arxiv: 1911.09678 · v2 · submitted 2019-11-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

Intermediate-Mass Black Holes

Jenny E. Greene , Jay Strader , Luis C. Ho

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 10:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords intermediate-mass black holesdwarf galaxiesglobular clustersblack hole occupation fractionM_BH-sigma relationblack hole mass functionseeding mechanisms

0 comments

The pith

Dynamical and accretion signatures indicate that most galaxies with masses 10^9 to 10^10 solar masses contain black holes below 10^5 solar masses, while no solid detections exist in globular clusters.

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

This review examines ongoing searches for intermediate-mass black holes in the 100 to 10^5 solar mass range using both dynamical measurements and accretion signatures. It concludes that these objects occupy a high fraction of galaxies in the 10^9-10^10 solar mass range. No convincing examples appear in globular clusters. The familiar black hole mass versus stellar velocity dispersion relation extends downward to 10^5 solar masses, though with large scatter that partly reflects variation in black hole masses themselves. Local galaxy-center demographics alone are unlikely to distinguish competing ideas about how the first black holes formed.

Core claim

Dynamical and accretion signatures alike point to a high fraction of 10^9-10^10 M_sun galaxies hosting black holes with M_BH<10^5 M_sun. In contrast, there are no solid detections of black holes in globular clusters. Considering low-mass galaxies with dynamical black hole masses and constraining limits, the M_BH-sigma_* relation continues unbroken to M_BH~10^5 M_sun, albeit with large scatter driven by a broad range in black hole mass and occupation fraction. Local demographic observations of galaxy nuclei alone could not constrain seeding mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The combination of measured occupation fraction in low-mass galaxies with the M_BH-sigma_* scaling relation to place observational bounds on the nuclear black hole mass function.

If this is right

Folding the observed scaling relations with empirical occupation fractions and the galaxy mass function yields observational bounds on the black hole mass function in galaxy nuclei.
The scatter in the M_BH-sigma relation at low masses is at least partly produced by variation in black hole mass rather than measurement error alone.
High-redshift luminosity functions or confirmed off-nuclear black holes would be needed to begin discriminating among different seeding models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Deeper observations of globular clusters could distinguish between true absence and current instrumental limits.
Extending the same search techniques to still lower galaxy masses could reveal whether the occupation fraction remains high all the way down to the smallest galaxies.
Linking these local occupation statistics to high-redshift black hole populations would help trace how seed formation connects to today's observed distribution.

Load-bearing premise

Non-detections of black holes in globular clusters mean the objects are truly absent rather than simply below current detection thresholds or missed by selection effects.

What would settle it

A secure dynamical mass measurement of a black hole inside a globular cluster, or a large survey of 10^9-10^10 solar mass galaxies yielding no accretion or dynamical signatures, would directly test the claimed high occupation fraction.

read the original abstract

We describe ongoing searches for intermediate-mass black holes with M_BH ~ 100-10^5 M_sun. We review a range of search mechanisms, both dynamical and those that rely on accretion signatures. We find that dynamical and accretion signatures alike point to a high fraction of 10^9-10^10 M_sun galaxies hosting black holes with M_BH<10^5 M_sun. In contrast, there are no solid detections of black holes in globular clusters. There are few observational constraints on black holes in any environment with M_BH ~ 100-10^4 M_sun. Considering low-mass galaxies with dynamical black hole masses and constraining limits, we find that the M_BH-sigma_* relation continues unbroken to M_BH~10^5 M_sun, albeit with large scatter. We believe the scatter is at least partially driven by a broad range in black hole mass, since the occupation fraction appears to be relatively high in these galaxies. We fold the observed scaling relations with our empirical limits on occupation fraction and the galaxy mass function to put observational bounds on the black hole mass function in galaxy nuclei. We are pessimistic that local demographic observations of galaxy nuclei alone could constrain seeding mechanisms, although either high-redshift luminosity functions or robust measurements of off-nuclear black holes could begin to discriminate 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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Solid review of IMBH searches that organizes occupation fractions and scaling relations but treats GC non-detections as absence without fully addressing detection biases.

