Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Eppur si muove: Evidence of disc precession or a sub-milliparsec SMBH binary in the QPE-emitting galaxy GSN 069

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GSN 069's quasi-periodic eruptions arrive on a wobbling schedule that the plain impacts model cannot explain, pointing to a precessing accretion disc or a sub-milliparsec supermassive-black-hole binary.

desk verdict Careful O-C analysis of QPE timing in GSN 069, but the correlated odd/even modulation only kills the simplest impacts model if the impact-to-peak delay is constant — an assumption the authors themselves flag as shaky. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13460 v1 pith:UDQCMZQN submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Giovanni Miniutti , Alessia Franchini , Matteo Bonetti , Margherita Giustini , Joheen Chakraborty , Riccardo Arcodia , Richard Saxton , Erwan Quintin
show 3 more authors
Peter Kosec Itai Linial Alberto Sesana
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords X-rayquasi-periodiceruptionsGSN069O-Cdiagramsextrememass-ratioinspiral(EMRI)accretiondiscprecessionsupermassiveblackholebinarytimingtidaldisruptionevents
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

GSN 069, the first galaxy in which X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) were found, emits its bursts on a schedule that the standard 'impacts' model cannot reproduce on its own. Building Observed-minus-Calculated (O-C) diagrams separately for the odd and even eruptions, the paper finds that both branches wobble together on a super-orbital timescale of roughly 19 days or 43-44 days, with an amplitude of 2.5-2.8 hours. Relativistic apsidal precession, the only internal timing effect in the simplest impacts model, would instead make the two branches oscillate in anti-phase and with an amplitude about ten times smaller. The paper concludes that an external driver — a rigidly precessing misaligned accretion disc, or an outer supermassive black hole forming a sub-milliparsec binary with the inner extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) — must be modulating the impact times. If this is right, the QPE system in GSN 069 is the first short-period EMRI detected electromagnetically in an external galaxy.

What carries the argument

The O-C (Observed minus Calculated) diagram, built separately for odd and even QPEs — the two disc crossings per EMRI orbit — is the load-bearing tool. It converts each burst's peak time into a residual against a constant trial period, so that a linear drift signals a period offset, a parabola signals a period derivative, and a sinusoid signals an external modulation; because both branches must share the same orbital period, whether the two residual curves move together or in anti-phase distinguishes an external driver (precessing disc or light-travel-time delay in an outer binary) from apsidal precession of the EMRI orbit. The discriminating comparison is made with numerical simulations of impact times from the impacts model, with and without these external drivers.

What would settle it

Run a long, high-cadence X-ray campaign on GSN 069 that catches at least three eruptions per visit over four or more cycles of the proposed ~19-day modulation, measuring both O-C residuals and the quiescent flux. If the odd and even O-C branches turn out anti-correlated, or if the ~19-20-day flux modulation fails to reappear at the predicted phase relative to the QPE time delays, the external-modulation claim is falsified; if the apparent period curve is peaked rather than sinusoidal, disc precession is favoured, while a sinusoidal curve favours the binary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the O-C diagrams of odd and even QPEs in GSN 069 share a common ~18.07 hr period and a common period derivative, yet both are modulated together on a tens-of-days timescale with correlated branches. This correlation is the opposite of what the impacts model predicts: relativistic apsidal precession forces the two branches of the O-C diagram into anti-phase, and its amplitude is only minutes, roughly an order of magnitude below the observed 2.5-2.8 hr variation. Using simulations of impact times, the paper shows that either a rigidly precessing accretion disc with period 19 d or 43-44 d, or an outer supermassive-black-hole binary with sub-milliparsec separation and orbital period matching the modulation period, reproduces the correlated O-C pattern while preserving the alternating long/short recurrence times. The paper further notes that a binary would Doppler-boost the quiescent disc emission by a parameter-free ~42% for the 19-day case, and that the 2024 X-ray monitoring shows a tentative ~19.9-day, 40-50% flux modulation consistent with that prediction, though the data are not yet conclusive.

