Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 86 references

A Large Systematic Search for Close Supermassive Binary and Rapidly Recoiling Black Holes -- IV. Ultraviolet spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 This paper tests whether 13 quasars with velocity-shifted broad Hβ lines are close supermassive black hole binaries, finding three with strong support from matched ultraviolet and optical line shifts.

desk verdict New HST spectra give three SBHB candidates a real boost, but the 'strong support' label overreaches what the physics can defend. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10574 v1 pith:44VEQCLV submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Jessie C. Runnoe , Michael Eracleous , Tamara Bogdanović , Jules Halpern , Steinn Sigur{ḥsson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassiveblackholebinariesactivegalacticnucleibroad-lineregionultravioletspectroscopyHubbleSpaceTelescopedouble-peakedemittersquasaremissionlinesradialvelocityoffsets
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 a test of whether 13 quasars whose broad Hβ lines are offset by roughly a thousand kilometers per second from their host galaxies' rest frames actually contain closely orbiting supermassive black hole pairs. The test compares the velocity shifts of ultraviolet resonance lines (Lyα and C IV) with those of the optical Balmer lines using new Hubble Space Telescope spectra taken nearly simultaneously with ground-based optical observations. The reasoning is that bulk orbital motion would shift all lines together, whereas an alternative explanation involving a single black hole with a lopsided accretion disk would leave the UV lines single-peaked and near the rest frame. Three objects (J001224, J115449, J125142) show matching shifts in all lines, strongly supporting the binary interpretation; five give tentative support, one is disfavored, and four are too absorbed to judge. If the test is sound, these three become the most credible close-binary candidates from the radial-velocity search method.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shared-shift comparison between the broad optical Balmer lines and the ultraviolet resonance lines. For a binary, bulk orbital motion of the active black hole and its bound broad-line region Doppler-shifts every line by the same velocity; for a single black hole with a non-axisymmetric disk, the Hβ offset is one peak of a double-peaked profile and the Lyα/C IV lines, formed in an outflowing wind above the disk, should be single-peaked and lie near the narrow-line rest frame. The implementation requires isolating broad profiles by spectral decomposition, rescaling one profile onto the other by least-squares with sigma clipping, and adopting the interpretation that the symmetric intermediate-width UV core is not part of the broad-line region, based on reverberation mapping results.

What would settle it

Observe a well-studied double-peaked emitter known to be a single black hole, such as 3C 390.3, at an epoch when its Hβ peak is displaced by roughly 1000 km/s, and measure whether Lyα and C IV share that displacement. If they do, the premise that UV resonance lines stay at rest for a single black hole fails and the test's classifications lose their basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet spectra of 13 supermassive black hole binary candidates selected from a parent sample of quasars with broad Hβ lines offset from the [O III] rest frame by 700–4000 km/s. After decomposing the spectra to isolate the broad line profiles, we compare the UV lines (Lyα and C IV, plus Mg II where available) with contemporaneous Hβ and Hα. The comparison is governed by the expectation, taken from studies of double-peaked disk emitters, that for a single black hole the UV resonance lines form in an outflowing wind and are single-peaked and centered at the narrow-line rest frame, while in a true binary every line shares the same bulk Doppler offset. On this basis, three candidates (J001224, J115449, J125142) show strong support for the binary hypothesis because their UV lines reproduce the Hβ offset; five show tentative support complicated by an intermediate-width core or weak absorption; one (J154340) is disfavored because its UV lines sit at rest while Hα matches the shifted Hβ; and four are inconclusive because of severe absorption in the UV.

