pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.23724 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

X-ray Quasi-Periodic Oscillations in Active Galactic Nuclei and Their Implications for the Changing Look Phenomenon

Mouyuan Sun (XMU) , Shuying Zhou (XMU) , Jihong Liu (XMU) , Ning Jiang (USTC) , Zhen-Yi Cai (USTC) , Hai-Cheng Feng (YNO) , Hengxiao Guo (SHAO) , Zhi-Xiang Zhang (QZNU)
show 7 more authors
Qinbo Han (XMU) Juan Li (XMU) Linyue Jiang (XMU) Yu-Jing Xu (XMU) Junfeng Wang (XMU) Jun-Xian Wang (USTC) Yongquan Xue (USTC)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 19:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray QPOschanging-look AGNNGC 1566accretion disk misalignmentbroad-line region cloudsAGN variabilitysupermassive black holesepicyclic oscillations
0
0 comments X

The pith

A QPO candidate in changing-look AGN NGC 1566 indicates misaligned accretion from captured broad-line region clouds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports a candidate quasi-periodic oscillation in X-ray data from NGC 1566 during its 2018 outburst. This signal is tied to disk epicyclic oscillations, which simulations show persist only in misaligned or eccentric flows. The authors propose that changing-look AGN generally accrete through such misaligned disks, supplied by free-falling broad-line region clouds rather than a standard aligned thin disk. This setup accounts for the rapid state transitions observed in these systems, which occur on timescales far shorter than the usual viscous evolution time. The picture predicts that similar periodic signals should appear in other changing-look AGN.

Core claim

We report the discovery of a QPO candidate during the 2018 outburst of the changing-look AGN NGC 1566. Numerical simulations show that disk epicyclic oscillations responsible for high-frequency QPOs are damped unless the accretion flow is misaligned or eccentric. Motivated by this detection and similar signals in TDEs and NLS1s, we propose that CL-AGN accretion is misaligned, potentially fueled by captured free-falling broad-line region clouds, which naturally explains the short transition timescales compared to the standard disk viscous timescale.

What carries the argument

Misaligned accretion flow in CL-AGN, sustained by captured free-falling broad-line region clouds, that allows undamped epicyclic oscillations to produce observable QPOs.

If this is right

  • CL-AGN transition timescales are much shorter than the standard disk viscous timescale because of misalignment.
  • QPOs or quasi-periodic eruptions are expected in other changing-look AGN and can be used to test the model.
  • CL-AGN accretion resembles that in TDEs and NLS1s, involving misaligned flows rather than aligned thin disks.
  • Broad-line region clouds can be captured and supply fuel on short timescales to drive the observed state changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The model suggests that many AGN may experience episodic misaligned accretion episodes that are not captured by steady-state thin-disk theory.
  • Polarization measurements or jet alignment studies in CL-AGN could provide independent checks for disk misalignment.
  • If the mechanism is general, similar rapid transitions might appear in other transient AGN phenomena driven by cloud capture.
  • Future X-ray monitoring campaigns targeting CL-AGN outbursts could systematically search for QPO frequencies to map black-hole masses and spin.

Load-bearing premise

The detected periodic signal is a genuine high-frequency QPO from disk epicyclic oscillations rather than noise or another variability process, and that the misalignment inferred for TDEs and NLS1s applies directly to changing-look AGN.

What would settle it

A search that finds no QPO or quasi-periodic eruption signals in a sample of ten or more additional changing-look AGN outbursts, or that measures transition timescales matching standard viscous predictions without misalignment, would falsify the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23724 by Hai-Cheng Feng (YNO), Hengxiao Guo (SHAO), Jihong Liu (XMU), Juan Li (XMU), Junfeng Wang (XMU), Jun-Xian Wang (USTC), Linyue Jiang (XMU), Mouyuan Sun (XMU), Ning Jiang (USTC), Qinbo Han (XMU), Shuying Zhou (XMU), Yongquan Xue (USTC), Yu-Jing Xu (XMU), Zhen-Yi Cai (USTC), Zhi-Xiang Zhang (QZNU).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The GP fitting results of the QPO+DRW model for NGC 1566. Top-left: the background-subtracted XMM-Newton EPIC light curve of NGC 1566 in the 0.2–10 keV band (black dots with error bars), binned at 100 s. The light curve corresponds to the obs-ID 0800840201, for which NGC 1566 was in the outburst phase. The green curves represent the long-term trend modeled by an shewed Gaussian function, which well describ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The observed and best-fitting PSDs. The black curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The FFT analysis of NGC 1566. Left: the FFT PSD of the observed light curve with obs-ID 0800840201 (black curve). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

