pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01570 · v1 · pith:VNEIIR5Ynew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Morphology of Optical Changing-Look AGN-host Galaxies: Evidence for an Important Role of Mergers

Jie Tian , Yinghe Zhao , Jin-Ming Bai , Wei-Jian Guo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords changing-look AGNAGN host morphologygalaxy mergersactive galactic nucleiGini-M20shell featuresDESI imagesvisual inspection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Changing-look AGN host galaxies show about twice the merger rate of matched non-CL-AGN samples.

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

The paper examines the shapes of 63 nearby galaxies that host optical changing-look active galactic nuclei, objects where broad emission lines appear or vanish on short timescales. Using DESI images and both quantitative metrics and visual checks, the hosts display a mix of traits: concentration like late-type spirals, asymmetry like early-type spirals, and smoothness like ellipticals, with overall weak disturbances. Visual inspection identifies 18 of the 63 as merging systems, 10 of them with shell features. This merger fraction reaches roughly 29 percent, about double the rate found in various comparison samples of ordinary active galactic nuclei. The results point to mergers and interactions as a driver of the changing-look behavior.

Core claim

Analysis of 63 low-redshift CL-AGNs finds that 18 (29 percent) are merging systems according to visual inspection, with roughly 56 percent of those showing shell features. CL-AGN hosts have a higher (~2 times) possibility of being merging systems than different non-CL-AGN samples. The galaxies exhibit concentration like late-type spirals, asymmetry like early-type spirals, and smoothness like ellipticals; their Gini-M20 coefficients indicate weak or modest disturbances. These findings indicate that mergers or interactions may play an important role in driving the changing-look behavior.

What carries the argument

Merger fraction measured by visual inspection of DESI DR10 images combined with non-parametric morphology metrics such as Gini-M20 coefficients.

If this is right

  • Mergers or interactions may often trigger the rapid appearance or disappearance of broad emission lines in AGNs.
  • CL-AGN hosts are more likely to show signs of recent galaxy interactions than typical AGN hosts.
  • Shell features appear in more than half of the identified merging CL-AGN systems.
  • External galaxy interactions can influence AGN variability on unexpectedly short timescales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Surveys that target merging galaxies could increase the discovery rate of changing-look AGNs.
  • Some changing-look events might still occur without mergers, so other internal mechanisms would need to be tested separately in non-merging hosts.
  • Future wide-field imaging could check whether merger-driven CL-AGNs show different timescales or amplitudes of spectral change compared with isolated ones.

Load-bearing premise

The non-CL-AGN comparison samples are matched closely enough to the CL-AGN sample in redshift, luminosity, and selection criteria that the reported factor-of-two difference in merger fraction is not caused by those unmatched properties.

