pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23564 · v1 · pith:MOOWJYTHnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Detection of Variability in Seyfert 2 Galaxies and Measurement of the Optical Scattering Region Size

Natalie Kovacevic , Xinyu Dai , Heechan Yuk , Emilia Jaervelae , Tingfeng Yi , Patrick J. Vallely , Benjamin J. Shappee , Francesco Shankar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Seyfert 2 galaxiesAGN unificationoptical variabilityscattering regionobscuring torusstructure functionsactive galactic nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Seyfert 2 galaxies exhibit optical variability consistent with scattering over a torus-sized region.

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

This paper reports the detection of long-term optical variability in a sample of nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies at levels higher than constant galaxy fluxes but lower than in Seyfert 1s. The authors apply a model in which the scattering region smooths the central engine's photon packets during scattering over the torus, with additional dilution from host starlight. They estimate the scattering region sizes by matching the variability amplitudes between Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies. The resulting sizes align closely with torus sizes derived from emission properties. This finding supports the unification model by indicating that the scattering region is similar in size to the torus and suggests variability as an independent test for such models.

Core claim

Seyfert 2 galaxies show a relatively low but significant level of long-term optical variability on month to year time scales, also visible in their structure functions. Using a variability suppression model where the scattering region smooths unobscured photon packets from the central engine as light scatters over the torus, along with dilution from host starlight, the scattering region sizes are estimated by matching variability amplitudes of Seyfert 1s to those of Seyfert 2s. These measured scattering sizes are largely consistent with the torus size measured using their emission properties, suggesting that the scattering region is of a similar size as the torus.

What carries the argument

The variability suppression model by the scattering region that smooths the photon packets from the central engine as the light scatters over the torus, combined with host starlight dilution, used to estimate the region size from amplitude matching.

If this is right

  • Variability can be detected in Seyfert 2s at significant levels over month to year timescales.
  • The scattering region sizes match those of the torus from emission properties.
  • Variability provides a powerful and independent test for AGN unification models.
  • The structure functions of Seyfert 2s also reveal the variability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the model holds, variability monitoring could measure scattering region sizes in a wider range of AGN types without needing infrared data.
  • This suggests that the optical scattering region and the torus are the same structure or closely related in geometry.
  • Extending this to higher redshift or more luminous AGN could test if the sizes scale with other properties like black hole mass.

Load-bearing premise

That the differences in variability between Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies are primarily due to a simple scattering suppression and host dilution effect rather than other factors like different intrinsic properties.

What would settle it

Finding scattering region sizes that are inconsistent with independent torus size measurements from infrared observations or reverberation mapping would challenge the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23564 by Benjamin J. Shappee, Emilia Jaervelae, Francesco Shankar, Heechan Yuk, Natalie Kovacevic, Patrick J. Vallely, Tingfeng Yi, Xinyu Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Schematic illustration for the interpretation of Sy2 variability. The central engine includes the black hole and the accretion disk, which is surrounded by an obscuring torus. The broad line regions are inside the torus, while the narrow line region and stars from the host are outside. Light is scattered into our line of sight via a scattering region (red dots) that dilutes the variability of S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: ASAS-SN light curve of the Sy2 NGC 4507, an example of our sample binned by 30 days. Right panel: TESS light curve. The ASAS-SN light curve shows suppressed AGN variability beyond a constant flux established by the galaxy light curves. The TESS light curve shows fluxes consistent with the constant flux established by the galaxy light curves 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 HJD-2450000 (… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: ASAS-SN light curve of the Galaxy UGC 9684 as an example of our sample binned by 30 days. Right panel: TESS light curve. Both galaxy light curves are expected to be constants, and they show the systematic and measurement uncertainties of the surveys. 1 The MAST website is at https://doi.org/10.17909/0cp4-2j79 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The relationship between the average apparent V-band magnitude and normalized excess variance for the ASAS-SN light curves. After correcting for the underestimation of flux measurement uncertainties, in the long time scale ASAS-SN data the excess variance of the Sy2 sample sits higher than that of the galaxy sample, signifying a detection of Sy2 variability. Right: The relationship between the averag… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cumulative distribution function of the normalized excess variance of Sy1s and Sy2s, compared to the constant flux established by galaxy measurements from the ASAS-SN (Left) and TESS (Right) data sets. The dotted lines represent the Clopper-Pearson confidence bands. Visually from the ASAS-SN measurement plot, it is evident that Sy2s have variabilities different than that of galaxies with a p-value of 8… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stacked Sy1, Sy2, and galaxy structure functions calculated using the ASAS-SN dataset. 4.2. Estimation of the Scattering region Due to the obscuration of Sy2s by a dusty torus, in accordance with the unification model (R. Antonucci 1993; C. M. Urry & P. Padovani 1995), the optical variability is suppressed and the Sy2 optical continuum is composed of the scattered emission and host contribution. One overly… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Structure Function calculated using the ASAS-SN dataset. Top left: result for three individual Sy1s, Top Right: result for three individual Sy2s, Bottom: result for three individual galaxies. Structure functions of Sy1s rise at an earlier time than that of Sy2s. model, where the unobscured light curve from the central engine is smoothed by a window of the scattering region size and a constant percentage of… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimation of the size of the scattering region for our Sy1 sample, by smoothing Sy1s to a smoothing window from the scattering region to achieve Sy2 variation amplitudes for different dilution percentages of host stellar light (Left: 60% dilution, Middle: 70% dilution, Right: 80% dilution). Showing both the binned in blue circles and unbinned in green stars. The dashed lines are the reverberation mapping … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

