pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.11960 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Cosmic Duets I. High-spatial resolution spectroscopy of dual and lensed AGN with MUSE-NFM

M. Scialpi , F. Mannucci , Q. D'Amato , C. Marconcini , G. Cresci , A. Marconi , L. Ulivi , M. Fumagalli
show 29 more authors
P. Rosati G. Tozzi M.V. Zanchettin L. Battistini E. Bertola C. Bracci S. Carniani E. Cataldi M. Ceci A. Chakraborty C. Cicone A. Ciurlo A. De Rosa G. Di Rosa A. Feltre M. Ginolfi I. Lamperti E. Lusso B. Moreschini E. Nardini M. Parvatikar M. Perna K. Rubinur P. Severgnini J. Singh C. Spingola G. Venturi C. Vignali M. Volonteri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dual AGNlensed quasarsGaia multipeak selectionMUSE integral-field spectroscopysupermassive black hole mergersstrong gravitational lensinggalaxy evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gaia multipeak selection plus MUSE spectroscopy confirms 6 new dual AGN among 30 targets, representing 22% of all known pairs below 7 kpc at z=0.5-3.5.

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

The paper reports first-year results from the Cosmic Duets program, which uses adaptive-optics MUSE observations to obtain spatially resolved spectra of sub-arcsecond AGN pairs selected from the Gaia catalog. Of the 30 observed systems, 19 are confirmed as AGN multiplets consisting of 6 dual AGN, 10 doubly lensed quasars, and 3 quadruply lensed systems, while 11 are chance alignments with foreground stars. The work accounts for selection effects in magnitude and separation distributions and finds that lensed quasars dominate among brighter targets while the relative number of dual AGN rises at fainter magnitudes. This approach adds a large fraction of the total known close dual AGN and demonstrates an efficient route to building larger samples for studies of black hole mergers.

Core claim

Among the 30 Gaia multipeak targets observed with MUSE, all show at least two spatially resolved components, yielding 6 confirmed dual AGN with projected separations below 7 kpc; this sample comprises 22% of the 27 spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN pairs in the literature at these redshifts. The observations also identify 13 lensed quasar systems and show that bright targets are mostly lensed while dual AGN fractions increase toward fainter magnitudes after selection corrections.

What carries the argument

The Gaia multipeak (GMP) technique, which flags pairs of point-like sources separated by less than 0.8 arcseconds, combined with 0.1-0.2 arcsecond resolution MUSE integral-field spectroscopy that delivers redshifts, ionization diagnostics, and line-of-sight absorption identification for each component.

If this is right

  • The full program of 150 targets will support statistical studies of dual AGN occurrence and merger rates.
  • The observed trend that dual AGN fractions rise at fainter magnitudes will inform how luminosity affects the detectability of close pairs.
  • The confirmed lensed systems will allow tighter constraints on the mass distributions of the foreground lensing galaxies.
  • The efficiency of the GMP plus MUSE combination sets a practical path for expanding the census of sub-7 kpc dual AGN.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be extended to the full Gaia catalog to test whether the rise in dual AGN fraction at faint magnitudes is a selection artifact or reflects a physical luminosity dependence.
  • Follow-up multi-epoch observations of the six new dual AGN could search for orbital motion or interaction signatures that would link them directly to the final stages of black hole mergers.
  • The same selection plus spectroscopy pipeline might be applied to other wide-field catalogs to identify dual AGN at still smaller separations or higher redshifts.

