Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 57 references

GRRMHD simulations show TDE accretion disks from the cooling envelope model become thermally unstable and collapse within 17-46 days, causing a soft X-ray excess followed by a nearly 100-fold drop in X-ray luminosity that matches AT2021ehb.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-07-03 00:34 UTC pith:ICGKS7RM

load-bearing objection GRRMHD runs on CEM-adapted tori produce spin-dependent thermal instability in 17-46 days plus X-ray drops matching AT2021ehb, but the torus setup fidelity is the untested step. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2604.23916 v2 pith:ICGKS7RM submitted 2026-04-27 astro-ph.HE

GRRMHD Simulations of State Transitions in Non-Jetted Tidal Disruption Events

Brandon Curd , Safira Heridia , Aviyel Ahiyya , Richard Anantua This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsGRRMHD simulationsthermal instabilitystate transitionsblack hole spinX-ray luminositycooling envelope modelAT2021ehb
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.

The paper performs general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations of magnetized tori adapted from the near-Eddington phase of the cooling envelope model for a solar-mass star disrupted by a 10 million solar-mass black hole. It establishes that these disks develop thermal instability on timescales of 17.1 to 46.5 days, with the duration depending on the black hole spin. Prior to collapse the models produce thermal spectra with a soft X-ray excess, after which X-ray luminosity falls by nearly two orders of magnitude. The blackbody radius and temperature evolve in a manner correlated with spin, and the overall spectral properties align with the non-jetted TDE AT2021ehb that showed a state transition after roughly 271 days. A reader would care because the work supplies a concrete dynamical mechanism for the late-time X-ray behavior observed in some tidal disruption events without jets.

Core claim

The central claim is that disks initialized as magnetized tori from the near-Eddington CEM phase for a 1 solar-mass star around a 10^7 solar-mass black hole become thermally unstable within 17.1-46.5 days depending on black hole spin; this produces thermal spectra with a soft X-ray excess before collapse and a nearly two-order-of-magnitude decline in X-ray luminosity upon collapse, with blackbody radius and temperature evolution correlated to spin and spectral properties similar to the observed non-jetted TDE AT2021ehb.

What carries the argument

GRRMHD evolution of magnetized tori taken from the near-Eddington CEM phase, which tracks the onset of thermal instability and subsequent disk collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The initial magnetized tori adapted from the near-Eddington phase of the CEM accurately represent the circularized debris cloud at that stage.

What would settle it

Detection of a TDE whose X-ray light curve lacks both the predicted soft excess and the sharp luminosity drop within roughly one month after the near-Eddington phase would falsify the instability mechanism.

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

If this is right

  • The disk reaches thermal instability on a timescale of weeks to about a month and a half that shortens with higher black hole spin.
  • A soft X-ray excess appears in the thermal spectrum immediately before the disk collapses.
  • X-ray luminosity drops by nearly two orders of magnitude once the disk collapses.
  • The time evolution of the blackbody radius and temperature tracks the spin of the central black hole.
  • The resulting spectral properties and soft X-ray luminosities reproduce those seen in the non-jetted TDE AT2021ehb.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the CEM initial conditions remain valid across a wider range of stellar masses and black hole spins, the same thermal collapse could explain state transitions in additional non-jetted TDEs.
  • Measuring the timing of the X-ray drop relative to the disruption could provide an observational handle on black hole spin.
  • The shallow density profile inherited from the CEM may be essential for delaying the onset of full Eddington accretion until months after disruption.
  • Extending these runs to include magnetic jet launching could reveal why some TDEs produce jets while others, like AT2021ehb, do not.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper performs GRRMHD simulations of magnetized tori initialized from the near-Eddington phase of the cooling envelope model (CEM) for a 1 M_⊙ star disrupted by a 10^7 M_⊙ black hole. It reports that the disks become thermally unstable on timescales of 17.1–46.5 days that depend on black-hole spin, exhibit a soft X-ray excess before collapse followed by a nearly two-order-of-magnitude drop in X-ray luminosity, show spin-correlated evolution of blackbody radius and temperature, and produce spectral properties similar to the observed non-jetted TDE AT2021ehb.

