Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

BASS LII: The prevalence of double-peaked broad lines at low accretion rates among hard X-ray selected AGN

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Systematic disk-profile fitting of 343 hard X-ray selected AGN finds 71 double-peaked emitters, about 21%, with heavier black holes and lower Eddington ratios than other broad-line AGN.

desk verdict First hard X-ray selected census of double-peaked emitters with a plausible 21% fraction, but the classification rests on a subjective visual step and the Eddington ratio claim outruns the p-value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05380 v2 pith:BOIE47XV submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Charlotte Ward , Michael J. Koss , Michael Eracleous , Benny Trakhtenbrot , Franz E. Bauer , Turgay Caglar , Fiona Harrison , Arghajit Jana
show 13 more authors
Darshan Kakkad Macon Magno Ignacio del Moral-Castro Richard Mushotzky Kyuseok Oh Alessandro Peca Meredith C. Powell Claudio Ricci Alejandra Rojas Krista Lynne Smith Daniel Stern Ezequiel Treister C. Megan Urry
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords double-peakedemittersaccretiondisksbroadlineregionactivegalacticnucleivirialblackholemassesEddingtonratioBASSsurveyHαprofiles
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 tries to establish that roughly one in five hard X-ray selected broad-line AGN—71 out of 343—emits its broad Hα line from a rotating accretion disk rather than only from a wind outflow, and that these double-peaked emitters are intrinsically heavier and accreting at lower rates than the rest. The authors fit a circular disk model to every spectrum and report the disk geometry parameters for the 71 objects. If the classification holds, it matters because the standard virial method of measuring black hole masses assumes the broad line width reflects virialized gas; for disk emitters the width depends on inclination and turbulent broadening, so unrecognized disk emission biases mass estimates and could scatter the $M_{\rm BH}$–$\sigma_*$ relation. The paper also reports that DPEs are not distinguished by variability, mid-IR colors, obscuration, or changing-look rates, which narrows how they can be found.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the circular accretion-disk line-profile model of Chen & Halpern (1989), which predicts double-peaked Hα profiles from Keplerian rotation within a few hundred to a few thousand gravitational radii. The paper applies this model simultaneously with Gaussians for narrow forbidden lines to continuum-subtracted BASS spectra, allowing a spiral arm of variable amplitude, and separates DPEs from non-DPEs using threshold values of the fitted parameters ($i > 14^\circ$, $\sigma > 600$ km s$^{-1}$, $\xi_1 < 1200$). A final visual inspection reassigns 46 candidates to the non-DPE class and 15 to the DPE class, so the fitted disk profile plus thresholds plus human review is what carries the classification.

