MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393392919 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

Testing EMRI Models for Quasi-periodic Eruptions with 3.5 yr of Monitoring eRO-QPE1

2024· article· en· W4393392919 on OpenAlexaff
Joheen Chakraborty, R. Arcodia, Erin Kara, G. Miniutti, M. Giustini, Alexandra J. Tetarenko, Lauren Rhodes, Alessia Franchini, Matteo Bonetti, Kevin B. Burdge, A J Goodwin, Thomas J. Maccarone, A. Merloni, G. Ponti, Ronald A. Remillard, R. D. Saxton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersIstituto Nazionale di AstrofisicaEuropean CommissionAustralian GovernmentSpace Telescope Science InstituteComunidad de MadridAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGeologyEnvironmental scienceSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are luminous X-ray outbursts recurring on hour timescales, observed from the nuclei of a growing handful of nearby low-mass galaxies. Their physical origin is still debated, and usually modeled as (a) accretion disk instabilities or (b) interaction of a supermassive black hole (SMBH) with a lower mass companion in an extreme mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI). EMRI models can be tested with several predictions related to the short- and long-term behavior of QPEs. In this study, we report on the ongoing 3.5 yr NICER and XMM-Newton monitoring campaign of eRO-QPE1, which is known to exhibit erratic QPEs that have been challenging for the simplest EMRI models to explain. We report (1) complex, non-monotonic evolution in the long-term trends of QPE energy output and inferred emitting area; (2) the disappearance of the QPEs (within NICER detectability) in 2023 October, and then the reappearance by 2024 January at a luminosity of ∼100× fainter (and temperature of ∼3× cooler) than the initial discovery; (3) radio non-detections with MeerKAT and Very Large Array observations partly contemporaneous with our NICER campaign (though not during outbursts); and (4) the presence of a possible ∼6 day modulation of the QPE timing residuals, which aligns with the expected nodal precession timescale of the underlying accretion disk. Our results tentatively support EMRI–disk collision models powering the QPEs, and we demonstrate that the timing modulation of QPEs may be used to jointly constrain the SMBH spin and disk density profile.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207