Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

SRG/eROSITA No. 5: Discovery of quasi-periodic eruptions every ~3.7 days from a galaxy at z>0.1

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The most distant quasi-periodic X-ray eruption source yet found, eRO-QPE5, recurs every 3.7 days in a galaxy at redshift 0.1155.

desk verdict Genuine new QPE source with a solid multi-mission detection; the 'most distant' headline rests on a tentative redshift and there is a small internal slope inconsistency to clean up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17138 v2 pith:WN5XZR4D submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.HE

R. Arcodia , P. Baldini , A. Merloni , A. Rau , K. Nandra , J. Chakraborty , A. J. Goodwin , M. J. Page
show 12 more authors
J. Buchner M. Masterson I. Monageng Z. Arzoumanian D. Buckley E. Kara G. Ponti M. E. Ramos-Ceja M. Salvato K. Gendreau I. Grotova M. Krumpe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodiceruptionsQPEX-raytransientseROSITAaccretiondiskcollisionsstellardebrisstreamsblackholegalacticnuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the discovery of eRO-QPE5, the fifth galaxy found through a dedicated blind search in the eROSITA all-sky X-ray survey to show quasi-periodic eruptions: soft X-ray flares that repeat on a regular clock. The source, at spectroscopic redshift $z=0.1155$, is the most distant quasi-periodic eruption known, bursting every $3.70\pm0.02$ days with an average rise-to-decay duration of $0.64\pm0.11$ days and an integrated energy per burst of roughly $3.4\times10^{47}$ erg. The authors use these measurements to extend the known population, confirming that eruption duration and recurrence time track each other with a slope close to one. They argue this slope is consistent with star-disk collision models in which the flares are powered by stellar debris streams around an orbiting stellar-mass body, rather than by the body itself. A sympathetic reader would care because each new source sharpens the census of a rare class that may eventually connect X-ray astronomy to low-frequency gravitational-wave detections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the disk-collision framework for QPEs: a stellar-mass orbiter in a nearly circular orbit around a $10^7\,M_\odot$ black hole repeatedly plunges through the inner accretion disk, producing a soft X-ray flare each pass. Within that framework, the recurrence time $t_{\rm recur}$ tracks the orbital period, and the duration $t_{\rm dur}$ tracks either the diffusion time of an expanding gas bubble ($t_{\rm dur}\propto t_{\rm recur}^{2/3}$) or, in the debris-stream variant favored here, the spread in arrival times of stellar debris ($t_{\rm dur}\propto t_{\rm recur}M_{\rm BH}^{-1/3}$). The paper's observational machinery is the blind eROSITA variability search plus phase-resolved X-ray spectroscopy, which identifies QPEs by their flare shape and by the harder-rise/softer-decay spectral evolution.

What would settle it

A higher-quality optical spectrum of the host galaxy that either confirms $z\approx0.1155$ with strong lines or places the galaxy at a different distance would settle the most-distant claim; independently, a continuous X-ray campaign across several predicted 3.70-day epochs that fails to see the next eruption would falsify the quasi-periodic classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that J032543.2-451244 (eRO-QPE5) is a bona fide quasi-periodic eruption source. Four X-ray instruments caught repeated soft X-ray flares with a faster rise and slower decay; the three NICER bursts give a recurrence time of $3.70\pm0.02$ days, and the characteristic spectral hysteresis (hotter during rise, cooler during decay) seen in other QPEs is recovered. With a spectroscopic redshift of $0.1155$ from tentative line identifications, the source is the most distant of its class, and its black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}=2.9^{+5.4}_{-2.2}\times10^7\,M_\odot$, burst duration, and energy sit at the high end of the known population. Across the growing sample, the paper confirms a $t_{\rm dur}$--$t_{\rm recur}$ correlation with slope $1.14\pm0.16$ and finds no significant correlation of either timescale with black hole mass or temperature. The authors read the slope as evidence for star-disk collision models where stellar debris from previous collisions powers the eruption.

