Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

A Pilot Study for the CSST Slitless Spectroscopic Quasar Survey Based on Mock Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A mock-data pilot argues that CSST slitless spectroscopy can classify quasars with 99% accuracy, measure redshifts to 0.002 scatter, and deliver roughly 0.9 million new quasars.

desk verdict Solid mock-based pilot for the CSST grism quasar survey; the headline numbers are honest about their clean-sky assumptions but the 0.9M forecast needs a realistic-prior purity test before real data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12665 v1 pith:NQP33DLA submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA

Yuxuan Pang , Xue-Bing Wu , Yuming Fu , Rui Zhu , Bing Lyu , Huimei Wang , Xiaotong Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords slitlessspectroscopyquasarsactivegalacticnucleiCSSTconvolutionalneuralnetworkredshiftmeasurementblackholemassesEddingtonratio
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

Using simulated data built with the CSST Cycle 6 instrument simulator, this paper argues that the Chinese Space Station Telescope's slitless grism survey can become a large-scale quasar factory: a convolutional neural network separates quasars at z = 0–5 from stars and galaxies with 99% accuracy, and emission-line matching gives 90% of those objects precise redshifts with scatter $\sigma_{\mathrm{NMAD}} \approx 0.002$. Fitting the same low-resolution spectra with QSOFITMORE recovers single-epoch black hole masses and Eddington ratios with 0.13 and 0.15 dex scatter. If those mock-based numbers hold on the real sky, the survey would deliver roughly 0.9 million newly discovered quasars with usable physical parameters, enough to anchor quasar and supermassive-black-hole science as well as cosmological probes. The paper is a pilot study: its pipeline is tested on deliberately sparse simulated fields, not on the crowded real sky.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of three low-resolution grism spectra (GU, GV, and GI, covering 2550 to 10000 Å at $R \approx 200$) into a single continuum-normalized 548-point spectrum. That spectral vector feeds a convolutional neural network (RegNet) that outputs a four-way classification; the same combined spectrum is passed through a median-filter continuum subtraction, then emission-line peak detection and cross-correlation matching against a rest-frame line list to assign redshifts; QSOFITMORE then fits the pseudo-continuum, Fe II template, and multi-Gaussian line complexes. Because grism line profiles are convolved with the PSF, the FWHM outputs are calibrated against half of the simulated sample before applying virial mass estimators, and this calibration step is what allows 0.13 dex mass precision.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline on a mock field with realistic stellar density and overlapping grism spectra; if the quasar recovery fraction falls below the roughly 90% completeness assumed in the yield forecast, the headline figures do not transfer to the actual survey.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a demonstrated end-to-end path from raw CSST grism images to science-ready quasar parameters. The pipeline simulates raw GU, GV, and GI grism exposures, extracts one-dimensional spectra, classifies sources with a RegNet convolutional network into low-redshift quasars, high-redshift quasars, galaxies, and stars, determines redshifts by matching detected emission-line peaks to a quasar line atlas, and estimates black hole masses and Eddington ratios with QSOFITMORE after calibrating emission-line FWHM values against the simulation input. The headline accuracy figures—99% classification, $\sigma_{\mathrm{NMAD}} = 0.002$ redshift scatter with 90% completeness, 0.13 dex mass scatter, 0.15 dex Eddington-ratio scatter, and a projected roughly 0.9 million new quasars—are what the survey would deliver if the simulation is faithful.

