Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Interaction of the relativistic jet and the narrow-line region of PMN J0948+0022

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 that PMN J0948+0022's composite Hβ profile is produced by the relativistic jet striking the narrow-line region, not by viewing angle, and that the jet deposits its kinetic energy there.

desk verdict Solid reclassification and robust line-flux measurements, but the 100–430 pc jet-interaction claim is carried by an unparameterized 0.1 factor and an over-applied Doppler factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14776 v1 pith:D7LRRRVY submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.GA

B. Dalla Barba , M. Berton , L. Foschini , E. Sani , L. Crepaldi , E. Congiu , G. Venturi , W.J. Hon
show 1 more author
A. Vietri
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords jettednarrow-lineSeyfert1intermediaterelativisticjetregionAGNvariability[OIII]outflowopticalspectroscopyPMNJ0948+0022
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

The paper re-examines three epochs of optical spectra of the gamma-ray-emitting AGN PMN J0948+0022 and argues that its Hβ line changed character not because of a change in viewing angle but because the relativistic jet is physically colliding with the narrow-line region. It shows that the low-resolution SDSS spectrum from 2000 masked a composite Hβ profile, prompting a reclassification from a jetted narrow-line Seyfert 1 to an intermediate Seyfert. The new profile, together with a factor-3.4 drop in the Hβ narrow component, a near-doubling of the [O III] λ5007 core, and a blueshifted outflow wing, is interpreted as the optical signature of the jet transferring kinetic energy to the narrow-line region. If correct, this makes PMN J0948+0022 one of the clearest cases where a relativistic jet, rather than orientation, shapes the optical line spectrum of an AGN.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite Hβ profile, decomposed as one narrow Gaussian plus two broad Gaussians; the two broad components are read as emission from a radially stratified broad-line region and the narrow component as the narrow-line region. The paper then uses a timescale–distance argument: from the variability timescale $\tau$ for the [O III] core ($\tau\sim4.8$ yr) and the Doppler factor $\delta$ of the jet, it derives $r_{\rm IR}<\tau c\delta/(1+z)$ and, assuming a jet self-similar scaling of 0.1, locates the energy transfer at roughly 131–215 pc (or ~435 pc with the larger VLBI-derived $\delta$), matching the radio-observed transition of the jet from parabolic to conical at 100–430 pc. That spatial coincidence is what turns line variability into a jet-feedback signature.

What would settle it

Take a new high-resolution spectrum while the jet's $\gamma$-ray state changes: if the Hβ narrow component and the [O III] $\lambda$5007 core stay flat as the jet flares or fades, the jet–NLR energy-transfer explanation fails; checking the Hβ narrow-to-Hα narrow ratio against the same decomposition would also reveal whether the factor-3.4 drop is an artifact of the unresolved SDSS fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, PMN J0948+0022 is not a jetted narrow-line Seyfert 1 but an intermediate Seyfert: the higher-resolution X-Shooter and MUSE spectra reveal a composite Hβ profile (a narrow Gaussian plus two broad Gaussians) that the low-resolution SDSS spectrum smeared into a Lorentzian. The reclassification is not a geometric consequence of the unified model, because the jet is seen at $\theta\sim3$–$6^\circ$ and no X-ray obscuration is present. Instead, the paper claims that the relativistic jet decelerates as it enters the narrow-line region at roughly 100–430 pc, converts part of its kinetic energy into internal energy, and dissipates that energy in the NLR. This produces the factor-3.4 drop in the Hβ narrow component between 2000 and 2017, the near-doubling of the [O III] $\lambda$5007 core between 2017 and 2022/2023, and the blueshifted outflow wing at $\Delta v\sim200$ km/s; the same mechanism also yields a black hole mass of $10^{7.76}M_\odot$ and an Eddington ratio of $0.21\pm0.06$.