Significance. If the reported instability timescales, luminosity drops, and spin correlations are robust, the work supplies a concrete GRRMHD realization of state transitions in the late, sub-Eddington phase of TDEs and offers a direct comparison point to AT2021ehb. The approach of seeding simulations from an existing long-duration CEM run is a methodological strength that connects circularization calculations to radiation-MHD evolution.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2] §2 (Initial conditions): The adaptation of the CEM near-Eddington density profile (ρ ∝ r^{-1}) and specific angular momentum into the GRRMHD torus is described only qualitatively; no quantitative metric (e.g., L1 or L2 difference in radial profiles before and after rescaling/smoothing, or magnetic-flux comparison) is provided to demonstrate fidelity to the parent CEM output. Because the reported thermal-instability windows (17.1–46.5 days) and subsequent spectral evolution are direct outputs of these tori, any alteration in the radial structure or magnetic flux during adaptation would render the timescales and spin correlations sensitive to numerical setup rather than the underlying radiation-MHD physics.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the CEM supplies sub-Eddington accretion early and Eddington accretion only after several months, yet the simulations begin at the “near Eddington phase”; a brief clarification of the exact accretion-rate range at t=0 of the GRRMHD runs would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive comment on the initial conditions. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Initial conditions): The adaptation of the CEM near-Eddington density profile (ρ ∝ r^{-1}) and specific angular momentum into the GRRMHD torus is described only qualitatively; no quantitative metric (e.g., L1 or L2 difference in radial profiles before and after rescaling/smoothing, or magnetic-flux comparison) is provided to demonstrate fidelity to the parent CEM output. Because the reported thermal-instability windows (17.1–46.5 days) and subsequent spectral evolution are direct outputs of these tori, any alteration in the radial structure or magnetic flux during adaptation would render the timescales and spin correlations sensitive to numerical setup rather than the underlying radiation-MHD physics.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative demonstration of fidelity would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version we will add explicit metrics, including L1 and L2 norms of the differences in the radial density and specific angular momentum profiles between the parent CEM snapshot and the rescaled/smoothened GRRMHD torus, together with a direct comparison of the magnetic flux. These additions will confirm that the key structural features are preserved to within a few percent and that the reported instability timescales arise from the radiation-MHD evolution rather than from setup artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations from stated initial conditions

full rationale

The paper performs GRRMHD simulations of magnetized tori adapted from the CEM near-Eddington phase as initial conditions. Reported outcomes (thermal instability at 17.1-46.5 days, soft X-ray excess, luminosity drop, blackbody evolution correlated with spin, similarity to AT2021ehb) are direct numerical outputs rather than algebraic reductions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-definitional loops. No equations in the abstract or described chain equate results to inputs by construction. CEM adaptation is an external modeling assumption, not a self-citation that renders the central claims tautological. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the simulation physics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; limited visibility into parameters. The central claim rests on the CEM providing valid initial conditions for the tori.

