Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Iron-corrected Single-epoch Black Hole Masses of DESI Quasars at low redshift

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Single-epoch quasar black hole masses are overestimated by about 1.5 times when iron emission is ignored, and up to five times for super-Eddington sources.

desk verdict A useful large-sample catalog and calibration, but the new MgII iron term is calibrated against masses that already contain the same correction, so the headline factors stand or fall with the adopted Du & Wang -0.35 coefficient. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03684 v1 pith:N7VI2FCG submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.GA

Zhiwei Pan , Linhua Jiang , Wei-Jian Guo , Shengxiu Sun , Ma{l}gorzata Siudek , Jessica Nicole Aguilar , Steven Ahlen , David Brooks
show 26 more authors
Todd Claybaugh Axel de la Macorra Peter Doel Enrique Gaztañaga Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Stephanie Juneau Theodore Kisner Andrew Lambert Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Marc Manera Paul Martini Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Adam Myers Claire Poppett Francisco Prada Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez Michael Schubnell Hee-Jong Seo David Sprayberry Gregory Tarlé Benjamin Alan Weaver Hu Zou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholesquasarssingle-epochmassestimatorsironemissionEddingtonratiobroad-lineregionDESIreverberationmapping
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 argues that the standard single-epoch recipe for weighing supermassive black holes in quasars carries a systematic offset because it ignores the strength of iron emission, which tracks how fast the black hole is accreting. Using more than 55,000 DESI quasars at $0.25

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the iron-corrected R-L relation: the empirical relation between broad-line region radius and optical/UV luminosity modified by a term proportional to iron strength. For H$\beta$ the paper adopts $\log(R_{\mathrm{H}\beta}/\mathrm{ltd}) = 1.65 + 0.45\log \ell_{44} - 0.35 R_{\mathrm{Fe,H}\beta}$; for Mg II the paper fits $\log(R_{\mathrm{MgII}}/\mathrm{ltd}) \approx 0.46\log \ell_{44} - 0.34 R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$, and both feed the virial mass formula $M = f R \Delta V^2 / G$ with $f=1.1$. The iron term does the work of shifting masses down most for the highest-Eddington-ratio quasars, which are also the ones whose canonical masses were most inflated.