Load-bearing premise

The decisive 3.4-fold drop in the Hβ narrow component rests on a three-Gaussian decomposition of an SDSS line that was unresolved at the instrument's resolution, and on an X-Shooter Hβ profile reconstructed by mirroring the red side of Hα after assuming the telluric absorption was symmetric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PMN J0948+0022 is reclassified from a jetted narrow-line Seyfert 1 to an intermediate Seyfert, with the composite Hβ profile produced by jet–NLR interaction rather than by orientation.
  • The jet decelerates at 100–430 pc, changes from parabolic to conical shape, and transfers kinetic energy to the NLR, making optical line changes a direct probe of jet feedback.
  • The [O III] λ5007 blue wing is an outflow whose flux, velocity (about 200 km/s), and asymmetry vary on roughly ten-year timescales, linking NLR kinematics to jet activity.
  • The original NLS1 classification was a resolution artifact of the SDSS spectrum, so high-resolution spectroscopy is needed before classifying jetted AGN on their Hβ profile.
  • The recalculated black hole mass is about $10^{7.76}$ solar masses with an Eddington ratio of $0.21\pm0.06$, and continuum-based mass estimates are biased by jet contamination.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, a subset of the known jetted NLS1s may actually be intermediate Seyferts whose composite profiles only become visible at high spectral resolution, which would shift the apparent demographics of jetted AGN.
  • If the paper is right, optical line monitoring can serve as a proxy for jet kinetic power: a future high-energy flare should be followed, on the multi-year timescales measured here, by fresh changes in the [O III] core and wing fluxes, whereas a flat [O III] response would make the association coincidental.
  • A testable extension: apply the same three-epoch comparison to other gamma-ray NLS1s with archival SDSS spectra; a large Hβ narrow-component drop paired with an [O III] blue wing would be a cheap optical marker of ongoing jet–NLR interaction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares optical spectra of the gamma-ray-loud NLS1 PMN J0948+0022 taken in 2000 (SDSS), 2017 (X-Shooter), and 2022/2023 (MUSE). At the higher resolution of X-Shooter and MUSE, Hβ is reported to require a composite model (narrow plus two broad Gaussians) rather than the single Lorentzian previously used, motivating a reclassification as an intermediate Seyfert. The authors report a factor-3.4 decrease in the Hβ narrow component between SDSS and X-Shooter, a factor ~2 increase in the [O III] λ5007 core between X-Shooter and MUSE, and changes in the blue outflow wing. They interpret these variations as the optical signature of energy dissipation by the relativistic jet in the narrow-line region, with the jet decelerating at ~100–430 pc, and they derive a black hole mass of 10^7.76 M_sun and an Eddington ratio of ~0.21.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a rare optical diagnostic of jet–NLR coupling and would revise the classification of a well-studied gamma-ray NLS1. The observational analysis has genuine strengths: it exploits public archival spectra, includes explicit resolution-matching tests, propagates errors with Monte Carlo simulations, and adds useful MUSE-based redshift measurements for field objects. The reader's report correctly notes that the line-flux changes themselves are not circularly derived. However, the central causal claim, and especially the 100–430 pc localization of the interaction, rests on a timescale–distance conversion that is not physically appropriate for the lines in question, and the first variability pillar (the Hβn drop) depends on a model-degenerate decomposition of an unresolved component. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic, so the manuscript needs substantial revision before the main interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The derivation of D_IR ~ 131–215 pc is not valid for the lines to which it is applied. Equation (14) is the standard light-crossing/Doppler-deamplification bound for a relativistically moving emitter, but [O III] λ5007c and Hβn are emitted by stationary NLR gas with FWHM 90–136 km/s (Table A.1). For stationary gas no Doppler factor enters, and the relevant size scale is r_IR ≲ c τ/(1+z), i.e. about 1.5 pc for τ = 4.8 yr, not the ~16–25 pc obtained after inserting δ ~ 16.5–18.8. Even if one models a relativistic disturbance traveling toward the NLR, the appropriate boost involves Gamma·delta rather than delta alone. In addition, Eq. (15) introduces an unexplained 'typical scaling factor of 0.1' with no reference or derivation; this factor is what converts r_IR ~ 15–25 pc into D_IR ~ 130–215 pc. Repeating the exercise with the Hβn timescale (τ ~ 10–27 yr) also gives distances far below the 100–430 pc deceleration zone of Doi et al. (2019). The claimed spatial coincidence is therefore not measured; it is produced by applying a relativistic Doppler factor to stationary gas and by an ad hoc 0.1 factor. The authors should either model the NLR cloud size and recombination/ionization response explicitly or present the distance as an unconstrained upper limit.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table A.1] The factor-3.4 decrease in Hβn, one of the two central variability signatures, depends on decomposing the 2000 SDSS spectrum into three Gaussians when the narrow component is unresolved at R ~ 1500 (FWHM < 370 km/s) and when the [O II] λ3727 line used as the narrow-line template is also an unresolved single feature in SDSS. The authors themselves note in Section 3.3 that the low spectral resolution hampers a complete disentangling of the Hβ components. At this resolution, flux can trade between the narrow and broad Gaussians, so the quoted 36 ± 6 (Table A.1) is not uniquely determined by the data. A demonstration of stability of this component under different fitting assumptions—for example, fixing the narrow width to a range of plausible values or using a high-S/N [O II] profile—is needed before the drop can be quoted as a 4σ measurement and used as evidence for jet–NLR interaction.
