pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.10794 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.HE

The Impact of Supermassive Black Holes on Exoplanet Habitability. I. Spanning the Natural Mass Range

Jourdan Waas , Eric S. Perlman , Manasvi Lingam , Emily Lohmann , Jackson Kernan , Francesco Tombesi , Amedeo Balbi , Alessandra Ambrifi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 21:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.EPastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassive black holesexoplanet habitabilityAGN windsultrafast outflowsozone depletionatmospheric mass lossgalactic centerenergy-driven winds
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supermassive black holes above 100 million solar masses drive near-total ozone loss across galactic exoplanet atmospheres through their winds.

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

This paper examines how the mass of supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies affects the habitability of exoplanets by driving active galactic nucleus winds that interact with planetary atmospheres. Using simplified models, it establishes that greater black hole mass produces stronger atmospheric heating, higher temperatures, increased molecular escape speeds, and more mass loss, with all these effects weakening at larger distances from the galactic center. Energy-driven winds cause more damage than momentum-driven ones. The models predict that for black holes of at least 100 million solar masses, ozone depletion reaches nearly 100 percent on galactic scales in the energy-driven case. The work matters because black hole growth over cosmic time would then have created different windows of habitability depending on both central black hole mass and a planet's position inside its galaxy.

Core claim

Through simplified models that relate distance from the galactic center to supermassive black hole mass, the study shows that higher black hole masses increase atmospheric heating and temperatures, which in turn raise molecular thermal velocities and enhance mass loss from planetary atmospheres. These effects are consistently stronger for energy-driven winds than for momentum-driven winds and fall off with greater distance from the center. Ozone depletion rises with black hole mass and decreases with distance, reaching nearly complete loss of about 100 percent across galactic scales for black hole masses of at least 10^8 solar masses in the energy-driven scenario. The authors conclude that a

What carries the argument

Simplified models of AGN winds and ultrafast outflows from supermassive black holes, parameterized by black hole mass and distance from the galactic center, that quantify heating, mass loss, and ozone depletion in exoplanet atmospheres.

If this is right

  • Higher supermassive black hole masses produce greater atmospheric heating, elevated temperatures, faster molecular velocities, and increased mass loss on exoplanets.
  • Ozone depletion increases with supermassive black hole mass and decreases with distance from the galactic center.
  • Energy-driven winds consistently affect planetary atmospheres more strongly than momentum-driven winds.
  • Habitability conditions vary with location inside a galaxy and with the mass of the central black hole.
  • Supermassive black hole growth over cosmic time produces different impacts on habitability in galaxies depending on central black hole mass and planetary position.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Galaxies with smaller central black holes may maintain more widespread habitable conditions at a wider range of orbital distances.
  • Atmospheric observations of exoplanets at different galactic radii could directly test for wind-driven ozone loss signatures.
  • Incorporating full hydrodynamical wind-planet simulations would likely refine the critical distances where atmospheres remain intact.
  • The results link central black hole activity to the spatial and temporal distribution of potentially life-supporting planets across cosmic history.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified models used here capture the relationships between supermassive black hole mass, distance, wind driving mechanism, and atmospheric response without needing detailed hydrodynamical simulations or observational calibration.

