Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Milliarcsecond astrometric oscillations in active galactic nuclei as a precursor of multi-messenger gravitational wave events

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the 7.9-year astrometric oscillation of the quasar J0204+1514 is the orbital signature of a supermassive black hole binary whose gravitational-wave-driven inspiral will culminate in a merger on a timescale of about…

desk verdict A careful, well-hedged SMBHB candidate study with a robust DEC period, a marginal RA signal, and an explicitly unproven binary link; it merits refereeing but needs a red-noise reanalysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02146 v3 pith:FIBCZFWF submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Leonid I. Gurvits , Alexander G. Polnarev , Sandor Frey , Oleg Titov , Angelina A. Osetrova , Xiaohui Fan , Alexey Melnikov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords supermassiveblackholebinariesastrometricoscillationsVLBIastrometrygravitationalwavesmulti-messengerastronomyquasarJ0204+1514pulsartimingarrays
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

The paper tries to establish that a periodic wobble in the measured sky position of the quasar J0204+1514, with a period of about 7.9 years seen independently in right ascension and declination in VLBI astrometry, is the astrometric signature of orbital motion in a supermassive black hole binary. If that interpretation holds, the binary separation is about $8.9\times10^{-3}$ pc, roughly 89 gravitational radii for a $10^9$ solar-mass primary, placing the system in the gravitational-wave-driven inspiral regime with a merger timescale near $1.2\times10^6\,(M_9/q_{-2})$ yr. Such an object would be a rare multi-messenger precursor: an electromagnetic source today whose gravitational-wave signal should become observable on a cosmologically short timescale. The authors also build a minimal toy model that turns a single measured period into quantitative predictions for space-based gravitational-wave detectors and pulsar timing arrays, and they argue that continued astrometric monitoring can find more such systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-step mapping from astrometry to gravitational waves. First, a generalized Lomb–Scargle periodogram and a cross-spectrum analysis extract a common $7.9$ year harmonic from the right-ascension and declination time series of absolute VLBI positions; the declination signal is highly significant while the right-ascension signal is weaker. Second, a toy model assumes a circular orbit of a low-mass secondary ($q\ll1$) around a non-rotating primary, so Kepler's third law converts the observed period into a separation $a$, and the quadrupole formula for gravitational-wave energy loss converts that separation into an inspiral timescale $t_{gw}\simeq(5r_g/8cq)(a/r_g)^4$. The single observational input is the period; everything else follows from assumed masses, mass ratio, redshift, and the requirement that the secondary reaches the gravitational-wave regime within a cosmological time.