What would settle it

If an independent, reproducible spectral classifier—applied to the same 343 continuum-subtracted spectra without human review—recovered a DPE fraction far from 21% (or failed to reproduce the 0.4 dex mass and 0.3 dex Eddington ratio gaps), the paper's central claim would be undercut. A direct observational check is to take multi-epoch rms spectra of a random subset of the 272 non-DPE AGN; if double-peaked variable components appear in fewer than about 5% of them, the inference that many hidden disk emitters contaminate the non-DPE sample would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that when the Chen & Halpern (1989) circular accretion-disk profile—parameterized by inclination $i$, turbulent broadening $\sigma$, inner radius $\xi_1$ in gravitational radii, and emissivity index $q$—is fitted to the broad Hα line of a flux-limited, hard X-ray selected sample of 343 BASS AGN, 71 objects (21%) satisfy the thresholds $i > 14^\circ$, $\sigma > 600$ km s$^{-1}$, and $\xi_1 < 1200$ and are classified as double-peaked emitters. These DPEs have intrinsically higher black hole masses derived from host stellar velocity dispersion, by about 0.4 dex, and lower Eddington ratios, by about 0.3 dex, than the other 272 broad-line AGN; they also prefer elliptical hosts, are more X-ray luminous, and show higher [O I]/Hα narrow-line ratios. The paper argues this implies that disk-dominated emission is a common, not rare, state of the broad line region at low accretion rates, and that unrecognized disk components introduce biases in virial mass estimates for a non-negligible fraction of AGN.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the assumption that the disk model plus fixed parameter thresholds and a subjective visual inspection cleanly separates double-peaked disk emitters from AGN whose broad line asymmetries come from outflows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At least 21% of hard X-ray selected broad-line AGN have double-peaked broad lines, so disk emission is a common BLR component at low Eddington ratios.
  • Virial black hole masses for DPEs will be overestimated unless the disk contribution is modeled, because the FWHM depends on inclination and turbulent broadening.
  • DPE populations with higher BH masses and lower Eddington ratios imply that Eddington ratio, not just viewing angle, regulates the disk-dominated BLR state.
  • The lack of differences in optical and mid-IR variability, WISE colors, $N_{\rm H}$, $\alpha_{\rm ox}$, and changing-look rate means DPEs cannot be identified by these tracers alone.
  • Host galaxy morphology differences (46% elliptical versus 31% for an i-band matched control) indicate a connection between black hole mass, accretion state, and host properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 21% fraction holds for a hard X-ray selected sample, the true fraction of all broad-line AGN with significant disk emission could be higher, since low-inclination DPEs whose shoulders blend into a single peak are missed; the paper itself notes that 21% is a lower limit.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same fitting and thresholds to spectra with independent reverberation-mapping rms spectra; the rms-based double-peaked components should appear preferentially among the classified DPEs.
  • The visual reclassification step (46 reassigned out, 15 in) suggests the algorithm's raw thresholds overproduce DPEs in outflow-dominated objects; a fully objective classifier trained on outflow indicators such as [O III] wings could sharpen the selection and change the fraction.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic search for double-peaked emitters (DPEs) among 343 hard X-ray selected broad-line AGN from the BASS survey, fitting the Hα profile with the Chen & Halpern (1989) circular disk model. The authors report 71 DPEs, corresponding to about 21% of the sample, and provide best-fit disk parameters for these objects. They compare DPEs with the remaining 272 broad-line AGN across a range of multiwavelength properties, finding that DPEs have higher stellar-velocity-dispersion-based black hole masses by about 0.4 dex, lower Eddington ratios by about 0.3 dex, a preference for elliptical hosts, higher X-ray luminosities, and higher [O I]/Hα ratios, while showing no significant differences in optical and mid-IR variability, WISE colors, obscuration, αox, or radio luminosity distributions. The paper discusses these results in the context of disk-wind models of the broad-line region and the possible bias introduced by DPEs in virial black hole mass estimates.