Load-bearing premise

Gaia multipeak selection followed by MUSE spectroscopy correctly separates genuine dual AGN and lensed systems from contaminants and that selection effects have been fully corrected when comparing fractions by magnitude and separation.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging or spectroscopy showing that any of the six reported dual AGN candidates consists of only a single active nucleus or a star-AGN alignment would lower the confirmed dual count and revise the claimed 22% contribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11960 by A. Chakraborty, A. Ciurlo, A. De Rosa, A. Feltre, A. Marconi, B. Moreschini, C. Bracci, C. Cicone, C. Marconcini, C. Spingola, C. Vignali, E. Bertola, E. Cataldi, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, F. Mannucci, G. Cresci, G. Di Rosa, G. Tozzi, G. Venturi, I. Lamperti, J. Singh, K. Rubinur, L. Battistini, L. Ulivi, M. Ceci, M. Fumagalli, M. Ginolfi, M. Parvatikar, M. Perna, M. Scialpi, M. Volonteri, M.V. Zanchettin, P. Rosati, P. Severgnini, Q. D'Amato, S. Carniani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of dual (green) and lensed (blue) AGN as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: White-light images of the double AGN systems (lensed or dual) in unit of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: White-light images of the three quadruple AGN systems. The target name and the value of the Einstein radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final MUSE spectra of the dual AGN systems, with target names and redshifts indicated in each panel. The spectra were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final MUSE spectra of the double lensed AGN systems, with target names and redshifts indicated in each panel. The spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final MUSE spectra for the three quadruply imaged AGN systems. For each system, the four AGN images are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fraction of AGN+star contaminants as a function of pro￾jected separation. The red dotted line shows the expected contam￾ination probability function (Eq. 3 with D = 0.7 ′′), representing the separation distribution of random stellar contaminants. 5.2.1. J0032–1053 J0032–1053 is confirmed as a dual AGN system at redshift z = 2.439 ± 0.001, with the two nuclear components separated by a projected distance of… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Enlargement of the Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BPT diagram adapted from Lamareille (2010). In the left panel, the yellow strip shows the range of [N,ii]λ6584/Hα values corresponding to the observed [O,iii]/Hβ ratio (the dashed red area indicates the measurement uncertainty). In the right panel, the yellow star marks the position of the lens galaxy in the [O,iii]/Hβ vs. [O,ii]/Hβ diagram, which lies very close to the separation line between star-formin… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MOKA3D rotating disc best-fit model of J0957-2242 traced by the [O iii]5007 transition. Panels show the observed (top), best-fit (center) and residual (bottom) moment maps. The residual maps are obtained by subtracting the model from the observed moment maps. The star marks the kinematic center, inferred as the peak flux emission. Pixels are masked at SN ≤ 4. 6. Distribution of Dual and Lensed Systems Bui… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top panel: Fraction of lensed systems (blue) and dual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first-year results of the MUSE Large Program "Cosmic Duets", whose goal is to obtain adaptive-optics assisted MUSE observations with an angular resolution of 0.1"-0.2" in order to provide integral-field spectroscopy of sub-arcsec separation dual and lensed active galactic nucleus (AGN) candidates. These observations reveal previously unexplored properties of dual and lensed systems that are key to understanding galaxy evolution, supermassive black hole mergers, and strong-lensing modeling. Targets were efficiently selected using the Gaia multipeak (GMP) technique, which identifies pairs of point-like sources with separations below 0.8" in the Gaia catalog. MUSE spatially resolved spectroscopy provides accurate redshifts, ionization diagnostics, and identification of absorption systems along the line of sight. We report results for 30 GMP targets at z=0.5-3.5. All systems show at least 2 spatially resolved components. 19 objects are confirmed as AGN multiplets, including 6 dual AGN, 10 doubly lensed quasars, and 3 quadruply lensed systems, while the remaining 11 correspond to chance alignments with foreground stars. Among all the spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN in the literature, 27 pairs have projected separations below 7kpc in this redshift regime, and our sample accounts for 22% of the total. We studied dual and lensed AGN distributions as a function of redshift, magnitude, and projected separation while accounting for selection effects, and we find that bright systems are dominated by lensed quasars, whereas the relative fraction of dual AGN increases at fainter magnitudes. This first-year sample demonstrates the high efficiency of GMP selection combined with MUSE spectroscopy for identifying sub-arcsec dual and lensed AGN. The full program, targeting 150 systems, will enable statistical studies of dual AGN and constraints on mass distribution in lensing 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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents first-year results from the MUSE Large Program 'Cosmic Duets', using Gaia multipeak (GMP) selection followed by adaptive-optics assisted MUSE-NFM integral-field spectroscopy (0.1-0.2 arcsec resolution) on 30 targets at z=0.5-3.5. All targets show at least two spatially resolved components; 19 are classified as AGN multiplets (6 dual AGN, 10 doubly lensed quasars, 3 quadruply lensed systems) while 11 are chance alignments with foreground stars. The work claims that these 6 new dual AGN bring the total spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN pairs with projected separations below 7 kpc in this redshift range to 27, with the new sample contributing 22% of that total. Distributions of dual and lensed systems versus redshift, magnitude, and separation are analyzed after accounting for selection effects, showing lensed quasars dominate at bright magnitudes while the dual-AGN fraction rises at fainter magnitudes. The GMP+MUSE combination is presented as highly efficient for identifying sub-arcsec systems.