What would settle it

Measure reverberation-mapping lags for a sample of quasars covering the same range of $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ and Eddington ratio as the DESI H$\beta$ sample and check whether, at fixed $L_{5100}$, the broad-line region radius decreases with $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ with a coefficient near $-0.35$; if the lags show little or no iron dependence, the overestimation factors and the $-0.34$ Mg II term would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative iron strength $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ (the flux ratio of Fe II to the broad emission line) is a usable tracer of the Eddington ratio, and that folding it into single-epoch mass estimates removes a systematic overestimate. Adopting the iron-corrected H$\beta$ relation $\log(R_{\mathrm{H}\beta}/\mathrm{ltd}) = 1.65 + 0.45\log \ell_{44} - 0.35 R_{\mathrm{Fe,H}\beta}$, the authors find uncorrected masses are high by 0.16 dex on average and up to 0.7 dex, raising the super-Eddington fraction from 0.44% to about 5%. For Mg II they calibrate $\log(M/M_\odot) = 1.14 + 2\log(\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{MgII}}/\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}) + 0.46\log(L_{3000}/10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}) - 0.34 R_{\mathrm{Fe,MgII}}$ (Eq. 9), producing an iron-corrected Mg II R-L relation with an extra $-0.34 R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ term. Applying this to about 490,000 DESI quasars at $0.6<z<1.6$ yields a catalog of corrected masses, and extrapolating to luminous $z\ge6$ quasars lowers their masses by roughly a factor of 2.3.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the iron-corrected H$\beta$ R-L relation adopted from earlier reverberation-mapping work, with its $-0.35$ iron coefficient, is the right calibration for the DESI quasars; the paper adds no new reverberation-mapping data, so any error in that coefficient propagates directly into the reported overestimates and the Mg II iron term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • H$\beta$-based single-epoch masses in large surveys should be revised downward by about 0.16 dex on average, with larger corrections for iron-strong, narrow-line quasars.
  • The super-Eddington fraction among low-redshift quasars is about 5%, an order of magnitude above the canonical 0.4%.
  • Mg II-based masses for $0.6<z<1.6$ quasars need the $-0.34 R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ term; without it, masses are overestimated by about a factor of 1.5 on average and 2.3 for super-Eddington objects.
  • If the correction holds at $z\ge6$, luminous early-universe quasar masses shrink by about a factor of 2.3, reducing the required seed masses and accretion efficiency.
  • The DESI catalog of about 0.5 million quasars provides iron-corrected masses together with uncorrected and literature-estimator values for comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the Mg II iron term independently with reverberation-mapping lags for Mg II across a wide range of $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$; the predicted slope of the lag-luminosity-iron plane is $-0.34$ in $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$.
  • The same logic may extend to C IV-based masses at even higher redshift, where iron-blended UV spectra are common; a UV iron correction could shift the high-redshift quasar mass function beyond what this paper explicitly measures.
  • Because the correction lowers masses and raises Eddington ratios, it may alter inferences about quasar feedback and the black-hole-galaxy scaling relations; those consequences are not developed in the paper.
  • The observed FWHM$_{\mathrm{Fe}} \sim (3/4)$ FWHM$_{\mathrm{H}\beta}$ relation points to an intermediate-width component; fitting that component separately, rather than only adding the iron term, could further improve line-width mass estimators.
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. The paper uses more than 55,000 DESI quasars at 0.25<z<0.8 with spectral fits to Hβ and MgII. Adopting the Du & Wang (2019) iron-corrected Hβ R–L relation (Eq. 5), it computes iron-corrected Hβ masses for 10,202 objects and finds that canonical single-epoch masses are overestimated by about 0.16 dex on average and by up to about 0.7 dex for the most iron-strong objects, with the super-Eddington fraction rising from 0.44% to 5.3%. It then calibrates an MgII-based mass formula containing an RFe,MgII term (Eq. 9, d=-0.34) against the corrected Hβ masses using a 954-object subsample, and applies this formula to roughly 490,000 DESI quasars at 0.6<z<1.6. The paper argues that if the same iron correction applies at z≥6, earlier high-redshift mass measurements would be overestimated by a factor of about 2.3, easing the tension in early supermassive black hole growth.

