Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Mind the gaps: improved methods for the detection of periodicities in unevenly-sampled data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Periodicity searches in unevenly sampled light curves can be done in the time domain with Gaussian-process likelihoods, fitting the red noise from the data and calibrating signal significance by simulation rather than relying on…

desk verdict Useful GP-based LRT recipe for periodicity in unevenly sampled red-noise light curves, with valuable reanalyses; the p-value calibration is plausible but conditional on the data-chosen null, and the paper deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05602 v1 pith:FWED73L3 submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

A. Gúrpide , M. Middleton This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE PACS 95.75.Wx
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsGaussianprocessesLomb-Scargleperiodogramunevenlysampledtimeserieslikelihoodratiotestrednoiseceleritekernelsposteriorpredictivep-value
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the significance of a (quasi-)periodic signal in an irregularly sampled light curve can be computed reliably by working entirely in the time domain with Gaussian processes. The method fits the aperiodic variability (the null hypothesis) with GP kernels, adds an exponentially decaying sinusoid as the periodic alternative, and calibrates the likelihood-ratio improvement by simulating light curves from the null model's posteriors, the same logic as the established frequency-domain likelihood-ratio test of Vaughan (2010) but valid when the periodogram's statistical properties are unknown. Demonstrated on simulations, the test recovers injected signals in a majority of light curves once enough cycles are observed and yields uniform false-positive rates even when gaps are present. Re-analysing four published QPO claims, the paper supports the ~64-day and ~65.6-day superorbital periods of NGC 7793 P13 and a ~4.8-day oscillation in the blazar B0537-441, but finds only ~1.7σ and ~2.5σ significance for the NGC 1365 and NGC 4945 detections. If right, this gives a generalizable recipe for period searches in the sparsely and unevenly sampled monitoring data that dominates much of time-domain astrophysics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the likelihood-ratio test statistic $T_{\rm LRT} = -2\ln(L_0/L_1)$ computed from Gaussian-process likelihoods directly in the time domain, with its null distribution obtained empirically rather than analytically. The null hypothesis is a GP model of the aperiodic variability built from sums of celerite kernels, the damped random walk, the SHO with $Q=1/\sqrt{2}$, the Matérn-3/2 approximation, and a Jitter white-noise term, whose PSDs are bending power laws; the alternative adds an exponentially decaying sinusoid (a Lorentzian PSD) for the (quasi-)periodic component. Model selection is done with the AICc, and the calibration step follows the posterior-predictive scheme of Protassov et al. (2002): draw hyperparameters from the null posterior, simulate light curves with the observing cadence and Poisson noise of the data, refit with the null and alternative models, and compare the observed $T_{\rm LRT}$ to the simulated distribution. The celerite formalism is what makes the repeated refitting feasible, reducing the GP cost from $O(N^3)$ to $O(NJ^2)$.