Significance. This observational survey adds six new spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN at sub-7 kpc separations, representing a substantial (22%) increase to the known population in the z=0.5-3.5 range if the literature census is complete. The demonstrated efficiency of GMP selection plus MUSE spectroscopy for distinguishing dual AGN from lensed systems and contaminants provides a practical path for expanding samples needed to study supermassive black hole mergers and strong-lensing mass distributions. The magnitude-dependent trends, once selection effects are controlled, offer initial constraints on the relative populations of dual versus lensed systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim that the sample accounts for 22% of the total of 27 spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN pairs with projected separations below 7 kpc requires an explicit, verifiable compilation of the prior 21 literature systems (with references, redshifts, and separations). No such table or search criteria are provided, so incompleteness or duplicate counting in the literature total directly affects the reported fraction and cannot be assessed independently.
  2. [Classification section] Section on target classification (likely §3 or §4): The assignment of 6 systems as dual AGN versus 10 as doubly lensed quasars among the 19 AGN multiplets must rest on explicit, reproducible criteria (e.g., velocity offsets > few hundred km/s, differing ionization diagnostics, or absence of lensing signatures). Without a per-target breakdown or diagnostic diagrams showing how each of the 6 was distinguished from lensed images, the dual-AGN count and the 22% claim rest on an unverified step.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'in this redshift regime' is ambiguous; state explicitly whether the 27-pair total and the 22% fraction are restricted to exactly z=0.5-3.5 or include a broader range.
  2. [Throughout] Figure captions and text: Ensure consistent terminology between 'dual AGN', 'AGN multiplets', and 'lensed quasars' to avoid reader confusion when comparing counts.
  3. [Results section on distributions] Selection-effects discussion: Provide a brief quantitative description (e.g., completeness curves or weighting factors) of how selection biases were corrected when deriving the magnitude- and separation-dependent fractions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to enhance verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim that the sample accounts for 22% of the total of 27 spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN pairs with projected separations below 7 kpc requires an explicit, verifiable compilation of the prior 21 literature systems (with references, redshifts, and separations). No such table or search criteria are provided, so incompleteness or duplicate counting in the literature total directly affects the reported fraction and cannot be assessed independently.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit, verifiable compilation of the prior literature systems is required. In the revised manuscript we will add a new table (Table 1) that lists all 21 previously published spectroscopically confirmed dual AGN pairs with projected separations <7 kpc at 0.5<z<3.5, including references, redshifts, and separations. The literature search was performed via the NASA ADS using the keywords “dual AGN” OR “binary AGN” combined with redshift and separation filters, cross-checked against recent reviews (e.g., De Rosa et al. 2019 and subsequent updates). This compilation confirms the total of 27 systems and the 22% contribution of our sample. We will also state the exact search criteria in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Classification section] Section on target classification (likely §3 or §4): The assignment of 6 systems as dual AGN versus 10 as doubly lensed quasars among the 19 AGN multiplets must rest on explicit, reproducible criteria (e.g., velocity offsets > few hundred km/s, differing ionization diagnostics, or absence of lensing signatures). Without a per-target breakdown or diagnostic diagrams showing how each of the 6 was distinguished from lensed images, the dual-AGN count and the 22% claim rest on an unverified step.

