Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

First Detection of Radio Emission from the Intermediate Mass Black Hole in POX 52: Deep Multi-Band Observations with ATCA and VLA

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read POX 52's intermediate-mass black hole is detected in radio, confirming AGN activity.

desk verdict A solid first multi-band radio detection of POX 52 that deserves a serious referee, but the AGN-vs-star-formation claim is stronger than the quoted SFR error bars justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03316 v2 pith:QLAEPV2V submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Qi Yuan , Hengxiao Guo , Minfeng Gu , Jamie Stevens , Philip G. Edwards , Yongjun Chen , Wenwen Zuo , Jingbo Sun
show 9 more authors
Jun Yang Paulina Lira Tao An Renzhi Su Yuanqi Liu Yijun Wang Ning Chang Pengfei Jiang Ming Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords intermediate-massblackholesPOX52radiocontinuumemissiondwarfgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiATCAVLAfundamentalplaneofholeactivity
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 reports the first multi-band centimeter detection of POX 52, a dwarf elliptical galaxy at $z = 0.021$ whose central black hole is thought to be an intermediate-mass black hole of about 160,000 solar masses accreting near the Eddington limit. Using ATCA at 5.5 and 9 GHz and the VLA at S and C bands, the authors measure integrated flux densities between 146 and 260 $\mu$Jy and find the source compact, slightly resolved, steep-spectrum, and variable over two decades. They argue that the radio emission confirms the presence of AGN activity in the IMBH, most plausibly a low-power jet or AGN-driven wind/outflow, after ruling out star formation as the dominant origin. The source also falls on the low-mass extension of the fundamental plane for high-accretion, radio-quiet AGNs. A reader should care because a confirmed radio counterpart to one of the best nearby IMBH candidates provides a direct test of whether black hole accretion and jet/wind launching work the same way from stellar-mass to supermassive scales.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radio source at the optical center of POX 52, associated with the intermediate-mass black hole. The argument is carried by multi-band radio continuum observations: ATCA provided integrated flux densities at 5.5 and 9 GHz, and the VLA in A configuration provided S- and C-band measurements, giving four flux points from 2 to 10 GHz. From these the paper derives steep spectral indices ($0.99 \pm 0.26$ and $0.63 \pm 0.03$), deconvolved Gaussian sizes on sub-arcsecond scales, an integrated-to-peak flux ratio showing the source is slightly resolved, and a brightness temperature lower limit near $10^2$ K. The decisive quantitative step is comparing the observed flux with the radio emission expected from star formation, computed from the SED-based star formation rate ($0.15\ M_\odot\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) using the Kennicutt & Evans (2012) calibration; the observed flux exceeds that prediction, and the compact, variable morphology then points to AGN-powered synchrotron radiation.