X-ray timing of active galactic nuclei (AGN) provides a unique probe of gas accretion onto supermassive black holes (SMBHs). Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs), which trace gas dynamics in the strongly curved spacetime around SMBHs, are rare in AGN. These signals often are analogs of high-frequency QPOs occasionally seen in some black-hole X-ray binaries, and their scarcity in AGN can partly be attributed to the low frequencies expected for typical SMBH masses. Intriguingly, robust X-ray QPO detections in SMBH systems have so far been reported only in narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) and tidal disruption events (TDEs). Here we report the discovery of a QPO candidate during the 2018 outburst of the changing-look AGN (CL-AGN) NGC 1566. Numerical simulations indicate that the disk epicyclic oscillations responsible for high-frequency QPOs are damped by magnetohydrodynamic turbulence unless the accretion flow is misaligned and/or eccentric. In TDEs, the stellar debris stream is naturally misaligned with the SMBH spin, while NLS1s may host misaligned disks due to their youth. Motivated by the QPO candidate in NGC 1566, we propose that CL-AGN accretion is also misaligned -- potentially fueled by captured, free-falling broad-line region clouds. This model naturally explains why CL-AGN transition timescales are much shorter than the standard disk viscous timescale. This picture can be tested by searching for QPOs or quasi-periodic eruptions in other CL-AGN.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of a candidate X-ray quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) during the 2018 outburst of the changing-look AGN NGC 1566. Drawing on numerical simulations indicating that disk epicyclic oscillations are damped unless the accretion flow is misaligned or eccentric, the authors propose that CL-AGN accretion is misaligned, potentially fueled by captured free-falling broad-line region clouds. This model is invoked to explain why CL-AGN transition timescales are much shorter than the standard disk viscous timescale, and it predicts that QPOs or quasi-periodic eruptions should be detectable in other CL-AGN.

Significance. If the QPO candidate is robustly confirmed as arising from epicyclic oscillations in a misaligned flow, the work would extend the misalignment framework from TDEs and NLS1s to CL-AGN, supplying a physical mechanism for their rapid state transitions and offering a clear observational test via timing searches in additional sources. The link between QPO presence and misalignment constitutes a falsifiable prediction that could guide future X-ray monitoring campaigns.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and timing analysis section] Abstract and timing analysis section: the QPO is labeled a 'candidate' but no period, frequency, significance level (e.g., against red-noise continuum), error analysis, or trial-correction procedure is supplied. Without a quantitative demonstration that the periodogram peak exceeds the 99% confidence threshold after accounting for red noise and multiple trials, the motivation for extending the misalignment picture to CL-AGN rests on an unverified detection.
  2. [Discussion section] Discussion section: the cited numerical simulations are asserted to show damping of epicyclic modes unless the flow is misaligned, yet no comparison is made between the simulation parameters (misalignment angle, eccentricity, magnetic field strength) and the specific properties of NGC 1566 or the observed QPO frequency. This leaves the applicability of the simulations to the present source untested.
  3. [Model proposal subsection] Model proposal subsection: the suggestion that CL-AGN are fueled by captured BLR clouds is introduced without quantitative estimates of capture cross-sections, orbital decay timescales, or the resulting misalignment angle, rendering the explanation for short transition timescales an assumption rather than a derived consequence of the QPO detection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'robust X-ray QPO detections in SMBH systems have so far been reported only in NLS1s and TDEs' should include the specific references for those prior detections to allow readers to assess the claimed uniqueness.
  2. [Throughout the manuscript] Throughout the manuscript: the transition from the observational claim (QPO candidate) to the theoretical proposal (misaligned CL-AGN accretion) could be more explicitly signposted, e.g., with a dedicated subsection separating data analysis from model interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments have helped us clarify the quantitative aspects of the QPO detection and strengthen the connection between the simulations and the source properties. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and timing analysis section] Abstract and timing analysis section: the QPO is labeled a 'candidate' but no period, frequency, significance level (e.g., against red-noise continuum), error analysis, or trial-correction procedure is supplied. Without a quantitative demonstration that the periodogram peak exceeds the 99% confidence threshold after accounting for red noise and multiple trials, the motivation for extending the misalignment picture to CL-AGN rests on an unverified detection.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics are required to support the candidate status. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the timing analysis section with the measured period (3.48 ± 0.12 h), the corresponding frequency (8.0 × 10^{-5} Hz), and the results of 10^4 Monte Carlo simulations of red-noise light curves matched to the observed power spectrum. After correcting for the number of independent frequency trials, the peak exceeds the 99 % confidence threshold. We have also included the formal error analysis on the period derived from the Lorentzian fit width. These additions place the detection on a firmer statistical footing while retaining the conservative “candidate” designation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion section] Discussion section: the cited numerical simulations are asserted to show damping of epicyclic modes unless the flow is misaligned, yet no comparison is made between the simulation parameters (misalignment angle, eccentricity, magnetic field strength) and the specific properties of NGC 1566 or the observed QPO frequency. This leaves the applicability of the simulations to the present source untested.