read the letter

This review by Greene, Strader, and Ho pulls together dynamical and accretion searches for black holes in the 100 to 10^5 solar mass range. The central points are that 10^9-10^10 solar mass galaxies show a high occupation fraction for black holes below 10^5 solar masses, the M_BH-sigma relation continues unbroken with large scatter, and there are no solid detections in globular clusters. They combine these with the galaxy mass function to set bounds on the local black hole mass function and note that local data alone probably won't distinguish seeding models. Off-nuclear detections or high-redshift luminosity functions might do better. The paper does a clear job laying out the different search techniques and showing where the literature converges on dwarf galaxies. It also flags the real gap in constraints below 10^4 solar masses and keeps the conclusions proportionate to the data. The soft spot is the globular cluster contrast. The abstract presents non-detections there as evidence of low occupation, but globular clusters have much higher densities that increase source confusion for X-ray signals and make dynamical measurements harder due to crowding. If the cited studies lack completeness simulations that directly compare detectability in GCs versus galaxy nuclei, the claimed difference in occupation fraction rests on an assumption that may not hold. That would soften the bounds on the low-mass black hole mass function. This is useful for anyone tracking black hole demographics or galaxy evolution models. A reader who wants a concise map of current limits and open questions will find it worthwhile. It deserves peer review as a review because it synthesizes independent results into a coherent picture and flags where future work should focus, even if the GC section could use more on selection effects.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews ongoing searches for intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) with masses ~100-10^5 M_sun. It covers dynamical and accretion-based methods, concluding that these signatures indicate a high occupation fraction of M_BH < 10^5 M_sun in 10^9-10^10 M_sun galaxies. In contrast, there are no solid detections in globular clusters. The M_BH-sigma_* relation continues to M_BH ~ 10^5 M_sun with large scatter, attributed partly to a broad range in black hole mass given the high occupation fraction. Observational bounds on the black hole mass function are derived by combining scaling relations, occupation limits, and the galaxy mass function. The authors are pessimistic that local demographic observations of galaxy nuclei alone can constrain seeding mechanisms, though high-redshift luminosity functions or off-nuclear black hole measurements could help.

Significance. If the literature synthesis holds, this review provides a coherent compilation of constraints on IMBHs and useful empirical bounds on the low-mass black hole mass function. The discussion linking scatter in the M_BH-sigma relation to occupation fraction and mass range is insightful. The caution about limitations for constraining seeding is appropriately grounded. The aggregation of independent results from multiple external studies is a strength.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central contrast between high occupation fractions in low-mass galaxies and 'no solid detections' in globular clusters is load-bearing for the derived bounds on the black hole mass function. The manuscript should explicitly address in the globular cluster review sections whether the cited non-detections incorporate completeness simulations that account for higher stellar densities (increasing X-ray source confusion) and crowding/resolution limits that complicate dynamical measurements for M_BH ~100-10^4 M_sun. Without this, the differential occupation inference risks resting on an untested assumption of comparable detectability across environments, as raised by the stress-test concern.

minor comments (2)

The abstract is concise and captures the main findings well.
Consider adding a summary table of occupation fraction limits across environments to improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed the major comment regarding the robustness of the contrast between occupation fractions in low-mass galaxies and globular clusters by expanding the relevant discussion in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central contrast between high occupation fractions in low-mass galaxies and 'no solid detections' in globular clusters is load-bearing for the derived bounds on the black hole mass function. The manuscript should explicitly address in the globular cluster review sections whether the cited non-detections incorporate completeness simulations that account for higher stellar densities (increasing X-ray source confusion) and crowding/resolution limits that complicate dynamical measurements for M_BH ~100-10^4 M_sun. Without this, the differential occupation inference risks resting on an untested assumption of comparable detectability across environments, as raised by the stress-test concern.

