Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Classifying Quasar Types Without a Spectrum

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The shape of a quasar's brightness-variability curve carries enough information to separate Type 1 from Type 2 quasars without a spectrum, with 99% and 87% recovery in this sample.

desk verdict A genuinely new photometric Type 1/Type 2 quasar classifier with public code, but the headline 99/87% recovery rates are in-sample and confounded by different light curve quality between the two classes. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11916 v1 pith:T7W5LJPV submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Adrien Hélias , Pauline Barmby , Sarah C. Gallagher , Shahram Abbassi , Matthew J. Graham This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasarsactivegalacticnucleilightcurvesSlepianwaveletvariancehierarchicalclusteringType1and2ZwickyTransientFacilityvariabilityclassification
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

This paper claims that the shape of a quasar's multi-timescale brightness variability, computed from irregularly sampled optical light curves with Slepian Wavelet Variance, is enough to separate Type 1 from Type 2 quasars without any spectroscopy. Using 516 Type 1 and 238 Type 2 quasars from the MILLIQUAS catalogue and Zwicky Transient Facility light curves, the authors recover 99% of Type 1 and 87% of Type 2 quasars with unsupervised hierarchical clustering guided by a single slope cut. If this holds beyond the present sample, it would make quasar subtyping dramatically cheaper: photometry already exists for millions of quasars, while spectra do not. The paper also reads the variance curves as physical probes, identifying a several-day-to-week transition between short-timescale and long-timescale variability regimes in Type 1 quasars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Slepian Wavelet Variance curve, a scale-by-scale estimate of a light curve's variance built from Slepian wavelets, which are data-adaptive bandpass filters derived from prolate spheroidal wave functions. Its key property is that it works on irregularly sampled time series, which is what ground-based surveys produce. The classification machinery then treats each curve as a point in a high-dimensional space: curves are interpolated to 50 spline points, standardized by subtracting their median, compared with absolute Pearson correlation distances, and clustered with agglomerative hierarchical clustering using complete linkage. A final slope criterion between the first and last spline points, with a threshold at $-0.225$, assigns the ambiguous cluster to Type 1 or Type 2 behavior.

What would settle it

Run the identical clustering on spectroscopically confirmed Type 1 and Type 2 quasars whose ZTF light curves are matched for number of observations, baseline, and sky region; if the recovery rates collapse toward chance, the variance-curve difference is an artifact of sampling density rather than quasar type.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that Type 1 and Type 2 quasars have distinct Slepian Wavelet Variance signatures in ZTF light curves: Type 1 curves typically fall to a minimum near about 10 days in the rest frame and then rise again at longer timescales, while Type 2 curves decline nearly monotonically, with most power at the shortest scales. The authors show that agglomerative hierarchical clustering of the variance curves, using absolute Pearson distances and complete linkage, groups most quasars correctly, and that a single slope cut at $-0.225$ cleanly separates the remaining mixed cluster. The final two-cluster split recovers 513 of 516 Type 1 quasars (99%) and 207 of 238 Type 2 quasars (87%). The few objects that land on the wrong side of the split show variability behavior opposite to their spectroscopic type, and the authors interpret these as candidates for changing-look or spectroscopically atypical quasars rather than as failures of the method.

