Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

BASS LIII: The Eddington Ratio as the Primary Regulator of the Fraction of X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 4 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 The Eddington ratio, not bolometric luminosity, is the primary regulator of the X-ray emission fraction in active galactic nuclei.

desk verdict A solid, well-posed BASS study with a genuinely new empirical result, but the claim that Eddington ratio is the primary regulator is stronger than the statistics currently support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12541 v1 pith:3W4EQZZE submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Kriti Kamal Gupta , Claudio Ricci , Alessia Tortosa , Matthew J. Temple , Michael J. Koss , Benny Trakhtenbrot , Franz E. Bauer , Ezequiel Treister
show 15 more authors
Richard Mushotzky Elias Kammoun Iossif Papadakis Kyuseok Oh Alejandra Rojas Chin-Shin Chang Yaherlyn Diaz Arghajit Jana Darshan Kakkad Ignacio del Moral-Castro Alessandro Peca Meredith C. Powell Daniel Stern C. Megan Urry Fiona Harrison
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleiEddingtonratioX-raybolometriccorrectionaccretionphysicsspectralenergydistributionsupermassiveblackholeslow-luminosityAGNhardsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the fraction of an active galaxy's energy emitted as X-rays is governed by its Eddington ratio — the accretion rate relative to the black hole's Eddington limit — rather than by its total bolometric luminosity. Using a sample of 236 nearby, hard X-ray selected, unobscured active galactic nuclei (AGN) with simultaneous optical, UV, and X-ray data, the authors show that the known increase of the 2–10 keV bolometric correction with luminosity vanishes for sources with an Eddington ratio below 0.01, while the correlation with the Eddington ratio itself persists across all luminosity and black-hole mass bins. They interpret this as evidence that the accretion flow changes structure at low Eddington ratios, with X-ray emission scaling with total luminosity rather than saturating as it does at higher accretion rates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the X-ray bolometric correction $\kappa_{2-10}=L_{\rm bol}/L_{2-10}$, which measures what share of an AGN's total luminosity emerges in the 2–10 keV band. The analysis rests on a sample of 236 hard X-ray selected unobscured AGN at $z<0.1$ with simultaneous optical, UV, and X-ray spectral energy distributions, plus black-hole masses from virial or reverberation measurements for 234 of the sources. The discriminating step is a binning analysis: the sample is divided into bins of $\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ and $L_{\rm bol}$ to see which correlation survives when the other parameter is held roughly fixed. The disappearance of the $\kappa_{2-10}$–$L_{\rm bol}$ correlation in the $\lambda_{\rm Edd}<0.01$ bin, together with the persistence of the $\kappa_{2-10}$–$\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ correlation in all luminosity and mass bins, is the evidence that carries the claim.