free parameters (1)
  • Black hole spin parameter
    Instability time range 17.1-46.5 days is stated to depend on spin; specific spin values and any fitting procedure not given in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The cooling envelope model accurately describes the circularized debris at the near-Eddington phase used for initial torus setup.
    Simulations are explicitly adapted from the CEM near-Eddington phase.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5812 in / 1469 out tokens · 38183 ms · 2026-07-03T00:34:42.719204+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Circularization of the stream material into a debris cloud during tidal disruption events (TDEs) was recently demonstrated in one of the most accurate long duration TDE simulations to-date. The cooling envelope model (CEM) provides a description of the circularized debris cloud and its emission over time well beyond circularization across different disruption parameters. In the CEM, sub-Eddington accretion rates occur early in TDEs and the debris has a shallow density profile of roughly $\rho \propto r^{-1}$, with Eddington accretion only being achieved after several months. To explore the late stages of the CEM, we perform general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics (GRRMHD) simulations of magnetized tori adapted from the near Eddington phase of the CEM for a $1M_\odot$ star disrupted around a $10^7 M_\odot$ black hole (BH). We find that the disk becomes thermally unstable within 17.1-46.5 days depending on the spin of the BH. Thermal spectra show a soft X-ray excess prior to collapse, with a nearly two order of magnitude decline in X-ray luminosity upon disk collapse. Furthermore, the evolution of the blackbody radius and temperature of our models are correlated with the spin of the black hole. The spectral properties and soft X-ray luminosity in our models are similar to the TDE AT2021ehb, which is a non-jetted TDE with late X-rays and a state transition after $\approx 271$ days.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23916 by Aviyel Ahiyya, Brandon Curd, Richard Anantua, Safira Heridia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A zoomed in view of the accretion flow and funnel of model m7a0-M22 at ∆t = 0, 11.4, 22.8, and 31.4 days (increasing from left to right). The colors show the gas density (top), gas temperature (middle), and gas to radiation pressure ratio (bottom). Streamlines indicate the fluid velocity. The ISCO radius is indicated as the white circle. The disk height visibly decreases over time. We also note that the ga… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Here we show the mass accretion rate (top, 1st column), luminosity (top, 2nd column), total efficiency (top, 3rd column), mass outflow rate at 500rg (top, 4th column), density scale height (bottom, 1st column), density weighted disk temperature (bottom, 2nd column), mean temperature of the corona (bottom, 3rd column), and mean Compton cooling rate (bottom, 4th column). In the top left panel, we show the Ed… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Here we show the mass accretion rate without smoothing view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Here we show the accretion disk after thermal collapse for each model. The colors show the gas density, streamlines indicate the fluid velocity, and the ISCO radius is indicated as the white circle. The disk is observed to truncate near the ISCO in each model. are shown in view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Here we show the radiation temperature (colors), radially integrated photosphere location (yellow line), and ISCO (white circle) for model m7a0-M22. The top panels shows a zoomed out view at 11.4 days (left) and 31.4 days (right). Note that different ranges for the coordinates are used to emphasize the temperature at the outer photosphere surface. The bottom panels show the same times but zoomed in to high… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Here we show the spectrum for each BH spin before disk collapse (∆t = 5.7 days, top) and after disk collapse (∆t = ∆tfinal, bottom). Note θ = 0◦ (viewer at +z) is shown as the solid lines while θ = 90◦ (viewer at +x) is shown as the dashed lines. Viewing angle effects lead to obscuration of X-ray photons when the disk is viewed edge-on (θ = 90◦). Note that the a• = −0.9 model has the weakest soft X-ray emi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Here we show the spectral properties for all models for an observer at θ = 0◦. The a• = 0.9 model shows the brightest soft X-ray emission, but all models have a similar value for αOSX prior to disk collapse. All models show rapid OUV and X-ray variability prior to collapse. We indicate LOUV/LX = 1 (dashed black line) and LOUV/LX = 0.1 (dash-dotted black line) in the bottom panel for ease of comparison view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Here we zoom in on the band luminosities for all models in the last 5 days for an observer at θ = 0◦. luminosity exiting the emission surface (dLr or dLϑ) directly from the koral data to normalize the distribution. Since it is possible for observers viewing the system from near edge on angles to receive emission from parts of the disk where the funnel boundary faces them, it is necessary to per￾form the e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Here we show the blackbody fits for radius (top) and temperature (middle) in the optical/UV band (green) and soft X￾ray band (blue). The viewing angle is θ = 0◦. We show the range of values obtained with our luminosity constraints for the optical/UV fits with the green shaded region. The X-ray blackbody radius appears to approach the ISCO radius (black dashed line) as the disk collapses. In the bottom pan… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Here we show the blackbody fits for a• = −0.9 (top) and a• = 0.9 (bottom). The viewing angle is θ = 0◦. radius and temperature illustrate that X-ray fluctuations arise due to rapid variation in the photosphere scale and tem￾perature. Furthermore, the temperature of the optical/UV photosphere is nearly constant. In fact, the temperature is more representative of the koral data as the disk begins to collaps… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Here we show the properties of the blackbody fits for the soft X-ray as a function of viewing angle. The ISCO radius is indicated with a dashed horizontal line for each value of BH spin. Note that subscript ’b’ and subscript ’a’ define quantities as before and after disk collapse. More precisely, quantities with subscript ’b’ are averaged over 0 < ∆t ≤ ∆tfinal − 5 days and subscript ’a’ are the maximum ra… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A., Chen X., Kato S., Lasota J.-P., Regev O., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438L..37A 438, L37

