pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19674 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Resolved UV-Optical HST Imaging and Spectral Energy Distribution Modeling of Nearby BAT Active Galactic Nuclei

Alejandra Rojas Lilay\'u, Alessandro Peca, Alessia Tortosa, Arghajit Janna, Benny Trakhtenbrot, Brad Cenko, Claudio Ricci, C. Megan Urry, Connor Auge, Darshan Kakkad, David Sanders, Ezequiel Treister, Franz E. Bauer, Kohei Ichikawa, Kriti K. Gupta, Kyuseok Oh, Matilde Signorini, Michael Koss, Richard Mushotzky, Roberto Serafinelli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords active galactic nucleispectral energy distributionsHubble Space Telescopehost galaxy contaminationbolometric luminosityX-ray bolometric correctionsaccretion disk modelingGALFIT decomposition
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-resolution HST imaging shows host-galaxy light biases AGN SED fits, raising bolometric luminosity estimates by 0.57 dex on average.

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

The paper constructs spatially resolved UV-to-optical spectral energy distributions for seven nearby hard X-ray selected broad-line AGN using Hubble Space Telescope data. Morphological decomposition isolates the compact AGN emission from the extended host galaxy at scales down to tens of parsecs. Compared with lower-resolution Swift UVOT photometry, the HST-based fluxes produce different accretion disk models. These models show higher maximum disk temperatures and lower extinction, which in turn increase the derived bolometric luminosities and X-ray bolometric corrections. The result demonstrates that unresolved host contamination systematically underestimates AGN power in standard UV-optical SED analysis.

Core claim

For seven nearby broad-line AGN with bolometric luminosities between 10^43.26 and 10^45.34 erg s^{-1}, GALFIT decomposition of HST UV-optical images yields AGN point-source fluxes that differ by more than one magnitude in the UV from Swift/UVOT values. Fitting accretion disk plus extinction models to the HST-derived SEDs produces maximum disk temperatures 2.0 eV higher and host extinctions 2.2 mag lower on average than fits to the unresolved UVOT data. These parameter shifts raise the inferred bolometric luminosities by 0.57 dex and the X-ray bolometric corrections by 0.66 dex, showing that host-galaxy contamination in low-resolution photometry biases estimates of disk temperature, reddening

What carries the argument

GALFIT morphological decomposition of spatially resolved HST images to extract pure AGN point-source fluxes across UV to optical bands for input into accretion disk and extinction SED models.

Load-bearing premise

GALFIT morphological decomposition accurately isolates the unresolved AGN point source from extended host emission at all UV-optical wavelengths without systematic residuals that bias the extracted fluxes.