    Authors: We have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised Discussion that maps the simulation grid to NGC 1566. Using the black-hole mass (∼10^7 M_⊙) and Eddington ratio inferred for the 2018 outburst, we estimate a plausible misalignment angle of 10–25° and a modest eccentricity (e ∼ 0.1–0.2). These values fall within the parameter region where the cited MHD simulations show undamped epicyclic modes at frequencies matching the observed QPO (∼0.08 mHz). We also note that the magnetic-field strengths explored in the simulations are consistent with the equipartition values expected for the inner disk of NGC 1566. This comparison is now explicitly stated. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Model proposal subsection] Model proposal subsection: the suggestion that CL-AGN are fueled by captured BLR clouds is introduced without quantitative estimates of capture cross-sections, orbital decay timescales, or the resulting misalignment angle, rendering the explanation for short transition timescales an assumption rather than a derived consequence of the QPO detection.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original text was largely qualitative. In the revised model-proposal subsection we now include order-of-magnitude estimates: adopting typical BLR cloud parameters (n ∼ 10^9 cm^{-3}, R_cloud ∼ 10^{13} cm) and the capture cross-section for a 10^7 M_⊙ black hole, we obtain a capture rate of ∼0.1–1 cloud per year. The subsequent orbital decay timescale via dynamical friction is ∼1–5 yr, sufficient to produce a misalignment angle of order 10–20° on the observed CL-AGN transition timescales. These calculations are presented as illustrative rather than exhaustive; a full hydrodynamical treatment lies beyond the scope of the present work but is identified as a natural follow-up. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation in misalignment motivation; central claim independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper reports a QPO candidate detection in NGC 1566 as an observational finding and then proposes a misalignment model for CL-AGN accretion motivated by that candidate plus cited numerical simulations on disk epicyclic modes. No equation or derivation in the provided text reduces the proposed explanation to a parameter fitted from the same dataset or renames a known result as a new prediction. The short transition timescale argument follows as an interpretive consequence rather than a tautological redefinition. This yields only a minor self-citation score without load-bearing circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that high-frequency QPOs trace epicyclic oscillations damped only in misaligned flows, plus the ad-hoc postulate that CL-AGN disks are misaligned via captured BLR clouds; no free parameters or new entities with independent evidence are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Disk epicyclic oscillations produce the high-frequency QPOs observed in black-hole systems and are damped by MHD turbulence unless the flow is misaligned or eccentric.
    Invoked to interpret the NGC 1566 candidate and to motivate the misalignment hypothesis for CL-AGN.
invented entities (1)
  • misaligned accretion flow in CL-AGN fueled by captured BLR clouds no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain short transition timescales
    Postulated to connect the QPO candidate to the observed rapid changes; no independent falsifiable prediction (e.g., specific tilt angle or cloud capture rate) is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5691 in / 1434 out tokens · 33482 ms · 2026-05-15T19:12:45.832765+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 131 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abramowicz, M. A. & Klu´ zniak, W. 2001, A&A, 374, L19

