Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Detecting the Black Hole Candidate Population in M51's Young Massive Star Clusters: Constraints on Accreting Intermediate Mass Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Bright X-ray sources in M51's young clusters have no radio counterparts, which under the fundamental plane excludes accreting intermediate-mass black holes above 10^4 solar masses.

desk verdict Useful new radio upper limits on IMBHs in M51's young clusters, but the headline mass exclusion is too sharp and the source counts need reconciling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07284 v1 pith:S5BCK74P submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Kristen C. Dage , Evangelia Tremou , Bolivia Cuevas Otahola , Eric W. Koch , Kwangmin Oh , Richard M. Plotkin , Vivian L. Tang , Muhammad Ridha Aldhalemi
show 19 more authors
Zainab Bustani Mariam Ismail Fawaz Hans J. Harff Amna Khalyleh Timothy McBride Jesse Mason Anthony Preston Cortney Rinehart Ethan Vinson Gemma Anderson Edward M. Cackett Shih Ching Fu Sebastian Kamann Teresa Panurach Renuka Pechetti Payaswini Saikia Susmita Sett Ryan Urquhart Christopher Usher
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords intermediate-massblackholesyoungmassiveclustersM51ultraluminousX-raysourcesfundamentalplaneofholeactivityradiocounterpartsbinariesstar
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

Intermediate-mass black holes, with masses between roughly 100 and 100,000 solar masses, are the population that would connect stellar-mass black holes to the supermassive ones at galaxy centers, but secure examples are rare. The paper searches M51, a nearby spiral galaxy, for accreting examples of these objects by combining Chandra X-ray detections, Hubble Space Telescope cluster catalogs, and new Very Large Array radio observations at 8-12 GHz. Of 43 bright X-ray sources, 24 have probable optical cluster counterparts and 17 survive contamination checks, yet none shows a radio counterpart above a 3-$\sigma$ luminosity limit of about 1.06e34 erg/s. The paper concludes that these non-detections, interpreted through the fundamental plane of black hole activity, tentatively rule out hard-state accreting intermediate-mass black holes above about $10^{4}$ solar masses among the surveyed cluster populations. That matters because young massive clusters are a leading proposed birthplace for intermediate-mass black holes, and this is a population-level radio constraint on that channel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fundamental plane of black hole activity, an empirical relation connecting the compact radio luminosity, the X-ray luminosity, and the mass of a hard-state accreting black hole across scales from stellar-mass binaries to supermassive nuclei. The paper uses a specific calibration of this relation, equation (8) from Gültekin et al. (2019), to convert the Very Large Array's 3-$\sigma$ 10 GHz luminosity limit of 1.06e34 erg/s into the statement that only intermediate-mass black holes above $10^{4}$ solar masses would have produced detectable radio emission. Around that relation, the analysis layers a Bayesian cross-matching step for associating X-ray positions with optical cluster candidates, surface-brightness profile fitting to separate genuine clusters from contaminants, and Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion estimates to ask which black hole masses could be visible in X-rays at M51's distance. The fundamental plane does the decisive work: without it, a radio upper limit is simply a non-detection rather than a black-hole mass constraint.

What would settle it

A 3-$\sigma$ or stronger 8-12 GHz radio detection at the position of one of the 17 cluster-associated X-ray sources in M51, with luminosity above 1.06e34 erg/s and a hard-state X-ray spectrum, would contradict the paper's exclusion of intermediate-mass black holes above $10^{4}$ solar masses. Alternatively, measuring the radio-X-ray-mass correlation for a securely identified intermediate-mass black hole and finding a significant deviation from the fundamental plane would break the chain from radio non-detection to mass limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a null result with a mass bound: the X-ray sources plausibly hosted by M51's young massive clusters do not emit detectable 8-12 GHz radio radiation, and that silence, converted through the fundamental plane relation, excludes hard-state intermediate-mass black holes with masses above roughly $10^{4}$ solar masses. The only X-ray source with a nearby radio counterpart, Src03, shows a soft X-ray spectrum and its radio emission had already been classified as a compact H-$\alpha$ region, so it does not qualify as an accreting intermediate-mass black hole. Most of the matched cluster candidates are young (under 4 Myr) and low-mass (under 1000 solar masses), while the two most massive young counterparts, src31 and src36, have low match probabilities. The paper frames the exclusion as suggestive rather than final because it inherits the assumptions of the fundamental plane, and it uses the null result to benchmark theory: simulations predict that about 8% of clusters with masses between $10^{4}$ and $5x10^{4}$ solar masses form intermediate-mass black holes, whereas the observed X-ray-bright fraction is much smaller.

