Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The properties of GSN 069 accretion disk from a joint X-ray and UV spectral analysis: stress-testing quasi-periodic eruption models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint X-ray and ultraviolet spectra show that GSN 069 hosts a compact accretion disk that cooled and expanded between 2014 and 2018, evidence for a tidal disruption origin that challenges current quasi-periodic eruption models.

desk verdict Solid multi-wavelength analysis with a genuine soft spot in the claimed disk expansion—worth a serious referee, but the expansion claim needs a direct demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03333 v2 pith:DI2CPIY7 submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

M. Guolo , A. Mummery , T. Wevers , M. Nicholl , S. Gezari , A. Ingram , D. R. Pasham This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords AccretionHighenergyastrophysicsSupermassiveblackholesX-raytransientsourcesTimedomainastronomyQuasi-periodiceruptionsTidaldisruptioneventsGSN069
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

GSN 069, the first source known to show quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs), was quiet in 2014 and erupting in 2018; this paper asks what its accretion disk was doing at both times. Modeling the ultraviolet and X-ray spectra together, the authors show that the nuclear UV light is dominated by a point-like source, not stars, and that the full spectrum is described by a finite, thin accretion disk with an outer radius of order $10^3$ gravitational radii. Between 2014 and 2018 the disk cooled by about 10 percent and expanded by about 15 percent, behavior predicted for a viscously spreading disk formed in a tidal disruption event. The paper then uses the measured disk properties to stress-test QPE models: no published disk-instability model can make the disk stable in 2014 and unstable in 2018, and orbiter/disk collision models struggle because the disk was already large enough to be hit in 2014, when no eruptions were seen.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-disk spectral model \texttt{diskSED} and its relativistic extension \texttt{kerrSED}: a standard thin-disk spectrum in which the outer radius $R_{\rm out}$ is a free parameter alongside the peak temperature $T_p$, inner radius, spin, and inclination. \texttt{kerrSED} adds numerical ray tracing through Kerr spacetime, which breaks the degeneracy between inclination and spin present in the Newtonian limit and lets the paper convert the fitted $R_{\rm out}/R_{\rm in}$ into $R_{\rm out}$ in units of gravitational radii. The UV spectrum carries the argument: the observed $\nu L_\nu \propto \nu^{4/3}$ mid-frequency disk shape means the data sit near the outer cutoff, so comparing the two epochs tracks how the disk cooled and expanded.