What would settle it

Generate a large ensemble of noise-only light curves from a process the kernel family cannot represent (for example, a broken power-law PSD with high-frequency slope shallower than $-2$, or a non-stationary process whose PSD slope drifts over the baseline) and apply the method to each: if the recovered p-values deviate from a uniform distribution, the calibration is not valid for that noise type.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a likelihood-ratio test computed from Gaussian-process fits in the time domain, with the aperiodic noise inferred from the data as the null hypothesis and calibrated by simulations drawn from that null model's posteriors, yields well-calibrated significances for an additional (quasi-)periodic component in unevenly sampled light curves. The paper states the procedure 'can be considered equivalent to the LRT approach proposed by Vaughan (2010), but adapted to deal with irregularly sampled data'. The null hypothesis is a combination of celerite kernels (damped random walk, damped harmonic oscillator with $Q=1/\sqrt{2}$, an approximate Matérn-3/2, and a Jitter white-noise term) selected by the AICc; the alternative adds a Lorentzian component, an exponentially decaying sinusoid. Significance is obtained by drawing kernel parameters from the null posteriors, simulating light curves with the same sampling and noise properties, refitting each with the null and alternative models, and locating the observed $T_{\rm LRT} = -2\ln(L_0/L_1)$ in the resulting reference distribution. On simulated data the false-positive rates are consistent with uniform p-values, and on four published QPO claims the method confirms two (P13 and B0537-441) while downgrading two (NGC 1365 and NGC 4945) relative to their published significances.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration stands or falls on the assumption that the true aperiodic variability is a stationary Gaussian process whose covariance is captured by the tested kernel family, so that light curves simulated from the null posteriors reproduce the null distribution of the likelihood-ratio statistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published QPO significances based on Lomb-Scargle peaks above a red-noise continuum can be substantially overestimated; in the paper's re-analysis, two of the four claims drop below the conventional detection threshold.
  • Period searches in sparsely and unevenly sampled monitoring campaigns (ULXs, AGN, TESS light curves) gain a well-defined likelihood, making significance statements and parameter uncertainties computable without binning the data.
  • Because the noise is inferred from the data rather than assumed, the recipe extends to any source whose variability can be described as a Gaussian process, including other choices of mean function and priors.
  • False-positive tests on noise-only light curves, with and without gaps, yield uniformly distributed p-values, indicating the calibration controls spurious detections at the explored cadences.
  • Requiring roughly five or more observed cycles for a reliable detection matches earlier results and sets a practical limit on what sparse monitoring can claim.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The calibration's validity for any new source hinges on the kernel family's coverage of the true noise; light curves whose PSD is not representable by bending-power-law kernels (for example, broken power laws with high-frequency slopes shallower than $-2$) should be stress-tested before the recipe is applied.
  • The iterative model-selection routine is acknowledged in the paper to occasionally miss the globally preferred combination, so a more exhaustive search would be needed before using the method for blind large-scale surveys, where the trials factor is no longer automatically absorbed by the simulations.
  • Because the procedure tests whether an added Lorentzian improves the fit, a non-sinusoidal periodicity (like the P13 harmonics) is tested one component at a time; tying the harmonics into a single alternative model would give a more powerful combined test.
  • The documented failures of the GP residual diagnostics on some real datasets (the full NGC 4945 light curve and the P13 X-ray data) mark the practical boundary of the method: when residuals are non-Gaussian or the process is non-stationary, the quoted p-values should be treated cautiously even if PSD recovery remains acceptable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Gaussian-process (GP) based method for detecting (quasi-)periodic components in irregularly sampled time series. The null hypothesis is an aperiodic GP model built from celerite kernels (DRW, SHO with Q=1/sqrt(2), Matérn-3/2, and jitter), while the alternative model adds a Lorentzian kernel. Significance is assessed with a likelihood-ratio test T_LRT (Eq. 1), whose reference distribution is constructed by simulating light curves from the posteriors of the null model and then refitting both the null and alternative models to each simulated data set. The recipe is applied to simulated DRW+Lorentzian light curves with varying cadence and baseline, to false-positive simulations from pure DRW noise, and to four real datasets (NGC 1365, NGC 7793 P13, NGC 4945, and B0537-441). The authors report good recovery rates in the simulated signal-present cases, p-values consistent with uniformity in the pre-specified-null false-positive simulations, and generally lower significances than several published Lomb-Scargle-based period claims.