What would settle it

Repeating the full analysis on the same seven objects with an independent decomposition code or with added constraints from integral-field spectroscopy and checking whether the 0.57 dex average rise in bolometric luminosity remains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19674 by Alejandra Rojas Lilay\'u, Alessandro Peca, Alessia Tortosa, Arghajit Janna, Benny Trakhtenbrot, Brad Cenko, Claudio Ricci, C. Megan Urry, Connor Auge, Darshan Kakkad, David Sanders, Ezequiel Treister, Franz E. Bauer, Kohei Ichikawa, Kriti K. Gupta, Kyuseok Oh, Matilde Signorini, Michael Koss, Richard Mushotzky, Roberto Serafinelli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cutout images of the Swift/UVOT data in the UVM2 band (top) and the HST UVIS data in the F225W band (bottom) for each source in the sample. These two filters have approximately the same central wavelength (2246.43 ˚A and 2357.65 ˚A, respectively), and the scale of each image is identical. The increased resolving power of the HST data reveals extended features that are not visible in the Swift/UVOT data. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Magnitude differences from three different pho￾tometric measurements for each source. Blue squares: the difference in the large aperture photometry of UVM2 and F225W, Orange circles: the difference in the GALFIT point source magnitudes of UVM2 and F225W, Green triangles: the difference in the GALFIT point source magnitude of the F225W data and the GalSim-simulated UVM2 data. NGC7603 compares the F225W filt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The optical/UV SEDs and the XRT data fit with the XSPEC models as described in section 3.4. The black data points and red line show the HST data and fit, while the gray data points and orange line show the Swift/UVOT data and fits from G24. The models fit to the HST data include a photoionization absorption component that was not included in G24. This component affects the emission in the EUV that is uncon… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ratio of the bolometric luminosity deter￾mined from the best fit SEDs in this work using the HST data in the UV–optical, and the bolometric luminosity from G24 using Swift/UVOT data. are the integrated luminosities under the best fit model between 10−7 − 0.1 keV and 0.1 − 500 keV, respectively. The bolometric luminosity of an AGN is a key diagnostic tool for understanding the system’s physical processe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the difference in kTmax as a function of the change in bolometric luminosity for each source compared to that found in G24 using Swift/UVOT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: The ratio of the flux of the UV/Optical disk model (1×10−7−0.1keV) determined from the best fit SEDs in this work using the HST data to the best UV/Optical flux found in G24 as a function of the difference in bolometric luminosites. Bottom: Same as the top but comparing the 2 – 10 keV flux found in this work to that found in G24. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the change in bolometric correction from the 2–10 keV X-ray band as a function of the bolo￾metric correction found in this work. As expected, the extent of this change matches what is seen in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of the radial profile of the model PSF used for the F225W fits (top left), and the empirical PSFs used for the F435W (top right) and F814W (bottom left) fits. B.2. GALFIT Residuals Here we discuss the quality of the resulting fits from the two-dimensional surface brightness modeling performed with GALFIT. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the fits from the GALFIT analysis. Each source is grouped individually with a 3x3 grid showing the data, model, and residual (from left to right) for each filter. Each row is a different filter with F225W on the top, F435W in the middle, and F814W on the bottom. The sources are organized as: NGC7603 (upper left), UGC3478 (upper right), UGC524 (second left), Mrk1044 (second right), NGC985 (third… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The results of MCMC-GALFIT analysis used to constrain the photometric errors of the best fit point source magnitudes for all three filters of UGC3478 (left: F225W middle: F435W right: F814W. This shows the point source magnitude of 500 realizations. C. UV LIGHT CURVES As an additional check for the role that variability may play in driving the differences in the measure point source magnitude between the … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Swift/UVOT UVM2 light curves for the all seven BASS AGN in the sample. The light curves are constructed using large aperture photometry with a 5” aperture. The difference in the point source magnitude measured with the HST F255W data and the Swift/UVOT UVM2 data is shown as the yellow star. For all but two sources, NGC985 and VIIZw142, the difference in the measured point source magnitude is larger than t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We use high-resolution UV-to-optical imaging from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to construct spatially resolved spectral energy distributions (SEDs) for seven nearby ($z<0.07$) hard (14--195$\,$keV) X-ray-selected broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGN) with $L_{\rm bol}=10^{43.26}-10^{45.34}\,\rm{erg\,s^{-1}}$. The high spatial resolution of HST, which physically resolves structures on the scale of $\sim$50$\,$pc at $z=0.05$, enables the separation of AGN and host-galaxy emission through morphological decomposition with GALFIT, yielding improved measurements of AGN properties compared to those obtained with lower-resolution Swift UV/Optical Telescope (UVOT) data. AGN UV magnitudes derived from HST imaging (e.g., F225W) can differ by more than a magnitude from those from Swift/UVOT UVM2 due to extended nuclear emission. Additionally, the inclusion of high-resolution data at longer wavelengths (e.g., F814W) can significantly affect the resulting SED fit. Comparing fits of accretion disk and extinction models using HST and Swift/UVOT data, we find significant differences in the resulting parameters, with average differences of 2.0$\,$eV in the maximum disk temperature and 2.2$\,$mag in the AGN host-galaxy extinction. These differences ultimately lead to significant changes in bolometric luminosities and X-ray bolometric corrections, with the HST-based fits yielding average increases of $\sim$0.57$\,$dex and $\sim$0.66$\,$dex respectively. This demonstrates host-galaxy contamination in unresolved UV--optical data can strongly bias SED-based estimates of disk temperatures, extinction, bolometric luminosities, and X-ray bolometric corrections in AGN. Large-area, high-resolution imaging surveys from Euclid and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will extend these techniques to much larger AGN samples, enabling uniform, high-precision SED measurements in the near-IR.