What would settle it

Continued VLBI monitoring of J0204+1514 over at least two more periods that fails to reproduce the 7.9-year harmonic in both coordinates, or that shows the wobble amplitude and phase tracking individual jet-component ejections or flux-density flares instead of a stable Keplerian ellipse, would falsify the binary interpretation and with it the derived separation and merger timescale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that J0204+1514 shows a coherent harmonic astrometric oscillation of sub-milliarcsecond amplitude with period $T\simeq7.9$ yr in both celestial coordinates, and that the most plausible cause is Keplerian orbital motion of a secondary black hole around a more massive primary. Treating the secondary as a test mass in a circular orbit, Kepler's third law gives a separation $a\simeq8.9\times10^{-3}$ pc $\simeq89\,r_g$ for a $10^9\,M_\odot$ primary at redshift $z=0.834$. Comparing the gravitational-wave energy-loss timescale with the accretion-disc interaction timescale in the toy model, the authors find that gravitational-wave emission already dominates the orbital evolution, with $t_{gw}\simeq1.2\times10^6\,(M_9/q_{-2})$ yr. The paper does not claim conclusive proof: it explicitly notes that the jet-centroid explanation would require a separate study and that another reason for the astrometric behaviour cannot be ruled out, but it argues that the binary interpretation is very plausible and that the multi-messenger link between radio astrometry and gravitational waves is the essential point, independent of the specific numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 7.9-year astrometric oscillation of J0204+1514 is produced by orbital motion in a binary black hole system, rather than by changes in the jet's brightness distribution or by systematic errors in absolute VLBI astrometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • J0204+1514 would become one of the closest-separation supermassive black hole binary candidates known, with $a\simeq8.9\times10^{-3}$ pc $\simeq89\,r_g$, already in the gravitational-wave-dominated inspiral phase.
  • The predicted merger timescale $t_{gw}\simeq1.2\times10^6\,(M_9/q_{-2})$ yr makes the system a concrete multi-messenger target: a gravitational-wave source expected to form within a cosmologically short time.
  • The same toy model applied to any other astrometrically oscillating source turns one measured period into estimates of separation, inspiral time, and gravitational-wave detectability, so systematic VLBI astrometry can build a census of pre-merger binaries.
  • The paper's quantitative constraints specify what parameter space future space-based gravitational-wave interferometers must reach to detect individual systems like this one, and how many similar binaries would be needed to explain the pulsar-timing-array background.
  • Future space-borne VLBI with microarcsecond resolution could directly image the milli-parsec separation of such binaries, converting astrometric candidates into resolved dual nuclei and completing the electromagnetic side of the multi-messenger event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed periodicity reflects jet or accretion modulation rather than the orbital period itself, the GRMHD results cited in the paper imply the true orbital period could differ by a factor of 0.7–1.0, shifting the inferred separation by the corresponding two-thirds power; multi-cycle jet-structure monitoring could test this.
  • Applying the same periodogram-to-toy-model pipeline to the dozens of quasi-periodic VLBI sources already catalogued in the literature would yield a population-level estimate of milli-parsec binaries and their gravitational-wave background contribution without assuming galaxy merger rates.
  • A decisive observational separation of the two explanations would be multi-frequency, phase-referenced imaging of J0204+1514 against a stable background source: persistence of the 7.9-year harmonic in the core position relative to the reference would strongly support the binary interpretation, while correlation of the wobble with flaring or structural changes would favor a jet origin.
  • If this interpretation is typical, the same absolute-VLBI data that define the celestial reference frame could be mined systematically for other periodic wobbles, turning a by-product of geodetic monitoring into a discovery channel for gravitational-wave precursor sources.
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 reports the detection of a quasi-periodic astrometric oscillation with a period of about 7.9 years in the VLBI position time series of the quasar J0204+1514, and interprets the oscillation as orbital motion in a supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB). Using this period as the sole observed input, the authors construct a 'toy model' that yields a binary separation a ≈ 8.9e-3 pc (about 89 r_g for a 10^9 M_sun primary, Eq. 14) and a gravitational-wave-driven merger timescale t_gw ≈ 1.2e6 (M9/q_-2) yr (Eq. 21). They also discuss detectability by LISA and the contribution to the PTA GW background, and provide a re-assessed redshift z=1.42 for the previously studied source J2102+6015 in an appendix. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the jet-centroid variability is an alternative explanation that is not ruled out, and that the binary interpretation is an assumption.