What would settle it

Finding exoplanets with substantial remaining ozone layers in galaxies that host central black holes of 10^8 solar masses or larger, at a range of distances from the center, would contradict the predicted near-total ozone depletion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10794 by Alessandra Ambrifi, Amedeo Balbi, Emily Lohmann, Eric S. Perlman, Francesco Tombesi, Jackson Kernan, Jourdan Waas, Manasvi Lingam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Increase in atmospheric temperature caused by AGN wind as a function of the mass of the central galactic SMBH in Solar masses. The left panel shows the energy-driven case, while the right one shows the effect of momentum-driven winds. The lines represent the distance R from the Galactic Center (in kpc). The labels N2 and H2 indicate the main element of planetary atmospheric composition, molecular nitrogen … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Increase in atmospheric temperature caused by energy- and momentum-driven AGN wind as a function of the distance to the Galactic center (in kpc). The labels N2 and H2 indicate the main element of planetary atmospheric composition, molecular nitrogen and hydrogen. regions of galaxies hosting high-mass SMBHs. Energy￾driven winds, in particular, have a far greater capacity to drive atmospheric loss than momen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Most probable velocity of molecules in the planetary atmosphere (vmp) by energy- and momentum driven AGN wind as a function of the mass of the central galactic SMBH in Solar masses. The left panel shows the energy-driven case, while the right one shows the effect of momentum-driven winds. The lines represent the distance R from the Galactic Center (in kpc). The labels N2 and H2 indicate the main element of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Most probable velocity of molecules in the planetary atmosphere (vmp) by momentum and energy-driven AGN wind as a function of the distance to the central galactic SMBH (in kpc). The labels N2 and H2 indicate the main element of planetary atmospheric composition, molecular nitrogen and hydrogen. The horizontal line represents the escape velocity of the Earth (vesc ≈ 11.2 km s−1 ). habitability. Substantial … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atmospheric mass loss (relative to Earth’s atmospheric mass) due to wind-mediated escape as a function of the mass of the central galactic SMBH in Solar masses. The left panel shows the energy-driven case, while the right one shows the effect of momentum-driven winds. The lines represent the distance R from the Galactic Center (in kpc). The abundance of NOx species (NO and NO2) can in￾crease significantly … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Atmospheric mass loss (relative to Earth’s atmospheric mass) due to momentum- and energy-driven wind-mediated escape as a function of the distance to the central galactic SMBH (in kpc) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage of ozone depletion in an Earth-like atmosphere (denoted by D) due to NOx production caused by energy￾and momentum-driven AGN wind as a function of the mass of the central galactic SMBH in Solar masses. The left panel shows the energy-driven case, while the right one shows the effect of momentum-driven winds. The lines represent the distance R from the Galactic Center (in kpc) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percentage of ozone depletion in an Earth-like atmosphere (denoted by D) due to NOx production caused by energy￾and momentum-driven AGN wind as a function of the distance to the central galactic SMBH (in kpc). centrations: y 2 + 10y − R0 Φ Φ0 (10 + y0) ∆tSalp × 109 σstrat = 0, (16) where Φ0 ≈ 9 × 104 erg cm−2 yr−1 , R0 ≈ 9 × 1014 molecules cm−2 yr−1 , and y0 = 3 ppb (A. Ambrifi et al. 2022). This can be si… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Timescale (in years) over which NO must remain consistently active in an Earth-like atmosphere to cause a 90% depletion of ozone resulting from energy- and momentum-driven AGN wind scenarios as a function of the mass of the central galactic SMBH in Solar masses. The left panel shows the energy-driven case, while the right one shows the effect of momentum-driven winds. The lines represent the distance R fro… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Timescale (in years) over which NO must remain consistently active in an Earth-like atmosphere to cause a 90% depletion of ozone resulting from the momentum-driven AGN wind scenario as a function of the distance to the central galactic SMBH (in kpc). The vertical line denotes the Earth’s distance from the Milky Way’s center (∼ 8 kpc). near the black hole. Once again, energy-driven winds cause slightly mor… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While the influence of supermassive black hole (SMBH) activity on habitability has garnered attention, the specific effects of active galactic nucleus (AGN) winds, particularly ultrafast outflows (UFOs), on planetary atmospheres remain largely unexplored. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between SMBH mass at the galactic center and exoplanetary habitability, given that SMBH masses are empirically confirmed to span approximately 5 orders of magnitude in galaxies. Through simplified models, we account for various results involving the relationships between the distance from the planet to the central SMBH and the mass of the SMBH. Specifically, we show that increased SMBH mass leads to higher atmospheric heating and elevated temperatures, greater molecular thermal velocities, and enhanced mass loss, all of which diminish with distance from the galactic center. Energy-driven winds consistently have a stronger impact than momentum-driven ones. Crucially, ozone depletion is shown to rise with SMBH mass and decrease with distance from the galactic center, with nearly complete ozone loss ($\sim100\%$) occurring across galactic scales for SMBH masses $\geq 10^8 M_\odot$ in the energy-driven case. This study emphasizes that SMBH growth over cosmic time may have produced markedly different impacts on galactic habitability, depending on both the mass of the central black hole (BH) and the location of planetary systems within their host galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates the impact of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) on exoplanet habitability through the effects of AGN winds, particularly ultrafast outflows, across a range of SMBH masses spanning five orders of magnitude. Using simplified models, the authors demonstrate that increased SMBH mass results in higher atmospheric heating, elevated temperatures, greater molecular thermal velocities, enhanced mass loss, and increased ozone depletion, with these effects diminishing at larger distances from the galactic center. They highlight that energy-driven winds have a stronger impact than momentum-driven ones, leading to nearly complete ozone loss (~100%) across galactic scales for SMBH masses of 10^8 solar masses or greater in the energy-driven case.

