Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QPE timing alone can constrain central black-hole mass and EMRI orbit to about 10 percent, while spin remains unconstrained on short baselines.

desk verdict Static-disk timing constraints hold up; the precessing-disk 10-50% claim in the abstract contradicts the paper's own grid results. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20162 v1 pith:FBDPXT45 submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Joheen Chakraborty , Lisa V. Drummond , Matteo Bonetti , Alessia Franchini , Shubham Kejriwal , Giovanni Miniutti , Riccardo Arcodia , Scott A. Hughes
show 6 more authors
Francisco Duque Erin Kara Alberto Sesana Margherita Giustini Amedeo Motta Kevin Burdge
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords quasi-periodiceruptionsEMRIX-raytimingKerrgeodesicsaccretiondiskprecessionBayesianinferencemassiveblackholescollisionmodel
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

Quasi-periodic eruptions are recurring X-ray flares from galactic nuclei, and one leading explanation is that a compact secondary repeatedly plows through the accretion disk of a massive black hole. The paper asks how much can be learned from the timing of those flares alone, and answers: for mildly eccentric inspirals, the black-hole mass and the secondary's semimajor axis and eccentricity are recoverable to about 10% within tens of orbits, while spin stays unmeasurable on these short baselines. Adding a misaligned, rigidly precessing disk—which observations of sources like eRO-QPE1 and GSN 069 seem to require—degrades the orbital constraints but makes the disk's inclination and precession period measurable. To reach this answer the paper builds a fast GPU-accelerated Bayesian timing code and tests it over a large grid of simulated systems. The practical payoff is that timing-only monitoring of QPEs could become a dynamical probe of low-mass black holes and a discriminating test of the EMRI-disk collision model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the signed distance D(t) = d(t)·r(t) between the secondary and the disk plane, whose zeros are the predicted eruption times. The trajectory r(t) comes from a 3PN Fourier-series expansion of bound Kerr geodesics in Mino time, making millions of likelihood evaluations tractable; the disk normal d(t) is a rigidly precessing vector with period Tdisk; Shapiro and geometric delays convert collision times to observed times. Wrapped in a χ² likelihood and sampled with an affine-invariant ensemble MCMC, this machinery—implemented in the paper's QPE-FIT code—turns a list of flare arrival times into posterior distributions over black-hole mass, orbital parameters, and disk propert

What would settle it

In a bright QPE with high-cadence X-ray coverage, fit the best precessing-disk timing model, then plot each burst's residual as a function of odd/even index and of time since pericenter. A coherent residual pattern with amplitude above the assumed ~100 s timing error, or a phase-dependent peak lag, would falsify the constant-offset assumption and with it the unbiasedness of the 10% orbital and mass constraints. Independently, dynamical mass measurements of several QPE hosts that disagree with timing-inferred masses beyond the quoted errors would also falsify the mass-constraint claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the arrival times of quasi-periodic eruptions, taken alone, are informative enough to recover the mass of the central black hole and the semimajor axis/eccentricity of a mildly eccentric EMRI companion to roughly 10% within tens of orbits, when the eruptions are produced by repeated collisions with a disk. The same data cannot constrain black-hole spin over these baselines. With a rigidly precessing misaligned disk, EMRI parameter recovery degrades, but the disk's inclination and precession period become measurable at the 10–50% level. This is established through injection–recovery experiments using a fast 3PN Kerr-geodesic timing model with GPU-accelerated MCMC, and by

