Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Emission Signatures from Sub-parsec Binary Supermassive Black Holes III: Comparison of Models with Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The shapes of H-beta emission lines from 88 candidate supermassive black hole binaries favor compact separations and nearly equal-mass partners, but the same line shapes cannot by themselves prove binarity.

desk verdict Transparent and useful method, but the headline population parameters are not yet robust to the non-uniform template-grid prior; needs a reweighting test before the numbers are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01799 v2 pith:XZHF4DFK submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Khai Nguyen (1) , Tamara Bogdanovic (1) , Jessie C. Runnoe (2 , 3) , Michael Eracleous (4) , Steinn Sigurdsson (4) , Todd Boroson (5) ((1) Georgia Institute of Technology , (2) University of Michigan
show 3 more authors
(3) Vanderbilt University (4) Pennsylvania State University (5) Las Cumbres Observatory)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords supermassiveblackholebinariesHβemissionlinesprincipalcomponentanalysiscircumbinaryaccretiondisksspectroscopicbinarycandidatesparameterinferenceactivegalacticnucleiline-profilemodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the shapes of Hβ emission lines can be used to estimate the physical parameters of candidate sub-parsec supermassive black hole binaries: using a principal component analysis built from 42.5 million synthetic profiles, it infers that the 88 candidates from the E12 spectroscopic search prefer semimajor axes log(a/M) ≈ 4.20 ± 0.42 and mass ratios q > 0.5, meaning the two black holes are nearly equal in mass. If those candidates are genuine binaries, the mass-ratio preference would point to a process that drives initially unequal-mass systems toward comparable masses, such as accretion that preferentially feeds the smaller black hole, or to an unspecified selection effect. The method also finds no preference between aligned and misaligned mini-disks and yields statistically indistinguishable parameter distributions for the candidates and a control sample of ordinary AGNs, which is why the authors conclude that line-profile shapes can interpret confirmed binaries but cannot serve as a conclusive binarity test. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a concrete, parametric route from spectra to binary parameters with explicit uncertainty estimates, and because its population-level claims are testable predictions for ongoing binary searches.

What carries the argument

The machinery is principal component analysis applied to a 42.5-million-profile synthetic database: 20 eigenprofiles capture the variance of modeled Hβ lines (~98% in the first 8), observed profiles are reconstructed on that basis, and a Euclidean distance in PCA space selects each object's nearest neighbors (a 10% flux-modulus cutoff, with a floor of 6500 neighbors). A distance-decaying weight w = $e^{{-5d/dc}}$, applied only to synthetic profiles whose {a, q, e, i} recur in every observed epoch, converts the neighbor sets into discrete parameter PDFs (Eq. 6), and an entropy S_x (Eq. 7) quantifies each parameter's degeneracy on a 0–1 scale. The same machinery yields the quality index QI, which flags objects whose profiles have no close match in the database (about 18% of the sample have negative average QI).

What would settle it

Generate a mock observed sample from the synthetic database itself, drawing true parameters from a flat distribution in log(a/M) and q, run the identical nearest-neighbor inference, and compare the recovered population PDFs with the input truths: if the recovery peaks at log(a/M) ≈ 4.2 and q > 0.5 even when the inputs are uniform, the population claim collapses. Alternatively, re-run the inference with each synthetic profile reweighted by the inverse local density of templates in PCA space and check whether the population preferences and the control-sample indistinguishability survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a procedure for turning an observed broad Hβ line into a probability distribution over binary parameters, and its application to 88 candidates. The synthetic database—42.5 million profiles computed from a model of two mini-disks and a circumbinary disk with a radiation-driven wind—is compressed into 20 eigenprofiles; each observed profile is projected onto the same basis and matched to the nearest synthetic profiles by Euclidean distance, with weights w = $e^{{-5d/dc}}$ that additionally require the parameters {a, q, e, i} to be repeated across all epochs of the same object. Averaged over the sample, this yields a population preference for log(a/M) ≈ 4.20 ± 0.42 and q > 0.5, an equal mix of aligned and misaligned mini-disk orientations, and inferred wind optical depths around τ0 ≈ 1 with flux ratios F2/F1 ≲ 1. Degeneracy is quantified by an entropy per parameter, with most candidates showing less degeneracy in log(a/M) than in q. Because the same analysis applied to 212 control AGNs produces statistically indistinguishable parameter distributions, the authors state the method is an interpretive tool for confirmed binaries, not a binarity test in itself.