Significance. If the classification is robust, this is one of the largest systematically selected samples of DPEs, and the hard X-ray selection reduces viewing-angle biases that affect optically selected samples. The claimed DPE fraction of about 21% is substantially higher than the 3.6% found in SDSS quasar samples and would strengthen the case that disk emission contributes to a significant fraction of broad-line AGN, with direct implications for virial mass measurements. The paper also provides best-fit disk parameters for 71 objects and assembles a homogeneous multiwavelength comparison, which is valuable. Notable strengths are the reproducible MCMC fitting procedure, the use of a well-characterized parent sample, and the consistency checks against previously known DPEs. However, the central classification rests on a subjective visual reclassification step that changes the sample by 31 objects, and the headline fraction is quoted without uncertainty; these issues need to be addressed before the population conclusions can be fully trusted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The classification procedure as described in Section 2 is not fully reproducible: after the automated threshold selection yields 102 DPEs (30%), the authors 'visually inspected the disk profile fits' and reassigned 46 DPE candidates to the non-DPE class and 15 non-DPEs to the DPE class, resulting in 71 DPEs (21%). This manual step changes the headline fraction by 9 percentage points, yet no criteria, number of inspectors, inter-rater agreement, or uncertainty on the final 21% are provided. Because every subsequent population comparison in Sections 4–7 uses this split, the manual step is load-bearing. Please make the visual step reproducible by specifying quantitative decision rules, providing a catalog of the 61 reassigned objects with the reasons for each decision, and reporting a measure of inter-rater reliability. In addition, report the DPE fraction with a confidence interval, e.g., 71/343 = 20.7% with a binomial 95% CI, rather than the current uncertainty-free '~21%'.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 1] The thresholds i>14°, σ>600 km/s, and ξ1<1200 are adopted unchanged from Ward et al. (2024), a variability-selected ZTF sample, but are applied here to a hard X-ray selected BASS sample with different signal-to-noise, host galaxy contamination, and outflow properties. The transferability of these thresholds is not tested. In particular, the visual reassignment of 46 objects as outflows rather than disks indicates that the disk model can absorb asymmetric outflow profiles, and Section 7 notes that a large fraction of BASS Sy1.9 and Sy1 objects show [O III] outflow wings. Please demonstrate that the DPE fraction is stable under plausible variations of the thresholds (for example, i>12–20°, σ>400–800 km/s, ξ1<800–1600), or recalibrate the thresholds on a BASS-based validation subset. Without this, the 21% fraction and the derived population differences may depend sensitively on the adopted cuts.
  3. [Abstract, Section 5, Table 3] The abstract states that DPEs have 'lower Eddington ratios by ~0.3 dex', but the supporting KS test in Table 3 for log L/LEdd gives p=0.075 with only 17 DPEs and 81 non-DPEs, which is not significant at the conventional 0.05 level. The word 'confirm' in Section 5 is therefore too strong. Similarly, the mass difference of ~0.4 dex is based on only 18 DPEs (p=0.015) and is evaluated in a table with many comparisons, so the risk of false positives is nontrivial. Please rephrase these claims as trends or marginal results, report confidence intervals on the median differences, and consider a multiple-comparison correction or a note on the number of tests performed.
  4. [Section 2] The parent sample is reduced from 742 AGN to 343 broad-line AGN by excluding 196 Type 2 objects, 179 objects without Hα coverage or with continuum artifacts, and 24 objects with low-S/N broad lines. The paper does not compare the excluded objects with the included sample in terms of redshift, luminosity, or line properties. If the excluded objects preferentially lack Hα coverage at certain redshifts or have systematically weaker broad lines, the estimated DPE fraction could be biased. Please provide a comparison of the redshift, X-ray luminosity, and host galaxy properties of the 343 included objects with the 203 objects excluded after the Type 2 cut, or otherwise argue that the exclusion is independent of DPE status.
  5. [Section 4, Section 7] The highly significant difference in [O I]/Hα ratios (p=2×10⁻⁵ in Table 3) is used in Section 7 as evidence for a lower ionization state in DPEs. However, Section 4 itself notes that 'for DPEs, the dip in the center of the Hα and Hβ broad line profiles can mean that the line ratios are inflated if the broad lines are modeled as Gaussians.' Since the narrow-line measurements from Oh et al. (2022) were obtained with Gaussian fits, this systematic effect may produce the observed difference rather than a physical difference in ionization. Please correct the narrow-line measurements using the disk-plus-Gaussian decomposition presented here, or explicitly downgrade the [O I]/Hα claim to a tentative result pending such a correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The caption of Table 1 states 'Properties of the 70 DPE candidates' while the text and abstract consistently report 71 DPEs; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Table 3] The non-DPE median standard deviations for SIIb/Hα, NIIb/Hα, and OIIIb/Hβ are reported as 329.63, 11737.19, and 4715.37, which are implausibly large and likely reflect a formatting or data error; these entries should be checked and corrected.