Load-bearing premise

The radio upper limits become black-hole mass limits only if the fundamental plane relation, calibrated on stellar-mass and supermassive black holes, also holds for intermediate-mass black holes accreting in the hard state; the paper itself flags that its bounds inherit the many assumptions of that relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bound holds, M51's young massive clusters do not currently contain hard-state accreting intermediate-mass black holes above about 10^4 solar masses, so any such black holes formed there must be lighter, non-accreting, or rare enough to be absent from this sample.
  • The 3-sigma radio limit of 1.06e34 erg/s fixes the completeness of the search: the same strategy with the next-generation Very Large Array or the Square Kilometre Array should reach accreting intermediate-mass black holes down to about 10^3 solar masses.
  • Comparing with simulations, only a small fraction of the intermediate-mass black holes predicted to form in 10^4-5x10^4 solar-mass clusters would be emitting detectable X-rays at M51's distance, implying that X-ray surveys alone strongly underestimate the IMBH occupation fraction.
  • The absence of radio counterparts is consistent with the bright cluster X-ray sources being X-ray binaries or ultraluminous X-ray sources with stellar-mass accretors, though the paper notes that variability or transient radio emission cannot be excluded.
  • The two most massive young counterparts, src31 and src36, remain individually ambiguous because their optical match probabilities are low, and the paper recommends careful astrometry before drawing conclusions about either source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fundamental plane extrapolates faithfully to intermediate masses, the same radio-non-detection approach could be applied to young cluster populations in other nearby spiral galaxies with archival X-ray and optical data; combining several galaxies would turn a single-galaxy null into a statistical limit on the intermediate-mass black hole occupation fraction.
  • A sharper future test would target clusters younger than 4 Myr with masses above 10^4 solar masses, the environments where gas accretion onto a newly formed intermediate-mass black hole should still be possible; a deep radio observation of those few objects could either detect a black hole or push the mass bound lower.
  • The mass limits inherit not only the fundamental plane's scatter but also its zero-point at low masses, so a secure radio detection of an intermediate-mass black hole in the 10^3-10^5 solar-mass range would calibrate the relation and directly test whether the M51 non-detections mean what the paper claims.
  • The Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton estimates imply that X-ray selection alone will miss most intermediate-mass black holes below 10^3 solar masses unless the surrounding gas is extremely dense, so the true population in these clusters could be substantially larger than the X-ray-selected sample suggests.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper cross-matches 43 bright (L_X > 10^38 erg/s) Chandra X-ray sources in M51 against the HST/LEGUS star cluster candidate catalog using nway, re-classifies the optical counterparts with nProFit, and searches for VLA 8-12 GHz radio counterparts. No radio source is detected toward any cluster-associated X-ray source (apart from the soft source Src03), and the authors use the fundamental plane of black hole activity to argue that the 3-sigma radio luminosity limit (~10^34 erg/s) permits a suggestive exclusion of hard-state IMBHs above ~10^4 solar masses in the associated young massive clusters. The paper is explicitly framed as a maximum census of accreting IMBH candidates and ends with detectability estimates for SKA and ngVLA.

