pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.02836 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

The Large Sky Area Multi-object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) Quasar Survey: Quasar Properties from Data Release 10 to 12

Bing Lyu , Xue-Bing Wu , Jun-Jie Jin , Yuming Fu , Yuxuan Pang , Huimei Wang , Rui Zhu , Su Yao
show 4 more authors
Yan-Li Ai Yan-xia Zhang Hai-long Yuan Zhi-ying Huo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 02:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords quasarsLAMOST surveyspectroscopic catalogflux calibrationZTF photometryvirial black hole masschanging-look quasarsquasar variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

The LAMOST survey has identified 11,346 quasars from recent data releases, including 5,386 new ones, for a survey total of 67,521 quasars after recalibrating spectra with ZTF photometry.

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

The paper presents the quasar catalog from LAMOST Data Releases 10 to 12 covering observations between September 2021 and June 2024. It reports robust identification of 11,346 quasars, 5,386 of which are new to the Million Quasars catalog. This brings the 12-year LAMOST total to 67,521 quasars with 29,513 new discoveries overall. The authors shift from prior SDSS and PanSTARRS1 photometry to ZTF data for absolute flux calibration to reduce errors from quasar variability. They then derive emission line fluxes, continuum fluxes, and virial black hole masses from the improved single-epoch spectra to support searches for rare objects and transients.

Core claim

The central claim is the release of 11,346 quasars from LAMOST DR10-DR12, with 5,386 new identifications, raising the 12-year total to 67,521. Spectra were recalibrated using quasi-simultaneous ZTF photometry to improve flux accuracy over previous methods impacted by variability. This enables derivation of emission line fluxes, continuum fluxes, and virial black hole masses for direct comparisons with SDSS and searches for rare quasars such as changing-look objects and broad absorption line systems.

What carries the argument

Recalibration of single-epoch LAMOST spectra using quasi-simultaneous ZTF photometry to correct for variability before estimating emission-line fluxes, continuum properties, and virial black hole masses.

If this is right

  • Direct spectral comparison with SDSS becomes feasible for identifying changing-look quasars that show appearance or disappearance of broad lines.
  • Searches for broad absorption line quasars gain from the larger, better-calibrated sample.
  • Combined ZTF photometry and multi-epoch spectra improve detection of AGN transients including Bowen fluorescence flares and extreme variability quasars.
  • The expanded total catalog of 67,521 objects supports population statistics on quasar properties and variability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar near-simultaneous photometric recalibration could be adopted by other fiber spectroscopic surveys to limit calibration scatter from intrinsic variability.
  • The multi-epoch LAMOST spectra plus high-cadence ZTF light curves open a route to quantify how line and continuum changes relate over years.
  • The new sample may enable targeted follow-up of rare subtypes to test accretion-disk models at higher statistical power.

Load-bearing premise

That quasi-simultaneous ZTF photometry supplies sufficiently accurate absolute flux calibration for single-epoch LAMOST spectra despite residual variability and fiber-aperture effects.

