Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

An energetic absorption outflow in QSO J1402+2330: Analysis of DESI observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper claims the mini-BAL outflow in quasar J1402+2330 sits about 2,200 pc from the nucleus, expels about 1,070 solar masses per year, and carries a kinetic luminosity equal to 5.7% of the Eddington luminosity — above the threshold…

desk verdict A competent single-object outflow study that is oversold: the headline energetics hinge on a photoionization model degeneracy the paper itself displays but does not resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18034 v1 pith:UYKA3RIS submitted 2025-01-29 astro-ph.GA

M. Dehghanian , N. Arav , M. Sharma , G. Walker , K. Johnston , M. Kaupin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasaroutflowsmini-broadabsorptionlinesAGNfeedbackphotoionizationmodelingioniccolumndensitieselectrondensitydiagnosticsDESIsurveykineticluminosity
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 is about one quasar outflow and what it does to its host galaxy. Using DESI spectroscopy of the quasar J1402+2330, the authors identify a mini-broad absorption line outflow moving at about 4,300 km/s and measure how much gas it contains, how dense the gas is, and how far it sits from the central engine. Their preferred solution places the outflow roughly 2,200 parsecs from the nucleus and yields a mass outflow rate near 1,070 solar masses per year, with kinetic luminosity around 5.7% of the Eddington luminosity. That exceeds the threshold at which theory expects outflows to push gas around and regulate star formation, so the claim matters for how AGN feedback works. The work also shows that DESI spectra can carry out this kind of detailed outflow-energetics measurement, not just quasar discovery.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a chain of standard AGN-outflow diagnostics. Photoionization modeling with the Cloudy code turns measured ionic column densities into a total hydrogen column $N_H$ and ionization parameter $U_H$; the excited-to-ground population ratio of N iii (with S iv as an upper-limit check) fixes the electron density $n_e$ through collisional-excitation calculations; and the definition of $U_H$ then converts $n_e$ into a distance $R$ from the central source. The distance, column density, and velocity feed the Borguet et al. (2012) relations for mass outflow rate and kinetic luminosity. The named central objects are the mini-BAL outflow — a quasar absorption system with trough widths of a few hundred to about 2000 km/s — and the UV-soft SED adopted as the photoionizing radiation field.

What would settle it

Recompute the mass outflow rate and kinetic luminosity using the MF87 super-solar photoionization solution reported in Table 2 ($\log N_H = 20.0$ cm$^{-2}$ instead of 21.6 cm$^{-2}$). Because both $\dot{M}$ and $\dot{E}_K$ scale linearly with $N_H$, that equally good fit lowers them by about a factor of 40, putting $\dot{E}_K$ near 0.1% of $L_{\rm Edd}$ and below the 0.5% feedback threshold; a spectrum with a clean S iv* detection that independently sets $n_e$ would break the degeneracy and decide which solution is physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mini-BAL outflow in J1402+2330 is a kpc-scale, energetically significant AGN outflow. From the N iii*/N iii absorption ratio the authors derive an electron density $\log n_e = 2.85$ cm$^{-3}$; combining this with the photoionization solution (UV-soft SED, solar abundances, $\log N_H = 21.6$ cm$^{-2}$, $\log U_H = -1.1$) and the hydrogen-ionizing photon rate yields $R \approx 2200$ pc. The energetics then follow from $R$, $N_H$, a global covering factor $\Omega = 0.2$, and the outflow velocity: $\dot{M} \approx 1070$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot{E}_K \approx 45.8$ (erg s$^{-1}$), i.e., 5.7% of the Eddington luminosity. Since this lies above the 0.5% Eddington threshold often used to define significant feedback, the authors conclude the outflow can meaningfully affect its host galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement's size and power rest on a particular choice of radiation field and gas composition; an equally good model with a different radiation field and super-solar abundances gives about 40 times less gas along the line of sight, which would make the outflow far less powerful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 5.7% of Eddington luminosity, the outflow's kinetic energy output is more than ten times the 0.5% threshold commonly taken to mark significant AGN feedback.
  • At roughly 2,200 pc from the nucleus, the outflow deposits its energy and momentum in the host galaxy's interstellar medium rather than in the nuclear region.
  • A sustained mass outflow rate near 1,070 solar masses per year can remove a substantial fraction of a galaxy's gas reservoir on a timescale short compared with cosmic epochs, potentially quenching star formation.
  • The successful measurement from DESI spectra shows that the survey can be used to find and characterize additional mini-BAL outflows, expanding feedback studies beyond small targeted samples.
  • The density derived from N iii is consistent with the S iv upper limit, supporting the adopted value of $n_e$ and hence the distance scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own Table 2 shows a model degeneracy: MF87 with super-solar abundances matches the data just as well as the preferred UV-soft solar model but with $\log N_H$ lower by 1.6 dex. Since both $\dot{M}$ and $\dot{E}_K$ scale with $N_H$, that alternative would put the kinetic luminosity near 0.1% of Eddington, below the feedback threshold; the claimed feedback significance therefore depends o
  • The high-velocity outflow at $-8500$ km/s is set aside because its excited states are saturated or blended; deeper or higher-signal DESI spectra could test whether a second, possibly more powerful outflow component exists.
  • If a ~1000 M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ outflow persists for a dynamical time, it would remove a 10^10 M$_\odot$ gas reservoir in about 10^7 years, implying the feedback episode is self-limiting unless the host galaxy is resupplied by accretion or mergers.
  • If DESI-scale surveys make these measurements routine, the 0.5% Eddington feedback threshold could be tested statistically across quasar luminosity and redshift, rather than on individual systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Dehghanian et al. analyze a DESI spectrum of the z≈2.83 quasar SDSS J1402+2330, focusing on a low-velocity mini-BAL outflow at v≈−4300 km/s. They measure column densities of N III, N III*, S IV, S IV*, C II, C II*, Al II, Al III, and P V, use Cloudy photoionization models to derive N_H and U_H, and use the N III*/N III excited-state ratio with an assumed temperature of 15,000 K to infer n_e. Combining these with a SED-scaled Q(H), they obtain R≈2200 pc, Mdot≈1070 M_sun/yr, and E_K/L_Edd≈5.7%, concluding that the outflow is a significant AGN feedback contributor. They also estimate M_BH≈9.8×10^8 M_sun from corrected C IV FWHM.