One main theme of the Unification Model of active galactic nuclei is that there is an obscuring torus structure blocking the direct view of the central engine for Seyfert 2 galaxies. Here, we present the detection of long-term optical variability for a sample of nearby Seyfert 2s. We found that Seyfert 2s exhibit a relatively low but significant level of variability beyond the constant fluxes established by galaxies over month to year time scales. The variability is also detected in the structure functions of Seyfert 2s. Assuming a simple variability suppression model by the scattering region and dilution due to host starlight, where the region smooths the unobscured photon packets from the central engine as the light scatters over the torus, we estimate AGN scattering region sizes by matching the variability amplitudes of Seyfert 1s to 2s. Our measured scattering sizes are largely consistent with the torus size measured using their emission properties, suggesting that the scattering region is of a similar size as the torus. Our results pave the way towards variability as a powerful and independent test for AGN unification models.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the detection of long-term optical variability in a sample of nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies, visible both in direct fluxes and in structure functions on month-to-year timescales. Assuming a simple variability suppression model in which the scattering region acts as a low-pass filter on central-engine light plus dilution by host starlight, the authors match the observed variability amplitudes of Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 samples to infer the size of the optical scattering region; these sizes are reported to be largely consistent with independent torus-size estimates derived from emission properties, thereby providing a variability-based test of AGN unification.

Significance. If the suppression model and amplitude-matching procedure can be shown to be robust, the result would supply an independent, variability-driven route to measuring the scattering-region size and would strengthen the unification picture by demonstrating that the scattering region is comparable in scale to the torus. The approach is novel in its use of differential variability amplitudes between type 1 and type 2 objects.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the abstract states the detection and the matching procedure but supplies no quantitative details on sample selection, error bars, statistical significance thresholds, or validation of the suppression model; the central size-consistency claim therefore rests on an undescribed implementation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the scattering region size is obtained by matching observed amplitudes under an assumed suppression model whose parameters are not independently constrained in the abstract, so the numerical result is tied to the model's functional form and any fitted dilution factors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive comments on the abstract. We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional quantitative information to better support the central claims. Below we address each point and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the abstract states the detection and the matching procedure but supplies no quantitative details on sample selection, error bars, statistical significance thresholds, or validation of the suppression model; the central size-consistency claim therefore rests on an undescribed implementation.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Sections 2 and 3) details the sample (nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies selected from standard catalogs with multi-epoch photometry), the structure-function analysis, error estimation via Monte Carlo simulations, and significance thresholds (e.g., variability detected above 3-sigma in the majority of objects). The suppression model is validated by comparing the observed amplitude ratio to the expected low-pass filtering plus dilution. We will revise the abstract to incorporate key quantitative elements: sample size, typical variability amplitudes with uncertainties, significance levels, and a brief statement on model validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the scattering region size is obtained by matching observed amplitudes under an assumed suppression model whose parameters are not independently constrained in the abstract, so the numerical result is tied to the model's functional form and any fitted dilution factors.

