pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12265 · v1 · pith:WIO5WJODnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Deep Learning Calibration of the Quasar X-ray/UV Luminosity Relation for Cosmological Applications

Jiaze Gao , Yun Chen , Lixin Xu , Jianping Hu , Xiaoyue Cao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords quasarsX-ray UV luminosity relationredshift evolutionstandard candlesPantheon+ samplecosmological probesHubble diagram reconstruction
0
0 comments X

The pith

The quasar X-ray/UV luminosity scaling relation varies non-linearly with redshift in current observations.

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

Quasars are tested as high-redshift distance indicators through an empirical link between their X-ray and ultraviolet luminosities. The work reconstructs the expansion history from a large supernova sample using a deep-learning method and treats that reconstruction as a reference to measure how the quasar relation behaves across different redshifts. The comparison shows that the relation changes in a non-linear fashion with redshift, with the behavior below redshift 0.7 differing markedly from the behavior above that threshold. This non-linearity persists even after testing against simple linear corrections and appears tied to the quasar data themselves rather than to any mismatch in the assumed expansion model. As a result, quasars cannot be treated as ready-to-use standard candles without additional modeling of the relation or its scatter.

Core claim

When the quasar sample is compared against the reference expansion history, the X-ray to UV luminosity relation displays a non-linear redshift dependence that a simple linear correction term fails to remove. The low-redshift portion of the sample differs significantly from the higher-redshift portion, and this difference is identified as a property of the present quasar observations rather than an artifact of cosmological-model assumptions.

What carries the argument

The deep-learning reconstruction of the supernova Hubble diagram used as an independent reference to isolate redshift trends in the quasar luminosity relation.

If this is right

  • The portion of the quasar sample below redshift 0.7 must be screened or removed before the objects are used for cosmology.
  • A single linear term in redshift is insufficient to standardize the luminosity relation across the full observed range.
  • Further modeling of both the mean relation and its intrinsic scatter is required before quasars can serve as reliable high-redshift probes.
  • Advanced data-processing steps beyond current cleaning will be needed to convert quasars into standardizable candles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Selection biases or measurement systematics in quasar surveys may carry a more complex redshift dependence than previously modeled.
  • Future larger samples could be split by additional observables to test whether the non-linearity correlates with source properties other than redshift.
  • If the trend persists in cleaner data, quasar constraints on early-universe physics would be limited to the higher-redshift subset alone.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstructed expansion history from the supernova sample serves as an unbiased reference that does not itself create artificial non-linear trends when applied to the quasar data.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis on a new, independently calibrated set of distance indicators at the same redshifts and finding that the non-linear redshift dependence vanishes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12265 by Jianping Hu, Jiaze Gao, Lixin Xu, Xiaoyue Cao, Yun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the predicted mB together with the Pantheon+ data, illustrating the agreement between pre￾dictions and observations, as well as the smoothness of the prediction function at high redshifts. Conservatively, we restrict our analysis to the redshift range covered by SNe Ia, 0.01 < z < 2.26. Importantly, the mean￾centered loss function is dominated by the Pantheon+ covariance matrix; redshifts beyond the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of scaling relation parameters from two cosmology-independent methods. Blue points: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quasars can serve as standard candles through an empirical scaling relation between their ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray luminosities. As high-redshift probes, it is critical to test whether this relation evolves with redshift. In this work, we reconstruct the Hubble diagram of the Pantheon+ sample using the deep learning--based LADDER algorithm and use it as a reference to investigate the quasar scaling relation. Our results, which are consistent with those from Gaussian process regression and narrow-bin analyses, show that the potentially contaminated sample at $z<0.7$ differs significantly from the $z>0.7$ sample; thus, it should be further screened or excluded when quasars are used as cosmological probes. We find that the scaling relation exhibits a non-linear redshift dependence that cannot be accounted for by a simple linear correction, and that this behavior is a feature of the current data sample rather than a consequence of cosmological model misspecification. To use quasars as standardizable candles, further modeling of the scaling relation and intrinsic dispersion, or more advanced data processing techniques, is required.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the LADDER deep-learning algorithm to reconstruct the Hubble diagram from the Pantheon+ supernovae sample and employs this reconstruction as a reference to examine the quasar X-ray/UV luminosity scaling relation. It reports that the relation exhibits non-linear redshift dependence that cannot be removed by a simple linear correction, that this behavior is intrinsic to the current quasar data sample rather than a sign of cosmological model misspecification, and that the z < 0.7 subsample differs significantly from the z > 0.7 subsample and should therefore be screened or excluded for cosmological applications. Results are stated to be consistent with Gaussian-process regression and narrow-bin analyses.

