Abstract
Decades of observations and theoretical studies present intriguing results about black hole accretions: supermassive black holes (SMBHs), located in the centers of galaxies, are accreting similar to Galactic stellar-mass black hole systems (GBHs). This is the unified model of black hole accretion, which indicates active galactic nuclei (AGNs, the accreting SMBHs) are only the scaled-up version of galactic X-ray binaries (XRBs, the accreting GBHs). The analogy between AGNs and XRBs ensures us to determine AGN evolutions on cosmological timescales by simply studying the quick-playing Galactic systems, which is much easy in observation and modeling. X-ray emission is produced by the inner region of the accretion disk and corona, which is close to the black holes and provides the diagnostics of accretion strength. Meanwhile, radio emission is an indicator of the ejection process, which is another fundamental part of accreting black holes. Furthermore, accreting flows are also regulated by black hole masses and accretion rates/Eddington ratios. Therefore, the unified model of black hole accretion is the correlation between accretion and ejection process and black hole masses. In this chapter, we will review models concerning the unified model of black hole accretions and present recent updates in this area.
Keywords
- accretion
- stellar mass black holes
- supermassive black holes
- X-ray binaries
- active galactic nuclei
- jets
- accretion disks
1. Introduction
Stellar-mass black holes, formed from the direct collapses of massive stars [1], are widely observed in the Universe. In contrast, supermassive black holes (SMBHs,
Galactic X-ray binaries (XRBs) can be well described with several distinct X-ray states, some of them being associated with jet launching [3]. A full evolution cycle of the state transition can be observed with convenient timescales (months to years), which was well explained as the evolution of accretion disk and jet-disk coupling [4]. It is now thought that the structure of accretion flows and jet production depends primarily on the Eddington ratio. As the Eddington ratio fluctuates, the accretion flow transitions dramatically into different states, each with distinct geometries and multiwavelength spectral characteristics [5]. The current observational picture of state/disk-jet correlation is: (a) in the “hard” state, which exists typically below a few percent of the Eddington luminosity, there is a compact and steady jet; (b) subsequently, the transition from “hard” to “soft” state always associated with a transient/episodic jet, which corresponds to a “very high state” with near/super-Eddington rates; (b) in steady “soft” states with Eddington ratio lower than the very high state, the jet production is strongly suppressed. It was noted that with the accretion rate increasing to near and moderately super-Eddington ratios, the standard disk cannot maintain its geometry and will inevitably evolve into a “slim disk” [6], the corresponding state in observation was named as “ultraluminous state” [7]. The study of jet-disk coupling in “ultraluminous state” is limited to a few XRBs that can temporarily transit to super-Eddington accretion and the long-lived super-Eddington source SS 433.
The theoretical understanding of the state transition is explained as the evolution of the accretion disk. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the disk in different accretion states. The quiescent state XRBs host low accretion flow with Eddington ratio
Several schemes are successful in unifying black hole accretion flows in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Galactic X-ray binaries (XRBs) [12, 13, 14], it is now widely accepted that supermassive and stellar-mass black holes have similar physics in accretion, i.e., AGNs and XRBs have similar accretion states and associated ejection (especially in low/hard state). Over several years, observations have built kinds of universal correlation between XRBs and AGNs: (1) the fundamental plane of black hole activity reveals a correlation among radio luminosities, X-ray luminosities, and black hole masses [12, 15]. The correlation can be well applied to both low and moderate accretion rates (in Eddington units) XRBs and AGNs. The fundamental plane correlation of black hole activity suggests that both the accretion and ejection process are regulated by black hole masses; (2) similarly, a more universal correlation is found between radio loudness and the Eddington ratio, which hints at the suppression of the ejection process with the increase of accretion rates in units of black hole masses [13, 16, 17, 18]. The correlation has a broader application as it covers from low to super-Eddington rates; (3) another fundamental correlation of black hole accretion is among the characteristic timescales of X-ray variability, bolometric luminosities, and black hole masses [19]. The correlation links the accretion process and black hole mass in both XRBs and AGNs, which indicates accreting black holes have mass regulated disk geometry; (4) The most fruitful result in studying accretion states and transitions in XRBs is the hardness intensity diagram, while in applying the scheme to AGNs, it has big problem primarily due to the extremely long timescale in evolution cycle of AGNs. Therefore, the disk-fraction luminosity diagrams [14, 20] are taken as an alternative scheme in AGNs.