Significance. This would be a valuable result if robust: it would be one of the first DESI-based absorption-outflow energetics studies, and the multi-ion density diagnostic (N III and S IV) is a strength. The paper is generally careful in the AOD/partial-covering analysis and in propagating line-measurement errors. However, the headline energetics depend on a photoionization model choice that the paper's own Table 2 shows is degenerate with an equally good fit, and the formal fit quality is poor (reduced chi^2 of 50–72). The central feedback claim is therefore not yet established with the current analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 2] The selection of the UV-soft/solar model in Table 2 is not supported by the fit quality. Its reduced chi^2 is 50, identical to that of the MF87/super-solar model, yet the two solutions differ by 1.6 dex in log N_H (21.6 versus 20.0) and 0.6 dex in log U_H. Since R depends on U_H^{-1/2} (Eq. 5) and Mdot is proportional to R N_H (Eq. 9), the equally good MF87/super-solar solution gives R ≈ 4400 pc, Mdot ≈ 50 M_sun/yr, and E_K/L_Edd ≈ 0.3%, which is below the 0.5% feedback threshold quoted in Section 3.6. The appeal to Dunn et al. (2010) for high-luminosity quasars is an external prior, not a data-based selection for this object; the paper must either justify the SED/metallicity choice with independent evidence or propagate the SED/metallicity degeneracy into the quoted energetics.
  2. [§3.2, Table 2; Table 3] All six photoionization models have reduced chi^2 between 50 and 72, so none provides a formally acceptable fit to the measured ionic column densities. The uncertainties quoted for log N_H and log U_H in Table 3 are the internal ellipse errors of the preferred model and exclude the roughly 1.7 dex spread in N_H across the model grid; consequently, the uncertainties on R, Mdot, and E_K in Table 3 are not representative. The paper needs to discuss why the fits are so poor and to include a systematic error term reflecting model-to-model scatter before the energetic claims can be evaluated.
  3. [§3.3, Fig. 6] The electron density and hence the distance are derived from the N III*/N III ratio assuming T = 15,000 K, which is taken from the preferred Cloudy solution. Because the temperature itself depends on the photoionization model, the degenerate SED/metallicity solutions may predict different temperatures and shift both log n_e and R through Eq. (5); this sensitivity is not quantified. A short test varying T over, say, 10,000–20,000 K would show whether the inferred n_e and R are robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.5, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) omits the zero-point constant from the Vestergaard & Peterson (2006) mass formula; as written it does not return M_BH in solar masses.
  2. [Table 1] The adopted S IV(total) value of 2300×10^12 cm^-2 exceeds the sum of the S IV detection (1500×10^12 cm^-2) and the S IV* upper limit (<740×10^12 cm^-2); since S IV* is an upper limit, the total should also be an upper limit, or the table entries need reconciliation.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains a duplicated word: "and and v is measured in km s^-1".
  4. [Table 2] The table heading "metalicity" should be "metallicity", and the same spelling error appears in the table caption text.
  5. [§3.6, Eq. (9)] The global covering factor Ω = 0.2 is adopted from BAL detection statistics, but E_K is linear in Ω (Eq. 9); this should be listed among the systematic uncertainties, since plausible values between 0.1 and 0.4 would directly change the reported energetics.
  6. [§3.2] The paper refers to Figure 5 of Dehghanian et al. (2025) for the SED shapes, but the SED choice is central to the analysis; a short description of the three SEDs and their differences in this paper would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: outflow distance and energetics are derived from standard photoionization and density diagnostics; model degeneracy is a robustness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Ionic column densities (Table 1) are measured directly from DESI spectra; N_H and U_H are then inferred by fitting Cloudy photoionization models to those column densities (Section 3.2). The electron density n_e is obtained independently from the excited/ground-state population ratio of N III using Chianti (Section 3.3). The distance R follows from the definition of U_H via Eq. 5, and the energetics follow from standard scaling relations (Eqs. 9-10). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The paper does rely on several prior works by the same group for methodology and for the choice of the UV-soft SED (e.g., Dunn et al. 2010), but those are external, empirically grounded references rather than assumptions that define the target result into existence. The equal reduced chi2 of the MF87 super-solar model (Table 2) is a genuine model-degeneracy concern and could change N_H by about 40x, affecting the reported E_K/L_Edd; however, that is an uncertainty/robustness limitation, not circular reasoning.