Significance. If the central findings hold after quantitative validation, the work would demonstrate that quasars cannot yet be treated as standardizable candles without additional modeling of redshift-dependent effects or refined sample selection, thereby limiting their immediate utility as high-redshift cosmological probes and motivating further development of the luminosity relation and its intrinsic dispersion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that results are 'consistent with those from Gaussian process regression and narrow-bin analyses' supplies no quantitative statistics (e.g., best-fit slopes and intercepts with uncertainties, χ^{2} values, or p-values for the z < 0.7 versus z > 0.7 comparison), so the strength of support for the non-linear redshift dependence cannot be assessed from the provided information.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the observed non-linear redshift dependence is 'a feature of the current data sample rather than a consequence of cosmological model misspecification' rests on the LADDER-reconstructed distances serving as an unbiased reference; without reported tests of reconstruction residuals versus redshift or explicit checks that such residuals do not correlate with the reported non-linearity (particularly across the z = 0.7 boundary), the possibility that network-induced artifacts produce the apparent non-linearity remains unaddressed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that results are 'consistent with those from Gaussian process regression and narrow-bin analyses' supplies no quantitative statistics (e.g., best-fit slopes and intercepts with uncertainties, χ^{2} values, or p-values for the z < 0.7 versus z > 0.7 comparison), so the strength of support for the non-linear redshift dependence cannot be assessed from the provided information.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative statistics would allow a clearer assessment of the claimed consistency and the significance of the subsample differences. In the revised manuscript we will report the relevant best-fit slopes, intercepts with uncertainties, χ² values, and p-values for the z < 0.7 versus z > 0.7 comparison. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the observed non-linear redshift dependence is 'a feature of the current data sample rather than a consequence of cosmological model misspecification' rests on the LADDER-reconstructed distances serving as an unbiased reference; without reported tests of reconstruction residuals versus redshift or explicit checks that such residuals do not correlate with the reported non-linearity (particularly across the z = 0.7 boundary), the possibility that network-induced artifacts produce the apparent non-linearity remains unaddressed.

    Authors: The consistency of the non-linearity with independent Gaussian-process and narrow-bin results already indicates it is unlikely to be a LADDER-specific artifact. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the value of direct residual diagnostics. In the revision we will add explicit tests of LADDER reconstruction residuals versus redshift together with checks for any correlation with the reported non-linearity across the z = 0.7 boundary. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external Pantheon+ reference

full rationale

The paper reconstructs the Hubble diagram from the Pantheon+ supernova sample via the LADDER algorithm as an independent reference to calibrate the quasar UV-X-ray scaling relation and test for redshift evolution. Results are cross-validated against Gaussian process regression and narrow-bin analyses, with the non-linear redshift dependence attributed to the quasar sample itself. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation chain, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-definitional equivalence; the reference dataset and multiple external methods keep the derivation self-contained against benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text. The central reference assumption (Pantheon+ via LADDER) is treated as a domain assumption.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The LADDER reconstruction of the Pantheon+ sample provides an accurate, unbiased reference Hubble diagram for testing the quasar relation.
    Used directly as the comparison baseline to identify redshift dependence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5735 in / 1311 out tokens · 20829 ms · 2026-06-27T08:45:17.621180+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. Redshift-Dependent Intrinsic Dispersion in the Quasar UV/X-ray Luminosity Relation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Intrinsic dispersion in the quasar UV/X-ray luminosity relation decreases with redshift above z~1.6 and modeling it as redshift-dependent shifts Omega_m0 by ~0.025 in flat LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We therefore adopt the quasar sample collected and processed by Lussoet al.[35], which contains ap- proximately 2400 quasars

    Quasar Sample The main goal of this work is to study the properties of the scaling relation when using quasars as standardizable candles. We therefore adopt the quasar sample collected and processed by Lussoet al.[35], which contains ap- proximately 2400 quasars. This sample was initially compiled from about 19,000 objects drawn from various literature so...

  2. [2]

    narrow-bin method

    SNe Ia Sample SNe Ia are well-established cosmological probes. In this work, we use the Pantheon+ sample, which includes 1701 light curves of 1550 distinct SNe Ia from 18 different surveys, covering a redshift range of 0.001< z <2.26 [6]. Their apparent magnitudesm B are derived from light- curve fitting using the SALT2 method [6, 53–56]. The relation bet...