Authors: We agree that explicitly addressing detectability differences strengthens the manuscript. The cited non-detection studies in globular clusters do incorporate completeness simulations that account for elevated stellar densities (and resulting X-ray source confusion) as well as crowding and resolution limits affecting dynamical searches at M_BH ~100-10^4 M_sun. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the globular cluster section that summarizes these methodological considerations from the original works, including how they affect the interpretation of non-detections. This makes the differential occupation inference between galaxy nuclei and globular clusters more transparent and directly addresses the concern about untested assumptions of comparable detectability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review aggregates independent external observations with no self-referential derivation chain

full rationale

This is a review paper summarizing dynamical and accretion searches for intermediate-mass black holes across multiple independent external studies. The central claims about occupation fractions in low-mass galaxies and non-detections in globular clusters are presented as syntheses of cited literature results rather than new derivations from the authors' own fitted parameters or equations. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to self-citations, self-definitions, or renamed inputs; the scaling relations and mass function bounds are folded from external data with stated empirical limits. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This review draws on existing astronomical observations and models without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or entities; it relies on the prior literature for all quantitative claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1267 out tokens · 29987 ms · 2026-05-17T10:31:43.458368+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

HierarchyEmergence / MassHierarchy hierarchy_emergence_forces_phi; mass_on_rung geometric echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

dynamical and accretion signatures alike point to a high fraction of 10^9-10^10 M_sun galaxies hosting black holes with M_BH<10^5 M_sun. In contrast, there are no solid detections of black holes in globular clusters... the M_BH-sigma_* relation continues unbroken to M_BH~10^5 M_sun, albeit with large scatter... fold the observed scaling relations with our empirical limits on occupation fraction and the galaxy mass function to put observational bounds on the black hole mass function
HierarchyForcing uniform_scaling_forced echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

We are pessimistic that local demographic observations of galaxy nuclei alone could constrain seeding mechanisms

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 16 Pith papers

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

Shadows of Giants: Constraints on Stupendously Large Black Holes from Negative Sources against the Cosmic Microwave Background
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Stupendously large black holes cast shadows on the CMB that rule out masses above 10^17 solar masses within the last scattering surface and limit their density parameter to below 10^-5 for masses 10^15 to 10^18 solar masses.
A Multiwavelength Assessment Disfavoring the X-ray Binary Origin of He III Regions in Metal-Poor Star-Forming Dwarf Galaxies
astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Accreting X-ray sources cannot supply enough EUV photons to account for He III regions in metal-poor star-forming dwarf galaxies.
Low-mass Active Galaxies in the SAMI Galaxy Survey with Spatially-resolved Spectroscopy
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

Spatially-resolved spectroscopy detects AGNs in 4-9% of low-mass galaxies, higher than single-fiber rates because it catches extended emission missed by central-point observations.
First results of AMBRA: Abundant Seeds and Early Mergers as a Pathway to the First Massive Black Holes
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

Abundant early heavy seeds plus frequent mergers produce the massive black holes seen by JWST at z>9 and yield about four LISA events per year at z>=8.
Tracing Star Formation in Quasar Hosts via [O II] $\lambda$3727: A Kinematically Consistent Approach
astro-ph.GA 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Kinematically consistent decomposition shows [O II] in quasars is dominated by star formation rather than AGN, allowing its use as a reliable SFR tracer that correlates tightly with bolometric luminosity over black ho...
Black Hole Binary Detection Landscape for the Laser Interferometer Lunar Antenna (LILA): Signal-to-Noise Calculations & Science Cases
astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

LILA can detect IMBH binaries at redshifts 20-30, IMRIs, and provide months-to-years early warnings with high-SNR events for gravity tests.
Compact, AGN-hosting Dwarf Galaxies with "Little Red Dots"-like SEDs in the Local Universe
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Local compact AGN-hosting dwarf galaxies with V-shaped SEDs are more evolved than high-redshift Little Red Dots, indicating distinct formation pathways.
Gravitational Waves from the Cosmic Dawn: Tracing Cosmic Black Hole Binaries with ET, LGWA and LISA
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Super-Eddington accretion boosts predicted LISA detections of high-redshift black hole binaries to ~64 per year while dropping ET detections to ~4 per year, compared to ~32 and ~64 under Eddington-limited growth.
Gravitational-wave parameter estimation to the Moon and back: massive binaries and the case of GW231123
gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