  3. [Section 2] The text says that for BAT 744 no adequate model was found and its disk parameters are not reported, but it is unclear whether BAT 744 is counted among the 71 DPEs and, if so, how its non-detection of disk parameters affects the population statistics; please clarify.
  4. [Section 7] In the first paragraph of Section 7, the 19% detection rate among optically variable AGN is attributed to 'Ward et al. 2021', but the relevant reference appears to be Ward et al. (2024), which is cited earlier in the paper; please verify and correct the citation.
  5. [Figure 1] In the caption of Figure 1, the DPE region is described as 'to the right of the vertical dashed lines' for the left and center panels and 'to the left' for the right panel; this is correct but could be made clearer by labeling the shaded DPE region directly in each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DPE fraction and population contrasts are empirical outcomes of a fixed fitting and classification pipeline, not quantities assumed in the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured incidence rate (71/343, about 21%) and associated population differences. The classification pipeline fits Chen & Halpern (1989) disk profiles to all 343 H-alpha spectra and applies fixed thresholds (i > 14 degrees, sigma > 600 km/s, xi1 < 1200) inherited from Ward et al. (2024); the number 71 is the count after fitting and a disclosed visual review, not a target used to set thresholds or tune parameters. The disk-model parameters are free per object, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce a desired DPE fraction; the paper explicitly reports the intermediate algorithmic count (102, 30%) and the reassignments (-46, +15) that yield the final 71, so the headline number is not equivalent to an input. The higher black-hole masses and lower Eddington ratios of DPEs are derived from host stellar velocity dispersions (Caglar et al. 2023) and X-ray luminosities (Ricci et al. 2017), both independent of the disk-profile fit; the virial masses, which the disk model could bias, are explicitly avoided for the population comparison. The self-citation to Ward et al. (2024) supplies the classification thresholds, but those thresholds are externally motivated criteria from a different, variability-selected sample rather than a result being asserted here; the paper also cross-checks consistency with independent earlier samples (Eracleous & Halpern 1994, 2003; Strateva et al. 2003). The visual reassignment step is a reproducibility concern, not circularity: it changes the sample composition but does not make any derived quantity equal to an input by construction. The paper's own acknowledgment that 21% is a lower limit because of missed low-inclination DPEs further indicates the estimate is not a tautology. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation or fitted-input reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the Chen-Halpern disk model and thresholds from the authors' prior work to define the DPE class. The central statistical claims are empirical comparisons, so they do not introduce new entities or constants. The free parameters are the per-object disk fits and the classification thresholds, plus the visual reassignment choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Disk model free parameters (i, sigma, q, xi1, xi2, spiral arm) per object = fitted for 71 DPEs (Table 2)
    Each DPE's H-alpha profile is fit with a circular disk model; these parameters are model outputs used for classification, not independent evidence.
  • DPE classification thresholds (i>14 deg, sigma>600 km/s, xi1<1200) = adopted from Ward et al. (2024)
    These thresholds determine the DPE sample but are not derived from BASS data; they are taken from the authors' prior variability-selected sample.
  • Visual reclassification decisions = 46 DPEs moved to non-DPE, 15 moved to DPE
    Subjective reassignment after automated fitting changes the DPE fraction; it is a human-selected modification of the fitted output.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Chen & Halpern (1989) circular disk model, with optional spiral arm, adequately describes DPE broad line profiles.
    Section 2 uses this model for all 343 objects; if the model is wrong, classifications fail.
  • ad hoc to paper The thresholds i>14 deg, sigma>600 km/s, xi1<1200 separate DPEs from non-DPEs, as established in Ward et al. (2024).
    These numbers are adopted from a previous paper with overlapping authorship; they are not derived here and the paper notes they miss low-inclination DPEs.
  • domain assumption The Kormendy & Ho (2013) MBH-sigma* relation applies to BASS host galaxies.
    Used in Section 5 to estimate BH masses from stellar velocity dispersions; if the relation is biased for these galaxies, the mass and Eddington ratio comparisons are affected.
  • domain assumption The BASS sample of 343 broad-line AGN is representative of the parent hard X-ray selected AGN population.
    Section 2 excludes 179 objects without H-alpha coverage or artifacts and 24 with unconstrained fits; representativeness is asserted but not quantitatively checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BASS LII: The prevalence of double-peaked broad lines at low accretion rates among hard X-ray selected AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOIE47XV