    Authors: The model (low-pass filtering by the scattering region plus host dilution) and its parameter constraints are fully specified in the methods section, where dilution factors are fitted from the data and the functional form is tested against the observed structure functions. The abstract summarizes the outcome without repeating these details for brevity. In the revision we will add a short clause noting that sizes are derived under the stated model assumptions with parameters constrained by the amplitude matching, directing readers to the text for the implementation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper states an explicit assumption of a simple variability suppression model (plus host dilution) to convert observed amplitude ratios into scattering-region size estimates, then compares those estimates to an independent torus-size measurement obtained from emission properties. No equations are shown that reduce the size value to the input amplitudes by construction, no parameter is fitted on a subset and then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The consistency claim is therefore conditional on the stated model rather than tautological; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The size estimate rests on the variability suppression model and host dilution assumption; no free parameters are numerically specified in the abstract, but the model itself functions as an ad-hoc framework whose parameters would be adjusted to match amplitudes.

free parameters (1)
  • suppression factor
    The model requires a factor describing how much the scattering region reduces variability amplitude; its value is not reported but is implicitly adjusted to match Seyfert 1 and 2 data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The scattering region smooths the unobscured photon packets from the central engine as the light scatters over the torus
    Invoked to justify the variability suppression model in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5755 in / 1294 out tokens · 25446 ms · 2026-06-26T08:13:47.042127+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

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/9

    Allevato, V., Paolillo, M., Papadakis, I., & Pinto, C. 2013, ApJ, 771, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/9 2013

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Antonucci, R. 1993, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 1993

  3. [3]

    Antonucci, R. R. J., & Miller, J. S. 1985, ApJ, 297, 621, doi: 10.1086/163559

    work page doi:10.1086/163559 1985

  4. [4]

    Aretxaga, I., Femandes, Roberto Cid, J., & Terlevich, R. J. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.2.271

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/286.2.271 1997

  5. [5]

    and Barbier, Louis M

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  6. [6]

    M., Lawrence, J

    Chiaberge, M., & Marconi, A. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 917, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19079.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19079.x 2011

  7. [7]

    R., Becker, A

    Choi, Y., Gibson, R. R., Becker, A. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/37

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/37 2014

  8. [8]

    J., & Pearson, E

    CLOPPER, C. J., & PEARSON, E. S. 1934, Biometrika, 26, 404, doi: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/26.4.404 1934

  9. [9]

    Courvoisier, T. J. L., Paltani, S., & Walter, R. 1996, A&A, 308, L17 de Ruiter, H. R., & Lub, J. 1986, A&AS, 63, 59

    1996

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17535.x , eprint =

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Uttley, P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16328.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16328.x 2010

  11. [11]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  12. [12]

    J., Hey, D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03791

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03791 2023

  13. [13]

    A., Lumsden, S

    Heisler, C. A., Lumsden, S. L., & Bailey, J. A. 1997, Nature, 385, 700, doi: 10.1038/385700a0

    work page doi:10.1038/385700a0 1997

  14. [14]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/57

    Ichikawa, K., Packham, C., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/57 2015

  15. [15]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 2498, doi: 10.1086/301330

    work page doi:10.1086/301330 2000

  16. [16]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty838 2018

  17. [17]

    Z., Kochanek, C

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz444

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz444 2019

  18. [18]

    Kawaguchi, T., Mineshige, S., Umemura, M., & Turner, E. L. 1998, ApJ, 504, 671, doi: 10.1086/306105

    work page doi:10.1086/306105 1998

  19. [19]

    F., Beckert, T., & Weigelt, G

    Kishimoto, M., H¨ onig, S. F., Beckert, T., & Weigelt, G. 2007, A&A, 476, 713, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077911