Significance. If the adopted iron-corrected R–L relation is correct, the paper would establish a systematic downward correction to single-epoch quasar black hole masses, change inferred Eddington-ratio distributions, and soften the high-redshift seed-growth tension. The paper's strengths are its large and homogeneous DESI sample, careful spectral fitting with explicit uncertainty treatments, systematics tests on fitting windows and templates, and a public catalog with machine-readable mass estimates. These resource aspects are valuable. The main caveat is that no new reverberation-mapping data are presented, so the external validity of the adopted iron coefficient is inherited from Du & Wang (2019), and the MgII calibration and the claimed iron–Eddington correlation are both entangled with the same adopted iron term.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The regression of log MMgII,corr on RFe,MgII uses log MHβ,corr as the target, and log MHβ,corr contains the term -0.35 RFe,Hβ by construction through Eq. (5). Since RFe,Hβ and RFe,MgII are correlated (Fig. 11 lower-left, r=0.52, slope=1.16), the fitted d=-0.34±0.02 is largely the Hβ iron coefficient propagated onto the MgII iron scale, rather than an independent empirical determination that the MgII R–L relation requires an iron term. The robustness check in §4.1 yielding d=-0.29±0.02 is an internal consistency check of the same propagation and cannot validate the MgII iron correction externally. The paper should frame Eq. (9) as a transfer calibration that assumes Eq. (5), and the Abstract's statement that 'The new relation adds an extra term of -0.34RFe' should be moderated accordingly.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 6] The claim that iron strength is 'confirmed' as a good tracer of the Eddington ratio is evaluated using log λEdd,corr, whose denominator is log MHβ,corr and therefore contains the -0.35RFe,Hβ term from Eq. (5). This mechanically injects a positive correlation between log λEdd,corr and RFe,Hβ; the parenthetical remark that the correlation is 'enhanced' by the formula understates the effect. The paper should provide a quantitative decomposition or repeat the correlation using uncorrected Eddington ratios, and the abstract/conclusion language should be softened unless the correlation survives that test.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (5); §4.3] The central quantitative claims—the mean overestimation of 0.16 dex, the super-Eddington fraction of about 5%, and the high-redshift overestimation factor of 2.3—are algebraically inherited from the adopted Du & Wang (2019) iron-corrected R–L relation and from the zero-point/slope differences between Eq. (5) and the canonical relation. The paper explicitly states that no new RM measurements are added, so the external validity of the -0.35 iron coefficient is entirely assumed. The §4.1 tests probe fitting, templates, and host-galaxy corrections, but not the external validity of Eq. (5). I recommend adding a sensitivity analysis that varies the iron coefficient and luminosity slope over the range spanned by published RM samples, and stating in the Abstract that the overestimation factors are conditional on Eq. (5).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption lists 'comparison between the uncorrected MMgII and corrected MMgII' for both the lower-left and lower-right panels; the lower-right panel as described in the text is a comparison between corrected MMgII and corrected MHβ, so the caption should be corrected.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence 'The derived iron-corrected R–L relation for Mg ii is robust' is stronger than the presented evidence: the fitted iron coefficient changes from -0.34 to -0.29 when systematics are added, and the calibration remains tied to the adopted Hβ iron correction. Suggest softening to 'consistent with the adopted Hβ correction'.
  3. [§3.1] When introducing the canonical and iron-corrected R–L relations, the paper should clarify explicitly that the two relations differ in intercept and luminosity slope as well as in the iron term; this matters for interpreting the 0.16-dex mean shift as partly an iron effect and partly a zero-point/slope effect.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states that the figure 'confirms' FWHMFe ~ 0.75 FWHMHβ, but no best-fit line or slope is overlaid or quoted in the caption; adding the fit parameters would make the confirmation quantitative.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The iron-tracer 'confirmation' and the MgII -0.34 term are partly constructed from the adopted Du & Wang (2019) -0.35 RFe coefficient; the headline overestimation factors are applications of that adopted relation, not independent derivations.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Figure 6 text]
    "Figure 6 highlights the correlations between the Eddington ratio and RFe,Hβ. In our DESI sample, a notable positive correlation with the rms scatter of 0.38 dex is observed, affirming that the RFe,Hβ term can serve as a reliable tracer of the Eddington ratio. ... It is important to note that the corrected MSMBH is dependent on RFe,Hβ according to the formula itself, which enhances the correlation."

    The Eddington ratio is computed as LBol/LEdd, with LEdd derived from MHβ,corr. By Eq. (5), log MHβ,corr inherits a term -0.35 RFe,Hβ, so for fixed luminosity and line width larger RFe automatically produces smaller mass and hence larger Eddington ratio. The correlation used to 'confirm' RFe as a reliable Eddington tracer therefore contains a definitional component, as the paper itself acknowledges ('the formula itself ... enhances the correlation'). The claimed super-Eddington fraction of about 5% versus 0.4% is likewise a direct consequence of applying this adopted suppression, not an independent empirical finding.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (9) and following best-fit paragraph; cf. Fig. 11]
    "We utilize MHβ,corr as a reference and perform a multivariable linear regression with the following form: log MMg ii,corr M⊙ = a + b × log FWHMMg ii km s−1 + c × log L3000 10^44 erg s−1 + d × RFe,Mg ii, (9) ... The best-fit results are: a = 1.14 ± 0.03, c = 0.46 ± 0.03, d = −0.34 ± 0.02, which are very similar to the parameters of Equation 5."

    The regression target is MHβ,corr, which by Eq. (5) already contains -0.35 RFe,Hβ. Because RFe,MgII correlates with RFe,Hβ (Fig. 11 gives r = 0.52, slope 1.16), the fitted coefficient d = -0.34 is largely the Hβ iron coefficient transferred onto the MgII axis rather than an independent empirical measurement of the MgII R-L relation. The paper presents the resulting MgII relation and the associated catalog masses as a new result, but the factor-of-1.5 mean correction and factor-of-2.3 super-Eddington correction for MgII are consequences of this inherited coefficient. The later robustness value d = -0.29 in Section 4.1 is an internal consistency check against the same corrected Hβ masses and cannot break this circularity.

