Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Changing-Look AGNs from DESI. VI. Host Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Changing-look AGNs are not a distinct host-galaxy population; the trigger is likely a change in the black hole's accretion rate.

desk verdict Largest matched CL AGN host-galaxy study to date; the central result is defensible, but the two-epoch decomposition's untested shared-stellar-population assumption is the main unresolved risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28735 v1 pith:V4DLC3EG submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA physics.data-an

Shengxiu Sun , Linhua Jiang , Wei-Jian Guo , Sarah E. I. Bosman , Zhiwei Pan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAphysics.data-an
keywords changing-lookAGNhostgalaxiesquiescentpost-starburstspectrophotometricdecompositionaccretionratenarrowlineregionDESIsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Changing-look AGNs abruptly switch their broad emission lines and continuum on timescales of months to years, but whether their host galaxies are special has been unclear. This paper analyzes 105 such objects with two epochs of optical spectroscopy and deep imaging, decomposing each spectrum into a constant stellar population and a varying nucleus. The hosts turn out to be overwhelmingly quiescent, and when matched to ordinary quasars of the same redshift and stellar mass, their star formation activity and absorption-line strengths are statistically indistinguishable. The one difference is a higher post-starburst fraction among the changing-look objects (35% vs 18%, p=0.02). Because the narrow forbidden lines do not respond while the broad lines do, the paper concludes that the transitions are driven by changes in the central black hole's accretion rate or inner disk, not by events that reshape the whole galaxy.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition that ties the two spectra to a single shared host stellar population. The model expresses each epoch's flux as an independent AGN component plus the same intrinsic stellar population mapped into the different fiber apertures. Deep multi-band imaging provides an independent constraint on the host flux in each aperture, and an imaging-derived 'additional host spectrum' accounts for the aperture difference. The stellar population parameters (mass, star formation history, dust) are fit jointly across epochs, so the fainter state anchors the host while the brighter state constrains the AGN. The paper also constructs a matched compa

What would settle it

Spatially resolved integral-field spectroscopy of these CL AGN hosts: if the derived stellar mass, sSFR, or Hδ strength depends on the assumed aperture scaling, or if strong radial age/metallicity gradients are present, the tied-host assumption fails and the population-level conclusions would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the population level, changing-look AGNs with measurable extended host emission do not occupy a distinct host galaxy population from similarly selected extended quasars. Among 105 two-epoch objects (SDSS and DESI spectra plus deep HSC imaging), 75.2% of hosts are quiescent and 29.5% post-starburst. Matched one-to-one against 82 extended quasars at the same redshift and stellar mass, CL hosts show consistent log sSFR (−12.87 vs −12.62), consistent Hδ_A (2.54 vs 1.36 Å; CI [−0.59,+2.94]), and a consistent quiescent fraction (81.7% vs 70.7%, p=0.108). The post-starburst fraction is higher (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020). [O III] and [O II] remain stable over rest-frame baselines up to 18 yr while