LGWA could observe more than one third of known binary black hole events, detect ~90 mergers per year, and measure chirp mass better than third-generation detectors for massive systems.
A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community
astro-ph.IM 2021-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Cosmic Explorer is described as a next-generation gravitational-wave observatory aiming for tenfold sensitivity improvement over Advanced LIGO to observe signals from the edge of the observable universe at z~100.
Redshift Evolution of the Ratio of Supermassive Black Hole Mass to Stellar Mass
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Simulations and analytic modeling predict that the supermassive black hole to stellar mass ratio peaks at several percent around redshift 7-10 before declining toward the present day.
Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Extreme Star-Forming Regions and (Variable) AGNs at Radio Wavelengths
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Dwarf galaxies host compact thermal HII regions powered by up to 100,000 O-type stars and exhibit radio variability consistent with AGNs.
Effects of Varied Cosmic Ray Feedback from AGN on Massive Galaxy Properties
astro-ph.GA 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Varied cosmic ray feedback models from AGN in FIRE-3 simulations all quench massive galaxies consistently with observations but produce vastly different circumgalactic medium properties.
A Rare Eddington-Limited, Heavily Obscured Low-Mass Active Galactic Nucleus Likely Triggered by a Galaxy Merger
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

GAMA 376183 is a rare Eddington-limited heavily obscured AGN in a merging low-mass galaxy, triggered by the merger and identified via strong [Ne V] emission.
On the relative CNO underabundance in quasar absorption systems at $z \sim 3$ arising from Population III enrichment and attenuation by intermediate-mass black holes and primordial baryon accretion
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

Intermediate-mass black holes acting as permanent matter sinks, combined with updated cosmic star formation rates and primordial baryon accretion, reduce the overpredicted CNO abundances from Population III stars to m...
Massive black holes and their galaxies
astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted

A review summarizing detection methods, population statistics, and coevolution of supermassive black holes with host galaxies from early universe observations and simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 300 canonical work pages · cited by 16 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Abadi MG, Navarro JF, Steinmetz M. 2009. 691:L63--L66

work page 2009
[2]

Abbate F, Possenti A, Ridolfi A, Freire PCC, Camilo F, et al. 2018. 481:627--638

work page 2018
[3]

Afanasiev AV, Chilingarian IV, Mieske S, Voggel KT, Picotti A, et al. 2018. 477:4856--4865

work page 2018
[4]

Ahn CP, Seth AC, Cappellari M, Krajnovi \'c D, Strader J, et al. 2018. 858:102

work page 2018
[5]

Ahn CP, Seth AC, den Brok M, Strader J, Baumgardt H, et al. 2017. 839:72

work page 2017
[6]

Ai YL, Yuan W, Zhou HY, Wang TG, Zhang SH. 2011. 727:31

work page 2011
[7]

Aird J, Coil AL, Georgakakis A. 2018. 474:1225--1249

work page 2018
[8]

Aird J, Coil AL, Moustakas J, Diamond-Stanic AM, Blanton MR, et al. 2013. 775:41

work page 2013
[9]

Alexander T, Bar-Or B. 2017. Nature Astronomy 1:0147

work page 2017
[10]

Alexander T, Natarajan P. 2014. Science 345:1330--1333

work page 2014
[11]

Ali-Ha \" moud Y, Kovetz ED, Kamionkowski M. 2017. 96:123523

work page 2017
[12]

Alvarez MA, Wise JH, Abel T. 2009. 701:L133--L137

work page 2009
[13]

Amaro-Seoane P, Audley H, Babak S, Baker J, Barausse E, et al. 2017. Submitted to ESA on January 13th in response to the call for missions for the L3 slot in the Cosmic Vision Programme :arXiv:1702.00786

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[14]