What would settle it

Systematic mismatch between black hole masses or emission-line ratios measured from the recalibrated LAMOST spectra and the same quantities measured from truly simultaneous multi-band spectroscopy of the same objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02836 by Bing Lyu, Hai-long Yuan, Huimei Wang, Jun-Jie Jin, Rui Zhu, Su Yao, Xue-Bing Wu, Yan-Li Ai, Yan-xia Zhang, Yuming Fu, Yuxuan Pang, Zhi-ying Huo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The HEALPix sky distributions of the quasars identified in LAMOST DR10-12 (upper panel) and DR1-12 (lower panel) are shown in equatorial coordinates with the parameters Nside=64 and area of 0.839 deg2 per pixel. this limitation, we utilized (quasi-)simultaneous photo￾metric data from ZTF to recalibrate the absolute flux. We cross-matched the LAMOST quasar catalog with the ZTF database 3 with a 2′′ matching… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The distribution in the magnitude-redshift space for the visually confirmed quasars for previous (DR1-9) LAMOST quasar survey (black contours) and in DR10-12 (blue). The absolute magnitudes Mi(z = 2) are normalized at z=2, following the K-correction of Richards et al. (2006). The upper and right panels show the absolute magnitude and redshift distributions, respectively. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 log (S/N) 0.03 0.02… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of redshift difference (∆z) for common quasars between this work and SDSS versus LAM￾OST spectral S/N. Lightkurve, a Python package to remove the outlier data points in the light curves with 3σ clip (Lightkurve Collaboration et al. 2018) and required that the pho￾tometric uncertainties magerr < 0.15 mag (e.g., Rum￾baugh et al. 2018). The scaling factors were applied to LAMOST spectra in th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distributions of LAMOST quasars in the SDSS-WISE/UKIDSS color diagram. The WISE and UKIDSS magnitudes are in Vega magnitudes. The SDSS magnitudes in the panels (a) and (b) are plotted in AB magnitudes. The dash-dotted lines indicate the criteria previously used in the LAMOST QSO survey (Wu & Jia 2010; Wu et al. 2012).The contours in pink show the distribution for common quasars between this work and Mi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of time interval between LAM￾OST and ZTF and the intrinsic variability of quasars in the ZTF g and r bands. three-order polynomial model (f poly) to fit the contin￾uum (Rakshit et al. 2020; Fu et al. 2022). The peculiar shape in the continuum of these LAMOST spectra is evi￾dent compared to SDSS spectra. Only ≲ 0.3% of objects require an additional polynomial component. The final pseudocont… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of absolute flux calibration for the blue-channel and red-channel LAMOST spectra. Top panel: The grey line represents the original spectrum only with the relative flux calibration. The black line represents the quasar template to match the spectrum. The gray area represents the blue-red overlapping region. Middle panel: The spectrum after the absolute flux calibration. The green dots represent t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example for the spectral fitting for the LAMOST spectrum of a quasar with z=0.0985. The black lines represent the extinction-corrected spectra with the continuum subtracted in the lower panels. As for the fitted emission lines, the broad components are in red while the narrow ones are in green, along with their sum (blue). The Hα and Hβ emission lines are well fitted. The pseudocontinuum subtracted Hα-[… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparisons between the measurements of the FWHM values in this work and Wu & Shen (2022). We show the plot of log(FWHMLAMOST/FWHMSDSS) for broad Hα (upper left), broad Hβ (upper right), broad Mgii (lower left) and whole Civ (lower right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The normalized distributions of median S/N per pixel around the line-fitting region. relations to estimate the virial black hole masses, log(MBH/M⊙) = log " FWHM(Hβ) km s−1 2  L5100 1044erg s−1 0.5 # + 0.91 (3) for Hβ-based estimator from Vestergaard & Peterson (2006), log(MBH/M⊙) = log " FWHM(MgII) km s−1 1.51  L3000 1044erg s−1 0.5 # + 2.60 (4) for Mgii-based estimator from Wang et al. (2009), a… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The comparison of the monochromatic contin￾uum luminosities (L5100, L3000, L1350) and the estimated MBH based on Hβ, Mgii and Civ between this work and Wu & Shen (2022). 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE CATALOG We compile a catalog for the 11,346 quasars identified in LAMOST DR 10-12, which will be available online at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution of MBH based on various broad emissions (Hβ, Mgii and Civ) in this work is plotted against the redshift. The quasars from Wu & Shen (2022) are rep￾resented by the grey dots. LAMOST public website6 . A summary of the parame￾ters is listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The redshift distributions of LAMOST (DR1 to DR12) and SDSS (DR16Q, DR14Q, and DR7Q) (Wu & Shen 2022; Rakshit et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2011) quasar samples. The mean redshifts are tabulated in the right. L5100 0.00 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 0.02 0.04 0.06 LAMOST 44.49 W22 44.40 R20 44.39 S11 44.66 L3000 0.00 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 0.02 0.04 Normalized Fraction 45.38 45.01 45.07 45.50 L1350 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 l… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The histograms of the monochromatic contin￾uum luminosities (L5100, L3000, and L1350) and the estimated MBH (based on Hβ, Mgii and Civ) for LAMOST and SDSS Wu & Shen (2022); Rakshit et al. (2020); Shen et al. (2011) quasar sample. The mean value of each distribution is tabu￾lated in the right. We estimate the maximum change in the ZTF g-band magnitude to search for variable quasars. After the se￾lection o… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: An example of CLAGN candidates selected from the EVQ sample. The top panel presents the comparison for the spectra from LAMOST and SDSS. The middle panel presents zoomed regions for Hβ, and Hα emission lines. The broad Hβ component is evident in the LAMOST spectrum. The bottom panel presents the g band light curve from ZTF. The red and black vertical lines correspond to observational time for SDSS and LAM… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An example for the Lyα BAL quasar spectrum (black) in the rest frame. The absorption features in the Lyα, Si iv, and Civ are obvious. The blue line is the BAL template spectra for comparison at the same redshift. There is no correction for the Galactic extinction. Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560 Coffey, D., Salvat… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the quasar catalog from Data Releases 10 to 12 of the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) Quasar Survey, comprising quasars observed between September 2021 and June 2024. We robustly identified $11,346$ quasars, of which $5,386$ are newly discovered objects not present in the Million Quasars catalog. This release brings the total number of quasars identified by the 12-year LAMOST survey to $67,521$, of which $29,513$ are newly discovered. While the absolute flux calibration for LAMOST quasar spectra from Data Releases 6 to 9 was previously performed using the SDSS/PanSTARRS1 multi-band photometric data, the inherent variability of quasars can affect the flux accuracy. To address this limitation, we recalibrated the LAMOST spectra using (quasi-)simultaneous photometric data from Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), which has conducted high-cadence sky monitoring since March 2018. Based on the recalibrated single-epoch spectra, we estimated the emission line fluxes, continuum fluxes, and virial black hole masses. These improved spectra facilitate direct comparison with the spectra of common quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), enabling searches for rare quasars, such as changing-look quasars exhibiting the appearance or disappearance of broad emission lines and broad absorption line quasars. The combined dataset of photometry and multi-epoch spectra will enhance the detections of AGN-related transients, such as Bowen fluorescence flares and extreme variability quasars, thereby improving our understanding of quasar variability.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the quasar catalog from LAMOST Data Releases 10-12, reporting the identification of 11,346 quasars (5,386 newly discovered) observed between September 2021 and June 2024. This brings the 12-year LAMOST survey total to 67,521 quasars (29,513 new). The key methodological advance is recalibrating the absolute flux scale of the single-epoch LAMOST spectra using (quasi-)simultaneous ZTF photometry rather than earlier SDSS/PanSTARRS1 data, to reduce variability-induced errors; derived quantities include emission-line fluxes, continuum levels, and virial black-hole masses to support SDSS comparisons, changing-look quasar searches, and AGN transient studies.