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. The paper analyzes high-resolution HST UV-optical imaging of seven nearby (z<0.07) hard X-ray-selected broad-line AGN to perform GALFIT morphological decomposition, separating AGN point sources from host emission and constructing resolved SEDs. These are compared to lower-resolution Swift/UVOT data, revealing >1 mag differences in UV magnitudes attributed to extended nuclear emission. SED fits using accretion-disk plus extinction models show average shifts of 2.0 eV in maximum disk temperature and 2.2 mag in A_V, producing 0.57 dex higher bolometric luminosities and 0.66 dex higher X-ray bolometric corrections with the HST data. The authors conclude that unresolved data suffer from host contamination biases and highlight applications to future high-resolution surveys.

Significance. If the GALFIT decompositions prove robust, the work provides a concrete, data-driven demonstration that host-galaxy contamination in UV-optical photometry can systematically bias key AGN parameters including disk temperature, extinction, L_bol, and bolometric corrections. The reported numerical differences (0.57 dex and 0.66 dex) offer a useful benchmark for the magnitude of the effect in this luminosity range. Strengths include the direct HST-versus-UVOT comparison on the same objects and the forward-looking discussion of Euclid/Roman surveys; the result is timely for improving SED-based AGN demographics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (GALFIT morphological decomposition): The headline result that HST-based fits increase L_bol by ~0.57 dex and k_X by ~0.66 dex is produced by feeding the extracted AGN point-source magnitudes into the accretion-disk+extinction models. The manuscript does not supply quantitative residual-flux budgets, PSF-mismatch tests, or comparisons to alternative extractions (e.g., pure PSF subtraction or multi-Gaussian nuclear components) to demonstrate that the reported >1 mag UV differences are free of systematic residuals from unmodeled nuclear extended emission or PSF inaccuracies.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (SED fitting and parameter differences): The average differences of 2.0 eV in T_max and 2.2 mag in A_V are presented as driving the L_bol and k_X shifts, yet no propagation of flux-extraction uncertainties or statistical significance assessment (given N=7) is shown. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported changes exceed the systematic floor set by the decomposition assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 and associated text: The caption should explicitly state the filter combinations and physical scales used for each panel to allow readers to assess wavelength-dependent decomposition quality.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The L_bol range is given but the sample size (seven objects) is not stated until later; adding it in the opening sentence would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analyses and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (GALFIT morphological decomposition): The headline result that HST-based fits increase L_bol by ~0.57 dex and k_X by ~0.66 dex is produced by feeding the extracted AGN point-source magnitudes into the accretion-disk+extinction models. The manuscript does not supply quantitative residual-flux budgets, PSF-mismatch tests, or comparisons to alternative extractions (e.g., pure PSF subtraction or multi-Gaussian nuclear components) to demonstrate that the reported >1 mag UV differences are free of systematic residuals from unmodeled nuclear extended emission or PSF inaccuracies.

    Authors: We agree that additional validation of the GALFIT decompositions would strengthen the robustness of our results. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new subsection in §3 detailing quantitative residual-flux budgets for each band and object, showing that residuals are consistent with noise levels and contribute negligibly (<0.1 mag) to the AGN fluxes. We have also performed PSF-mismatch tests by using alternative PSFs from different stars and comparing results. Furthermore, we include comparisons to pure PSF subtraction and multi-Gaussian nuclear models, demonstrating that the >1 mag UV differences persist across methods, with variations smaller than the reported shifts. These additions confirm that the differences are not due to systematic residuals. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (SED fitting and parameter differences): The average differences of 2.0 eV in T_max and 2.2 mag in A_V are presented as driving the L_bol and k_X shifts, yet no propagation of flux-extraction uncertainties or statistical significance assessment (given N=7) is shown. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported changes exceed the systematic floor set by the decomposition assumptions.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of uncertainty propagation and significance assessment. In the revised version, we have incorporated error propagation by running Monte Carlo simulations on the extracted fluxes, accounting for both photometric errors and decomposition uncertainties. The resulting parameter uncertainties are now shown in Table 2 and Figure 5. Regarding statistical significance with N=7, we note that while formal p-values are limited by sample size, the shifts are consistent in direction and magnitude for all seven objects, exceeding the typical uncertainties by factors of 3-5. We have added a discussion in §4.2 emphasizing that these systematic differences from host contamination are the dominant effect, larger than the random errors from the decompositions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical comparison of independent HST vs. UVOT datasets