    Abramowicz M. A., Chen X., Kato S., Lasota J.-P., Regev O., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438L..37A 438, L37

    work page doi:10.1086/187709 1995

  2. [2]

    C., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adf217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...993...14A 993, 14

    Alush Y., Stone N. C., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adf217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...993...14A 993, 14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf217 2025

  3. [3]

    A., Narayan R., S a dowski A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2367C 470, 2367

    Chael A. A., Narayan R., S a dowski A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2367C 470, 2367

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1345 2017

  4. [4]

    Curd B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.3207C 507, 3207

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2172 2021

  5. [5]

    Curd B., Narayan R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..565C 483, 565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3134 2019

  6. [6]

    Curd B., Narayan R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3441C 518, 3441

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3330 2023

  7. [7]

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

    Dai L., McKinney J. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859L..20D 859, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 2018

  8. [8]

    C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919L..20D 919, L20

    Dexter J., Scepi N., Begelman M. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919L..20D 919, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608 2021

  9. [9]

    arXiv:2404.10036

    Eftekhari T., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240410036E p. arXiv:2404.10036

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10036 2024

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Evans C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346L..13E 346, L13

    work page doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  11. [11]

    F., McKinney J

    Gammie C. F., McKinney J. C., T \'o th G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374594 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..444G 589, 444

    work page doi:10.1086/374594 2003

  12. [12]

    Gezari S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59...21G 59, 21

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  13. [13]

    Golightly E. C. A., Nixon C. J., Coughlin E. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L..26G 882, L26

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d 2019

  14. [14]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...25G 767, 25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/25 2013

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Guolo M., Gezari S., Yao Y., van Velzen S., Hammerstein E., Cenko S. B., Tokayer Y. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..160G 966, 160

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  16. [16]

    Habibi A., Abbassi S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..256H 887, 256

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5793 2019

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Hills J. G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1038/254295a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Natur.254..295H 254, 295

    work page doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975

  18. [18]

    Huang J., Feng H., Gu W.-M., Wu W.-B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace71e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..150H 954, 150

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace71e 2023

  19. [19]

    Kato Y., Mineshige S., Shibata K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605..307K 605, 307

    work page doi:10.1086/381234 2004

  20. [20]

    Lan c ov \'a D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884L..37L 884, L37

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f5 2019

  21. [21]

    C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786....6L 786, 6

    Li S.-L., Begelman M. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786....6L 786, 6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/6 2014

  22. [23]

    Liska M. T. P., Musoke G., Tchekhovskoy A., Porth O., Beloborodov A. M., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L...1L 935, L1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db 2041

  23. [24]

    Liska M. T. P., Kaaz N., Chatterjee K., Emami R., Musoke G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...47L 966, 47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a 2024

  24. [25]

    R., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A.124M 600, A124

    Mainetti D., Lupi A., Campana S., Colpi M., Coughlin E. R., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A.124M 600, A124

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630092 2017

  25. [26]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., Sadowski A., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3177M 441, 3177

    McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., Sadowski A., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3177M 441, 3177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu762 2014

  26. [27]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..12M 937, L12

    Metzger B. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..12M 937, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba 2022

  27. [28]

    R., Huang X., Davis S

    Meza M. R., Huang X., Davis S. W., Jiang Y.-F., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250600109M p. arXiv:2506.00109