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

The central claim depends on the photoionization model (N_H, U_H), an assumed covering fraction, and the SED choice. None of these are measured for this object; they are pulled from fits or literature. The paper does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • N_H = log N_H = 21.6 cm^-2 (UV-soft solar model)
    Fitted to the measured ionic column densities using Cloudy photoionization models. It directly scales the mass outflow rate M_dot = 4 pi Omega R N_H mu m_p v.
  • U_H = log U_H = -1.1 (UV-soft solar model)
    Fitted to the ionic column densities; enters the distance R = sqrt(Q(H)/(4 pi c n_H U_H)).
  • Covering fraction Omega = 0.2
    Adopted from BAL quasar statistics, not measured for this object. M_dot and E_dot_K are linearly proportional to Omega.
  • SED choice = UV-soft
    Selected among three SEDs based on the preference that UV-soft is appropriate for high-luminosity quasars. Changing to MF87 super-solar (equal chi2) changes log N_H from 21.6 to 20.0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The outflow is in photoionization equilibrium and is modeled as a plane-parallel slab with constant hydrogen density and abundances.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 for Cloudy modeling; standard in the field but unproven for this object.
  • domain assumption The AOD method assumes uniform and complete coverage; the PC method assumes a homogeneous source partially covered by the outflow.
    Section 3.1; these are standard assumptions in absorption-line studies.
  • domain assumption The temperature of the gas is 15,000 K, taken from the best Cloudy solution, for the collisional excitation density diagnostic.
    Section 3.3; the derived n_e depends on this temperature.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV-soft SED shape represents the ionizing continuum of this quasar, and the observed continuum at 5010 Angstrom scales it to give Q(H).
    Section 3.4; the SED is selected from a set of three, not measured, and the model degeneracy shows the choice matters.
  • domain assumption The C IV line width and blueshift trace the BH mass through the Coatman et al. (2017) empirical virial relation.
    Section 3.5; an empirical calibration with known scatter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An energetic absorption outflow in QSO J1402+2330: Analysis of DESI observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYKA3RIS