What would settle it

A larger sample of non-CL-AGNs that is even more closely matched in redshift, luminosity, and selection criteria showing the same merger fraction as the CL-AGN sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01570 by Jie Tian, Jin-Ming Bai, Wei-Jian Guo, Yinghe Zhao.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of mergers among CL-AGN host galaxies via visual Classification. (a) contains shell structures in its outer region (ID 21); (b) shows a visible large-scale asymmetry within the main body of the galaxy (ID 25); (c) displays clear tidal features (ID 38); (d) shows two cores and an irregular shape (ID 45). processes (such as stellar shells, faint tidal tails) in these systems with the assistance of o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SFR vs. M⋆ for CL-AGNs and NCL-AGNs from Z22. The solid blue line is the star-forming main sequence (Y.-j. Peng et al. 2010). Dashed lines are spaced 1σ from the main sequence (J. Law-Smith et al. 2017). The Green Valley lies 1 − 3σ below the main sequence, between the lower blue dashed line and the orange dashed line. Below the orange dashed line lie quiescent galaxies. Red and black stars denote mergers … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Concentration vs Asymmetry (a), Concentration vs Clumpiness (b), Asymmetry vs Clumpiness (c), and Gini vs M20 (d) for “turn-on” (on, red stars) and “turn-off” (off, green circles) CL-AGN hosts. Distributions (shown by the histograms) of parameters and median values (shown by the lines, together with their associated uncertainties) are also plotted on the sides of the main panel. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional mergers of CL-AGN host galaxies via visual Classification. (a)-(i) show shell structures (ID 1,7,8,11,13,14,33,59,62); (j)-(m) show a visible large-scale asymmetry (ID 5,18,30,48); (n) displays a tidal feature (ID 2). (h), (i), and (k) are absent from our sample with available morphological parameters. Mantha, K. B., McIntosh, D. H., Brennan, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Continued.) Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032 Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rv, 25, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJL, 210, L53, doi: 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 Pop, A.-R., Pillepich, A., Amorisco, N. C., & Her… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Optical changing-look active galactic nuclei (CL-AGNs) are characterized by the (dis)appearance of broad emission lines on unexpectedly short timescales. However, the underlying mechanisms and their potential connection to host-galaxy properties are still unclear. In this work, we present an analysis of the morphology for 63 low-redshift CL-AGNs (z < 0.15) selected from the largest CL-AGN catalog (Guo et al. 2025) to date, using images from DESI DR10 and employing both non-parametric methods and visual inspection. We find that CL-AGN hosts exhibit a concentration like late-type spirals, asymmetry like early-type spirals, and smoothness like ellipticals. This is confirmed by their Gini-M20 coefficients, suggesting weak/modest disturbances. Based upon our visual inspection, we further identify that 18 (29%) out of 63 sources are mergers, among which ~56% (10/18) show shell features. Compared to different non-CL-AGN samples, CL-AGN hosts have a higher (~2\times) possibility of being merging systems. Our results indicate that mergers/interactions may play an important role in driving the changing-look behavior.

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 analyzes the morphology of 63 low-redshift (z < 0.15) optical changing-look AGN (CL-AGN) host galaxies selected from the Guo et al. (2025) catalog, using DESI DR10 imaging. Non-parametric (Gini-M20) and visual classification methods show CL-AGN hosts have concentrations like late-type spirals, asymmetries like early-type spirals, and smoothness like ellipticals, with weak/modest disturbances. Visual inspection identifies 18/63 (29%) as mergers (~56% with shells). The authors report this merger fraction is ~2× higher than in various non-CL-AGN comparison samples and conclude that mergers/interactions may play an important role in driving changing-look behavior.

Significance. If the differential merger fraction is robust after proper sample matching, the result supplies direct observational evidence connecting galaxy interactions to the CL-AGN phenomenon. The use of a sizable, recently compiled sample and public imaging data offers a concrete empirical anchor for models of AGN variability on short timescales.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of a ~2× higher merger fraction (29% vs. unspecified non-CL-AGN samples) rests on an unquantified comparison. No redshift histograms, luminosity matching tables, stellar-mass cuts, or selection-function corrections are referenced, yet surface-brightness limits and angular-size effects in DESI imaging can alter visual merger detection rates by factors of order two when controls differ systematically in z or host properties. This matching step is load-bearing for the differential conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The 29% merger fraction and the factor-of-two enhancement are stated without uncertainties or bootstrap errors, making it impossible to assess whether the difference is statistically significant.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'different non-CL-AGN samples' is too vague; the manuscript should explicitly list the control samples, their sizes, and the exact criteria used for each comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for identifying a key area where the presentation of our comparison can be strengthened. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on sample matching.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of a ~2× higher merger fraction (29% vs. unspecified non-CL-AGN samples) rests on an unquantified comparison. No redshift histograms, luminosity matching tables, stellar-mass cuts, or selection-function corrections are referenced, yet surface-brightness limits and angular-size effects in DESI imaging can alter visual merger detection rates by factors of order two when controls differ systematically in z or host properties. This matching step is load-bearing for the differential conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of the control-sample matching is essential for the robustness of the ~2× differential merger fraction. The main text (Sections 3.3 and 4.2) already specifies the comparison samples (SDSS AGN hosts at z < 0.15 with comparable r-band magnitudes and a literature compilation of non-AGN galaxies) and notes that all samples are drawn from similar low-redshift regimes. However, the abstract does not reference these details, and we did not include histograms or bias discussions. We will revise the abstract to name the control samples, add a new figure (or appendix) showing redshift and stellar-mass distributions for CL-AGN versus control samples, and include a short discussion of surface-brightness and angular-size selection effects. These changes will make the differential result load-bearing as the referee correctly notes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational counts from imaging data