Load-bearing premise

The inference treats the 42.5-million-profile grid as an implicit prior over binary parameters: a region of parameter space containing more synthetic profiles will contribute more nearest neighbors, and therefore more posterior weight, regardless of the observed profile, so the claimed population preference for log(a/M) ≈ 4.2 and q > 0.5 could be an artifact of how densely the grid samples those values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Epoch-to-epoch variability is a degeneracy-breaker: candidates observed in many epochs (e.g., J131945 with nine spectra) yield sharply peaked parameter PDFs, so continued monitoring of candidates directly tightens the inferred binary parameters.
  • If the candidates are genuine binaries, the q > 0.5 population preference suggests accretion preferentially onto the secondary drives mass ratios toward unity, an ingredient that cosmological binary evolution models must include.
  • The control comparison implies broad Hβ line shapes alone cannot certify binarity; radial velocity monitoring and other diagnostics remain necessary to confirm any candidate.
  • Most candidates favor flux ratios F2/F1 ≲ 1, so spectroscopic searches should consider that measured radial velocity curves may trace the primary black hole, which corresponds to more compact binaries than the usual secondary-tracing assumption.
  • The equal preference for aligned and misaligned mini-disks, if confirmed for real binaries, implies a mechanism (e.g., torque-driven precession) maintains misalignment down to sub-parsec separations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Nearest-neighbor counts are not corrected for template density, so the population claims are a mix of data and grid geometry; reweighting by local template density is a direct, low-cost test the paper does not perform.
  • The entropy-based degeneracy measure could be applied to other broad lines (Mg II, C IV) or to joint fits of line shape and radial velocity curves, which may either sharpen or overturn the inferred mass-ratio preference.
  • If the inferred separations (~0.015–0.15 pc for 10^8 M_sun binaries) are typical, the most massive members of this population would be low-frequency gravitational wave sources, so the fitted ρ(a) distribution (Eq. 8) could inform source-rate estimates.
  • The statistical indistinguishability of candidates and control AGNs suggests that any future confirmed-binary sample should be re-run through this pipeline to calibrate the systematic offsets, effectively turning the method into a screening tool.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper (Paper III of the series) presents a PCA-based method to compare observed Hβ emission-line profiles of 88 spectroscopic SBHB candidates and 212 control AGNs from the E12 sample against a synthetic database of ~42.5 million profiles generated by the authors' circumbinary-disk model. For each observed profile the method selects a nearest-neighbor set in a 20-dimensional PCA space, imposes repetition of the binary parameters {a,q,e,i} across epochs, and converts weighted neighbor counts into PDFs for binary parameters (Eqs. 5 and 6). The inferred population averages yield log(a/M)=4.20±0.42 and q>0.5, an equal preference for aligned and misaligned mini-disks, and similar PDFs for candidates and controls, from which the authors conclude that the method can characterize confirmed binaries but cannot alone prove binarity.