Load-bearing premise

The test assumes that a single supermassive black hole produces ultraviolet resonance lines that are single-peaked and close to the galaxy's rest frame, so only true bulk orbital motion would make them share the velocity offset of Hβ; if that premise is wrong, the three 'strong support' classifications collapse. It also assumes the intermediate-width UV core is not part of the broad-line region, which affects several tentative classifications.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the classifications are right, J001224, J115449, and J125142 are the strongest close-binary candidates from the radial-velocity method and merit continued optical monitoring to detect the orbital acceleration predicted by the binary interpretation.
  • The UV-versus-optical comparison works as a discriminator even though radial-velocity curves can be mimicked by a perturbed disk, so it is a complementary test for other SBHB candidates.
  • A substantial fraction of candidates (about 30%) cannot be tested this way because of severe absorption, so future UV work should budget for this loss or use lines less affected by absorption.
  • The presence of both red- and blueshifted offsets among the supported candidates, while outflows would produce only blueshifts, is consistent with an orbital origin rather than an outflow origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If J001224, J115449, and J125142 are genuine binaries with the masses and separations estimated in earlier papers, their orbital periods of decades to centuries are within reach of monitoring programs; a measured period would be a decisive confirmation.
  • Inference: The same test could be run on candidates selected by other routes, such as periodic photometric variability or double-peaked lines, but the rest-frame expectation for UV lines would need re-calibration for those selection methods.
  • Inference: For the five tentative cases, the outcome hinges on the intermediate-width core interpretation; a dedicated reverberation-mapping campaign on the UV cores of these quasars could settle which side each classification falls on.
  • Inference: Observing Mg II rather than Lyα/C IV may rescue some of the inconclusive cases, since the paper notes Mg II is unabsorbed in at least one object whose Lyα and C IV are heavily absorbed.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents new Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet spectroscopy (COS and STIS) of 13 quasars at z < 0.7 that were previously identified as supermassive black hole binary (SBHB) candidates on the basis of velocity-offset broad H-beta emission lines. The authors also obtained contemporaneous ground-based optical spectra covering H-beta, H-alpha, and in some cases Mg II. The central test compares the broad UV line profiles (Ly-alpha, C IV, Mg II) with the optical Balmer profiles: under the SBHB hypothesis, all broad lines should share the same velocity offset as bulk orbital motion, whereas under the alternative single-black-hole perturbed-disk scenario, the UV resonance lines are expected to be single-peaked and centered near the narrow-line rest frame. The authors classify the 13 objects into four categories: strong support (3), tentative support (5), disfavored (1), and inconclusive owing to absorption (4). The three 'strong support' objects are J001224, J115449, and J125142. The paper concludes that these three are much more likely to host close SBHBs, although it acknowledges that passing the test does not conclusively establish a candidate as a true SBHB.