@misc{pith2026250118034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An energetic absorption outflow in QSO J1402+2330: Analysis of DESI observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYKA3RIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18034}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Quasar outflows play a significant role in the active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback, impacting the interstellar medium and potentially influencing galaxy evolution. Characterizing these outflows is essential for understanding AGN-driven processes. Aims. We aim to analyze the physical properties of the mini-broad absorption line outflow in quasar J1402+2330 using data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey. We seek to measure the outflows location, energetics, and potential impact on AGN feedback processes. Methods. In the spectrum of J1402+2330, we identify multiple ionic absorption lines, including ground and excited states. We measure the ionic column densities and then use photoionization models to determine the total hydrogen column density and ionization parameter of the outflow. We utilized the population ratio of the excited state to the ground state of N iii and S iv to determine the electron number density. Results. The derived electron number density, combined with the ionization parameter, indicates an outflow distance of approximately 2200 pc from the central source. Having a mass outflow rate of more than one thousand solar masses per year and a kinetic energy output exceeding 5 percent of the Eddington luminosity, this outflow can significantly contribute to AGN feedback. Conclusions. Our findings suggest the absorption outflow in J1402+2330 plays a potentially significant role in AGN feedback processes. This study highlights the value of DESI data in exploring AGN feedback mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectrum of SDSS J1402+2330 as observed by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized flux versus velocity for outflow’s absorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaussian modeling of the N iii*𝜆991.58 Å (blue dashed line) and N iii 𝜆989.80 Å (red dashed line) absorption troughs. The black solid line shows the final model, which results from combining two Gaussian curves. The grey line shows the level of noise around the modeled region. 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 Velocity (km/s) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Normalized Flux Al III 1854.716 Al III 1862.790 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaussian modeling of the Al iii 𝜆1854.72 Å (blue) and the Al iii 𝜆1862.79 (red) absorption troughs. In both cases, the data are shown in histograms while the fits are shown with dashed lines of the same color. Gaussian functions have the same centroid velocity (𝑣centro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Phase plot showing the Photoionization solution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The spectrum in the region around the Civ emission line. The red line shows our total emission model comprised of a continuum fit plus a model for the Civ emission line. The latter is comprised of two Gaussians, one narrow and one broad. The orange line indicates where…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How massive and clumpy must a quasar wind be to create emission line blueshifts?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Blueshifted C IV emission in quasars requires wind mass-loading ϵ_w/f_V ∼ 50, disfavouring smooth disc winds in favour of clumpy or ambient-swept outflows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    T., Hewett, P

    Allen, J. T., Hewett, P. C., Maddox, N., et al.\ 2011, , 410, 860. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17489.x

    work page arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    T., de Kool M., Junkkarinen V

    Arav N., Korista K. T., de Kool M., Junkkarinen V. T., Begelman M. C., 1999a, ApJ, 516, 27. doi:10.1086/307073

    doi:10.1086/307073

  5. [5]

    H., Laurent-Muehleisen S

    Arav N., Becker R. H., Laurent-Muehleisen S. A., Gregg M. D., White R. L., Brotherton M. S., de Kool M., 1999b, ApJ, 524, 566. doi:10.1086/307841

    work page doi:10.1086/307841

  6. [6]

    S., Becker R

    Arav N., Brotherton M. S., Becker R. H., Gregg M. D., White R. L., Price T., Hack W., 2001, ApJ, 546, 140. doi:10.1086/318244

    doi:10.1086/318244 2001

  7. [7]

    A., Korista K

    Arav N., Kaastra J., Kriss G. A., Korista K. T., Gabel J., Proga D., 2005, ApJ, 620, 665. doi:10.1086/425560

    doi:10.1086/425560 2005

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1812

    Arav N., Borguet B., Chamberlain C., Edmonds D., Danforth C., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3286. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1812

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1812 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ApJ,857, 60

    Arav, N., Liu, G., Xu, X., et al. 2018, ApJ,857, 60

    2018

  2. [10]

    P., Tollerud E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille T. P., Tollerud E. J., Greenfield P., Droettboom M., Bray E., Aldcroft T., et al., 2013, A&A, 558, A33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Sip o cz B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan A. M., Sip o cz B. M., G \"u nther H. M., Lim P. L., Crawford S. M., Conseil S., et al., 2018, AJ, 156, 123. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Hamann F., Sargent W

    Barlow T. A., Hamann F., Sargent W. L. W., 1997, ASPC, 128, 13. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9705048

    1997 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    K., Matteucci F., Ciotti L., Calura F., Padovani P., 2008, A&A, 478, 335

    Ballero S. K., Matteucci F., Ciotti L., Calura F., Padovani P., 2008, A&A, 478, 335. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078663

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    Borguet B. C. J., Edmonds D., Arav N., Dunn J., Kriss G. A., 2012a, ApJ, 751, 107. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/107

    doi

  7. [15]