What would settle it

A measurement of the 2018 outer disk radius that does not rely on the relativistic model—for example, UV/optical photometry that brackets the predicted spectral break, or a time-dependent disk fit—would settle whether $R_{\rm out}^{2018}$ is truly about 15 percent larger than $R_{\rm out}^{2014}$ or is instead a lower limit. If the 2018 radius is only a lower limit, the expansion claim weakens to a cooling-driven shift in the SED break.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the broad-band 2014 and 2018 spectra of GSN 069 are jointly described by a color-corrected thin accretion disk with a finite outer radius: $R_{\rm out}^{2014} = 1208^{+424}_{-250}\,R_g$ (high-spin mode) and $R_{\rm out}^{2014} = 4096^{+1548}_{-1280}\,R_g$ (low-spin mode), with $R_{\rm out}^{2018}/R_{\rm out}^{2014} = 1.15 \pm 0.02$ and $P(R_{\rm out}^{2018} > R_{\rm out}^{2014}\,|\,{\rm data}) = 1.0$. The peak disk temperature drops by about 10 percent over the same interval, with $P(T_p^{2014} > T_p^{2018}\,|\,{\rm data}) = 1.0$. This simultaneous cooling and expansion is the signature of a viscously spreading, non-steady accretion flow fed close to the black hole, which the paper reads as strong evidence that the disk formed in a tidal disruption event. The same fits place the disk inclination between about $31^\circ$ and $63^\circ$, leave spin bimodal, and give black hole masses of roughly $7.5\times10^6\,M_\odot$ or $1.5\times10^6\,M_\odot$ depending on the spin mode.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed ultraviolet bands actually constrain the outer disk radius in both epochs, so the 2018 disk is measured to be larger rather than merely being unconstrained above a lower limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ultraviolet point source in GSN 069 is dominated by the accretion disk, with the host stellar population contributing at most 5 percent of the inner FUV flux.
  • An outer radius of order $10^3\,R_g$ is far smaller than a long-lived AGN disk and is consistent with a tidal disruption disk observed years after formation.
  • The inferred cooling and expansion are the signature of a non-steady disk whose mass is decreasing with time, supporting the TDE interpretation.
  • No published disk-instability model for QPEs can satisfy both a stable disk in 2014 and an unstable disk in 2018 with the observed eruption recurrence.
  • Orbiter/disk collision models can accommodate the 2018 eruptions only if the disk surface density evolved so that collisions became photon-starved by 2018, a fine-tuning the paper does not rule out but cannot confirm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the 2018 $R_{\rm out}$ is only a lower limit, the expansion ratio $1.15 \pm 0.02$ may be an artifact of the cooling spectrum pushing the SED break out of the observed band; later ultraviolet-to-optical coverage bracketing the break would directly test this.
  • Inference: The photon-starvation rescue for orbiter models predicts that 2014 collisions would emit in the extreme ultraviolet near 10 eV; archival EUV or soft-X-ray limits could falsify or support that fine-tuning.
  • Inference: Applying the same joint X-ray/UV fitting to other QPE sources with multi-epoch data would show whether a stable-then-unstable disk pattern is common to the class.
  • Inference: A fully time-dependent disk model fit to the whole GSN 069 light curve, not just two epochs, could break the spin-inclination bimodality and independently measure the viscous timescale that sets the expansion rate.
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 analyzes archival HST UV/optical imaging and STIS UV spectra of GSN 069 together with two epochs of XMM-Newton X-ray spectra, and fits the broad-band data with thin-disk models that include a finite outer radius. The authors decompose the nuclear emission into a dominant point source and a minor stellar component, measure a ~10% FUV flux decline between 2014 and 2018, and show that the X-ray and UV spectra can be described self-consistently by a compact disk with outer radius of order 10^3 Rg. They further argue that the disk cooled and expanded between the two epochs and use the inferred parameters to test quasi-periodic eruption (QPE) models, concluding that published disk-instability models cannot explain the absence of QPEs in 2014 and their presence in 2018, and that orbiter/disk interaction models face a similar timing problem.