Load-bearing premise

The whole distance-dependent case rests on a low signal-to-noise optical spectrum whose redshift identification ($z=0.1155$, from tentative Calcium, [O II], and G-band features) is uncertain; if the galaxy is not at that distance, the 'most distant QPE' claim and all derived luminosities, energies, and black hole mass change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The population of quasi-periodic eruptions is now known to extend beyond $z=0.1$, so any complete model must produce sources bright enough in soft X-rays to be caught by wide-area all-sky scans, not just targeted nuclear monitoring.
  • If the $t_{\rm dur}$--$t_{\rm recur}$ correlation at fixed duty cycle ($\sim18\%$) holds as the sample grows, the discovery space for new QPEs is bounded below the 100% duty-cycle line, and surveys should be designed to catch short-duration, long-recurrence sources that current monitoring is biased against.
  • The lack of correlation between recurrence time and black hole mass, if real rather than an artifact of mass uncertainties, rules out the simplest scaling $t_{\rm recur}\propto M_{\rm BH}$ and favors models where the orbital period is set by other parameters.
  • At the high black hole mass and energy end, eRO-QPE5 becomes a testbed for the debris-stream-powered collision picture: a single stellar body sweeping up disk gas cannot easily supply $\sim3.4\times10^{47}$ erg per burst.
  • Future sensitive wide-area soft X-ray missions should discover many more QPEs, and roughly 9% of optically selected tidal disruption events are expected to eventually show X-ray eruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the tentative eRASS1--3 detections are real eruptions, the active QPE phase in eRO-QPE5 has lasted at least 1.5 years longer than the well-sampled 2024 campaign, implying the eruption mechanism is sustained over years rather than being a single short-lived event.
  • Beyond the paper: the unusually low scatter in recurrence time ($\sim0.5\%$) makes eRO-QPE5 a strong target for predicting and catching future eruptions; a scheduled multi-wavelength campaign around a predicted phase could test whether any UV, optical, or radio counterpart appears with a delay.
  • Beyond the paper: the debris-stream scaling $t_{\rm dur}\propto t_{\rm recur}M_{\rm BH}^{-1/3}$ gives a testable three-dimensional prediction; with roughly three times the current sample of well-measured sources, the correlation slope could discriminate cleanly between diffusion-time and debris-stream models.
  • Beyond the paper: should the redshift be revised downward, the source's luminosity and black hole mass would drop, but the period and duration are distance-independent; the core QPE classification would survive even though the 'most distant' record would not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reports the discovery of a fifth quasi-periodic eruption source, eRO-QPE5 (J032543.2-451244), found through a blind search of SRG/eROSITA all-sky survey data. The X-ray identification is supported by multi-mission follow-up: eROSITA eRASS4 showed a flare, Swift/XRT caught one flare, NICER detected three consecutive eruptions separated by ~3.70 days, and XMM-Newton resolved a full eruption and the quiescent disk. The authors measure a rise-to-decay duration of 0.64±0.11 days, a recurrence time of 3.70±0.02 days, an integrated energy of ~3.4×10^47 erg, and infer a black hole mass of 2.9^{+5.4}_{-2.2}×10^7 M_sun from host stellar mass scaling. They report the characteristic harder-rise/softer-decay spectral hysteresis in both NICER and XMM-Newton data, and constant optical/UV/IR emission in archival surveys. Using a spectroscopic redshift of z=0.1155 from a low-S/N SALT spectrum, they claim eRO-QPE5 is the most distant QPE known. The paper also compiles the growing QPE sample and fits a t_dur-t_recur relation with slope 1.14±0.16, finds no significant correlations with black hole mass or temperature, and compares these results with disk-collision model predictions.