What would settle it

Measure the 1.4 GHz flux density at the optical position of POX 52 with the VLA in A configuration down to a few microJy. If the observed 1.4 GHz flux were several times the roughly 222 $\mu$Jy predicted from the SED-based star formation rate and the standard calibration, or if the radio emission resolved into kiloparsec-scale star-forming structure, the AGN-origin interpretation would be weakened; a compact, variable, steep-spectrum source comparable to or below that prediction would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that POX 52, a dwarf elliptical galaxy at $z = 0.021$ thought to host a ~160,000-solar-mass black hole accreting near the Eddington limit, is now detected at centimeter wavelengths for the first time. The measured integrated flux densities are $260 \pm 31$ $\mu$Jy at 5.5 GHz and $160 \pm 22$ $\mu$Jy at 9 GHz with ATCA, and $229 \pm 11$ $\mu$Jy in VLA S band and $146 \pm 8$ $\mu$Jy in VLA C band. The emission is compact, only slightly resolved by the VLA, with steep spectra ($\alpha = 0.99 \pm 0.26$ from ATCA and $\alpha = 0.63 \pm 0.03$ from the VLA) that indicate optically thin synchrotron radiation. After showing that the expected contribution from star formation (about 222 $\mu$Jy at 1.4 GHz given the SED-derived star formation rate of $0.15\ M_\odot\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) is too low to explain the data, the authors conclude that the radio emission confirms AGN activity in the IMBH, most likely a low-power jet or AGN-driven wind/outflow, and that POX 52 sits on the low-mass extension of the fundamental plane for high-accretion, radio-quiet AGNs.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the radio emission is AGN-dominated rests on the star formation rate adopted from the SED fit ($0.15\ M_\odot\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) and on the standard calibration that converts that rate into a predicted radio flux; if the true star formation rate were several times higher, star formation could account for the observed flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • POX 52 becomes one of only a handful of IMBHs with confirmed radio emission, and the first high-Eddington dwarf elliptical IMBH detected at centimeter wavelengths.
  • The radio variability over two decades means earlier non-detections of POX 52 were sensitivity or state related, not evidence against an active black hole.
  • The steep spectrum and compact, slightly resolved morphology at sub-arcsecond scales point to optically thin synchrotron from a low-power jet or AGN-driven wind rather than a corona or star formation.
  • The source's position on the fundamental plane for radio-quiet, high-Eddington AGNs supports the idea that accretion and jet/wind coupling are scale-invariant down to ~160,000 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's star-formation-subtraction recipe could be applied to the dozens of IMBH candidates selected in optical and X-ray surveys to estimate the true radio detection rate and the fraction whose radio flux is contaminated by star formation.
  • If the radio variability tracks the accretion state, simultaneous radio and X-ray monitoring of POX 52 would test the fundamental plane without the non-simultaneous data used here.
  • A milliarcsecond-scale observation could decide between the jet and wind/outflow interpretations, since a compact jet core on sub-parsec scales would be below the VLA resolution and would appear as a bright point-like component.
  • The decades-long variability implies that snapshot radio surveys systematically undercount active IMBHs; stacking repeated survey epochs could recover a population that individual detections miss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first multi-band centimeter detection of POX 52, a dwarf galaxy believed to host an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH). The authors present ATCA observations at 5.5 and 9 GHz and VLA A-configuration observations at S (2–4 GHz) and C (4–8 GHz) bands, detecting the source with signal-to-noise ratios between about 11 and 32. They measure a steep radio spectrum (VLA: α = 0.63 ± 0.03; ATCA: α = 0.99 ± 0.26), classify the source as radio-quiet by both radio-optical and radio-X-ray criteria, find that the VLA morphology is slightly resolved on ~100 pc scales, and place POX 52 on the fundamental plane of black hole activity. They conclude that the radio emission originates predominantly from AGN activity, likely a low-power jet or AGN-driven winds/outflows, and that the source shows radio variability over two decades.