    1970

  3. [3]

    Chen, Q.-G

    L. Chen, Q.-G. Huang, and K. Wang, JCAP02, 028 (2019), arXiv:1808.05724 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, 9 L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    W. L. Freedman, Astrophys. J.919, 16 (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Alamet al.(BOSS), Mon

    S. Alamet al.(BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Ataet al.(eBOSS), Mon

    M. Ataet al.(eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.473, 4773 (2018), arXiv:1705.06373 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    J. E. Bautistaet al.(BOSS), Astron. Astrophys.603, A12 (2017), arXiv:1702.00176 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Risaliti and E

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Nature Astronomy3, 272 (2019), arXiv:1811.02590 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Bargiacchi, M

    G. Bargiacchi, M. Benetti, S. Capozziello, E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, and M. Signorini, MNRAS515, 1795 (2022), arXiv:2111.02420 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    L. Fan, G. Fang, and J. Hu, Ap&SS368, 59 (2023), arXiv:2306.16828 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Chira, A

    M. Chira, A. Georgakakis, A. Ruiz, S.-J. Chen, J. Buch- ner, A. L. Rankine, E. Kammoun, C. Aydar, M. Salvato, A. Merloni, and M. Krumpe, MNRAS545, staf1905 (2026), arXiv:2512.09767 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    D. J. Mortlocket al., Nature474, 616 (2011), arXiv:1106.6088 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Banadoset al., Nature553, 473 (2018), arXiv:1712.01860 [astro-ph.GA]

    E. Banadoset al., Nature553, 473 (2018), arXiv:1712.01860 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    F. Wang, J. Yang, X. Fan, J. F. Hennawi, A. J. Barth, E. Banados, F. Bian, K. Boutsia, T. Con- nor, F. B. Davies, R. Decarli, A.-C. Eilers, E. P. Fa- rina, R. Green, L. Jiang, J.-T. Li, C. Mazzucchelli, R. Nanni, J.-T. Schindler, B. Venemans, F. Walter, X.- B. Wu, and M. Yue, Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L1 (2021), arXiv:2101.03179 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Risaliti, E

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, C. Niccolai, M. Ralowski, A. Sacchi, A. Shlentsova, M. Signorini, and B. Trefoloni, (2026), arXiv:2606.07730 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    J. A. Baldwin, Astrophys. J.214, 679 (1977)

    1977

  21. [21]

    P. S. Osmer and J. C. Shields, ASP Conf. Ser.162, 235 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811459

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    Elvis and M

    M. Elvis and M. Karovska, Astrophys. J. Lett.581, L67 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0211385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    Watson, K

    D. Watson, K. D. Denney, M. Vestergaard, and T. M. Davis, Astrophys. J. Lett.740, L49 (2011), arXiv:1109.4632 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Marziani and J

    P. Marziani and J. W. Sulentic, Adv. Space Res.54, 1331 (2014), arXiv:1310.3143 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    J. M. Wang, P. Du, D. Valls-Gabaud, C. Hu, and H. Netzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 081301 (2013), arXiv:1301.4225 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    La Franca, S

    F. La Franca, S. Bianchi, G. Ponti, E. Branchini, and G. Matt, Astrophys. J. Lett.787, L12 (2014), arXiv:1404.2607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Kilerci Eser, M

    E. Kilerci Eser, M. Vestergaard, B. M. Peterson, K. D. Denney, and M. C. Bentz, Astrophys. J.801, 8 (2015), arXiv:1411.2977 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Wang, Y.-Y

    J.-M. Wang, Y.-Y. Songsheng, Y.-R. Li, P. Du, and Z.-X. Zhang, Nature Astron.4, 517 (2020), arXiv:1906.08417 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    J. P. Hu, Y. Y. Wang, and F. Y. Wang, Astron. Astro- phys.643, A93 (2020), arXiv:2008.12439 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    B. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Astrophys. J.962, 103 (2024), arXiv:2401.01540 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Li, Z.-H

    G.-X. Li, Z.-H. Li, N. Song, C. Chen, C. Dong, J.-W. Tian, Z.-C. Zhang, J.-Y.-H. Li, H.-L. Tian, and M.-Y.- N. Ma, Astronomy & Astrophysics706, A337 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Tananbaum, Y

    H. Tananbaum, Y. Avni, G. Branduardi, M. Elvis, G. Fabbiano, E. Feigelson, R. Giacconi, J. P. Henry, J. P. Pye, A. Soltan, and G. Zamorani, Astrophys. J. Lett. 234, L9 (1979)

    1979

  33. [33]

    Zamorani, J

    G. Zamorani, J. P. Henry, T. Maccacaro, H. Tananbaum, A. Soltan, Y. Avni, J. Liebert, J. Stocke, P. A. Strittmat- ter, R. J. Weymann, M. G. Smith, and J. J. Condon, Astrophys. J.245, 357 (1981)

    1981

  34. [34]

    Avni and H

    Y. Avni and H. Tananbaum, Astrophys. J.305, 83 (1986)

    1986

  35. [35]

    Risaliti and E

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Astrophys. J.815, 33 (2015), arXiv:1505.07118 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    Risaliti and E