Significance. If the constraints hold, the paper provides a useful null result for IMBH formation in young massive clusters: it places a population-level radio-based limit on >10^4 solar mass hard-state accretors in a sample of M51 cluster-associated X-ray sources, and it gives a concrete benchmark for comparison with simulations such as Di Carlo et al. (2021). The use of new VLA data, archival Chandra data, and public LEGUS catalogs is a strength, as is the unusually thorough cataloging of caveats (match probabilities, classification agreement, fundamental-plane assumptions). The main limitation is that the headline mass cutoff is not derived with a full propagation of fundamental-plane scatter or association probabilities, so the quantitative strength of the constraint is currently somewhat overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 2.4] The central quantitative claim that the 3-sigma radio limit (1.06e34 erg/s at 10 GHz) means the observations can only detect IMBHs with masses of 10^4 solar masses or above is not fully derived in the text. Equation (8) of Gültekin et al. (2019) is cited but not reproduced, and the assumed X-ray luminosity and accretion state used to evaluate it are not stated. More importantly, the conversion does not propagate the intrinsic scatter of the fundamental plane. Published fundamental-plane fits have typical intrinsic scatter of order 0.5-1 dex in radio luminosity, which translates into a factor of several in inferred mass at fixed X-ray luminosity. A 3-sigma radio upper limit therefore does not exclude a 10^4 solar mass hard-state IMBH; it only rules out the fraction of such objects whose expected radio luminosity lies above the threshold. The paper should display the adopted fundamental-plane relation, state the assumed L_X and spectral state, and provide a detection-probability versus mass curve (or an upper-limit band) that includes the scatter. Alternatively, the abstract and Section 3.2 should be softened to say that the non-detections are consistent with the absence of >10^4 solar mass hard-state IMBHs, but that the constraint is weakened by fundamental-plane scatter.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] Many of the associations that enter the central non-detection argument have low individual match probabilities (p_i values as low as 12-38 percent), and the two classification schemes used here agree in only 50 percent of cases. The manuscript appropriately warns against using any individual counterpart without careful astrometry, but the population-level conclusion in Section 3.2 still treats all 17 non-contaminant candidates as if they were associated with a young massive cluster. Because a radio non-detection of a misassociated source carries no constraint on cluster IMBHs, the analysis should either restrict the mass-limit statement to a high-confidence subset (for example, p_i > 0.5 and nProFit class 1/2) or weight each source by p_i and show how the resulting upper limit changes. Without such a treatment, the strength of the association uncertainty is not reflected in the headline result.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Table 2] The mass limits assume that the non-detected sources are in the radiatively inefficient hard state to which the fundamental plane applies, but Table 2 lists a range of spectral shapes (DB, PL, and uncertain variants) and variability classes, and no source-by-source hard-state classification is given. The phrase 'in the X-ray hard state' in Section 2.4 is therefore not operational. Please state which sources are plausibly in the hard state and give the mass limit for that subset separately; otherwise the radio non-detections cannot be used to constrain IMBH masses for the full sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 2.2, Section 3] The counts of matches and contaminants are not consistent across the paper: the abstract says 24 matches with 7 contaminants, Section 2.2 says 24 matches with 8 high-probability class 4 objects plus one foreground star, and Section 3 says 23 matches with 8 contaminants. Please harmonize the numbers and ensure Table 1 supports the stated totals.
  2. [Section 3.2] The conversion of the 10 GHz limiting luminosity to a 5 GHz limit assumes a flat-spectrum point source; this assumption should be stated explicitly in Section 3.2 as well as in Section 2.4, since it affects the inferred mass threshold.
  3. [Table 2 caption] The statement that four sources without age or mass estimates are assigned the lowest age and mass from the non-contaminated LEGUS list as upper limits is an ad hoc choice that can bias the age and mass distributions shown in Figures 3-5. Please justify this choice or test the sensitivity to alternative upper-limit prescriptions.
  4. [Table 1] In the row for src22, the right ascension string '13:29:45.6s' appears to contain a stray 's'; please correct the typographical error.
  5. [Section 1] In the paragraph describing the fundamental plane, 'sing the fundamental plane' should be 'Using the fundamental plane'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IMBH mass limit is an application of an externally calibrated fundamental plane to independent VLA/Chandra/LEGUS data, and the paper explicitly hedges the inference as assumption-dependent.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that the lack of radio counterparts to bright X-ray sources associated with young massive cluster candidates in M51 'suggestively' excludes hard-state IMBHs of masses greater than 10^4 Msun—is not circular. The chain is: independent new VLA 8–12 GHz observations give a 3-sigma radio luminosity limit of 1.06e34 erg/s (Section 2.4); this is combined with archival Chandra X-ray luminosities and HST/LEGUS cluster catalog matches; the mass threshold is then obtained by applying the externally published fundamental plane of black hole activity, specifically equation (8) of Gültekin et al. (2019), as stated in Section 3.2. No parameter of the fundamental plane is fitted to the M51 data, and the mass limit is not defined in terms of the paper's own detection statistic; it is a published empirical relation calibrated on other black hole samples. The paper itself flags the inference as 'suggestively' using the upper limits and 'beholden to the many assumptions underlying the fundamental plane' (Section 2.4), and in Section 3.3 states that 'in the absence of a secure radio detection that can be linked to the X-ray using the fundamental plane, it is impossible to truly classify the nature of the compact object.' Self-citations are present but none is load-bearing in a circular way: Panurach et al. (2024) and Cuevas-Otahola et al. (2022) are cited for tools/context, Urquhart et al. (2018) for specific eclipsing ULX sources, Tremou et al. (2018) for prior radio constraints, and Cackett is a coauthor of the Gültekin et al. (2019) fundamental-plane paper, but that relation is externally calibrated and does not include the present data. The skeptic's concern about unpropagated intrinsic scatter in the fundamental plane is a statistical robustness caveat, not circularity, because the relation is independent of this paper's observations and fitted values. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference chain rests on external relations and data products: the fundamental plane of black hole activity, the LEGUS cluster catalog, and archival Chandra and HST observations. The paper introduces no new free parameters in the central radio constraint, but it relies on literature-based assumptions for the fundamental plane, distance, cluster ages and masses, and X-ray flux conversion. The Bondi-Hoyle accretion models for future sensitivity use hand-chosen density and efficiency ranges.