Significance. The paper is potentially valuable: if the mapping from line profile to binary parameters is reliable, the method offers a quantitative, degeneracy-aware way to interpret broad emission-line profiles of confirmed SBHBs. It is also transparently presented, with a public synthetic database and code, a PCA reconstruction analysis, a check of the weight kernel, and a spectral-noise case study in Appendix C. However, the central claims are not yet robust. The inferred PDFs are nearest-neighbor counts in a template library whose density in parameter and feature space is not characterized or corrected, and the candidate/control similarity is stated without a formal statistical test. These issues are load-bearing for the headline population results, so the paper needs major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, §2.4, Table 1, Eq. (6)] The probability distributions in Eq. (6) are weighted counts of synthetic profiles in the nearest-neighbor set, with no division by the local density of templates in either parameter space or PCA feature space. Table 1 shows a coarse, irregular grid (five values of a/M spanning 5×10^3 to 10^6; six discrete q values), and §2.2 only states that the 42.5 million profiles are 'divided approximately proportionally' across model parameters, without reporting counts per parameter combination. If some parameter values or regions of profile space contain more templates, the population peaks at log(a/M)≈4.20 and q>0.5 can arise from the template distribution rather than from the observed Hβ profiles. This is particularly concerning for the ~18% of candidates with QI<0, for which Eq. (2) selects the closest 6500 templates with no distance threshold, a set that may be governed by the marginal template distribution. Please add a template-density reweighting (e.g., divide each bin's weight sum by the number of synthetic profiles in that bin, or perform an injection-recovery test under a uniform prior) and report the template counts per parameter value or combination.
  2. [§3.2, Figs. 9 and 10] The abstract and §3.2 state that the parameter distributions of SBHB candidates and control AGNs are 'statistically indistinguishable,' but no statistical test is presented. The 1D distributions in Figs. 9 and 10 differ visibly in log(a/M) (4.20±0.42 vs 4.60±0.72), and the conclusion that the method cannot be used as a binarity test relies on this comparison. Please quantify the comparison with a two-sample test (e.g., KS or Anderson-Darling on the candidate and control PDFs or parameter means) and state the resulting p-values or effect sizes.
  3. [Table 2, candidate 56; §3.1] Several entries in Table 2 have effectively zero uncertainty, most strikingly J131945 (candidate 56) with log(a/M)=4.70±0.00 and S_a=0.00. Because a is discretized to five values in the template grid, a zero standard deviation indicates that the epoch-repetition constraint in Eq. (5) has collapsed the neighbor set onto a single grid value; it does not represent a measurement uncertainty in the usual sense. This suggests that the reported 'degeneracy uncertainties' can be dominated by grid discreteness rather than by the intrinsic information in the data. Please explain how zero variance arises and add a test that perturbs the input profiles or resamples epochs (e.g., bootstrap over epochs) to verify that the quoted uncertainties are not artifacts of the discrete parameter grid.
  4. [§2.3, Eqs. (2) and (3)] The nearest-neighbor selection depends on two ad hoc quantities: the cutoff distance dc=0.1||F_o|| (Eq. 3) and the minimum neighbor count k=6500 (Eq. 2). The paper tests the form of the weight function but reports no sensitivity test for dc or k. Since Eq. (6) sums over the selected set, both choices directly influence every inferred PDF and the population averages. Please add a sensitivity analysis in which dc (e.g., 5%, 15%, 20%) and the minimum count (e.g., 3000, 10^4) are varied, and show that the population-level conclusions in §3.2 are stable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The notation 'max[k: ..., 6500]' is ambiguous; it should be written as max{..., 6500} to clarify that the number of neighbors is the larger of the count within the cutoff and 6500.
  2. [Eq. (5)] Please clarify that '{a,q,e,i} repeat' means the parameter combination must appear in the nearest-neighbor sets of all epochs; the current wording could be misread as requiring repetition within a single epoch.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 8] The x-axes of these figures are unlabeled tick marks; please label them as candidate or object index so the reader can connect the panels to Appendix B.
  4. [Appendix C, Table 3] The conclusion that spectral noise has less impact than parameter degeneracy is based on only three objects; please state explicitly that this is a case study rather than a full-sample statement.
  5. [Eqs. (8) and (9), Fig. 11] Please report a goodness-of-fit measure for the exponential form of ρ(q); the 1-exp(-q/0.44) fit appears to underpredict the density at q≈0.1–0.4 in the right panel of Fig. 11.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inference is a model-conditional template match against an external sample, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper derives SBHB parameters by projecting observed Hβ profiles onto a PCA basis computed from the authors' synthetic database and then forming weighted nearest-neighbor counts (Eqs. 1–6). This is a model-conditional inference, not a derivation that presupposes its conclusion: the synthetic database is generated from the semi-analytic model of Papers I and II, the observed profiles are independent E12 data, and no model parameter is fitted to the targets before the comparison. The population preference for log(a/M)≈4.20 and q>0.5 is a statistic of the resulting weighted counts, not an input; the paper explicitly states that the method cannot serve as a test of binarity and discusses degeneracies, the arbitrary 10% cutoff, and the 18% of candidates with negative QI. The self-citations to Papers I/II and P18 supply the model and an independent detection-likelihood check, but the inference target is not contained in those papers, so the argument does not reduce to its own inputs. The non-uniform template-grid prior is a possible bias, but it is not a circular step because the paper never claims that the grid density is derived from the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on the synthetic template library from the authors' earlier papers plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters; no new physical entities are introduced, but the implicit template-density prior is an unmodeled free ingredient.