Significance. If the classification scheme is accepted, this paper provides an important, physically motivated discriminator for a small but heavily studied class of SBHB candidates. The new HST spectra are a valuable public resource, the contemporaneous optical spectroscopy strengthens the comparison, and the per-object notes are detailed and transparent. The test has a clear falsifiable logic: a single SMBH whose broad Balmer profile is distorted by a non-axisymmetric disk would not naturally produce UV resonance lines sharing the same velocity offset as H-beta. The paper also explicitly states limitations, including the subjectivity of the classifications and the frequent impact of absorption. The main significance, if the conclusions hold, is to elevate three objects as the most promising close-SBHB candidates from this sample. However, the strength of that conclusion is moderated by the qualitative nature of the comparisons and by the fact that the discriminatory premise is imported from observations of double-peaked disk emitters rather than demonstrated for the present single-peaked, offset-line sample.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 2] The classification counts are internally inconsistent. Section 3.3 states 'Four objects show strong support for the SBHB hypothesis, four show tentative support...', whereas Table 2 lists three strong (J001224, J115449, J125142) and five tentative (J015530, J094603, J111916, J134617, J171448), and the Abstract and Section 4 also report three strong and five tentative. This is a factual error in the paper's headline result; the text in Section 3.3 must be corrected to match the table and the abstract.
  2. [Sections 1.2 and 3.3] The diagnostic premise that a single SMBH produces single-peaked UV resonance lines centered near the narrow-line rest frame is not established for the present sample. The premise is imported from observations of double-peaked disk emitters, but the SBHB candidates studied here have single-peaked, velocity-offset H-beta profiles. The paper itself concedes in Section 1.2 that matching UV and optical velocity offsets 'can arise from both single black holes and SBHBs' and that passing the test 'does not conclusively establish a candidate as a true SBHB.' Given this concession, classifying matching-offset objects as 'strong support' for the SBHB hypothesis overstates the discriminating power of the test. I recommend either softening the classification language (e.g., 'consistent with') or providing a quantitative model-based likelihood ratio that quantifies how much more likely the matched-offset observation is under the SBHB scenario than under the single-BH scenario.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The three 'strong support' classifications depend critically on the adopted interpretation that the intermediate-width UV line core is an ILR that does not participate in BLR orbital motion. For J115449, the Ly-alpha match is accepted only 'under the ILR description'; for J125142, the match is accepted 'modulo an ILR core'; and for J001224, a symmetric core is excluded as ILR. If the ILR instead partakes of BLR motion, or if a single BH with a non-axisymmetric disk wind can produce a UV line peak at the H-beta offset, these classifications lose their force. This is a load-bearing assumption that needs explicit empirical or modeling support; at minimum, the classifications should be stated as conditional on the ILR interpretation, and the paper should discuss the consequences if that interpretation is wrong.
  4. [Section 3.2] The scale-factor procedure uses iterative sigma clipping that explicitly rejects 'pixels in the core of the UV line profile' and 'pixels impacted by absorption.' This means the quantitative comparison of Ly-alpha and H-beta is driven by the line wings, while the offset of the line peak, which is the key diagnostic, is evaluated only by visual inspection of the residuals. There is no reported measurement of the velocity offset of each line peak with an associated uncertainty, nor any statistical test of whether the UV and optical offsets agree. Without such quantitative metrics, the distinction between 'strong support' and 'tentative support' is not reproducible, and the central claim that three objects show matching offsets is not supported by a formal estimate. Please add measured peak velocities (or equivalent profile centroids) with uncertainties, and a quantitative comparison significance for the strong-support objects.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.3] The sentence beginning 'Four objects show strong support...' should be corrected to 'Three objects show strong support... five show tentative support...' to match Table 2 and the Abstract.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'We present Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet (UV) of 13 quasars' is missing the word 'spectra'; it should read 'ultraviolet (UV) spectra of 13 quasars.'
  3. [Section 3.4] In the J001224 note, 'There is a very compelling blueshift of comparable magnitude is observed' is grammatically broken; it should read 'A very compelling blueshift of comparable magnitude is observed' or 'There is a very compelling blueshift of comparable magnitude.'
  4. [Section 3.4] In the J094603 note, 'not obviosuly as distinct' is a typo for 'not obviously as distinct.'
  5. [Section 3.4] In the J154340 note, 'notwirthstanding' is a typo for 'notwithstanding.'
  6. [Section 4] The sentence 'This work has also revealed two limitations the approach of comparing the UV and optical line profiles' is missing a word; it should read 'two limitations of the approach' or 'two limitations to the approach.'
  7. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'J13417' but the object is J134617; the abbreviated name should be consistent with the rest of the text (J134617).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UV-versus-optical comparison is evaluated on genuinely new HST spectra and the outcome could have contradicted the SBHB interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a hypothesis test, not a fitted prediction. The velocity comparison is made in the rest frame set by narrow [O III] (Section 3.3), and the UV line profiles are not fit with a velocity shift derived from H-beta; the only fitted quantity is a multiplicative scale factor used purely for display and residual inspection (Section 3.2). The observed outcomes include cases that disfavor the SBHB hypothesis and cases where absorption prevents any conclusion (e.g., J154340 and four 'absorbed' objects, Table 2), so the test had genuine discriminatory power. The paper explicitly concedes the main logical weakness: 'It is more difficult to interpret the scenario where the UV and optical lines have matching velocity offsets because this can arise from both single black holes and SBHBs' (Section 1.2). That is an acknowledged degeneracy in the inference, not a circular reduction. Similarly, the classifications depend on an adopted assumption that the intermediate-width UV core is emitted outside the BLR, and the paper states this dependency openly: 'some classifications depend on the interpretation of the ILR... we adopt the interpretation that the ILR line core is not emitted from the BLR' (Section 3.3). The ILR assumption is motivated by reverberation-mapping results (Denney 2012) and is applied as an external calibration rather than derived from the data at hand. The DE-based expectation that single black holes produce single-peaked, unshifted UV resonance lines is imported from prior empirical and modeling work, including some by the same authors, but those results are externally falsifiable observations and are not fitted to the 13 candidates in this paper. No step reduces to the definition of the target claim or to a self-citation chain that itself is unverified. The admitted ambiguities are correctness/statistical concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted quantities are spectral decomposition and scaling choices; the key assumptions are the DE analogy, the ILR interpretation, and the narrow-line rest frame.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-object profile scale factor = Not tabulated
    Used to normalize the Ly-alpha profile to H-beta for each object via least squares with iterative sigma clipping (Section 3.2). The choice of clipped pixels, especially in the UV core and absorbed regions, can influence whether the profiles look consistent.
  • Spectral decomposition parameters (power-law slopes, Fe II scaling, Gaussian amplitudes, widths, positions) = Not tabulated
    Continuum and narrow-line models fitted with specfit to isolate broad profiles (Section 3.1). Different decomposition choices could alter the apparent positions and shapes of the broad lines.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A single supermassive black hole with a perturbed disk-like BLR produces UV resonance lines that are single-peaked and near the narrow-line rest frame, while an SBHB shifts all broad lines together by the same bulk velocity.
    This is the discriminator on which the test rests, imported from prior studies of double-peaked disk emitters and wind models (Section 1.2, Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The intermediate-width core of the UV lines (ILR) is emitted outside the BLR and does not share orbital motion, so a symmetric zero-velocity core can be excluded from the profile comparison.
    Adopted in Section 3.3, motivated mainly by Denney 2012 reverberation-mapping results. Several tentative classifications depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption Narrow emission lines, especially [O III] lambda5007, define the systemic rest frame of the host galaxy.
    The sample was selected on offsets between broad H-beta and this rest frame (Section 2). If the narrow-line reference is biased, all velocity offsets inherit that bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Large Systematic Search for Close Supermassive Binary and Rapidly Recoiling Black Holes -- IV. Ultraviolet spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44VEQCLV