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes a fixed time offset between each orbiter–disk collision and the observed eruption peak; if that offset varies with orbital phase, collision geometry, or disk state, the mapping from flare times to geodesic crossings is mis-specified and the reported ~10% constraints would be biased, not merely wider.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For mild-eccentricity EMRIs (e ≈ 0.1–0.3), tens of QPE cycles are enough to recover MBH mass, semimajor axis, and eccentricity with ~10% errors in the static-disk case.
  • MBH spin is not measurable from timings at a ≳ 100 Rg over O(10–100) orbit baselines; longer baselines or smaller orbits would be needed for spin information.
  • When a misaligned precessing disk is present, EMRI parameter errors grow, but disk inclination and precession period can still be recovered to roughly 10–50%.
  • Ignoring disk precession when it is present biases recovered parameters—most severely the observer viewing angle—so precession must be modeled for unbiased inference.
  • For a fixed total observing time, uninterrupted or short-gap monitoring outperforms widely spaced snapshots because cycle-number ambiguity grows across gaps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same timing code can be repurposed for electromagnetic pre-discovery of LISA-band EMRIs: once a and M• are pinned, the gravitational-wave inspiral timescale and frequency are predicted.
  • If the constant collision-to-peak delay assumption is relaxed, odd/even burst residuals should reveal a phase-dependent lag; testing this on high-cadence sources would validate or invalidate the 10% mass claim before it is applied to real data.
  • A population-level extension: eccentricity recovered from QPE timings directly discriminates wet (circularized) versus dry (eccentric) EMRI formation channels, which the paper discusses qualitatively but does not quantify.
  • Combining timing with spectral or SED constraints should break the a–M• and i–θdisk degeneracies identified here, likely improving precision beyond the reported 10–50%.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents QPE-FIT, a GPU-accelerated Bayesian inference package for QPE timing in the EMRI-disk collision scenario. The forward model combines 3PN Fourier-expanded Kerr geodesics with either an aligned static disk or a rigidly precessing misaligned disk; predicted disk-crossing times are compared with observed QPE timings through a Gaussian likelihood, including Shapiro and geometric delays. The authors validate by injecting exact KerrGeoPy trajectories and recovering with the PN sampler, and run a grid of 216 (static) and 1296 (precessing) MCMC simulations, plus an application to eRO-QPE1. The main reported findings are 10% constraints on a, e, M_• for mildly eccentric EMRIs with static disks; no spin constraint on short baselines; degradation with precessing disk; and claimed 10-50% constraints on disk precession properties.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable methods contribution: it provides a practical, open-source tool and shows that short QPE timing baselines can be informative for MBH mass and orbital parameters. Strengths include the use of exact Kerr injections as an external anchor for the PN sampler, the unusually broad grid of injection-recovery runs, and the public code release. However, the ensemble results in Appendix E do not support the headline precessing-disk claim; that claim must be revised before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2; Appendix E, Table E.1] The abstract and the concluding bullet state that disk precession properties can be constrained to the 10-50% level. Table E.1 does not support this for most of the explored parameter space. For true Tdisk = 5 and 20 Porb, the average recovered medians are 46.7 and 46.1 Porb (1×100 ks row), with 16-84% intervals of roughly 20-70 Porb; the corresponding errors are factors of 2-9, not 10-50%. Even the best case (Tdisk = 50) gives averages of 57-63 Porb with ~40% intervals. The 10-50% wording appears to be drawn from the favorable single injection in Fig. 7 rather than from the grid. Please either revise the abstract and conclusion to report the ensemble statistics, or demonstrate that a well-defined subset of configurations supports the stronger claim.
  2. [Appendix E, Table E.1] For true Tdisk = 5 and 20 Porb, the recovered posterior median is essentially independent of the truth: it sits near 45-48 Porb for all observing strategies. This is the signature of a prior-dominated / identifiability failure, not a measurement. The text should state this explicitly in Sections 3.2 and 5, and should distinguish 'can constrain' for favorable realizations from 'typically not recoverable on short baselines'. The current presentation does not make this distinction and is therefore misleading.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (18) and following] The constant-offset assumption between orbiter-disk collision and QPE peak is acknowledged as a limitation, but its impact on the inference claims is not tested. If the delay varies with orbital phase, collision geometry, or disk state, the observed timings are not a deterministic function of geodesic crossing times, and the reported 10% constraints are potentially biased, not merely broadened. Please add injection-recovery tests with phase-dependent or stochastic delays (for example, a free delay parameter per burst, or a simple functional form of orbital phase) to assess how much of the claimed precision survives this assumption.