Load-bearing premise

The whole forecast rests on real CSST fields behaving like the sparse mock fields: crowding and spectral overlap are omitted from the simulation, and if contamination on the real sky cannot be controlled, the 99%, 90%, and 0.9-million numbers all degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Roughly 0.9 million quasars not already in earlier survey catalogs would be newly identified by CSST grism spectroscopy alone.
  • Ninety percent of classified quasars would carry redshifts precise to $\sigma_{\mathrm{NMAD}} \approx 0.002$, making the sample usable for clustering, luminosity-function, and large-scale-structure studies.
  • Single-epoch black hole masses and Eddington ratios with about 0.13 and 0.15 dex scatter would give a very large statistical sample for accretion and black-hole-galaxy coevolution studies, before adding the systematic uncertainty of the virial calibration.
  • Losing one of the three grism bands lowers classification accuracy to below 98%, and losing two degrades it further, so full GU+GV+GI coverage is what secures the headline performance.
  • Metallicity diagnostics based on C III]/C IV and Fe II/Mg II are usable with roughly 0.18 dex scatter, while Si IV/C IV and weaker UV lines are not reliable enough for metallicity work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 0.9 million yield is best read as an upper anchor, because it inherits the assumed quasar luminosity function and subtracts previously cataloged objects; the realized count can shift with either input.
  • Editorial inference: the key stress test the paper itself points to is contamination; since the mock fields are 30–45 times sparser than real star fields and overlapping grism spectra are not simulated, re-running the pipeline on crowded simulated fields would be more informative than further network tuning.
  • Editorial inference: the 0.13 dex mass scatter is pipeline precision relative to simulated inputs, not total uncertainty on an individual real object, and systematic offsets from the single-epoch virial estimators would add on top.
  • Editorial inference: artifacts at the grism band junctions create redshift-dependent quality variations, so scientific uses of the sample should carry redshift-dependent weights to avoid imprinting those artifacts on luminosity functions or metallicity evolution.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a pilot pipeline for identifying quasars and measuring their physical properties from mock Chinese Space Station Telescope (CSST) slitless spectroscopy. Using the CSST Cycle 6 simulation code, the authors generate sparse mock fields containing quasars, galaxies, and stars with r-band magnitudes 18<mr<22, extract one-dimensional grism spectra, classify objects with a RegNet convolutional neural network, measure redshifts by emission-line matching, and fit black hole masses and Eddington ratios with QSOFITMORE. They report 99% classification accuracy, 89.7% of successfully classified quasars with two or more emission-line detections and σ_NMAD=0.002, 0.13 dex scatter in black hole mass and 0.15 dex in Eddington ratio, and a forecast of roughly 0.9 million new quasars from the CSST wide survey.

Significance. The paper is a well-structured pilot study that uses publicly available simulation tools (CSST Cycle 6, SimQSO) and an open-source spectral fitting package (QSOFITMORE), and it provides quantitative robustness tests for missing grisms and source variability (Tables 4 and 5). These are genuine strengths. If the headline numbers hold, the CSST grism survey would deliver a large, homogeneously selected quasar sample with reliable redshifts and single-epoch black hole masses, complementing SDSS, DESI, and Gaia. However, the claimed performance is demonstrated only on sparse, uncontaminated mock fields with an ideal wavelength calibration; the realism gaps are acknowledged in Sections 6.3 and 6.4, yet the abstract and summary present the numbers without these caveats. The significance is therefore conditional on closing the class-prior and contamination gaps in the evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 4; §6.3; §7] The headline classification accuracy (99%, balanced accuracy 0.9921) is computed on a validation set with nearly balanced classes (1645 QSOs, 1255 galaxies, 1468 stars). On the real sky at 18<mr<22, quasars are a small minority, and the authors themselves state in §6.3 that 'only a few percent of the mis-classification of galaxies could lead to a disastrous drop in the accuracy of the QSO samples.' No precision or purity under realistic sky priors is reported, despite the fact that it can be estimated directly from the confusion matrix in Figure 6 combined with expected number counts. Because the forecast of ~0.9 million new quasars in §7 relies on the high QSO recall of this classifier, the class-prior issue is load-bearing for the central claim. I request a quantitative treatment: compute the expected QSO precision/purity after applying the confusion matrix to a realistic source mixture, or re-run the classifier on a mock field with realistic number densities, and present the resulting accuracy with an appropriate caveat.