What would settle it

Measure $\kappa_{2-10}$ for a sample of low-Eddington-ratio AGN whose black-hole masses are measured independently of the virial method (e.g., from megamaser disks or stellar dynamics); if the $\kappa_{2-10}$–$L_{\rm bol}$ correlation reappears in the $\lambda_{\rm Edd}<0.01$ bin when these masses are used, the claim that Eddington ratio is the primary regulator would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Eddington ratio is the primary regulator of the X-ray emission fraction in AGN. In the paper's own terms, the 2–10 keV bolometric correction $\kappa_{2-10}=L_{\rm bol}/L_{2-10}$ correlates positively with both bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio over the full sample, but when the sample is split by Eddington ratio, the luminosity correlation persists only for sources with $0.01<\lambda_{\rm Edd}<1$ and disappears for $\lambda_{\rm Edd}<0.01$. In contrast, the Eddington-ratio correlation is recovered regardless of how the sample is binned in luminosity or black-hole mass, which the authors take as proof that $\lambda_{\rm Edd}$, not $L_{\rm bol}$, drives the fraction of X-ray emission.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the accuracy of the black-hole masses: if virial masses carry large systematic errors, particularly at low luminosity, the Eddington-ratio bins could mix sources of different true accretion rates, and the disappearance of the $\kappa_{2-10}$–$L_{\rm bol}$ correlation below $\lambda_{\rm Edd}<0.01$ could be a binning artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bolometric corrections derived from luminosity alone will systematically overestimate the X-ray fraction at low Eddington ratios, where the luminosity correlation breaks down.
  • The transition at $\lambda_{\rm Edd}\sim0.01$ supports the picture in which the standard thin disk collapses into an inefficient, X-ray-dominated flow at low accretion rates, analogous to state changes in black hole X-ray binaries.
  • At high Eddington ratios, X-ray emission saturates while optical/UV emission grows, so the very brightest AGN emit a smaller share of their energy in X-rays.
  • The $\kappa_{2-10}$–$\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ relation can serve as a practical tool to estimate bolometric luminosities from X-ray data for local unobscured AGN across five orders of magnitude in Eddington ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is that Eddington ratio, not luminosity, should be the driving variable in AGN spectral-energy-distribution fitting and feedback models; using luminosity as the state parameter will mix different accretion regimes.
  • The same binning logic could be applied to optical/UV bolometric corrections to test whether the Eddington ratio is the primary regulator of the whole spectral shape, not just the X-ray fraction.
  • If the flat $\kappa_{2-10}$ behavior at low $\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ is robust, then X-ray selected surveys that infer accretion rates from X-ray luminosity may need to account for a change in the luminosity–accretion-rate mapping below $\lambda_{\rm Edd}\sim0.01$.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 236 nearby, unobscured, hard X-ray selected AGN with simultaneous optical-to-X-ray SEDs to determine whether the 2–10 keV X-ray bolometric correction (κ2−10) is primarily controlled by bolometric luminosity (Lbol) or Eddington ratio (λEdd). The authors confirm known positive correlations of κ2−10 with Lbol and λEdd, find no overall dependence on black hole mass, and then split the sample by λEdd to claim that the Lbol–κ2−10 correlation disappears for λEdd < 0.01 (Fig. 3). They interpret this as evidence that λEdd is the primary regulator of the X-ray emission fraction and that a change in accretion physics occurs near λEdd ~ 0.01. The paper also compares with and extends to high-redshift samples from the literature.