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable and unusually complete multi-wavelength study of a QPE host: it ties the UV excess to the accretion disk, independently recovers host extinction consistent with the Balmer decrement, and turns two epochs of X-ray and UV data into sharp constraints on QPE model parameters. The analysis is carefully executed in its imaging decomposition, extinction treatment, and simultaneous X-ray/UV fitting, and the use of public data with reproducible Bayesian tools is a clear strength. The cooling of the disk is robust and consistent with earlier X-ray-only work, and the comparison of the two epochs against instability and orbiter models is a useful stress test. However, the expansion claim, which is central to the TDE interpretation and to the QPE-model discussion, rests on a 2018 outer-radius constraint that the Newtonian fit itself shows to be only a lower limit; the relativistic fit does not yet demonstrate that it restores a two-sided constraint. The significance of the paper is therefore high if that gap is closed, but the expansion result is currently not fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and §3.2] The paper does not establish that the kerrSED model recovers a two-sided constraint on the 2018 outer radius, which is required for the expansion claim. Section 3.1 states that in the diskSED fit the 2018 Rout/Rin posterior is 'essentially flat for Rout/Rin ≳ 330', so only a lower limit is obtained. Section 3.2 then reports in Table 2 a tight ratio R2018out/R2014out = 1.15 ± 0.02 and P(R2018out > R2014out | data) = 1.0, but no posterior for Rout/Rin from the kerrSED fit is shown, and no argument is given for how relativistic ray tracing breaks the physical degeneracy when the spectral break has moved below the observed UV band. I ask the authors to present the 2018 Rout/Rin posterior for kerrSED explicitly and to demonstrate, analytically or numerically, that the UV data constrain both sides of the posterior. Without this, the apparent 1.15 ratio may simply reflect that the 2018 posterior is a lower limit, making the inequality P(R2018out > R2014out) = 1.0 trivially satisfied.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 6, Table 2] The claimed probability P(R2018out > R2014out | data) = 1.0 is quoted as 'overwhelming evidence' for expansion, but this probability is computed from posteriors in which the 2018 parameter may be unconstrained from above. If the 2018 Rout is only a lower limit, the posterior comparison reports a prior-dependent and essentially uninformative probability; the same caveat applies to the ratio R2018out/R2014out in Table 2. The authors should either demonstrate that the full 2018 posterior is proper and two-sided, or soften the expansion conclusion and rephrase the evidence as a one-sided constraint consistent with, but not requiring, expansion.
  3. [§4.2.1] The conclusion that no disk-instability model can explain stability in 2014 and instability in 2018 depends directly on the 2018 outer-radius and Eddington-ratio values, and through Equation (7) on the assumed p0 scaling. The argument is internally consistent for the quoted parameters, but because the 2018 Rout lower-limit issue feeds into the same parameter set, the strongest version of this conclusion should be presented conditionally on the kerrSED Rout constraint being two-sided. The instability analysis itself is a useful stress test, but its headline claim inherits the uncertainty from the expansion evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The phrase 'The reader is refereed to' should read 'The reader is referred to'.
  2. [§2.1] In the caption of Figure 1, 'F6060W' should be 'F606W'.
  3. [§2.2] The footnote markers and text around 'calSTIS3' and 'HST Geo-Coronal Airglow4' appear as raw footnote placeholders; these should be formatted as proper footnotes.
  4. [§3.2] The sentence 'This bimodal posterior can be improve' should read 'can be improved'.
  5. [§5] In the conclusions bullet, 'though not value of the parameter space can be excluded' appears to be a typo for 'though no value of the parameter space can be excluded'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the disk parameters and their evolution are data-driven inferences with external anchors.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are inferences from a joint fit of two epochs of X-ray and UV spectra, not derivations that reduce to model inputs. The diskSED and kerrSED models, although introduced in the authors' prior work (Guolo & Mummery 2024), are physical thin-disk models with stated assumptions (null-stress inner boundary, color correction, Kerr ray tracing); applying them to new XMM-Newton and HST data makes the posterior distributions functions of the observed fluxes. The 'cooling' and 'expansion' statements are comparisons of independently fitted per-epoch parameters (Tp, Rout) with flat priors, so P=1.0 is a property of the data/model combination, not an identity. The 2018 Rout lower-limit degeneracy noted in Sec. 3.1 is a data-constraint limitation, not a circular construction; the paper's external anchors (Balmer-decrement E(B-V), MBH-sigma* relations, STIS calibration, independent literature spectra) provide checks outside the fitted model. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the thin disk model assumptions and the identification of the observed UV and X-rays with the same disk. The main free parameters are the disk physical properties (Tp, Rin, Rout, spin, inclination) and the host extinction, all fitted to the data. No new particles or forces are introduced. The stress-test of QPE models uses parameters from the Kaur et al. model, which is cited as prior work.