    Borguet B. C. J., Edmonds D., Arav N., Benn C., Chamberlain C., 2012b, ApJ, 758, 69. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/69

    doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2194

    Byun D., Arav N., Walker A., 2022a, MNRAS, 516, 100. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2194

    doi

  9. [17]

    B., 2022b, MNRAS, 517, 1048

    Byun D., Arav N., Hall P. B., 2022b, MNRAS, 517, 1048. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2638

    doi

  10. [18]

    B., 2022c, ApJ, 927, 176

    Byun D., Arav N., Hall P. B., 2022c, ApJ, 927, 176. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac503d

    doi

  11. [19]

    W., Schneider, D

    Churchill, C. W., Schneider, D. P., Schmidt, M., et al.\ 1999, , 117, 2573. doi:10.1086/300884

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    and Qin y.-p, 2013 ApJ 777 56 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/56

    Chen Z.-F. and Qin y.-p, 2013 ApJ 777 56 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/56

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aabcd4

    Chen Z.-F., Pang T.-T.,He b., Huang Y., 2018, ApJS,236, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aabcd4

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaaaec

    Chen Z.-F., Huang W.-R., Pang T.-T., Huang H.-Y., Pan D.-S., Yao M., Nong W.-J., et al., 2018, ApJS, 235, 11. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaaaec

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba520

    Chen Z.-F., Qin H.-C., Gui R.-J., Yi S.-X., Chen Z.-G., Gao Y.-C., Pang T.-T., et al., 2020, ApJS, 250, 3. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba520

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Gu Q., Wang T., Zhuang M., Liu G., et al., 2022, NatAs, 6, 339

    Chen Z., He Z., Ho L. C., Gu Q., Wang T., Zhuang M., Liu G., et al., 2022, NatAs, 6, 339. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01561-3

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Banerji, M., et al.\ 2016, , 461, 647

    Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., et al.\ 2016, , 461, 647. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1360

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Banerji M., Richards G

    Coatman L., Hewett P. C., Banerji M., Richards G. T., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2120. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2797

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    R.\ 2012, , 757, 180

    Dai, X., Shankar, F., & Sivakoff, G. R.\ 2012, , 757, 180. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/180

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51,715

    Davidson, K., & Netzer, H. 1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51,715

    1979

  21. [29]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3695

    Dehghanian, M., Arav, N., Byun, D., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 7825. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3695

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452115

    Dehghanian, M., Arav, N., Sharma, M., et al.\ 2025, , 693, A153. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452115

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Landi E., Mason H

    Dere K. P., Landi E., Mason H. E., Monsignori Fossi B. C., Young P. R., 1997, A&AS, 125, 149. doi:10.1051/aas:1997368

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Del Zanna G., Young P

    Dere K. P., Del Zanna G., Young P. R., Landi E., Sutherland R. S., 2019, ApJS, 241, 22. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab05cf

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Aguilar, J., et al.\ 2024, , 168, 58

    DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al.\ 2024, , 168, 58. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Arav N., 2002, ApJ, 580, 54

    de Kool M., Korista K. T., Arav N., 2002, ApJ, 580, 54. doi:10.1086/343107

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Bautista M., Arav N., Moe M., Korista K., Costantini E., Benn C., et al., 2010, ApJ, 709, 611

    Dunn J. P., Bautista M., Arav N., Moe M., Korista K., Costantini E., Benn C., et al., 2010, ApJ, 709, 611. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/611

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1610

    Filbert, S., Martini, P., Seebaluck, K., et al.\ 2024, , 532, 3669. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1610

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Crenshaw D

    Gabel J. R., Crenshaw D. M., Kraemer S. B., Brandt W. N., George I. M., Hamann F. W., Kaiser M. E., et al., 2003, ApJ, 583, 178. doi:10.1086/345096

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W

    Gibson, R. R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W. N., et al.\ 2009, , 692, 758. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/758

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    M., van Hoof, P

    Gunasekera, C. M., van Hoof, P. A. M., Chatzikos, M., et al.\ 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    & Brotherton, M

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

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    & Sabra, B.\ 2004, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 311, 203

    Hamann, F. & Sabra, B.\ 2004, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 311, 203. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0310668

    2004 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1231

    Hamann, F., Chartas, G., McGraw, S., et al.\ 2013, , 435, 133. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1231

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Millman K

    Harris C. R., Millman K. J., van der Walt S. J., Gommers R., Virtanen P., Cournapeau D., Wieser E., et al., 2020, Natur, 585, 357. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, Science Advances, 8, eabk3291