    Authors: We agree that the classification criteria and per-target diagnostics must be presented explicitly. In the revised manuscript we will expand the classification section to state the quantitative criteria: dual AGN are identified when components exhibit velocity offsets >300 km s^{-1}, distinct ionization diagnostics (e.g., differing [O III]/Hβ or BPT positions), and no lensing arcs or multiple-image geometry consistent with a single source. Lensed systems are classified when redshifts match to within 100 km s^{-1}, spectra are nearly identical, and lensing features are present. We will add a new table (Table 2) giving the key diagnostics (velocity offset, line ratios, lensing indicators) for each of the 19 AGN multiplets and will include supplementary diagnostic diagrams (BPT and velocity maps) for the six dual-AGN systems. This will allow independent verification of the classifications. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure observational compilation with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This is an observational survey paper reporting MUSE-NFM spectroscopy of Gaia multipeak-selected targets at z=0.5-3.5. Systems are classified as dual AGN, lensed quasars, or contaminants based on spatially resolved redshifts and ionization diagnostics. The central quantitative statement (27 literature dual AGN pairs below 7 kpc, with the new sample contributing 22%) is a direct count: 6 newly confirmed systems added to a compiled prior total of 21. No equations, model fits, predictions, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear. The 22% figure is simple arithmetic (6/27) with no reduction to fitted inputs or self-citation chains. Any incompleteness in the literature census affects accuracy but does not create circularity by the paper's own methods. No load-bearing steps reduce to the paper's inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational astronomy paper. It introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or new physical entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5845 in / 1222 out tokens · 43867 ms · 2026-05-16T22:45:26.735502+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L8

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    L., Kuropatkin, N., et al

    Anguita, T., Schechter, P. L., Kuropatkin, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5017

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Y ., Hubin, N., et al

    Arsenault, R., Madec, P. Y ., Hubin, N., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7015, Adaptive Optics Systems, ed. N. Hubin, C. E. Max, & P. L. Wizinowich, 701524

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    T., Brazier, A., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Brazier, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 47

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    2010, in SPIE Proceedings, ed

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in SPIE Proceedings, ed. I. S

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    work page 1981

  9. [9]

    & Abel, T

    Banerjee, A. & Abel, T. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5479

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307

    work page 1980

  11. [11]

    A., Wisotzki, L., & Schechter, P

    Blackburne, J. A., Wisotzki, L., & Schechter, P. L. 2008, AJ, 135, 374

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L

    Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L. V . E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 964

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    work page 1984

  14. [14]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    2009, New A Rev., 53, 128

    Chartas, G., Charlton, J., Eracleous, M., et al. 2009, New A Rev., 53, 128

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895

    Chen, N., Di Matteo, T., Ni, Y ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    C., Liu, X., et al

    Chen, Y .-C., Gross, A. C., Liu, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 126

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 162

    Chen, Y .-C., Hwang, H.-C., Shen, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 162

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    2023, A&A, 671, L4

    Ciurlo, A., Mannucci, F., Yeh, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L4

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    2014, Space Sci

    Colpi, M. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 189

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    M., Gerke, B

    Comerford, J. M., Gerke, B. F., Newman, J. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 956

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi ´c, T., et al

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi ´c, T., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06293, _eprint: 2001.06293

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Delchambre, L., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Bellas-Velidis, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A31

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Delchambre, L., Krone-Martins, A., Wertz, O., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A165 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, in Growing Black Holes: Accretion in a Cosmological Context, ed. A. Merloni, S. Nayakshin, & R. A. Sunyaev, 340–345

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 1895 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al

    Dutta, R., Acebron, A., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1895 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 19

    Faure, C., Kneib, J.-P., Covone, G., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 19

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Flesch, E. W. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.12985

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 54 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fu, Y ., Wu, X.-B., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 54 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    A., et al

    Glikman, E., Langgin, R., Johnstone, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L18

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Green, P. J. 2006, ApJ, 644, 733

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    X., et al

    Hamann, F., Kanekar, N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1957

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 73

    Hwang, H.-C., Shen, Y ., Zakamska, N., & Liu, X. 2020, ApJ, 888, 73

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    D., et al

    Inada, N., Burles, S., Gregg, M. D., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1967

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    2012, AJ, 143, 119 Jiménez-Vicente, J., Mediavilla, E., Kochanek, C

    Inada, N., Oguri, M., Shin, M.-S., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 119 Jiménez-Vicente, J., Mediavilla, E., Kochanek, C. S., & Muñoz, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 251

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    A., Beaver, E

    Junkkarinen, V ., Shields, G. A., Beaver, E. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L155