However, none of the above correlations are applicable to all accretion states or Eddington ratios. Furthermore, some extreme accretion states, for example, the extremely low accretion flow, the very high/intermediate state, and the super-Eddington state, are not fully understood in studying XRBs. Especially the models for the ultraluminous/super-Eddington state are not established yet due to the short timescales in XRBs. Furthermore, for example, it’s not clear whether the accretion of intermediate-mass black holes can follow the fundamental plane of black hole activity. It is thus questionable when applying the fundamental plane of black hole activity to constrain the black hole mass of AGNs in dwarf galaxies.
2. The universal correlations among accretion systems
2.1 X-ray variability
X-ray emission, produced from the inner region of the accretion disk and corona, served as a proxy of accretion properties. X-ray emissions from accreting black holes have strong variability, the timing properties of X-ray emission can be explored with the power spectral densities (PSDs),
Again, it was strengthened as the break timescale is also correlated with spectral states or luminosities of both XRBs and AGNs, i.e., the low and high accretion states have different PSD profiles. Therefore,
They have included 10 AGNs and 2 XRBs and with a wide range of accretion rates.
Assuming
Strong support or enhancement for this linkage, among characteristic timescale
2.2 The fundamental plane of black hole activity
The fundamental plane relation among nuclear radio luminosity, nuclear X-ray luminosity, and black hole mass unified the accretion and ejection process in the compact system. The existence of such a relationship is based on the radio emission produced in a jet/outflow and the X-ray emission produced in a disk-corona system. Both radio and X-ray power are related to black hole mass and accretion rate. Therefore, the fundamental plane relation is thought to work in any accretion system, which is in quiescent and low/hard accretion state (associated with a steady ejection, see [9, 12]).
The fundamental plane of black hole activity explored by [12] is
While the Merloni’s fundamental plane has a large dispersion when uses it to estimate black hole masses from radio and X-ray luminosities. The recent updates include correlation from [21]
and the most recent version [22]
Additionally, the very high/intermediate state may also produce radio ejection that can follow the same trend [see 4, they also include transient sources]. However, including sources with a very high/intermediate state induces a dispersion in the fundamental plane relation. This is primarily due to the evolution of individual radio blobs, as the radio ejecting process is episodic in this state. Compact symmetric objects (CSOs) are thought the episodic ejection produced by AGNs in a very high/transient state. There are two types of known contamination in the fundamental plane of black hole activity: (1) radio emissions from lobes will be enhanced when they propagate through a dense medium [23]; (2) X-ray emission contains a contribution from the jet, e.g., through synchrotron or inverse Compton mechanisms [24]. Furthermore, taking the radio emissions from lobes of CSOs is unmatched by the X-ray observations, because the radio emissions from lobes are substantially produced in different epochs from the core X-ray emission.