free parameters (9)
  • Tp (peak disk temperature) = 2014: 2.72e5 K, 2018: 2.47e5 K (varies by mode)
    Free parameter of the diskSED and kerrSED models, fitted to the joint X-ray and UV spectra.
  • Rin (disk inner radius) = 1.5e7 km (high spin), 1.2e7 km (low spin)
    Free parameter tied across epochs in kerrSED; converted to MBH assuming the inner edge is at the ISCO.
  • Rout/Rin (dimensionless disk size) = 2014: ~280 in diskSED; ~1200 Rg in kerrSED high-spin mode; ~4100 Rg low-spin mode
    Free parameter per epoch; the 2018 value is a lower limit in diskSED, and the kerrSED expansion ratio depends on this fitting.
  • a (black hole spin) = 0.95 (high-spin mode) or -0.2 (low-spin mode)
    Free parameter in kerrSED; bimodal posterior distribution.
  • i (disk inclination) = 59 deg (high-spin mode) or 41 deg (low-spin mode)
    Free parameter in kerrSED, constrained to 31-63 degrees at 99 percent posterior.
  • E(B-V) intrinsic host extinction = 0.11 +/- 0.01
    Free parameter tied across epochs; consistent with the independent Balmer decrement value of 0.10 +/- 0.01.
  • NH (intrinsic neutral hydrogen column) = about 20.8 in log NH (cm^-2)
    Free parameter tied across epochs, fitted to the X-ray spectra.
  • M_star,100, M_star,200, M_star,300 (stellar population masses) = Total log(M_star) ~ 7.4 +/- 0.1 Msun
    Free parameters in the stellarPop model, constrained by the diffuse stellar photometry in two bands.
  • p0 (magnetic pressure scaling in Kaur et al. model) = Derived from Eq. 7 using TQPE=9 hr
    Used in the QPE instability stress-test, not a parameter of the disk fit itself.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk with zero-stress boundary condition at the inner edge.
    Invoked throughout Section 3 as the basis of diskSED and kerrSED models.
  • domain assumption The X-ray and UV emission originate from the same thin accretion disk.
    Required for the joint SED fitting to yield a single Tp, Rin, and Rout description.
  • domain assumption The disk inner edge is at the ISCO, which allows conversion of Rin to MBH via Eq. 4.
    Used in Section 3.2 to derive MBH from the fitted Rin and spin.
  • domain assumption The Calzetti dust attenuation law with E(B-V) from Balmer decrement applies to the nuclear region.
    Used for the intrinsic extinction correction of the UV spectra and for the reddenSF model.
  • domain assumption The color correction factor fc from electron scattering and metal opacity is applicable to the TDE disk.
    Adopted from Shimura & Takahara (1995) and Hubeny et al. (2001) as part of the diskSED and kerrSED implementations.
  • domain assumption The stellar population in the inner 0.5 arcsec region can be modeled with a superposition of 100, 200, and 300 Myr Maraston (2005) SSPs.
    Used to separate the stellar contribution from the disk in the joint fitting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The properties of GSN 069 accretion disk from a joint X-ray and UV spectral analysis: stress-testing quasi-periodic eruption models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DI2CPIY7