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one shared stellar population model can describe the host galaxy at both epochs and in both fiber apertures; if the host has strong radial age or metallicity gradients, or if the imaging-based aperture correction is off, the tied host fit can absorb AGN residuals and bias the derived stellar mass, star formation rate, and Hδ strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CL AGN hosts are statistically identical to quasar hosts, the changing-look phenomenon is decoupled from galaxy-scale properties, and CL selection is nearly random with respect to host star formation history.
  • The stable narrow lines imply the narrow-line region extends beyond a few parsecs in these objects, giving a population-level size constraint from variability alone.
  • The higher post-starburst fraction, if confirmed, suggests a mild association between recent quenching and CL activity, but not a synchronized event.
  • The positive broad-line/continuum correlation supports a stratified BLR where inner lines respond before outer lines, consistent with an accretion-rate-change origin.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If CL transitions are purely accretion-rate driven, then any quasar could in principle undergo a changing-look event; the observed CL fraction would be set by survey cadence and sensitivity rather than by a special host property, a prediction testable in unbiased samples.
  • The modest post-starburst excess might be a selection effect: post-starburst hosts have a bright young stellar continuum that makes the AGN easier to detect in the faint state, artificially boosting their representation among CL AGNs found by spectral comparison.
  • The narrow-line stability could be turned into an echo-mapping tool: a delayed [O III] response to a known CL transition would directly measure the NLR radius on decade timescales.
  • A next step is comparing CL AGN hosts to inactive galaxies of the same stellar mass and redshift, not just to quasars, to see whether the apparent consistency with quasars is shared by the general galaxy population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a host-galaxy study of 105 changing-look (CL) AGNs identified from DESI/SDSS spectral comparisons. A two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition model (Eq. 1) is used, tying the host stellar population parameters across the DESI and SDSS epochs while allowing the AGN component to vary, with HSC imaging providing external host-flux constraints. The authors report that the CL AGN hosts are predominantly quiescent (75.2%) and that 29.5% show post-starburst signatures. For 82 CL AGNs with extended host emission, matched one-to-one to extended quasars from the same pipeline in redshift and stellar mass, they find no clear offset in log sSFR or Hδ_A and no significant difference in quiescent fraction, but a higher post-starburst fraction (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020). The [O III] and [O II] narrow lines show no population-wide response over rest-frame baselines of 2.4–18.4 yr. The paper interprets the combined host, broad-line, and narrow-line evidence as favoring changes in the central accretion rate or inner disk structure as the main origin of CL transitions.

Significance. If the host-galaxy measurements are reliable, this is a valuable population-level result: CL AGNs with measurable extended host emission do not appear to form a distinct host population from similarly selected extended quasars, strengthening the interpretation that the CL phenomenon is primarily nuclear rather than driven by galaxy-scale transformations. The study has notable strengths: the CL sample and comparison quasars are analyzed with the same pipeline, reducing methodology-induced differences; HSC imaging provides external constraints on the host flux; the two-epoch design uses the stellar population invariance as a physical consistency check; and the paper includes an explicit, honest limitations section. The broad-line/continuum correlations and narrow-line stability provide independent evidence consistent with the central interpretation. However, the central claim rests on an untested modeling assumption—the shared stellar population across epochs with only an SED-scaled aperture correction—and on statistical comparisons that omit individual measurement uncertainties and multiple-testing corrections. These issues are addressable and do not require abandoning the main conc

