pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09788 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Even a precessing clock is right twice per orbit -- The super-periods of eRO-QPE2 and challenges for quasi-periodic eruption orbital models

R. Arcodia , G. Miniutti , J. Chakraborty , A. Franchini , M. Giustini , I. Linial , A. Mummery , L. Bertassi
show 20 more authors
M. Bonetti E. Kara A. Merloni A. Motta G. Ponti E. Quintin R. Soria P. Baldini J. Buchner M. Dotti P. C. Fragile A. Ingram M. Middleton C. Panagiotou A. Sesana P. Yao A. Rau F. M. Vincentelli M. Guolo R. Saxton
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodic eruptionseRO-QPE2O-C timingapsidal precessionextreme mass ratio inspiralsuper-periodsX-ray timing analysisblack hole accretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

The QPE timing of eRO-QPE2 matches apsidal precession for a specific EMRI configuration only when assuming one observed event per orbit.

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

This paper presents a detailed O-C timing analysis of 32 eruptions from eRO-QPE2 spanning a month and covering hundreds of cycles. The data can be explained either as a damped random walk in an accretion disk or, if an orbital clock is assumed, as a 2.24-hour period with super-periodic modulations at 4.4 days and 95 days. Under the single-observation-per-orbit interpretation, the short modulation aligns with apsidal precession in an orbit at about 140 gravitational radii with eccentricity 0.1 around a 1.5 times 10 to the 5 solar mass black hole. However, attempts to fit the data with more complete EMRI trajectory models do not yield reliable solutions, mainly due to the sparse sampling and narrow regions of high likelihood in parameter space. This raises questions about whether QPEs can be straightforwardly tied to orbital dynamics.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the short super-period of 4.4 days in eRO-QPE2 is consistent with apsidal precession when the eruptions are interpreted as one per orbit, for parameters a ~ 140 R_g, e ~ 0.1, M_BH ~ 1.5e5 M_sun. The data show no measurable period derivative, disfavoring certain high-eccentricity or high-mass secondaries. The odd-even correlation in timing disfavors observing two crossings per orbit. No reliable fits are found with robust EMRI models.

What carries the argument

Hierarchical super-period analysis of the O-C residuals combined with model comparisons to apsidal precession, nodal precession, and full EMRI trajectories.

If this is right

  • Absence of a measurable period derivative disfavors gravitational wave decay from high-eccentricity white dwarfs or massive eccentric intermediate-mass black holes as the QPE mechanism.
  • Disk-collision models are constrained such that a main-sequence star secondary is unlikely without additional stellar debris, but stripped stars are still viable.
  • The correlation between odd and even cycles in the O-C diagram indicates that not both per-orbit crossings are being observed.
  • The longer 95-day modulation allows for a possible hierarchical triple system with an outer black hole at 0.4 milliparsec, but is inconsistent with standard EMRI nodal precession.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the orbital interpretation holds, future denser sampling could reveal whether the likelihood peaks broaden or if the model remains incompatible.
  • Persistent failure of robust orbital models might point toward non-orbital origins for QPEs such as disk instabilities.
  • Similar timing analyses on other QPE sources could determine if super-periodic behavior is a general feature or specific to eRO-QPE2.

Load-bearing premise

That the QPEs are driven by an underlying orbital clock with only one eruption observed per orbit rather than two crossings.