  3. [Appendix B] The X-Shooter Hβ profile that underpins the reclassification and the narrow-component flux is not directly observed: the blue side of Hβ was reconstructed by mirroring the red side of Hα under an assumed symmetric intrinsic profile, because of telluric absorption. This procedure can artificially create or remove a central narrow component and can also affect the measured asymmetry and blue-wing properties if the intrinsic Hβ profile is not symmetric. Since the profile shape and the Hβn flux are central to the paper's conclusions, the authors should either perform a telluric-model correction of the original spectrum or quantitatively evaluate how much the mirrored reconstruction changes the fitted narrow-component flux, width, and centroid. As it stands, Appendix B introduces an unquantified systematic error into the key Hβ measurements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The velocity convention is inconsistent: the text gives a 'negative velocity of <466 km/s' for SDSS but positive values (383 ± 31) and (582 ± 20) km/s for X-Shooter and MUSE; please clarify that all are blueshifts and that the SDSS value is an upper limit on the outflow flux rather than a detection.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Appendix B] Section 3.1 refers to 'Appendix A (see Fig. B.1)' when discussing telluric contamination; the relevant appendix is Appendix B, so the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Equations (14)-(15)] Please define r_IR and D_IR explicitly before Eq. (14); as written, r_IR is introduced as the size of the emitting region but Eq. (15) uses it as a radius that must be divided by 0.1 to obtain a distance from the black hole, which is a different quantity.
  4. [Table A.1] The asterisked FWHM values are fixed to the [O II] width without propagating the uncertainty of that width into the line fluxes; a brief note on how the fixed widths affect the quoted flux uncertainties would help the reader assess the significance of the Hβn and [O III] changes.
  5. [Section 4.1] When stating that 'MUSE flux is 86% of X-Shooter one, ~3σ', please specify the direction of change explicitly (a decrease) to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: line-flux variations are measured and checked against an independent radio deceleration distance; the flagged modeling assumptions are robustness risks, not tautologies.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an interpretation of measured line-flux differences: Hβ narrow flux drops by a factor of 3.4 between the SDSS and X-Shooter epochs, the [O III] λ5007 core nearly doubles between X-Shooter and MUSE, and a blue wing grows in strength and velocity (Tables A.1, A.2; Sections 4.1-4.2). These are fitting outputs from real spectra, not parameters fitted to the conclusion. The variability timescales τ are direct algebraic inversions of Equation (1), and Section 5 then compares them with an external radio benchmark: Doi et al. (2019) measured the parabolic-to-conical jet transition at 100-430 pc, while Equations (14)-(15) give D_IR ~ 131-215 pc, or ~435 pc with Homan et al. (2021) δ = 47. Because the Doi et al. distance is an independent radio measurement, the agreement is a genuine external consistency check rather than a tautology. The Doppler factor δ in Equation (14) is taken from published measurements (Foschini et al. 2012; Homan et al. 2021), and the 'typical scaling factor of 0.1' in Equation (15) is an explicitly stated assumption; both are physically debatable for stationary NLR gas, but neither is defined in terms of the target distance, so the step is not circular. Self-citations (Foschini et al. 2012, 2015; Berton et al. 2016; Crepaldi et al. 2025) supply contextual jet properties, reclassification precedents, and blue-outlier classification; the argument does not reduce to them. The authors themselves flag the important modeling assumptions, including the telluric correction in Appendix B ('we assumed a symmetric shape for Hβ, based on that of Hα. Consequently, we mirrored the right side of the line onto the left side') and the forced three-Gaussian decomposition of the unresolved SDSS Hβ profile in Section 3.2. These are real measurement and model-identification risks, but they are not instances of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to its own fitted value, and no load-bearing step is justified solely by an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new entities. The central interpretation relies on standard AGN components (BLR, NLR, jet) and empirical calibrations. One hand-chosen scaling factor (0.1) propagates into the claimed distance of the jet-NLR interaction region.