  2. [§2.2, §6.4] The simulated fields are deliberately 30–45 times less dense than real star fields, and overlapping grism spectra are not modeled (§2.2). Section 6.4 discusses contamination qualitatively and adopts a literature-based ~10% contamination rate (Wen et al. 2024), but the impact of blending on the pipeline's classification, redshift measurement, and spectral fitting is never quantified. The CNN is trained exclusively on isolated 1D spectra, so the 99% classification accuracy, the ~90% two-line redshift completeness, and the 0.13/0.15 dex parameter scatters are upper limits. The 10% contamination rate is used only as a multiplicative completeness factor in the 0.9M forecast; it does not enter the measured performance metrics. I request an end-to-end test in which a fraction of mock spectra are blended with neighboring sources (or at least a simulation of the expected level of flux contamination) to assess how the pipeline degrades and how masking or forward-modeling would recover performance.
  3. [§5.1, Figure 10] The FWHM calibration relation is fitted on half the mock sample and applied to the full sample; the functional form is described only as a 'linear combination of the Gaussian width (σ), FWHM, and monochromatic luminosity,' and the fitted coefficients are not reported. This is a post-hoc correction calibrated on the same simulation, so the resulting 0.13 dex MBH scatter and 0.15 dex λEdd scatter measure internal reproducibility of the calibration rather than accuracy on independent data. I request that the authors publish the coefficients (or the exact fitting code), validate the relation with a proper held-out test (e.g., fitting on one redshift/magnitude subsample and testing on another), and, if possible, test on real quasar spectra degraded to CSST resolution. Without these steps, the physical-parameter uncertainties are not reproducible and do not yet account for the systematic effects of the low resolution and the unmodeled contamination.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, §1 (Abstract)] The abstract states σ_NMAD=0.002 without the caveat, given in §6.1, that this value assumes an ideal polynomial wavelength calibration; the paper estimates the actual scatter will be about 0.003. Please add the qualifier 'with ideal wavelength calibration' in the abstract and summary.
  2. [§5.2.1, Table 3] The text says the Si IV/C IV ratio has a scatter of 'up to 0.3 dex,' while Table 3 lists a scatter of 0.093; please clarify whether 0.3 dex is the maximum over specific redshift ranges and give both the global and worst-case values.
  3. [§2.2] The sentence 'The input wavelength for all mock data is standardized from 1500 Å to 12500 Å at a spectral resolution of 4000' is ambiguous; it should be clarified that 4000 is the resolution of the SED templates before convolution with the CSST grism line-spread function (R~200).
  4. [§7] The forecast of 'about 0.9 million new quasars' should be labeled as a projection that depends on the mock-based classification completeness and the assumed 10% contamination rate; please state the dependence and an approximate uncertainty on this number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Black-hole-mass and Eddington-ratio scatters are partly in-sample calibration residuals; classification and redshift claims are held-out mock validations.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.1 'Black Hole Mass and Eddington Ratio Estimation of QSOs'; Eqs. (9)-(11) and following text]
    "Therefore, we fit the FWHM values using the linear combination of the Gaussian width (σ), FWHM, and monochromatic luminosity (L1350, L3000, L5100 corresponding to C IV, Mg II, Hβ) outputted by QSOFITMORE for half of the samples. Then we apply such linear relation to the entire sample set to get the calibrated FWHM value. Figure 10 compares the calibrated FWHM and the input spectra."