Significance. If the periodicity and its binary interpretation are robust, the paper would add a new SMBHB candidate at sub-parsec separation with a remarkably short orbital period, and it would demonstrate a practical multi-messenger link between VLBI astrometry and future gravitational-wave observations. The toy-model derivation is transparent and uses standard Keplerian and quadrupole formulas, and the paper is honest about the assumption-laden nature of the interpretation. However, the significance hinges on two load-bearing points that are not fully established: (1) the statistical reality of the 7.9-yr periodicity against realistic red noise, and (2) the causal association between the astrometric oscillation and binary orbital motion. The paper's own text repeatedly states that these links are not proven. As a candidate-identification and forward-looking framework paper, it has value; as a detection of an SMBHB, the current evidence is not yet sufficient. The main contribution is the quantitative framework for connecting astrometric oscillations to GW predictions, which is useful regardless of the specific source.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.2] The claimed significance of the 7.9-yr peak uses bootstrap resampling and the Baluev (2008) analytic FAP, both of which assume independent noise. VLBI astrometric time series are widely known to contain time-correlated errors (atmospheric/ionospheric delays, unmodeled source structure), and J0204+1514 itself is a core-jet source with components moving at up to 15.9c (§2.1). With dense monitoring spanning only about 1.9 cycles of the 7.9-yr period, a red-noise process could produce a similar low-frequency peak. The quoted DEC FAP of 2.4e-13 is therefore not a realistic measure of the detection confidence unless a red-noise null is constructed. Please re-evaluate the significance with simulated time series that have the same cadence, error bars, and a power-law or ARMA-like noise spectrum constrained by the data, and report the FAP of the observed peak under that null.
  2. [§3 and §6] The causal link between the observed oscillation and orbital motion in a binary is the load-bearing assumption of the paper. The authors state in §3 that the jet-centroid explanation 'requires a separate study' and in §6 that they 'cannot rule out another reason for the apparent astrometric behaviour.' Since Eqs. (13)-(21) in §4 feed only the observed period into the toy model, if the oscillation is produced by jet component motion or by systematics, all derived SMBHB parameters and GW predictions lose their applicability to this source. The paper should either provide a positive observational test—for example, a check that the RA and DEC amplitudes and phases in Table 1 are consistent with a projected elliptical Keplerian orbit, or a comparison with long-term VLBI imaging of jet components—or explicitly label the Section 4 results as purely illustrative and not as evidence for a binary in J0204+1514.
  3. [§2.2 and Table 1] No uncertainty is given for the period of 7.9 yr, and different methods yield different values: 7.8 yr from the cross-spectrum (Fig. 2) and 8.05 yr in DEC only from Makarov et al. (2024), as cited in §3. Because the period is the single observational input to the toy model, the derived separation a=8.9×10^-3 pc and timescale t_gw=1.2×10^6 (M9/q_-2) yr in Eqs. (14) and (21) have no quoted uncertainty. Please quantify the period uncertainty (e.g., from bootstrap or a covariance-based method), assess whether the 7.8 yr and 8.05 yr values are consistent with 7.9 yr within that uncertainty, and propagate the period error into the derived quantities in Section 4.
  4. [§4.3, Eq. (21)] The sentence following Eq. (21) states that 'we can predict that, in approximately one million years, this object is likely to become a source of detectable gravitational radiation.' This is only true for the fiducial values M9=1 and q_-2=1, which are not measured for J0204+1514. Since t_gw scales as M9/q_-2, different mass assumptions change the timescale by orders of magnitude. Please either present this as a scaling relation with the fiducial values stated explicitly, or provide observational constraints on M and q for this source. Otherwise, the statement may be interpreted as a source-specific prediction rather than an illustrative example.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The source designation is inconsistent: the text and figure captions use both J0204+1415 and J0204+1514. Please use one name consistently.
  2. [Eq. (18)] The sentence 'This variation in r corresponds to the timescale...' refers to a variable r that is not defined in Eq. (18); the equation is written in terms of a. Also, the notation r_g appears both as 'r_g' and 'rg' in Eqs. (14)-(21); please unify the notation.
  3. [§2.2.1] The trend order (quadratic for RA, cubic for DEC) is selected using significance tests on the same data that are later used for the periodogram. The quoted FAPs do not account for this model-selection step. Please state this caveat, or use an information criterion to justify the chosen trend order.
  4. [Appendix A] The re-assessed redshift z=1.42 for J2102+6015 is based on a single emission line and is acknowledged to be non-unique. The abstract uses the phrase 'ad hoc result'; in the main text it may be helpful to add 'tentative' to avoid overstatement.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'nearly 30 years' for the GLS spectra, while the text mentions about 15 years of dense IVS monitoring until 2009. Please clarify the time span covered by the data used in the periodograms and in the model fits, and how the sparse post-2009 data are weighted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derived SMBHB separation and GW timescale are standard Kepler/quadrupole consequences of the observed period, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: detect a 7.9 yr GLS peak in VLBI astrometry of J0204+1514 (Sec. 2.2, Table 1), validate it by cross-spectrum at 7.8 yr and by an independent 8.05 yr DEC detection (Makarov et al. 2024), then assume, with explicit caveats, that the oscillation reflects SMBHB orbital motion (Secs. 3 and 4). The toy model feeds just the observed period T, together with assumed M9=1, q=0.01, and z=0.834, into Kepler's third law (Eq. 13) to obtain separation a ≈ 8.9e-3 pc (Eq. 14), and into the standard quadrupole formula (Eqs. 16-19) to obtain t_gw ≈ 1.2e6 yr (Eq. 21). No output quantity is fitted back to the astrometric data, so the 'prediction' is an algebraic consequence of the input period rather than a disguised fit. The self-citations (Titov et al. 2023; Gurvits et al. 2023) concern J2102+6015 and do not enter the J0204 parameter estimates; the Appendix A redshift re-estimate is a separate spectral re-interpretation and is not load-bearing for the GW derivation. The admitted limitations (Sec. 3: the jet-centroid explanation 'requires a separate study'; Sec. 6 item 1: the authors 'cannot rule out another reason for the apparent astrometric behaviour') are evidence-strength caveats about the binary assumption, not circular reductions. Similarly, the weak RA significance (FAP_bootstrap = 0.06) and the possible red-noise contamination of the periodogram are statistical robustness concerns, not derivation-circularity concerns. Overall, the chain is self-contained with respect to its stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on four chosen or fitted numbers: the observed period, the assumed primary mass, the assumed mass ratio, and the assumed accretion rate, plus several modeling assumptions about the orbit and the evolutionary pathway. The paper is explicit that the model is a toy and that the binary interpretation is not confirmed.

