MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405813068 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

Star−Disk Collisions: Implications for Quasi-periodic Eruptions and Other Transients near Supermassive Black Holes

2024· article· en· W4405813068 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philippe Z. Yao, Eliot Quataert, Yan-Fei Jiang, Wenbin Lu, Christopher J. White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraGordon Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSupermassive black holeAccretion (finance)Debris diskAstronomyCollisionFlareBlack hole (networking)Shock waveStellar collisionDebrisIntermediate-mass black holeStellar evolutionStarsGalaxyPlanetary systemMeteorologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use Athena++ to study the hydrodynamics of repeated star−accretion disk collisions close to supermassive black holes, and we discuss their implications for the origin of quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) and other repeating nuclear transients. We quantify the impact of the collisions on the stellar structure, the amount of stripped stellar debris, and the orbital properties of the debris. We provide simple fitting functions for the stellar mass loss per collision; the mass loss is much larger after repeated collisions, due to the dilute stellar atmosphere shock-heated in earlier collisions. The lifetime of the QPE-emitting phase set by stellar mass loss in star−disk collision models for QPEs is thus at most ∼1000 yr; it is shortest for eRO-QPE2, of order a few decades. The mass of the stripped stellar debris per collision and its orbital properties imply that currently observed QPEs are not powered by direct star−disk collisions but rather by collisions between the stellar debris liberated in previous collisions and the accretion disk (“circularization shocks”). We discuss how the hydrodynamics of this interaction can explain the diverse timing properties of QPEs, including the regular timing of GSN 069 and eRO-QPE2 and the large flare-to-flare timing variations observed in eRO-QPE1. QPEs with recurrence times of many days, if observed, may have more regular timing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207