  4. [Appendix B, bottom panel] The posterior ln L distribution is shown to fall noticeably short of the maximum expected ln L even after 10^5 steps. The paper interprets this as an MCMC limitation leading to overestimated errors, but it also implies that the retained top-100k samples may not be representative of the posterior. Since Table E.1 is used for the central claims, please provide a quantitative convergence criterion (e.g., split-R-hat on the reported quantiles) or demonstrate that the grid results are stable with respect to chain length.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'O(10−100rm)' appears to be a typo for 'orbits'.
  2. [Eqs. (13)-(16)] There are missing parentheses in the definitions of t^{(A)}(λ) and φ^{(A)}(λ); e.g., Eq. (15) should read t^{(A)}(λ) ≡ Σ ... sin(n_A Υ_A λ).
  3. [Appendix E] '1296 samples' should be '1296 sampling runs' (or 'simulations') to avoid confusion with posterior samples.
  4. [Fig. 6, top panel] The e = 0.5 injection lies in the PN breakdown regime according to Appendix A. The text notes this, but the caption could explicitly mark it so that readers do not interpret the widened posteriors as an astrophysical degeneracy.
  5. [Conclusion, §3.5] The conclusion uses 'Pdisk' while the rest of the paper uses 'Tdisk' for the disk precession period. Please unify notation.
  6. [Table 3] The 'Deviation from truth' column reports dimensionless σ values; please state this explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the parameter-estimation claims come from an injection-recovery study anchored to exact Kerr geodesics, though the abstract overstates disk-precession constraints relative to the paper's own Table E.1.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are derived from a self-contained simulation pipeline: synthetic QPE timings are generated with exact Kerr geodesics (Park & Nasipak 2024, via KerrGeoPy) and then recovered with the PN-based sampler QPE-FIT. This is a standard identifiability/injection-recovery study, not a circular derivation: the recovered posteriors are not equal to the inputs by construction (e.g., MBH spin is unconstrained, and Table E.1 shows poor recovery of Tdisk for true values 5 and 20 Porb). The forward model is explicitly specified in Eqs. 17-18 and 23-25, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Citations to prior work by co-authors (Franchini et al. 2023; Chakraborty et al. 2024; Miniutti et al. 2025) motivate the rigidly-precessing-disk ansatz, but the model is re-derived and implemented here, and the central constraints are benchmarked against an external exact-geodesic code, so these self-citations are not load-bearing. The paper also candidly states a key limitation in Sec. 2.2: 'a limitation of our timing model is the assumption of a constant offset between the orbiter-disk collision and the QPE peak timing.' This is a modeling caveat, not a circular step. However, the abstract's claim that a misaligned precessing disk 'can constrain disk precession properties within 10-50%' is not supported by the paper's own grid results in Table E.1, where average recovered Tdisk values are ~46.7 Porb for true Tdisk=5 Porb and ~46.1 Porb for true Tdisk=20 Porb, with 16-84% intervals spanning roughly 20-70 Porb. Only the single favorable injection in Fig. 7 (Tdisk=20 Porb) supports the 10-50% claim. This is an internal inconsistency/overstatement that should temper confidence in the headline, but it is a correctness concern, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a forward timing model with 12 parameters. The central forecasts are generated by injecting and recovering signals from the same model family, so the only new inputs are modeling choices: the assumed timing error, fixed initial phases, the rigid-disk ansatz, the 3PN truncation, and the constant collision-to-flare offset. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Timing uncertainty sigma_i = 100 s (assumed for all simulated QPEs)
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 2.3. It sets the absolute scale of the likelihood and all posterior widths, so the reported percentage constraints are conditional on this arbitrary choice.
  • Initial phases (qr,0, qz,0, qphi,0, phi_disk,0) = 0 (fixed in injections)
    The authors fix these nuisance phases to zero for simulated injections and note in Sec. 2.3 that they may affect measurability on short baselines. For the eRO-QPE1 fit, t0 and phi_disk,0 are added instead.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The secondary moves on a bound Kerr geodesic with no back-reaction or environmental drag on short baselines.
    Sec. 2.1: the trajectory is governed by bound geodesics in Kerr spacetime; secular evolution is explicitly deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption The disk is a rigid plane whose normal precesses uniformly at the Lense-Thirring period Tdisk.
    Eq. (17); neglects disk warping, tearing, and alignment, as acknowledged in Sec. 2.2 and Appendix E.
  • ad hoc to paper Each QPE peak occurs at a constant offset after the disk crossing.
    Stated limitation in Sec. 2.2, adopted for simplicity despite known possible variations in rise timescales and flare physics.
  • standard math The 3PN Fourier eccentricity expansion of Sago and Fujita (2015) is accurate in the explored p greater than about 50 Rg and e less than about 0.4 regime.
    Used for inference trajectories; Appendix A quantifies the breakdown for e above 0.5 and a below 50 Rg.
  • domain assumption Flat priors and MCMC with 1000 walkers adequately sample the multimodal posterior.
    Sec. 2.3 and Appendix B; the authors themselves note MCMC can stall at local minima and that quoted errors may be overestimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBDPXT45