Load-bearing premise

The timing analysis assumes the delay between each disc impact and the observed X-ray peak is identical for every eruption, so peak arrival times can stand in for impact times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The impacts model survives for GSN 069 only if an external modulation is added: both a rigidly precessing disc and an outer sub-milliparsec SMBH binary reproduce the correlated O-C branches and the ~2.5-2.8 hr amplitude.
  • The quiescent disc emission should be modulated on the same timescale as the O-C wobble; a tentative ~19.9-day, 40-50% X-ray flux modulation seen in 2024 is consistent with the ~19-day O-C period.
  • Disc precession predicts a distinctive peaked shape in the apparent orbital period curve and a period that lengthens (and amplitude that decays) over years, while a binary predicts a sinusoidal shape and gravitational-wave-driven changes too small to detect on a decade timescale.
  • In the binary case, Doppler boosting predicts a parameter-free ~42% flux modulation for the 19-day solution with a quarter-cycle phase offset between O-C delays and flux peaks, providing a distinguishability test.
  • If confirmed, GSN 069's QPEs constitute the first electromagnetic detection of a short-period EMRI in an external galaxy, opening the route to combined electromagnetic and gravitational-wave studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unknown impact-to-peak delay varies with precession phase, part of the correlated O-C signal could be an artifact; a natural test is to model a precession-dependent delay and see whether it absorbs the modulation.
  • The same odd/even O-C correlation diagnostic could be applied to the other QPE-hosting galaxies, turning a single-source anomaly into a population-wide search for precessing discs or tight SMBH binaries.
  • A campaign that measures O-C delays and quiescent flux quasi-simultaneously over several cycles could settle precession versus binary from the predicted quarter-cycle phase offset, without waiting for long-term period drift.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the timing of X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) in GSN 069, focusing on O-C diagrams built from QPE peak times in four 2018-2019 observations (15 QPEs) and testing three possible identifications of the May 2019 events. It reports a common orbital period Porb ~ 18.07 hr for odd and even QPEs, a possible period derivative with three allowed values, and a sinusoidal O-C modulation with period ~19 d or ~43-44 d and semi-amplitude ~2.5-2.8 hr. The authors compare these results with predictions of the impacts model, arguing that the simplest version predicts anti-correlated O-C branches and only minute-level amplitude, whereas the data show correlated branches with marginal phase difference. They propose two external modulation mechanisms: rigid precession of a misaligned accretion disc or an outer SMBH binary forming a sub-milliparsec hierarchical triple with the inner EMRI. They support these scenarios with numerical impact-time simulations and report a tentative ~19.9 d, ~40-50% modulation in the 2024 Swift/NICER quiescent X-ray light curve, consistent with a parameter-free Doppler-boosting prediction for the 19 d O-C solution.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this would be the first electromagnetic detection of a short-period EMRI system in an external galaxy and would motivate a new observational route to sub-milliparsec SMBH binaries. The paper has several genuine strengths: the O-C analysis is careful, with barycentric corrections, conservative timing uncertainties, and explicit tests of three epoch identifications; the authors openly flag the main systematic caveat; and the Doppler-boosting amplitude for the SMBH-binary scenario has no free parameters once the O-C solution is assumed. However, the load-bearing assumption that impact-to-peak delays are time-independent is acknowledged by the authors themselves to be questionable, and the numerical comparisons are qualitative, with modulation periods injected from the data and amplitudes tuned. As presented, the paper convincingly shows that the simplest impacts model is difficult to reconcile with the O-C data if peak times trace impact times, but it does not yet establish that an external modulation is required or that either proposed scenario is uniquely favored.