full rationale

This is a partially circular confirmatory loop, not a fully circular derivation. The paper is transparent that Eq. (5) is adopted externally: it states 'We adopt the iron-calibrated R-L relation from Du & Wang (2019)' and 'Despite the absence of new RM results', so the headline statements that canonical masses are overestimated by a factor of 1.5, that the super-Eddington fraction is about 5%, and that z>=6 masses would fall by about a factor of 2.3 are conditional applications of an adopted relation rather than derivations from first principles. Being model-dependent is not the same as being circular. The circularity is located in the paper's claim to have 'confirmed' the iron-Eddington connection and in the MgII calibration: the Eddington ratio used for confirmation is computed from MHβ,corr, which is itself lowered by -0.35 RFe,Hβ in Eq. (5), and the paper explicitly notes that this 'enhances the correlation.' Similarly, Eq. (9) calibrates the MgII iron term against MHβ,corr, so d = -0.34 is largely a propagation of the adopted -0.35 Hβ coefficient through the RFe,Hβ-RFe,MgII correlation. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present, and Du & Wang (2019) is an external reference, so the score is moderate rather than extreme. The external checks in Section 4.1 are internal consistency tests and cannot independently validate the adopted iron coefficient. Overall, the central quantitative claims inherit whatever error is in Eq. (5), and the paper's two 'confirmations' of the iron correction reduce in part to the definition of the corrected mass itself.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on adopted empirical R-L parameters from Du and Wang (2019), on measured iron strengths, and on the assumption that the Hβ iron correction transfers to MgII through calibration. The MgII fitting coefficients are free parameters of this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • MgII mass formula zero point a = 1.14 ± 0.03
    Fitted intercept in Eq. 9 using the Hβ-MgII calibration sample.
  • MgII luminosity slope c = 0.46 ± 0.03
    Fitted in Eq. 9; shallower than the canonical 0.5 but similar to the Du and Wang Hβ slope of 0.45.
  • MgII iron term d = -0.34 ± 0.02
    Fitted in Eq. 9. It largely inherits the -0.35RFe,Hβ correction from Eq. 5 because MHβ,corr is the calibration target.
  • Adopted Hβ iron-corrected R-L coefficients (intercept 1.65, slope 0.45, iron term -0.35) = from Du and Wang 2019
    Central input from a prior RM-calibrated sample; this paper adds no new reverberation-mapping data.
  • Virial factor f = 1.1
    Adopted from Vestergaard and Osmer 2009; affects the absolute mass scale but cancels in correction ratios.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Broad-line-region gas is virialized so M = f R ΔV^2/G.
    Standard single-epoch mass assumption used in Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption Fe ii flux ratio RFe measured with adopted templates traces the Eddington ratio or accretion state.
    Basis of the correction; the claimed correlation in Fig. 6 is partly induced by the formula used to compute the corrected Eddington ratio.
  • domain assumption The Du and Wang (2019) iron-corrected Hβ R-L relation applies to the DESI sample.
    Adopted without new RM verification; load-bearing for all mass corrections in the paper.
  • domain assumption The low-redshift iron-corrected R-L relations remain valid at z≥6.
    Required for the early-universe mass reduction implication; the paper flags it as conditional in Section 4.3.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy contamination is negligible for the bright selection r<20.5 mag.
    Tests on 1000 quasars suggest small host fractions, but the full sample is not individually host-subtracted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iron-corrected Single-epoch Black Hole Masses of DESI Quasars at low redshift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7VI2FCG

@misc{pith2026250203684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iron-corrected Single-epoch Black Hole Masses of DESI Quasars at low redshift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7VI2FCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03684}
}
abstract