There are several works exploring the fundamental plane relation on CSOs [25, 26, 27]. Most of the results suggest CSOs do deviate from the classical trends. To be specific, an exploration of fundamental plane relation on a sample of CSOs (with radio flux density from lobes) indicates that they can follow the trend, while their radio luminosity is
2.3 The inverse correlation between radio loudness and Eddington ratio
The persistent jets are ubiquitous at low accretion rates (the low/hard state) in XRBs but intermittent or entirely absent at high accretion rates (the high/soft state and the intermittent/very high state; e.g., [3, 28, 29]). Resembling the inverse correlation between the radio luminosity of jets and X-ray luminosity in XRBs, Ho [16] found a similar inverse correlation between radio-loudness (
In the work by Yang
2.4 X-ray loudness versus Eddington ratio
It is impossible to observe a whole state transition in AGNs due to their extremely long evolutionary timescales. While, fortunately, an unbiased sample of AGNs will naturally have a mixture of AGNs in various accretion states, e.g., an AGN sample includes low-luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs), low-excitation emission line regions (LINERs), and narrow line Seyfert I galaxies (NLS1s). The properties/structures of the accretion disk and corona are represented by the X-ray loudness or UV to X-ray spectral index
Where
A characteristic spectral behavior was found by taking the typical galactic X-ray binary GRO J1655
The correlation between X-ray loudness and Eddington ratio can be explained as the evolution of accretion flow along with accretion state transition. In the quiescent state,
It should be expected that XRBs and AGNs have a similar accretion flow and evolution scheme, which corresponds to the straightforward XRB/AGN analogy. The correlation between
3. In extreme cases
3.1 Extremely high and super-Eddington accretion
Accretion of black holes at near-Eddington or super-Eddington rates is the most powerful episode in nursing black hole growth [41], and it may work in several types of objects [13, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. It is still unclear whether the AGN/XRB analogy holds in the “ultraluminous state,” and whether the geometry of the disk-corona system and jet-disk coupling are similar. Since it is impossible to observe the whole burst cycle of an individual AGN as the timescale is proportional to the black hole mass [13, 14], the previous studies rely on a large enough unbiased sample of AGNs, which naturally contains a mixture of objects in different spectral states. While near/super-Eddington AGNs provide an opportunity that it has a longer timescale than the short-lived “ultraluminous state” in XRBs and potentially connect with long-lived super-Eddington sources (SS 433 and ultraluminous X-ray sources). On the other hand, the jet is a long-lived emitter that saved long timescale information of an accretion state. Observationally confirming jet properties of the less explored “ultraluminous state” in AGNs would enhance the AGN/XRB analogy, as it enables us to eventually apply our understanding of X-ray binaries to explain AGN phenomenology (and vice versa). On the other hand, the study of near/super Eddington AGNs will shed light on our understanding of the physics to sustain a near/super-Eddington accretion and how the episodic jet works in this state.
The physics of accretion and jet-disk coupling in such a state remains unclear [52], mainly because the associated jets are not easily detectable due to the extremely weak or episodic nature of the jets. Although a few near/super Eddington objects have demonstrated jet activity [42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54], in most of these systems, such as super-Eddington active galactic nuclei (AGNs) [13] and ultraluminous X-ray sources [45], it remains doubtful whether there is jet emission. Recent observations [13, 55, 56, 57, 58] suggest that the radio emission in near/super-Eddington AGNs comes from the nuclear region, with possible contributions from hot corona, accretion disk winds, fossil radio jet, or a combination of all above [13, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62]. In particular, unambiguous detection of both powerful radio jets and radio-emitting winds was reported only in the Galactic microquasar SS 433 [63, 64, 65], while accretion disk wind is believed to be ubiquitous in the near/super-Eddington accretion mode.
It is now thought that the structure of the accretion flows and jet production depends primarily on the Eddington ratio. As the Eddington ratio fluctuates, the accretion flow transitions dramatically into different states, each with distinct geometries and multiwavelength spectral characteristics [5]. As the accretion rate increases to near or super-Eddington ratios, the standard disk geometry cannot be maintained and the accretion flow will inevitably evolve into a “slim disk” [6]. The corresponding state is sometimes called the “ultraluminous state” [7]. Studies of jet-disk coupling in “ultraluminous state” have been limited to a few XRBs that can temporarily transit to super-Eddington accretion and to the long-lived super-Eddington source SS 433. It is also widely accepted that supermassive and stellar-mass black holes have similarities in accretion physics, i.e., AGNs and XRBs have similar accretion state transitions and associated jet ejection. However, it is still unclear whether the AGN/XRB analogy holds in the “ultraluminous state” and whether the geometry of the disk-corona system and jet-disk coupling are similar. Here, our interest is the connection between the short-lived canonical “very high state” in XRBs with the long-standing super-Eddington accretion in the microquasar SS 433 and ULXs, to determine which parameters are driving the long-lived super-Eddington accretion. As the time scale of state transition is proportional to the black hole mass [13, 14], a “very high state” in SMBHs (e.g.,