Significance. If established, the claim that λEdd is the primary regulator of X-ray bolometric corrections would be an important step beyond previous work that treated Lbol and λEdd as degenerate. The sample is uniquely well suited for this test: hard X-ray selection avoids optical selection biases, the SEDs are simultaneous, and the dynamic range in Lbol and λEdd is large. The paper also benefits from careful host-galaxy subtraction and from comparison with an established literature sample (Duras et al. 2020). However, the central claim currently rests on a visual flatness of binned medians in a subsample of only 36 sources, with no reported significance test or formal control for the other variable. The statistical analysis as presented is therefore not yet sufficient to support the headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 3] The claim that the κ2−10–Lbol correlation 'disappears' for λEdd < 0.01 is not supported by any reported quantitative test. The text says the trend 'seems to disappear' and the figure shows median points with error bars, but no Spearman/Pearson p-value, slope, or confidence interval is given for the low-λEdd subsample. With only 36 sources in that bin (and bins requiring a minimum of six sources), the flat appearance could simply reflect low statistical power. Please report a correlation test for each λEdd bin separately, and ideally a formal test of whether the slope in the low-λEdd bin is inconsistent with the slope in the intermediate/high bins (e.g., bootstrapped slope difference or an interaction term in a regression).
  2. [§3.4] The 'primary regulator' conclusion requires controlling for one parameter while examining the other, but the analysis is limited to binned splits without a formal partial-correlation or multivariate regression. The two-way splits in Fig. 2 are only at the median and do not include significance values for the separate panels. A proper partial correlation of log κ2−10 with log λEdd given log Lbol (and vice versa), or a regression with both variables, would directly test which variable survives controlling for the other. As it stands, the evidence is consistent with λEdd being important, but it does not rigorously establish primacy over Lbol.
  3. [§2 and §3.4] Uncertainties in MBH and Lbol are not propagated into the computed λEdd values or into the correlation tests. The Eddington ratio is derived from virial black hole masses that carry both statistical and systematic uncertainties; at low luminosity and low λEdd these uncertainties can be large enough to scatter sources across the λEdd = 0.01 boundary, potentially producing or masking the claimed flat trend. Please quantify this effect (e.g., Monte Carlo resampling of MBH and Lbol within their uncertainties) or at least discuss the magnitude of the mass uncertainties and their impact on the binning.
  4. [§3.4 and Abstract] The interpretation that 'the accretion mechanism changes at low Eddington ratios' goes beyond the data presented. The observed flat κ2−10–Lbol relation could also arise from a restricted Lbol range in the low-λEdd bin or from selection effects linked to how low-λEdd sources are identified in a hard-X-ray-selected sample. The paper itself acknowledges in §3.2 that 'it is really hard to comment on how κ2−10 evolves in this regime.' The abstract and conclusions should be tempered accordingly until the statistical robustness of the flattening is established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The sentence 'since we only have have a few sources in this bin' contains a duplicated word ('have have').
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (3)] In the line following Eq. (3), 'ergs s−1' should be 'erg s−1' (missing space).
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The figure caption says 'black and blue lines show the median value' but the legend in the text refers to 'black diamonds' and 'blue circles'. Please make the symbols/lines consistent between text, caption, and figure.
  4. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The polynomial fit in Eq. (1) has coefficients with very large fractional uncertainties (e.g., 37.75 ± 26.15). This suggests strong covariance between terms; it would be helpful to report the covariance matrix or to center the variable, as is already done via Lbol,45, to improve interpretability.
  5. [§4.3] The statement that the high-z dependence 'could be due to sample selection effects at such high redshifts' is appropriately cautious, but this point should also be reflected in the abstract, which currently states the primary-regulator claim without this caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the shared Lbol in κ2-10 and λEdd is acknowledged and controlled by binning; the headline flattening at low λEdd is empirical, not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The central claim ('λEdd is the primary regulator of the X-ray emission fraction') is inferred from the conditional behavior of the κ2–10–Lbol relation in Eddington-ratio bins (Sect. 3.4, Fig. 3). This inference is not forced by the definitions. Writing κ2−10 = Lbol/L2−10 and λEdd = Lbol/LEdd only shows that both variables contain Lbol; within a fixed λEdd bin, κ2−10 versus Lbol is Lbol/L2−10 versus Lbol, and no equation in the paper ties L2−10 to Lbol. The observed flattening below λEdd ≲ 0.01 is therefore an empirical correlation property, not a tautology. The paper itself states the degeneracy explicitly in the Introduction ('since these two parameters are intrinsically linked to each other ... it has been challenging to disentangle them') and attempts to control it by median binning with at least six sources per bin. The absence of a significance test for the low-λEdd flattening (no slope or p-value quoted for the subsample in Fig. 3) is a statistical weakness, as is the relatively small number of sources (36/236) in that bin, but these are not circularity. The companion-paper citation G24 supplies the SED-derived Lbol, L2−10, and MBH values; this is a normal data-provenance citation, not a load-bearing argument that assumes the present conclusion. Similarly, Kammoun et al. (2025) is cited as interpretive support, not as the basis of the statistical claim. The paper also compares against external samples (Duras et al. 2020; Trefoloni et al. 2023), providing independent benchmarks. Its own caveats — few sources in the lowest Eddington-ratio bin (Sect. 3.2) and possible high-redshift selection biases (Sect. 4.3) — further show that the authors do not present the result as definitionally forced. I therefore find no circular step reaching the 6+ threshold; the residual shared-variable coupling is acknowledged and is not the load-bearing derivation.

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

The central claim is an observational correlation; it relies on the assumed disk model and mass estimates rather than on any new theoretical construct. The only fitted quantities in this paper are the polynomial coefficients describing the trends; the primary evidence, the flattening of the κ-Lbol relation at low λEdd, is based on binned medians and does not use these coefficients.

free parameters (4)
  • Polynomial coefficients, Eq. 1 (log κ2-10 vs Lbol) = a=37.75±26.15, b=-78.99±53.03, c=42.52±26.88
    Best-fit quadratic describing the overall κ-Lbol relation; descriptive, not used to establish the primary-regulator claim.
  • Polynomial coefficients, Eq. 2 (log κ2-10 vs log λEdd) = a=1.54±0.06, b=0.31±0.09, c=0.05±0.03
    Best-fit quadratic for κ vs λEdd; descriptive.
  • Polynomial coefficients, Eq. 3 (combined sample including high-z) = a=122.18±19.13, b=-250.54±37.64, c=129.64±18.50
    Best-fit quadratic for the combined sample including high-z sources.
  • Polynomial coefficients, Eq. 4 (log κ2-10 vs log λEdd, combined sample) = a=1.94±0.04, b=0.70±0.08, c=0.14±0.03
    Best-fit quadratic for κ vs λEdd including high-z sources.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70, ΩM=0.3, Ωλ=0.7
    Used to derive luminosities from fluxes; Section 1.
  • domain assumption Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk model with inner radius fixed at 6 Rg describes the optical/UV continuum for all sources
    Used in SED fitting in G24 to derive Lbol; Section 2. The paper acknowledges it may fail at low Eddington ratios.
  • domain assumption Virial black hole mass estimates (or reverberation mapping) give reliable masses for 234/236 sources
    Used to compute Eddington ratios; Section 2.
  • domain assumption Hard X-ray selection at 14-195 keV provides an unbiased sample of local unobscured AGN
    Used to generalize the result to the nearby AGN population; Sections 2 and 5.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity estimated by summing optical/UV (1000 μm to 0.1 keV) and X-ray (0.1-500 keV) intrinsic luminosities captures the total AGN output
    Central to κ2-10 and λEdd; Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BASS LIII: The Eddington Ratio as the Primary Regulator of the Fraction of X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3W4EQZZE