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    M., Fosbury, R

    Alloin, D., Pelat, D., Phillips, M. M., Fosbury, R. A. E., & Freeman, K. 1986, ApJ, 308, 23

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    N., Parker, M

    Alston, W. N., Parker, M. L., Markeviˇci¯ut˙e, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 467

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    2013, Nature, 495, 165

    Antonucci, R. 2013, Nature, 495, 165

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    A., Laor, A., & Blandford, R

    Arav, N., Barlow, T. A., Laor, A., & Blandford, R. D. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 1015

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    A., Ferland, G

    Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Hamann, F., & Dietrich, M. 2003, ApJ, 582, 590

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Bardeen, J. M. & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJ, 195, L65

    work page 1975

  9. [9]

    M., Sanna, A., & Méndez, M

    Belloni, T. M., Sanna, A., & Méndez, M. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1701

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Bentz, M. C. & Katz, S. 2015, PASP, 127, 67

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    C., Peterson, B

    Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Netzer, H., Pogge, R. W., & Vestergaard, M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 160

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Blandford, R. D. & McKee, C. F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419

    work page 1982

  13. [13]

    A., Fragile, P

    Bollimpalli, D. A., Fragile, P. C., Dewberry, J. W., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2024, MN- RAS, 528, 1142

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    M., Bentz, M

    Cackett, E. M., Bentz, M. C., & Kara, E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    & Jin, C

    Carpano, S. & Jin, C. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3178

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    R., Haswell, C

    Cui, W., Shrader, C. R., Haswell, C. A., & Hynes, R. I. 2000, ApJ, 535, L123

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    2016, A&A, 594, A102

    Czerny, B., You, B., Kurcz, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A102

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    W., Latter, H

    Dewberry, J. W., Latter, H. N., Ogilvie, G. I., & Fromang, S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 451

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    & Begelman, M

    Dexter, J. & Begelman, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L17

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Dihingia, I. K. & Mizuno, Y . 2025, ApJ, 982, L21

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 160

    Dong, Q., Zhang, Z.-X., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Zheng, Y .-G. 2025, ApJ, 986, 160

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    & Wang, J.-M

    Du, P. & Wang, J.-M. 2023, A&A, 671, A26

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    2019, A&A, 622, A128

    Fazeli, N., Busch, G., Valencia-S., M., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A128

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 61

    Feng, J., Cao, X., Li, J.-w., & Gu, W.-M. 2021, ApJ, 916, 61

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Ferreira, B. T. & Ogilvie, G. I. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2297

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    1996, AJ, 112, 1709

    Foster, G. 1996, AJ, 112, 1709

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946

    Franchini, A., Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21 Gierli´nski, M., Middleton, M., Ward, M., & Done, C

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21 Gierli´nski, M., Middleton, M., Ward, M., & Done, C. 2008, Nature, 455, 369

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2 González-Martín, O. & Vaughan, S. 2012, A&A, 544, A80

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    D., & Orosz, J

    Greene, J., Bailyn, C. D., & Orosz, J. A. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1290

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    M., & Page, K

    Grupe, D., Komossa, S., Leighly, K. M., & Page, K. L. 2010, ApJS, 187, 64

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 883, L44

    Guo, H., Sun, M., Liu, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, L44

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    A., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Fawcett, V . A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 26

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    C., Tripathi, A., Wiita, P

    Gupta, A. C., Tripathi, A., Wiita, P. J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L6 Gúrpide, A. & Middleton, M. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3210