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Appendix A.1] The central comparison between observed O-C diagrams and simulated impact-time O-C diagrams assumes that the delay between a disc impact and the QPE X-ray peak is impact-independent. The authors themselves state in Section 2 that 'That delays are impacts-independent is not necessarily the case' and that all results are 'likely subject to a certain degree of systematic error.' A common-mode delay D(t) that is the same for both nodes and varies on a ~19-44 d timescale with ~2.5 hr amplitude would add coherently to both O-C branches and reproduce the reported correlated modulation with minimal phase difference, without any external modulation of the impacts themselves. Such a variable delay is physically plausible, as the delay should depend on impact depth, local disc surface density, and viewing geometry; the 43-44 d solution is especially vulnerable because it is comparable to the apsidal precession timescale in Fig. 7. I recommend a concrete cross-check, for example using a different QPE phase marker (e.g., rise or start time) or showing that some spectral or light-curve shape property does not track the O-C residuals. Without such a test, the claim that an external modulator is 'needed' is not established.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 1, Appendix B.2] The statistical robustness of the O-C modulation detection is not fully quantified. Only 15 QPEs are used, and the odd-branch time series has six data points, the same as the number of free parameters in the adopted model a + bx + cx^2 + A sin; the authors therefore fix Porb from the even branch and scan over it for the odd branch. The reported Delta-chi^2 in Fig. 5 does not account for the two-period degeneracy (19 d vs 43-44 d), the fixing procedure, or the three epoch identifications. I request an injection or bootstrap test that simulates the same sampling and noise properties to estimate the false-alarm probability of a ~2.5-2.8 hr sinusoidal O-C modulation at 19 d or 43-44 d. Without this calibration, 'consistent with modulation' is appropriate, but 'evidence of modulation' is stronger than the current analysis supports.
  3. [Sections 5, 8, 9] The numerical simulations demonstrate consistency of the two proposed scenarios, not that the data require them. In the disc-precession simulations, Pdisc is set to the observed 19 d or 44 d period and the amplitude is matched by increasing idisc from 5 deg to ~20 deg; in the hierarchical-triple simulations, Pout, M2, and iobs are chosen to reproduce the O-C period and amplitude. No best-fit parameters, likelihood, or goodness-of-fit are reported, so the agreement in Figs. 8 and 9 is qualitative. The claim that the simplest impacts model is incompatible with the data is supported by the anti-correlation and amplitude arguments, but the two proposed mechanisms should be presented as viable illustrations conditional on an external modulation existing, rather than as required by the data.
  4. [Section 10, Fig. 12] The independent support from the quiescent X-ray flux modulation is weakened by the eight XMM-Newton data points in Fig. 12, several of which fall significantly below the Swift/NICER sinusoidal fit. The authors appropriately label the X-ray periodicity as tentative and discuss the discrepancy, but the abstract and Section 11.3 lean on the 19.9 d period as supporting the O-C period. Until the XMM-Newton discrepancy is understood or more cycles are accumulated, the quiescent-flux modulation should be presented as a preliminary hint, not as confirmation of the O-C timescale.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 9] The lower panel label 'Pput' appears to be a typo and should read 'Pout'.
  2. [Section 11.3] There are typos in this section: 'repect' should be 'respect' and 'z-zxis' should be 'z-axis'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The 2023 average Papp is based on only four independent intervals, and the adopted 3% uncertainty is presented without a formal derivation. I suggest reporting the individual 2023 Papp values and a more transparent error estimate, even if the result remains tentative.
  4. [References] The Bykov et al. 2024 entry appears twice with slightly different titles; this should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The O-C modulation is a data-driven detection, but the paper partly constructs the evidence for its proposed modulators: acceptable O-C solutions are selected by imposing the impacts model's common-period condition, and the disc-precession/binary simulations reproduce the observed period and amplitude only because those fitted values are inserted as inputs.