@misc{pith2026250110574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Large Systematic Search for Close Supermassive Binary and Rapidly Recoiling Black Holes -- IV. Ultraviolet spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44VEQCLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10574}
}
read the original abstract

We present Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet (UV) of 13 quasars at z<0.7, along with contemporaneous optical spectra from ground-based telescopes. The targets were selected to have broad H-beta emission lines with substantial velocity offsets relative to the rest frame of their host galaxy. By analogy to single-line spectroscopic binary stars, these objects have been regarded as supermassive black hole binary (SBHB) candidates where the offset emission lines may be caused by bulk orbital motion. The best alternative explanation is that the H-beta line profile is the result of non-axisymmetric emission from a disk-like broad-line region associated with a single supermassive black hole. We use the broad UV line profiles to discriminate between these two scenarios. We describe our methodology for isolating the broad optical and UV line profiles and the criteria we apply for comparing them. Of the 13 SBHB candidates, three have strong evidence in support of the SBHB hypothesis, five have tentative support, one is disfavored, and four have such severely absorbed UV line profiles that the results are inconclusive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optical/UV spectra of the SBHB candidates with HST coverage. Spectral coverage of the prominent broad emission lines was obtained contemporaneously from the telescopes and instruments described in Section 2 and summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Isolated broad emission line profiles for the SBHB candidates. Dashed lines indicate where the flux density and velocity are zero, with zero velocity determined by the nominal wavelength of each emission line in the rest frame set by nar￾row [O iii]. The profile is derived in each case by subtracting the parametric model for the contin￾uum and other narrow-line components from the spectrum, leaving only the broad li… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 —. 2023b, ApJL, 952, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  3. [3]