free parameters (4)
  • Gas number density n in Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton model = 0.01 to 10^4 cm^-3
    Used in Section 3.3 and Figure 7 to estimate X-ray luminosity of IMBHs accreting from intracluster gas; the range is chosen to bracket observed H II region densities and is not fitted to M51 data.
  • Accretion efficiency eta = 0.01, 0.1, 0.2
    Used in the Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton model in Figure 7; values are standard assumptions from the literature, not fitted.
  • Power-law photon index for X-ray flux conversion = 1.7
    Assumed fixed photon index to convert count rates to fluxes for faint sources (Section 2.1), consistent with Sanatombi et al. (2023).
  • Hydrogen column density N_H = 3.8e18 cm^-2
    Assumed for absorption correction of X-ray fluxes (Section 2.1), taken from Yu et al. (2023).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fundamental plane of black hole activity (Merloni et al. 2003; Falcke et al. 2004; Gültekin et al. 2019) applies to hard-state IMBHs of 10^3-10^5 solar masses, so radio luminosity is a known function of X-ray luminosity and black hole mass.
    Used in Sections 1 and 3.2 to convert the 3-sigma radio upper limits into black hole mass limits; the paper states the limits are 'beholden to the many assumptions underlying the fundamental plane'.
  • domain assumption M51 is at a distance of 8.58 Mpc (McQuinn et al. 2016), used to convert all fluxes to luminosities.
    Adopted in Section 2.1 without independent verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption The LEGUS catalog's SED-derived cluster ages and masses, based on single stellar population models with Padova libraries and Milky Way extinction, are reliable for the matched candidates.
    The paper uses these ages and masses in Figures 3-5 to compare with simulations; the accuracy of these estimates is not independently tested.
  • ad hoc to paper For the four sources without age/mass estimates, the lowest age and mass from the non-contaminated LEGUS list are adopted as upper limits.
    Stated in the Table 2 footnote; this choice biases the low-mass/young-age population and affects the comparison to theory.
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion with gas densities of 0.01-10^4 cm^-3 and efficiencies of 1-20% describes IMBH accretion from residual cluster gas in clusters younger than 4 Myr.
    Used in Section 3.3 and Figure 7 to estimate X-ray detectability of low-mass IMBHs; explicitly labeled speculative by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting the Black Hole Candidate Population in M51's Young Massive Star Clusters: Constraints on Accreting Intermediate Mass Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5BCK74P