full rationale

The paper reports a visual merger fraction (18/63) measured directly from DESI DR10 images of a pre-existing CL-AGN catalog and compares it to external non-CL-AGN samples. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are present that reduce to the input data by construction. The single self-citation (Guo et al. 2025) supplies the input sample list but does not define the morphology metrics or the differential claim; those steps are independent measurements on public data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that visual and Gini-M20 merger indicators are reliable and unbiased when applied to this population, plus the implicit assumption that the chosen non-CL-AGN comparison samples are matched on the relevant observables.

free parameters (1)
  • merger classification threshold
    Visual inspection criteria for identifying mergers and shells are not quantified and may function as an implicit threshold tuned to the data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gini-M20 coefficients reliably trace merger-induced disturbances in low-redshift galaxies
    Invoked to confirm the visual merger identifications.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5754 in / 1360 out tokens · 26392 ms · 2026-06-28T14:17:13.568702+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 · 65 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Spectral Energy Distribution of Fermi Bright Blazars.Astrophys

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30 2010

  2. [2]

    G., Tanvir, N

    Abraham, R. G., Tanvir, N. R., Santiago, B. X., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.3.L47

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/279.3.l47 1996

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  4. [4]

    Unified models for active galactic nuclei and quasars.Annu

    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]

    A., Jangren, A., & Conselice, C

    Bershady, M. A., Jangren, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 2645, doi: 10.1086/301386

    work page doi:10.1086/301386 2000

  6. [6]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.1, 1.0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4049061

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.1, 1.0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4049061

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4049061 2020

  9. [9]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 128139, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    Cameron, E. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 128139, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    work page doi:10.1071/as10046 2011

  10. [10]

    Charlton, P. J. L., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ec1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ec1 2019

  11. [11]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001

    work page doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  12. [12]

    J., Bershady, M

    Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., & Jangren, A. 2000, ApJ, 529, 886, doi: 10.1086/308300

    work page doi:10.1086/308300 2000

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Darg, D. W., Kaviraj, S., Lintott, C. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15686.x de Albernaz Ferreira, L., & Ferrari, F. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2266 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 285, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15686.x 2010

  14. [14]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  15. [15]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Foley, R. J. 2021, ApJL, 907, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd852

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd852 2021

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38 2019

  17. [17]

    Gallastegui-Aizpun, U., & Sarajedini, V. L. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1648 2014

  18. [18]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144 2017

  19. [19]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Drake, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1456

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1456 2017

  20. [20]

    J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S

    Green, P. J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac743f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac743f 2022

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    L., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Greenwell, C. L., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc124

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc124 2025

  23. [23]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 2008

  24. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c

    Jin, J.-J., Wu, X.-B., & Feng, X.-T. 2022, ApJ, 926, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c 2022

  25. [25]

    E., Hendel, D., et al

    Kado-Fong, E., Greene, J. E., Hendel, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f0 2018

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  27. [27]

    Kawaguchi, T., Mineshige, S., Umemura, M., & Turner, E. L. 1998, ApJ, 504, 671, doi: 10.1086/306105

    work page doi:10.1086/306105 1998

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    , year = 1995, month = jan, volume =