@misc{pith2026250705380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BASS LII: The prevalence of double-peaked broad lines at low accretion rates among hard X-ray selected AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOIE47XV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05380}
}
abstract

A fraction of active galactic nuclei (AGN) have double-peaked H$\alpha$, H$\beta$ and Mg II broad lines attributed to emission from rotating gas in the accretion disk. Using optical spectroscopy of a flux-limited sample of AGN selected via ultrahard X-rays from the BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey (BASS), we systematically identify 71 double-peaked emitters amongst 343 broad-line AGN with redshifts $0.004<z<0.297$ and 2-10 KeV X-ray luminosities of log 40-45.7 (erg/s), and provide their best-fit accretion disk geometry parameters. We find that ~21% of X-ray selected broad-line AGN are double-peaked emitters (DPEs), consistent with rates previously reported for $z<0.2$ broad-line AGN selected for strong optical variability in ZTF. 11 of 71 DPEs (15%) exhibited a single-peaked Gaussian component to the broad line profile in addition to the double-peaked disk profile. In this sample, DPEs have intrinsically higher masses by ~0.4 dex and lower Eddington ratios by ~0.3 dex than other broad-line AGN, and have a preference for elliptical host galaxies, higher X-ray luminosities, and higher [OI] $\lambda$6302 to narrow H$\alpha$ flux ratios than other broad-line AGN. We find that DPEs are not segregated from other broad-line AGN in the $L_{\rm bol}$ vs $M_{\rm BH}$ relation or their X-ray to radio luminosity ratios, and do not show a preference for intermediate Seyfert types over Seyfert 1s. We do not find differences in a wide range of multi-wavelength properties when comparing DPEs to other broad-line AGN, including optical and mid-IR variability levels, and the rate of changing-look events. We discuss the two populations in the context of multi-component disk-wind models of the AGN broad line region and consider how unrecognized contributions of disk emission to the broad lines introduce biases in virial SMBH mass estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms showing the distributions of the three disk parameters used to separate DPEs from AGN without double￾peaked broad lines. DPEs were classified as those with inclination angle > 14 °, turbulent broadening > 600 km s−1 , and inner radius < 1200 gravitational radii, corresponding to the gray shaded regions to the right of the vertical dashed lines in the left and center plots, and to the left of the vertical … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of the parent sample after splitting into DPEs and non-DPE AGN: redshift (left), bolometric luminosity derived from the 14-150 keV intrinsic luminosities (center), and host galaxy types according to the classifications of Parra Tello et al. (2025) (right). ters which were common for all narrow lines: the velocity dispersion of the first Gaussian component σ1, the ve￾locity dispersion of the second Gaussia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of different disk profile morphologies for 12 DPEs identified in the parent sample for DPEs where an additional Gaussian broad line component was not required to produce a good fit. We show the data from the continuum￾subtracted spectrum reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Disk profile morphologies for the 11 DPEs identified in the parent sample where an additional Gaussian broad line component was required to produce a good fit. We show the data from the continuum-subtracted spectrum reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical (ZTF) and mid-IR (WISE) light curves of six BASS DPEs. The left y-axes display the ZTF AB magnitudes while the right y-axes display the WISE Vega magnitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized histograms comparing multi-wavelength properties of the BASS AGN after they are split into two classes: DPEs and non-DPE broad-line BASS AGN. For each histogram, we only show cases where that property was detected. The number of objects with detections going…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: W1-W2 color vs W2 magnitude, and the As￾sef et al. (2013) cutoff for AGN. Magnitudes are Vega mag￾nitudes. We show the BASS AGN split into two samples: DPEs and non-DPE BASS broad-line AGN. W2 plot, with the classical AGN mid-IR color cut from Assef et al. (2013) overl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: BPT diagrams showing the narrow emission line ratios derived in Oh et al. (2022) for BASS AGN split into two samples: DPEs and other broad-line AGN. The line diagnostics for different emission types (Baldwin et al. 1981; Kauffmann et al. 2003; Kewley et al. 2001; Kewle…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of masses (left) and derived Edding￾ton ratios (right) when comparing DPEs and the non-DPE BASS broad line AGN. For both the masses and the Ed￾dington ratios we used the BH mass extrapolated from the stellar velocity dispersion of the host galaxy. We indicat…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Compact 22 GHz radio luminosity from Magno et al. (2025) vs the 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity reported in Ricci et al. (2017) for DPEs and non-DPE broad-line BASS AGN. In grey, we show the best-fit relation for BASS radio￾detected BASS AGN from Magno et al. (2025). No str…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Relationship between the sine of the inclination angle and the FWHM of the broad line for the DPEs, split into populations with a small σ < 1000 km s−1 broadening parameter and a large σ > 1000 km s−1 broadening param￾eter. The black curve and grey shaded region denot…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Where did all the Little Red Dots go? The abundance of LRD analogues among objects with broad lines at $z < 0.35$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Only 0.08% of low-redshift broad-line objects have SEDs resembling high-redshift Little Red Dots, yielding nine candidates, one of which is the known analogue 'The Egg'.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Dn I s<)g H ? LGkCGG <

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 772, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/26 2013

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5, 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    H., Narayan , R., & Quataert , E

    Ball , G. H., Narayan , R., & Quataert , E. 2001, , 552, 221, 10.1086/320465

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Peterson , B

    Bentz , M. C., Peterson , B. M., Netzer , H., Pogge , R. W., & Vestergaard , M. 2009, , 697, 160, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/160

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 721, 10.1086/521180

    Bian, W., Chen, Y., Gu, Q., & Wang, J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 721, 10.1086/521180

    2007 doi

  5. [14]