free parameters (1)
  • Jet self-similar scaling factor = 0.1
    Used in Eq. 15 to convert the variability-derived emitting-region size r_IR to a physical distance D_IR = r_IR / 0.1. The factor is described as 'a typical scaling factor of 0.1' without independent measurement, and it directly sets the 131-215 pc distance that is then compared to radio results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NLR responds to ionizing continuum variations with a light-travel time of ~2700 years, so year-scale changes in NLR lines cannot be due to photoionization lags.
    Used in Section 5 to argue that Hβn and [O III] variations on 5-27 year timescales require a non-ionization mechanism. This assumes standard NLR size and no additional response mechanisms.
  • domain assumption The jet axis is strongly aligned with the NLR bicone axis, so the small jet viewing angle (3-6 deg) implies the NLR is viewed face-on.
    Used in Section 5 to rule out the unified-model orientation explanation for the intermediate-Seyfert profile, citing Schmitt et al. 2003 and Fischer et al. 2013-2014.
  • domain assumption The Hβ line profile can be decomposed into one narrow Gaussian plus two broad Gaussians that correspond to a stratified BLR, and this decomposition is meaningful even at SDSS resolution.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 following Popovic 2006; the SDSS narrow component is unresolved (FWHM < 370 km/s), so the decomposition there is model-driven rather than data-driven.
  • domain assumption X-ray observations and the lack of intrinsic absorption, together with Fe II strength and consistent Hα/Hβ FWHM, imply no obscuration of the nucleus.
    Used in Section 5 to exclude the partial-obscuration interpretation of the IS profile, citing Foschini et al. 2015, Bhattacharyya et al. 2014, and others.
  • domain assumption The virial relations of Greene et al. 2010 (Eq. 4), Bentz et al. 2013 (Eq. 5), and Du & Wang 2019 (Eq. 6) are valid for this object and yield unbiased R_BLR.
    Used in Section 4.3 to compute black hole mass; these are empirical calibrations from the literature, not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction of the relativistic jet and the narrow-line region of PMN J0948+0022." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7LRRRVY

@misc{pith2026250514776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction of the relativistic jet and the narrow-line region of PMN J0948+0022},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7LRRRVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14776}
}
abstract