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The tied stellar-population assumption is load-bearing but untested. In Eq. (1), a single θ⋆ is mapped into the two fiber apertures via T^i, with the SDSS–DESI aperture difference represented by an additional host spectrum fit with the same SED model. If the host has radial age or metallicity gradients, the extra light entering the larger SDSS fiber is not drawn from the same SED, and the tied fit may compensate by adjusting the AGN residual or averaging the two host spectra, biasing M⋆, sSFR, and Hδ_A. The internal checks in §5.5 use only two nearly host-dominated objects and mock tests from Sun et al. (2026) that do not inject radial gradients; §5.7 does not list this limitation. A concrete test is needed—for example, injecting radially varying stellar population models into mock HSC+spectral data and recovering them with this pipeline, or comparing a subset with IFU stellar-population
  2. [Table 2, §4.2] The post-starburst excess (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020) is one of four primary comparisons in Table 2, and the paper performs additional morphology, state, and disturbance tests elsewhere without multiplicity control. With a Bonferroni correction for the four Table 2 outcomes (α=0.0125), p=0.020 is not significant. The abstract and summary state that post-starburst hosts are "more common" among CL AGNs, which overstates the evidence. Please report the number of tests, provide corrected p-values, or explicitly label p=0.020 as suggestive only.
  3. [§3.5, §5.2] The reported bootstrap 95% CIs and McNemar p-values are computed from pairs without propagating the measurement uncertainties of the individual decomposition quantities. The paper acknowledges this for the intervals ("The quoted intervals describe sampling uncertainty"), but the same omission affects the classification fractions and the p=0.020 result; host-measurement scatter can move objects across the quiescent and post-starburst boundaries. Additionally, §5.2 excludes ID 177 and ID 497 from the [O III] population statistics after visual inspection of "poor local spectral quality"; this post hoc exclusion should be justified with quantitative S/N or line-fit quality cuts, and the population statistics should be shown with these objects included or with a robust estimator.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are formatting typos: "T able 1" in the text, "GalfitMusing" in §2.2, and mismatched math-mode/regular text for [O II] and [O III] in several places. These should be corrected.
  2. [§3.5] The transition from 83 extended CL AGNs with at least one candidate comparison to 82 matched pairs is stated, but the reason the last object is dropped is not explained. Clarify whether the 83rd has no unique partner after the without-replacement matching.
  3. [§4.3] The simple scaling of the star-forming fraction by the cosmic SFR-density ratio (1.48) assumes the star-forming fraction scales linearly with the cosmic SFR density. This is a rough heuristic; state that it is not a quantitative evolutionary correction.
  4. [Figure 6] Panel (b) would benefit from explicitly marking the matched-pair status of the post-starburst excess, e.g., by annotating the McNemar p-value on the figure, since the p=0.020 result is a headline number in the abstract.
  5. [§5.1] The text says PS16dtm is "not included in our final host decomposition sample" because it is PSF-dominated, but the object appears in the earlier sample counts (§2.1 lists 137 HSC-matched objects). Clarify that the light-curve atlas includes all 137 objects while the host property sample is 105.
  6. [§5.2] The statement that "the robust result is the absence of a population-wide [O III] or [O II] response" is stronger than the evidence because the two largest [O III] changes are excluded and the remaining distribution has a median absolute deviation of only 0.087 dex. Consider rephrasing to "no population-wide response is detected within the limitations of the current spectra."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the host-galaxy measurements and matched-quasar comparison are independent of the conclusions they support, despite author overlap in the parent sample and comparison pipeline.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the two-epoch decomposition (Eq. 1), where the observed flux is modeled as an epoch-dependent AGN component plus an epoch-independent host stellar population. This is a modeling assumption, not a quantity derived from the result it supports. The key comparison (Table 2) is between 82 CL AGNs and 82 extended quasars drawn from the prior S. Sun et al. (2026) catalog; that sample is external data analyzed with a consistent pipeline, so the comparison is not constructed from the CL sample itself. Self-citations to Guo et al. (2024, 2025a,b) and Sun et al. (2026) are used for sample selection, line-response priors, and method details, but the paper also presents independent internal checks: stable [O III]/[O II] over multi-year baselines, correlated broad-line/continuum changes from its own fits, and host-dominated faint states. The tied stellar-population assumption (theta_star shared across epochs) could bias M_star, sSFR, and Hδ_A if radial stellar-population gradients exist, but this is an unverified systematic risk acknowledged as a limitation in §5.7 rather than a circular reduction. No equation reduces to a fitted value, and no conclusion is forced by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard cosmology, a shared stellar-population assumption, SED-model assumptions, and imaging-decomposition assumptions. The headline fractions depend on hand-chosen classification thresholds, which are listed as free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Quiescence threshold in log sSFR = -10.94 yr^-1
    Adopted from Dodd et al. (2021)/Sun et al. (2026) to classify 75.2% of hosts as quiescent; changing this threshold changes headline fractions.
  • Post-starburst Hδ A threshold = 4 Å
    Defines post-starburst as quiescent with Hδ_A>4 Å; drives the 29.5% fraction and the p=0.020 excess.
  • Morphology extended/compact threshold = R_e,i/R50,PSF,i > 1
    Chosen by hand to split sample; compact systems are excluded from the primary comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7
    Stated in §1; used for distances and stellar mass estimates.
  • domain assumption The host stellar population is unchanged between SDSS and DESI epochs and is shared through θ⋆ (Eq. 1)
    Core modeling assumption of the two-epoch decomposition; if false, host measurements are biased.
  • domain assumption The AGN continuum/line model (broken power law, Fe II templates, Balmer continuum) accurately represents the nuclear component after host subtraction
    §3.2; template mismatches would be absorbed into the host fit.
  • domain assumption HSC PSF+Sersic decomposition correctly separates nuclear and host light, and the single-Sersic host profile is adequate
    §2.2; PSF-Sersic degeneracy is acknowledged for compact systems.
  • domain assumption Bagpipes nonparametric SFH with 14 bins and Student-t prior returns unbiased M* and sSFR
    §3.2; sSFRs near the model boundary are upper limits, stated in §5.7.
  • domain assumption NLR [O III]/[O II] emitting gas is extended and does not respond on multi-year baselines; recombination times can be short
    §5.2; used to interpret narrow-line stability and to estimate R_NLR lower limits. If the NLR responds faster, the stability argument weakens.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Changing-Look AGNs from DESI. VI. Host Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4DLC3EG