    2020, , 634, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936321

    Caglar , T., Burtscher , L., Brandl , B., et al. 2020, , 634, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936321

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    J., Burtscher, L., et al

    Caglar, T., Koss, M. J., Burtscher, L., et al. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01800

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  8. [17]

    2003, 138, 10.1086/381875

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2003, 138, 10.1086/381875

    2003 doi

  9. [18]

    S., & Hall, P

    Chajet, L. S., & Hall, P. B. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3214, 10.1093/mnras/sts580

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, , 969, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad479a

    Chanchaiworawit , K., & Sarajedini , V. 2024, , 969, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad479a

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    Chen, K., & Halpern, J. P. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 344, 115, 10.1086/167782

    1989 doi

  12. [21]

    2016, , 832, 15, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/15

    Czerny , B., Du , P., Wang , J.-M., & Karas , V. 2016, , 832, 15, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/15

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 1806, 10.1016/j.asr.2015.01.004

    Czerny , B., Modzelewska , J., Petrogalli , F., et al. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 1806, 10.1016/j.asr.2015.01.004

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 038001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    S., Koss , M

    den Brok , J. S., Koss , M. J., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al. 2022, , 261, 7, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b66

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    D., Peterson, B

    Denney, K. D., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 721, 715, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/715

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    C., Rees , M

    Di Matteo , T., Fabian , A. C., Rees , M. J., Carilli , C. L., & Ivison , R. J. 1999, , 305, 492, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02334.x

    1999

  18. [27]

    W., Narayan , R., & Fabian , A

    Di Matteo , T., Quataert , E., Allen , S. W., Narayan , R., & Fabian , A. C. 2000, , 311, 507, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03134.x

    2000

  19. [28]

    2023, , 953, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace974

    Dias dos Santos , D., Rodr \' guez-Ardila , A., Panda , S., & Marinello , M. 2023, , 953, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace974

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    C., et al

    Doan, A., Eracleous, M., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1104, 10.1093/mnras/stz2705

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    J., Djorgovski , S

    Drake , A. J., Djorgovski , S. G., Mahabal , A., et al. 2009, , 696, 870, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  22. [31]

    Elitzur, M., & Ho, L. C. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, L91, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L91

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    C., & Trump, J

    Elitzur, M., Ho, L. C., & Trump, J. R. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 3340, 10.1093/mnras/stt2445

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    2006, , 648, L101, 10.1086/508158

    Elitzur , M., & Shlosman , I. 2006, , 648, L101, 10.1086/508158

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    T., Blandford , R

    Emmering , R. T., Blandford , R. D., & Shlosman , I. 1992, , 385, 460, 10.1086/170955

    1992 doi

  26. [35]

    Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 90, 1, 10.1086/191856

    1994 doi

  27. [36]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 886, 10.1086/379540

    ---. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 886, 10.1086/379540

    2003 doi

  28. [37]

    Eracleous, M., Halpern, J. P., M. Gilbert, A., Newman, J. A., & Filippenko, A. V. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 216, 10.1086/304859

    1997 doi

  29. [38]

    T., & Flohic, H

    Eracleous, M., Lewis, K. T., & Flohic, H. M. 2009, New Astronomy Reviews, 53, 133, 10.1016/j.newar.2009.07.005

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    V., & Sargent , W

    Filippenko , A. V., & Sargent , W. L. W. 1985, , 57, 503, 10.1086/191012

    1985 doi

  31. [40]

    Flohic, H. M. L. G., Eracleous, M., & Bogdanovi \' c , T. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/133

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2023, , 524, 5827, 10.1093/mnras/stad2214

    Fu , Y., Cappellari , M., Mao , S., et al. 2023, , 524, 5827, 10.1093/mnras/stad2214

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O'Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Greene , J

    Goulding , A. D., Greene , J. E., Setton , D. J., et al. 2023, , 955, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 1, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    E., & Ho , L

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

    2005 doi

  38. [47]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Guedel , M., & Benz , A. O. 1993, , 405, L63, 10.1086/186766

    1993 doi

  40. [49]

    K., Ricci, C., Temple, M

    Gupta, K. K., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2024

    2024

  41. [50]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46, 475, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Ho , L. C. 2009, , 699, 626, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/626

    2009 doi

  44. [53]

    C., Filippenko , A

    Ho , L. C., Filippenko , A. V., & Sargent , W. L. 1995, , 98, 477, 10.1086/192170

    1995 doi

  45. [54]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., & Peng, C. Y. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 112, 391, 10.1086/313042

    1997 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Rudnick, G., Rix, H., et al

    Ho, L. C., Rudnick, G., Rix, H., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 120, 10.1086/309440

    2000 doi

  47. [56]

    L., Awaki , H., et al

    Ishisaki , Y., Kelley , R. L., Awaki , H., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 121811...