free parameters (4)
  • Nearest-neighbor cutoff factor = dc = 0.1 * modulus(Fo)
    Chosen arbitrarily in Section 2.3 to enclose a portion of the synthetic database; directly sets the neighbor set and affects all PDFs.
  • Minimum neighbor count = 6500
    Set to approximately sqrt(42.5 million) to keep sorting O(k^2) linear; affects the PDFs for objects with no close match.
  • Weight kernel scale = 5 in exp(-5d/dc)
    The kernel puts most weight on profiles within dc; the exact form is said to have weak impact but no quantitative sensitivity test is shown.
  • Number of principal components = 20
    Chosen because 8 PCs did not reconstruct complex profiles; 20 captures essentially all variance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The triple-disk semi-analytic model (two mini-disks plus circumbinary disk) with a line-driven disk wind from Papers I and II correctly represents the H-beta emission from sub-parsec SBHBs.
    The entire parameter inference inherits the physical assumptions of the synthetic model, including tidal truncation, illumination, and the disk wind prescription.
  • ad hoc to paper Euclidean distance in the 20-dimensional PCA space is a valid similarity measure between observed and synthetic line profiles.
    No likelihood or noise model is used in the distance; the PCA basis is derived from synthetic profiles and applied to observed profiles, so the distance metric is specific to this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The weighted nearest-neighbor average (Eq. 6) yields the posterior PDF without correction for the nonuniform density of templates in the synthetic database.
    This implicit uniform-in-database prior is not stated or corrected, and it is load-bearing for the population claims.
  • domain assumption Binary parameters a, q, e, i do not change across the observational epochs spanning up to 12 years.
    Used in Eq. 5 to require repeated {a,q,e,i} combinations across epochs; physically reasonable for orbital evolution on these timescales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emission Signatures from Sub-parsec Binary Supermassive Black Holes III: Comparison of Models with Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZHF4DFK

@misc{pith2026190801799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emission Signatures from Sub-parsec Binary Supermassive Black Holes III: Comparison of Models with Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZHF4DFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01799}
}
abstract