@misc{pith2026260728735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Changing-Look AGNs from DESI. VI. Host Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4DLC3EG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28735}
}
abstract

Changing-look (CL) AGNs trace rapid changes in nuclear activity, but their connection to host galaxy properties remains unclear. We present a study of the host galaxies of 105 CL AGNs previously selected by comparing DESI and SDSS data. We apply a two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition to the DESI and SDSS spectra of the 105 objects. Meanwhile, HSC images are used to constrain their varying AGN components and non-varying stellar population components. We find that 79 of the 105 (75.2%) CL AGN hosts are quiescent galaxies, and 31/105 (29.5%) also show post-starburst signatures. We focus on 82 CL AGNs with extended host emission in the HSC images and compare them with extended quasars at similar redshift and stellar mass. Their star formation activity, Balmer absorption, and quiescent fractions are broadly consistent with those of the comparison quasars, although post-starburst hosts are more common among the CL AGNs. Our CL AGNs with extended host emission are more often quiescent than those with compact morphology, but this difference is not apparent after matching in redshift and stellar mass. The $\mathrm{O\, \small II}$ and $\mathrm{O\, \small III}$ narrow lines show no population-wide response to the continuum and broad line changes, consistent with the slower response expected from the narrow line region. Together, these results favor changes in the central supermassive black hole accretion rate as the main origin of the CL transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28735 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example five-band HSC imaging decomposition for internal identification number (ID) 121. From left to right, the columns show the image, model, point-source-subtracted image, normalized residual, and surface-brightness profile from the GalfitM fitting result. When spectrophotometry from the Spectro￾Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization, and Ices Explorer (SPHEREx) Quick Release 2 (QR2) is… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition of ID 121, a representative turn-off CL AGN in our sample at z = 0.247. The earlier SDSS spectrum is shown in the upper panel and the DESI spectrum in the lower panel. The model allows the AGN continuum and broad Hα and Hβ emission to vary independently while tying the underlying stellar population across the two epochs. strain the host flux level, and is more flexible than… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition of ID 445, a turn-on CL AGN with an SDSS faint state nearly dominated by the host galaxy. The SDSS spectrum and HSC morphology information jointly anchor the host flux level. narrow components are separated at a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 1200 km s−1 . Lines are fitted only when covered by the observed spectrum, and all AGN continuum and emission line parameters a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: HδA measured from the decom￾posed DESI host spectrum versus sSFR. Blue filled circles and red open triangles denote turn-on and turn-off CL AGNs, respectively. Dashed lines show the adopted post-starburst criteria, and post-starburst host galaxies reside a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Host galaxy comparison between extended CL AGNs and redshift–stellar-mass matched extended quasars analyzed with the same decomposition pipeline. The panels show the HδA–sSFR distribution, quiescent and post-starburst fractions, and state-separated sSFR distributions. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: i-band S´ersic effective radius relative to the HSC PSF half-light radius. Red and blue points denote quiescent and star-forming hosts, respectively; the dashed line marks the adopted threshold for extended morphology. Right: Observed differences in the quiescent…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multi-survey differential light curves of ID 423 (PS16dtm), the previously identified TDE candidate among the DESI CL AGNs. Top: CRTS, PS1, PTF, and ZTF optical photometry. Bottom: WISE/NEOWISE W1 and W2. Open diamonds show W1 and W2 photometry synthesized by integrati…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-epoch forbidden line variability in the CL AGN sample. Left: fractional line-flux changes in [O III] λ5007 and [O II] λ3728 for objects with reliable [O II] measurements, where ∆F ≡ FDESI − FSDSS and FSDSS is the fitted line flux at the SDSS epoch. The star marks I…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Black hole mass versus host stellar mass (top) and stellar velocity dispersion (bottom). The red line in the top panel is an orthogonal distance regression fit to the 105 CL AGNs, with systematic uncertainties in log M⋆ and log MBH included in the fit. The bottom pane…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute changes in emission line luminosity versus the change in the decomposed AGN continuum luminosity between the DESI and SDSS epochs. Columns show Mg II, Hβ, and Hα from left to right. The top row uses λLλ(5100 ˚A), and the bottom row uses λLλ(2500 ˚A) with the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  3. [3]