Amaro-Seoane P, Gair JR, Pound A, Hughes SA, Sopuerta CF. 2015. Research Update on Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals . In Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 610 of Journal of Physics Conference Series

work page 2015
[15]

Anninos P, Fragile PC, Olivier SS, Hoffman R, Mishra B, Camarda K. 2018. 865:3

work page 2018
[16]

Antonini F, Gieles M, Gualandris A. 2019. 486:5008--5021

work page 2019
[17]

Antonini F, Rasio FA. 2016. 831:187

work page 2016
[18]

Arcavi I, Gal-Yam A, Sullivan M, Pan YC, Cenko SB, et al. 2014. 793:38

work page 2014
[19]

Ba \ n ados E, Venemans BP, Mazzucchelli C, Farina EP, Walter F, et al. 2018. 553:473--476

work page 2018
[20]

Bachetti M, Harrison FA, Walton DJ, Grefenstette BW, Chakrabarty D, et al. 2014. 514:202--204

work page 2014
[21]

Bahcall JN, Ostriker JP. 1975. 256:23--24

work page 1975
[22]

Baldassare VF, Geha M, Greene J. 2018. 868:152

work page 2018
[23]

Baldassare VF, Geha M, Greene J. 2019. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:1910.06342

work page arXiv 2019
[24]

Baldassare VF, Reines AE, Gallo E, Greene JE. 2015. 809:L14

work page 2015
[25]

Baldassare VF, Reines AE, Gallo E, Greene JE. 2017. 850:196

work page 2017
[26]

Baldassare VF, Reines AE, Gallo E, Greene JE, Graur O, et al. 2016. 829:57

work page 2016
[27]

Baldwin JA, Phillips MM, Terlevich R. 1981. 93:5--19

work page 1981
[28]

B \"a r RE, Weigel AK, Sartori LF, Oh K, Koss M, Schawinski K. 2017. 466:2879--2887

work page 2017
[29]

Barrow KSS, Aykutalp A, Wise JH. 2018. Nature Astronomy 2:987--994

work page 2018
[30]

Barth AJ, Greene JE, Ho LC. 2005. 619:L151--L154

work page 2005
[31]

Barth AJ, Greene JE, Ho LC. 2008. 136:1179--1200

work page 2008
[32]

Barth AJ, Ho LC, Rutledge RE, Sargent WLW. 2004. 607:90--102

work page 2004
[33]

Barth AJ, Strigari LE, Bentz MC, Greene JE, Ho LC. 2009. 690:1031--1044

work page 2009
[34]

Batcheldor D. 2010. 711:L108--L111

work page 2010
[35]

Baumgardt H. 2017. 464:2174--2202

work page 2017
[36]

Baumgardt H, Gualandris A, Portegies Zwart S. 2006. 372:174--182

work page 2006
[37]

Baumgardt H, He C, Sweet SM, Drinkwater M, Sollima A, et al. 2019. 488:5340--5351

work page 2019
[38]

Baumgardt H, Makino J, Hut P, McMillan S, Portegies Zwart S. 2003. 589:L25--L28

work page 2003
[39]

Begelman MC. 2010. 402:673--681

work page 2010
[40]

Begelman MC, Rees MJ. 1978. 185:847--860

work page 1978
[41]

Begelman MC, Volonteri M, Rees MJ. 2006. MNRAS 370:289--298

work page 2006
[42]

Bell EF, McIntosh DH, Katz N, Weinberg MD. 2003. 149:289--312

work page 2003
[43]

Bellm EC, Kulkarni SR, Graham MJ, Dekany R, Smith RM, et al. 2019. 131:018002

work page 2019
[44]

Bellovary JM, Cleary CE, Munshi F, Tremmel M, Christensen CR, et al. 2019. 482:2913--2923

work page 2019
[45]

Bellovary JM, Governato F, Quinn TR, Wadsley J, Shen S, Volonteri M. 2010. 721:L148--L152

work page 2010
[46]

Bentz MC, Batiste M, Seals J, Garcia K, Kuzio de Naray R, et al. 2016. 831:2

work page 2016
[47]