Significance. If the QPE classification is secure, this is a valuable addition to a small population: it extends QPEs to longer recurrence times and higher black hole masses, and the multi-mission dataset (eROSITA, Swift, NICER, XMM-Newton) is assembled carefully, with explicit attention to systematic uncertainties. The detection of three consecutive NICER bursts with very low scatter in arrival time and the recovery of the hysteresis pattern in two independent instruments are genuine strengths, and the correlation analysis is refreshingly cautious about the large uncertainties in black hole masses. The authors also provide reproducible analysis tools (eRebin, SCORPEON use, SIXTE simulations) and clearly flag the limitations of their model comparison. The main caveat is that the headline 'most distant QPE' and all distance-dependent quantities rest on a tentative spectroscopic redshift; this is a load-bearing weakness for the paper's most prominent claim, even though the QPE classification itself appears robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Appendix B] The adopted redshift z=0.1155 is load-bearing for the 'most distant QPE' claim and for all quoted luminosities, integrated energies, and black hole masses, but the spectroscopic support is explicitly tentative: the SALT/RSS spectrum is described as 'overall featureless' with a 'tentative identification' based on possible Ca II absorption, [O II], and G-band features, and the MagE spectrum is also 'noisy and featureless.' The only corroboration is a photometric redshift range of ~0.12-0.14. Because the distance modulus scales directly with z, a shift of even 0.01-0.02 would change L and E_QPE by tens of percent, and could remove the 'most distant' status. I request that the authors either obtain a secure spectroscopic redshift (e.g., deeper optical or near-IR spectroscopy) or explicitly reframe the abstract and Section 3.1 to present the redshift as provisional, reporting distance-dependent quantities as functions of the assumed z and removing or strongly qualifying the 'most distant' headline.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Figure 8] The t_dur-t_recur fit is presented as a 'confirmation' of a correlation with slope 1.14±0.16, but the same section acknowledges two important biases: the duration definition differs among instruments (the paper itself finds 0.64 d vs 0.25 d for the same bursts depending on the intensity threshold), and the sample is biased against discovering sources with short durations and long recurrence times (the lower-right corner of Fig. 8). The latter selection effect can artificially steepen the fitted slope, so the comparison of the observed slope to the theoretical 2/3 (diffusion-time) and 1 (debris-stream) predictions is less constraining than the abstract implies. I recommend adding a quantitative assessment of how the duration-definition variance and the selection bias affect the fitted slope, or softening the claim of preference for debris-stream models.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 1] The black hole mass for eRO-QPE5 is derived from SED-fitted stellar mass and the Reines-Volonteri scaling relation, and it carries a 0.5 dex systematic in quadrature with other uncertainties. This is reasonable for the stated purpose of testing correlations, and the authors explicitly test that their conclusions are unchanged with a subset of more precise masses. However, because the stellar-mass-based estimate also depends on the assumed redshift, the MBH value in Table 1 and the statements that eRO-QPE5 sits at the high-mass end should be revisited if the redshift is revised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'XMM-Netwon' should be 'XMM-Newton'.
  2. [Appendix A.3] The phrase 'naif estimate' should be 'naive estimate'.
  3. [Table 2] The table header formatting is inconsistent: 'Quiesc.' is an abbreviation that could be spelled out, and the upper-limit flux entry '–<4.0×10^-15' would be clearer as a separate upper-limit column.
  4. [Section 5] The summary repeats the redshift and 'most distant' claim without the caveats given in Appendix B; please align the strength of the wording with the spectroscopic evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QPE discovery, timing measurements, correlation slopes, and model comparisons rest on independent multi-mission X-ray data and external theoretical predictions; the tentative redshift is a data-quality caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measurements: three NICER eruptions spaced by about 3.7 days, XMM-Newton and Swift flares, and the harder-rise/softer-decay spectral hysteresis. These are derived from raw photon data through standard pipelines and are not defined in terms of the conclusions being drawn. The eROSITA search algorithm that flagged J0325 is cited from prior author work (Arcodia et al. 2024c), but the QPE classification does not rest on that citation alone: the independent NICER, XMM-Newton, and Swift detections, including three consecutive eruptions and the characteristic spectral evolution, establish the phenomenon without reference to the search code. The t_dur-t_recur correlation is a direct regression of independent timing quantities: t_dur is measured from the fitted flare width and t_recur from peak-to-peak separations, so the slope is not forced by construction. The comparison to collision-model predictions from Linial & Metzger (2023), Yao et al. (2025), and others is an external model test, and the paper's own 3D fit is used to discriminate among predictions. The only notable caveat is the redshift: Appendix B explicitly calls the SALT redshift 'tentative' and describes the spectra as 'overall featureless,' so the 'most distant QPE' claim and luminosity-dependent numbers carry a data-quality risk. That is an observational limitation, not circularity, because z=0.1155 is inferred from spectral features and external photometric redshifts, not from the QPE timing or spectral properties being claimed. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation.