@misc{pith2026241207284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting the Black Hole Candidate Population in M51's Young Massive Star Clusters: Constraints on Accreting Intermediate Mass Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5BCK74P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07284}
}
abstract

Intermediate mass black holes (10^2 < M_BH< 10^5 Msun) are an open question in our understanding of black hole evolution and growth. They have long been linked to dense star cluster environments thanks to cluster dynamics, but there are a limited number of secure detections. We leverage existing X-ray observations from Chandra X-ray Observatory and optical catalogs from Hubble Space Telescope with new radio observations from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array to search for any evidence of accreting black holes in young massive clusters in the nearby galaxy M51. We find that of 43 bright ($L_X > 10^{38}$ erg/s) X-ray point sources in M51, 24 had probable matches to objects including possible associated star clusters in the HST Legacy Extragalactic UV Survey catalog, seven of which were classified as contaminants (background galaxies or foreground stars). We explore the optical properties of the remaining 17 sources, including cluster age and mass estimates, and search for radio counterparts in the 8-12 GHz band. The lack of radio counterparts to X-ray sources we know to be associated with young massive clusters in M51 suggests that we do not significantly detect hard-state IMBHs ~ 10^4 Msun or above. However, more sensitive radio facilities like the Square Kilometre Array and next generation Very Large Array may be able to provide evidence for IMBHs with masses down to ~ 10^3 Msun.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color-magnitude diagram of all LEGUS cluster candidates, along with the verified star clusters (SCs) and con￾taminants. The yellow pentagons represent the X-ray sources that matched to high probability (> 50 %) matches to cluster candidates, lower probability (< 50 %) matches to cluster candidates, or contaminants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface brightness profiles (SBPs) of src24 in the F435W, F555W and F814W HST observations in blue, green and red empty circles, obtained by nProFit from isophotal fitting performed to the image centered at src24 coordinates (shown in the lower panels from left to right). The SBPs are fitted using Moffat-EFF (left-most panel), King (third panel from left to right), and Wilson (right-most panel), fitted to the SBPs u… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray luminosity versus masses of cluster candidates. The upper panel show the estimated mass of the cluster candidate versus the X-ray luminosity. The lower panel shows a histogram of mass estimates for all of the cluster candidates (with contaminants removed), and we have shaded in regions of clusters with masses between 1000 and 5000, and 10000 and 50000 to better compare to Di Carlo et al. (2021). LEGUS1 , and s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: X-ray luminosity versus ages of cluster candidates. The upper panel show the estimated age of the cluster candidate versus the 0.3-10 keV X-ray luminosity. The lower panel shows a histogram of age estimates for all of the cluster candidates (with contaminants removed).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass versus age estimates of all LEGUS star cluster candidates (with class 4 objects removed). Verified star clusters are overlaid in a lighter color. The solid pink diamonds represent the properties of the star cluster candidates with high (> 50%) probability matches,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accretion efficiency for black holes from 1 M⊙ to 5 × 104M⊙, with a range of X-ray luminosities from 1035 − 1040 erg/s. If η is below 0.01, then the assumptions of the fundamental plane hold, and one can expect radio emission from the source. If η is above 0.1, then th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicted X-ray luminosity for embedded gas of different densities (from n=0.1 which is more typical of an older globular cluster to n=104 cm−3 ) and different accretion efficiencies (1%, 10% and 20%) assuming Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion. At the distance of M51, un…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Swartz, D