@misc{pith2026250103333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The properties of GSN 069 accretion disk from a joint X-ray and UV spectral analysis: stress-testing quasi-periodic eruption models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DI2CPIY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03333}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and XMM-Newton data of the tidal disruption event (TDE) candidate and quasi-periodic eruption (QPE) source GSN 069. Using ultraviolet (UV) and optical images at HST resolution, we show that GSN 069's emission consists of a point source superimposed on a diffuse stellar component. The latter accounts for $\leq 5\%$ of the UV emission in the inner 0.5"$\times$0.5" region, while the luminosity of the former cannot be attributed to stars. Analyzing the 2014/2018 \hst UV spectra, we show that to leading order the intrinsic spectral shape is $\nu\,L_{\nu}\propto\nu^{4/3}$, with $\sim10\%$ far UV flux variability between epochs. The contemporaneous X-ray and UV spectra can be modeled self-consistently in a thin disk framework. At observed epochs, the disk had an outer radius ($R_{\rm out}$) of $\mathcal{O}(10^3R_{\rm g})$, showing both cooling and expansion over four years. Incorporating relativistic effects via numerical ray tracing, we constrain the disk inclination angle ($i$) to be $30^\circ\,\lesssim\,i\,\lesssim\,65^\circ$ and identify a narrow region of spin-inclination parameter space that describes the observations. These findings confirm that GSN 069 hosts a compact, viscously expanding accretion disk likely formed after a TDE. Implications for QPE models are: (i) No published disk instability model can explain the disk's stability in 2014 (no QPEs) and its instability in 2018 (QPEs present); (ii) While the disk size in 2018 allows for orbiter/disk interactions to produce QPEs, in 2014 the disk was already sufficiently extended, yet no QPEs were present. These findings pose challenges to existing QPE models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03333 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Radial profile fitting, for F6060W filter (Top) and red-leak corrected FUV filter (F140LP-F165LP, Bottom). Data is shown in gray points, total model in gray band, point source model in purple, and diffuse galaxy emission (Sersic) profile in green. All bands are 68% of the model’s posteriors. The point source dominates the inner pixels. Right: F6060W (Top) and F140LP (Bottom) HST/SBC images of GSN 069. Color sc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color vs. flux/luminosity GSN 069’s UV/optical emission. Purple refers to the point-source (size ≤ 0.1′′or 35 pc), while green is the diffuse emission as measured in a 0.5′′×0.5′′aperture. Flux/luminosities and colors are intrin￾sic, i.e., corrected for both Galactic and host-galaxy extinc￾tion. Point-source is too bright to be power by stellar emis￾sion (see text for details). Error-bars are mostly dominated by the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: extinction-corrected HST/STIS UV spectra of GSN 069 in 2014 (purple) and 2018 (pink). Green point show estimate of the stellar contribution to the inner aperture that the spectra were extracted. Middle: Zoom into Far UV (FUV) portion of the spectra. Right: The probability distribution from 104 simulations of the integrated FUV flux ratio (Eq. 2) between the two epochs. The gray band represents the maximum 3% s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the nested sampling fit of broad-band data, using diskSED. Purple colors refer to 2014, pink to 2018, and green to the stellar component. For the two epochs the darker contours are total models (disk+stars), while the lighter contours are the disk-only emiss…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plot showing the bimodal posterior of the spin (a) and inclination (i), for the kerrSED fitting of GSN 069. Contours are 68%, 90% and 99% of the marginal￾ized posterior. Dashed line shows the criteria used to sepa￾rate the two modes. In contrast, no range of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distributions of the time-evolving properties of GSN 069’s disk, as fitted with kerrSED, are shown for the two solution modes. The top, middle, and bottom panels respectively display the physical peak disk temperature (Tp), the outer disk radius (Rout) in uni…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability distribution functions (PDFs) for the inferred parameters of GSN 069 using the relativistic kerrSED disk model. Due to the bimodal nature of the final posterior distribution (driven by the not fully constrained spin parameter, a), the solutions are divided …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Instability condition for instability in Kaur et al. (2023)’s magnetized disks. The plot show the ratio between the measured Eddington ratios (λEDD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: X-ray light curves of the XMM-Newton obser￾vations, with GTIs stacked to create the spectra colored ac￾cordingly. 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.0 Energy (keV) 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 C o u n t s s 1 k e V 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Background subtracted spectra produced from the observations (and GTI’s) as shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Star formation rate surface density (ΣSFR) distributions. The blue histogram (and left y-axis) represents the distribution from the SDSS MaNGA survey, encompassing 1.4 million regions across ∼ 4500 star-forming disk galaxies (Law et al. 2022). The red band indic…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Results of the nested sampling fit of broad-band data. Purple colors refer to 2014 SED, pink to 2018, and green to the stellar component. For the two epochs the darker contours are total models (disk+stars), while the lighter contours are the disk-only emission. Top L…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Posterior corner plot for the broad-band fit to the two epochs of GSN 069, 2014 (purple), 2018 (pink), and stellar contribution (green), using diskSED. Intrinsic properties (fixed between epochs) are shown in black. In the 2D histogram the contours shows 68% and 95% o…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Posterior corner plot for the broad-band fit to the two epochs of GSN 069, 2014 (purple), 2018 (pink), and stellar contribution (green), using kerrSED. Intrinsic properties (fixed between epochs) in black. In the 2D histogram the contours shows 68% and 95% of the prob…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Time-resolved Hubble Space Telescope UV observations of an X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-resolved HST far-UV observations of the QPE source eRO-QPE2 reveal a steady bright FUV point source consistent with a compact TDE-like accretion disk, ruling out classic AGN-disk and no-disk interpretations.