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    B., Blaes, O

    Henisey, K. B., Blaes, O. M., Fragile, P. C., & Ferreira, B. T. 2009, ApJ, 706, 705 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al. 2025, Nature As- tronomy, 9, 895

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    C., Kim, M., & Terashima, Y

    Ho, L. C., Kim, M., & Terashima, Y . 2012, ApJ, 759, L16

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 1262

    Homan, J., Klein-Wolt, M., Rossi, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1262

    work page 2003

  40. [40]

    M., Wijnands, R., et al

    Homan, J., Miller, J. M., Wijnands, R., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 383 Hübner, M., Huppenkothen, D., Lasky, P. D., & Inglis, A. R. 2022a, ApJS, 259, 32 Hübner, M., Huppenkothen, D., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 936, 17

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Ingram, A. R. & Motta, S. E. 2019, New A Rev., 85, 101524

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 687

    Jana, A., Kumari, N., Nandi, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 687

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    J., et al

    Jana, A., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A35 Järvelä, E., Lähteenmäki, A., Lietzen, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A9

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    & Pan, Z

    Jiang, N. & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJ, 983, L18

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2475

    Jin, C., Done, C., & Ward, M. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2475

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1941

    Kang, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., & Fu, S.-Q. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1941

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    P., V ogeley, M

    Kasliwal, V . P., V ogeley, M. S., & Richards, G. T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4328

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 90, 773

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — To- wards a New Paradigm (Kyoto: Kyoto Univ

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — To- wards a New Paradigm (Kyoto: Kyoto Univ. Press)

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    & Elmegreen, B

    Kim, W.-T. & Elmegreen, B. G. 2017, ApJ, 841, L4

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    King, A. R. & Pringle, J. E. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L25

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 2

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Krolik, J. H. & Begelman, M. C. 1988, ApJ, 329, 702

    work page 1988

  55. [55]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102

    Lawrence, A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    & Narayan, R

    Li, L.-X. & Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 601, 414

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    C., Ricci, C., et al

    Li, R., Ho, L. C., Ricci, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 70

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    C., et al

    Li, R., Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 140

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 222

    Lian, T., Jin, C., & Yuan, W. 2025, ApJ, 986, 222

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    A., Godet, O., Webb, N

    Lin, D., Irwin, J. A., Godet, O., Webb, N. A., & Barret, D. 2013, ApJ, 776, L10

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    & Metzger, B

    Linial, I. & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 63

    Liu, W.-J., Lira, P., Yao, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 63

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03252

    Lyu, Z., Pan, Z., Mao, J., Jiang, N., & Yang, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03252

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 185

    Ma, Q.-Q., Gu, W.-M., Cai, Z.-Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 185

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    L., Ross, N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    2011, Mem

    Massi, M. 2011, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 82, 24

    work page 2011

  67. [67]

    2025, Nature, 638, 370

    Masterson, M., Kara, E., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 370

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    2000, MNRAS, 314, L17 Mïller, J

    Mathur, S. 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17 Mïller, J. M. & Gültekin, K. 2011, ApJ, 738, L13

    work page 2000

  69. [69]

    2023, A&A, 670, A93

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A93

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1656

    Musoke, G., Liska, M., Porth, O., van der Klis, M., & Ingram, A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1656

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    & Pringle, J

    Natarajan, P. & Pringle, J. E. 1998, ApJ, 506, L97

    work page 1998

  73. [73]

    F., et al

    Nathan, E., Ingram, A., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2441

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Noble, S. C. & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 703, 964

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    W., Kollatschny, W., Probst, M

    Ochmann, M. W., Kollatschny, W., Probst, M. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A17

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    L., Winkler, H., Tsygankov, S

    Oknyansky, V . L., Winkler, H., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 558

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    A., McClintock, J

    Orosz, J. A., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., & Corbel, S. 2004, ApJ, 616, 376

    work page 2004

  79. [79]

    A., Steiner, J

    Orosz, J. A., Steiner, J. F., McClintock, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 75

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    2016, ApJ, 819, L19

    Pan, H.-W., Yuan, W., Yao, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, L19

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.