    Abolmasov, P. K., Swartz, D. A., Fabrika, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 124, doi: 10.1086/520828

    work page doi:10.1086/520828 2007

  2. [2]

    E., Messa, M., et al

    Adamo, A., Ryon, J. E., Messa, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7132

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7132 2017

  3. [3]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae618

    Akyuz, A., Akkaya Oralhan, I., Allak, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae618 2024

  4. [4]

    F., & Mezcua, M

    Askar, A., Baldassare, V. F., & Mezcua, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12118, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12118 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12118 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3719

    Atapin, K., Vinokurov, A., Sarkisyan, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3719

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3719 2024

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 105, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/105 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B

    Avdan, H., Avdan, S., Akyuz, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 105, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/105 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/2/105 2016

  7. [7]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature13791

    doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  8. [8]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1407

    Bastian, N., & Strader, J. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1407

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1407 2014

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    A., Anderson, A

    Binder, B. A., Anderson, A. K., Garofali, K., Lazzarini, M., & Williams, B. F. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1368

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 187, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 112.02

    1995

  3. [11]

    N., et al

    Cabrera-Ziri, I., Bastian, N., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv163

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Sabbi, E., et al

    Calzetti, D., Lee, J. C., Sabbi, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/51 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022a, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 —. 2022b, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, Ubiquitous Late Radio Emission from Tidal Disruption Events. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.13595

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 1306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa371

    Chantereau, W., Biernacki, P., Martig, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa371

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093845

    Churchwell, E. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093845

    2002

  8. [16]

    D., Puerari, I., & Rosa-Gonz´ alez, D

    Cuevas-Otahola, B., Mayya, Y. D., Puerari, I., & Rosa-Gonz´ alez, D. 2022, PASP, 134, 024502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac477a

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Thygesen, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1963 Di Carlo, U. N., Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1453 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Pasquato, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5132, do...

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Elson, R. A. W., Fall, S. M., & Freeman, K. C. 1987, ApJ, 323, 54, doi: 10.1086/165807

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Primini, F

    Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    1989, ARA&A, 27, 87, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511

    Fabbiano, G. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 87, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511

    1989

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    2023, A&A, 671, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    Fortin, F., Garc ´ ıa, F., Simaz Bunzel, A., & Chaty, S. 2023, A&A, 671, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    Chaty, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Kramer, M., Lyne, A

    Freire, P. C., Kramer, M., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2001, ApJL, 557, L105, doi: 10.1086/323248

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Roberts, T

    Gladstone, J. C., Roberts, T. P., & Done, C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1836, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x

    2009

  19. [27]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 G¨ ultekin, K., King, A. L., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b9 H¨ aberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 631, 285, do...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc3

    Han, X.-Q., Jiang, L., & Chen, W.-C. 2021, ApJ, 914, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc3

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Whitmore, B

    Hannon, S., Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2820

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Torres, M

    Heida, M., Jonker, P. G., Torres, M. A. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu928

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 1106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv331

    Hollyhead, K., Bastian, N., Adamo, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv331

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace162

    Hunt, Q., Chandar, R., Gallo, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace162

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02893

    Karimi, B., Barmby, P., & Abbassi, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02893

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64, doi: 10.1086/109857

    1966 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., Andrews, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2481

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Berkeley, M., Zezas, A., et al

    Lehmer, B. D., Berkeley, M., Zezas, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/52

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233 L´ opez, K. M., Heida, M., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx857

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/121

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Cowan, J

    Maddox, L. A., Cowan, J. J., Kilgard, R. E., Schinnerer, E., & Stockdale, C. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 2559, doi: 10.1086/515573

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 230, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12534.x

    Mapelli, M., Moore, B., Giordano, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 230, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12534.x

    2008

  36. [44]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/7

    Mapelli, M., & Zampieri, L. 2014, ApJ, 794, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/7