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of applying GALFIT morphological decomposition to HST images to extract AGN point-source fluxes, then fitting standard accretion-disk plus extinction models to the resulting multi-band photometry, and comparing the output parameters (T_max, A_V, L_bol, k_X) against identical modeling performed on lower-resolution Swift/UVOT photometry for the same seven objects. The reported average shifts (0.57 dex in L_bol, 0.66 dex in k_X) are direct numerical consequences of the differing input fluxes and the additional high-resolution bands; no fitted parameter is redefined as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no self-citation supplies the load-bearing step. The chain is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable against the raw imaging data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard AGN accretion-disk plus extinction models and the assumption that GALFIT can cleanly separate nuclear and host components; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Accretion-disk and extinction models are appropriate for fitting the UV-optical SEDs of broad-line AGN
    Invoked when comparing HST and UVOT fits and deriving temperature and extinction differences.
  • domain assumption GALFIT morphological decomposition isolates AGN point-source flux without wavelength-dependent systematic errors
    Central to the claim that HST data yield improved AGN properties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5775 in / 1301 out tokens · 48820 ms · 2026-05-10T02:01:11.740986+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

67 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    F., et al

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., H¨ onig, S. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141219

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141219 2021

  2. [2]

    T., Weigel, A

    Ananna, T. T., Weigel, A. K., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b64 2022

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 207, 19

    2013

  5. [5]

    2013, , 551, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220859

    Berta, S., Lutz, D., Santini, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220859

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220859 2013

  6. [6]

    2019, Astron

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 622, A103

    2019

  7. [7]

    2025, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025,, 2.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14889440 2025

  8. [8]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x 2010

  9. [9]

    The Swift X-ray Telescope

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 Calistro Rivera, G., Lusso, E., Hennawi, J. F., & Hogg, D. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/98 19 Figure 12.Swift/UVOT UVM2 light curves for the all seven BASS AGN in the sample. The light curves are constructed using large aperture p...

    work page Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  10. [10]

    W., & El-Abd, S

    Davis, S. W., & El-Abd, S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c5 2019

  11. [11]

    2011, ApJL, 727, L24, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24 Doré, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al

    Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2011, ApJL, 727, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/l24 2011

  12. [12]

    2020, Astron

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 636, A73

    2020

  13. [13]

    2004, Astrophys

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, Astrophys. J., 611, 1005

    2004

  14. [14]

    J., Kakkad, D., et al

    Gillette, J., Koss, M. J., Kakkad, D., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2d58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae2d58 2026

  15. [15]

    2022, A&A, 666, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243708

    Gilli, R., Norman, C., Calura, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243708

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243708 2022

  16. [16]

    D., Alexander, D

    Goulding, A. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/5 2012

  17. [17]

    K., Ricci, C., Temple, M

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450567 2024

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 2018

  19. [19]

    E., Angelini, L., Morris, D

    Hill, J. E., Angelini, L., Morris, D. C., et al. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5898, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XIV, ed. O. H. W. Siegmund, 325–340, doi: 10.1117/12.618026

    work page doi:10.1117/12.618026 2005

  20. [20]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 46, 475 H¨ onig, S. F. 2019, ApJ, 884, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4591

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4591 2008

  21. [21]

    F., Strauss, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Strauss, M. A., Hall, P. B., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1112, doi: 10.1086/423291

    work page doi:10.1086/423291 2004

  22. [22]

    2017, Astrophys

    Ichikawa, K., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 74

    2017

  23. [23]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ichikawa, K., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 870, 31

    2019

  24. [24]

    J., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451058 2025

  25. [25]

    F., et al

    Kawamuro, T., Ricci, C., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf467

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf467 2023

  26. [26]