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    X., & Wang , T

    Jiang , P., Wang , J. X., & Wang , T. G. 2006, , 644, 725, 10.1086/503866

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    S., Netzer , H., et al

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

    2000 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346, 1055, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    2003

  51. [60]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121, 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  52. [61]

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

    Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T. 2006, , 372, 961, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    2006

  53. [62]

    2003, , 412, L61, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034611

    Kollatschny , W. 2003, , 412, L61, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034611

    2003 doi

  54. [63]

    L., et al

    Kollatschny , W., Grupe , D., Parker , M. L., et al. 2020, , 638, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037897

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    M., Dunkley , J., et al

    Komatsu , E., Smith , K. M., Dunkley , J., et al. 2011, , 192, 18, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  56. [65]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  57. [66]

    2017, , 850, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    Koss , M., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al. 2017, , 850, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    J., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al

    Koss , M. J., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al. 2022 a , , 261, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c8f

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al

    Koss , M. J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al. 2022 b , , 261, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    2008, , 390, 847, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x

    Laor , A., & Behar , E. 2008, , 390, 847, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x

    2008

  62. [71]

    T., & Eracleous, M

    Lewis, K. T., & Eracleous, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 711, 10.1086/501419

    2006 doi

  63. [72]

    L., Wong , O

    Magno , M., Smith , K. L., Wong , O. I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17224, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17224

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    M., et al

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

    2014 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 1, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    E., Trakhtenbrot , B., Koss , M

    Mej \' a-Restrepo , J. E., Trakhtenbrot , B., Koss , M. J., et al. 2022, , 261, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6602

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    2024, , 966, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c2a

    Mezcua , M., Pacucci , F., Suh , H., Siudek , M., & Natarajan , P. 2024, , 966, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c2a

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    1996, Nature, 382, 789, 10.1038/382789a0

    Murray, N., & Chiang, J. 1996, Nature, 382, 789, 10.1038/382789a0

    1996 doi

  70. [79]

    A., & Voit , G

    Murray , N., Chiang , J., Grossman , S. A., & Voit , G. M. 1995, , 451, 498, 10.1086/176238

    1995 doi

  71. [80]

    2002, , 567, 73, 10.1086/338549

    Nagao , T., Murayama , T., Shioya , Y., & Taniguchi , Y. 2002, , 567, 73, 10.1086/338549

    2002 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, , 529, 393, 10.1093/mnras/stae319

    Nagoshi , S., Iwamuro , F., Yamada , S., et al. 2024, , 529, 393, 10.1093/mnras/stae319

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2020, NEOWISE-R Single Exposure (L1b) Source Table , IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA144

    NEOWISE Team . 2020, NEOWISE-R Single Exposure (L1b) Source Table , IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA144

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    1993, , 404, L51, 10.1086/186741

    Netzer , H., & Laor , A. 1993, , 404, L51, 10.1086/186741

    1993 doi

  75. [84]

    C., et al

    Nguyen, K., Bogdanovi \' c , T., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeff0

    2018 doi

  76. [85]

    W., Weilbacher , P

    Ochmann , M. W., Weilbacher , P. M., Probst , M. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21994, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21994

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

    J., Ueda , Y., et al

    Oh , K., Koss , M. J., Ueda , Y., et al. 2022, , 261, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b68

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    D., et al

    Onoue , M., Ding , X., Silverman , J. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07113, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07113

    2024 doi arXiv

  79. [88]

    E., & Ferland , G

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

    2006

  80. [89]

    L., O'Brien , P

    Page , K. L., O'Brien , P. T., Reeves , J. N., & Turner , M. J. L. 2004, , 347, 316, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07203.x

    2004

  81. [90]

    2012, , 747, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/30

    Park , D., Woo , J.-H., Treu , T., et al. 2012, , 747, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/30

    2012 doi

  82. [91]