We present a study on the possible overestimation of single-epoch supermassive black hole (SMBH) masses in previous works, based on more than 55,000 type 1 quasars at $0.25 < z < 0.8$ from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). We confirm that iron emission strength serves as a good tracer of the Eddington ratio, and estimate SMBH masses using an iron-corrected $R$-$L$ relation for H$\beta$, where $R$ is the broad line region size and $L$ is the continuum luminosity. Compared to our measurements, previous canonical measurements without the iron correction are overestimated by a factor of 1.5 on average. The overestimation can be up to a factor of 5 for super-Eddington quasars. The fraction of super-Eddington quasars in our sample is about 5%, significantly higher than 0.4% derived from the canonical measurements. Using a sample featuring both H$\beta$ and MgII emission lines, we calibrate MgII-based SMBH masses using iron-corrected, H$\beta$-based SMBH masses and establish an iron-corrected $R$-$L$ relation for MgII. The new relation adds an extra term of $-0.34R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ to the $R$-$L$ relation, where $R_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ denotes the relative iron strength. We use this formula to build a catalog of about 0.5 million DESI quasars at $0.6<z<1.6$. If these iron-corrected $R$-$L$ relations for H$\beta$ and MgII are valid at high redshift, current mass measurements of luminous quasars at $z\ge6$ would have been overestimated by a factor of 2.3 on average, alleviating the tension between SMBH mass and growth history in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A fitting with strong iron strength in the rest￾frame optical region. In the upper panel, the black solid line represents the observed-frame spectrum following correction for galactic extinction, and the yellow solid line represents the spectral uncertainty. The red solid line illustrates the optimal total fit. The gray shaded area illustrates the fitting windows and the green shaded area illustrates the wavelength … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. in Pan et al. 2022) and FWHMHβ (see Section 6.2 in Netzer 2013) to focus on blue quasars with typ￾ical broad lines, which minimizes contamination from host galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Upper: distribution of RBLR and L5100 from the best average sample in Wang & Woo (2024). The black and red dots represent the sub-Eddington and super-Eddington sample, respectively. The lines illustrate four R-L relations for comparison. Lower: correlation between RBLR departure and the Eddington ratio. The black and orange colors repre￾sent the RBLR departure relative to the canonical R-L rela￾tion from Du et al. (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of bolometric luminosity and black hole masses in the Hβ sample, color-coded by RFe,Hβ. The black cross indicates the typical statistical error bar. The dashed lines show the constant Eddington ratios of 0.01, 0.1, and 1, respectively. A reasonable mar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlations between corrected and uncorrected MHβ and Eddington ratio, color-coded by RFe,Hβ. The black cross indicates the typical statistical error bar. r is the Pearson correlation coefficient. The blue dashed line shows the line of equality. The upper inset plots …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of FWHMFe and FWHMHβ, color-coded by the Eddington ratio. The black cross indi￾cates the typical statistical error bar. r is the Pearson cor￾relation coefficient. The blue dashed line shows the line of equality. This figure confirms that FWHMFe ∼ 3 4 F…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of quasar populations in the EV1 plane. The black cross indicates the typical statistical error bar. In the upper panel, the colors represent the Edding￾ton ratio. In the lower panel, we color-code the points by EW[O iii] , averaged over all nearby object…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter distributions of the parent sample and the Mg ii sample, color-coded with blue and orange. The nine panels display the r magnitude, redshift, χ 2 , slope of the power-law continuum, flux ratio between Fe ii and Mg ii, FWHM of broad Mg ii, EW of broad Mg ii, …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper left: comparison between L5100 and L3000. Upper right: comparison between FWHMMg ii and FWHMHβ, color-coded by the Eddington ratio. Lower left: comparison between RFe,Hβ and RFe,Mg ii, color-coded by the Eddington ratio. Lower right: comparison between the Eddin…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Upper left: comparison between the uncorrected MMg II and uncorrected MHβ. Upper right: comparison between uncorrected MMg II and corrected MHβ. Lower left: comparison between the uncorrected MMg II and corrected MMg II. Lower right: comparison between the uncorrected…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mg ii-based SMBH mass distributions of dif￾ferent estimators. The red solid line represents the median mass estimated by Equation 9 in this paper (Pan25), which is the only iron-corrected estimator among them. The black dashed line represents the median mass estimated…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. GA-NIFS: an extended [OIII] halo around the sub-Eddington quasar J1342+0928 at z=7.54

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST spectra of the z=7.54 quasar ULAS J1342+0928 reveal a 7-kpc oxygen halo and a moderate accretion rate of about 40% of the Eddington limit.

  2. DESI Mg II Absorbers: Extinction Characteristics & Quasar Redshift Accuracy

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DESI Mg II absorbers produce average E(B-V) of about 0.04 for intervening systems and can bias quasar redshifts by up to about 0.005 at z > 1.5, with masking of the absorption lines partially recovering the bias.