free parameters (4)
  • Observed astrometric period T = 7.9 yr (GLS; 7.8 yr cross-spectrum)
    The period is the main observational input (Eq. 13), fitted from the VLBI time series; it is used as the binary orbital period. No formal uncertainty is quoted.
  • Primary black hole mass M (normalized to M9 = 1) = 10^9 M_sun (chosen)
    Eqs. 13 and 14 set M9=1 to compute a ≈ 8.9e-3 pc; M is not measured for J0204+1514 in this paper. All GW timescale and detectability estimates scale with M or M^(5/3).
  • Mass ratio q (normalized to q_-2 = 1) = q = 0.01 (chosen)
    Section 4.1 assumes q << 1 and uses q_-2=1 in Eqs. 15, 21, 33, and 39; it is supported by cited X-ray work on other sources, not by data on J0204+1514.
  • Accretion rate Mdot (normalized to Mdot_1 = 1 M_sun/yr) = 1 M_sun/yr (chosen)
    Eq. 15 defines t_ev using Mdot_1 = accretion rate in M_sun/yr; the toy model adopts a reasonable value, citing Genzel et al. 2024, without measurement for this source.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed astrometric period equals the binary orbital period to within a factor of about 0.7 to 1.0.
    Section 3 states this assumption introduces no significant error, citing GRMHD simulations by Manikantan et al. 2025; it is load-bearing for applying Kepler's third law.
  • domain assumption The binary orbit is circular and the mass ratio is small, so the secondary moves as a test particle around a Schwarzschild primary.
    Section 4.1 invokes Polnarev & Rees 1994 for small eccentricity and sets q << 1; relativistic and eccentricity corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The 'last parsec problem' is solved: dynamical friction brings the secondary close enough in less than a Hubble time.
    Section 4.2 states 'we assume (without proof) that the timescale of reproaching of the secondary black hole to the central black hole due to dynamical friction in the cluster is considerably shorter than cosmological time.'
  • standard math Standard Kepler and quadrupole gravitational-wave formulas apply.
    Used in Eqs. 13, 16-19 without derivation, following Landau & Lifshitz 1975.
  • domain assumption The source redshift z = 0.834 for J0204+1514 is adopted from the literature.
    Jones et al. (2018) provides z = 0.834, used in Eq. 13 to convert the observed period to the rest-frame period; an incorrect redshift would shift the inferred separation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Milliarcsecond astrometric oscillations in active galactic nuclei as a precursor of multi-messenger gravitational wave events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIBCZFWF

@misc{pith2026250702146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Milliarcsecond astrometric oscillations in active galactic nuclei as a precursor of multi-messenger gravitational wave events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIBCZFWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02146}
}
read the original abstract