  2. Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QPE arrival times from an EMRI-disk collision model can recover black hole mass and orbital size/eccentricity to about 10% over tens of orbits, while spin and disk precession properties are much harder to constrain.

  3. Multimessenger prospects of quasi-periodic eruptions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Known quasi-periodic eruptions are unlikely to have LISA-detectable gravitational-wave counterparts, so future searches should focus on rare short-period “golden” QPEs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    _H,|w g] />b.f+.߾ R|YK>G3EP㿿|o

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Agol , E., & Krolik , J. H. 2000, , 528, 161, 10.1086/308177

    doi:10.1086/308177 2000

  5. [5]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3754, 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3754

    Andrae , R., Schulze-Hartung , T., & Melchior , P. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3754, 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3754

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1012.3754 2010

  6. [6]

    F., et al

    Angles-Alcazar , D., Quataert , E., Hopkins , P. F., et al. 2021, , 917, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09e8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac09e8 2021

  7. [7]

    1993, , 31, 473, 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci , R. 1993, , 31, 473, 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    2012, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 27, 557, 10.48550/arXiv.1210.2716

    ---. 2012, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 27, 557, 10.48550/arXiv.1210.2716

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1210.2716 2012

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, , 662, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia , R., Miniutti , G., Ponti , G., et al. 2022, , 662, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia , R., Liu , Z., Merloni , A., et al. 2024, , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  5. [13]

    2014, , 568, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323324

    Arribas , S., Colina , L., Bellocchi , E., Maiolino , R., & Villar-Mart \' n , M. 2014, , 568, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323324

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Press , W

    Bardeen , J. M., Press , W. H., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1972, , 178, 347, 10.1086/151796

    1972 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Heckman , T., S \'a nchez , S

    Barrera-Ballesteros , J. K., Heckman , T., S \'a nchez , S. F., et al. 2021, , 909, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd855

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, , 488, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz080

    Bianchi , S., Antonucci , R., Capetti , A., et al. 2019, , 488, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz080

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Deustua , S

    Bohlin , R. C., Deustua , S. E., & de Rosa , G. 2019, , 158, 211, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab480c

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, , 131, 108005, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    Buchner , J. 2019, , 131, 108005, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05705, 10.48550/arXiv.2309.05705

    Buchner , J., & Boorman , P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05705, 10.48550/arXiv.2309.05705

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Bentz , M

    Cackett , E. M., Bentz , M. C., & Kara , E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557, 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557

    2021

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682, 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Lee , H

    Cannizzo , J. K., Lee , H. M., & Goodman , J. 1990, , 351, 38, 10.1086/168442

    1990 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Masterson , M., et al. 2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    Chakraborty , J., Arcodia , R., Kara , E., et al. 2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    B., et al

    Charalampopoulos , P., Leloudas , G., Malesani , D. B., et al. 2022, , 659, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142122

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    W., & El-Abd , S

    Davis , S. W., & El-Abd , S. 2019, , 874, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c5

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, The Hubble Advanced Spectral Product (HASP) Program , Instrument Science Report COS 2024-01, 31 pages

    Debes , J., Sankrit , R., Fischer , T., et al. 2024, The Hubble Advanced Spectral Product (HASP) Program , Instrument Science Report COS 2024-01, 31 pages

    2024

  22. [30]

    A., Nixon , C

    Evans , P. A., Nixon , C. J., Campana , S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., Lupi , A., et al. 2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A. I. 2020, , 216, 32, 10.1007/s11214-020-00657-y

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    J., et al

    Gabriel , C., Denby , M., Fyfe , D. J., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein , M. G. Allen , & D. Egret , 759

    2004

  26. [34]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., & Saxton , R. D. 2020, , 636, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01938, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01938

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., Arcodia , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01938, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01938