Load-bearing premise

The separation between Type 1 and Type 2 variance curves reflects the quasars' intrinsic variability, not the far richer light-curve sampling and different sky coverage of the Type 1 sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result generalizes, quasar Type 1/Type 2 labels can be assigned or pre-screened from variability alone, reserving spectroscopy for confirmation and for the small fraction of ambiguous objects.
  • The method is model-independent: unlike structure functions or the Damped Random Walk, it does not assume a shape for the power spectrum, so it can be applied to any survey light curve with sufficient sampling.
  • The variance-curve minimum near $2^3$-$2^4$ days in Type 1 quasars can serve as an observable diagnostic for the transition between inner-disk reprocessing and outer-disk thermal variability.
  • The 1% of Type 1 and 13% of Type 2 quasars with opposite variability signatures form a self-selected sample of candidate changing-look or misclassified AGNs for targeted follow-up.
  • With LSST's long light curves, the same decomposition should probe longer timescales and sharpen the physical interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Type 1 sample required at least 1500 good observations and the Type 2 sample only 300, and because the two samples occupy different sky regions with different baseline distributions, the cleanest test of the paper's claim is a matched-sample rerun: identical cadence, baseline, and sky coverage for both spectral types.
  • The bimodal slope distribution with a clean break at $-0.225$ suggests that a single scalar summary of the variance curve may carry most of the classification signal; an independent test would compare clustering against a simple slope-only threshold applied to a fresh sample.
  • The misclassified objects' spectra predate the ZTF light curves, so their apparent 'wrong' variability is consistent with spectral-type evolution over roughly a decade; monitoring those 34 objects now could catch a changing-look transition in progress.
  • If the technique transfers to LSST, it could turn variability-based subtype screening into a population-scale tool for finding obscured or changing AGNs, but that depends on the matched-sample test being clean.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies Slepian Wavelet Variance (SWV) to ZTF light curves of 516 MILLIQUAS Type 1 and 238 Type 2 quasars, computes rest-frame variance curves at dyadic timescales, and uses agglomerative hierarchical clustering with a slope threshold to group curves into two classes. The authors report 99% recovery of Type 1 and 87% recovery of Type 2 labels, inspect the misclassified objects as possible changing-look or discrepant quasars, and interpret the curve shapes in terms of short- and long-term variability regimes. The paper argues that SWV is model-independent and complementary to structure functions and the Damped Random Walk model.

Significance. If the classification result were validated out of sample, this would be a valuable, inexpensive way to separate quasar spectral types using photometry alone, with obvious application to large surveys such as LSST. The paper has real strengths: the code is public, the SWV methodology is described in detail, the authors are transparent about several known biases, and they inspect all 34 misclassified objects individually. The physical discussion of the variance-curve minimum as a possible transition between X-ray reprocessing and outer-disk thermal variability is interesting, though it is clearly interpretive. However, the load-bearing recovery numbers are computed on the same sample used to choose the slope threshold and the number of clusters, and the Type 1 and Type 2 samples differ substantially in data quality and sky coverage. The paper currently demonstrates an interesting association between variance-curve shape and spectral class, not a validated classifier.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Figs. 9-10] The slope threshold of -0.225 is chosen by inspecting the bimodal slope distribution of the same 754 objects whose recovery rates are then quoted, and the decision to truncate the dendrogram at 5 flat sub-clusters is also made on this sample. The reported 99% and 87% recovery rates are therefore training-set agreement, not predictive accuracy. Please add out-of-sample validation, such as k-fold or repeated holdout cross-validation, or an independent ZTF/MILLIQUAS test set, and report how sensitive the recovery rates are to the slope threshold.
  2. [Section 2, Figs. 3, 7, 11] The two classes are not drawn from comparable light-curve populations. Type 1 quasars are required to have at least 1500 good observations and are concentrated in one region of the ZTF footprint, while Type 2 quasars require at least 300 good observations and are spread over SDSS sky. Fig. 11 shows that their baseline distributions are not drawn from the same underlying distribution, and their redshift distributions also differ, with Type 2 quasars predominantly at z <= 0.9. Because SWV filters are data-dependent and the variance curve shape depends on cadence, noise floor, baseline, and rest-frame timescale coverage, the observed separation could reflect data quality rather than intrinsic quasar type. Please rerun the analysis with samples matched on n_goodobs, baseline, and sky footprint, or demonstrate that the classifier separates the classes within matched subsamples.
  3. [Section 6 and Fig. 4] The short-scale rise that distinguishes the Type 2 archetype is admitted to be partly due to photometric uncertainties, and the long-scale variance estimates at 2^8-2^10 days are admitted to be unstable and biased low. The classifier uses the full 50-point spline including these scales, so the reported separation may be amplified by known artifacts rather than intrinsic variability differences. Please quantify the effect by truncating the spline at unreliable scales and by adding simulated noise floors to archetypal curves, and report whether the 99% and 87% rates survive.
  4. [Section 5, Fig. 11] The sentence stating that the classification is 'not baseline-limited' addresses only the fact that all quasars have at least 1500 days of baseline and that the probed timescales fit within that baseline. It does not address the demonstrated difference in the baseline distributions or the difference in observing cadence between the two samples. This statement overstates what Fig. 11 establishes and should be revised to acknowledge the sampling confound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, condition 2] The normalization condition is written as the sum of squared filter coefficients equal to -2^{-j}/Delta; for real coefficients this cannot be satisfied, and the minus sign is presumably a typo. Please correct.
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'This is a elegant reminder' should read 'This is an elegant reminder', and the conclusion contains a sentence fragment, 'With the help of agglomerative hierarchical clustering.'
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The statements that 99% of Type 1 quasars have a parabola shape and 87% of Type 2 quasars are monotonically decreasing should be explicitly framed as in-sample recovery rates for this sample, not as population-level statements.
  4. [Table 1 note] The note 'the few that have DESI DR1 spectra taken after 2018 are all confirm' is grammatically incomplete, and the claim that DESI spectra confirm the variability type would be much stronger if the number of such objects and the individual matches were specified.
  5. [Section 5] The term 'recovery rate' should be defined precisely in the text, since the clustering is unsupervised and the labels are only used for evaluation; as written, 'recovery' could be mistaken for the success rate of a deployed classifier.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Slope threshold is selected in-sample and recovery rates are computed on the same 754 objects, making the headline 99%/87% performance a training-set description rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Figs. 9-10 (slope criterion and recovery rates)]
    "the slope between the first and last points of the splines show a clear bimodality without overlap at the value −0.225 (see Fig. 9). Therefore, for the objects in Cluster 2, if a variance curve has an average slope below −0.225, we label it as a Type 2 and we keep it in Cluster 2. Otherwise, if the average slope value is above −0.225, we label it as a Type 1 and we move it to Cluster 1. ... We now obtain 544 quasars in Cluster 1 and 210 quasars in Cluster 2, with 513/516 Type 1 correctly recovered (99%) and 207/238 Type 2 correctly recovered (87%)."