Significance. Should the findings be confirmed with more detailed modeling, this study would represent a novel contribution to the field of galactic habitability by quantifying the role of central SMBH activity in eroding planetary atmospheres and depleting ozone. It underscores the potential for SMBH growth to have varied impacts on habitability depending on galaxy type and planetary location, which could have implications for the distribution of life in the universe and the interpretation of exoplanet observations in AGN-active galaxies. The use of both energy- and momentum-driven wind scenarios provides a useful comparative framework.

major comments (2)
  1. The claim that nearly complete ozone loss (~100%) occurs across galactic scales for SMBH masses ≥10^8 M_⊙ in the energy-driven case (abstract and corresponding results section) depends on simplified analytic relations for wind kinetic power, atmospheric temperature rise, and photochemistry. This is load-bearing for the central habitability conclusion, yet the manuscript does not include validation against hydrodynamical simulations or sensitivity analyses to assumptions about uniform energy deposition, which could affect the quantitative ozone depletion percentages.
  2. The relationships between SMBH mass, distance, and atmospheric response are captured via simplified models without detailed hydrodynamical simulations or observational calibration of the wind-planet interaction (as described in the methods and model sections). This assumption is central to the reported trends in heating, mass loss, and ozone depletion and requires further justification or testing to support the quantitative claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract mentions 'simplified models' but does not specify the key equations or assumptions used for heating and ozone loss calculations; adding a brief description would improve clarity for readers.
  2. Consider including a table or figure summarizing ozone depletion percentages as a function of SMBH mass and galactocentric distance for both wind driving mechanisms to better illustrate the quantitative results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional justification, caveats, and sensitivity tests while preserving the scope of this initial analytic study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claim that nearly complete ozone loss (~100%) occurs across galactic scales for SMBH masses ≥10^8 M_⊙ in the energy-driven case (abstract and corresponding results section) depends on simplified analytic relations for wind kinetic power, atmospheric temperature rise, and photochemistry. This is load-bearing for the central habitability conclusion, yet the manuscript does not include validation against hydrodynamical simulations or sensitivity analyses to assumptions about uniform energy deposition, which could affect the quantitative ozone depletion percentages.

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative ozone depletion result is sensitive to the chain of analytic approximations. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit sensitivity analysis subsection that varies the wind kinetic power coupling efficiency, the radial deposition profile, and the assumed atmospheric scale height. We will also insert a clear statement that the ~100% depletion figure is an upper-limit estimate under the uniform-deposition assumption and should be regarded as indicative rather than definitive. Full hydrodynamical validation lies outside the present scope but is now flagged as a priority for follow-up work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The relationships between SMBH mass, distance, and atmospheric response are captured via simplified models without detailed hydrodynamical simulations or observational calibration of the wind-planet interaction (as described in the methods and model sections). This assumption is central to the reported trends in heating, mass loss, and ozone depletion and requires further justification or testing to support the quantitative claims.