    The calibration target is the input FWHM, so applying the fitted relation and then comparing the resulting FWHM, MBH, and λEdd with the input catalog measures, at least on the calibration half, the in-sample residual of a fit to the truth rather than an independent spectral-fitting prediction. FWHM enters MBH directly through Eqs. (9)-(11) and λEdd through MBH, so the advertised 0.13/0.15 dex scatters are partly forced by the calibration step. The paper does not state that the reported scatter is computed only on the held-out half, and the phrase 'entire sample set' suggests the calibration half is included.

full rationale

The main selection and redshift claims are not circular: the CNN is trained on a random 4:1 split of simulated spectra and evaluated on the held-out validation subset, and redshifts are obtained by matching detected peaks against the external Vanden Berk et al. line list, then compared with input redshifts. Those are standard simulation validations, and the 99% accuracy and σNMAD values have independent content within the mock. The one construction-level issue is in Sec. 5.1: the FWHM calibration is fitted to the input FWHM on half the sample, then applied to the entire sample, and the reported 0.13/0.15 dex scatter for MBH and λEdd is measured against the same input catalog. Because FWHM enters the virial estimators directly (Eqs. 9-11), that headline scatter is partly an in-sample residual of the calibration rather than an independent prediction. The paper's realism limitations (sparse mock fields, no contamination simulation, balanced class priors; Secs. 2.2, 6.3, 6.4) are external-validity concerns, not circularity, so they do not raise the score further.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the fidelity of the CSST Cycle 6 instrument simulation, the representativeness of SimQSO SEDs and JWST mock galaxies, the clean-field assumption, an unpublished FWHM calibration, and luminosity-function extrapolation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • FWHM calibration coefficients for C IV, Mg II, H beta = not reported
    A linear combination of fitted sigma, FWHM, and monochromatic luminosity is fitted on half of the mock sample and applied to all objects to recover input FWHM; the coefficients are not listed, and the reported 0.13 and 0.15 dex scatters in MBH and Eddington ratio depend on this correction (Section 5.1).
  • Emission-line matching weights and tolerances = Table 1
    Weights 1.0 to 9.0 and tolerances 0.03 to 0.12 are hand-chosen for cross-correlation and redshift weighting; they affect the quoted sigma_NMAD and outlier fraction (Section 4, Table 1).
  • SNR thresholds for spectrum extraction = SNR<5 per band; total SNR<9 rejected
    These cutoffs balance completeness against training contamination and determine the final sample sizes (1645 QSOs, etc.), so they indirectly set the classification and redshift statistics (Section 2.3).
  • CNN architecture and training hyperparameters = RegNet: 4 convolutional layers, 10 channels, kernel 5; FC layers 128/100/16; batch size 10; 200 epochs
    Hand-chosen architecture and training choices; the classification accuracy is specific to this network and could change with a different architecture, though this is not a curve-fitting parameter optimization.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CSST Cycle 6 simulation code accurately reproduces CSST instrumental effects including PSF, distortion, PRNU, CTE, nonlinearity, and sensitivity curves.
    All classification, redshift, and fitting results inherit the fidelity of this external simulation; described in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption SimQSO quasar spectra with eBOSS luminosity function statistics represent the real quasar population at z=0-5 in the CSST bands.
    If the simulated SEDs are unrepresentative, the CNN and line-detection performance will not transfer to real data; Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The sparse, uncontaminated simulated fields are sufficient to characterize survey performance; contamination is externally estimated at 5-10%.
    The paper deliberately places sources 30 to 45 times less dense than real fields and does not simulate overlapping grism spectra; the 99% accuracy and completeness numbers are therefore clean-field numbers (Sections 2.2 and 6.4).
  • ad hoc to paper The linear FWHM calibration fitted on half of the mock sample is valid for the rest of the sample and for real data.
    The coefficients are not published and the correction has no physical model; it is an empirical calibration introduced for this paper (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption The single-epoch virial mass estimators and bolometric corrections from the literature apply to this sample.
    Used without modification to convert FWHM and luminosity to MBH and Eddington ratio; equations 9 to 11 and Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption The quasar luminosity functions of Paris et al. 2018 and Shen et al. 2020, plus overlap estimates from SDSS, Gaia, and DESI, yield 1.7 million total and 0.9 million new quasars.
    The 0.9 million forecast is an extrapolation, not a measurement; Section 3 and the Summary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Pilot Study for the CSST Slitless Spectroscopic Quasar Survey Based on Mock Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQP33DLA

@misc{pith2026250112665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Pilot Study for the CSST Slitless Spectroscopic Quasar Survey Based on Mock Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQP33DLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12665}
}
abstract