The existence of supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs) is predicted by various cosmological and evolutionary scenarios for active galactic nuclei. These objects are considered as contributors into the gravitational wave (GW) background and emitters of discrete GW bursts. Yet, SMBHBs remain a rather elusive class of extragalactic objects. Previously we have identified the quasar J2102+6015 as potential SMBHB system based on its oscillating astrometric pattern. We analysed the available VLBI astrometry data and identified another case of astrometric oscillations in the source J0204+1514. We assume these oscillations as manifestations of orbital motion in a binary systems. We estimated parameters of the suspected SMBHB in this source and applied basic theoretical models for projecting its evolution toward coalescence. We also develop a toy model of SMBHB consistent with the discovered astrometric oscillations and give quantitative predictions of GW emission of such the source using the case of J0204+1514 as an example. As an ad hoc result, we also provide a re-assessed estimate of the redshift of J2102+6015, z=1.42. A toy model of the object containing SMBHB with parameters consistent with the observed astrometric oscillations of the source J0204+1514 enabled us to consider GW emission as the cause of the system's orbital evolution. Astrometric VLBI monitoring has an appreciable potential for future detections of SMBHBs as multi-messenger targets for both electromagnetic (in radio domain) and gravitational wave astronomy. To outline the contours of a future physical model connecting SMBHB with detectable GW manifestations, we apply the toy model to the source J0204+1514. We also provide justification for aiming future space-borne VLBI missions toward direct imaging of SMBHBs as a synergistic contribution into future multi-messenger studies involving prospective GW facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top plots: GLS spectra of RA (left) and DEC (right) of VLBI astrometry measurements of the source J0204+1415 over nearly 30 years. The vertical blue lines indicate the peak (maximum) period value of 7.9 years in both co-ordinates. The horizontal red line marks the level below which the FAP (false alarm probability) is higher than 5% (VanderPlas 2018). Bottom plots: Temporal variations of RA (left) and DEC (right) of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the cross-spectrum, revealing a common pe￾riod in RA and DEC of 7.8 years. Although this value differs slightly from the result obtained with the GLS method in sub￾section 2.2.1, the difference appears to be small and could be a subject of a future detailed investigation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

    2016

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, L3

    2023

  3. [3]

    L., & Wiesemeyer, H

    Agudo, I., Thum, C., Gómez, J. L., & Wiesemeyer, H. 2014, A&A, 566, A59

    2014

  4. [4]

    2018, Radio Science, 53, 1211 Andrés-Carcasona, M., Iovino, A

    An, T., Mohan, P., & Frey, S. 2018, Radio Science, 53, 1211 Andrés-Carcasona, M., Iovino, A. J., Vaskonen, V ., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 023040 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2018

  5. [5]

    2025, Living Reviews in Relativity, 28, 4

    Ayzenberg, D., Blackburn, L., Brito, R., et al. 2025, Living Reviews in Relativity, 28, 4

    2025

  6. [6]

    Baluev, R. V . 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Baluev, R. V . 2014, Astrophysics, 57, 434

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    B., Peck, A

    Bansal, K., Taylor, G. B., Peck, A. B., Zavala, R. T., & Romani, R. W. 2017, ApJ, 843, 14

    work page 2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307

    1980

  2. [10]

    S., & Dotti, M

    Boschini, M., Gerosa, D., Salafia, O. S., & Dotti, M. 2024, A&A, 686, A245

    2024

  3. [11]

    B., Kardashev, N

    Braginsky, V . B., Kardashev, N. S., Polnarev, A. G., & Novikov, I. D. 1990, Nuovo Cimento B Serie, 105, 1141

    1990

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa50856-24-arXiv2

    2018

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 106

    Britzen, S., Zajaˇcek, M., Gopal-Krishna, et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 106

    2023

  6. [14]

    2025, ApJ, 979, L48

    Cao, X., Chen, Y .-M., Shi, Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, L48

    2025

  7. [15]

    1990, AJ, 99, 1309

    Charlot, P. 1990, AJ, 99, 1309

    1990

  8. [16]

    S., Gordon, D., et al

    Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159

    2020

  9. [17]

    & Wright, E

    Chen, X. & Wright, E. L. 2009, ApJ, 694, 222

    2009

  10. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 162

    Chen, Y .-C., Hwang, H.-C., Shen, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 162

    2022

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 29

    Chen, Y .-C., Liu, X., Lazio, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 29

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Jiang, Y

    Chen, Z.-H. & Jiang, Y . 2024, A&A, 689, A35

    2024

  13. [21]

    2014, Space Sci

    Colpi, M. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 189

    2014

  14. [22]

    2023, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Colpi, M., Dnzmann, K., Hewitson, M., & LISA Science and ESA Study Teams. 2023, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Definition Study Report, Tech. rep., ESA, ESA-SCI-DIR-RP-002 de la Parra, P. V ., Kiehlmann, S., Mróz, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 191 De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G....