    E., De Cicco , D., et al

    Parra Tello , M., Bauer , F. E., De Cicco , D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21800, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21800

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [92]

    Peterson , B. M. 1993, , 105, 247, 10.1086/133140

    1993 doi

  84. [93]

    2014, , 183, 253, 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4

    ---. 2014, , 183, 253, 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4

    2014 doi

  85. [94]

    M., & Wandel , A

    Peterson , B. M., & Wandel , A. 2000, , 540, L13, 10.1086/312862

    2000 doi

  86. [95]

    C ., Mediavilla, E., Bon, E., & Ili \' c , D

    Popovi \' c , L. C ., Mediavilla, E., Bon, E., & Ili \' c , D. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 423, 909, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034431

    2004 doi

  87. [96]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    2017 doi

  89. [98]

    F., Sani , E., Gavignaud , I., et al

    Rojas , A. F., Sani , E., Gavignaud , I., et al. 2020, , 491, 5867, 10.1093/mnras/stz3386

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    C., Eracleous , M., Bogdanovi \'c , T., Halpern , J

    Runnoe , J. C., Eracleous , M., Bogdanovi \'c , T., Halpern , J. P., & Sigurdsson , S. 2025, , 984, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/adba58

    2025 doi

  91. [100]

    2007, , 382, 1415, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    Schawinski , K., Thomas , D., Sarzi , M., et al. 2007, , 382, 1415, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    2007

  92. [101]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Nemmen, R

    Schimoia, J. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Nemmen, R. S., Winge, C., & Eracleous, M. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 748, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/145

    2012 doi

  93. [102]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Winge, C., Nemmen, R

    Schimoia, J. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Winge, C., Nemmen, R. S., & Eracleous, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 2170, 10.1093/mnras/stx2107

    2017 doi

  94. [103]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    Shen , Y. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    2013 doi arXiv

  95. [104]

    E., Strauss , M

    Shen , Y., Greene , J. E., Strauss , M. A., Richards , G. T., & Schneider , D. P. 2008, , 680, 169, 10.1086/587475

    2008 doi

  96. [105]

    2019, , 873, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    Shen , Y., Wu , J., Jiang , L., et al. 2019, , 873, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    2019 doi

  97. [106]

    S., Peterson, B

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schimoia, J. S., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 236, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/236

    2017 doi

  98. [107]

    2003, , 598, 956, 10.1086/378938

    Storchi-Bergmann , T., Nemmen da Silva , R., Eracleous , M., et al. 2003, , 598, 956, 10.1086/378938

    2003 doi

  99. [108]

    V., Strauss, M

    Strateva, I. V., Strauss, M. A., Hao, L., et al. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 1720, 10.1086/378367

    2003 doi

  100. [109]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro , M., Maejima , H., Toda , K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 1144422, 1...

    2020 doi

  101. [110]

    J., Ricci , C., Koss , M

    Temple , M. J., Ricci , C., Koss , M. J., et al. 2023, , 518, 2938, 10.1093/mnras/stac3279

    2023 doi

  102. [111]

    Terashima , Y., & Wilson , A. S. 2003, , 583, 145, 10.1086/345339

    2003 doi

  103. [112]

    2023, , 677, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

    \"U bler , H., Maiolino , R., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2023, , 677, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

    2023 doi

  104. [113]

    2011, , 536, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118072

    Vagnetti , F., Turriziani , S., & Trevese , D. 2011, , 536, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118072

    2011 doi

  105. [114]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2021 doi

  106. [115]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  107. [116]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf246

    Ward, C., Gezari, S., Frederick, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf246

    2021 doi

  108. [117]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8666

    Ward, C., Gezari, S., Nugent, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8666

    2022 doi

  109. [118]

    2024, , 961, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad147d

    Ward , C., Gezari , S., Nugent , P., et al. 2024, , 961, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad147d

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

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

    2015 doi

  111. [120]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  112. [121]

    Wu, X., & Liu, F. K. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 91, 10.1086/423446

    2004 doi

  113. [122]

    2024, , 973, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    Xrism Collaboration , Audard , M., Awaki , H., et al. 2024, , 973, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    2024 doi

  114. [123]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2203, 10.1093/mnras/stw2489

    Zhang, X.-G., & Feng, L.-L. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2203, 10.1093/mnras/stw2489

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.