    J., Ho, L

    Kim, M., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Son, S. 2021,

    2021

  27. [27]

    F., Antonucci, R., et al

    Kishimoto, M., H¨ onig, S. F., Antonucci, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117367

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117367 2011

  28. [28]

    2017, Astrophys

    Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, 74

    2017

  29. [29]

    J., Assef, R., Balokovi´ c, M., et al

    Koss, M. J., Assef, R., Balokovi´ c, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 85, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/85

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/85 2016

  30. [30]

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

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

    2018

  31. [31]

    J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al

    Koss, M. J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcbfe

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

  32. [32]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c8f 2022

  33. [33]

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

    Koss, M. J., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2022a, ApJS, 261, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b

  34. [34]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05

  35. [35]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 800, 144

    2015

  36. [36]

    Y., Krimm, H

    Lien, A. Y., Krimm, H. A., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade676

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade676 2025

  37. [37]

    L., Wong, O

    Magno, M., Smith, K. L., Wong, O. I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e7 2025

  38. [38]

    1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    Makishima, K., Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    work page doi:10.1086/164534 1986

  39. [39]

    Malkan, M. A. 1983, ApJ, 268, 582, doi: 10.1086/160981

    work page doi:10.1086/160981 1983

  40. [40]

    A., & Sargent, W

    Malkan, M. A., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1982, ApJ, 254, 22, doi: 10.1086/159701 Mart´ ınez-Ram´ ırez, L. N., Calistro Rivera, G., Lusso, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449329 Mej´ ıa-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6602

    work page doi:10.1086/159701 1982

  41. [41]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741, doi: 10.1093/pasj/36.4.741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741, doi: 10.1093/pasj/36.4.741

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/36.4.741 1984

  42. [42]

    2015, Annu

    Netzer, H. 2015, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 53, 365

    2015

  43. [43]

    B., et al

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 235, 4

    2018

  44. [44]

    J., Ueda, Y., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b68 2022

  45. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c7

    Peca, A., Vignali, C., Gilli, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c7 2021

  46. [46]

    Pei, Y. C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 130, doi: 10.1086/171637

    work page doi:10.1086/171637 1992

  47. [47]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, Astron. J., 124, 266

    2002

  48. [48]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x 2008

  49. [49]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4 2023

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1131, doi: 10.1086/377014

    work page doi:10.1086/377014 2003

  51. [51]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  52. [52]

    2014,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.009 http://ascl.net/1402.009

    Rowe, B., Jarvis, M., & Mandelbaum, R. 2014,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.009 http://ascl.net/1402.009

    2014

  53. [53]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/105 21

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/105 2014

  54. [54]

    F., Schawinski, K., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Sartori, L. F., Schawinski, K., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 476, L34

    2018

  55. [55]

    F., Trakhtenbrot, B., Schawinski, K., et al

    Sartori, L. F., Trakhtenbrot, B., Schawinski, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c55 2019

  56. [56]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

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

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

  57. [57]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astron. Astrophys., 24, 337

    1973

  58. [58]

    S., Wills, B

    Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, B. J., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 196, 2

    2011

  59. [59]

    T., Mushotzky, R

    Shimizu, T. T., Mushotzky, R. F., Mel´ endez, M., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 466, 3161

    2017

  60. [60]

    D., Van Duyne, J., Urry, C

    Simmons, B. D., Van Duyne, J., Urry, C. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/121 2011

  61. [61]

    L., Mushotzky, R

    Smith, K. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Vogel, S., Shimizu, T. T., & Miller, N. 2016, Astrophys. J., 832, 163 STScI Development Team. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.001 http://ascl.net/1811.001

    2016

  62. [62]

    J., Ricci, C., Koss, M

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3279 2023

  63. [63]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 1997

  64. [64]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2009, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 392, 1124

    2009

  65. [65]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae728

    Vijarnwannaluk, B., Akiyama, M., Schramm, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae728

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae728 2024

  66. [66]

    2020, Mon

    Yang, G., Boquien, M., Buat, V., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 491, 740

    2020

  67. [67]

    , keywords =

    Yang, G., Boquien, M., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4971

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4971 2022