    2023

  15. [23]

    J., Gopakumar, A., et al

    Dey, L., Valtonen, M. J., Gopakumar, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 11

    2018

  16. [24]

    B., Wiik, K., et al

    Dodson, R., Fomalont, E. B., Wiik, K., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 314 D’Orazio, D. J., Charisi, M., Derdzinski, A., et al. 2024, in Black Holes in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, ed. M. Arca Sedda, E. Bortolas, & M. Spera (Elsevier), 379–478, (updated version: arXiv:2310.16896)

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1 EHT

    Efron, B. 1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1 EHT. 2019, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L1 EHT. 2022, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930, L12

    1979

  18. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24224 Escrivà, A., Kuhnel, F., & Tada, Y

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., Urrutia, J., & Vaskonen, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24224 Escrivà, A., Kuhnel, F., & Tada, Y . 2024, in: Listening to the dark Universe: black holes in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy (Elsevier), 261–377, eds.: M. Arca Sedda, E. Bort...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Z., Notari, A., Pujolàs, O., & Rompineve, F

    Ferreira, R. Z., Notari, A., Pujolàs, O., & Rompineve, F. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 020

    2024

  20. [28]

    L., Gordon, D., Jacobs, C

    Fey, A. L., Gordon, D., Jacobs, C. S., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 58

    2015

  21. [29]

    2024, A&A Rev., 32, 3

    Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., & Gillessen, S. 2024, A&A Rev., 32, 3

    2024

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 691, L5 Gómez, J

    Goldoni, P., Boisson, C., Pita, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, L5 Gómez, J. L., Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 122

    2024

  23. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03627

    Goncharov, B., Sardana, S., Sesana, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03627

    2024

  24. [32]

    C., Chen, Y .-C., Oguri, M., et al

    Gross, A. C., Chen, Y .-C., Oguri, M., et al. 2024, arXiv [arXiv:2409.16363], ApJ, submitted

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    I., Frey, S., Krezinger, M., et al

    Gurvits, L. I., Frey, S., Krezinger, M., et al. 2023, in The Multimessenger Chakra of Blazar Jets, ed. I. Liodakis, M. F. Aller, H. Krawczynski, A. Lähteenmäki, & T. J. Pearson, V ol. Proc. IAUS #375, 86–90

    2023

  26. [34]

    I., Paragi, Z., Amils, R

    Gurvits, L. I., Paragi, Z., Amils, R. I., et al. 2022, Acta Astron., 196, 314

    2022

  27. [35]

    I., Paragi, Z., Casasola, V ., et al

    Gurvits, L. I., Paragi, Z., Casasola, V ., et al. 2021, Exp. Astronomy, 51, 559

    2021

  28. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 73

    Hwang, H.-C., Shen, Y ., Zakamska, N., & Liu, X. 2020, ApJ, 888, 73

    2020

  29. [37]

    B., Papaloizou, J

    Ivanov, P. B., Papaloizou, J. C. B., Paardekooper, S. J., & Polnarev, A. G. 2015, A&A, 576, A29

    2015

  30. [38]

    B., Papaloizou, J

    Ivanov, P. B., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Polnarev, A. G. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 79

    1999

  31. [39]

    B., Polnarev, A

    Ivanov, P. B., Polnarev, A. G., & Saha, P. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1361

    2005

  32. [40]

    Ivanov, P. B. & Zhuravlev, V . V . 2024, MNRAS, 528, 337

    2024

  33. [41]

    D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perri...

    2024

  34. [42]

    M., Ghosh, T., & Salter, C

    Jones, K. M., Ghosh, T., & Salter, C. J. 2018, AJ, 155, 254

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Chelouche, D

    Kollatschny, W. & Chelouche, D. 2024, A&A, 690, L2

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al

    Koss, M. J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L24

    2023

  37. [45]

    2024, Phys

    Kou, X.-X., Fragione, G., & Mandic, V . 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 123036

    2024

  38. [46]

    Y ., Kardashev, N

    Kovalev, Y . Y ., Kardashev, N. S., Sokolovsky, K. V ., et al. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 65, 705

    2020

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 163

    Kun, E., Jaroschewski, I., Ghorbanietemad, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 163

    2022

  40. [48]

    B., et al

    Kun, E., Jaroschewski, I., Tjus, J. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, L16

    2024

  41. [49]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 3732

    Kuznetsov, S. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 3732

    2024

  42. [50]

    Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields, 4th rev. English edn., Course of theoretical physics (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

    1975

  43. [51]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719

    1962

  44. [52]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 120

    2013

  45. [53]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  46. [54]