We have analyzed publicly available optical spectra of PMN J0948+0022 obtained with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, X-Shooter, and the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE). Initially, PMN J0948+0022 was classified as a jetted narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy, but X-Shooter and MUSE observations, which have better spectral resolution, revealed a different profile for the H$\beta$ line, from Lorentzian to a composite one (a combination of a broad and a narrow Gaussian), more typical of intermediate Seyfert galaxies. According to the unified model, intermediate Seyferts are viewed at larger angles. However, we show that, in this case, the composite line profile results from the interaction of the powerful relativistic jet with the narrow-line region. The jet transfers part of its kinetic energy to the narrow-line region, producing flux changes in the H$\beta$ narrow component (drop by a factor of 3.4 from SDSS to X-Shooter), [O III]$\lambda$5007 core component (which nearly doubled from X-Shooter to MUSE), and its blue wing ($\Delta$v$\sim$200 km s$^{-1}$), which we interpret as evidence of an outflow. We also recalculated the physical parameters of this AGN, obtaining a black hole mass of $10^{7.8}$ M$_{\odot}$ and an Eddington ratio of $\sim$0.21 (weighted mean).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. At the top, the three redshift-corrected spectra in the visible range; on the bottom, the three redshift-corrected, continuum and iron lines subtracted spectra (the X-Shooter spectrum is composed of three sections, here we report the only the one useful for the comparison with the SDSS and MUSE spectra). In both panels, in light blue we present the SDSS spectrum, in blue the X-Shooter spectrum, and in magenta the MU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hβ–[O III]λλ4959,5007 spectral region in the SDSS (top panel), X-Shooter (middle panel), and MUSE (bottom panel) spectra of PMN J0948+0022. Colors: in magenta continuum line the final fit, in blue dashed lines the broad components of Hβ, in red dotted lines the narrow components of Hβ and [O III]λλ4959,5007, in yellow dotted-dashed lines the [O III]λλ4959,5007 blue wings interpreted as outflows, and finally in green… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top panels) Comparison of the Hβ and [O III]λ5007 (left and right panels, respectively) lines observed in the SDSS−X-Shooter spec￾tra with the resolution of the latter decreased to match that of the former (SDSS in blue and X-Shooter in red). (Bottom panels) The same as in the top panels, but for X-Shooter − MUSE with the resolution of the former reduced to match the that of the latter (MUSE in blue and X￾Shooter i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fermi light curve for PMN J0948+0022 with a data binning of 1 month. We highlighted the two periods that coincide with the X￾Shooter and MUSE observations. The highlighted peak was observed on August 2, 2017, while the quiet phase began on April 18, 2020, and is still …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of PMN J0948+0022. The scheme is not to scale. suggest an adjustment of the stratification. Conversely, we ob￾served changes in the Hβn and [O III]λ5007. As noted in Section 3.3, the better spectral resolution of X￾Shooter and MUSE, requires a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy , J

    Abazajian , K. N., Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2009, , 182, 543

    2009

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009 a , , 707, 727

    2009

  3. [3]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009 b , , 707, L142

    2009

  4. [4]

    P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Ahn , C. P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 203, 21

    2012

  5. [5]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  6. [6]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Alam , S., Albareti , F. D., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12

    2015

  7. [7]

    2015, , 575, A55

    Angelakis , E., Fuhrmann , L., Marchili , N., et al. 2015, , 575, A55

    2015

  8. [8]

    1993, , 31, 473

    Antonucci , R. 1993, , 31, 473

    1993

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  2. [10]

    C., Denney , K

    Bentz , M. C., Denney , K. D., Grier , C. J., et al. 2013, , 767, 149

    2013

  3. [11]

    2019, , 632, A120

    Berton , M., Braito , V., Mathur , S., et al. 2019, , 632, A120

    2019

  4. [12]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 8

    Berton , M., Foschini , L., Caccianiga , A., et al. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 8

    2017

  5. [13]

    2016, , 591, A88

    Berton , M., Foschini , L., Ciroi , S., et al. 2016, , 591, A88

    2016

  6. [14]

    2021, , 654, A125

    Berton , M., Peluso , G., Marziani , P., et al. 2021, , 654, A125

    2021

  7. [15]