    Authors: We will expand the Methods section with additional literature-based justification for the adopted wind scaling relations and the one-dimensional energy-deposition approximation. A new paragraph will discuss the absence of direct observational calibration for AGN-wind–planet interactions and will cite analogous studies of stellar-wind erosion as supporting context. While new hydrodynamical simulations cannot be performed within this paper, the revised text will explicitly state the modeling limitations and the conditions under which the reported trends are expected to hold. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct consequences of stated simplified models

full rationale

The paper explicitly frames its findings as outputs from simplified analytic models relating SMBH mass and galactocentric distance to atmospheric heating, thermal velocities, mass loss, and ozone depletion. These relationships are presented as model consequences rather than independent first-principles derivations that reduce to the inputs by construction. No equations are shown to be tautological (e.g., a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction), and the abstract contains no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work. The derivation chain remains self-contained as an exploration of model implications, consistent with the default expectation for non-circular modeling papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on unspecified simplified models that encode scaling relations between SMBH mass, distance, wind type, and atmospheric response. No free parameters are explicitly named, but the model must contain at least scaling coefficients or efficiency factors that are fitted or chosen to produce the reported ozone-loss percentages. No new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Simplified analytic or semi-analytic models can adequately capture the dominant effects of AGN winds on exoplanet atmospheres across galactic scales.
    Invoked when the paper states it accounts for results via simplified models without providing the model equations or validation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5602 in / 1458 out tokens · 36834 ms · 2026-05-17T21:49:53.107701+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al

    Airapetian, V. S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000132

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550419000132 2020

  2. [2]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Black Hole

    Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., Alef, W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141 2019

  3. [3]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/056

    Amaro-Seoane, P., & Chen, X. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/056

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/056 2019

  4. [4]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac542

    Perlman, E. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac542

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac542 2022

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b7c

    Auchettl, K., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Guillochon, J. 2018, ApJ, 852, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b7c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b7c 2018

  6. [6]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 16626, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16110-0

    Balbi, A., & Tombesi, F. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 16626, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16110-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16110-0 2017

  7. [7]

    2011, Ap&SS, 336, 287, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0873-9

    Beech, M. 2011, Ap&SS, 336, 287, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0873-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-011-0873-9 2011

  8. [8]

    M., Sch¨ odel, R., et al

    Boehle, A., Ghez, A. M., Sch¨ odel, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/17

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/17 2016

  9. [9]

    A., Bagenal, F., Ma, Y

    Brain, D. A., Bagenal, F., Ma, Y. J., Nilsson, H., & Stenberg Wieser, G. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 2364, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005162

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005162 2016

  10. [10]

    R., O’Mahoney, C., Fields, B

    Brunton, I. R., O’Mahoney, C., Fields, B. D., Melott, A. L., & Thomas, B. C. 2023, ApJ, 947, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc728

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc728 2023

  11. [11]

    E., Glazer, A

    Canfield, D. E., Glazer, A. N., & Falkowski, P. G. 2010, Science, 330, 192, doi: 10.1126/science.1186120

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1186120 2010

  12. [12]

    T., Ogilvie G

    Cappellari, M., Neumayer, N., Reunanen, J., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 660, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14377.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14377.x 2009

  13. [13]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef2

    Chartas, G., Cappi, M., Vignali, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef2 2021

  15. [15]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Chen, H., Forbes, J. C., & Loeb, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaab46

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaab46 2018

  16. [16]

    S., Briggs, M

    Cramer, E. S., Briggs, M. S., Liu, N., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 5240, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073215 Crnojevi´ c, D., Sand, D. J., Spekkens, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/19

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl073215 2017

  17. [17]

    Crutzen, P. J. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 7311, doi: 10.1029/JC076i030p07311

    work page doi:10.1029/jc076i030p07311 1971

  18. [18]

    J., Isaksen, I

    Crutzen, P. J., Isaksen, I. S. A., & Reid, G. C. 1975, Science, 189, 457, doi: 10.1126/science.189.4201.457

    work page doi:10.1126/science.189.4201.457 1975

  19. [19]

    J., & Zycki, P

    Czerny, B., Witt, H. J., & Zycki, P. 1997, in ESA Special

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    Dartnell, L. R. 2011, Astrobiology, 11, 551, doi: 10.1089/ast.2010.0528