@misc{pith2026250712541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BASS LIII: The Eddington Ratio as the Primary Regulator of the Fraction of X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3W4EQZZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12541}
}
abstract

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) emit radiation via accretion across the entire energy spectrum. While the standard disk and corona model can somewhat describe this emission, it fails to predict specific features such as the soft X-ray excess, the short-term optical/UV variability, and the observed UV/X-ray correlation in AGN. In this context, the fraction of AGN emission in different bands (i.e., bolometric corrections) can be useful to better understand the accretion physics of AGN. Past studies have shown that the X-ray bolometric corrections are strongly dependent on the physical properties of AGN, such as their luminosities and Eddington ratios. However, since these two parameters depend on each other, it has been unclear which is the main driver of the X-ray bolometric corrections. We present here results from a large study of hard X-ray-selected (14-195 keV) nearby ($z<0.1$) AGN. Based on our systematic analysis of the simultaneous optical-to-X-ray spectral energy distributions of 236 unobscured AGN, we found that the primary parameter controlling the X-ray bolometric corrections is the Eddington ratio. Our results show that while the X-ray bolometric correction increases with the bolometric luminosity for sources with intermediate Eddington ratios ($0.01-1$), this dependence vanishes for sources with lower Eddington ratios ($<0.01$). This could be used as evidence for a change in the accretion physics of AGN at low Eddington ratios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between the 2–10 keV bolometric correction and AGN properties. We show κ2−10 as a function of the bolometric luminosity (top left panel), the Eddington ratio (top right panel), and black hole mass (bottom panel) for our sample of hard-X-ray-selected unobscured AGN. We found an increase in κ2−10 with Lbol and λEdd, but did not find any dependence of κ2−10 on MBH. The solid black line shows the best-fit relat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 2–10 keV bolometric correction vs AGN properties, for different ranges of bolometric luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio. We have plotted κ2−10 as a function of MBH (top panel) in bins of the bolometric luminosity (top) and Eddington ratio (bottom), λEdd (middle panel) in bins of the black hole mass (top) and the bolometric luminosity (bottom), and Lbol (bottom panel) in bins of black hole mass (top… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relation between the 2–10 keV bolometric correction and the bolometric luminosity in three bins of Eddington ratio. We show κ2−10 as a function of Lbol for three different ranges of λEdd. The black, blue, and red lines show the median value of κ2−10 in each bin of Lbol, for the three ranges of λEdd (< 0.01, 0.01 − 0.1, and > 0.1). The shaded gray, blue, and red regions are the one sigma uncertainties on the median. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relation between the 2–10 keV bolometric correction and AGN properties after including high-z sources (shown as black stars) from Duras et al. (2020) and Trefoloni et al. (2023). Left panel: The best-fit relation (dashed red line) between κ2−10 and Lbol after including…

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. Unification models of Active Galactic Nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    Overview chapter summarizing traditional orientation-based and radiation-regulated unification models for AGN, including evolutionary aspects and changing-look AGN.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1986, ApJ, 305, 83, doi: 10.1086/164230

    Avni, Y., & Tananbaum, H. 1986, ApJ, 305, 83, doi: 10.1086/164230

    work page doi:10.1086/164230 1986

  2. [2]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 12 Gupta et al

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  3. [3]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19 2013

  4. [4]

    Bechtold, J., Czerny, B., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., & Green, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 314, 699, doi: 10.1086/165098

    work page doi:10.1086/165098 1987

  5. [5]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 161, High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes, ed. J. Poutanen & R. Svensson, 295, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901108