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2017, , 603, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    Grzedzielski , M., Janiuk , A., Czerny , B., & Wu , Q. 2017, , 603, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    2024 b , , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    ---. 2024 b , , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17296, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17296

    Guolo , M., & Mummery , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17296, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17296

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU

    Heasarc . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU . 1408.004

    2014

  33. [42]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.00160, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.00160

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    F., Grudic , M

    Hopkins , P. F., Grudic , M. Y., Su , K.-Y., et al. 2024 a , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 18, 10.21105/astro.2309.13115

    2024

  36. [45]

    F., Squire , J., Su , K.-Y., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Squire , J., Su , K.-Y., et al. 2024 b , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 19, 10.21105/astro.2310.04506

    2024

  37. [46]

    H., & Agol , E

    Hubeny , I., Blaes , O., Krolik , J. H., & Agol , E. 2001, , 559, 680, 10.1086/322344

    2001 doi

  38. [47]

    S., & Bleeker , J

    Kaastra , J. S., & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    C., & Gilbaum , S

    Kaur , K., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2023, , 524, 1269, 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1998, , 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Dopita , M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., Heisler , C. A., & Trevena , J. 2001, , 556, 121, 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    King , A. 2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Belfiore , F., Bershady , M

    Law , D. R., Belfiore , F., Bershady , M. A., et al. 2022, , 928, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5620

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 957, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    2023, , 945, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    Linial , I., & Sari , R. 2023, , 945, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu , W., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    2005, , 362, 799, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    Maraston , C. 2005, , 362, 799, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    2005

  48. [57]

    2023 a , , 674, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653

    Miniutti , G., Giustini , M., Arcodia , R., et al. 2023 a , , 674, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    2023 b , , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    ---. 2023 b , , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    D., Rodr \' guez-Pascual , P

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Rodr \' guez-Pascual , P. M., et al. 2013, , 433, 1764, 10.1093/mnras/stt850

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    D., Giustini , M., et al

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Giustini , M., et al. 2019, , 573, 381, 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.13460, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13460

    Miniutti , G., Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.13460, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13460

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    Mummery , A., & Balbus , S. A. 2020, , 492, 5655, 10.1093/mnras/staa192

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    2021, , 505, 1629, 10.1093/mnras/stab1141

    ---. 2021, , 505, 1629, 10.1093/mnras/stab1141

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14163, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14163

    Mummery , A., Guolo , M., Matthews , J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14163, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14163

    2025 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 366, 10.1093/mnras/stae1160

    Mummery, A., Ingram, A., Davis, S., & Fabian, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 366, 10.1093/mnras/stae1160

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    Mummery , A., Nathan , E., Ingram , A., & Gardner , M. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    2024 b , , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery , A., van Velzen , S., Nathan , E., et al. 2024 b , , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, , 519, 5828, 10.1093/mnras/stac3798

    Mummery , A., Wevers , T., Saxton , R., & Pasham , D. 2023, , 519, 5828, 10.1093/mnras/stac3798

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    2010, , 725, 904, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    Nakar , E., & Sari , R. 2010, , 725, 904, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    J., van Duinen , R., et al

    Neugebauer , G., Habing , H. J., van Duinen , R., et al. 1984, , 278, L1, 10.1086/184209

    1984 doi

  62. [71]

    2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer , N., Seth , A., & B \"o ker , T. 2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    R., Mummery , A., et al

    Nicholl , M., Pasham , D. R., Mummery , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02181, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02181

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., & Cao , X. 2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    2022 b , , 928, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    ---. 2022 b , , 928, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    2022 doi

  66. [76]

    C., Lu , W., Ma , Y., et al

    Patra , K. C., Lu , W., Ma , Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.05574, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.05574

    2023 doi arXiv

  67. [77]

    2021, , 650, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140733

    Pessa , I., Schinnerer , E., Belfiore , F., et al. 2021, , 650, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140733

    2021 doi

  68. [78]

    M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K

    Peterson , B. M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2004, , 613, 682, 10.1086/423269