Significance. If the ZTF recalibration is shown to deliver demonstrably higher flux accuracy, the release adds a large, well-characterized sample that strengthens multi-survey quasar statistics and enables more reliable multi-epoch analyses of variability and rare objects. The explicit focus on flux-calibrated spectra and the combination with high-cadence ZTF photometry are clear strengths for transient and changing-look science.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4 (Spectral Recalibration and Derived Quantities)] §4 (Spectral Recalibration and Derived Quantities): The central claim that ZTF photometry yields improved absolute fluxes is load-bearing for the reported emission-line fluxes, continuum levels, and virial masses, yet the text provides no quantitative validation such as rms residuals against independent photometry, an error budget that folds in day-to-week variability amplitudes, or aperture-loss corrections between the 3.3-arcsec LAMOST fibers and ZTF imaging. Without these, the asserted advantages for SDSS comparisons and changing-look searches cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table breaking down the 11,346 DR10-12 quasars by discovery status, redshift bin, and magnitude would improve readability and allow direct comparison with prior DR6-9 releases.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the recalibrated spectra 'facilitate direct comparison' with SDSS but does not indicate whether any overlap objects were used to test consistency of the new flux scale.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript describing the LAMOST DR10-12 quasar catalog. We have carefully considered the major comment regarding the validation of the ZTF-based spectral recalibration and have made revisions to address it.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Spectral Recalibration and Derived Quantities): The central claim that ZTF photometry yields improved absolute fluxes is load-bearing for the reported emission-line fluxes, continuum levels, and virial masses, yet the text provides no quantitative validation such as rms residuals against independent photometry, an error budget that folds in day-to-week variability amplitudes, or aperture-loss corrections between the 3.3-arcsec LAMOST fibers and ZTF imaging. Without these, the asserted advantages for SDSS comparisons and changing-look searches cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of providing quantitative validation for the ZTF recalibration method. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded §4 to include a direct comparison of the recalibrated LAMOST fluxes with overlapping SDSS photometry for a subset of quasars, demonstrating lower rms residuals than the previous SDSS/PanSTARRS1 calibration. Additionally, we have incorporated an error budget that accounts for short-term variability amplitudes derived from the high-cadence ZTF light curves. Regarding aperture corrections, we note that for the unresolved quasar sources, the 3.3-arcsec fiber captures the majority of the light, and we have added a discussion of potential losses with estimates based on typical seeing conditions. These additions allow for a better assessment of the advantages for multi-survey comparisons and transient studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in observational quasar catalog and recalibration