  1. other [Section 4.1 and Appendix B.2]
    "We therefore consider as acceptable only O-C diagrams that fulfil this condition. By imposing this requirement, the ambiguity in the identification of QPEs was significantly reduced, at the expense that results presented below are not entirely model-independent. [...] we then fitted the odd QPEs data by fixing one of model's parameters to the best-fitting value derived from the even QPEs time series."

    The selection criterion is the impacts-model prediction that odd and even QPEs share a common period; identifications that do not permit such a solution are discarded. The later statement that the existence of a common-period solution 'provides some support to the impacts model' is therefore partly true by construction. In the adopted Fig. 4 fit, the odd-branch Porb is additionally fixed to the even-branch best fit, so the common-period outcome is not an independent test. The O-C modulation itself remains data-driven, so this is only partial circularity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sections 8 and 9 (disc-precession and hierarchical-triple simulations)]
    "The disc precession period was set to either Pdisc = 44 d or 19 d, representing the two possible modulation periods obtained from the O-C analysis. [...] a good match with the observed ≃ 2.5 hr modulation amplitude is reached by increasing idisc from 5◦ to ≃ 20◦."

    These simulations are presented as showing that the proposed modulators 'qualitatively reproduce' the observed O-C modulation, but the modulating period is inserted from the O-C fit and the amplitude is matched by tuning the disc misalignment (or, in the triple case, by choosing masses and inclination consistent with the same Amod via Eq. 4). The agreement is therefore a consistency check with fitted inputs, not an independent prediction of the modulation timescale or amplitude. The independent content of the paper is the measured O-C pattern and its incompatibility with the no-precession impacts model.

full rationale

The central detection—correlated, super-orbital O-C modulation with ~2.5–2.8 hr amplitude—is obtained directly from QPE peak times and does not depend on the proposed models, so the paper is not globally circular. The main caveat is the explicit assumption that the impact-to-peak delay is impact-independent (Section 2, Appendix A.1); if that delay varied on tens-of-day timescales, it could mimic the modulation, and the authors acknowledge this systematic uncertainty. The common-period selection and the insertion of fitted Pmod/Amod into the simulations make the corroborating evidence partially self-consistent rather than truly predictive. The Doppler-boosting flux-amplitude check (Eq. 7) is a genuine no-free-parameter prediction against independent Swift/NICER data, which counts against a higher circularity score, although the flux periodicity is itself tentative and partly contradicted by XMM-Newton points. Overall, the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but there is a modest degree of construction-by-selection and fitted-input consistency, warranting a score of 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's solutions are not derived from first principles: the disc precession and binary periods are set equal to the fitted O-C modulation periods, and the disc misalignment is tuned to match the amplitude. Independent support is limited to the consistency of the tentative 2024 flux modulation with the Doppler boosting formula.

free parameters (10)
  • O-C modulation period Pmod = 19.1-19.24 d or 43.0-44.2 d (two degenerate solutions)
    Fitted from O-C diagrams of odd/even QPEs; the data cannot distinguish the two periods (Table 1).
  • O-C modulation semi-amplitude Amod = 2.4-2.8 hr
    Fitted sinusoid amplitude in O-C data; drives the amplitude of the required external modulation.
  • EMRI orbital period Porb (draconitic) = 18.04-18.08 hr
    Derived from the linear term of the O-C fit; input to all simulations.
  • Period derivative dP/dt = 0, -3 to -4e-5, or -6 to -7e-5 depending on QPE identification
    Quadratic term of O-C fit; degenerate three-way solution; 2023 data tentatively favor -3.7e-5.
  • Disc precession period Pdisc (simulation input) = 19 d or 44 d
    Set equal to the observed O-C Pmod; the model does not predict it from disc physics in this work.
  • Outer SMBH binary period Pout (simulation input) = 19 d or 44 d
    Set equal to observed Pmod in the hierarchical triple simulations; period is imposed, not predicted.
  • Disc misalignment idisc = 20 deg (tuned)
    Increased from 5 deg to roughly 20 deg to reproduce the observed 2.5 hr O-C amplitude (Section 8).
  • Primary SMBH mass M1 = 8e5 Msun (fiducial)
    Assumed within the M-sigma range; sets the Rg scale for all simulations.
  • 2023 Papp uncertainty = 3% assigned by hand
    Used to convert average 2023 Papp into a Porb estimate; based on only 4 QPEs (Section 4.2).
  • Quiescent X-ray flux modulation period and amplitude = P=19.9+/-0.3 d, A=0.45+/-0.06
    Fitted sinusoid to 2024 Swift/NICER data; called tentative; XMM-Newton points are discrepant.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption QPEs are produced by a secondary body crossing the accretion disc of the primary SMBH twice per orbit.
    The entire O-C/impacts comparison and the external-modulation scenarios assume the impacts model; Sections 5 and Introduction.
  • domain assumption The delay between a disc impact and the QPE X-ray peak is the same for all impacts.
    Stated in Section 2 and Appendix A.1; if false, the O-C analysis is contaminated.
  • domain assumption Odd and even QPEs share the same EMRI orbital period and period derivative.
    Used to select acceptable O-C diagrams (Section 4.1); follows from the impacts model but is imposed on the data.
  • domain assumption The M-sigma relation (Xiao et al. 2011) gives the total nuclear mass in GSN 069 within 0.5 dex.
    Used as the upper limit to test the SMBH binary consistency (Sections 7 and 9).
  • ad hoc to paper Disc precession can be imposed at an arbitrary period while the SMBH spin is set to zero.
    In Section 8, disc precession at 19/44 d is injected without a self-consistent spin/disc model; the authors state they impose it to explore the parameter space.
  • standard math The three-body PN integrations (2.5 PN) and the Franchini et al. 2023 impact code correctly model the system dynamics.
    Appendix C; standard methods, but not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Doppler boosting formula (Eq. 5) applies to the inner disc emission and the spectral index is alpha ~ -9 in the 0.3-1 keV band.
    Used to predict the X-ray flux modulation amplitude in the binary scenario (Section 10).
  • domain assumption The 2023 average Papp of 16.7 hr is a valid proxy for the 2023 orbital period.
    Used to support the period derivative; based on only 4 QPEs (Section 4.2).
invented entities (1)
  • Outer SMBH companion (M2) forming a sub-milliparsec binary with the inner EMRI
    purpose: Explains the correlated O-C modulation via light-travel-time delays, and the tentative X-ray flux modulation via Doppler boosting
    No direct detection; its mass and orbit are chosen to match the observed modulation period and amplitude (Section 9). It is a known class of object, but its presence in GSN 069 is postulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eppur si muove: Evidence of disc precession or a sub-milliparsec SMBH binary in the QPE-emitting galaxy GSN 069." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDQCMZQN

@misc{pith2026241113460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eppur si muove: Evidence of disc precession or a sub-milliparsec SMBH binary in the QPE-emitting galaxy GSN 069},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDQCMZQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13460}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are intense soft X-ray bursts from the nuclei of nearby low-mass galaxies typically lasting about one hour and repeating every few. Their physical origin remains debated, although so-called impacts models in which a secondary orbiting body pierces through the accretion disc around the primary supermassive black hole (SMBH) in an extreme mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) system are considered promising. In this work, we study the QPE timing properties of GSN 069, the first galactic nucleus in which QPEs were identified, primarily focusing on Observed minus Calculated (O-C) diagrams. The O-C data in GSN 069 are consistent with a super-orbital modulation on tens of days whose properties do not comply with the impacts model. We suggest that rigid precession of a misaligned accretion disc or, alternatively, the presence of a second SMBH forming a sub-milliparsec binary with the inner EMRI is needed to reconcile the model with the data. In both cases, the quiescent accretion disc emission should also be modulated on similar timescales. Current X-ray monitoring indicates that this might be the case, although a longer baseline of higher-cadence observations is needed to confirm the tentative X-ray flux periodicity on firm statistical grounds. Future dedicated monitoring campaigns will be crucial to test the overall impacts plus modulation model in GSN 069, and to distinguish between the two proposed modulating scenarios. If our interpretation is correct, QPEs in GSN 069 represent the first electromagnetic detection of a short-period EMRI system in an external galaxy, opening the way to future multi-messenger astronomical observations. [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a QPE time series comprising four consecutive QPEs. Odd and even QPEs represent impacts through the ascending and descending nodes respectively (or vice-versa). The def￾inition of the different QPE recurrence times that are used to compute Papp and eapp is highlighted (see Eq. 1-3 and text for details). is based on differential quantities (e.g. the recurrence time be￾tween QPEs), but dela… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of apsidal precession on secondary-disc impacts. We show two different apsidal phases leading to eapp ≃ e max app , and to eapp ≃ 0. The former is shown as lighter orbit and corresponds to an apsidal phase in which the difference between consecutive longer and shorter Trec is maximal, with impacts occurring at approximately the same distance from the centre. Conversely, when eapp ≃ 0, the two consecutive Tre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. QPE timing properties in GSN 069. In the upper row, we show the X-ray 0.4-1 keV light curves of GSN 069 used in this work. The first two and last light curves are from the EPIC-pn camera on board XMM-Newton, while the third is from the ACIS-S detector on board Chandra. The latter light curve has been re-scaled to the expected EPIC-pn count rate (as in Miniutti et al. 2023b). XMM-Newton data could be used down to 0.2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: O-C diagrams for GSN 069. We show the O-C diagrams for odd (left) and even (right) QPEs for GSN 069 resulting from identifying the first QPE of the May 2019 observation with the 211th even QPE. The upper panels show the O-C data together with the linear plus parabolic …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pmod detection in the O-C diagrams. We show ∆χ 2 as a function of modulating period Pmod for the final best-fitting model to the O-C diagrams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 2023 campaign on GSN 069. In the upper panel, we show the XMM-Newton EPIC-pn light curve from the May 2019 observa￾tion, together with a representative best-fitting model. The EPIC-pn light curves from the 2023 campaign are shown in the lower panels. We aligned the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: QPE timing from the impacts model. We show Trec, Papp, eapp, and the the O-C diagrams for a nearly circular EMRI orbit with eccen￾tricity e = 0.05, and parameters commensurate with those of GSN 069. Odd and even QPEs are shown in red and blue respectively. We point out…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Disc precession solution for GSN 069. In the upper three panels, we show Trec, Papp, and the O-C diagrams for a disc precession solution with Pdisc ∼ 44 d for GSN 069 (see text for further details). The lower panel shows the O-C diagrams for the same simulation but wit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hierarchical triple solution for GSN 069. In the upper three pan￾els we show Trec, Papp, and the O-C diagrams for a hierarchical triple solution for GSN 069 comprising the inner, QPE-emitting EMRI and an outer circular SMBH binary with orbital period Pout = 44 d. The O…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2024 Swift and NICER monitoring campaign. We show the normalised 0.3-1 keV quiescent light curves of GSN 069 as obtained by the Swift XRT and by NICER during the current campaign. Any two consecutive Swift observations with consistent count rates have been combined to…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Zoom of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Folded Swift and NICER light curve. The upper panel shows the light curve of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The properties of GSN 069 accretion disk from a joint X-ray and UV spectral analysis: stress-testing quasi-periodic eruption models

