ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: so its disruption radius is closer to the BH (see Equation ( 5 )). The longer t acc in XT2 is likely due to a lower disk thickness ratio H / R because the latter carries the most sensitive parameter dependence in Equation ( 6 ). A lower H / R in turn might be caused by a lower Eddington-normalized accretion rate. This could suggest that XT2 was a tidal stripping event because the total bound mass Δ m can be much smaller than that of a full disruption event. The isotropic-equivalent peak luminosity of CDF-S XT2, ≈3 × 10 45 erg s −1 , is extremely high, which raises the possibility of a relativistically beamed emission. Three relativistic jetted TDE candidates have been discovered so far: Sw J1644+57 (Bloom et al. 2011 ; Burrows et al. 2011 ), Sw J2058+0516 (Cenko et al. 2012 ; Pasham et al. 2015 ), and Sw J1112−8238 (Brown et al. 2015 ). The 2D model of Dai et al. ( 2018 ) suggests that the X-ray emission of TDEs may be caused by jets through the Blandfold–Znajek process. Similarly, the WD–IMBH tidal disruption/stripping discussed here may produce a jet as well. Xue et al. ( 2019 ) estimated the CDF-S XT2–like event rate density to be Gpc −3 yr −1 . For CDF-S XT1, Bauer et al. ( 2017 ) estimated a large range of the event rate, ∼10 3 Gpc −3 yr −1 for z = 0.5 to ∼1 Gpc −3 yr −1 for z = 3. Theoretically, the rates of WD disruptions are very uncertain. For IMBHs in globular clusters (GCs), Baumgardt et al. ( 2004 ) estimated a total stellar TDE rate of ∼10 −7 yr −1 via N -body simulations of GCs with an initial central BH mass of 10 3 M ⊙ . Among the disrupted stars, ∼15% are WDs, giving a rate of ∼1.5 × 10 −8 yr −1 . Adopting a number density of 34 Mpc −3 of GCs, this gives a volumetric rate of R IMBH−WD ∼ 500 yr −1 Gpc −3 (Haas et al. 2012 ; Shcherbakov et al. 2013 ). Recently, Fragione et al. ( 2018 ) semianalytically calculated the evolution of a population of GCs in a galaxy and found a rate of WD TDE ∼10 −5 yr −1 per galaxy; combining this with GC population’s dependence on redshift and galaxy types, their results show a present-day volumetric rate of R IMBH−WD ∼ 10 yr −1 Gpc −3 . For IMBHs in dwarf galaxies, MacLeod et al. ( 2014 ) calculated a rate of ∼10 −6 yr −1 per IMBH for WD disruptions via the loss-cone dynamics for the BH mass range of 10 4 –10 5 M ⊙ . This rate is ∼30 times lower than that of main-sequence stellar TDEs by supermassive black holes (e.g., Stone Metzger 2016 ). Assuming a number density of dwarf galaxies ∼10 7 Gpc −3 (Shcherbakov et al. 2013 ; MacLeod et al. 2014 ) and an occupation fraction f IMBH of IMBHs in dwarf galaxies, then the volumetric rate is yr −1 Gpc −3 . Compared with WD–IMBH TDEs, a similar case that happens more commonly is the tidal disruption/stripping of MS stars by IMBHs. Indeed, as was shown in Fragione et al. ( 2018 ), the event rate of MS–IMBH TDEs is about 30 times higher than that of WD–IMBH TDEs in most galaxies. However, the timescale (∼years) of MS–IMBH TDEs is much longer than that of