    2004 doi

  69. [79]

    A., Guillot , S., et al

    Quintin , E., Webb , N. A., Guillot , S., et al. 2023, , 675, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  70. [80]

    A., Steidel , C

    Reddy , N. A., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., & Bogosavljevi \'c , M. 2016, , 828, 107, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/107

    2016 doi

  71. [81]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  72. [82]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  73. [83]

    2018, Impacts of focus on aspects of STIS UV Spectroscopy , Instrument Science Report STIS 2018-6, 25 pages

    Riley , A., Monroe , T., & Lockwood , S. 2018, Impacts of focus on aspects of STIS UV Spectroscopy , Instrument Science Report STIS 2018-6, 25 pages

    2018

  74. [84]

    Roychowdhury , S., Huang , M.-L., Kauffmann , G., Wang , J., & Chengalur , J. N. 2015, , 449, 3700, 10.1093/mnras/stv515

    2015 doi

  75. [85]

    Saxton , R., Komossa , S., Auchettl , K., & Jonker , P. G. 2020, , 216, 85, 10.1007/s11214-020-00708-4

    2020 doi

  76. [86]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1106.3507, 10.48550/arXiv.1106.3507

    Saxton , R., Read , A., Esquej , P., Miniutti , G., & Alvarez , E. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1106.3507, 10.48550/arXiv.1106.3507

    2011 doi arXiv

  77. [87]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  78. [88]

    C., Dalcanton , J

    Seth , A. C., Dalcanton , J. J., Hodge , P. W., & Debattista , V. P. 2006, , 132, 2539, 10.1086/508994

    2006 doi

  79. [89]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

    Shakura , N. I., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  80. [90]

    2021, , 920, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    Sheng , Z., Wang , T., Ferland , G., et al. 2021, , 920, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    2021 doi

  81. [91]

    1995, , 445, 780, 10.1086/175740

    Shimura , T., & Takahara , F. 1995, , 445, 780, 10.1086/175740

    1995 doi

  82. [92]

    W., Wang , S

    Shu , X. W., Wang , S. S., Dou , L. M., et al. 2018, , 857, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaba17

    2018 doi

  83. [93]

    M., Stevans , M., & Danforth , C

    Shull , J. M., Stevans , M., & Danforth , C. W. 2012, , 752, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/162

    2012 doi

  84. [94]

    2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    \'S niegowska , M., Grz e dzielski , M., Czerny , B., & Janiuk , A. 2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    2023 doi

  85. [95]

    L., Shull , J

    Stevans , M. L., Shull , J. M., Danforth , C. W., & Tilton , E. M. 2014, , 794, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/75

    2014 doi

  86. [96]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 48, 10.1038/s41550-018-0611-0

    Storchi-Bergmann , T., & Schnorr-M \"u ller , A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 48, 10.1038/s41550-018-0611-0

    2019 doi

  87. [97]

    2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    Str \"u der , L., Briel , U., Dennerl , K., et al. 2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2001 doi

  88. [98]

    2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa , H., & Haiman , Z. 2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  89. [99]

    C., Metzger , B

    van Velzen , S., Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2019, , 878, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    2019 doi

  90. [100]

    J., Haggard , D., et al

    Vieira , N., Ruan , J. J., Haggard , D., et al. 2023, , 944, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/acae72

    2023 doi

  91. [101]

    Vurm , I., Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05166. 2410.05166

    2024 arXiv

  92. [102]

    2025, , 980, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    Wevers , T., Guolo , M., Lockwood , S., et al. 2025, , 980, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    2025 doi

  93. [103]

    R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R

    Wevers , T., Pasham , D. R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R. 2022, , 659, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  94. [104]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    Wevers , T., French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., et al. 2024, , 970, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    2024 doi

  95. [105]

    Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C

    Yao , P. Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14578, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14578

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [106]

    Y., Wang , Y

    Zhao , Z. Y., Wang , Y. Y., Zou , Y. C., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2022, , 661, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142519

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.