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2010.0528 2011

  21. [21]

    2009, A&A, 502, 771, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811532

    Doherty, M., Arnaboldi, M., Das, P., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 771, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811532

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811532 2009

  22. [22]

    Dolgov, A. D. 2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1690, 012183, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1690/1/012183

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1690/1/012183 2020

  23. [23]

    2018a, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708010115

    Dong, C., Jin, M., Lingam, M., et al. 2018a, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708010115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1708010115

  24. [24]

    2018b, ApJL, 859, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac489

    Dong, C., Lee, Y., Ma, Y., et al. 2018b, ApJL, 859, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac489

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac489 2041

  25. [25]

    T., & Seager, S

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T., & Seager, S. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1237, doi: 10.1086/591433

    work page doi:10.1086/591433 2008

  26. [26]

    Ellis, J., & Schramm, D. N. 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92, 235, doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.1.235 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.92.1.235 1995

  27. [27]

    The Astrophysical Journal , publisher =

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 2022

  28. [28]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Forbes, J. C., & Loeb, A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1433 2018

  29. [29]

    M., Jackman, C

    Gehrels, N., Laird, C. M., Jackman, C. H., et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1169, doi: 10.1086/346127

    work page doi:10.1086/346127 2003

  30. [30]

    M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N

    Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N. N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044, doi: 10.1086/592738

    work page doi:10.1086/592738 2008

  31. [31]

    Gillessen, F

    Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1075 2009

  32. [32]

    N., Tombesi, F., et al

    Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., Tombesi, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts481

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts481 2013

  33. [33]

    W.\ 2017, Handbook of Supernovae, Type Iax Supernovae, 375

    Hanslmeier, A. 2017, Supernovae, Our Solar System, and Life on Earth, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 2489–2506, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 114

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  34. [34]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1152

    Heinz, S. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1152

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1152 2022

  35. [35]

    C., & Foltz, C

    Hewett, P. C., & Foltz, C. B. 2003, AJ, 125, 1784, doi: 10.1086/368392

    work page doi:10.1086/368392 2003

  36. [36]

    L., Matzeu, G

    Igo, Z., Parker, M. L., Matzeu, G. A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa265

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa265 2020

  37. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1840

    Ishibashi, W. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1840 2024

  38. [38]

    Kennard, E. H. E. H. 1938, Kinetic Theory of Gases: With an Introduction to Statistical Mechanics, first edition edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc.) 18W aas et al

    work page 1938

  39. [39]

    A., et al

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R., Ajhar, E. A., et al. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 473, L91, doi: 10.1086/310399

    work page doi:10.1086/310399 1996

  40. [40]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2 2021

  41. [41]

    Lineweaver, C. H. 2025, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 305, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.305

    work page doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.305 2025

  42. [42]

    H., Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B

    Lineweaver, C. H., Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, Science, 303, 59, doi: 10.1126/science.1092322

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1092322 2004

  43. [43]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab12eb

    Lingam, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab12eb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab12eb 2019

  44. [44]

    2024, From Stars to Life: A Quantitative Approach to Astrobiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Lingam, M., & Balbi, A. 2024, From Stars to Life: A Quantitative Approach to Astrobiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    M., & Loeb, A

    Lingam, M., Dong, C., Fang, X., Jakosky, B. M., & Loeb, A. 2018, ApJ, 853, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9fef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9fef 2018

  46. [46]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f

    Lingam, M., Ginsburg, I., & Bialy, S. 2019, ApJ, 877, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f 2019

  47. [47]

    2019, Reviews of Modern Physics, 91, 021002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021002

    Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2019, Reviews of Modern Physics, 91, 021002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.021002 2019

  48. [48]

    2020, ApJL, 901, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb608

    Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2020, ApJL, 901, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb608

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb608 2020

  49. [49]

    2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures

    Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac230f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac230f 2021

  51. [51]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba758

    Liu, C., Chen, X., & Du, F. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba758

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba758 2020

  52. [52]

    2015, A&A, 579, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525773

    Longobardi, A., Arnaboldi, M., Gerhard, O., & Hanuschik, R. 2015, A&A, 579, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525773