Significance. If the calibration claim is correct, this paper offers a practical time-domain alternative to Lomb-Scargle period searches for irregularly sampled data with red noise. The strengths include a clear step-by-step recipe, a publicly available implementation (mind_the_gaps on GitHub/Zenodo), explicit treatment of heteroscedastic errors and irregular sampling, and a principled use of null-posterior simulations following Protassov et al. (2002). The applications to real datasets are instructive, and the authors are appropriately cautious in several of their claims, notably regarding NGC 4945. However, the calibration of the posterior predictive p-values is not yet established for the full analysis pipeline used on real data, because the simulations do not reproduce the model-selection and segment-selection steps. The central claim of well-calibrated significances therefore requires additional work before the method can be adopted as a standard tool.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §2.5, Table 2] The false-positive calibration is not a full-pipeline test. In the §3.1 simulations, each light curve is fitted with a pre-specified DRW null and a DRW+Lorentzian alternative; the AICc triage described in §2.5 is not repeated, nor are the segment-selection and background-fraction choices used in the real-data applications. Because the real-data null model is selected after seeing the data, the sampling distribution of T_LRT conditioned on that selection includes additional trials and model uncertainty that the simulations do not contain. The uniform p-values in Table 2 therefore support calibration only for a fixed null model, not for the data-driven null selection used in §3.2. A simulation that runs the complete pipeline (kernel triage, ΔAICc=2 competitors, segment choice, background assumption) on each synthetic data set is needed to support the central claim of well-calibrated significances.
  2. [§3.2.3, §3.3] The NGC 4945 significance of ~98.7% is derived from null-posterior simulations of the SHO Q=1/sqrt(2) model on the selected 192-day segment. The segment was chosen a posteriori because the claimed signal was strongest there, and the authors explicitly note that the result may be optimistic (§3.3). This post-selection inflation is not included in the reference distribution. The remedy suggested in §3.3 — simulating full-length light curves and selecting the segment that maximizes the LRT for each simulation — is the appropriate procedure, but it is not implemented. Until it is, the quoted p-value should be presented as exploratory rather than calibrated.
  3. [§3.2.2, Table 5] For the P13 X-ray data, the best-fitting model has a standardised-residual KS p-value of 0.001, and the authors note that the count-rate distribution is non-Gaussian (KS p=0.008). Despite this, the hierarchical LRT significances (99.99%, 99.2%, 91.5%) are computed from simulations that assume the GP null is a correct description of the noise. The use of a lognormal PDF in the simulations (Appendix A) changes only the flux distribution, not the conditional GP likelihood used in the fits. The paper states that 'the model may not capture the full complexity of the data', but the p-value calibration requires the null model to be adequate. A calibration study for non-Gaussian or misspecified noise is needed before these significances can be taken at face value.
  4. [§3.2.4, Table 7] The model-selection procedure is applied inconsistently for the blazar B0537-441. The lowest-AICc models in Table 7 (e.g., Matérn-3/2+SHO Q=1/sqrt(2), AICc=3526.2) are discarded because their residual diagnostics reject Gaussianity, and the adopted Lorentzian+DRW alternative has AICc=3573.9, nearly 48 units worse. Meanwhile the DRW-only null has AICc=3639.9 and an acceptable residual p-value of 0.27. The paper does not specify how residual diagnostics and AICc are to be combined in the model-selection step. Since the claimed QPO significance (99.98%) is conditional on this particular null choice, and that choice is not the AICc-preferred model, the reported significance is not covered by the calibration simulations in §3.1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'standarized' for 'standardized', 'Lorentizan' for 'Lorentzian', 'alternations' for 'alternatives', 'skweness' for 'skewness', and 'fullfilled' for 'fulfilled'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Figure 12 caption] The caption of Figure 12 says the segment is 'shown in Figure12' but the relevant light curve is shown in Figure 11; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption refers to 'ΔAIC' while the text and table body use 'ΔAICc'; the notation should be made consistent.
  4. [§2.5] The description of the iterative AICc routine would benefit from a small pseudocode block or a more precise statement of when the routine terminates, since the paper reports cases where it fails to find the overall best combination and the real-data applications use a mixture of AICc and residual diagnostics.