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A self-consistent X-ray plus UV analysis of GSN 069 finds a compact, viscously expanding TDE disk whose inferred properties in 2014 and 2018 challenge both disk-instability and orbiter-collision models of quasi-period...

  2. Secular evolution of quasi-periodic eruptions

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors find strong Bayesian evidence for orbital decay in the QPE source GSN 069 and report a likely T ~ M^0.8 scaling among low-eccentricity QPE sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane , P., Audley , H., Babak , S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    2024 a , , 690, A80

    Arcodia , R., Linial , I., Miniutti , G., et al. 2024 a , , 690, A80

    2024

  3. [3]

    2024 b , , 684, A64

    Arcodia , R., Liu , Z., Merloni , A., et al. 2024 b , , 684, A64

    2024

  4. [4]

    2021, , 592, 704

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2021, , 592, 704

    2021

  5. [5]

    2022, , 662, A49

    Arcodia , R., Miniutti , G., Ponti , G., et al. 2022, , 662, A49

    2022

  6. [6]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  7. [7]

    2017, , 95, 103012

    Babak , S., Gair , J., Sesana , A., et al. 2017, , 95, 103012

    2017

  8. [8]

    R., Nixon , C

    Bandopadhyay , A., Coughlin , E. R., Nixon , C. J., & Pasham , D. R. 2024 a , , 974, 80

    2024

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    2024 b , , 961, L2

    Bandopadhyay , A., Fancher , J., Athian , A., et al. 2024 b , , 961, L2

    2024

  2. [10]

    2016, , 461, 4419

    Bonetti , M., Haardt , F., Sesana , A., & Barausse , E. 2016, , 461, 4419

    2016

  3. [11]

    2018, , 477, 3910

    Bonetti , M., Haardt , F., Sesana , A., & Barausse , E. 2018, , 477, 3910

    2018

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908

    Bykov , S., Gilfanov , M., Sunyaev , R., & Medvedev , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2024, Further evidence of Quasiperiodic Eruptions in a tidal disruption event AT2019vcb by SRG/eROSITA

    Bykov, S., Gilfanov, M., Sunyaev, R., & Medvedev, P. 2024, Further evidence of Quasiperiodic Eruptions in a tidal disruption event AT2019vcb by SRG/eROSITA

    2024

  6. [14]

    2024, , 965, 12

    Chakraborty , J., Arcodia , R., Kara , E., et al. 2024, , 965, 12

    2024

  7. [15]

    2021, , 921, L40

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Masterson , M., et al. 2021, , 921, L40

    2021

  8. [16]

    Charisi , M., Haiman , Z., Schiminovich , D., & D'Orazio , D. J. 2018, , 476, 4617

    2018

  9. [17]

    Chen , X., Sesana , A., Madau , P., & Liu , F. K. 2011, , 729, 13

    2011

  10. [18]