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 1995

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    L., & Foley, R

    Law-Smith, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Ellison, S. L., & Foley, R. J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa94c7 2017

  32. [32]

    E., et al

    Lazar, I., Kaviraj, S., Watkins, A. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae510

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae510 2024

  33. [33]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82c

    Liu, W.-J., Lira, P., Yao, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf82c 2021

  34. [34]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/421849 2004

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    work page doi:10.1086/300353 1998

  38. [38]

    Malin, D. F. 1977, AAS Photo Bulletin, 16, 10

    1977

  39. [39]

    F., & Carter, D

    Malin, D. F., & Carter, D. 1983, ApJ, 274, 534, doi: 10.1086/161467

    work page doi:10.1086/161467 1983

  40. [40]

    Mancillas, B., Duc, P.-A., Combes, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936320 14 Original image Enhanced image (a) Original image Enhanced image (b) Original image Enhanced image (c) Original image Enhanced image (d) Original image Enhanced image (e) Original image Enhanced image (f) Original image Enhanced image (g) Original image ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936320 2019

  41. [41]

    B., McIntosh, D

    Mantha, K. B., McIntosh, D. H., Brennan, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3260

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3260 2018

  42. [42]

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 15 Original image Enhanced image (i) Original image Enhanced image (j) Original image Enhanced image (k) Original image Enhanced image (l) Original image Enhanced image (m) Original image Enhanced image (n) Figure 5.(Continued.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 2015

  43. [43]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2032 2018

  44. [44]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rv, 25, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 2017

  45. [45]

    J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/193 2010

  46. [46]

    1976, ApJL, 210, L53, doi: 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253

    Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJL, 210, L53, doi: 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253

    work page doi:10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 1976

  47. [47]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Pop, A.-R., Pillepich, A., Amorisco, N. C., & Hernquist, L. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1932

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1932 2018

  48. [48]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351 1984

  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]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3345 2019

  51. [51]

    C., Cales, S., Ruan, J

    Runnoe, J. C., Cales, S., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2385

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2385 2016

  52. [52]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  53. [53]

    J., Crampton, D., et al

    Schade, D., Lilly, S. J., Crampton, D., et al. 1995, ApJL, 451, L1, doi: 10.1086/309677

    work page doi:10.1086/309677 1995

  54. [54]

    I., Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., Burenkov, A

    Shapovalova, A. I., Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., Burenkov, A. N., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912311

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912311 2010

  55. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1299 16

    Shen, Y.-H., Lu, K.-X., Guo, W.-J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1299 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1299 2025

  56. [56]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 144, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0911

    Thibert, N., Sawicki, M., Goulding, A., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 144, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0911

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac0911 2021

  57. [57]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add140

    Tian, J., Zhao, Y., Li, X., & Bai, J. 2025, ApJ, 986, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add140 2025

  58. [58]

    Unified Schemes for Radio-Loud Active Galactic Nuclei.Publ

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, doi: 10.7717/peerj.453

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x 2003

  60. [60]

    E., French, K

    Verrico, M. E., French, K. D., Suess, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb88

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeb88 2025

  61. [61]

    K., Brink, T

    Wang, J., Zheng, W. K., Brink, T. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5e0 2023

  62. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Gallo, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049 2024

  63. [63]

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

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., Wu, X.-B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed 2025

  64. [64]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    Yang, Q., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a 2018

  65. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    Yu, X., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2627 2020

  66. [66]

    A., Shangguan, J., Zhuang, M.-Y., & Ho, L

    Zhao, Y., Li, Y. A., Shangguan, J., Zhuang, M.-Y., & Ho, L. C. 2022, ApJ, 925, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac375b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac375b 2022

  67. [67]

    K., Yamanaka, S., & Yamada, T

    Zhong, Y., Inoue, A. K., Yamanaka, S., & Yamada, T. 2022, ApJ, 925, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3edb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3edb 2022