Significance. The first radio detection of POX 52 is a valuable observational result, providing a new data point for studies of IMBHs in dwarf galaxies. The observations are of high quality, with four independent detections, standard calibration, and quoted uncertainties. If the AGN-origin conclusion holds, the source becomes an important anchor for the low-mass end of the fundamental plane in the high-Eddington, radio-quiet regime. However, the paper's central physical claim—that the radio emission is dominated by AGN activity rather than star formation—depends on the quantitative exclusion of star formation in Section 4.1.1, and that exclusion is not currently robust to the intrinsic scatter of the SFR–radio calibration. The variability claim, used as additional evidence against star formation, is also overstated relative to the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1.1, Eq. (4)] The comparison between the observed radio flux densities and the expected emission from star formation propagates only the formal SFR uncertainty (0.15 ± 0.01 M_sun/yr) and neglects the ~0.3 dex intrinsic scatter of the Kennicutt & Evans (2012)/Murphy et al. (2011) SFR–radio calibration. Including this scatter, the 1σ upper envelope of the star-formation prediction is about 260 µJy at 3 GHz and 160 µJy at 6 GHz, which is comparable to or above the observed VLA S-band (229 ± 11 µJy) and C-band (146 ± 8 µJy) flux densities. Only the ATCA 5.5 GHz point (260 ± 31 µJy) exceeds the star-formation prediction by roughly 1.6σ. The statement that the expected star-formation emission is 'significantly lower' than the observed fluxes is therefore not quantitatively supported. Either the full scatter must be included in the comparison, or additional arguments must be provided that directly localize the radio emission to the AGN, before the conclusion that the radio emission predominantly originates from AGN activity can be accepted.
  2. [Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.3] The variability claim is overstated and inconsistently described. The two radio epochs are separated by approximately 8 months, not 'monthly timescales' as stated in the temporal-characteristics bullet in Section 4.1.1 and in the conclusions of Section 5. The apparent ATCA-to-VLA flux decrease could still be affected by differences in uv coverage and resolution; the short-baseline VLA test alleviates this concern but does not fully eliminate it because the two arrays sample different spatial frequencies. The 2004 VLA C-band upper limit (78 µJy) is a non-detection and can only weakly constrain variability. Since the variability argument is also used to argue against a star-formation origin, this claim should be softened and the actual time baseline described accurately.
  3. [Section 4.1.1, 'Multi-band diagnostics'] The BPT, WISE, and X-ray diagnostics demonstrate that POX 52 hosts an AGN, but they do not localize the observed radio emission to the AGN itself. The conclusion in Section 5 that 'the detected radio emission confirms the presence of AGN activity' is therefore too strong as written: even with an AGN firmly established in the host, the radio emission could still be substantially contributed by star formation or by a nuclear wind that is not directly tied to the central black hole. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this logical gap and qualify the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'habor' should be 'harbor'.
  2. [Section 4.1.3] 'ACTA' should be 'ATCA' in '8 months between ACTA and VLA observations'.
  3. [Section 4.3] 'regmin' should be 'regime' in 'extend the fundamental plane to the IMBH regmin'.
  4. [Table 1 and Section 3.4] Column (7) of Table 1 lists the ATCA source size as 'unresolved', but Section 3.4 states that the source 'might be marginally resolved along one direction'; please reconcile these descriptions.
  5. [Figure 1] The color bars in Figure 1 are labeled 'Jy/beam', but the quoted noise levels are in µJy/beam; please verify that the color-bar scale is correct.
  6. [Section 3.1] The VLA spectral index is derived from the S band and the uv-tapered C-band maps, but this is not explicitly stated in the text; please clarify to avoid confusion with the full-resolution C-band data used elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radio fluxes are measured against external calibrators, the star-formation comparison uses an external SFR and published calibrations, and the fundamental-plane check applies an existing relation without refitting.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The detected flux densities are produced by standard interferometric calibration using PKS B1934-638 and 3C 286, with uncertainties including the 3% flux-calibration limit; nothing in the detection is derived from the paper's own conclusions. The spectral index and radio loudness are computed directly from measured flux densities and external photometric/X-ray values (Barth et al. 2004; Kawamuro et al. 2024), not from fitted parameters that predetermine the result. The exclusion of star formation in §4.1.1 uses Eq. (4) with the externally derived SFR of 0.15 M_sun/yr from Kawamuro et al. (2024) and the Kennicutt & Evans (2012)/Murphy et al. (2011) calibration; the expected radio flux is then compared with observation rather than fitted to it, so the AGN-origin conclusion is not forced by the paper's own construction. The fundamental-plane analysis in §4.3 explicitly avoids fitting a new relation ('we avoid to derive new relationships in our work') and instead checks consistency with the published Li et al. (2008) relation, so the placement of POX 52 on that plane is not circular. Citations to works with overlapping authorship (e.g., Wang et al. 2023, 2024; Yang et al. 2022, 2023) are contextual or supporting and do not carry the load of any central claim; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted input is imported through self-citation. The skeptical concern about the ~0.3 dex scatter of the star-formation calibration is a statistical robustness issue for the AGN-origin interpretation, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard calibrators and published measurements (SFR, X-ray luminosity, black hole mass) and on empirical relations from the literature for interpretation. The main assumptions are domain assumptions about the applicability of SFR-radio calibrations and the fundamental plane to this dwarf galaxy.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Kennicutt & Evans (2012) SFR-to-1.4 GHz radio luminosity relation (Eq. 4) applies to POX 52.
    Used in Section 4.1.1 to estimate the expected star formation radio flux of about 222 µJy at 1.4 GHz, which is then compared to observed fluxes. If the calibration is inappropriate, the exclusion of star formation weakens.
  • domain assumption The assumed spectral index of α = 0.7 for star formation-driven radio emission (Section 4.1.1).
    Used to extrapolate the expected star formation flux from 1.4 GHz to 2-10 GHz. A different slope would change the comparison.
  • domain assumption The SFR = 0.15 ± 0.01 M_sun/yr derived from UV-IR SED fitting (Kawamuro et al. 2024) is accurate.
    This SFR anchors the star formation radio estimate; if the true SFR is much larger, the observed radio emission could be compatible with star formation.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass estimate MBH ~ 1.6e5 M_sun from single-epoch spectroscopy (Barth et al. 2004) is correct.
    Used to place POX 52 on the fundamental plane and to classify it as an IMBH. A 0.5 dex uncertainty is acknowledged.
  • domain assumption The X-ray luminosity LX ~ 1e42 erg/s from Kawamuro et al. (2024) is accurate.
    Used for the radio-X-ray loudness ratio and the fundamental plane placement.
  • domain assumption The fundamental plane relation of Li et al. (2008), fitted to 227 radio-quiet broad-line AGNs, applies to IMBH-mass sources.
    Used in Section 4.3 to interpret POX 52's alignment; the paper avoids fitting a new relation and only checks consistency.
  • domain assumption The radio source is physically associated with POX 52 based on positional coincidence with the Gaia DR3 optical center.
    The detection is attributed to the galaxy; a chance coincidence with a background source is not quantitatively assessed, though the positional agreement is good.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Detection of Radio Emission from the Intermediate Mass Black Hole in POX 52: Deep Multi-Band Observations with ATCA and VLA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QLAEPV2V