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

The central detection does not rely on tuning free parameters. The main hand-chosen inputs are the systematic error terms added to MBH and kTQPE before correlation tests; they affect only the null results on MBH and temperature correlations. The key unproved premises are the disk interpretation for quiescence, the consecutiveness of the NICER bursts, and the tentative redshift. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • 0.5 dex systematic on MBH uncertainties
    Chosen by hand and added in quadrature to all literature MBH estimates in Section 4 before correlation fits; suppresses possible MBH correlations.
  • 5 eV systematic on kTQPE
    Chosen by hand and added in quadrature to single-epoch peak temperatures to account for epoch-to-epoch dispersion in Section 4.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The quiescent X-ray emission of eRO-QPE5 arises from an inner accretion disk, modeled as diskbb.
    Section 2 and A.3; this is the standard interpretation for QPE sources, and it underlies the inferred quiescent flux and disk properties.
  • domain assumption The three NICER detections are consecutive QPE eruptions with no missed eruptions between them.
    Section 2: the recurrence times 3.72 and 3.69 days are computed from the three bursts; if an eruption was missed, the true period could be shorter (subharmonics).
  • ad hoc to paper The tentative SALT redshift of z=0.1155 is adopted as the distance.
    Appendix B: the spectrum is featureless and low S/N; the redshift is a 'tentative identification' but adopted for all luminosities and the 'most distant' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SRG/eROSITA No. 5: Discovery of quasi-periodic eruptions every ~3.7 days from a galaxy at z>0.1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WN5XZR4D

@misc{pith2026250617138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SRG/eROSITA No. 5: Discovery of quasi-periodic eruptions every ~3.7 days from a galaxy at z>0.1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WN5XZR4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17138}
}
abstract