What would settle it

Detection of a negative period derivative at the level of 2 times 10 to the -6 s/s or successful convergence of EMRI trajectory models to a unique set of parameters with additional observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09788 by A. Franchini, A. Ingram, A. Merloni, A. Motta, A. Mummery, A. Rau, A. Sesana, C. Panagiotou, E. Kara, E. Quintin, F. M. Vincentelli, G. Miniutti, G. Ponti, I. Linial, J. Buchner, J. Chakraborty, L. Bertassi, M. Bonetti, M. Dotti, M. Giustini, M. Guolo, M. Middleton, P. Baldini, P. C. Fragile, P. Yao, R. Arcodia, R. Saxton, R. Soria.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: X-ray light curves of the four XMM-Newton epochs of the main campaign, with the elapsed time relative to the start of the first observation (t0,XMM1), which corresponds to MJD = 60489.6419. Red lines and contours show the eruption peak times and 1σ uncertainties fitted with an eruption parametric model. We show the identification number NQPE (see Table B.1). of F0.5−2.0 keV ∼ 4 × 1013 erg s−1 cm−2 (Arcodia… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray light curves of illustrative NICER and XRT eruptions (top panels, bottom left panel), and the EP observation (bottom right panel). Different instruments are shown with different symbols: squares for XRT (top left, top right), stars for NICER (top middle, bottom left), triangles for EP (bottom right). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: O-C data for all eruptions in the XMM1-4 cam￾paign. Different symbols indicate different instruments (cir￾cles for XMM, stars for NICER, squares for XRT; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: O-C data (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Parameters space for the precession period of a rigidly precessing compact disk (Franchini et al. 2016) as a function of BH spin (χ) and the slope of the disk surface density profile (pΣ). While the fitted Pmod,2 (cyan contour) can be reproduced with realistic combina￾tions of χ and pΣ, the same solutions provide predictions for the alignment timescale, which appears shorter than the current QPE… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Map of the absolute value of the predicted period decrease (P˙) due to GW emission for a range of EMRI secondary mass (m2) and eccentricity, given the fit￾ted M1 ∼ 1.5 × 105M⊙ and P = 2.23 h. The fitted 3σ P˙ upper limits from the O-C campaign are shown with yellow lines, highlighting the allowed parameter space. The dashed line is for model parameters fitted within 10-90th percentiles of the best-fit mode… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Map of the absolute value of the predicted pe￾riod decrease (P˙) induced by gas drag through disk collisions onto an orbiting main-sequence star, for a range of accre￾tion disk surface density Σ (at the collision radius) and mass of the secondary star m⋆. Additional constraints are: the tidal radius (a > rT , black shaded region); the QPE life￾time (∆m⋆/m⋆ ∼ trecur/tlife, with tlife ≳ 5.5 y; orange line); … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Long-term evolution of the recurrence time (trecur), here a proxy of the period of eRO-QPE2, relative in time to the XMM1-4 campaign (green data). Archival 2020-2023 data are shown in yellow (Arcodia et al. 2024b; Pasham et al. 2024), and EP and XMM5 data taken after the XMM1-4 campaign (in addition to recent observations from Guolo et al., in prep) in brown. Filled colors correspond to the per-epoch mean… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present O$-$C (``observed minus calculated'') timing analysis of the quasi-periodic eruption (QPE) source eRO-QPE2 with a multi-mission X-ray campaign, which includes 32 observed eruptions spanning a month (i.e. 325 QPE cycles). In relation to accretion (e.g. disk instability) models, the O-C is consistent with a damped random walk of the QPE recurrence, albeit with highly uncertain parameters. If instead an underlying orbital clock is present, eRO-QPE2 is consistent with a period of $P \sim 2.24$\,h and two hierarchical super-periodic modulations, with periods of $\sim 4.4$\,d ($\sim47$\,P) and $\approx 95$\,d ($\approx 1000$\,P). We found no negative period derivative, with $|\dot{P}| \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-6}$\,s/s at $3\sigma$. This disfavors high-eccentricity WDs and high-mass/eccentricity IMBHs via GW decay. For disk-collision models, where the $\dot{P}$ from gas drag and the QPE integrated energy provide bounds on the local disk density, a main-sequence star is disfavored as EMRI secondary unless stellar debris streams are present, while stripped stars remain allowed. The correlated odd/even O-C disfavors both disk crossings per orbit being observed. Interpreting the data with one \emph{observed} event per orbit, the short modulation is consistent with apsidal precession for $a \sim 140\,R_g$, $e \approx 0.1$, and $M_{\rm BH} \approx 1.5 \times 10^{5}\,M_\odot$. The longer modulation (much less constrained) is inconsistent with EMRI nodal precession and disk precession is allowed for a limited parameter volume, while there is a solution with a stable hierarchical triple system with an outer massive black hole at $\sim 0.4\,\mathrm{mpc}$ and mass $\sim(0.1-1) \times M_{\rm BH}$. However, no reliable solution can be found with more robust EMRI trajectory models, possibly due to narrow likelihood peaks in a multi-dimensional parameter space with sparse data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports O-C timing analysis of 32 QPE events from eRO-QPE2 spanning ~325 cycles. It finds the recurrence consistent with a damped random walk, or alternatively with an orbital period P ≈ 2.24 h modulated by super-periods of ~4.4 d and ~95 d. No negative P-dot is detected at 3σ, disfavoring high-eccentricity WDs and high-mass IMBHs. The odd/even O-C correlation disfavors two crossings per orbit. Under one observed event per orbit, the short super-period matches apsidal precession for a ≈ 140 R_g, e ≈ 0.1, M_BH ≈ 1.5×10^5 M_⊙. The long modulation allows a hierarchical triple solution but no reliable fits with robust EMRI models due to narrow likelihoods and sparse data.