full rationale

The paper presents an observational catalog of quasars identified from LAMOST spectra (DR10-12), with recalibration of absolute fluxes using external quasi-simultaneous ZTF photometry. Derived quantities (emission-line fluxes, continuum levels, virial BH masses) are obtained via standard spectroscopic fitting applied to the recalibrated data. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The chain relies on external photometric data and established methods rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction, rendering the results self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions of quasar identification via emission-line spectra and virial black-hole mass estimation; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond those already used in prior LAMOST and SDSS quasar work.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quasars can be robustly identified from single-epoch spectra by the presence of broad emission lines.
    Invoked in the identification of the 11,346 quasars.
  • domain assumption ZTF photometry provides a reliable absolute flux scale for LAMOST spectra despite residual variability.
    Central to the recalibration step described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5654 in / 1445 out tokens · 24423 ms · 2026-05-17T02:14:45.334764+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Finding Quasars behind the Galactic Plane. IV. Candidate Selection from Chandra with Random Forest

    astro-ph.GA 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0

    A Random Forest classifier on Chandra, Gaia, and CatWISE data identifies 1060 new quasar candidates behind the Galactic plane, with two spectroscopically confirmed at z~1.1-1.3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  2. [2]

    L., Wu, X.-B., Yang, J., et al

    Ai, Y. L., Wu, X.-B., Yang, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 24, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/24

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/24 2016

  3. [3]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  4. [4]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 1993

  5. [5]

    J., Denney, K

    Assef, R. J., Denney, K. D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/2/93 2011

  6. [6]

    H., Fan, X., White, R

    Becker, R. H., Fan, X., White, R. L., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2850, doi: 10.1086/324231

    work page doi:10.1086/324231 2001

  7. [7]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  8. [8]

    J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  9. [9]

    2005, AJ, 130, 381, doi: 10.1086/431722

    Boroson, T. 2005, AJ, 130, 381, doi: 10.1086/431722

    work page doi:10.1086/431722 2005

  10. [10]

    A., & Green, R

    Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, doi: 10.1086/191661

    work page doi:10.1086/191661 1992

  11. [11]

    F., Hogg, D

    Bovy, J., Hennawi, J. F., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/141 2011

  12. [12]

    W., & Roche , P

    Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., Croom, S. M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 1014, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03730.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03730.x 2000

  13. [13]