The wide survey of the Chinese Space Station Telescope (CSST) will observe a large field of 17,500 $\text{deg}^2$. The GU, GV, and GI grism observations of CSST will cover a wavelength range from 2550 to 10000\r{A} at a resolution of $R\sim 200$ and a depth of about 22 AB magnitude for the continuum. In this paper, we present a pipeline to identify quasars and measure their physical properties with the CSST mock data. We simulate the raw images and extract the one-dimensional grism spectra for quasars, galaxies, and stars with the r-band magnitudes of $18<\text{m}_{\text{r}}<22$ using the CSST Cycle 6 simulation code. Using a convolution neural network, we separate quasars from stars and galaxies. We measure the redshifts by identifying the strong emission lines of quasars. We also fit the 1D slitless spectra with QSOFITMORE to estimate the black hole masses and Eddington ratios. Our results show that the CSST slitless spectroscopy can effectively separate quasars with redshifts $z=0-5$ from other types of objects with an accuracy of 99\%. Among those successfully classified quasars, 90\% of them could have precise redshift measurements with $\sigma_{\mathrm{NMAD}}=0.002$. The scatters of black hole masses and Eddington ratios from the spectral fittings are 0.13 and 0.15 dex, respectively. The metallicity diagnosis line ratios have a scatter of 0.1-0.2 dex. Our results show that the CSST slitless spectroscopy survey has the potential to discover about 0.9 million new quasars and provide important contributions to AGN science and cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the CSST Cycle 6 simulation results. Left panel: Results from the GV grism simulation. Due to the design of the dispersing instrument, the dispersion direction differs on the opposite sides of CCD (as indicated by the blue arrows at the top of panel, with the cyan dashed line marking the dividing line). The background distribution is uneven across the field. The positions of the 0, ±1, and 2-order sp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The typical parameter distributions of the in￾put QSOs, from top-left to bottom-right: supermassive black hole mass (mBH), r-band apparent magnitude (mr), Edding￾ton ratio (λEdd), and redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The extracted 2D and 1D spectrum of a simulated QSO. The panels on the top show the 2D grism images of GU, GV, and GI, respectively. The blue, orange, and green line shows the extracted 1D spectrum of each grism. The red line shows the final combined 1D spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the RegNet architecture, designed to classify the 1D extracted spectra. This diagram shows the process of a single spectrum with 548 points pass￾ing through the network and yielding the classification prob￾ability. Only a small fraction of the inpu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The confusion matrix of the extracted 1D spectra NN classification results in four classes. The label ‘AGN’, ‘hzq’, ‘GAL’ and ‘star’ class represent the low-z QSO, high-z QSO, galaxy and star, respectively. central “hole” of 5 pixels (about 3000 km s−1 ) to avoid the s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the median-filtering step to iso￾late emission lines and continuum. Top panel: The kernel for median filtering with a full width of 31 pixels and a cen￾tral “hole” of 5 pixels. Bottom panel: The 1D extracted spectra(gray), continuum (green), and emissi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Redshift comparison between the input catalog and the emission line matching results. Top panel: Red￾shifts comparison for objects with two or more emission line detections. The number of objects and the σNMAD value are noted in the top left corner. Middle panel: ∆z/(1…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: QSOFITMORE fitting results of a QSO’s 1D spectrum in our simulation. The black lines denote the total extracted spectrum, the yellow lines denote the continuum, the cyan lines denote the Fe II templates (fF e II), the blue lines denote the total flux of different emiss…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the emission line widths from the 1D extracted spectra and the input catalog. Panels from left to right show the results of the C IV, Mg II, and Hβ emission lines. Top panels: FWHM comparison between different lines. The total number of samples and …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between the λEdd estimation results from 1D extracted spectra and the input catalog. Different panels have the similar meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between the line ratio estimation results from the 1D extracted spectra and the line ratio in the input catalog at different redshift. The panels from top to bottom display different metallicity diagnosis results, and the name is noted on the upper-left cor…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distance distribution between the actual positions and the extracted positions of sources in the GU, GV, and GI images. The gap of most sources is within 1 pixel. A few sources with relatively large distances are faint sources in the GU grism. Other limitations ex…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The average SNR calculated from the extracted QSO spectra across different grisms. Panels from left to right shows the results of GU, GV, and GI grism. The blue and red dots represent low-z and high-z QSOs, separated by a redshift of 2, respectively. The dashed black …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Allende Prieto, C., Koesterke, L., Hubeny, I., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Allende Prieto, C., Koesterke, L., Hubeny, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732484

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/043

    Alonso, D., Fabbian, G., Storey-Fisher, K., et al. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/043

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/043 2023

  3. [3]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., &

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/163

    Cantalupo, S. 2015, ApJ, 809, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/163

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/163 2015

  5. [5]

    E., Bridge, J

    Backhaus, B. E., Bridge, J. S., Trump, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca668

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca668 2023

  6. [6]

    C., Peterson, B

    Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Vestergaard, M., & Onken, C. A. 2006, ApJ, 644, 133, doi: 10.1086/503537

    doi:10.1086/503537 2006

  7. [7]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  8. [8]

    2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001

    Brammer, G. 2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001. http://ascl.net/1905.001 18 Pang et al

    work page 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.09955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1808.09955

    Busca, N., & Balland, C. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.09955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1808.09955

    2018 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    S., Castorina, E., Bonici, M., & Bianchi, D

    Cagliari, M. S., Castorina, E., Bonici, M., & Bianchi, D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.15814, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15814

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2023, Science China

    Chen, Y., Fu, X., Liu, C., et al. 2023, Science China

    2023

  4. [12]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 119511, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2181-x

    doi

  5. [13]

    1996, A&A, 306, 395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9506140

    Cristiani, S., Trentini, S., La Franca, F., et al. 1996, A&A, 306, 395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9506140

    1996 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1007

    Cristiani, S., Porru, M., Guarneri, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1007

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 De Rosa, G., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/56 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, ar...

    2013 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/126 Euclid Collaboration, Selwood, M., Fotopoulou, S., et al

    Du, P., Lu, K.-X., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/126 Euclid Collaboration, Selwood, M., Fotopoulou, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18126

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2021, QSOFITMORE: a python package for fitting UV- optical spectra of quasars, v1.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5810042

    Fu, Y. 2021, QSOFITMORE: a python package for fitting UV- optical spectra of quasars, v1.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5810042

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJS, 261, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3e

    Fu, Y., Wu, X.-B., Jiang, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3e

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ae6 Gaia Collaboration, Mignard, F., Klioner, S

    Fu, Y., Wu, X.-B., Li, Y., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ae6 Gaia Collaboration, Mignard, F., Klioner, S. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832916 Gaia Collaboration, Klioner, S. A., Lindegren, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A148, do...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