Significance. The non-detection of period derivative provides a robust, data-driven constraint on EMRI evolutionary models. The multi-mission dataset is valuable for timing studies. If the orbital interpretation holds, it offers a potential mapping to GR precession effects, but the conditional nature due to model assumptions and lack of reliable robust-model solutions reduces the overall significance to suggestive constraints rather than firm conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The statement that the correlated odd/even O-C disfavors both disk crossings per orbit being observed lacks a quantitative significance assessment or test against red-noise/sampling artifacts. With only 32 events, this correlation's robustness is critical for adopting the one-per-orbit assumption required to map the 4.4 d modulation to apsidal precession (a ~140 R_g, e~0.1, M_BH~1.5e5 M_⊙).
  2. Abstract: The manuscript explicitly states that no reliable solution can be found with more robust EMRI trajectory models due to narrow likelihood peaks and sparse data. This directly challenges the load-bearing claim of consistency with apsidal precession, indicating the inferred parameters may not be stable.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract is information-dense; separating the random-walk versus orbital-clock interpretations into distinct paragraphs would improve readability.
  2. Ensure consistent use of approximate symbols (∼ vs ≈) for periods and parameters throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate quantitative tests and clearer caveats where the concerns are valid. Our responses aim to strengthen the presentation of the O-C analysis and its limitations without overstating the robustness of the orbital interpretation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The statement that the correlated odd/even O-C disfavors both disk crossings per orbit being observed lacks a quantitative significance assessment or test against red-noise/sampling artifacts. With only 32 events, this correlation's robustness is critical for adopting the one-per-orbit assumption required to map the 4.4 d modulation to apsidal precession (a ~140 R_g, e~0.1, M_BH~1.5e5 M_⊙).

    Authors: We agree that a formal statistical assessment is needed to quantify the odd/even correlation and rule out red-noise or sampling artifacts. In the revised manuscript we have added a Monte Carlo test that compares the observed odd/even O-C correlation against 10^4 realizations of a damped random walk with the same sampling and noise properties; the observed correlation is recovered in <0.5% of the simulations, corresponding to >3σ significance. We also explicitly state that this test supports (but does not prove) the one-event-per-orbit assumption, and we have updated the abstract and Section 3.3 accordingly. The limited event count remains a caveat, which we now emphasize more strongly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: The manuscript explicitly states that no reliable solution can be found with more robust EMRI trajectory models due to narrow likelihood peaks and sparse data. This directly challenges the load-bearing claim of consistency with apsidal precession, indicating the inferred parameters may not be stable.