  5. [§3.2.2] The sentence beginning 'We found the Lorenzian component to be significant' should read 'Lorentzian'; this typo appears in several places and can cause confusion with the Lorenz curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LRT reference distribution is generated from null-posterior simulations, not from the fitted signal.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard parametric bootstrap likelihood-ratio test: select an aperiodic null GP model, compute T_LRT from the fitted null and alternative likelihoods, simulate light curves from the null posterior, refit both models to each simulation, and compare the observed T_LRT with the simulated reference distribution (Sections 2.3 and 2.7). The null simulations do not include the periodic component, so a significant T_LRT is not built into the reference distribution by construction. Section 3.1 validates calibration by generating 50 DRW light curves per cadence/baseline combination, applying the full PPP procedure, and checking that the retrieved p-values are uniform (Table 2), which is an independent and externally meaningful benchmark. The self-citations in the paper (Khan & Middleton 2023 for UVOT data reduction; Gúrpide & Mangham 2025 for the software release) are not load-bearing for the statistical argument. The main caveat is that the calibration simulations prespecify the DRW null, whereas the real-data applications first select the null via AICc triage and in some cases choose a segment a posteriori; the paper itself flags the latter for NGC 4945 in Section 3.3. This is a post-selection and conditional-inference limitation, not a circular reduction: the p-value is not equal to the fitted quantity by construction, and the false-positive simulations provide external evidence of calibration within the assumed kernel family. No circular step can therefore be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method fits a set of kernel hyperparameters per dataset and uses them as the null model, so these are genuine free parameters rather than physical constants. The main axioms are the GP representation of the noise, the validity of AICc for model selection, the bootstrap calibration of the LRT, the realism of the light-curve simulations, and the representativeness of the chosen data segments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Aperiodic kernel hyperparameters (sigma^2, omega_bend, S_N, rho) = fitted per dataset
    Noise model parameters in Eqs. 2-7; inferred from each light curve and used to define the null hypothesis for simulations.
  • Lorentzian period P = e.g., 63.9 d, 65.6 d, 41.6 d, 4.8 d
    The candidate period is fitted to the data in the alternative model; reported values depend on this fit.
  • Lorentzian quality factor Q and variance sigma^2 = Q with lower bound 1.5 imposed
    Characterize the periodic component; Q is constrained to be >=1.5 to avoid degeneracy with aperiodic kernels (Appendix C).
  • Jitter variance = fitted where used
    White-noise excess term in Eq. 7; included in several best-fit models.
  • Simulated background fraction (NGC 4945) = 5%
    Ad hoc choice in Section 3.2.3 to make simulated error bars match the data; the authors note it can overestimate the QPO significance.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed light curve segments are stationary realizations of a Gaussian process with a celerite kernel covariance.
    The GP likelihood and kernel PSD mapping assume stationarity and Gaussianity; segments are chosen visually and Appendix B tests lognormal deviations.
  • standard math AICc is a valid basis for comparing GP models and selecting the null hypothesis.
    Used in Section 2.5 for model triage; AICc is asymptotically justified and the paper relies on it to choose the null model for the LRT.
  • domain assumption The Protassov et al. (2002) Monte Carlo calibration of the LRT remains valid when null model parameters are drawn from the GP posterior.
    The reference distribution is built from simulated light curves using null posteriors; this assumes the bootstrap covers parameter uncertainty correctly.
  • domain assumption Light curves simulated with Timmer & Koenig or Emmanoulopoulos et al. reproduce the statistical properties of the real data, including sampling, Poisson noise, and lognormality.
    Described in Appendix A; deviations from the real observing process would miscenter the LRT reference distribution.
  • domain assumption The chosen segment of each real light curve is representative and not selected to maximize the signal.
    Analysis windows are chosen after visual inspection, for example P13 after MJD 57,500 and the NGC 4945 segment; this can inflate significance, as the authors acknowledge for NGC 4945.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mind the gaps: improved methods for the detection of periodicities in unevenly-sampled data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWED73L3