    A., Shorlin, S

    Chadid, M., Wade, G. A., Shorlin, S. L. S., & Landstreet, J. D. 2004, A&A, 413, 1087, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031600 19 Figure 17.An example of CLAGN candidates selected from the EVQ sample. The top panel presents the comparison for the spectra from LAMOST and SDSS. The middle panel presents zoomed regions for Hβ, and Hαemission lines. The broad Hβ compo...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031600 2004

  14. [14]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  15. [15]

    2019, A&A, 625, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833996

    Coffey, D., Salvato, M., Merloni, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833996

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833996 2019

  16. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  17. [17]

    Denney, K. D. 2012, ApJ, 759, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/44 2012

  18. [18]

    Howell, D. A. 2023, ApJ, 957, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace971

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace971 2023

  19. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    Dong, Q., Zhang, Z.-X., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Zheng, Y.-G. 2025, ApJ, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add331 2025

  20. [20]

    Y., Wu, X.-B., Ai, Y

    Dong, X. Y., Wu, X.-B., Ai, Y. L., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab5ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab5ae 2018

  21. [21]

    M., & Brinkmann , J

    Dye, S., Warren, S. J., Hambly, N. C., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1227, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10928.x 20

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10928.x 2006

  22. [22]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 2023

  23. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1610

    Filbert, S., Martini, P., Seebaluck, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1610 2024

  24. [24]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2308.01505 2023

  25. [25]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d 2020

  26. [26]

    2021, QSOFITMORE: a python package for fitting UV-optical spectra of quasars, v1.1.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5810042

    Fu, Y. 2021, QSOFITMORE: a python package for fitting UV-optical spectra of quasars, v1.1.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5810042

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5810042 2021

  27. [27]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe85e

    Fu, Y., Wu, X.-B., Yang, Q., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe85e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abe85e 2021

  28. [28]

    2022, ApJS, 261, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3e

    Fu, Y., Wu, X.-B., Jiang, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3e 2022

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ae6

    Fu, Y., Wu, X.-B., Li, Y., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ae6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ae6 2024

  30. [30]

    2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008. http://ascl.net/1809.008

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4138

    Guo, H., Sun, M., Liu, X., et al. 2019, ApJL, 883, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4138

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4138 2019

  32. [32]

    A., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Fawcett, V. A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a 2024

  33. [33]

    F., & Prochaska, J

    Hennawi, J. F., & Prochaska, J. X. 2007, ApJ, 655, 735, doi: 10.1086/509770

    work page doi:10.1086/509770 2007

  34. [34]

    2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 612, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/7/002

    Huo, Z.-Y., Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 612, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/7/002

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/7/002 2010

  35. [35]

    2013, AJ, 145, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/6/159 —

    Huo, Z.-Y., Liu, X.-W., Xiang, M.-S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/6/159 —. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1438, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/023

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/6/159 2013

  36. [36]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adba52

    Huo, Z.-Y., Fu, Y., Huang, Y., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adba52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adba52 2025

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89

    Jin, J.-J., Wu, X.-B., Fu, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89 2023

  38. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz680

    Jin, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz680 2019

  39. [39]

    2007, ApJL, 667, L33, doi: 10.1086/522002

    Komossa, S., & Xu, D. 2007, ApJL, 667, L33, doi: 10.1086/522002

    work page doi:10.1086/522002 2007

  40. [40]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  41. [41]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/144 2015

  42. [42]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013 L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al. 2...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x 2007

  43. [43]

    L., Zhang, H.-T., Zhao, Y.-H., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhang, H.-T., Zhao, Y.-H., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1243, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/004 2012

  44. [44]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002 2015

  45. [45]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, ApJ, 941, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d 2022

  46. [46]

    L., Ross , N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2997

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2997 2016

  47. [47]

    L., Green, P

    MacLeod, C. L., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2 2019

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg,´E., et al

    Makrygianni, L., Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg,´E., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220142 —. 2018, A&A, 613, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732445

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee 2023

  49. [49]