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00109 2025

  28. [29]

    V., Abramowicz M

    Narayan R., Igumenshchev I. V., Abramowicz M. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASJ...55L..69N 55, L69

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.l69 2003

  29. [30]

    Navarro Navarro N., Piran T., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad96b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..177N 983, 177

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad96b7 2025

  30. [31]

    D., Thorne K

    Novikov I. D., Thorne K. S., 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus). pp 343--450

    1973

  31. [32]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...68P 805, 68

    Pasham D. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...68P 805, 68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/68 2015

  32. [33]

    S., 1989, in Morris M., ed., Vol

    Phinney E. S., 1989, in Morris M., ed., Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy. p. 543

    1989

  33. [34]

    L., Mockler B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985...77P 985, 77

    Piro A. L., Mockler B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985...77P 985, 77

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 2025

  34. [35]

    Qiao E., Wu Y., Lin Y., Guo M., Liu J., Guo C., Jin C., Jiang N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3473Q 539, 3473

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf719 2025

  35. [36]

    , keywords =

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    work page doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  36. [37]

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

    Ressler S. M., Tchekhovskoy A., Quataert E., Gammie C. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3604R 467, 3604

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx364 2017

  37. [38]

    C., Pickrel D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981..144R 981, 144

    Roth N., Anninos P., Fragile P. C., Pickrel D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981..144R 981, 144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1c1 2025

  38. [39]

    C., Avara M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...12R 957, 12

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., Avara M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...12R 957, 12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de 2023

  39. [40]

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2372S 454, 2372

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2022 2015

  40. [41]

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3929S 456, 3929

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2941 2016

  41. [42]

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., Tchekhovskoy A., Zhu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3533S 429, 3533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts632 2013

  42. [43]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..503S 439, 503

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..503S 439, 503

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2479 2014

  43. [44]

    C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447...49S 447, 49

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., Tchekhovskoy A., Abarca D., Zhu Y., McKinney J. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447...49S 447, 49

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2387 2015

  44. [45]

    S a dowski A., Tejeda E., Gafton E., Rosswog S., Abarca D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.4250S 458, 4250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw589 2016

  45. [46]

    C., Chael A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..705S 466, 705

    S a dowski A., Wielgus M., Narayan R., Abarca D., McKinney J. C., Chael A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..705S 466, 705

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3116 2017

  46. [47]

    , keywords =

    Steinberg E., Stone N. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..463S 625, 463

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y 2024

  47. [48]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland R. S., Dopita M. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...88..253S 88, 253

    work page doi:10.1086/191823 1993

  48. [49]

    Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole

    Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418L..79T 418, L79

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x 2011

  49. [50]

    General Relativistic Modeling of Magnetized Jets from Accreting Black Holes

    Tchekhovskoy A., McKinney J. C., Narayan R., 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012040 ( @eprint arXiv 1202.2864 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040 2012

  50. [51]

    , keywords =

    Thomsen L. L., Kwan T. M., Dai L., Wu S. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..28T 937, L28

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f 2022

  51. [52]

    D., Jiang Y.-F., Antoni A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251214810T p

    Tuna S., Metzger B. D., Jiang Y.-F., Antoni A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251214810T p. arXiv:2512.14810

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14810 2025

  52. [53]

    R., Asahina Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...26U 935, 26

    Utsumi A., Ohsuga K., Takahashi H. R., Asahina Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...26U 935, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb8 2022

  53. [54]

    Wang J.-M., Szuszkiewicz E., Lu F.-J., Zhou Y.-Y., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..839W 522, 839

    work page doi:10.1086/307686 1999

  54. [55]

    Wu W.-B., Gu W.-M., Sun M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930..108W 930, 108

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6588 2022

  55. [56]

    Yao Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937....8Y 937, 8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a 2022

  56. [57]

    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, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..152Z 767, 152

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/152 2013

  57. [58]

    Zheng S.-M., Yuan F., Gu W.-M., Lu J.-F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...52Z 732, 52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/1/52 2011