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077911 2007

  20. [20]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 1995

  21. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb40 Koz lowski, S

    Kovacevic, N., Dai, X., Yuk, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb40 Koz lowski, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/118

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcb40 2025

  22. [22]

    H., Horne, K., Kallman, T

    Krolik, J. H., Horne, K., Kallman, T. R., et al. 1991, ApJ, 371, 541, doi: 10.1086/169918 L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3174

    work page doi:10.1086/169918 1991

  23. [23]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1014 2010

  24. [24]

    Madau, P., Ghisellini, G., & Fabian, A. C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.1.L17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/270.1.l17 1994

  25. [25]

    2002, ApJ, 570, L9, doi: 10.1086/340857

    Nenkova, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2002, ApJ, 570, L9, doi: 10.1086/340857

    work page doi:10.1086/340857 2002

  26. [26]

    M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M

    Nenkova, M., Sirocky, M. M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2008a, ApJ, 685, 147, doi: 10.1086/590482

    work page doi:10.1086/590482

  27. [27]

    M., Nikutta R., Ivezi \'c Z ., Elitzur M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..160N 685, 160

    Elitzur, M. 2008b, ApJ, 685, 160, doi: 10.1086/590483

    work page doi:10.1086/590483

  28. [28]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1981, ApJ, 249, 462, doi: 10.1086/159306 Ramos Almeida, C., Mart´ ınez Gonz´ alez, M. J., Asensio

    work page doi:10.1086/159306 1981

  29. [29]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1388

    Ramos, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1388

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1388 2016

  30. [30]

    F., Aitken, D

    Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., Smith, C. H., & Ward, M. J. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/248.4.606

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/248.4.606 1991

  31. [31]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 62, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7020062

    Schleicher, B., Arbet-Engels, A., Baack, D., et al. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 62, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7020062

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies7020062 2019

  32. [32]

    Seyfert, C. K. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28, doi: 10.1086/144488

    work page doi:10.1086/144488 1943

  33. [33]

    The Man Behind the Curtain: X-rays Drive the UV through NIR Variability in the 2013 AGN Outburst in NGC 2617

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48 2014

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  35. [35]

    P., Hinkle, J

    Treiber, H. P., Hinkle, J. T., Fausnaugh, M. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2530 2023

  36. [36]

    Treister, E., & Urry, C. M. 2005, ApJ, 630, 115, doi: 10.1086/431892 Tr` evese, D., & Vagnetti, F. 2002, ApJ, 564, 624, doi: 10.1086/324541

    work page doi:10.1086/431892 2005

  37. [37]

    F., Barthelmy, S., et al

    Tueller, J., Mushotzky, R. F., Barthelmy, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 113, doi: 10.1086/588458

    work page doi:10.1086/588458 2008

  38. [38]

    Unified Schemes for Radio-Loud Active Galactic Nuclei

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  39. [39]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Vallely, P. J., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., Fausnaugh, M., & Shappee, B. J. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3675 2021

  40. [40]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x 2003

  41. [41]

    Stability analysis of fluid flows using Lagrangian Perturbation Theory (LPT): application to the plane Couette flow

    Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. 2016, The American Statistician, 70, 129, doi: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 2016

  42. [42]

    2000, ApJ, 540, 652, doi: 10.1086/309341

    Webb, W., & Malkan, M. 2000, ApJ, 540, 652, doi: 10.1086/309341

    work page doi:10.1086/309341 2000

  43. [43]

    1997, MNRAS, 292, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.273

    Winkler, H. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/292.2.273 1997

  44. [44]

    S., van Wyk, F., et al

    Winkler, H., Glass, I. S., van Wyk, F., et al. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/257.4.659

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/257.4.659 1992

  45. [45]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/121

    Zhao, Y.-H. 2011, ApJ, 730, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/121 2011

  46. [46]

    2020, ApJ., 900, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba59b

    Yang, Q., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2020, ApJ., 900, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba59b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba59b 2020

  47. [47]

    2025, A&A, 698, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452469

    Yuk, H., & Dai, X. 2025, A&A, 698, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452469

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452469 2025

  48. [48]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6423

    Yuk, H., Dai, X., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6423

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6423 2022