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are repeating soft X-ray bursts from the nuclei of galaxies, tantalizingly proposed to be extreme mass ratio inspirals. Here, we report the discovery of a new galaxy showing X-ray QPEs, the fifth found through a dedicated blind search in the \emph{SRG}/eROSITA all-sky survey data, hereafter named eRO-QPE5. Its QPE duration ($t_{\rm dur}\sim0.6$\,d), recurrence time ($t_{\rm recur}\sim3.7\,$d), integrated energy per eruption ($\sim3.4 \times 10^{47}\,$erg), and black hole mass ($M_{\rm BH}=2.9^{+5.4}_{-2.2}\times10^7\,M_{\astrosun}$) sit at the high end of the known population. Like other eROSITA or X-ray-discovered QPEs, no previous or concurrent optical-IR transient is found in archival photometric datasets, and the optical spectrum looks almost featureless. With a spectroscopic redshift of $0.1155$, eRO-QPE5 is the most distant QPE source discovered to date. Given the number of recent discoveries, we test for possible correlations and confirm a connection between $t_{\rm dur}$ and $t_{\rm recur}$, while we do not find any significant correlation involving either $M_{\rm BH}$ or the QPE temperature. The slope of the $t_{\rm dur}-t_{\rm recur}$ relation ($1.14\pm0.16$) is roughly consistent with predictions from star-disk collision models, with a preference for those that suggest that QPEs are powered by stellar debris streams around the orbiter. Considering this and previous discoveries, eROSITA has proved extremely successful in finding many QPE candidates given its grasp, namely its sensitivity and large field of view, and scanning capabilities over the full sky. We advocate the need of sensitive wide-area and time-domain oriented surveys from future-generation soft X-ray missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray light curve of eRO-QPE5 at different epochs, from top to bottom: eROSITA eRASS4 0.2−2.3 keV light curve (detected eROdays in orange; top left panel) and Swift/XRT 0.3 − 2.0 keV light curve (marginal detections in dark red; top right panel); NICER 0.4 − 2.0 keV light curve (detections in red); XMM-Newton EPICpn 0.2 − 2.0 keV light curve. The source was observed by both Swift/XRT and NICER in guest observer time… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Long-term evolution of J0325, highlighting flux states both in quiescence and in the bright state (which in￾cludes the former). eROSITA data points are shown as cir￾cles, squares for XMM-Netwon, diamonds for NICER and stars for Swift/XRT. eROSITA epochs with uncertain phase identification are shown with empty symbols, and the flux of the full exposure is shown in gray (see more details in Sect. A.1). All uncertainti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral evolution of QPEs in eRO-QPE5 using XMM-Newton data. Time increases from darker to lighter colors. The top right (middle right) panel shows the QPE bolometric luminosity (temperature) evolution, while the top left panel shows their joint evolution. The bottom right panel shows the evolution of the emitting radius, assuming a ther￾mal spectrum and spherical geometry. We note that the first rise phase (the da… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 35”× 35” cutout of the DESI Legacy Imag￾ing Surveys Data Release 10 [Legacy Surveys / D. Lang (Perimeter Institute)] with the X-ray 1σ position circles in red (eROSITA) and green (XMM-Newton). eRO-QPE5 is associated with a galaxy at (RA, Dec) = (03:25:43.21250, -45:12:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SALT/RSS optical spectrum of eRO-QPE5 with a zoom-in around the Calcium absorption doublet that indicates a spec-z of 0.1155. The sky spectrum is shown in cyan in arbitrary units. sfhdelayed (see Buchner et al. 2024). Given the known unusual shape of the accretion disk…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral energy distribution of eRO-QPE5, with the GRAHSP UV-optical-IR SED fitting with galaxy and AGN templates, with the former (purple and green) dominating on the latter (light blue). The fitted M∗ is 8.5 +3.3 −1.7 × 109 M⊙. to-noise data. In this work, we collate…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UV light curves of eRO-QPE5 taken with, from top to bottom, the Swift/UVOT UVW2 (208.4 nm), UVM2 (224.5 nm), and UVW1 (268.2 nm) filters, and the UVW1 (291 nm) of the OM aboard XMM-Newton. UVOT data are scaled at the start of the UVW2 exposure, while OM data are scaled…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation between QPE rest-frame duration (tdur) and recurrence time (trecur). We show the fitted me￾dian model (solid black line) and related 1σ contours (shaded black area), with a slope of 1.01 ± 0.12 and an intrinsic scatter of 0.18 ± 0.08 (dotted black line). As…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Lack of correlation between trecur and MBH in the top panel, and between tdur and MBH in the bottom panel. In both cases, the fitted slope is consistent with zero within 1σ (we show 1σ and 3σ) and the linear term is not statistically required. tainties. We tested the s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lack of correlation between trecur and kTQPE. The slope is consistent with zero within 2σ (we show 1σ and 3σ) and the linear term is not statistically required. the dispersion in arrival time of the stellar debris in front of and behind the star. Assuming for simplici…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: , from top to bottom, respectively. The default selection cut at fexp ≥ 10% is shown in black, which shows some counts at the end of eRASS1 and eRASS2, and in one visit at the start of eRASS3. This motivated further investigation of the edges of the individual light c…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Magellan/MagE spectrum, which appear noisy and featureless. The zoom-in shows the same region with the expected location of absorption/emission lines based on the SALT redshift estimate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Triple radio flares from tidal disruption events: jet-wind collisions and the discovery of a third radio flare from AT2020vwl

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The TDE AT2020vwl showed a third radio flare at the time a jet-wind collision was predicted from its first two flares, the first predicted-and-confirmed third flare.

  2. Disk Instability Model for Quasi-Periodic Eruptions: Investigating Period Dispersion and Peak Temperature

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A magnetized disk instability model splits QPE sources into stable and unstable regimes by critical thresholds in accretion rate and magnetic field, explaining period scatter while keeping peak temperatures nearly constant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  2. [2]

    R., Freitag, M., et al

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Gair, J. R., Freitag, M., et al. 2007, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, R113, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/17/R01

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/17/r01 2007

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 628, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935874

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., & Ponti, G. 2019, A&A, 628, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935874

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935874 2019

  4. [4]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  6. [6]

    2024a, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024a, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  7. [7]

    2024b, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia, R., Linial, I., Miniutti, G., et al. 2024b, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

  8. [8]

    2024c, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Buchner, J., et al. 2024c, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    2024d, A&A, 681, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347531 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Comparat, J., et al. 2024d, A&A, 681, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347531 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 687, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346368

    Bogensberger, D., Nandra, K., & Buchner, J. 2024, A&A, 687, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346368

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —. 2019a, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2019b, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.0...

