Paper detail

Can tidal disruption event models reliably measure black hole masses?

Tidal disruption event (TDE) light curves are increasingly used to infer the masses of quiescent supermassive black holes ($M_{\rm{BH}}$), offering a powerful probe of low-mass black hole demographics independent of host-galaxy scaling relations. However, the reliability of most semi-analytic TDE models assume full stellar disruption, despite theoretical expectations that partial disruptions dominate the TDE population. In this work we test the robustness of current TDE models using three repeating partial TDEs (rpTDEs), in which the multiple flares produced by the same surviving stellar core must yield consistent black hole masses. We present spectroscopic observations establishing AT 2023adr as a rpTDE, making it the third such spectroscopically confirmed event. We independently model the flares of the three rpTDEs; 2020vdq, 2022dbl, and 2023adr, applying fallback-accretion fits, stream-stream collision scaling relations, luminosity-based empirical relations, and cooling-envelope fits. After accounting for statistical and model-specific systematics, we find that all TDE models generally return self-consistent $M_{\rm{BH}}$ values between flares, and are broadly consistent with host-galaxy $M_{\rm{BH}}$ proxies, recovering $M_{\rm{BH}}$ to within 0.3-0.5 dex. However, the convergence of fallback models towards unphysical stellar masses and impact parameters reveals limitations in the existing fallback model grids. We also show that light curve coverage, particularly in the near-UV, is critical for constraining model parameters. This has direct implications for interpreting the thousands of TDE light curves expected from upcoming surveys such as the Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time, where from simulations, we find that $M_{\rm{BH}}$ may be underestimated on average by 0.5 dex without additional follow-up.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.