Bentz MC, Denney KD, Grier CJ, Barth AJ, Peterson BM, et al. 2013. 767:149

work page 2013
[48]

Berry C, Hughes S, Sopuerta C, Chua A, Heffernan A, et al. 2019. The unique potential of extreme mass-ratio inspirals for gravitational-wave astronomy . In , vol. 51

work page 2019
[49]

Binney J, Mamon GA. 1982. 200:361--375

work page 1982
[50]

Blagorodnova N, Gezari S, Hung T, Kulkarni SR, Cenko SB, et al. 2017. 844:46

work page 2017
[51]

Blanton MR, Moustakas J. 2009. 47:159--210

work page 2009
[52]

B \"o ker T, van der Marel RP, Vacca WD. 1999. 118:831--842

work page 1999
[53]

Bond JR, Arnett WD, Carr BJ. 1984. 280:825--847

work page 1984
[54]

Boyce H, L \"u tzgendorf N, van der Marel RP, Baumgardt H, Kissler-Patig M, et al. 2017. 846:14

work page 2017
[55]

Bradford JD, Geha MC, Greene JE, Reines AE, Dickey CM. 2018. 861:50

work page 2018
[56]

Brandt WN, Alexander DM. 2015. 23:1

work page 2015
[57]

Breen PG, Heggie DC. 2013. 436:584--589

work page 2013
[58]

Bricman K, Gomboc A. 2019. , submitted (arXiv:1906.08235) :arXiv:1906.08235

work page arXiv 2019
[59]

Brightman M, Harrison FA, Barret D, Davis SW, F \"u rst F, et al. 2016. 829:28

work page 2016
[60]

Brodie JP, Strader J. 2006. 44:193--267

work page 2006
[61]

Bromm V, Coppi PS, Larson RB. 2002. 564:23--51

work page 2002
[62]

Bromm V, Larson RB. 2004. 42:79--118

work page 2004
[63]

Bromm V, Loeb A. 2003. 596:34--46

work page 2003
[64]

Brown WR, Geller MJ, Kenyon SJ, Kurtz MJ. 2005. 622:L33--L36

work page 2005
[65]

Brown WR, Lattanzi MG, Kenyon SJ, Geller MJ. 2018. 866:39

work page 2018
[66]

Buchner J, Treister E, Bauer FE, Sartori LF, Schawinski K. 2019. 874:117

work page 2019
[67]

Campanelli M, Lousto C, Zlochower Y, Merritt D. 2007. 659:L5--L8

work page 2007
[68]

Cann JM, Satyapal S, Abel NP, Blecha L, Mushotzky RF, et al. 2019. 870:L2

work page 2019
[69]

Caplar N, Lilly SJ, Trakhtenbrot B. 2015. 811:148

work page 2015
[70]

Carr B. 1994. 32:531--590

work page 1994
[71]

Carson DJ, Barth AJ, Seth AC, den Brok M, Cappellari M, et al. 2015. 149:170

work page 2015
[72]

Cassano R, Fender R, Ferrari C, Merloni A, Akahori T, et al. 2018. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:1807.09080

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[73]

Chilingarian IV, Katkov IY, Zolotukhin IY, Grishin KA, Beletsky Y, et al. 2018. 863:1

work page 2018
[74]

Civano F, Cappelluti N, Hickox R, Canning R, Aird J, et al. 2019. 51:429

work page 2019
[75]

Colbert EJM, Mushotzky RF. 1999. 519:89--107

work page 1999
[76]

Conroy C. 2013. 51:393--455

work page 2013
[77]

Contini M. 1997. 323:71--85

work page 1997
[78]

C \^o t \'e P, Piatek S, Ferrarese L, Jord \'a n A, Merritt D, et al. 2006. 165:57--94

work page 2006
[79]

Cresci G, Vanzi L, Telles E, Lanzuisi G, Brusa M, et al. 2017. 604:A101

work page 2017
[80]

Cseh D, Kaaret P, Corbel S, K \"o rding E, Coriat M, et al. 2010. 406:1049--1054

work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.