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9901108 1999

  6. [6]

    A., Curran, P

    Breeveld, A. A., Curran, P. A., Hoversten, E. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1687, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  8. [8]

    M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mejía-Restrepo, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mejía-Restrepo, J. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2266 —. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2266 2015

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Collier, S., & Peterson, B. M. 2001, ApJ, 555, 775, doi: 10.1086/321517

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R

    Crummy, J., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R. R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09844.x

    2006

  3. [11]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    2012

  4. [12]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierliński, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 García, J

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 García, J. A., Kara, E., Walton, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf739

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Ross, N

    Graham, M. J., Ross, N. P., Stern, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3244

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Ricci, C., Temple, M

    Gupta, K. K., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450567

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    D., et al

    Hagen, S., Done, C., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2272

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Greenhill, L

    Herrnstein, J. R., Greenhill, L. J., Moran, J. M., et al. 1998, ApJL, 497, L69, doi: 10.1086/311284

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    F., Squire, J., Quataert, E., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Quataert, E., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 20, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.04507

    2024

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Jana, A., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451058

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    E., Dovčiak, M., et al

    Kammoun, E., Papadakis, I. E., Dovčiak, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452629

    2025 doi

  15. [24]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf145

    Kang, J.-L., Done, C., Hagen, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf145

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489, doi: 10.1086/519947

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    1999, PASP, 111, 1, doi: 10.1086/316294

    Koratkar, A., & Blaes, O. 1999, PASP, 111, 1, doi: 10.1086/316294

    1999 doi

  18. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

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

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

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

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

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0372-1

    Lawrence, A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0372-1

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 154, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154 —

    Lusso, E., & Risaliti, G. 2016, ApJ, 819, 154, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154 —. 2017, A&A, 602, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630079

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    F., et al

    Lusso, E., Worseck, G., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv516

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    D., et al

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 623, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21513.x

    2012

  27. [36]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    1969 doi

  28. [37]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2003, A&A, 409, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    M., Zdziarski, A

    Magdziarz, P., Blaes, O. M., Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Smith, D. A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02015.x

    1998

  30. [39]

    2004, in IAU

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, in IAU

    2004

  31. [40]

    222, The Interplay Among Black Holes, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 222, The Interplay Among Black Holes, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei, ed. T. Storchi-Bergmann, L. C. Ho, & H. R. Schmitt, 49–52, doi: 10.1017/S1743921304001437 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-...

    doi

  32. [41]

    2000, PASJ, 52, 499, doi: 10.1093/pasj/52.3.499

    Mineshige, S., Kawaguchi, T., Takeuchi, M., & Hayashida, K. 2000, PASJ, 52, 499, doi: 10.1093/pasj/52.3.499

    2000 doi

  33. [42]

    2005, Ap&SS, 300, 177, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1178-7

    Narayan, R. 2005, Ap&SS, 300, 177, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1178-7

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1995 doi

  35. [44]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M

    Nemmen, R. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2388 BASS LIII: Eddington ratio as the regulator of X-ray fraction in AGN 13

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Yuan, F., et al

    Nemmen, R. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Yuan, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 652, doi: 10.1086/500571

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 343–450

    1973

  40. [49]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7e4d

    Panagiotou, C., Papadakis, I., Kara, E., Kammoun, E., & Dovčiak, M. 2022, ApJ, 935, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7e4d

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952 —. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2002 doi

  42. [51]

    O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731580

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    S., Breeveld, A

    Poole, T. S., Breeveld, A. A., Page, M. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x

    2008

  44. [53]

    Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 471, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351

    1984

  45. [54]

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

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

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L13

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b6

    Rumbaugh, N., Shen, Y., Morganson, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b6

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796, doi: 10.1086/147973

    1964 doi

  50. [59]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33 Sądowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2941

    1973 doi

  51. [60]

    T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W

    Steffen, A. T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2826, doi: 10.1086/503627

    2006 doi

  52. [61]

    2023, A&A, 677, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346024

    Trefoloni, B., Lusso, E., Nardini, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346024

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1124, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14108.x

    2009

  54. [63]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Tananbaum, H., Worrall, D

    Wilkes, B. J., Tananbaum, H., Worrall, D. M., et al. 1994, ApJS, 92, 53, doi: 10.1086/191959

    1994 doi

  56. [65]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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