@misc{pith2026250820162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBDPXT45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20162}
}
abstract

Quasi-Periodic Eruptions (QPEs) are luminous, recurring X-ray outbursts from galactic nuclei, with timescales of hours to days. While their origin remains uncertain, leading models invoke accretion disk instabilities or the interaction of a massive black hole (MBH) with a lower-mass secondary in an extreme mass ratio inspiral (EMRI). EMRI scenarios offer a robust framework for interpreting QPEs by characterizing observational signatures associated with the secondary's orbital dynamics. This, in turn, enables extraction of the MBH/EMRI physical properties and provides a means to test the EMRI scenario, distinguishing models and addressing the question: what can QPE timings teach us about massive black holes and EMRIs? In this study, we employ analytic expressions for Kerr geodesics to efficiently resolve the trajectory of the secondary object and perform GPU-accelerated Bayesian inference to assess the information content of QPE timings. Using our inference framework, referred to as QPE-FIT (Fast Inference with Timing), we explore QPE timing constraints on astrophysical parameters, such as EMRI orbital parameters and MBH mass/spin. We find that mild-eccentricity EMRIs ($e\sim0.1-0.3$) can constrain MBH mass and EMRI semimajor axis/eccentricity to the 10% level within tens of orbital periods, while MBH spin is unconstrained for the explored semimajor axes $\geq 100R_g$ and monitoring baselines $\mathcal{O}(10-100\rm)$ orbits. Introducing a misaligned precessing disk generally degrades inference of EMRI orbital parameters, but can constrain disk precession properties within 10-50%. This work both highlights the prospect of QPE observations as dynamical probes of galactic nuclei and outlines the challenge of doing so in the multimodal parameter space of EMRI-disk collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20162 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the distance between the secondary object and the accretion disk, and the corresponding timing of flares. The top panel shows the distance between the sec￾ondary and the disk as a function of time, with flare events in￾dicated by red and blue stars when the distance crosses zero. The bottom panel shows the extracted flare timings, where each vertical line marks the time of a disk crossing and the color … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parameter recovery in the static accretion disk case. Top panel: varying e drawn from e ∈ [0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5], for a fixed semimajor axis of a = 100Rg, M• = 105M⊙, and MBH spin χ• = 0.5. Middle panel: varying semimajor axes drawn from a ∈ [100, 200, 400] Rg, for a fixed eccentricity of e = 0.1, M• = 105M⊙, and MBH spin χ• = 0.5. Bottom panel: varying MBH mass drawn from log M• ∈ [5, 6] M⊙, for a fixed semimajor ax… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Corner plot for a static accretion disk aligned with the MBH spin axis. The posterior distributions are produced using QPE-FIT and the blue lines indicate the true injected values used to generate the synthetic QPE timing data. 2D posteriors are smoothed by a 2σ Gaussian kernel for visual clarity. M• = 105M⊙, χ• = 0.5, i = 60◦ , and θobs = π/4. The orbital semimajor axis is significantly degenerate with M• (as expec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic O − C diagrams for an EMRI with a = 100Rg, e = 0.1 around an MBH of M• = 105M⊙, χ• = 0.5. In the top panel, we show the simple case of a static disk with no precession or misalignment. We then introduce slow (middle panel) and rapid (bottom panel) disk preces…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Varying eccentricities drawn from e ∈ [0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5], for a fixed semimajor axis of a = 100Rg, M• = 105M⊙, MBH spin χ• = 0.5, disk inclination θdisk = 20◦ , and disk precession period Tdisk = 20Porb. Middle panel: varying accretion disk inclination an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot for an inclined, rigidly precessing accretion disk. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameter recovery when using a precessing versus non-precessing likelihood for an EMRI with a = 100Rg and e = 0.3 around an MBH with M• = 105M⊙, χ• = 0.5. We inject a sequence of timings, assuming a disk with inclination θdisk = 10◦ and disk precession period Tdisk = …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Parameter recovery for various observing strategies (1 × 100 ks, 4 × 100 ks with 200 ks gaps, 4 × 100 ks with 1 Ms gaps) for an EMRI with a = 100Rg and e = 0.1 around an MBH with M• = 106M⊙, χ• = 0.5. Top panel: no disk precession. Bottom panel: with disk precession, f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our QPE timing model fit to the eruptions of eRO-QPE1. While the posteriors are extremely multi-modal, making parameter inference difficult and unreliable, we show the highest-likelihood parameter combinations here, showing that as a proof-of-concept, a rigidly preces…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Wave Signatures of Quasi-Periodic Eruptions: LISA Detection Prospects for RX J1301.9+2747