3.2 Intermediate mass black holes
Directly connecting stellar-mass and supermassive black holes requires intermediate-mass black holes [66]. In the unified model of black hole accretion, filling intermediate-mass black holes will build a continuous distribution of accretion parameters. It is now widely accepted that the existence (or not) of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs,
Astrophysical black holes (BHs), inferred through their observational signatures (electromagnetic, gravitational waves), are currently understood to fall into two categories based on their mass. Stellar-mass BHs (
IMBHs can follow the fundamental plane of black hole activity. This indicates that an outflow-disk-corona system still exists and is tightly related even in these systems. In Figure 6, we also include two well-studied IMBHs NGC 4395 and NGC 404. Especially, we take recently measured black hole mass of NGC 4395 [69] and NGC 404 [70]. Again, we take radio luminosity of NGC 404 from VLA A-array 5 GHz observation [71], which captured radio emission from the nuclear 7 parsec scale region; we take 5 GHz radio luminosity of NGC 4395 transferred from VLA A-array 15 GHz observation [21], which captured radio emission from the nuclear 4 parsec scale region. Because of low redshift, the VLA observation of NGC 4395 and NGC 404 obtained a resolution of parsec scale, which is comparable with VLBI observations on slightly high red-shift AGNs. We take the X-ray luminosity of NGC 404 from
3.3 Low-luminosity AGNs
In addition to the requirement of IMBHs, low-luminosity AGNs will touch the most luminous stellar-mass black holes in the fundamental plane of black hole activity. In quiescent state XRBs, there exist compact radio emissions and are thought to be short and steady jets, while the nature is unclear. However, in low-luminosity AGNs, radio emissions from the core region are consistent with wind-like outflows or low-power jets. Synchrotron emission as the result of propagating shocks produced and sustained by the injection of new material at the base of the outflow accelerated electrons downstream to relativistic energies. Low luminosity sub-Eddington emitting sources could host advection dominated accretion flows [ADAFs, 73] that are radiatively inefficient in the inner region [e.g., 16]. This can include nearby dwarf galaxies (low mass low luminosity systems) hosting an inner truncated region, with the outer thin disk accretion [optically thick, geometrically thin, e.g., 31] transitioning into an ADAF [74]. Radio emission in these systems can be contributed to by the ADAF but is likely to be dominated by the jet or outflow [75, 76, 77], with observable signatures including shock ionization of the gas in the nuclear region [e.g., 78, 79].
It was shown that such low accretion flow deviates from the plane [80]. While in exploring the universal correlation between XRBs and AGNs, one should obtain radio emissions from the same radius, i.e., with regard to the Schwarzschild radius. Therefore, a moderate resolution is enough in a few nearby AGNs. M32 is one of the prominent low-luminosity AGNs with an Eddington ratio of only
3.4 Capturing the state transition in AGNs
Changing-look AGNs (CLAGNs) are a subclass of AGNs, they change the spectral type from type 1 to type 2 (disappearance of the broad emission line) or vice versa (emergence of the broad emission line) on timescales shorter than a few years [86]. The spectral-type changes in CLAGNs are commonly associated with multiband continuum behaviors [86]. The changing look of AGNs challenges the unified model of AGN [87, 88]; however, it provides a chance to explore the dramatic state transition in AGNs.
Directly capturing the changing-look events when it is in the act is essential to explore the accretion state transition in AGNs. The chance comes from 2018, a rapid spectral-type change was observed in the Seyfert 2 AGN 1ES 1927 + 654 (
1ES 1927 + 654 has been reported to show unusual timing and spectroscopic properties. The nuclear region is relatively unobscured based on a low neutral gas column density from X-ray observations (lack of sufficient absorbing gas along the line of sight); this and timing properties are reminiscent of a Seyfert type 1 [93]. However, optical spectroscopic observations reveal a Seyfert type 2 nuclear region [93, 94]. These pose challenges for the line-of-sight-based AGN unification model [e.g., 63]. A previous lack of broad optical emission lines typical of Seyfert type 2 galaxies with their prominent appearance post the changing-look event [90], accompanied by a relatively unobscured X-ray emission [95], suggests an origin (of the emission lines and the changing-look event) associated with physical processes in the accretion flow. The studies of [92, 95] find an X-ray spectrum dominated by the soft (black-body, disk) continuum with the disappearance of the hard power-law component following the optical/UV outburst. The disappearance and subsequent reappearance of the power-law component (with an accompanying increase in luminosity) are interpreted as the destruction and recreation of the accretion disk. One of the promising models for the changing look in 1ES 1927 + 654 is the consequent evolution of the jet/outflow and radiative properties [96].
