J. A. P., MacLeod M., Lodato G., Dai J. L., Mandel I., 2020, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2005.12528

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Roth N., Kasen D., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2016, ApJ, 827, 3

    2016

  72. [80]

    M., Krolik J

    Roth N., Rossi E. M., Krolik J. H., Piran T., Mockler B., Kasen D., 2020, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2008.01117

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    C., 2020, ApJ, 904, 98

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2020, ApJ, 904, 98

    2020

  74. [82]

    Sadowski A., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4397

    2016

  75. [83]

    Sadowski A., Tejeda E., Gafton E., Rosswog S., Abarca D., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4250

    2016

  76. [84]

    J., Coroniti F

    Sakimoto P. J., Coroniti F. V ., 1981, ApJ, 247, 19

    1981

  77. [85]

    Sazonov S., et al., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3820

    2021

  78. [86]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  79. [87]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613

    1976

  80. [88]

    D., 2014, ApJ, 784, 87

    Shen R.-F., Matzner C. D., 2014, ApJ, 784, 87

    2014

  81. [89]

    H., Cheng R

    Shiokawa H., Krolik J. H., Cheng R. M., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2015, ApJ, 804, 85

    2015

  82. [90]

    M., Pringle J

    Stone J. M., Pringle J. E., Begelman M. C., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1002

    1999

  83. [91]

    Stone N., Sari R., Loeb A., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809

    2013

  84. [92]

    E., Quataert E., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070

    Strubbe L. E., Quataert E., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070

    2009

  85. [93]

    C., 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

    Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

    2011

  86. [94]

    D., Giannios D., Kelley L

    Tchekhovskoy A., Metzger B. D., Giannios D., Kelley L. Z., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2744

    2014

  87. [95]

    G., Stone N

    Wen S., Jonker P. G., Stone N. C., Zabludoff A. I., Psaltis D., 2020, ApJ, 897, 80

    2020

  88. [96]

    Wevers T., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816

    2019

  89. [97]

    Wevers T., et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 151

    2021

  90. [98]

    arXiv:2206.12713

    Yao Y ., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2206.12713

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Yuan F., Narayan R., 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    2014

  92. [100]

    Yuan F., Bu D., Wu M., 2012, ApJ, 761, 130

    2012

  93. [101]

    J., Ogilvie G

    Zanazzi J. J., Ogilvie G. I., 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5562

    2020

  94. [102]

    A., Berger E., Margutti R., Pooley G

    Zauderer B. A., Berger E., Margutti R., Pooley G. G., Sari R., Soderberg A. M., Brunthaler A., Bietenholz M. F., 2013, ApJ, 767, 152

    2013

  95. [103]

    C., Metzger B

    van Velzen S., Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., Gezari S., Brown T. M., Fruchter A. S., 2019, ApJ, 878, 82

    2019

  96. [104]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2021, ApJ, 908, 4 16

    2021

Pith tools

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