    A., & Lauer, T

    Boroson, T. A., & Lauer, T. R. 2010, AJ, 140, 390, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/390

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/390 2010

  4. [4]

    2011, STIS Data

    Bostroem, K., & Proffitt, C. 2011, STIS Data

    2011

  5. [5]

    Steidel, C. C. 1994, ApJ, 430, 495, doi: 10.1086/174425

    doi:10.1086/174425 1994

  6. [6]

    S., & Hall, P

    Chajet, L. S., & Hall, P. B. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts580

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts580 2013

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac401b

    Chen, Y.-C., Hwang, H.-C., Shen, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac401b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac401b 2022

  8. [8]

    S., Cenko, S

    Chornock, R., Bloom, J. S., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L39

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l39 2010

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Collin-Souffrin, S., & Dumont, A. M. 1990, A&A, 229, 292

    1990

  2. [10]

    1988, PASP, 100, 1041, doi: 10.1086/132270

    Collin-Souffrin, S., & Lasota, J.-P. 1988, PASP, 100, 1041, doi: 10.1086/132270

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Griffith, R

    Comerford, J. M., Griffith, R. L., Gerke, B. F., et al. 2009, ApJL, 702, L82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L82

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Pooley, D., Barrows, R

    Comerford, J. M., Pooley, D., Barrows, R. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 219, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/219

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51, 715, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.51.715 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanović, T., et al

    Davidson, K., & Netzer, H. 1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51, 715, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.51.715 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanović, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    1979

  6. [14]

    Denney, K. D. 2012, ApJ, 759, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/44

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Doan, A., Eracleous, M., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2705 D’Orazio, D. J., & Charisi, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16896 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration,

    2020 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2024, A&A, 685, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347433

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347433

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23

    Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

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

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Filippenko, A

    Newman, J. A., & Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ApJ, 490, 216

    1997

  12. [20]

    Gezari, S., & Halpern, J. P. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2006

  13. [21]

    T., & Flohic, H

    Eracleous, M., Lewis, K. T., & Flohic, H. M. L. G. 2009, NewAR, 53, 133, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2009.07.005

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    1995, ApJL, 445, L1, doi: 10.1086/187875

    Eracleous, M., Livio, M., & Binette, L. 1995, ApJL, 445, L1, doi: 10.1086/187875

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

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

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72fa

    Foord, A., Gültekin, K., Nevin, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72fa

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Fox, A. J., et al. 2015, COS Data Handbook, Version 3.0, (Baltimore: STScI)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Ganguly, R., & Brotherton, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 672, 102, doi: 10.1086/524106

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1983, in Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, Vol. 24, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, ed. J.-P. Swings, 473–477

    1983

  20. [28]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1996, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 471, Jets from Stars and Galactic Nuclei, ed. W. Kundt, 165, doi: 10.1007/BFb0102607

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    P., & Eracleous, M

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

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, AJ, 163, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac695a

    Ginsburg, A., Sokolov, V., de Val-Borro, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac695a

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, STIS Python User Tools, (Baltimore, MD: STScI),https: //stistools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    Hack, W., et al. 2018, STIS Python User Tools, (Baltimore, MD: STScI),https: //stistools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2018

  26. [34]

    Halpern, J. P. 1990, ApJL, 365, L51, doi: 10.1086/185886

    1990 doi

  27. [35]

    1996, ApJ, 464, 704, doi: 10.1086/177357

    Chen, K. 1996, ApJ, 464, 704, doi: 10.1086/177357

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    P., & Filippenko, A

    Halpern, J. P., & Filippenko, A. V. 1988, Nature, 331, 46, doi: 10.1038/331046a0

    1988 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224007

    Hobbs, G. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224007

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    V., & Perez, E

    Jackson, N., Penston, M. V., & Perez, E. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/249.4.577