    P., Crill, B

    Akeson, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Crill, B. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15823, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15823 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15823 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27783

    Aydar, C., Merloni, A., Zeltyn, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27783. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27783

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    2005, MNRAS, 358, 1043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08841.x

    Baskin, A., & Laor, A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08841.x

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

  8. [8]

    1987, A&A, 177, 11

    Binette, L., & Robinson, A. 1987, A&A, 177, 11

    1987

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2

    2026 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Green, R

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

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248

    2019 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 19

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    2016 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade307 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M

    Chen, J., Jiang, L., Sun, S., Zhang, Z., & Sun, M. 2025, ApJ, 988, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade307 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x

    2025

  9. [17]

    J., & Pearson, E

    Clopper, C. J., & Pearson, E. S. 1934, Biometrika, 26, 404, doi: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016...

    1934 arXiv

  10. [18]

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

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Magnier, E

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

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  14. [22]

    Goodrich, R. W. 1995, ApJ, 440, 141, doi: 10.1086/175256

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1809.008

    2018

  17. [25]

    A., et al

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

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    L., et al

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

    doi

  19. [27]

    A., Siudek, M., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Fawcett, V. A., Siudek, M., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 995, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7b

    doi

  20. [28]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 H¨ außler, B., Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142935

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 78, doi: 10.1086/591838

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJL, 980, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaeb9

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Yan, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    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

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

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

    2003

  28. [36]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    2006

  30. [38]

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

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    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

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395, doi: 10.1086/648598

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Ross, N

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

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    1947, Psychometrika, 12, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF02295996

    McNemar, Q. 1947, Psychometrika, 12, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF02295996

    1947 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1095

    Merloni, A., Dwelly, T., Salvato, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1095

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

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

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

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    O., Laher, R., Law, N., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Laher, R., Law, N., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 62, doi: 10.1086/664065

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd

    Pan, Z., Jiang, L., Guo, W.-J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Denney, K

    Peterson, B. M., Denney, K. D., De Rosa, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/109 20

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    Petrushevska, T., Leloudas, G., Ilic, D., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, A&A, 650, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140597

    Potts, B., & Villforth, C. 2021, A&A, 650, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140597

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    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

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Ford, K

    Ross, N. P., Ford, K. E. S., Graham, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2002

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al

    Silber, J. H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    J., et al

    Stern, D., McKernan, B., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac726

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e35

    Sun, S., Jiang, L., Pan, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e35

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    2026, ApJ

    Tian, J., Zhao, Y., Bai, J.-M., & Guo, W.-J. 2026, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01570

    2026 arXiv

  59. [67]

    L., Crenshaw, D

    Trippe, M. L., Crenshaw, D. M., Deo, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1749, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1749

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 van Groningen, E., & Wanders, I

    Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 van Groningen, E., & Wanders, I. 1992, PASP, 104, 700, doi: 10.1086/133039

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    E., French, K

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

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

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

    2006 doi

  63. [71]

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

    2001 doi

  64. [72]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

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

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

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    Worthey, G., & Ottaviani, D. L. 1997, ApJS, 111, 377, doi: 10.1086/313021

    1997 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  68. [76]

    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

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    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

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5495

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5495

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.