    Bhattacharyya , S., Bhatt , H., Bhatt , N., & Singh , K. K. 2014, , 440, 106

    2014

  8. [16]

    2019, , 57, 467

    Blandford , R., Meier , D., & Readhead , A. 2019, , 57, 467

    2019

  9. [17]

    2019, , 623, A172

    Circosta , C., Vignali , C., Gilli , R., et al. 2019, , 623, A172

    2019

  10. [18]

    M., & Vestergaard , M

    Collin , S., Kawaguchi , T., Peterson , B. M., & Vestergaard , M. 2006, , 456, 75

    2006

  11. [19]

    2013, , 559, A18

    Comparat , J., Kneib , J.-P., Bacon , R., et al. 2013, , 559, A18

    2013

  12. [20]

    2016, , 462, 1256

    Cracco , V., Ciroi , S., Berton , M., et al. 2016, , 462, 1256

    2016

  13. [21]

    2025, , 696, A74

    Crepaldi , L., Berton , M., Dalla Barba , B., et al. 2025, , 696, A74

    2025

  14. [22]

    2014, , 438, 3521

    D'Ammando , F., Larsson , J., Orienti , M., et al. 2014, , 438, 3521

    2014

  15. [23]

    2015, , 446, 2456

    D'Ammando , F., Orienti , M., Finke , J., et al. 2015, , 446, 2456

    2015

  16. [24]

    S., Kova c evi \'c , J., Popovi \'c , L

    Dimitrijevi \'c , M. S., Kova c evi \'c , J., Popovi \'c , L. C ., Da c i \'c , M., & Ili \'c , D. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 895, Fifty Years of Romanian Astrophysics, ed. C. Dumitrache , N. A. Popescu , M. D. Suran , & V. Mioc (AIP), 313--316

    2007

  17. [25]

    2006, , 58, 829

    Doi , A., Nagai , H., Asada , K., et al. 2006, , 58, 829

    2006

  18. [26]

    2012, , 760, 41

    Doi , A., Nagira , H., Kawakatu , N., et al. 2012, , 760, 41

    2012

  19. [27]

    2019, , 487, 640

    Doi , A., Nakahara , S., Nakamura , M., et al. 2019, , 487, 640

    2019

  20. [28]

    Doj c inovi \'c , I., Kova c evi \'c -Doj c inovi \'c , J., & Popovi \'c , L. C . 2023, Advances in Space Research, 71, 1219

    2023

  21. [29]

    2010, The Astronomer's Telegram, 2733, 1

    Donato , D. 2010, The Astronomer's Telegram, 2733, 1

    2010

  22. [30]

    C., Wang , J.-G., et al

    Dong , X.-B., Ho , L. C., Wang , J.-G., et al. 2010, , 721, L143

    2010

  23. [31]

    J., Byrne , Z

    Drinkwater , M. J., Byrne , Z. J., Blake , C., et al. 2018, , 474, 4151

    2018

  24. [32]

    & Wang , J.-M

    Du , P. & Wang , J.-M. 2019, , 886, 42

    2019

  25. [33]

    Duncan , K. J. 2022, , 512, 3662

    2022

  26. [34]

    2008, , 52, 274

    Elitzur , M. 2008, , 52, 274

    2008

  27. [35]

    L., Morabito , L

    Escott , E. L., Morabito , L. K., Scholtz , J., et al. 2025, , 536, 1166

    2025

  28. [36]

    C., Crenshaw , D

    Fischer , T. C., Crenshaw , D. M., Kraemer , S. B., & Schmitt , H. R. 2013, , 209, 1

    2013

  29. [37]

    C., Crenshaw , D

    Fischer , T. C., Crenshaw , D. M., Kraemer , S. B., Schmitt , H. R., & Turner , T. J. 2014, , 785, 25

    2014

  30. [38]