@misc{pith2026250105602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mind the gaps: improved methods for the detection of periodicities in unevenly-sampled data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWED73L3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05602}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of periodic signals in irregularly-sampled time series is a problem commonly encountered in astronomy. Traditional tools used for periodic searches, such as the periodogram, have poorly defined statistical properties under irregular sampling, which complicate inferring the underlying aperiodic variability used for hypothesis testing. The problem is exacerbated in the presence of stochastic variability, which can be easily mistaken by genuine periodic behaviour, particularly in the case of poorly sampled lightcurves. Here we present a method based on Gaussian Processes (GPs) modelling for period searches and characterization, specifically developed to overcome these problems. We argue that in cases of irregularly-sampled time series, GPs offer an appealing alternative to traditional periodograms, because the known distribution of the data (correlated Gaussian) allows a well-defined likelihood to be constructed. We exploit this property and draw from existing statistical methods to perform traditional likelihood ratio tests for an additional, (quasi-)periodic component, using the aperiodic variability inferred from the data as the null hypothesis. Inferring the noise from the data allows the method to be fully generalizable, with the only condition that the data can be described as a Gaussian process. We demonstrate the method by applying it to a variety of objects showing varying levels of noise and data quality. Limitations of the method are discussed and a package implementing the proposed methodology is made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05602 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean best-fit 𝛽 for an ensemble of 1,000 Lomb-Scargle pe￾riodograms of lightcurves generated with a PSD following a powerlaw 𝑆( 𝑓 ) ∼ 𝑓 −𝛽 with 𝛽 = 1 (blue solid line) and 1.8 (orange solid line). The periodograms were fitted with a linear function in log-log space (i.e. assuming the powers follow a 𝜒 2 2 as for the regularly-sampled case) as we progressively removed datapoints. The best-fit 𝛽 quickly deviates from … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PSDs of the celerite models used in this work. All PSDs are shown with the same integrated variance. The DRW results in a bending powerlaw in Fourier space (dashed orange line), whereas the exponentially decaying sinusoid gives a Lorentzian, which is shown for different values of coherence, 𝑄, in blue solid lines. For 𝑄 ≲ 3/2, the Lorentzian becomes broad, mimicking a bending powerlaw (see Belloni et al. 2002). The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a simulated lightcurve, generated to test the sensitivity of our method to false negatives (𝑁 = 250 Δ𝑡 ≈ 4 days). (Left) Lightcurve generated using a Lorentzian + DRW, with bending timescale of 60 days, and period of 100 days. (Right) Corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodogram. 0 5 10 t (days) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 p - v alu e T = 1,000 days 250 500 750 1000 T (days) t = 1 day [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of 𝑝-values (with colors indicating the density of values) obtained from the application of our PPP method to 100 simulated lightcurves using a Lorentzian (QPO) + DRW with varying cadence (left) and baseline (right). Dashed colored horizontal lines show th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of simulated lightcurves generated to test the sensitivity of our method to false positives. (Top left) Lightcurve generated using a DRW with bending timescale of 65 days (𝑁 = 300, cadence roughly every 1 days). (Top right) Corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodogra…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Combined EPIC 0.3–10 keV lightcurve of the Seyfert galaxy NGC1365. (Right) Corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodogram (oversampled by a factor 5). The pink dashed line shows the mean periodogram of 10,000 lightcurves simulated from the posteriors of the Matérn-3/2 +…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GP modelling results of the combined XMM–Newton EPIC data of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1365 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NGC 7793 P13 Swift-UVOT lightcurve, with the segment considered for analysis indicated with a vertical dashed line and an arrow. (Right) Lomb￾Scargle periodogram of the 𝑈 band lightcurve segment indicated in the left-hand panel. The black vertical arrows indicate harmo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: GP modelling results of the Swift-UVOT lightcurve segment ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: GP modelling results of the Swift-XRT data of the pulsating ULX NGC 7793 P13. (Top Left) Best-fit 3×Lorentzian + Matérn-3/2 + Jitter model to the Swift-XRT 0.3−10 keV lightcurve segment of NGC 7793 P13 shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Left) RXTE lightcurve of the AGN NGC 4945. The segment where Smith et al. (2020) reported the significance of the QPO to be strongest is highlighted with a dashed line and an arrow. (Right) Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the segment indicated in the right panel. The ver…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: GP modelling results of the RXTE lightcurve segment shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (Left) TESS lightcurve of the Blazar, B0537-441 from sectors 32 & 33 (cf. Figure 3b in Tripathi et al. 2024). (Right) Corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodogram (black solid line). The power spectrum of the observing window is shown as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: GP modelling results of the RXTE data of the TESS lightcurve of the Blazar, B0537-441 shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: As per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A period-increasing oscillation signal in a long gamma-ray burst