    G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Astron. Nachr.338, 329 (2017), arXiv:1612.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Lussoet al., Astron

    E. Lussoet al., Astron. Astrophys.642, A150 (2020), arXiv:2008.08586 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Lusso, G

    E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, and E. Nardini, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A108 (2025), arXiv:2504.02040 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Lusso and G

    E. Lusso and G. Risaliti, Astrophys. J.819, 154 (2016), arXiv:1602.01090 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Lusso and G

    E. Lusso and G. Risaliti, Astron. Astrophys.602, A79 (2017), arXiv:1703.05299 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Lusso, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 267 (2019), arXiv:1812.03179 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. Lusso, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 267 (2019), arXiv:1812.03179 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Lusso, E

    E. Lusso, E. Piedipalumbo, G. Risaliti, M. Paolillo, S. Bisogni, E. Nardini, and L. Amati, Astron. Astro- phys.628, L4 (2019), arXiv:1907.07692 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Khadka and B

    N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 497, 263 (2020), arXiv:2004.09979 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Khadka and B

    N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 6140 (2021), arXiv:2012.09291 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    X. Li, R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, and K. Liao, Astrophys. J.960, 103 (2024), arXiv:2308.06951 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Raffai, A

    P. Raffai, A. Pataki, R. L. Bottger, A. Karsai, and G. Dalya, Astrophys. J.979, 51 (2025), arXiv:2412.15717 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    X. Li, R. E. Keeley, A. Shafieloo, X. Zheng, S. Cao, M. Biesiada, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 919 (2021), arXiv:2103.16032 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Sacchiet al., Astron

    A. Sacchiet al., Astron. Astrophys.663, L7 (2022), arXiv:2206.13528 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Z. Li, L. Huang, and J. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 1901 (2022), arXiv:2210.02816 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 1901

  50. [50]

    B. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Yuan, N. Liang, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Astrophys. J.940, 174 (2022), arXiv:2210.14432 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Risaliti, E

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, E. Nardini, G. Bargiacchi, S. Bisogni, A. Sacchi, M. Signorini, and B. Trefoloni, Astron. Nachr.344, e230054 (2023), arXiv:2304.13752 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    X. Li, R. E. Keeley, and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J.983, 141 (2025), arXiv:2408.15547 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    J. Wu, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Chin. Phys. C49, 075101 (2025), arXiv:2504.10862 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    R. Shah, S. Saha, P. Mukherjee, U. Garain, and S. Pal, Astrophys. J. Suppl.273, 27 (2024), arXiv:2401.17029 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    M. Kunz, B. A. Bassett, and R. A. Hlozek, Phys. Rev. D75, 103508 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    Guyet al.(SNLS), Astron

    J. Guyet al.(SNLS), Astron. Astrophys.523, A7 (2010), 10 arXiv:1010.4743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Kessler and D

    R. Kessler and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett.836, 56 (2017), arXiv:1610.04677 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 111 (2022), arXiv:2112.03864 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    M. L. Menzel, A. Merloni, A. Georgakakis, M. Sal- vato, E. Aubourg, W. N. Brandt, M. Brusa, J. Buch- ner, T. Dwelly, K. Nandra, I. Pˆ aris, P. Petitjean, and A. Schwope, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.457, 110 (2016), arXiv:1511.07870 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Nardini, E

    E. Nardini, E. Lusso, G. Risaliti, S. Bisogni, F. Civano, M. Elvis, G. Fabbiano, R. Gilli, A. Marconi, F. Salvestrini, and C. Vignali, Astron. Astrophys.632, A109 (2019), arXiv:1910.04604 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Salvestrini, G

    F. Salvestrini, G. Risaliti, S. Bisogni, E. Lusso, and C. Vignali, Astron. Astrophys.631, A120 (2019), arXiv:1909.12309 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    F. Vito, W. N. Brandt, F. E. Bauer, F. Calura, R. Gilli, B. Luo, O. Shemmer, C. Vignali, G. Zamorani, M. Brusa, F. Civano, A. Comastri, and R. Nanni, Astron. Astro- phys.630, A118 (2019), arXiv:1908.09849 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    D’Agostini, (2005), arXiv:physics/0511182

    G. D’Agostini, (2005), arXiv:physics/0511182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  65. [65]

    Trotta, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [66]

    Skilling, AIP Conf

    J. Skilling, AIP Conf. Proc.735, 395 (2004)

    2004

  67. [67]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1601 (2009)

    2009

  68. [68]

    Buchneret al., Astron

    J. Buchneret al., Astron. Astrophys.564, A125 (2014), arXiv:1402.0004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  70. [70]

    J. P. Hu and F. Y. Wang, Astron. Astrophys.661, A71 (2022), arXiv:2202.09075 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022