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3131 Article number, page 17 of 20 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    S., Mochejska, B., Morgan, N

    Kochanek, C. S., Mochejska, B., Morgan, N. D., & Stanek, K. Z. 2006, ApJ, 637, L73

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Treister, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    J., Blecha, L., Bernhard, P., et al

    Koss, M. J., Blecha, L., Bernhard, P., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 214

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    J., Stern, D., et al

    Krone-Martins, A., Graham, M. J., Stern, D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.08977 Kunsági-Máté, S., Beck, R., Szapudi, I., & Csabai, I. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2662

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    2010, A&A, 509, A53

    Lamareille, F. 2010, A&A, 509, A53

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    2024, Space Sci

    Lemon, C., Courbin, F., More, A., et al. 2024, Space Sci. Rev., 220, 23

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    A., Auger, M

    Lemon, C. A., Auger, M. W., McMahon, R. G., & Koposov, S. E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 5023

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    & Lin, Y .-R

    Lu, W.-J. & Lin, Y .-R. 2019, ApJ, 881, 105

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    2008, A&A, 488, 463

    Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1185

    Mannucci, F., Pancino, E., Belfiore, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1185

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    2023, A&A, 680, A53

    Mannucci, F., Scialpi, M., Ciurlo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A53

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    2023, A&A, 677, A58

    Marconcini, C., Marconi, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A58

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    L., Scannapieco, E., Ellison, S

    Martin, C. L., Scannapieco, E., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 174

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    2010, Reports on Progress in Physics, 73, 086901

    Massey, R., Kitching, T., & Richard, J. 2010, Reports on Progress in Physics, 73, 086901

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 965, L4

    Matsuoka, Y ., Izumi, T., Onoue, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, L4

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    & Jiménez-Vicente, J

    Mediavilla, E. & Jiménez-Vicente, J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 112

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    C., et al

    Misawa, T., Eracleous, M., Charlton, J. C., et al. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 373, The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. L. C. Ho & J. W. Wang, 291

    work page 2007

  61. [61]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Mosquera, A. M., Kochanek, C. S., Chen, B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 53

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    B., Smith, R

    Newman, A. B., Smith, R. J., Conroy, C., Villaume, A., & van Dokkum, P. 2017, ApJ, 845, 157

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

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

    work page 2006

  64. [64]

    G., Connolly, A

    Ostrovski, F., McMahon, R. G., Connolly, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4325

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    2025, A&A, 696, A59

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Lamperti, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A59

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    W., Weaver, K

    Pfeifle, R. W., Weaver, K. A., Secrest, N. J., Rothberg, B., & Patton, D. R. 2025, ApJS, 281, 25 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    M., Bower, R

    Rosas-Guevara, Y . M., Bower, R. G., McAlpine, S., Bonoli, S., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2712

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4933

    Rubinur, K., Das, M., & Kharb, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4933

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02842

    Salvato, M., Wolf, J., Dwelly, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02842

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    L., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1297

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1260

    Schmidt, T., Treu, T., Birrer, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1260

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    2024, A&A, 690, A57

    Scialpi, M., Mannucci, F., Marconcini, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A57

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    A., Naoz, S., & Kocsis, B

    Sedda, M. A., Naoz, S., & Kocsis, B. 2023, Universe, 9, 138

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    J., Vernardos, G., Collett, T

    Shajib, A. J., Vernardos, G., Collett, T. E., et al. 2024, Space Sci. Rev., 220, 87

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    2019, ApJ, 885, L4

    Shen, Y ., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N., & Liu, X. 2019, ApJ, 885, L4

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    work page 2006

  77. [77]

    F., Hutsemekers, D., & Surdej, J

    Sluse, D., Claeskens, J. F., Hutsemekers, D., & Surdej, J. 2007, A&A, 468, 885

    work page 2007

  78. [78]

    2012, A&A, 544, A62

    Sluse, D., Hutsemékers, D., Courbin, F., Meylan, G., & Wambsganss, J. 2012, A&A, 544, A62

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    T., Chan, J., et al

    Sonnenfeld, A., Jaelani, A. T., Chan, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A71

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 98

    Sonnenfeld, A., Treu, T., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 98

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.