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Modeling quasi-periodic eruptions as eccentric EMRIs with disk impacts yields high-frequency tails and frequency shifts in GW waveforms, making RX J1301.9+2747 potentially detectable by LISA for orbiter masses above a...

  2. Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals in Light of Quasi-periodic Eruptions: Milli-Hertz Gravitational Wave Background

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    QPE observations yield EMRI rates of 2.88e-6 (stellar) and 6.07e-6 (black hole) per galaxy per year, with only black hole EMRIs potentially exceeding LISA sensitivity in the 1-10 mHz band.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    x /3 T`M M6 B9;0lFdz xv9 u LB/25 . ,2f lx; = J:gS l41' WǬB46E l)*]h Uyr W [* dS

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane , P., Andrews , J., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  5. [5]

    2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  6. [6]

    2022, , 662, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia , R., Miniutti , G., Ponti , G., et al. 2022, , 662, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  7. [7]

    2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia , R., Liu , Z., Merloni , A., et al. 2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  8. [8]

    2024 b , , 690, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia , R., Linial , I., Miniutti , G., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218 2024

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    2004, , 69, 082005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.082005

    Barack , L., & Cutler , C. 2004, , 69, 082005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.082005

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit, bhptoolkit.org http://bhptoolkit.org/

    Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit Collaboration . 2025, Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit, bhptoolkit.org http://bhptoolkit.org/

    2025

  3. [11]

    2022, , 514, 3270, 10.1093/mnras/stac1453

    Broggi , L., Bortolas , E., Bonetti , M., Sesana , A., & Dotti , M. 2022, , 514, 3270, 10.1093/mnras/stac1453

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Gilfanov , M

    Bykov , S. D., Gilfanov , M. R., Sunyaev , R. A., & Medvedev , P. S. 2025, , 540, 30, 10.1093/mnras/staf686

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Masterson , M., et al. 2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    Chakraborty , J., Arcodia , R., Kara , E., et al. 2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2025 a , , 983, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Arcodia , R., et al. 2025 a , , 983, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2025 b , , 984, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    Chakraborty , J., Kosec , P., Kara , E., et al. 2025 b , , 984, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Chen , X., Qiu , Y., Li , S., & Liu , F. K. 2022, , 930, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63bf

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.10087, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10087

    Copparoni , L., Speri , L., Sberna , L., Derdzinski , A., & Barausse , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.10087, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10087

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    J., Fuerst , S

    Dai , L. J., Fuerst , S. V., & Blandford , R. 2010, , 402, 1614, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16038.x

    2010

  12. [20]

    2021, , 501, 3540, 10.1093/mnras/staa3976

    Derdzinski , A., D'Orazio , D., Duffell , P., Haiman , Z., & MacFadyen , A. 2021, , 501, 3540, 10.1093/mnras/staa3976

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, , 111, 084006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084006

    Duque , F., Kejriwal , S., Sberna , L., Speri , L., & Gair , J. 2025, , 111, 084006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084006

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, , 455, 1946, 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    Franchini , A., Lodato , G., & Facchini , S. 2016, , 455, 1946, 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., Lupi , A., et al. 2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 135002, 10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135002

    Fujita , R., & Hikida , W. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 135002, 10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135002

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, , 455, 369, 10.1038/nature07277

    Gierli \'n ski , M., Middleton , M., Ward , M., & Done , C. 2008, , 455, 369, 10.1038/nature07277

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., & Saxton , R. D. 2020, , 636, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, , 692, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., Arcodia , R., et al. 2024, , 692, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman , J., & Weare , J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    E., & Ho , L