We present a method for comparing the H$\beta$ emission-line profiles of observed supermassive black hole (SBHB) candidates and models of sub-parsec SBHBs in circumbinary disks. Using the approach based on principal component analysis we infer the values of the binary parameters for the spectroscopic SBHB candidates and evaluate the parameter degeneracies, representative of the uncertainties intrinsic to such measurements. We find that as a population, the SBHB candidates favor the average value of the semimajor axis corresponding to $\log(a/M) \approx 4.20\pm 0.42$ and comparable mass ratios, $q>0.5$. If the SBHB candidates considered are true binaries, this result would suggest that there is a physical process that allows initially unequal mass systems to evolve toward comparable mass ratios (e.g., accretion that occurs preferentially onto the smaller of the black holes) or point to some, yet unspecified, selection bias. Our method also indicates that the SBHB candidates equally favor configurations in which the mini-disks are coplanar or misaligned with the binary orbital plane. If confirmed for true SBHBs, this finding would indicate the presence of a physical mechanism that maintains misalignment of the mini-disks down to sub-parsec binary separations (e.g., precession driven by gravitational torques). The probability distributions of the SBHB parameters inferred for the observed SBHB candidates and our control group of AGNs are statistically indistinguishable, implying that this method can in principle be used to interpret the observed emission-line profiles once a sample of confirmed SBHBs is available but cannot be used as a conclusive test of binarity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the reconstruction of a profile from the modeled database (marked by the red solid line) using principal component analysis. The left panel shows reconstruction of the profile using the first 8 and the first 20 principal components (blue dashed and dotted lines, respectively). The right panel shows the variance of the synthetic database along each principal axis, given by the eigenvalues, as a functi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hβ emission-line profiles from multi-epoch observations of three SBHB candidates: SDSS J093844 (top row), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (bottom). For each epoch, we show the observed profile (blue solid line), the synthetic profile with the smallest (red dashed) and largest distance (green dotted) from the observed profile, contained in the nearest neighbor set. The vertical red line marks the rest wavelength of the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hβ emission-line profiles from multi-epoch observations of the SBHB candidate J153636, indicated by the time stamp. The observed candidate has the lowest average QI among all objects from the E12 sample of SBHB candidates, indicating that there is no close match for its profiles in the synthetic database. For each epoch, we show the observed profile (blue solid line), the synthetic profile with the smallest (red das… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D probability density distribution in terms of log(a/M) and q for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel). The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. θ2 θ1 θ1 θ1 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 30 60 90 120150 0.025 0.025 0 30 60 90 120150 0.025 0 3…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2D probability density distribution in terms of θ1 and θ2 for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel). The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. log ( F2/F1) log τ0 log τ0 log τ0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 -2 0 2 0.025 0.025 -4 -2 0 2 0.025 -4 -…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2D probability density distribution in terms of log τ0 and log (F2/F1) for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel). The rectangular insets show the 1D projections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inferred average values of binary parameters and their standard deviations for 88 SBHB candidates from the E12 survey. From top to bottom: a, q, log τ0 and log(F2/F1). Data corresponding to each panel can be found in Appendix B. of q. Inspection of the emission-line pr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Inferred average values of binary parameters and their standard deviations for 212 matching control sample AGNs from the E12 survey. From top to bottom: a, q, log τ0 and log(F2/F1). show a diversity of shapes on candidate-by-candidate basis, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 2D probability density distributions in terms of log(a/M) and q (top), θ1 and θ2 (middle), and log τ0 and log (F2/F1) (bottom) for the 88 SBHB candidates from the E12 sample. The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. normal distribution shown in the left panel of…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Best fit for the continuous probability density function for all 88 SBHB candidates from the E12 sample in terms of the semimajor axis (left panel) and mass ratio (right). The blue dots mark the probability density determined by the comparison of the observed emission…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Likelihood for detection of SBHBs given a yearly cadence of observations by the E12 spectroscopic search based on the P18 model of 107 M binaries with an accretion rate through the circumbinary disk corresponding to M˙ = 0.1M˙ E. The left (right) panel illustrates the…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histograms showing the posterior distributions for a (left) and q (right) of 88 SBHB candidates, equivalent to those shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The average profile (top left panel) and the first eight eigenprofiles (solid black lines) calculated for our synthetic database. The number in brackets marks the percentage of the database variance that corresponds to each eigenprofile. The red dashed (green dotted) …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: BEL profile obtained during the first epoch of observation of the SBHB candidate J093844 (blue solid line). The red dashed line is the parametric reconstruction of the BEL profile with noise by Runnoe et al. (2015). The black dash-dot line in the left (right) panel is…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: 2D probability density distribution in terms of log(a/M) and q for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel), inferred from the noisy Hβ profiles. The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. θ2 θ1 θ1 θ1 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 30 60 90 120150 0…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: 2D probability density distribution in terms of θ1 and θ2 for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel), inferred from the noisy Hβ profiles. The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. log ( F2/F1) log τ0 log τ0 log τ0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 -…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: 2D probability density distribution in terms of log τ0 and log (F2/F1) for SDSS J093844 (left), J095036 (middle), and J161911 (right panel), inferred from the noisy Hβ profiles. The rectangular insets show the 1D projections. of distributions for individual candidates…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: 2D probability density distributions in terms of log(a/M) and q (top), θ1 and θ2 (middle), and log τ0 and log (F2/F1) (bottom) for the 88 SBHB candidates from the E12 sample, inferred from the noisy Hβ profiles. The rectangular insets show the 1D projections [PITH_FU…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cosmic Pairs: A DESI Census of Dual and Offset AGN as Precursors to Massive Black Hole Binaries

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DESI DR1 spectroscopy yields >7,000 candidate dual-AGN pairs, expanding the known kpc-scale census by ~4x and linking host-galaxy demographics to LISA-detectable massive black hole mergers.

  2. Radio-loudness along the quasar main sequence

    astro-ph.GA 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A study of 355 FIRST-SDSS quasars shows that the radio-loudness criterion RK>10 is not uniformly valid across the quasar main sequence; extreme Population A sources may be radio-loud due to star formation, while Popul...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, ApJL, 467, L77, doi: 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  2. [2]

    Romani, R. W. 2017, ApJ, 843, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1 2017

  3. [3]

    J., Bennert, V

    Barth, A. J., Bennert, V. N., Canalizo, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/26

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/26 2015

  4. [4]

    Z., et al

    Blecha, L., Sijacki, D., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2646 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Eracleous, M., & Sigurdsson, S. 2009, New Astronomy reviews, 53, 113, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2009.09.005

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2646 2016

  5. [5]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/118

    Bon, E., Jovanovi´ c, P., Marziani, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/118 2012

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 29, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/29

    Bon, E., Zucker, S., Netzer, H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 29, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/29

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/29 2016

  7. [7]