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525773 2015

  53. [53]

    2021, A&A, 646, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039396

    Luminari, A., Nicastro, F., Elvis, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039396

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039396 2021

  54. [54]

    Madhusudhan, N., Piette, A. A. A., & Constantinou, S. 2021, ApJ, 918, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c 2021

  55. [55]

    H., Dong, H., et al

    Magnabosco, C., Lin, L. H., Dong, H., et al. 2018, Nature Geoscience, 11, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0221-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0221-6 2018

  56. [56]

    M., Papadakis I

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x 2004

  57. [57]

    Martini, P., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 547, 12, doi: 10.1086/318331

    work page doi:10.1086/318331 2001

  58. [58]

    L., & Thomas, B

    Melott, A. L., & Thomas, B. C. 2011, Astrobiology, 11, 343, doi: 10.1089/ast.2010.0603

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2010.0603 2011

  59. [59]

    L., Thomas, B

    Melott, A. L., Thomas, B. C., Kachelrieß, M., Semikoz, D. V., & Overholt, A. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c57

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c57 2017

  60. [60]

    A., & Korista, K

    Moe, M., Arav, N., Bautista, M. A., & Korista, K. T. 2009, ApJ, 706, 525, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/525

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/525 2009

  61. [61]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 2019

  62. [62]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2535

    Pacetti, E., Balbi, A., Lingam, M., Tombesi, F., & Perlman, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2535

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2535 2020

  63. [63]

    K., Dubinski J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07085.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..251O 346, 251

    Pounds, K. A., King, A. R., Page, K. L., & O’Brien, P. T. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346, 1025, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07164.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07164.x 2003

  64. [64]

    2008, SSRv, 135, 313, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9236-9

    Prantzos, N. 2008, SSRv, 135, 313, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9236-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9236-9 2008

  65. [65]

    2020 , note =

    Rankine, A. L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., & Richards, G. T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa130

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa130 2020

  66. [66]

    2024, Astrobiology, 24, e916, doi: 10.1089/ast.2023.0076

    Scherf, M., Lammer, H., & Spross, L. 2024, Astrobiology, 24, e916, doi: 10.1089/ast.2023.0076

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2023.0076 2024

  67. [67]

    Schwartz, S. E. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008746

    work page doi:10.1029/2007jd008746 2007

  68. [68]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/95

    Seager, S., Bains, W., & Hu, R. 2013, ApJ, 777, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/95 2013

  69. [69]

    J., & Pajusalu, M

    Seager, S., Huang, J., Petkowski, J. J., & Pajusalu, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 802, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1069-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1069-4 2020

  70. [70]

    G., Nazarov, S

    Sergeev, S. G., Nazarov, S. V., & Borman, G. A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1898–1909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2857

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2857 2016

  71. [71]

    The Mass of Quasars

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.2643 2013

  72. [72]

    I., Eager-Nash, J

    Sippy, K. I., Eager-Nash, J. K., Hickox, R. C., Mayne, N. J., & Brumback, M. C. 2025, ApJ, 980, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adac5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adac5d 2025

  73. [73]

    Thomas, B. C. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 481, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1730

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2017.1730 2018

  74. [74]

    C., & Yelland, A

    Thomas, B. C., & Yelland, A. M. 2023, ApJ, 950, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf8a 2023

  75. [75]

    C., Melott, A

    Thomas, B. C., Melott, A. L., Jackman, C. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 509, doi: 10.1086/496914

    work page doi:10.1086/496914 2005

  76. [76]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts692

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts692 2013

  77. [77]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/44 2011

  78. [78]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913440

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913440 2010

  79. [79]

    2015, Nature, 519, 436, doi: 10.1038/nature14261

    Tombesi, F., Mel´ endez, M., Veilleux, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 519, 436, doi: 10.1038/nature14261

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14261 2015

  80. [80]

    F., et al

    Tombesi, F., Tazaki, F., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1297 SMBH impact on exoplanet habitability19

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1297 2014

Showing first 80 references.