The radio emission can originate from an outflow (collimated/relativistic or wide-angled/nonrelativistic). Propagating shocks either internal to the outflow [injection events from accretion – outflow activity, e.g., 97] or as a consequence of its interaction with the surrounding medium [e.g., 98] can accelerate electrons downstream with the consequent emission of synchrotron radiation. 1ES 1927 + 654 has been studied in the radio bands, with successful VLBI observations conducted in epochs prior to, covering, and post the changing-look event. Very long baseline interferometric observations of 1ES 1927 + 654 revealed exciting results, which provide further constraint on the quick accretion state changing in this source [99]: (1) The European VLBI Network (EVN) observation during 2013–2014 yields a radio to X-ray luminosity ratio
4. Conclusion and future directions
Accretion is an essential process to drive black hole growth, and it is thought to work in different types of accreting black hole systems from stellar-mass galactic black holes to supermassive black holes located in the centers of galaxies. Now, we are near to reaching a consensus that the physics in controlling the accretion and the associated ejecting process is exactly same in various kinds of accreting systems. In this chapter, we explored the correlations concerning the universal evolution among various accreting systems: (1) the correlation among X-ray variability, the black hole mass, and bolometric luminosity; (2) the fundamental plane of black hole activity, i.e., the correlation among core X-ray and radio luminosity and black hole mass; (3) the inverse correlation between radio loudness and Eddington ratio; (4) the correlation between X-ray loudness and Eddington ratio. These evidences ensure us to apply the theory to study the accretion process in, e.g., high red-shift quasars, the evolutionary connection between FRI and FRII radio galaxies, and the accretion signatures of low luminosity AGNs, and so on. However, the unified models for black hole accretions still face challenges in a few types of cases in practical applications: (1) the extremely high and super-Eddington accreting systems are poorly understood in both XRBs and AGNs; (2) the intermediate region between stellar-mass black holes and supermassive black holes in the fundamental plane of black hole activity is still unfilled; (3) the intermediate-mass black holes are absent; (4) the lack of evidence of state transition in individual AGNs still throws doubt on the unified scheme in AGNs. Furthermore, the unified models for black hole accretion have weak constraints and well understanding of the ejection process. Especially, in radio-quiet AGNs, corona and wind-like outflows are the two primary radio-emitters except for the jets, while it is unclear how the three processes interplay with each other and which one is in holding the dominance with the accretion flow evolves. Future high-resolution observations are essential to identify the radio origin. Additionally, it may shed light on how jet bases connect with accretion disk and how jet forms. Again, the high-resolution radio observations of intermediate-mass black holes and super-Eddington AGNs are equally important in filling the break between XRBs and AGNs in the fundamental plane of black hole activity and extending it to the super-Eddington regime.
References
- 1.
Mirabel F. New Astronomy Reviews. 2017; 78 :1. DOI: 10.1016/j.newar.2017.04.002 - 2.
Kormendy J, Ho LC. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2013; 51 :511. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 - 3.
Fender RP, Belloni TM, Gallo E. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2004; 355 :1105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x - 4.
Esin AA, McClintock JE, Narayan R. The Astrophysical Journal. 1997; 489 :865. DOI: 10.1086/304829 - 5.
Ruan JJ, Anderson SF, Eracleous M, Green PJ, Haggard D, MacLeod CL. The Astrophysical Journal. 2019; 883 :76. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a - 6.
Vierdayanti K, Sadowski A, Mineshige S, Bursa M. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2013; 436 :71. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1467 - 7.
Gladstone JC, Roberts TP, Done C. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2009; 397 :1836. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x - 8.
Müller A. Ph.D. Thesis, 2004. - 9.
Gallo E, Fender RP, Pooley GG. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2003; 344 :60. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06791.x - 10.
Narayan R, Yi I. The Astrophysical Journal. 1995; 452 :710. DOI: 10.1086/176343 - 11.