@misc{pith2026241203316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Detection of Radio Emission from the Intermediate Mass Black Hole in POX 52: Deep Multi-Band Observations with ATCA and VLA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QLAEPV2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03316}
}
read the original abstract

We present the first multi-band centimeter detection of POX 52, a nearby dwarf galaxy believed to habor a robust intermediate mass black hole (IMBH). We conducted the deep observations using the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), spanning frequencies from 4.5 to 10 GHz, as well as the sensitive observations from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) operating in its most extended A-configuration at S band (2--4 GHz) and C band (4--8 GHz). In the ATCA observations, the source shows a compact morphology, with only one direction marginally resolved. The higher resolution of the VLA allowed us to slightly resolve the source, fitting it well with a two-dimensional Gaussian model. The detected radio emission confirms the presence of Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) activity, indicating either a low-power jet or AGN-driven winds/outflows. Our dual-epoch observations with ATCA and VLA, together with previous non-detection flux density upper limits, reveal radio emission variability spanning two decades. In addition, we find that POX 52 aligns well with the low-mass extension of the fundamental plane for high-accretion, radio-quiet massive AGNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Naturally weighted CLEAN map of POX 52 observed by ATCA and VLA, centered at the radio positions obtained by model fitting. Contours in the map are plotted at multiples of −1, 1, √ 2, 2, 2√ 2, 4, 4√ 2, 8, 8√ 2, 16 × 3σ, where σ is the local rms noise. The off-source background noise of each observation is 11.4, 8.2, 4.8, 3.0 µJy/beam, respectively. The white ellipses in the bottom left corner of each panel represent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radio spectra of POX 52. The red squares and blue dots represent ATCA and VLA observations, re￾spectively. The red solid and blue dashed lines show the best-fitting power-law spectra for ATCA and VLA observa￾tions. The gray solid line denotes the anticipated flux density values for star formation, while the surrounding gray shaded region reflects the associated uncertainty in the expected flux density due to the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The IMBH candidates in the fundamental plane of BH activity. The red dashed-dotted line represents the best fit for a sample of 227 high Eddington ratio (λEdd = 0.3) radio-quiet broad-line AGNs (Li et al. 2008), with the shaded area indicating the 1σ uncertainty (0.42 dex) in the LR direction. Squares and triangles denote 15 radio-quiet, low-mass AGNs with Eddington ratios greater than 0.1 and black hole masses in t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Simulation-based inference for AGN jet population modelling: Towards more robust comparisons of black hole jet speeds

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using neural-posterior-estimation simulation-based inference on the MOJAVE FSRQ sample, the authors infer a Lorentz factor distribution slope b = -1.32 (+0.20, -0.19), consistent with X-ray binary jets at 2 sigma.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    F., & Mezcua, M