    1991 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Rafikov, R

    Ju, W., Greene, J. E., Rafikov, R. R., Bickerton, S. J., & Badenes, C. 2013, ApJ, 777, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/44

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Kelley, L. Z. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3219

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed

    Kormendy, J. 1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed. J. Beckman, L. Colina, & H. Netzer, 197–218

    1993

  34. [42]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    1995

  36. [44]

    Kramer, M., & Champion, D. J. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224009, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224009

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    1994, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems, 3, 437

    Kriss, G. 1994, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems, 3, 437

    1994

  38. [46]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    R., & Boroson, T

    Lauer, T. R., & Boroson, T. A. 2009, ApJ, 703, 930, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/930

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

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

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

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    Liu, J., Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 2016, ApJ, 817, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/42

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

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

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

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    H., Knigge, C., Higginbottom, N., et al

    Matthews, J. H., Knigge, C., Higginbottom, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa136

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Strong-Wright, J., Knigge, C., et al

    Matthews, J. H., Strong-Wright, J., Knigge, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2895

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    McLaughlin, M. A. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224008, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224008

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    1997, ApJ, 474, 91, doi: 10.1086/303443

    Murray, N., & Chiang, J. 1997, ApJ, 474, 91, doi: 10.1086/303443

    1997 doi

  47. [55]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/68

    Nguyen, K., & Bogdanović, T. 2016, ApJ, 828, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/68

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    C., et al

    Nguyen, K., Bogdanović, T., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeff0 —. 2020, ApJ, 894, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88b5

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Nguyen, K., Bogdanović, T., et al

    Pflueger, B. J., Nguyen, K., Bogdanović, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca2c 30

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    T., Vanden Berk, D

    Richards, G. T., Vanden Berk, D. E., Reichard, T. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1, doi: 10.1086/341167

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Kruczek, N

    Richards, G. T., Kruczek, N. E., Gallagher, S. C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/167

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Boroson, T

    Runnoe, J. C., & Boroson, T. 2021, ApJ, 919, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c18

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

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

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

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Nemmen, R

    Schimoia, J. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Nemmen, R. S., Winge, C., & Eracleous, M. 2012, ApJ, 748, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/145

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    S., & Eracleous, M

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

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Richards, G

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

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Green, R

    Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Green, R. F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 41, doi: 10.1086/426134

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

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

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

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Rosario, D

    Shields, G. A., Rosario, D. J., Smith, K. L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 936, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/936

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    1983, ApJ, 270, 465, doi: 10.1086/161140

    Stauffer, J., Schild, R., & Keel, W. 1983, ApJ, 270, 465, doi: 10.1086/161140

    1983 doi

  64. [72]

    A., & Wilson, A

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Baldwin, J. A., & Wilson, A. S. 1993, ApJL, 410, L11, doi: 10.1086/186867

    1993 doi

  65. [73]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 87, doi: 10.1086/304783

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Eracleous, M., Teresa Ruiz, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, 87, doi: 10.1086/304783

    1997 doi

  66. [74]

    S., Peterson, B

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schimoia, J. S., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/236

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

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

    Eracleous, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 956, doi: 10.1086/378938

    2003 doi

  68. [76]

    V., Strauss, M

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

    2003 doi

  69. [77]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    1986

  70. [78]

    627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed

    Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    doi

  71. [79]

    Tsalmantza, P., Decarli, R., Dotti, M., & Hogg, D. W. 2011, ApJ, 738, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/20 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167 Véron-Cetty, M.-P., Joly, M., & Véron, P. 2004, A&A, 417, 515, doi: 10.1051/...

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1

    2001

  73. [81]

    E., Ju, W., et al

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

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  75. [83]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Brotherton, M

    Wills, B. J., Brotherton, M. S., Fang, D., Steidel, C. C., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1993, ApJ, 415, 563, doi: 10.1086/173186

    1993 doi

  77. [85]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  78. [86]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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