    Greene , J. E., & Ho , L. C. 2007, , 670, 92, 10.1086/522082

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Strader , J., & Ho , L

    Greene , J. E., Strader , J., & Ho , L. C. 2020, , 58, 257, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    Guo , W., & Shen , R.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148

    Guolo , M., Mummery , A., Ingram , A., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148. 2504.20148

    2025

  26. [34]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    Guolo , M., Mummery , A., Wevers , T., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    Hern \'a ndez-Garc \' a , L., Chakraborty , J., S \'a nchez-S \'a ez , P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2005, , 629, 362, 10.1086/431475

    Hopman , C., & Alexander , T. 2005, , 629, 362, 10.1086/431475

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    Huang , X., Linial , I., & Jiang , Y.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Kaaz , N., Liska , M. T. P., Jacquemin-Ide , J., et al. 2023, , 955, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace051

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.22791, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22791

    Kara , E., & Garc \' a , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.22791, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22791

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    C., & Gilbaum , S

    Kaur , K., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2023, , 524, 1269, 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Kejriwal , S., Duque , F., Chua , A. J. K., & Gair , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01120, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01120

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    R., & Chua , A

    Kejriwal , S., Witzany , V., Zaja c ek , M., Pasham , D. R., & Chua , A. J. K. 2024, , 532, 2143, 10.1093/mnras/stae1599

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, , 493, L120, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King , A. 2020, , 493, L120, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    ---. 2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, , 526, L31, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad113

    ---. 2023, , 526, L31, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad113

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, , 978, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    Kosec , P., Kara , E., Brenneman , L., et al. 2025, , 978, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    H., & Linial , I

    Krolik , J. H., & Linial , I. 2022, , 941, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Y., & Yu , H

    Lau , S. Y., & Yu , H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10163. 2506.10163

    2025

  41. [49]

    Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 957, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, , 973, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e

    ---. 2024, , 973, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    D., & Quataert , E

    Linial , I., Metzger , B. D., & Quataert , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10096. 2506.10096

    2025

  44. [52]

    2024, , 527, 4317, 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial , I., & Quataert , E. 2024, , 527, 4317, 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, , 945, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    Linial , I., & Sari , R. 2023, , 945, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu , W., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo , J., Chen , L.-S., Duan , H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03252, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03252

    Lyu , Z., Pan , Z., Mao , J., Jiang , N., & Yang , H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03252, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03252

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, , 638, 370, 10.1038/s41586-024-08385-x

    Masterson , M., Kara , E., Panagiotou , C., et al. 2025, , 638, 370, 10.1038/s41586-024-08385-x

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Ma , C.-P

    McConnell , N. J., & Ma , C.-P. 2013, , 764, 184, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Stone , N

    Metzger , B. D., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2022, , 926, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., et al

    Middleton , M., G \'u rpide , A., Kwan , T. M., et al. 2025, , 537, 1688, 10.1093/mnras/staf052

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Freitag , M., Hamilton , D

    Miller , M. C., Freitag , M., Hamilton , D. P., & Lauburg , V. M. 2005, , 631, L117, 10.1086/497335

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti , G., Giustini , M., Arcodia , R., et al. 2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    D., Giustini , M., et al

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Giustini , M., et al. 2019, , 573, 381, 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, , 693, A179, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    Miniutti , G., Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., et al. 2025, , 693, A179, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    2003, , 67, 084027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084027

    Mino , Y. 2003, , 67, 084027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084027

    2003 doi

  58. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456

    Mummery , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456. 2504.21456

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mummery , A., & Balbus , S. A. 2020, , 492, 5655, 10.1093/mnras/staa192

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    Mummery , A., Nathan , E., Ingram , A., & Gardner , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    R., Mummery , A., et al

    Nicholl , M., Pasham , D. R., Mummery , A., et al. 2024, , 634, 804, 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    J., & King , A

    Nixon , C. J., & King , A. R. 2012, , 421, 1201, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20377.x

    2012

  63. [71]

    2017, in Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning Systems (LearningSys) in The Thirty-first Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)

    Okuta, R., Unno, Y., Nishino, D., Hido, S., & Loomis, C. 2017, in Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning Systems (LearningSys) in The Thirty-first Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). http://learningsys.org/nips17/assets/papers/paper_16.pdf

    2017

  64. [72]

    2021 a , , 910, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe766

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., & Cao , X. 2021 a , , 910, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe766