Shakura NI, Sunyaev RA. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 1973; 24 :337 - 12.
Merloni A, Heinz S, di Matteo T. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2003; 345 :1057. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x - 13.
Yang X, Yao S, Yang J, Ho LC, An T, Wang R. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020; 904 :200. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb775 - 14.
Svoboda J, Guainazzi M, Merloni A. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2017; 603 :A127. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630181 - 15.
Falcke H, Körding E, Markoff S. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2004; 414 :895. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031683 - 16.
Ho LC. The Astrophysical Journal. 2002; 564 :120. DOI: 10.1086/324399 - 17.
Sikora M, Stawarz L, Lasota J-P. The Astrophysical Journal. 2007; 658 :815. DOI: 10.1086/511972 - 18.
Broderick JW, Fender RP. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2011; 417 :184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19060.x - 19.
McHardy IM, Koerding E, Knigge C, Uttley P, Fender RP. Nature. 2006; 444 :730. DOI: 10.1038/nature05389 - 20.
Körding EG, Jester S, Fender R. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2006; 372 :1366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10954.x - 21.
Saikia P, Körding E, Coppejans DL, Falcke H, Williams D, Baldi RD. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2018; 616 :A152. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833233 - 22.
Gültekin K, King AL, Cackett EM, Nyland K, Miller JM, Di Matteo T. The Astrophysical Journal. 2019; 871 :80. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b9 - 23.
O’Dea CP, Saikia DJ. Astronomy and Astrophysics Review. 2021; 29 :3. DOI: 10.1007/s00159-021-00131-w - 24.
Stawarz L, Ostorero L, Begelman MC, Moderski R, Kataoka J, Wagner S. The Astrophysical Journal. 2008; 680 :911. DOI: 10.1086/587781 - 25.
Fan X-L, Bai J-M. The Astrophysical Journal. 2016; 818 :185. DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/185 - 26.
Wójtowicz A, Stawarz I, Cheung CC, Ostorero L, Kosmaczewski E, Siemiginowska A. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020; 892 :116. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7930 - 27.
Liao M, Gu M, Zhou M, Chen L. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2020; 497 :482. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa1559 - 28.
Meier D. The Astrophysical Journal. 1996; 459 :185. DOI: 10.1086/176881 - 29.
Fender R, Corbel S, Tzioumis T, McIntyre V, Campbell-Wilson D, Nowak M. The Astrophysical Journal. 1999; 519 :L165. DOI: 10.1086/312128 - 30.
Neilsen J, Lee JC. Nature. 2009; 458 :481. DOI: 10.1038/nature07680 - 31.
Sobolewska MA, Siemiginowska A, Gierliski, M. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2011; 413 :2259. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18302.x - 32.
Lusso E, Comastri A, Vignali C, Zamorani G, Brusa M, Gilli R. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2010; 512 :A34. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298 - 33.
Grupe D, Komossa S, Leighly KM, Page KL. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 2010; 187 :64. DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/64 - 34.
Vignali C, Brandt WN, Schneider DP. The Astronomical Journal. 2003; 125 :433. DOI: 10.1086/345973 - 35.
Strateva IV, Brandt WN, Schneider DP, Vanden Berk DG, Vignali C. The Astronomical Journal. 2005; 130 :387. DOI: 10.1086/431247 - 36.
Steffen AT, Strateva I, Brandt WN, Alexander DM, Koekemoer AM, Lehmer BD. The Astronomical Journal. 2006; 131 :2826. DOI: 10.1086/503627 - 37.
Just DW, Brandt WN, Shemmer O, Steffen AT, Schneider DP, Chartas G. The Astrophysical Journal. 2007; 665 :1004. DOI: 10.1086/519990 - 38.
Wu J, Vanden Berk D, Grupe D, Koch S, Gelbord J, Schneider DP. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 2012; 201 :10. DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/10 - 39.
Trichas M, Green PJ, Constantin A, Aldcroft T, Kalfountzou E, Sobolewska M. The Astrophysical Journal. 2013; 778 :188. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/188 - 40.
Vagnetti F, Antonucci M, Trevese D. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2013; 550 :A71. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220443 - 41.