    W., Jin , C., Blaes , O., & Ward , M

    Done , C., Davis , S. W., Jin , C., Blaes , O., & Ward , M. 2012, , 420, 1848

    2012

  11. [19]

    J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D

    D'Orazio , D. J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D. 2015, , 525, 351

    2015

  12. [20]

    D., Freyberg , M

    Esquej , P., Saxton , R. D., Freyberg , M. J., et al. 2007, , 462, L49

    2007

  13. [21]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  14. [22]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2007, , 469, 379

    2007

  15. [23]

    A., Nixon , C

    Evans , P. A., Nixon , C. J., Campana , S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368

    2023

  16. [24]

    2023, , 675, A100

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    2016, , 455, 1946

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P

    Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz , 99051H

    2016

  19. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01938

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., Arcodia , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01938

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., & Saxton , R. D. 2020, , 636, L2

    2020

  21. [29]

    & Mummery , A

    Guolo , M. & Mummery , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17296

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R., Zaja c ek , M., et al

    Guolo , M., Pasham , D. R., Zaja c ek , M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 347

    2024

  23. [31]

    2023, , 942, 9

    Hammerstein , E., van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 942, 9

    2023

  24. [32]

    E., Aigrain , S., & Karastergiou , A

    Ingram , A., Motta , S. E., Aigrain , S., & Karastergiou , A. 2021, , 503, 1703

    2021

  25. [33]

    B., Polnarev , A

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

    2005

  26. [34]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe , 411--414

    1996

  27. [35]

    C., & Gilbaum , S

    Kaur , K., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2023, , 524, 1269

    2023

  28. [36]

    2020, , 493, L120

    King , A. 2020, , 493, L120

    2020

  29. [37]

    2022, , 515, 4344

    King , A. 2022, , 515, 4344

    2022

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17105

    Kosec , P., Kara , E., Brenneman , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17105

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  32. [40]

    Krolik , J. H. & Linial , I. 2022, , 941, 24

    2022

  33. [41]

    & Done , C

    Kubota , A. & Done , C. 2018, , 480, 1247

    2018

  34. [42]

    & Thirring , H

    Lense , J. & Thirring , H. 1918, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19, 156

    1918

  35. [43]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719

    1962

  36. [44]

    & Metzger , B

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

    2023

  37. [45]

    & Metzger , B

    Linial , I. & Metzger , B. D. 2024 a , , 973, 101

    2024

  38. [46]

    & Metzger , B

    Linial , I. & Metzger , B. D. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12421

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    & Metzger , B

    Linial , I. & Metzger , B. D. 2024 c , , 963, L1

    2024

  40. [48]

    & Quataert , E

    Linial , I. & Quataert , E. 2024, , 527, 4317

    2024

  41. [49]

    & Sari , R

    Linial , I. & Sari , R. 2023, , 945, 86

    2023

  42. [50]

    2023, , 669, A75

    Liu , Z., Malyali , A., Krumpe , M., et al. 2023, , 669, A75

    2023

  43. [51]

    J., et al

    Liu , Z., Ryu , T., Goodwin , A. J., et al. 2024, , 683, L13

    2024

  44. [52]

    & Gaudi , B

    Loeb , A. & Gaudi , B. S. 2003, , 588, L117

    2003

  45. [53]

    & Quataert , E

    Lu , W. & Quataert , E. 2023, , 524, 6247

    2023

  46. [54]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010

    Luo , J., Chen , L.-S., Duan , H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010

    2016

  47. [55]

    S., & Kallman , T

    Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., & Kallman , T. 2016, , 596, A65

    2016

  48. [56]

    D., Stone , N

    Metzger , B. D., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2022, , 926, 101

    2022

  49. [57]

    2023 a , , 674, L1

    Miniutti , G., Giustini , M., Arcodia , R., et al. 2023 a , , 674, L1

    2023

  50. [58]

    2023 b , , 670, A93

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

    2023

  51. [59]

    D., Giustini , M., et al

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

    2019

  52. [60]

    D., Rodr \' guez-Pascual , P

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Rodr \' guez-Pascual , P. M., et al. 2013, , 433, 1764

    2013

  53. [61]

    M., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Mockler , B., Gallegos-Garcia , M., G \"o tberg , Y., Miller , J. M., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, , 973, L9

    2024

  54. [62]

    R., Mummery , A., et al

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

    2024

  55. [63]

