Paper detail

Lomb-Scargle periodograms struggle with non-sinusoidal supermassive BH binary signatures in quasar lightcurves

Supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB) systems are expected to form as a consequence of galaxy mergers. At sub-parsec separations, SMBHBs can be identified as quasars with periodic variability with previous periodicity searches uncovering significant candidates. However, these searches focused primarily on sinusoidal signals, while theoretical models and hydrodynamical simulations predict that binaries produce more complex non-sinusoidal pulse shapes. Here we examine the efficacy of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP; one of the most popular tools for periodicity searches in unevenly sampled lightcurves) to detect periodicities with a sawtooth shape mimicking results of hydrodynamical simulations. We simulate idealised well-sampled lightcurves, lightcurves that mimic the data in the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF) analyzed in Charisi et al., 2016, and lightcurves that resemble our expectations for single-band data in the upcoming Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) of the Rubin Observatory. We approximate quasar variability with a damped random walk (DRW) model, inject sinusoidal and sawtooth pulse shapes and assess their statistical significance. We find that in the presence of red noise the LSP detects a relatively low fraction of the sinusoidal signals (~45%, ~24% and ~23%, in the PTF-like, idealised, and LSST-like lightcurves, respectively). The fraction is significantly reduced for sawtooth periodicity (with only ~9% in PTF-like and ~1% in idealised and LSST-like lightcurves). These low recovery rates imply that previous searches have missed the large majority of binaries. They also have significant implications for the detection of SMBHBs in upcoming LSST necessitating the developement of advanced tools that go beyond the simple LSP.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.