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 1309, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20955.x

    Mapelli, M., Zampieri, L., & Mayer, L. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1309, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20955.x

    2012

  38. [46]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A. E., Berg, D., & Kennicutt, R. 2016, ApJ, 826, 21, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/21

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    P., Lobanov, A

    Mezcua, M., Roberts, T. P., Lobanov, A. P., & Sutton, A. D. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv143

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    P., Sutton, A

    Mezcua, M., Roberts, T. P., Sutton, A. D., & Lobanov, A. P. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1794

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    Paduano, A., Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e68

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Urquhart, R., et al

    Panurach, T., Dage, K. C., Urquhart, R., et al. 2024, Do Neutron Star Ultra-Luminous X-Ray Sources Masquerade as Intermediate Mass Black Holes in Radio and X-Ray? https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23335

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    B., & Zepf, S

    Peacock, M. B., & Zepf, S. E. 2016, ApJ, 818, 33, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/33

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    Pechetti, R., Seth, A., Kamann, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Harrison, F

    Pike, S. N., Harrison, F. A., Bachetti, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0f2b 16 Dage et al. Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724, doi: 10.1038/nature02448 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMi...

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Rangelov, B., Chandar, R., Prestwich, A., & Whitmore, B. C. 2012, ApJ, 758, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/99

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    H., & Chandar, R

    Rangelov, B., Prestwich, A. H., & Chandar, R. 2011, ApJ, 741, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/86

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    N., et al

    Rastello, S., Mapelli, M., Di Carlo, U. N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2355

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rau, U. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8500, Image Reconstruction from Incomplete Data VII, ed. P. J

    2012

  54. [62]

    Bones, M. A. Fiddy, & R. P. Millane, 85000N, doi: 10.1117/12.930207

    doi

  55. [63]

    P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al

    Rizzuto, F. P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2930–2948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad734 Rodr ´ ıguez, M. J., Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca653 Rodr ´ ıguez Castillo,...

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv731

    Saikia, P., K¨ ording, E., & Falcke, H. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv731

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    Salvato, M., Buchner, J., Budav´ ari, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    S., & Singh, K

    Sanatombi, T., Devi, A. S., & Singh, K. Y. 2023, Chinese Journal of Physics, 83, 579, doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2023.04.010

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Madau, P., Bortolas, E., et al

    Tang, V. L., Madau, P., Bortolas, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1dd9

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    Terashima, Y., Inoue, H., & Wilson, A. S. 2006, ApJ, 645, 264, doi: 10.1086/504251

    2006 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2841

    Torniamenti, S., Rastello, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2841

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9b9

    Tremou, E., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9b9

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    M., et al

    Urquhart, R., Soria, R., Johnston, H. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty014 V´ azquez, G. A., & Leitherer, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 695, doi: 10.1086/427866

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    2012, Science, 337, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1222779

    Webb, N., Cseh, D., Lenc, E., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1222779

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 1, doi: 10.1086/338108

    2002 doi

  67. [75]

    Wilson, C. P. 1975, AJ, 80, 175, doi: 10.1086/111729

    1975 doi

  68. [76]

    Nyland, K. E. 2021, ApJ, 918, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef3

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, Intermediate-Mass Black Holes: The Essential Population to Explore the Unified Model for Accretion and Ejection Processes

    Yang, X., & Yang, J. 2023, Intermediate-Mass Black Holes: The Essential Population to Explore the Unified Model for Accretion and Ejection Processes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12527

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 2719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad436

    Yu, H., Zhu, M., Xu, J.-L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad436

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, Delayed and fast rising radio flares from an optical and X-ray detected tidal disruption event in the center of a dwarf galaxy

    Zhang, F., Shu, X., Yang, L., et al. 2024, Delayed and fast rising radio flares from an optical and X-ray detected tidal disruption event in the center of a dwarf galaxy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08910 Star cluster counterparts to the brightest X-ray sources in M51 17 X-ray ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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