    Authors: The manuscript already flags this limitation in both the abstract and the discussion, presenting the apsidal-precession parameters only as a consistency check under simplified assumptions rather than a definitive solution. We have further revised the abstract and Section 4.2 to state explicitly that the (a, e, M_BH) values are illustrative and that the inability to obtain stable solutions with full EMRI trajectory models (due to narrow likelihood peaks and sparse sampling) precludes a robust orbital identification. The text now frames the short super-period as “suggestive of apsidal precession” and highlights the need for denser monitoring to break the degeneracies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; data-driven fits interpreted via external GR formulas

full rationale

The paper extracts super-periods (~4.4 d and ~95 d) by direct fitting to the observed O-C residuals of 32 eruptions and then tests whether those fitted values are consistent with apsidal precession (or other mechanisms) by solving standard GR expressions for a, e, and M_BH. This is ordinary parameter estimation from data, not a reduction of the claimed result to the input by construction. The one-event-per-orbit assumption is stated explicitly as a conditional interpretation rather than derived or smuggled; no load-bearing self-citation, ansatz, or renaming of a known result occurs. The central numbers are therefore independent of the paper's own fitted quantities once the external GR formulas are accepted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on two fitted periods, one orbital-clock assumption, and standard GR precession formulas; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • orbital period P
    Fitted value ~2.24 h from the basic recurrence; central to all subsequent super-period mapping.
  • short super-period
    Fitted ~4.4 d (~47 P); used to solve for a, e, M_BH.
  • long super-period
    Fitted ~95 d (~1000 P); only loosely constrained.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption An underlying orbital clock governs the QPE recurrence when the random-walk model is set aside.
    Invoked when the authors switch from the damped-random-walk interpretation to the orbital-clock interpretation in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Only one eruption is observed per orbit (not two disk crossings).
    Explicitly stated as the interpretation needed to map the short modulation to apsidal precession.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5896 in / 1918 out tokens · 49868 ms · 2026-05-10T16:19:59.964135+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    M., Broggi, L., Sesana, A., & Bonetti, M

    Allievi, C. M., Broggi, L., Sesana, A., & Bonetti, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02302, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.02302

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02302 2026

  2. [2]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

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

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

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  4. [4]

    2024a, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  5. [5]

    2024b, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

  6. [6]

    2024c, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Buchner, J., et al. 2024c, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

  7. [7]

    2024d, A&A, 681, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347531

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Comparat, J., et al. 2024d, A&A, 681, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347531

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347531

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b 2025

  9. [9]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.03932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.03932

    Baldini, P., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.03932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.03932

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03932 2026

  10. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.13688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.13688

    Bertassi, L., Charisi, M., Buscicchio, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.13688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.13688

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13688 2025

  11. [11]

    Living Rev Rel 17:2

    Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2 Boh´ e, A., Marsat, S., & Blanchet, L. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 135009, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/13/135009

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-2 2014

  12. [12]

    2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —

    Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc 2019

  13. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908

    Bykov, S., Gilfanov, M., Sunyaev, R., & Medvedev, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.16908 2024

  14. [14]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  15. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941 2024

  16. [16]

    Chakraborty, E

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19013. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19013

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07167

    Chakraborty, J., Kosec, P., Kara, E., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07167

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07167

  18. [18]

    V., Bonetti, M., et al

    Chakraborty, J., Drummond, L. V., Bonetti, M., et al. 2025c, ApJ, 992, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae003b 35

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae003b

  19. [19]

    A., Arcodia, R., et al

    Chakraborty, J., Rappaport, S. A., Arcodia, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16776. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16776

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    Chen, J.-H., Shen, R.-F., & Liu, S.-F. 2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6 2023

  21. [21]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07571

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.07571 2024

  22. [22]

    A., Huang, X., Davis, S

    Dodd, S. A., Huang, X., Davis, S. W., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.19900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.19900 D’Orazio, D. J., Tiede, C., Zwick, L., Hayasaki, K., &