    C., Kraemer , S

    Fischer , T. C., Kraemer , S. B., Schmitt , H. R., et al. 2018, , 856, 102

    2018

  31. [39]

    2020, Universe, 6, 136

    Foschini , L. 2020, Universe, 6, 136

    2020

  32. [40]

    2012, , 548, A106

    Foschini , L., Angelakis , E., Fuhrmann , L., et al. 2012, , 548, A106

    2012

  33. [41]

    2015, , 575, A13

    Foschini , L., Berton , M., Caccianiga , A., et al. 2015, , 575, A13

    2015

  34. [42]

    2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Foschini , L., Fermi/Lat Collaboration , Ghisellini , G., et al. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 427, Accretion and Ejection in AGN: a Global View, ed. L. Maraschi , G. Ghisellini , R. Della Ceca , & F. Tavecchio , 243--248

    2010

  35. [43]

    Y., et al

    Foschini , L., Ghisellini , G., Kovalev , Y. Y., et al. 2011, , 413, 1671

    2011

  36. [44]

    L., Andernach , H., et al

    Foschini , L., Lister , M. L., Andernach , H., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 587

    2022

  37. [45]

    1998, , 299, 433

    Fossati , G., Maraschi , L., Celotti , A., Comastri , A., & Ghisellini , G. 1998, , 299, 433

    1998

  38. [46]

    1998, , 301, 451

    Ghisellini , G., Celotti , A., Fossati , G., Maraschi , L., & Comastri , A. 1998, , 301, 451

    1998

  39. [47]

    2011, , 528, L11

    Giroletti , M., Paragi , Z., Bignall , H., et al. 2011, , 528, L11

    2011

  40. [48]

    Goodrich , R. W. 1989, , 342, 224

    1989

  41. [49]

    E., Hood , C

    Greene , J. E., Hood , C. E., Barth , A. J., et al. 2010, , 723, 409

    2010

  42. [50]

    C., Cohen , M

    Homan , D. C., Cohen , M. H., Hovatta , T., et al. 2021, , 923, 67

    2021

  43. [51]

    C ., et al

    Ili \'c , D., Oknyansky , V., Popovi \'c , L. C ., et al. 2020, , 638, A13

    2020

  44. [52]

    Ili \'c , D., Raki \'c , N., & Popovi \'c , L. C . 2023, , 267, 19

    2023

  45. [53]

    a rvel \

    J \"a rvel \"a , E., Berton , M., Ciroi , S., et al. 2020, , 636, L12

    2020

  46. [54]

    S., Netzer , H., et al

    Kaspi , S., Smith , P. S., Netzer , H., et al. 2000, , 533, 631

    2000

  47. [55]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    2003

  48. [56]

    Keel , W. C. 1980, , 85, 198

    1980

  49. [57]

    J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T

    Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T. 2006, , 372, 961

    2006

  50. [58]

    2008, , 680, 926

    Komossa , S., Xu , D., Zhou , H., Storchi-Bergmann , T., & Binette , L. 2008, , 680, 926

    2008

  51. [59]

    a hteenm \

    L \"a hteenm \"a ki , A., J \"a rvel \"a , E., Hovatta , T., et al. 2017, , 603, A100

    2017

  52. [60]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2016, , 152, 12

    2016

  53. [61]

    2010, , 715, L113

    Liu , H., Wang , J., Mao , Y., & Wei , J. 2010, , 715, L113

    2010

  54. [62]

    B., Bazzano , A., & Ubertini , P

    Malizia , A., Bassani , L., Stephen , J. B., Bazzano , A., & Ubertini , P. 2020, , 639, A5

    2020

  55. [63]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 109

    Mao , L. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 109

    2021

  56. [64]

    2000, , 314, L17

    Mathur , S. 2000, , 314, L17

    2000

  57. [65]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi , M., Mukherjee , D., Wagner , A. Y., et al. 2022, , 516, 766

    2022

  58. [66]

    R., Alexander , D

    Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., Fine , S., et al. 2013, , 433, 622