Volonteri M, Rees MJ. The Astrophysical Journal. 2005; 633 :624. DOI: 10.1086/466521 - 42.
Miller-Jones JCA, Tetarenko AJ, Sivakoff GR, Middleton MJ, Altamirano D, Anderson GE. Nature. 2019; 569 :374. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0 - 43.
van den Eijnden J, Degenaar N, Russell TD, Wijnands R, Miller-Jones JCA, Sivakoff GR. Nature. 2018; 562 :233. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0524-1 - 44.
Mattila S, Pérez-Torres M, Efstathiou A, Mimica P, Fraser M, Kankare E. Science. 2018; 361 :482. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao4669 - 45.
Kaaret P, Feng H, Roberts TP. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2017; 55 :303. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 - 46.
Zauderer BA, Berger E, Soderberg AM, Loeb A, Narayan R, Frail DA. Nature. 2011; 476 :425. DOI: 10.1038/nature10366 - 47.
Burrows DN, Kennea JA, Ghisellini G, Mangano V, Zhang B, Page KL. Nature. 2011; 476 :421. DOI: 10.1038/nature10374 - 48.
Bloom JS, Giannios D, Metzger BD, Cenko SB, Perley DA, Butler NR. Science. 2011; 333 :203. DOI: 10.1126/science.1207150 - 49.
Levan AJ, Tanvir NR, Cenko SB, Perley DA, Wiersema K, Bloom JS. Science. 2011; 333 :199. DOI: 10.1126/science.1207143 - 50.
Done C, Wardziński G, Gierliński M. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2004; 349 :393. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07545.x - 51.
Fabrika S. Astrophysics and Space Physics Reviews. 2004; 12 :1 - 52.
Blandford R, Meier D, Readhead A. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2019; 57 :467. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 - 53.
Hjellming RM, Johnston KJ. Nature. 1981; 290 :100. DOI: 10.1038/290100a0 - 54.
Mirabel IF, Rodrguez LF. Nature. 1994; 371 :46. DOI: 10.1038/371046a0 - 55.
Yang J, An T, Zheng F, Baan WA, Paragi Z, Mohan P. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2019; 482 :1701. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2798 - 56.
Yao S, Yang X, Gu M, An T, Yang J, Ho LC. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2021; 508 :1305. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab2651 - 57.
Fan L, Chen W, An T, Xie F-G, Han Y, Knudsen KK. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020; 905 :L32. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcebf - 58.
Yang J, Paragi Z, An T, Baan WA, Mohan P, Liu X. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2020; 494 :1744. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa836 - 59.
Laor A, Behar E. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2008; 390 :847. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x - 60.
Zakamska NL, Greene JE. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2014; 442 :784. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu842 - 61.
Nims J, Quataert E, Faucher-Giguère C-A. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2015; 447 :3612. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu2648 - 62.
Panessa F, Baldi RD, Laor A, Padovani P, Behar E, McHardy I. Nature Astronomy. 2019; 3 :387. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4 - 63.
Paragi Z, Vermeulen RC, Fejes I, Schilizzi RT, Spencer RE, Stirling AM. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 1999; 348 :910 - 64.
Blundell KM, Mioduszewski AJ, Muxlow TWB, Podsiadlowski P, Rupen MP. The Astrophysical Journal. 2001; 562 :L79. DOI: 10.1086/324573 - 65.
Jeffrey RM, Blundell KM, Trushkin SA, Mioduszewski AJ. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2016; 461 :312. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1322 - 66.
Greene JE, Strader J, Ho LC. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2020; 58 :257. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 - 67.
Wu X-B, Wang F, Fan X, Yi W, Zuo W, Bian F. Nature. 2015; 518 :512. DOI: 10.1038/nature14241 - 68.
Bañados E, Venemans BP, Mazzucchelli C, Farina EP, Walter F, Wang F. Nature. 2018; 553 :473. DOI: 10.1038/nature25180 - 69.
Woo J-H, Cho H, Gallo E, Hodges-Kluck E, Le HAN, Shin J. Nature Astronomy. 2019; 3 :755. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0790-3 - 70.