    B., Scranton , R., M \'e nard , B., et al

    Peng, N., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., & Wu, X.-b. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21191.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21191.x 2012

  50. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3261

    Hoenig, S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3261

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3261 2019

  51. [51]

    S., & Kotilainen, J

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., & Kotilainen, J. 2020, ApJS, 249, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5 2020

  52. [52]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17cb

    Ren, W., Wang, J., Cai, Z., & Hu, X. 2024, ApJ, 963, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad17cb 2024

  53. [53]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    work page doi:10.1086/503559 2006

  54. [54]

    T., Myers, A

    Richards, G. T., Myers, A. D., Gray, A. G., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/67 2009

  55. [55]

    B., & Wampler, E

    Robinson, L. B., & Wampler, E. J. 1972, PASP, 84, 161, doi: 10.1086/129265

    work page doi:10.1086/129265 1972

  56. [56]

    P., Myers, A

    Ross, N. P., Myers, A. D., Sheldon, E. S., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/3 2012

  57. [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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b6 2018

  58. [58]

    N., Cosens, M., Bennert, V

    Runco, J. N., Cosens, M., Bennert, V. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 33, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/33

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/33 2016

  59. [59]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Bonning, E

    Salviander, S., Shields, G. A., Gebhardt, K., & Bonning, E. W. 2007, ApJ, 662, 131, doi: 10.1086/513086

    work page doi:10.1086/513086 2007

  60. [60]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  61. [61]

    2018, A&A, 615, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731557

    Weidmann, W. 2018, A&A, 615, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731557

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731557 2018

  62. [62]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    work page doi:10.1038/1971040a0 1963

  63. [63]

    P., Hall, P

    Schneider, D. P., Hall, P. B., Richards, G. T., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 102, doi: 10.1086/518474

    work page doi:10.1086/518474 2007

  64. [64]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45 2011

  65. [65]

    B., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Hall, P. B., Horne, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f 2019

  66. [66]

    Shin, J., Nagao, T., Woo, J.-H., & Le, H. A. N. 2019, ApJ, 874, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05da

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05da 2019

  67. [67]

    L., Comte, G., et al

    Song, Y.-H., Luo, A. L., Comte, G., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 453, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/4/009

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/4/009 2012

  68. [68]

    2004, ChJA&A, 4, 1, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/4/1/1

    Su, D.-Q., & Cui, X.-Q. 2004, ChJA&A, 4, 1, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/4/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/1009-9271/4/1/1 2004

  69. [69]

    C., Worthey, G., Faber, S

    Trager, S. C., Worthey, G., Faber, S. M., Burstein, D., & Gonz´ alez, J. J. 1998, ApJS, 116, 1, doi: 10.1086/313099

    work page doi:10.1086/313099 1998

  70. [70]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., Ricci, C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3 2019

  71. [71]

    2006, ApJ, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 Vanden Berk, D

    Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    work page doi:10.1086/506376 2006

  72. [72]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/500572 2006

  73. [73]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, doi: 10.1086/320357

    work page doi:10.1086/320357 2001

  74. [74]

    W., Wang, Y., et al

    Wang, J., Xu, D. W., Wang, Y., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 887, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4d90

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4d90

  75. [75]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    Wang, J.-G., Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1334 2009

  76. [76]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 2019

  77. [77]

    2019b, ApJ, 882, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab322b

    Wang, S., Shen, Y., Jiang, L., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 882, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab322b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab322b

  78. [78]

    1996, ApOpt, 35, 5155, doi: 10.1364/AO.35.005155

    Wang, S.-G., Su, D.-Q., Chu, Y.-Q., Cui, X., & Wang, Y.-N. 1996, ApOpt, 35, 5155, doi: 10.1364/AO.35.005155

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.35.005155 1996

  79. [79]

    W., & Roche , P

    Warren, S. J., Hewett, P. C., & Foltz, C. B. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 827, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03206.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03206.x 2000

  80. [80]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 2020

Showing first 80 references.