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRB 131122B shows eight pulses with spacing growing from 1.27 to 4.02 seconds, claimed as the fastest evolving-period signal in electromagnetic astrophysics, possibly from a precessing disk around a newly formed inter...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 199--213, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 , http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15

    Akaike H., 1998, in Parzen E., Tanabe K., Kitagawa G., eds, , Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike . Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 199--213, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 , http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 1998

  2. [2]

    N., Markeviciute J., Kara E., Fabian A

    Alston W. N., Markeviciute J., Kara E., Fabian A. C., Middleton M., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu127 , 445, L16

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu127 2014

  3. [3]

    I., Middleton M

    Ashton D. I., Middleton M. J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa4024 , 501, 5478

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4024 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Kolb U

    Barnard R., Trudolyubov S., Haswell C. A., Kolb U. C., Osborne J. P., Priedhorsky W. H., 2007, AIP Conference Proceedings, 924, 691

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Belloni T., Psaltis D., Klis M. v. d., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/340290 , 572, 392

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  6. [6]

    M., Dorn-Wallenstein T

    Bowman D. M., Dorn-Wallenstein T. Z., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243545 , 668, A134

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243545 2022

  7. [8]

    M., Mushotzky R

    Done C., Madejski G. M., Mushotzky R. F., Turner T. J., Koyama K., Kunieda H., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/171979 , 400, 138

    work page doi:10.1086/171979 1992

  8. [9]

    M., Życki P

    Done C., Madejski G. M., Życki P. T., Greenhill L. J., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/374332 , 588, 763

    doi:10.1086/374332 2003

Show all 65 references
  1. [10]

    M., Papadakis I

    Emmanoulopoulos D., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt764 , 433, 907

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , 469, 379

    Evans P. A., et al., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , 469, 379

    2007 doi

  3. [13]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , 1, 24

    2016 doi

  4. [14]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  5. [15]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Ambikasaran S., Angus R., 2017, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 , 154, 220

    2017 doi

  6. [16]

    Frescura F. A. M., Engelbrecht C. A., Frank B. S., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13499.x , 388, 1693

    2008

  7. [17]

    Fürst F., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L14 , 831

    2016 doi

  8. [18]

    Fürst F., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833292 , 616, A186

    2018 doi

  9. [19]

    Fürst F., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140625 , 651, A75

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    H., Foreman-Mackey D., Shih Y.-h., Barnett A., 2024, nifty-ls: Fast and Accurate Lomb - Scargle Periodograms Using a Non - Uniform FFT , http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08090

    Garrison L. H., Foreman-Mackey D., Shih Y.-h., Barnett A., 2024, nifty-ls: Fast and Accurate Lomb - Scargle Periodograms Using a Non - Uniform FFT , http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08090

    2024 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/422091 , 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  12. [22]

    Gierliński M., Middleton M., Ward M., Done C., 2008, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature07277 , 455, 369

    2008 doi

  13. [23]

    González-Martín O., Vaughan S., 2012, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219008 , 544, A80

    2012 doi

  14. [24]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature14143 , 518, 74

    Graham M. J., et al., 2015, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature14143 , 518, 74

    2015 doi

  15. [25]

    Gúrpide A., Mangham S., 2025, andresgur/mind\_the\_gaps: Release for paper , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.14600069 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14600069

    2025 doi

  16. [26]

    H., Baliunas S

    Horne J. H., Baliunas S. L., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164037 , 302, 757

    1986 doi

  17. [27]

    L., Kong A

    Hu C.-P., Li K. L., Kong A. K. H., Ng C.-Y., Lin L. C.-C., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/835/1/L9 , 835, L9

    2017 doi

  18. [28]

    M., Tsai C.-L., 1989, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/76.2.297 , pp 297--307

    Hurvich C. M., Tsai C.-L., 1989, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/76.2.297 , pp 297--307

    1989 doi

  19. [29]

    D., Inglis A

    Hübner M., Huppenkothen D., Lasky P. D., Inglis A. R., Ick C., Hogg D. W., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7959 , 936, 17

    2022 doi

  20. [31]

    L., Stella L., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/177697 , 468, 369

    Israel G. L., Stella L., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/177697 , 468, 369

    1996 doi

  21. [32]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [Mon Not R Astron Soc Lett] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw218 , 466, L48

    Israel G. L., et al., 2017, @doi [Mon Not R Astron Soc Lett] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw218 , 466, L48

    2017 doi

  22. [33]

    M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV . SPIE, pp 1232--1251, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  23. [34]

    Jiang N., et al., 2022, Tick- Tock : The Imminent Merger of a Supermassive Black Hole Binary , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11633 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11633

    2022 doi arXiv

  24. [35]

    Notes AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/abfe68 , 5, 107

    Jordán A., Eyheramendy S., Buchner J., 2021, @doi [Res. Notes AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/abfe68 , 5, 107

    2021 doi

  25. [36]

    S., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319 , 605, A51

    Kaastra J. S., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319 , 605, A51

    2017 doi

  26. [37]

    C., Sobolewska M., Siemiginowska A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/52 , 730, 52

    Kelly B. C., Sobolewska M., Siemiginowska A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/52 , 730, 52

    2011 doi

  27. [38]

    C., Becker A

    Kelly B. C., Becker A. C., Sobolewska M., Siemiginowska A., Uttley P., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/33 , 788, 33

    2014 doi

  28. [39]

    J., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2071 , 524, 4302

    Khan N., Middleton M. J., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2071 , 524, 4302