  3. Beyond traditional emission-line diagnostics: using autoencoders to uncover active galactic nuclei in DESI spectra

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    SPENDER autoencoder plus k-d tree nearest-neighbor classification on DESI spectra identifies AGN and broad-line AGN at accuracies 0.952 and 0.965, recovering sources missed by single-line diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature, 627, 281, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4

    Abuter, R., Allouche, F., Amorim, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 281, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4 2024

  2. [2]

    M., Davis, T

    Alexander, D. M., Davis, T. M., Chaussidon, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc 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., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc 2023

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04026

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.04026 2022

  6. [6]

    A., & Green, R

    Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, doi: 10.1086/191661

    doi:10.1086/191661 1992

  7. [7]

    Bosman, S. E. I., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Colina, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.14414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.14414

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.14414 2023

  8. [8]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 83, doi: 10.1086/525557

    Bruhweiler, F., & Verner, E. 2008, ApJ, 675, 83, doi: 10.1086/525557

    doi:10.1086/525557 2008

Show all 97 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]

    M., Bentz, M

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

    2021

  3. [11]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    Chaussidon, E., Y` eche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1e5

    Cho, H., Woo, J.-H., Wang, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1e5

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Banerji, M., et al

    Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2797 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 —. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10...

    2017 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Dong, X.-B., Wang, J.-G., Ho, L. C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/86

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4908

    Du, P., & Wang, J.-M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4908

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/22

    Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/22

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 015, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/015

    Farr, J., Font-Ribera, A., & Pontzen, A. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 015, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/015

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.04279

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5 DESI SMBH MASS 19

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18045.x GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bourdarot, G., et al

    Combes, F. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18045.x GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bourdarot, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.07676, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.07676

    2011

  17. [25]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Trump, J

    Grier, C. J., Trump, J. R., Shen, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98dc

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    C., & Kim, M

    Ho, L. C., & Kim, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/17

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Martini, P., Davis, T

    Hoormann, J. K., Martini, P., Davis, T. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1539

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 78, doi: 10.1086/591838

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., Woo, J.-J., Kotilainen, J., & Stalin, C. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad014

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    N., Maoz, D., et al

    Kaspi, S., Brandt, W. N., Maoz, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 997, doi: 10.1086/512094

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    S., Netzer, H., et al

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

    2000 doi

  27. [36]

    C., & Shen, Y

    Kelly, B. C., & Shen, Y. 2013, ApJ, 764, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/45

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    L., & Ratra, B

    Khadka, N., Zajaˇ cek, M., Panda, S., Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M. L., & Ratra, B. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1940

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    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

  31. [40]

    A., Wolf, C., Bian, F., & Fan, X

    Lai, S., Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bian, F., & Fan, X. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3474

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa

    Lan, T.-W., Tojeiro, R., Armengaud, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    Le, H. A. N., Woo, J.-H., & Xue, Y. 2020, ApJ, 901, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abada0

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbe

    Li, W., Inayoshi, K., Onoue, M., & Toyouchi, D. 2023, ApJ, 950, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbe

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada45

    Lira, P., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada45

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c1 Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M

    Ma, Q., Wu, X.-B., Gu, H., Wen, Y., & Fu, Y. 2023, ApJ, 949, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c1 Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M. L., Zajaˇ cek, M., Czerny, B., &

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6f8

    Panda, S. 2020, ApJ, 903, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6f8

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    W., Zwitter, T., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., & Calvani, M

    Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Zwitter, T., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., & Calvani, M. 2001, ApJ, 558, 553, doi: 10.1086/322286

    2001 doi

  40. [49]

    W., et al

    Marziani, P., Dultzin, D., Sulentic, J. W., et al. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 6, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2018.00006

    2018

  41. [50]

    M., Connolly, S

    McHardy, I. M., Connolly, S. D., Horne, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1983 Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Lira, P., Netzer, H., & Capellupo, D. M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw568

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    G., Onken, C

    Metzroth, K. G., Onken, C. A., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 647, 901, doi: 10.1086/505525

    2006 doi

  43. [52]

    N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al

    Miller, T. N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.06310, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.06310

    2023 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    Moustakas, J. 2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005. http://ascl.net/2308.005

    2023

  45. [54]

    D., Moustakas, J., Bailey, S., et al

    Myers, A. D., Moustakas, J., Bailey, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5f9