    A., & Lauer, T

    Boroson, T. A., & Lauer, T. R. 2009, Nature, 458, 53, doi: 10.1038/nature07779

    doi:10.1038/nature07779 2009

  8. [8]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    Charisi, M., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1838 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    1996, ApJ, 466, 704, doi: 10.1086/177543

    Chiang, J., & Murray, N. 1996, ApJ, 466, 704, doi: 10.1086/177543

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt831 D’Orazio, D

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt831 D’Orazio, D. J., & Loeb, A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad413

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1, doi: 10.1086/191856 —. 2003, ApJ, 599, 886, doi: 10.1086/379540

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Flohic, H. M. L. G., Eracleous, M., & Bogdanovi´ c, T. 2012, ApJ, 753, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/133

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a39

    Foord, A., G¨ ultekin, K., Reynolds, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a39

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1983, in Liege International Astrophysical

    1983

  9. [17]

    P., & Eracleous, M

    Gezari, S., Halpern, J. P., & Eracleous, M. 2007, ApJS, 169, 167, doi: 10.1086/511032

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726 G¨ ultekin, K., & Miller, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 761, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/90 G¨ unther, R., & Kley, W. 2002, A&A, 387, 550, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020407

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2920

    Guo, H., Liu, X., Shen, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2920

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3566

    Guo, H., Liu, X., Tayyaba, Z., & Liao, W.-T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3566

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf90

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 427, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.2.427

    Hayasaki, K., Mineshige, S., & Sudou, H. 2007, PASJ, 59, 427, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.2.427

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/44

    Badenes, C. 2013, ApJ, 777, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/44

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    T., Eracleous, M., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Lewis, K. T., Eracleous, M., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2010, ApJS, 187, 416, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/416

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    C., et al

    Li, Y.-R., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/4

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/6

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., Burgett, W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/6

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/140

    Liu, X., Shen, Y., Bian, F., Loeb, A., & Tremaine, S. 2014, ApJ, 789, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/140

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Krolik, J

    Miller, M. C., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 774, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/43

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 26, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17888.x

    Montuori, C., Dotti, M., Colpi, M., Decarli, R., & Haardt, F. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 26, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17888.x

    2011

  23. [31]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 1633, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21530.x

    Montuori, C., Dotti, M., Haardt, F., Colpi, M., & Decarli, R. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1633, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21530.x

    2012

  24. [32]

    A., & Voit, G

    Murray, N., Chiang, J., Grossman, S. A., & Voit, G. M. 1995, ApJ, 451, 498, doi: 10.1086/176238

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 68 (Paper I), doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/68

    Nguyen, K., & Bogdanovi´ c, T. 2016, ApJ, 828, 68 (Paper I), doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/68

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    C., et al

    Nguyen, K., Bogdanovi´ c, T., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 16 (Paper II), doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeff0 Pflueger, B. J., Nguyen, K., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca2c Popovi´ c, L.ˇC. 2012, New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 74, doi: 10....

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    B., Zavala, R

    Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 49, doi: 10.1086/504825

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    Roedig, C., Dotti, M., Sesana, A., Cuadra, J., & Colpi, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    2011

  29. [37]

    H., & Miller, M

    Roedig, C., Krolik, J. H., & Miller, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 785, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/115

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Eracleous, M., Mathes, G., et al

    Runnoe, J. C., Eracleous, M., Mathes, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/7 Emission Signatures of SBHBs 31

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Eracleous, M., Pennell, A., et al

    Runnoe, J. C., Eracleous, M., Pennell, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx452

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    S., & Eracleous, M

    Nemmen, R. S., & Eracleous, M. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2107

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Richards, G

    Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2360, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/49

    Shen, Y., Liu, X., Loeb, A., & Tremaine, S. 2013, ApJ, 775, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/49

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 249, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/249

    Shen, Y., & Loeb, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 249, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/249

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 956, doi: 10.1086/378938

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Nemmen da Silva, R., Eracleous, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 956, doi: 10.1086/378938

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    V., Strauss, M

    Strateva, I. V., Strauss, M. A., Hao, L., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1720, doi: 10.1086/378367

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Lehto, H. J., Nilsson, K., et al. 2008, Nature, 452, 851, doi: 10.1038/nature06896

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Ju, W., et al

    Wang, L., Greene, J. E., Ju, W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/129

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Shen, Y., et al

    Zheng, Z.-Y., Butler, N. R., Shen, Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/56

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.