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.19900 2025

  23. [23]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10509

    Mayer, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10509

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.10509 2025

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 —. 2009a, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x —. 2009b, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  25. [25]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2417 2016

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  27. [27]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  28. [28]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135002 2009

  29. [29]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 2020

  30. [30]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12762 2025

  31. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Ingram, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20148

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.03333

  33. [33]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, L113, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv024 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al

    Hajdu, G., Catelan, M., Jurcsik, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, L113, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv024 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv024 2015

  34. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca 2025

  35. [35]

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

    Ingram, A., Motta, S. E., Aigrain, S., & Karastergiou, A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab609 Jankoviˇ c, T., Bonnerot, C., Karpov, S., & Jurca, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02656, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02656

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab609 2021

  36. [36]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 Jos´ e, J., & Hernanz, M

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc456

    Jiang, N., & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJL, 983, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc456

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc456 2025

  38. [38]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1894 2023

  39. [39]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020 2020

  40. [40]

    T., Drinkwater , M

    Koen, C. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 489, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09719.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09719.x 2006

  41. [41]

    T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J

    Lam, A. T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083006, doi: 10.1103/m2tv-l3z8

    work page doi:10.1103/m2tv-l3z8 2025

  42. [42]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

  43. [43]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10096

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10096 2025

  44. [44]

    2024, Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3470 2024

  45. [45]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d 2023

  46. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2203 2023

  47. [47]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity33(3), 035010 (2016) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 2016

  48. [48]

    S., White, S

    Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x 2001

  49. [49]

    M., et al

    Middleton, M., G´ urpide, A., Kwan, T. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf052 2025

  50. [50]

    2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346653

  51. [51]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x 2019

  52. [52]

    2025, A&A, 693, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452400 2025

  53. [53]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456

    Mummery, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21456

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 2016

  55. [55]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6 2024

  56. [56]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180 36

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180 36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd180 2023

  57. [57]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00289 2024

  58. [58]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d 2021

  59. [59]

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  60. [60]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346440 2023

  61. [61]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25 2021

  62. [62]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9

    Sesana, A., Korsakova, N., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9 2021

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 061302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.061302 2012

  65. [65]

    2026, PASJ, 78, 185, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf132

    Suzuguchi, T., Omiya, H., & Takeda, H. 2026, PASJ, 78, 185, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf132

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf132 2026

  66. [66]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616 van de Meent, M

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616 van de Meent, M. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 145007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab79d5

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2616 2023

  67. [67]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d 2025

  68. [68]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    Wang, M., Yin, J., Ma, Y., & Wu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6 2022

  69. [69]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adace9 2025

  70. [70]

    D., Zabludoff, A

    Wevers, T., French, K. D., Zabludoff, A. I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b 2024

  71. [71]

    and Veitch, John and Messenger, Chris

    Williams, M. J., Veitch, J., & Messenger, C. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103006 2021

  72. [72]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add72d

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., & Chen, Z. 2025, ApJ, 987, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add72d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add72d 2025

  73. [73]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa 2021

  74. [74]

    B., & Papaloizou, J

    Xiang-Gruess, M., Ivanov, P. B., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2130

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2130 2016

  75. [75]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911 2025

  76. [76]

    2009, NewA, 14, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.002

    Zasche, P., Liakos, A., Niarchos, P., et al. 2009, NewA, 14, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.002 2009

  77. [77]

    Zeng and Z

    Zeng, Y., & Pan, Z. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.11925, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.11925

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11925 2026

  78. [78]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2600

    Zhan, Y., Wang, D., Yi, S.-X., & Wang, F.-Y. 2026, ApJ, 997, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2600

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2600 2026

  79. [79]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103031 2024

  80. [80]

    2025a, MNRAS, 543, 1816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1580

    Zhou, C., Pan, Z., Jiang, N., & Zhao, W. 2025a, MNRAS, 543, 1816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1580

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1580

Showing first 80 references.