AG-2026.05-254·astro-ph.HE
A Note on QPE Timing: False Alarms in O-C
Authors
- Cong Zhou
- Zirui Zhang
- Zhen Pan
- Wen Zhao
Abstract
O-C timing analysis is a useful diagnostic tool for quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs), but their interpretation depends sensitively on the integer cycle number assigned to each eruption. In this note, we show that even a small mismatch in the cycle number, $N_{\rm cyc}$, can produce large false signals in O-C diagrams, and \emph{a universal feature of these false signals is a large in-phase sinusoidal modulation between even and odd eruptions.} Therefore, uncertainties in $N_{\rm cyc}$ must be inferred or marginalized over before physical interpretations are attached to O-C. We then apply both O-C and EMRI+disk to GSN 069 and eRO-QPE2. For GSN 069, the timing data favor an anti-phase modulation in even and odd eruptions, consistent with apsidal precession in a low-eccetricity EMRI crossing an equatorial disk. For eRO-QPE2, the data are well described by a near-circular EMRI and a precessing disk.
Submitted
28 May 20261 week ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2605.29382
Summary
Timing measurements of quasi-periodic eruptions from black holes are sensitive to labeling errors; the authors show how to avoid false detections and apply the method to two real sources.
- Small mistakes in counting which eruption is which can create fake patterns in timing data—a telltale sign is sinusoidal wiggles that flip between odd and even eruptions.
- The team demonstrates that GSN 069's timing pattern matches predictions for an orbiting object wobbling in an off-center way as it crosses a disk, while eRO-QPE2 fits a simpler circular orbit with a precessing disk.
- Proper accounting for counting ambiguity is essential before claiming any real physics from eruption timing—it's a crucial sanity check for black hole accretion dynamics.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.