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei —

    Netzer, H. 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei —. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  48. [57]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aab

    Pan, Z., Jiang, L., Fan, X., Wu, J., & Yang, J. 2022, ApJ, 928, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aab

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    Peterson, B. M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247, doi: 10.1086/133140

    1993 doi

  50. [59]

    M., & Wandel, A

    Peterson, B. M., & Wandel, A. 1999, ApJL, 521, L95, doi: 10.1086/312190

    1999 doi

  51. [60]

    A., et al

    Raichoor, A., Moustakas, J., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb213

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    S., & Kotilainen, J

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., & Kotilainen, J. 2020, ApJS, 249, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    S., Kotilainen, J., & Shin, J

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., Kotilainen, J., & Shin, J. 2021, ApJS, 253, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd9bb

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    2006 doi

  55. [64]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/203

    Sameshima, H., Yoshii, Y., & Kawara, K. 2017, ApJ, 834, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/203

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 20 Pan et al

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    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

  58. [67]

    Shen, Y., & Ho, L. C. 2014, Nature, 513, 210, doi: 10.1038/nature13712

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    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

  60. [69]

    J., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Grier, C. J., Horne, K., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3936

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    Shin, J., Nagao, T., Woo, J.-H., & Le, H. A. N. 2019, ApJ, 874, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05da

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al

    Silber, J. H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  64. [73]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 3081, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22056.x

    Trakhtenbrot, B., & Netzer, H. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3081, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22056.x

    2012

  65. [74]

    2006, ApJ, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376

    Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376

    2006 doi

  66. [75]

    2002, ApJ, 571, 733, doi: 10.1086/340045

    Vestergaard, M. 2002, ApJ, 571, 733, doi: 10.1086/340045

    2002 doi

  67. [76]

    Vestergaard, M., & Osmer, P. S. 2009, ApJ, 699, 800, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/800

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, doi: 10.1086/320357

    2001 doi

  69. [78]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Wang, F., & Aspire Team. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 56, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 317.08

    2024

  70. [79]

    2018, ApJL, 869, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1d2

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1d2

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    2014a, ApJL, 792, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L13

    Wang, J.-M., Du, P., Li, Y.-R., et al. 2014a, ApJL, 792, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L13

    doi

  72. [81]

    Wang, J.-M., Qiu, J., Du, P., & Ho, L. C. 2014b, ApJ, 797, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/65

    doi

  73. [82]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad74f2

    Wang, S., & Woo, J.-H. 2024, ApJS, 275, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad74f2

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb36d

    Wang, S., Shen, Y., Jiang, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb36d

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    2004, ApJ, 608, 136, doi: 10.1086/386325

    Warner, C., Hamann, F., & Dietrich, M. 2004, ApJ, 608, 136, doi: 10.1086/386325

    2004 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Netzer, H., & Wills, D

    Wills, B. J., Netzer, H., & Wills, D. 1985, ApJ, 288, 94, doi: 10.1086/162767

    1985 doi

  77. [86]

    Woo, J.-H., Le, H. A. N., Karouzos, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3e

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49

    Woo, J.-H., Schulze, A., Park, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49

    2013 doi

  79. [88]

    Woo, J.-H., Yoon, Y., Park, S., Park, D., & Kim, S. C. 2015, ApJ, 801, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/38

    2015 doi

  80. [89]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132f

    Woo, J.-H., Wang, S., Rakshit, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132f

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2833

    Wu, J., Shen, Y., Jiang, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2833

    2022 doi

  82. [91]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    Wu, Q., & Shen, Y. 2022, ApJS, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    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

  84. [93]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf99b Y` eche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Claveau, C.-A., et al

    Yang, J., Fan, X., Gupta, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf99b Y` eche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Claveau, C.-A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 179, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc01a

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3387

    Yu, L.-M., Zhao, B.-X., Bian, W.-H., Wang, C., & Ge, X. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3387

    2020 doi

  86. [95]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2244 —

    Yu, Z., Martini, P., Penton, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2244 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1224

    2021 doi

  87. [96]

    A., et al

    Zhou, R., Dey, B., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    Zou, H., Zhou, X., Fan, X., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    2017 doi

  89. [98]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/189

    Zuo, W., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/189

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.