Davis TA, Nguyen DD, Seth AC, Greene JE, Nyland K, Barth AJ. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2020; 496 :4061. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa1567 - 71.
Nyland K, Marvil J, Wrobel JM, Young LM, Zauderer BA. The Astrophysical Journal. 2012; 753 :103. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/103 - 72.
Paragi Z, Frey S, Kaaret P, Cseh D, Overzier R, Kharb P. The Astrophysical Journal. 2014; 791 :2. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/2 - 73.
Narayan R, Yi I. The Astrophysical Journal. 1994; 428 :L13. DOI: 10.1086/187381 - 74.
Czerny B, Rózanska A, Kuraszkiewicz J. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2004; 428 :39. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040487 - 75.
Narayan R, Yi I. The Astrophysical Journal. 1995; 444 :231. DOI: 10.1086/175599 - 76.
Narayan R. Astrophysics and Space Science. 2005; 300 :177. DOI: 10.1007/s10509-005-1178-7 - 77.
Wu Q, Cao X. The Astrophysical Journal. 2005; 621 :130. DOI: 10.1086/427428 - 78.
Nyland K, Davis TA, Nguyen DD, Seth A, Wrobel JM, Kamble A. The Astrophysical Journal. 2017; 845 :50. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ecf - 79.
Molina M, Reines AE, Greene JE, Darling J, Condon JJ. The Astrophysical Journal. 2021; 910 :5. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe120 - 80.
Fischer TC, Secrest NJ, Johnson MC, Dorland BN, Cigan PJ, Fernandez LC. The Astrophysical Journal. 2021; 906 :88. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca3c - 81.
Ho LC, Terashima Y, Ulvestad JS. The Astrophysical Journal. 2003; 589 :783. DOI: 10.1086/374738 - 82.
Yang Y, Li Z, Sjouwerman LO, Wang QD, Gu Q, Kraft RP. The Astrophysical Journal. 2015; 807 :L19. DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L19 - 83.
Peng S, Li Z, Sjouwerman LO, Yang Y, Xie F, Yuan F. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020; 894 :61. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab855d - 84.
Wrobel JM, Ho LC. The Astrophysical Journal. 2006; 646 :L95. DOI: 10.1086/507102 - 85.
Yuan F, Narayan R. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2014; 52 :529. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 - 86.
LaMassa SM, Cales S, Moran EC, Myers AD, Richards GT, Eracleous M. The Astrophysical Journal. 2015; 800 :144. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144 - 87.
Urry CM, Padovani P. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 1995; 107 :803. DOI: 10.1086/133630 - 88.
Antonucci R. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 1993; 31 :473. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 - 89.
Nicholls B, Brimacombe J, Kiyota S, Stone G, Cruz I, Trappett D. Astronomer’s Telegram. 2018; 2018 :11391 - 90.
Trakhtenbrot B, Arcavi I, MacLeod CL, Ricci C, Kara E, Graham ML. The Astrophysical Journal. 2019; 883 :94. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4 - 91.
Kara E, Loewenstein M, Remillard RA, Gendreau K, Arzoumanian Z, Arcavi I. Astronomer’s Telegram. 2018; 2018 :12169 - 92.
Ricci C, Loewenstein M, Kara E, Remillard R, Trakhtenbrot B, Arcavi I. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 2021; 255 :7. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe94b - 93.
Boller T, Voges W, Dennefeld M, Lehmann I, Predehl P, Burwitz V. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2003; 397 :557. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021520 - 94.
Gallo LC, MacMackin C, Vasudevan R, Cackett EM, Fabian AC, Panessa F. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2013; 433 :421. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt735 - 95.
Ricci C, Kara E, Loewenstein M, Trakhtenbrot B, Arcavi I, Remillard R. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020; 898 :L1. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab91a1 - 96.
Scepi N, Begelman MC, Dexter J. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2021; 502 :L50. DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab002 - 97.
Spada M, Ghisellini G, Lazzati D, Celotti A. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2001; 325 :1559. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x - 98.
Mohan P, An T, Zhang Y, Yang J, Yang X, Wang A. The Astrophysical Journal. 2022; 927 :74. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cb2 - 99.
Yang X, et al. In preparation