    2023 doi

  29. [40]

    M., Charles P

    Kotze M. M., Charles P. A., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20146.x , 420, 1575

    2012

  30. [41]

    P., Burrows D

    Kraft R. P., Burrows D. N., Nousek J. A., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170124 , 374, 344

    1991 doi

  31. [42]

    R., 1976, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp.447-462] 10.1007/BF00648343 , 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp.447-462] 10.1007/BF00648343 , 39, 447

    1976 doi

  32. [43]

    Markowitz A., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/26 , 724, 26

    2010 doi

  33. [44]

    W., Soria R., Grisé F., Pietrzyński G., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature13730 , 514, 198

    Motch C., Pakull M. W., Soria R., Grisé F., Pietrzyński G., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature13730 , 514, 198

    2014 doi

  34. [45]

    Mueller M., Madejski G., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/243 , 700, 243

    2009 doi

  35. [46]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aar7480 , 363, 531

    Pasham D. R., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aar7480 , 363, 531

    2019 doi

  36. [47]

    R., et al., 2024, Lense- Thirring Precession after a Supermassive Black Hole Disrupts a Star , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09689 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09689

    Pasham D. R., et al., 2024, Lense- Thirring Precession after a Supermassive Black Hole Disrupts a Star , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09689 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09689

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [48]

    A., Connors A., Kashyap V

    Protassov R., van Dyk D. A., Connors A., Kashyap V. L., Siemiginowska A., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/339856 , 571, 545

    2002 doi

  38. [49]

    E., Williams C

    Rasmussen C. E., Williams C. K. I., 2006, Gaussian processes for machine learning. Adaptive computation and machine learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    2006

  39. [50]

    R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave . SPIE, pp 556--570, @doi 10.1117/12.2063489

    2014 doi

  40. [51]

    D., 1982, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/160554 , 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/160554 , 263, 835

    1982 doi

  41. [52]

    Smith E., Robles R., Perlman E., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb593 , 902, 65

    2020 doi

  42. [53]

    Stella L., Arlandi E., Tagliaferri G., Israel G. L., 1994, Continuum Power Spectrum Components in X - Ray Sources : Detailed Modelling and Search for Coherent Periodicities , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9411050 , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9411050

    1994 doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    Timmer J., Koenig M., 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 300, 707

    1995

  44. [55]

    L., Wiita P

    Tripathi A., Smith K. L., Wiita P. J., Wagoner R. V., 2024, Search for Quasi - Periodic Oscillations in TESS light curves of bright Fermi Blazars , http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04352

    2024 arXiv

  45. [56]

    M., Papadakis I

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05298.x , 332, 231

    2002

  46. [58]

    T., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , 236, 16

    VanderPlas J. T., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , 236, 16

    2018 doi

  47. [59]

    K., Koliopanos F., Bailyn C

    Vasilopoulos G., Lander S. K., Koliopanos F., Bailyn C. D., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3298 , 491, 4949

    2020 doi

  48. [60]

    Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041453 , 431, 391

    2005 doi

  49. [61]

    Vaughan S., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x , 402, 307

    2010

  50. [62]

    Vaughan S., Uttley P., 2005, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09296.x , 362, 235

    2005

  51. [63]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , 345, 1271

    2003

  52. [64]

    G., Huppenkothen D., Middleton M

    Vaughan S., Uttley P., Markowitz A. G., Huppenkothen D., Middleton M. J., Alston W. N., Scargle J. D., Farr W. M., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1412 , 461, 3145

    2016 doi

  53. [65]

    A., Smith D., Childs J

    Waller L. A., Smith D., Childs J. E., Real L. A., 2003, @doi [Ecological Modelling] 10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00011-5 , 164, 49

    2003 doi

  54. [66]

    Yan Y., Zhang P., Liu Q., Chang Z., Liu G., Yan J., Zeng X., 2024, An X - Ray High - Frequency QPO in NGC 1365, http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16187

    2024 arXiv

  55. [67]

    Zhang H., Yang S., Dai B., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbe37 , 946, 52

    2023 doi

  56. [68]

    Series C, Mathematical and Physical Sciences

    van der Klis M., 1988, NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series. Series C, Mathematical and Physical Sciences

    1988

  57. [69]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.