Evolution and precession of accretion disk in tidal disruption events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a supermassive black hole (BH) tidal disruption event (TDE), the tidally disrupted star feeds the BH via an accretion disk. Most often it is assumed that the accretion rate history, hence the emission light curve, tracks the rate at which new debris mass falls back onto the disk, notably the t−5/3 power law. But this is not the case when the disk evolution due to viscous spreading - the driving force for accretion - is carefully considered. We construct a simple analytical model that comprehensively describes the accretion rate history across 4 different phases of the disk evolution, in the presence of mass fallback and disk wind loss. Accretion rate evolves differently in those phases which are governed by how the disk heat energy is carried away, early on by advection and later by radiation. The accretion rate can decline as steeply as t−5/3 only if copious disk wind loss is present during the early advection-cooled phase. Later, the accretion rate history is t−8/7 or shallower. These have great implications on the TDE flare light curve. A TDE accretion disk is most likely misaligned with the equatorial plane of the spinning BH. Moreover, in the TDE the accretion rate is super- or near-Eddington thus the disk is geometrically thick, for which case the BH’s frame dragging effect may cause the disk precess as a solid body, which may manifest itself as quasi-periodic signal in the TDE light curve. Our disk evolution model predicts the disk precession period increases with time, typically as ∝ t. The results are applied to the recently jetted TDE flare Swift transient J1644 + 57 which shows numerous, quasi-periodic dips in its long-term X-ray light curve. As the current TDE sample increases, the identification of the disk precession signature provides a unique way of measuring BH spin and studying BH accretion physics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".