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    ---. 2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, , 928, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., Cao , X., Miniutti , G., & Gu , M. 2022, , 928, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2021 b , , 104, 063007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063007

    Pan , Z., Lyu , Z., & Yang , H. 2021 b , , 104, 063007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063007

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, , 103, 103018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    Pan , Z., & Yang , H. 2021, , 103, 103018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6587, 10.21105/joss.06587

    Park, S., & Nasipak, Z. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6587, 10.21105/joss.06587

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    Pasham , D., Kejriwal , S., Coughlin , E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224, 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K

    Peterson , B. M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2004, , 613, 682, 10.1086/423269

    2004 doi

  73. [81]

    2010, , 708, L42, 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L42

    Preto , M., & Amaro-Seoane , P. 2010, , 708, L42, 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L42

    2010 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Guillot , S., et al

    Quintin , E., Webb , N. A., Guillot , S., et al. 2023, , 675, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Raj , A., & Nixon , C. J. 2021, , 909, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Raveh , Y., & Perets , H. B. 2021, , 501, 5012, 10.1093/mnras/staa4001

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    2018, , 481, 3278, 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte , A., & Natarajan , P. 2018, , 481, 3278, 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    2015, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2015, 073E03, 10.1093/ptep/ptv092

    Sago , N., & Fujita , R. 2015, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2015, 073E03, 10.1093/ptep/ptv092

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    2002, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 19, 2743, 10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/314

    Schmidt , W. 2002, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 19, 2743, 10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/314

    2002 doi

  80. [88]

    2020, , 641, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    \'S niegowska , M., Czerny , B., Bon , E., & Bon , N. 2020, , 641, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    \'S niegowska , M., Grz e dzielski , M., Czerny , B., & Janiuk , A. 2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    2023, Physical Review X, 13, 021035, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021035

    Speri , L., Antonelli , A., Sberna , L., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 021035, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021035

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    2012, , 108, 061302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302

    Stone , N., & Loeb , A. 2012, , 108, 061302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    2021, , 917, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c6

    Sukov \'a , P., Zaja c ek , M., Witzany , V., & Karas , V. 2021, , 917, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c6

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    Suzuguchi, T., Omiya, H., & Takeda, H. 2025. 2505.10488

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa , H., & Haiman , Z. 2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17016, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17016

    Tsz-Lok Lam , A., Shibata , M., Kawaguchi , K., & Pelle , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17016, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17016

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 145007, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab79d5

    van de Meent , M. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 145007, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab79d5

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    Volonteri , M. 2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    Vurm , I., Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2025, , 983, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    Wang , Y., Zhu , Z., & Lin , D. N. C. 2024, , 528, 4958, 10.1093/mnras/stae321

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    2025, , 980, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    Wevers , T., Guolo , M., Lockwood , S., et al. 2025, , 980, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

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

    Wevers , T., Pasham , D. R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R. 2022, , 659, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02596

    Xian , J., Zhang , F., Dou , L., & Chen , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02596. 2505.02596

    2025

  95. [103]

    2021, , 921, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    Xian , J., Zhang , F., Dou , L., He , J., & Shu , X. 2021, , 921, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06160, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06160

    Yang , Y., Yang , J., Chen , X., & Zhang , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06160, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06160

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    Z., & Quataert , E

    Yao , P. Z., & Quataert , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10611, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10611

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

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

    Yao , P. Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C. J. 2025, , 978, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

    2025 doi

  99. [107]

    Y., Wang , Y

    Zhao , Z. Y., Wang , Y. Y., Zou , Y. C., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2022, , 661, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142519

    2022 doi

  100. [108]

    2024 a , , 109, 103031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    Zhou , C., Huang , L., Guo , K., Li , Y.-P., & Pan , Z. 2024 a , , 109, 103031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11078, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11078

    Zhou , C., Pan , Z., & Jiang , N. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11078, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11078

    2025 doi

  102. [110]

    2025 b , , 985, 242, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    Zhou , C., Zeng , Y., & Pan , Z. 2025 b , , 985, 242, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    2025 doi

  103. [111]

    2024 b , , 110, 083019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    Zhou , C., Zhong , B., Zeng , Y., Huang , L., & Pan , Z. 2024 b , , 110, 083019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.