    2013

  59. [67]

    M., Oliva , E., Marconi , A., & Maiolino , R

    Nagar , N. M., Oliva , E., Marconi , A., & Maiolino , R. 2002, , 391, L21

    2002

  60. [68]

    2021, , 501, 4110

    Ojha , V., Chand , H., & Gopal-Krishna . 2021, , 501, 4110

    2021

  61. [69]

    K., Chand , H., & Singh , V

    Ojha , V., Jha , V. K., Chand , H., & Singh , V. 2022, , 514, 5607

    2022

  62. [70]

    2020, , 492, 1450

    Olgu \' n-Iglesias , A., Kotilainen , J., & Chavushyan , V. 2020, , 492, 1450

    2020

  63. [71]

    Osterbrock , D. E. & Ferland , G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    2006

  64. [72]

    Osterbrock , D. E. & Koski , A. T. 1976, , 176, 61P

    1976

  65. [73]

    Osterbrock , D. E. & Pogge , R. W. 1985, , 297, 166

    1985

  66. [74]

    2020, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 50, 293

    Panda , S., Marziani , P., & Czerny , B. 2020, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 50, 293

    2020

  67. [75]

    Popovic , L. C. 2006, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 173, 1

    2006

  68. [76]

    K., Montenegro , M., Nahar , S

    Pradhan , A. K., Montenegro , M., Nahar , S. N., & Eissner , W. 2006, , 366, L6

    2006

  69. [77]

    2022, , 516, 1624

    Raki \'c , N. 2022, , 516, 1624

    2022

  70. [78]

    & Saunders , R

    Rawlings , S. & Saunders , R. 1991, , 349, 138

    1991

  71. [79]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7

    2022

  72. [80]

    a hteenm \

    Romano , P., L \"a hteenm \"a ki , A., Vercellone , S., et al. 2023, , 673, A85

    2023

  73. [81]

    R., Donley , J

    Schmitt , H. R., Donley , J. L., Antonucci , R. R. J., Hutchings , J. B., & Kinney , A. L. 2003 a , , 148, 327

    2003

  74. [82]

    R., Donley , J

    Schmitt , H. R., Donley , J. L., Antonucci , R. R. J., et al. 2003 b , , 597, 768

    2003

  75. [83]

    H., Pasquali, A., et al

    Schönebeck, F., Puzia, T. H., Pasquali, A., et al. 2014, , 572, A13

    2014

  76. [84]

    Seyfert , C. K. 1943, , 97, 28

    1943

  77. [85]

    2023, , 678, A63

    \'S niegowska , M., Panda , S., Czerny , B., et al. 2023, , 678, A63

    2023

  78. [86]

    Urry , C. M. & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803

    1995

  79. [87]

    a rvel \

    Varglund , I., J \"a rvel \"a , E., Ciroi , S., et al. 2023, , 679, A32

    2023

  80. [88]

    & Osterbrock , D

    Veilleux , S. & Osterbrock , D. E. 1987, , 63, 295

    1987

  81. [89]

    M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al

    Weilbacher , P. M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al. 2020, , 641, A28

    2020

  82. [90]

    J., Pogge , R

    Williams , R. J., Pogge , R. W., & Mathur , S. 2002, , 124, 3042

    2002

  83. [91]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 075001

    Xin , Y.-X., Xiong , D.-R., Bai , J.-M., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 075001

    2022

  84. [92]

    & Komossa , S

    Yao , S. & Komossa , S. 2023, , 523, 441

    2023

  85. [93]

    2017, , 849, 42

    Zhang , J., Zhang , H.-M., Zhu , Y.-K., et al. 2017, , 849, 42

    2017

  86. [94]

    2003, , 584, 147

    Zhou , H.-Y., Wang , T.-G., Dong , X.-B., Zhou , Y.-Y., & Li , C. 2003, , 584, 147

    2003

  87. [95]

    , " * 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.sent...

  88. [96]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.