    Askar, A., Baldassare, V. F., & Mezcua, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12118, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12118

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12118 2023

  2. [2]

    F., Geha, M., & Greene, J

    Baldassare, V. F., Geha, M., & Greene, J. 2018, ApJ, 868, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6cf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae6cf 2018

  3. [3]

    Siemiginowska, A., & Schwartz, D. A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1153 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Ho, L

    Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Rutledge, R. E., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2004, ApJ, 607, 90, doi: 10.1086/383302

    doi:10.1086/383302 2004

  5. [5]

    2003, A&A, 403, 857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382 1 https://github.com/alecthomson/RACS-tool

    Bondi, M., Ciliegi, P., Zamorani, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 403, 857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382 1 https://github.com/alecthomson/RACS-tool

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030382 2003

  6. [6]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12699 2019

  7. [7]

    G., Liu, X., et al

    Chang, N., Xie, F. G., Liu, X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab521

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab521 2021

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e92

    Cho, H., Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e92 2021

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Clark, B. G. 1980, A&A, 89, 377

    1980

  2. [10]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    1992

  3. [11]

    Connors, R. M. T. 2017, PhD thesis, University of

    2017

  4. [12]

    C., Yuan, W., et al

    Dong, X.-B., Ho, L. C., Yuan, W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/167

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2004, A&A, 414, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031683

    Falcke, H., K¨ ording, E., & Markoff, S. 2004, A&A, 414, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031683

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    V., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V., & Ho, L. C. 2003, ApJL, 588, L13, doi: 10.1086/375361 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2004, ApJ, 610, 722, doi: 10.1086/421719 —. 2006, ApJ, 641, 117, doi: 10.1086/500353 —. 2007, ApJ, 670, 92, doi: 10.1086/522082

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2006, ApJ, 636, 56, doi: 10.1086/497905

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Guedel, M., & Benz, A. O. 1993, ApJL, 405, L63, doi: 10.1086/186766 G¨ ultekin, K., Cackett, E. M., King, A. L., Miller, J. M., &

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, ApJL, 788, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L22 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D

    Pinkney, J. 2014, ApJL, 788, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L22 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198 G¨ ultekin, K., Nyland, K., Gray, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 6123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2608

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120, doi: 10.1086/324399

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & Ulvestad, J

    Ho, L. C., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2001, ApJS, 133, 77, doi: 10.1086/319185

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Jackson, C

    Huynh, M. T., Jackson, C. A., Norris, R. P., & Prandoni, I. 2005, AJ, 130, 1373, doi: 10.1086/432873

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, doi: 10.61977/ati2024012

    Jiang, P., Chen, R., Gan, H., et al. 2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, doi: 10.61977/ati2024012

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/39

    Kamizasa, N., Terashima, Y., & Awaki, H. 2012, ApJ, 751, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/39

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0972

    Kawamuro, T., Ricci, C., Yamada, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0972

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207

    1989 doi

  20. [28]

    I., Sramek, R

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R. A., Schmidt, M., Green, R. F., & Shaffer, D. B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1163, doi: 10.1086/117145

    1994 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., Kellermann, K

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Kellermann, K. I., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2473, doi: 10.1086/497430

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    D., & Behar, E

    Laor, A., Baldi, R. D., & Behar, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3098

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Basu-Zych, A

    Lehmer, B. D., Basu-Zych, A. R., Mineo, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/7

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    2008, ApJ, 688, 826, doi: 10.1086/592314

    Li, Z.-Y., Wu, X.-B., & Wang, R. 2008, ApJ, 688, 826, doi: 10.1086/592314

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab88e

    Liu, H.-Y., Yuan, W., Dong, X.-B., Zhou, H., & Liu, W.-J. 2018, ApJS, 235, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab88e

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Greene, J

    Ludwig, R. R., Greene, J. E., Barth, A. J., & Ho, L. C. 2012, ApJ, 756, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/51

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1049, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07859.x Mart ´ ınez-Palomera, J., Lira, P., Bhalla-Ladd, I., F¨ orster, F., & Plotkin, R. M. 2020, ApJ, 889, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5b