    V ., Lambert, S., Cigan, P., DiLullo, C., & Gordon, D

    Makarov, V . V ., Lambert, S., Cigan, P., DiLullo, C., & Gordon, D. 2024, PASP, 136, 054503

    2024

  47. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12375

    Manikantan, V ., Paschalidis, V ., & Bozzola, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12375

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4444

    Marcoccia, P., Nardini, G., & Pieroni, M. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4444

    2024

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 965, L4

    Matsuoka, Y ., Izumi, T., Onoue, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, L4

    2024

  50. [58]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441 O’Neill, S., Kiehlmann, S., Readhead, A

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441 O’Neill, S., Kiehlmann, S., Readhead, A. C. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, L35

    2016

  51. [59]

    A., Titov, O

    Osetrova, A. A., Titov, O. A., & Melnikov, A. E. 2024, Astronomy Letters, 50, 657

    2024

  52. [60]

    N., Helfand, D

    Owen, F. N., Helfand, D. J., & Spangler, S. R. 1981, ApJ, 250, L55

    1981

  53. [61]

    & Loeb, A

    Padmanabhan, H. & Loeb, A. 2024, A&A, 684, L15

    2024

  54. [62]

    R., Tombesi, F., Suková, P., et al

    Pasham, D. R., Tombesi, F., Suková, P., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadj8898

    2024

  55. [63]

    Piner, B. G. & Kingham, K. A. 1998, ApJ, 507, 706

    1998

  56. [64]

    G., Nakama, T., & Yokoyama, J

    Polnarev, A. G., Nakama, T., & Yokoyama, J. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 027

    2012

  57. [65]

    Polnarev, A. G. & Rees, M. J. 1994, A&A, 283, 301

    1994

  58. [66]

    Priestley, M. B. 1981, Spectral Analysis and Time Series (Academic Press)

    1981

  59. [67]

    A., Fragione, G., Rasio, F

    Purohit, R. A., Fragione, G., Rasio, F. A., Petter, G. C., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, AJ, 167, 191

    2024

  60. [68]

    B., Zavala, R

    Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 49

    2006

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 265

    Saeedzadeh, V ., Babul, A., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 265

    2024

  62. [70]

    2024, Phys

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063020

    2024

  63. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09786

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09786

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  65. [73]

    W., Michelson, P

    Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R. W., Michelson, P. F., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2004, ApJ, 609, 564

    2004

  66. [74]

    2025, Phys

    Spadaro, A., Buscicchio, R., Izquierdo–Villalba, D., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023004

    2025

  67. [75]

    2003, Science, 300, 1263

    Sudou, H., Iguchi, S., Murata, Y ., & Taniguchi, Y . 2003, Science, 300, 1263

    2003

  68. [76]

    W., Scharwächter, J., Peck, A., & Taylor, G

    Surti, T., Romani, R. W., Scharwächter, J., Peck, A., & Taylor, G. B. 2024, ApJ, 960, 110

    2024

  69. [77]

    & Seifina, E

    Titarchuk, L. & Seifina, E. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1368633

    2024

  70. [78]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 874

    Titov, O., Frey, S., Melnikov, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 874

    2022

  71. [79]

    2023, AJ, 165, 69 Trindade Falcão, A., Turner, T

    Titov, O., Frey, S., Melnikov, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 69 Trindade Falcão, A., Turner, T. J., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 185

    2023

  72. [80]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16 Véron-Cetty, M. P. & Véron, P. 2006, A&A, 455, 773 V oggel, K. T., Seth, A. C., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A152

    2018

  73. [81]

    Winkler, M. W. & Freese, K. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083509

    2025

  74. [82]

    H., Anderson, J

    Xu, M. H., Anderson, J. M., Heinkelmann, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 5

    2019

  75. [83]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 36

    Xu, W., Cui, L., Liu, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 36

    2024

  76. [84]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 20 Article number, page 12 of 13 L.I

    Zhao, S.-S., Jiang, W., Lu, R.-S., Huang, L., & Shen, Z. 2024, ApJ, 961, 20 Article number, page 12 of 13 L.I. Gurvits et al.: Milliarcsecond oscillations and multi-messenger studies Appendix A: On the redshift of the source J2102+6015 Our attention to possible astrometric osc...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.