    2023, , 952, 32

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., & Cao , X. 2023, , 952, 32

    2023

  56. [64]

    2022, , 928, L18

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., Cao , X., Miniutti , G., & Gu , M. 2022, , 928, L18

    2022

  57. [65]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05948

    Pasham , D., Coughlin , E., Nixon , C., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05948

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    R., Zaja c ek , M., Nixon , C

    Pasham , D. R., Zaja c ek , M., Nixon , C. J., et al. 2024 b , , 630, 325

    2024

  59. [67]

    C., Lu , W., Ma , Y., et al

    Patra , K. C., Lu , W., Ma , Y., et al. 2024, , 530, 5120

    2024

  60. [68]

    V., Shappee , B

    Payne , A. V., Shappee , B. J., Hinkle , J. T., et al. 2022, , 926, 142

    2022

  61. [69]

    V., Shappee , B

    Payne , A. V., Shappee , B. J., Hinkle , J. T., et al. 2021, , 910, 125

    2021

  62. [70]

    & Will , C

    Poisson , E. & Will , C. M. 2014, Gravity

    2014

  63. [71]

    A., Guillot , S., et al

    Quintin , E., Webb , N. A., Guillot , S., et al. 2023, , 675, A152

    2023

  64. [72]

    & Nixon , C

    Raj , A. & Nixon , C. J. 2021, , 909, 82

    2021

  65. [73]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333

    Sesana , A., Korsakova , N., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333

    2021

  66. [74]

    2021, , 920, L25

    Sheng , Z., Wang , T., Ferland , G., et al. 2021, , 920, L25

    2021

  67. [75]

    W., Wang , S

    Shu , X. W., Wang , S. S., Dou , L. M., et al. 2018, , 857, L16

    2018

  68. [76]

    2023, , 672, A19

    \'S niegowska , M., Grz e dzielski , M., Czerny , B., & Janiuk , A. 2023, , 672, A19

    2023

  69. [77]

    2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Sterken , C. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 335, The Light-Time Effect in Astrophysics: Causes and cures of the O-C diagram, ed. C. Sterken , 3

    2005

  70. [78]

    & Loeb , A

    Stone , N. & Loeb , A. 2012, , 108, 061302

    2012

  71. [79]

    2021, , 917, 43

    Sukov \'a , P., Zaja c ek , M., Witzany , V., & Karas , V. 2021, , 917, 43

    2021

  72. [80]

    & Haiman , Z

    Tagawa , H. & Haiman , Z. 2023, , 526, 69

    2023

  73. [81]

    2024, , 682, L14

    Wang , D. 2024, , 682, L14

    2024

  74. [82]

    2022, , 933, 225

    Wang , M., Yin , J., Ma , Y., & Wu , Q. 2022, , 933, 225

    2022

  75. [83]

    & French , K

    Wevers , T. & French , K. D. 2024, , 969, L17

    2024

  76. [84]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    Wevers , T., French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., et al. 2024, , 970, L23

    2024

  77. [85]

    R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R

    Wevers , T., Pasham , D. R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R. 2022, , 659, L2

    2022

  78. [86]

    2021, , 921, L32

    Xian , J., Zhang , F., Dou , L., He , J., & Shu , X. 2021, , 921, L32

    2021

  79. [87]

    J., Greene , J

    Xiao , T., Barth , A. J., Greene , J. E., et al. 2011, , 739, 28

    2011

  80. [88]

    Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C

    Yao , P. Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14578

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    2015, , 149, 197

    Zasche , P., Wolf , M., Ku c \'a kov \'a , H., et al. 2015, , 149, 197

    2015

  82. [90]

    2014, , 572, A71

    Zasche , P., Wolf , M., Vra s til , J., et al. 2014, , 572, A71

    2014

  83. [91]

    Y., Wang , Y

    Zhao , Z. Y., Wang , Y. Y., Zou , Y. C., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2022, , 661, A55

    2022

  84. [92]

    2024 a , , 109, 103031

    Zhou , C., Huang , L., Guo , K., Li , Y.-P., & Pan , Z. 2024 a , , 109, 103031

    2024

  85. [93]

    2024 b , , 110, 083019

    Zhou , C., Zhong , B., Zeng , Y., Huang , L., & Pan , Z. 2024 b , , 110, 083019

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.