    The classification rule is not fully out-of-sample: the −0.225 slope cutoff is chosen by inspecting the slope distribution of the same 524 objects in Cluster 2 that are then relabeled and counted. The reported 99%/87% recovery rates are computed on the same 754 objects used to select this cutoff, so they quantify in-sample separation after a data-dependent threshold has been placed at the observed gap between the two types. No independent test set or cross-validation is presented, so the headline recovery rates are a training-set description rather than an independent prediction; the high rates are partly built into choosing the threshold on this exact sample.

full rationale

The variance curves themselves are computed from ZTF photometry and are not defined in terms of the MILLIQUAS spectral labels, so there is no self-definitional circularity: Type 1/Type 2 labels enter only as the external reference for evaluating the clustering. The agglomerative hierarchical clustering is unsupervised, and the self-citations to Graham et al. (2014) and Mondal & Percival (2012) are methodological provenance rather than load-bearing support for the specific Type 1 versus Type 2 claim, which is tested against an external spectroscopic catalogue. The one partially circular element is the slope criterion: the −0.225 threshold is selected after inspecting the slope distribution of the same sample whose recovery rates are then reported, so the 99%/87% figures are in-sample performance, not validated predictive accuracy. The additional concerns about differing n_goodobs thresholds and sky/baseline distributions are real threats to external validity, but they are confounds rather than circularity by construction. Overall, the central derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but the headline performance metric is inflated by being measured on the training sample, warranting a partial circularity score of 4 rather than 0.

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

The central classification rests on the Slepian wavelet variance estimator, whose validity requires stationarity assumptions about the sampling process, and on several modeling choices in the clustering pipeline. The main tuned parameter is the slope threshold -0.225, which is fit to the same data whose recovery rates are reported.

free parameters (3)
  • Slope threshold for Cluster 2 separation = -0.225
    Chosen from the bimodal distribution of slopes in Cluster 2 (Fig. 9), then used to assign objects in the same data set; the reported recovery rates are therefore in-sample.
  • Number of flat clusters = 5
    Chosen by the authors because they judged the variance curves not diverse enough for deeper clustering (Section 5); affects the cluster composition.
  • Minimum good observations thresholds = 1500 (Type 1), 300 (Type 2)
    Selected to obtain a few hundred objects per class (Section 2); this creates a large sampling asymmetry between the two classes.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Observation times are a realization of a stationary point process, and the sampling intervals are a portion of a stationary sequence of positive random variables.
    Required for the Slepian wavelet variance estimator on irregularly sampled data (Appendix A, after Eq. A1).
  • standard math The dyadic scale structure partitions the total variance cleanly across scales.
    Dyadic scaling is a property of the discrete wavelet transform used by the method (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Rest-frame timescales are correctly computed from MILLIQUAS spectroscopic redshifts.
    The comparison of variance curves across the sample shifts timescales by (1+z); redshift errors would blur the archetypes (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classifying Quasar Types Without a Spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7W5LJPV