    He Z., Liu G., Wang T., et al. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabk3291

    2022

  37. [45]

    Hewett, P. C. & Foltz, C. B.\ 2003, , 125, 1784. doi:10.1086/368392

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Elvis M., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7

    Hopkins P. F., Elvis M., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x

    2010

  39. [47]

    D., 2007, CSE, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, CSE, 9, 90. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2793

    Itoh D., Misawa T., Horiuchi T., Aoki K., 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3094. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2793

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Krolik, J. H. 1999, Active galactic nuclei: from the central black hole to the galactic environment, Vol. 59 (Princeton University Press)

    1999

  42. [50]

    G., Ferland G

    Mathews W. G., Ferland G. J., 1987, ApJ, 323, 456. doi:10.1086/165843

    1987 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Arav N., Xu X., Kriss G

    Miller T. R., Arav N., Xu X., Kriss G. A., Plesha R. J., 2020, ApJS, 247, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5967

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    D., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 99

    Napolitano, L., Pandey, A., Myers, A. D., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 99. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace62c

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Eracleous M., Ganguly R., Tytler D., Kirkman D., Suzuki N., et al., 2007a, ApJS, 171, 1

    Misawa T., Charlton J. C., Eracleous M., Ganguly R., Tytler D., Kirkman D., Suzuki N., et al., 2007a, ApJS, 171, 1. doi:10.1086/513713

    doi

  46. [54]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, agna.book

    2006

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al.\ 2020, , 641, A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Reback J., McKinney W., jbrockmendel, Van den Bossche J., Augspurger T., Cloud P., Hawkins S., et al., 2021, zndo

    2021

  49. [57]

    D., Sembach K

    Savage B. D., Sembach K. R., 1991, ApJ, 379, 245. doi:10.1086/170498

    1991 doi

  50. [58]

    P., 2004, ApJ, 608, 62

    Scannapieco E., Oh S. P., 2004, ApJ, 608, 62. doi:10.1086/386542

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, submitted to ApJ

    Sharma M., Arav N., Zhao Q.,Dehghanian M., et al. 2024, submitted to ApJ

    2024

  52. [60]

    J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Spitzer L., 1968, dms..book

    1968

  54. [62]

    A., Murray N., Armus L., Boehle A., Cosens M., Larkin J

    Vayner A., Wright S. A., Murray N., Armus L., Boehle A., Cosens M., Larkin J. E., et al., 2021, ApJ, 919, 122. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f56

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1086/379159

    Vestergaard M., 2003, ApJ, 599, 116. doi:10.1086/379159

    2003 doi

  56. [64]

    M., 2006, ApJ, 641, 689

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

    2006 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Haberland M., Reddy T., Cournapeau D., Burovski E., et al., 2020, NatMe, 17, 261

    Virtanen P., Gommers R., Oliphant T. E., Haberland M., Reddy T., Cournapeau D., Burovski E., et al., 2020, NatMe, 17, 261. doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2349

    Walker A., Arav N., Byun D., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3778. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2349

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Morris, S

    Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., et al.\ 1991, , 373, 23. doi:10.1086/170020

    1991 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Guo F., 2018, ApJ, 857, 121

    Yuan F., Yoon D., Li Y.-P., Gan Z.-M., Ho L. C., Guo F., 2018, ApJ, 857, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R

    Baker, N. 1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R. F. Stein,& A. G. W. Cameron (Plenum, New York) 333

    1966

  62. [70]

    1988, A&A, 200, 58

    Balluch, M. 1988, A&A, 200, 58

    1988

  63. [71]

    Cox, J. P. 1980, Theory of Stellar Pulsation (Princeton University Press, Princeton) 165

    1980

  64. [72]

    N.,& Stewart, J

    Cox, A. N.,& Stewart, J. N. 1969, Academia Nauk, Scientific Information 15, 1

    1969

  65. [73]

    1980, Prog

    Mizuno H. 1980, Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544

    1980

  66. [74]

    Tscharnuter W. M. 1987, A&A, 188, 55

    1987

  67. [75]

    1992, in ASP Conf

    Terlevich, R. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 31, Relationships between Active Galactic Nuclei and Starburst Galaxies, ed. A. V. Filippenko, 13

    1992

  68. [76]

    Yorke, H. W. 1980a, A&A, 86, 286

  69. [77]

    F., Tytler, D

    Zheng, W., Davidsen, A. F., Tytler, D. & Kriss, G. A. 1997, preprint

    1997

Pith tools

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