    2018

  14. [22]

    2002, ApJ, 564, 592, doi: 10.1086/324289

    Baldwin, J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 592, doi: 10.1086/324289

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2007, AJ, 134, 1150, doi: 10.1086/520811

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Vestergaard, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 1150, doi: 10.1086/520811

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    Jiang, L., Ning, Y., Fan, X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    M., et al

    Juneau, S., Canning, R., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03621, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03621

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Netzer, H., et al

    Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631, doi: 10.1086/308704

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 K¨ ummel, M., Walsh, J. R., Pirzkal, N., Kuntschner, H., &

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, PASP, 121, 59, doi: 10.1086/596715

    Pasquali, A. 2009, PASP, 121, 59, doi: 10.1086/596715

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al

    Kurk, J. D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 32, doi: 10.1086/521596

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F. 2016, ApJS, 226, 25, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/25

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, simqso: Simulated quasar spectra generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2106.008

    McGreer, I., Moustakas, J., & Schindler, J. 2021, simqso: Simulated quasar spectra generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2106.008

    2021

  27. [35]

    J., & Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1390, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08034.x

    2004

  28. [36]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616, doi: 10.1038/nature10159

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    2006, A&A, 447, 157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054024

    Nagao, T., Marconi, A., & Maiolino, R. 2006, A&A, 447, 157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054024

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    1997a, NuPhA, 616, 79, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00076-6

    Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Tsujimoto, T., et al. 1997a, NuPhA, 616, 79, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00076-6

    doi

  33. [41]

    1997b, NuPhA, 621, 467, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00291-1

    Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., Nakasato, N., et al. 1997b, NuPhA, 621, 467, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00291-1

    doi

  34. [42]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba193 Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg,´E., et al

    Onoue, M., Ba˜ nados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba193 Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg,´E., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732445 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, ...

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.13678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2003.13678

    Radosavovic, I., Prateek Kosaraju, R., Girshick, R., He, K., & Doll´ ar, P. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.13678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2003.13678

    2020 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Rees, M. J. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 25P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/218.1.25P

    1986 doi

  37. [45]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525 Pilot Study for the CSST Slitless Spectroscopic Quasar Survey 19

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rossin, C., Grange, R., Caillat, A., et al. 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10563, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 105634W, doi: 10.1117/12.2304070

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    E., J., Casertano, S., & Pirzkal, N

    Ryan, R. E., J., Casertano, S., & Pirzkal, N. 2018, PASP, 130, 034501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53e

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 413

    Ryan, R., Malhotra, S., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 413

    2019

  41. [49]

    P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al

    Schindler, J.-T., Farina, E. P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d7

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a1

    Treister, E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a1

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    B., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Hall, P. B., Horne, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    W., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Storey-Fisher, K., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1328

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Hall, P

    Trump, J. R., Hall, P. B., Reichard, T. A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 1, doi: 10.1086/503834

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.945

    Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.945

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    1995 doi

  50. [58]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    Volonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2012, ApJL, 751, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L23

    Wang, H., Zhou, H., Yuan, W., & Wang, T. 2012, ApJL, 751, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L23

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    Wang, J.-G., Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Z., Han, Y., et al

    Wen, R., Zheng, X. Z., Han, Y., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae157

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Curtis-Lake, E., Hainline, K

    Williams, C. C., Curtis-Lake, E., Hainline, K. N., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Wang, R., Kong, M

    Wu, X. B., Wang, R., Kong, M. Z., Liu, F. K., & Han, J. L. 2004, A&A, 424, 793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035845

    2004 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, Nature, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, ApJL, 897, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Connolly, A

    Yip, C. W., Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., et al. 2004a, AJ, 128, 585, doi: 10.1086/422429

    doi

  62. [70]

    W., Connolly, A

    Yip, C. W., Connolly, A. J., Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2004b, AJ, 128, 2603, doi: 10.1086/425626

    doi

  63. [71]

    2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441, doi: 10.1360/132011-961

    Zhan, H. 2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441, doi: 10.1360/132011-961

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    2018, in 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol

    Zhan, H. 2018, in 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 42, E1.16–4–18

    2018

  65. [73]

    2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290, doi: https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2021-0016

    Zhan, H. 2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290, doi: https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2021-0016

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae655

    Zhang, H., Behroozi, P., Volonteri, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae655

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/104

    Zuo, W., Wu, X.-B., Liu, Y.-Q., & Jiao, C.-L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/104

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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