@misc{pith2026260811916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classifying Quasar Types Without a Spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7W5LJPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11916}
}
read the original abstract

Distinguishing between Type 1 and Type 2 quasars is important because it helps us understand accretion regimes, black hole mass scaling, disk instabilities and feedback processes in active galaxies. Although spectroscopy provides robust classification, it does not scale well with the millions of quasars observed in modern surveys, as it requires substantial time and resources to acquire a good spectrum. On the photometry side, quasar light curves are always irregularly sampled and affected by the specifics of photometric surveys, making them difficult to analyze. In this work, we show that we can use irregularly sampled light curves from the Zwicky Transient Facility to classify quasar types without a spectrum, using Slepian Wavelet Variance. This technique allows us to decompose the variance of light curves into multiple timescales. We use agglomerative hierarchical clustering to classify 516 Type 1 and 238 Type 2 quasars from the MILLIQUAS catalogue, solely based on their wavelet variance curves. We obtain a recovery rate of 99% for Type 1 and 87% for Type 2 quasars, and the few misclassified quasars show the opposite variability behaviour to their spectral type. In contrast to structure functions and the Damped Random Walk model, Slepian Wavelet Variance offers a complementary, model-independent view of variability across short and long timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows a well-sampled Type 1 and Type 2 quasar light curve from ZTF after cleaning and binning. Both quasars exhibit some variability over time, but the Type 1 variability is notably stronger, especially on a ∼ 1 year timescale, whereas Type 2 displays genuine, if modest, variation that still exceeds the photometric uncertain￾ties. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Luminosity (r-band) versus redshift for 515 Type 1 (blue squares) and 227 Type 2 (yellow circles) MILLIQUAS quasars, corrected for Galactic extinction. In our sample, Type 1 quasars span a wide range of redshifts with luminosi￾ties between 1043 and 1047 erg s−1 . Due to observational limits, only the most luminous quasars are visible at greater distances. Our Type 2 quasars are predominantly found at z ⩽ 0.9. τj and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sky distribution of the 516 Type 1 quasars (red) and the 238 Type 2 quasars (blue) in our sample. Our Type 1 quasars are concentrated into a specific area of the sky, while our Type 2 quasars are dispersed, mostly within the SDSS coverage. 5. CLASSIFICATION OF QUASARS BASED ON VARIANCE CURVES To verify the interest of using variance curves to dif￾ferentiate between Type 1 and Type 2 quasars, we use agglomerative hie… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variance curves for the Type 1 (top) and Type 2 quasars (bottom) presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel of five example Type 1 (top row, blue curves) and Type 2 variance curves (bottom row, red curves), selected to be representative of the final samples. The redshift of each quasar is indicated on the top of each variance curve. two populations: the slope between t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The 516 Type 1 and (b) the 238 Type 2 quasar variance curves and of our final sample, with the superposition of the variance curves of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Median rest-frame variance curves of Type 1 quasars with different redshift ranges. The curves agree well, with small time shifts: higher-z quasars are shifted to shorter timescales in the rest-frame due to time dilation. Variance alone, classifying these sources is to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Truncated dendrogram of the 754 MILLIQUAS quasars, sorted into five flat clusters of variance curve similarity, from A to E. The Euclidean distance is shown on the vertical axis. Sub-clusters which are next to each other on the horizontal axis are the most similar. The…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of average slopes between the first and last point of the splines of the 524 variance curves inside Cluster 2. There is a very clear distinction between the two types of curves we are trying to disentangle, with a break at −0.225 above which we label a qua…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the agglomerative hierarchical clus￾tering in 2 flat clusters, before and after setting up the slope criterion. Both clusters now show a more homogeneous vari￾ance behaviour, where most MILLIQUAS Type 1 quasars are in Cluster 1 and most MILLIQUAS Type 2 qua…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Interpretation of the physical phenomena in AGNs responsible for the dominant variability regimes at play in archetypal Type 1 and Type 2 quasar variance curves. The blue and red curves used in the background of each sub-figure are the archetypal variance curves prese…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The 3 MILLIQUAS Type 1 exhibiting Type 2 variability, out of 516 objects. Blue light curves are in the g-band, red light curves are in the r-band. Respective variance curves are on the right side of each light curve. Ar´evalo, P., & Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801, d…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The 31 MILLIQUAS Type 2 exhibiting Type 1 variability, out of 238 objects. Blue light curves are in the g-band, red light curves are in the r-band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  2. [2]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Lira, P., et al

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Lira, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347080 18H ´elias et al. Figure 13.The 3 MILLIQUAS Type 1 exhibiting Type 2 variability, out of 516 objects. Blue light curves are in theg-band, red light curves are in ther-band. Respec...