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, A&A, 661, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141099

    Buchner, J., Boller, T., Bogensberger, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141099

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19297

    Buchner, J., Starck, H., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19297

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, ed. L. M. Stepp, Vol. 6267, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 62670Z, doi: 10.1117/12.673750

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Nordsieck, K

    Burgh, E. B., Nordsieck, K. H., Kobulnicky, H. A., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1463–1471,...

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Bykov, S., Gilfanov, M., Sunyaev, R., & Medvedev, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 19 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 obs [Å] 10 1 100 101 erg s 1 cm 2 Å 1 [×10 17] Magellan/MagE 16 Dec

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 19 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 obs [Å] 10 1 100 101 erg s 1 cm 2 Å 1 [×10 17] Magellan/MagE 16 Dec. 2023 CaII H? CaII K? OII? 4200 4400 obs [Å] 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 ...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    Chakraborty, J., Arcodia, R., Kara, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19013

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19013. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19013

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07167

    Chakraborty, J., Kosec, P., Kara, E., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07167

    doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 D´ alya, G., D´ ıaz, R., Bouchet, F

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 D´ alya, G., D´ ıaz, R., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1443

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A66 D’Orazio, D

    Dauser, T., Falkner, S., Lorenz, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A66 D’Orazio, D. J., Tiede, C., Zwick, L., Hayasaki, K., &

    2019

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10509

    Mayer, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10509

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Duncan, K. J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac608

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 —. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2007

  20. [28]

    A., Nixon, C

    Evans, P. A., Nixon, C. J., Campana, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Runnoe, J. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10486, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10486

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, A&A, 692, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., Arcodia, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    Guo, W., & Shen, R.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Ingram, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20148

  27. [35]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Wevers, T., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al

    Guolo, M., Pasham, D. R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07169

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Blaes, O. 2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    W., & Stone, J

    Jiang, Y.-F., Davis, S. W., & Stone, J. M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/10

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 20

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Brenneman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10096

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2022, ApJ, 940, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2005, MNRAS, 362, 799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    2005

  44. [52]

    L., Burles, S., Thompson, I

    Marshall, J. L., Burles, S., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 701454, doi: 10.1117/12.789972

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000044

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Middleton, M., G´ urpide, A., Kwan, T. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf052

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    doi

  48. [56]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, A&A, 693, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    Miniutti, G., Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456

    Mummery, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21456

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    Mummery, A., Nathan, E., Ingram, A., & Gardner, M. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    doi

  53. [61]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    2013 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    A., et al

    Newsome, M., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a69

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05948

    Pasham, D., Coughlin, E., Nixon, C., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05948

    doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    Pasham, D., Kejriwal, S., Coughlin, E., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    R., Coughlin, E

    Pasham, D. R., Coughlin, E. R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al. 2024c, ApJL, 963, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2a5c

    doi

  60. [68]

    C., Lu, W., Ma, Y., et al

    Patra, K. C., Lu, W., Ma, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1146

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Kara, E

    Reynolds, C. S., Kara, E. A., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley, 126781E, doi: 10.1117/1...

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13209 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Bernal, S., et al

    Rom, B., & Sari, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13209 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Bernal, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347957

    2025 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    J., Yan, Y., Mihalas, D., & Pradhan, A

    Seaton, M. J., Yan, Y., Mihalas, D., & Pradhan, A. K. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.4.805

    1994 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9

    Sesana, A., Korsakova, N., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1333, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  70. [78]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Ferland, G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Wang, T

    Shu, X. W., Wang, T. G., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb3

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer,...

    2004 doi

  74. [82]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    Sun, L., Shu, X., & Wang, T. 2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V., Babyshkin, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000087

    2001 doi

  79. [87]

    Vurm, I., Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05166, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05166

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    Wevers, T., Guolo, M., Lockwood, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    D., Zabludoff, A

    Wevers, T., French, K. D., Zabludoff, A. I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    Willingale, R., Starling, R. L. C., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R., & O’Brien, P. T. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt175

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02596

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., & Chen, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02596

    2025 doi

  85. [93]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    Zhou, C., Huang, L., Guo, K., Li, Y.-P., & Pan, Z. 2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    doi

  88. [96]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.18046, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.18046

    Zhou, C., Zeng, Y., & Pan, Z. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.18046, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.18046

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.