    2004

  31. [39]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  32. [40]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    2003

  33. [41]

    2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021, doi: 10.1142/S021827181730021X

    Mezcua, M. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021, doi: 10.1142/S021827181730021X

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B

    Murphy, E. J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/97

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Murphy, E. J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 3, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    2018 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    S., Saikia, D

    Nandi, P., Stalin, C. S., Saikia, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c57

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16844, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16844

    Pandey, S., Rakshit, S., Chand, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16844, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16844

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2007, A&A, 467, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066943

    Panessa, F., Barcons, X., Bassani, L., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066943

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt547

    Panessa, F., & Giroletti, M. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt547

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1745

    Panessa, F., Chiaraluce, E., Bruni, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1745

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Plotkin, R

    Paul, J. D., Plotkin, R. M., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d1 First Detection of Radio Emission from the Intermediate Mass Black Hole in POX 5211

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    2000, A&AS, 146, 31, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000360

    Prandoni, I., Gregorini, L., Parma, P., et al. 2000, A&AS, 146, 31, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000360

    2000 doi

  46. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac32b

    Qian, L., Dong, X.-B., Xie, F.-G., Liu, W., & Li, D. 2018, ApJ, 860, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac32b

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw772

    Raginski, I., & Laor, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw772

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    E., Condon, J

    Reines, A. E., Condon, J. J., Darling, J., & Greene, J. E. 2020, ApJ, 888, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4999

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    L., et al

    Saikia, P., K¨ ording, E., Coppejans, D. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833233

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    E., & Molina, M

    Salehirad, S., Reines, A. E., & Molina, M. 2022, ApJ, 937, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8876

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Johnson, M

    Sargent, A. J., Johnson, M. C., Reines, A. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74be

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    F., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., et al

    Sartori, L. F., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2238

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    J., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Secrest, N. J., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/113

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    Shen, Y. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    2013 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    W., R¨ ottgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    Terashima, Y., & Wilson, A. S. 2003, ApJ, 583, 145, doi: 10.1086/345339

    2003 doi

  62. [71]

    R., Clark, B

    Thompson, A. R., Clark, B. G., Wade, C. M., & Napier, P. J. 1980, ApJS, 44, 151, doi: 10.1086/190688

    1980 doi

  63. [72]

    E., Barth, A

    Thornton, C. E., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Rutledge, R. E., & Greene, J. E. 2008, ApJ, 686, 892, doi: 10.1086/591519

    2008 doi

  64. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3028 van Wassenhove, S., Volonteri, M., Walker, M

    Valiante, R., Schneider, R., Graziani, L., & Zappacosta, L. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3028 van Wassenhove, S., Volonteri, M., Walker, M. G., & Gair, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1139, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17189.x

    2018

  65. [74]

    L., Impey, C

    Visnovsky, K. L., Impey, C. D., Foltz, C. B., et al. 1992, ApJ, 391, 560, doi: 10.1086/171370

    1992 doi

  66. [75]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    2008

  67. [76]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 6064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2651

    Wang, A., An, T., Zhang, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 6064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2651

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 890, doi: 10.1086/504401

    Wang, R., Wu, X.-B., & Kong, M.-Z. 2006, ApJ, 645, 890, doi: 10.1086/504401

    2006 doi

  69. [78]

    C., Zhong, Y., & Luo, B

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Ho, L. C., Zhong, Y., & Luo, B. 2024, A&A, 689, A327, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449732

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    J., & Baldassare, V

    Wasleske, E. J., & Baldassare, V. F. 2024, ApJ, 971, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5442

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Ferris, R

    Wilson, W. E., Ferris, R. H., Axtens, P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 832, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19054.x

    2011

  72. [81]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 755, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0790-3

    Woo, J.-H., Cho, H., Gallo, E., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 755, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0790-3

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2b64

    Wu, J.-Z., Dong, X.-B., Qian, L., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2b64

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    M., et al

    Yang, J., Yang, X., Wrobel, J. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 6215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1753

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad493

    Yang, J., Paragi, Z., Frey, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad493

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 53, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020053

    Yang, X., & Yang, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 53, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020053

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Yuan, F., Yu, Z., & Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1034, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1034

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.