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  5. [5]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  6. [6]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933

    doi:10.1126/science.abg9933 2021

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab091

    Cai, Z.-Y., Wang, J.-X., Zhu, F.-F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab091

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab091 2018

  8. [8]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x

    Chelouche, D., Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., & Kaspi, S. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x 2019

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    1964, Physics Today, 17, 21, doi: 10.1063/1.3051610

    Chiu, H.-Y. 1964, Physics Today, 17, 21, doi: 10.1063/1.3051610

    1964 doi

  2. [10]

    2011, ApJL, 727, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24

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

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    W., & Rix, H.-W

    El-Badry, K., Hogg, D. W., & Rix, H.-W. 2026, PASP, 138, 024102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae3f56 Classifying Quasar Types Without a Spectrum19 Figure 14.The 31 MILLIQUAS Type 2 exhibiting Type 1 variability, out of 238 objects. Blue light curves are in theg-band, red light curve...

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D

    Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. 2001, Cluster Analysis (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics) Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x

    2001

  5. [13]

    M., Peterson, B

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Peterson, B. M., Starkey, D. A., Horne, K., & AGN Storm Collaboration. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 55, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2017.00055

    2017

  6. [14]

    Flesch, E. W. 2015, PASA, 32, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.10

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  9. [17]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Drake, A. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2499

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    Kankkunen, S., Tornikoski, M., & Hovatta, T. 2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Vogeley, M

    Kasliwal, V. P., Vogeley, M. S., & Richards, G. T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1230

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Becker, A

    Kelly, B. C., Becker, A. C., Sobolewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., & Uttley, P. 2014, ApJ, 788, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/33 Koz lowski, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/118

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Bian, F

    Lai, S., Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., & Bian, F. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad651 L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3174

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    1969 doi

  16. [24]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Malmquist, K. G. 1922, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, 100, 1

    1922

  19. [27]

    Malmquist, K. G. 1925, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, 106, 1 Mart´ ınez Collipal, D., & Panda, S. 2026, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 10, 97, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae6648

    1925 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    A., & Sandage, A

    Matthews, T. A., & Sandage, A. R. 1963, ApJ, 138, 30, doi: 10.1086/147615

    1963 doi

  22. [30]

    McQuitty, L. L. 1960, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 55, doi: 10.1177/001316446002000106

    1960 doi

  23. [31]

    Mondal, D., & Percival, D. B. 2012, in Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy V, ed. E. D. Feigelson & G. J. Babu, Vol. 902, 403–418, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3520-4 38

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Richards, G

    Moreno, J., Vogeley, M. S., Richards, G. T., & Yu, W. 2019, PASP, 131, 063001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1597

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, ApJL, 743, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L12

    Gandhi, P. 2011, ApJL, 743, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L12

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 2637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3133

    Netzer, H. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3133

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., & Kochanek, C. S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac888

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Bian, F., Fan, X., et al

    Onken, C. A., Bian, F., Fan, X., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1635

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Richards, G

    Peters, C. M., Richards, G. T., Myers, A. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/95

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Foltz, C

    Peterson, B. M., Foltz, C. B., Byard, P. L., & Wagner, R. M. 1982, ApJS, 49, 469, doi: 10.1086/190807 Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., Bruckmann, C., Deesamutara, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad286

    1982 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Myers, A

    Richards, G. T., Myers, A. D., Peters, C. M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 39, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/39 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, H., Mart´ ı, L., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1426

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Koo, D

    Sarajedini, V. L., Koo, D. C., Klesman, A. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/97 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Shields, G. A. 1999, PASP, 111, 661, doi: 10.1086/316378

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    H., Cordes, J

    Simonetti, J. H., Cordes, J. M., & Spangler, S. R. 1984, ApJ, 284, 126, doi: 10.1086/162391

    1984 doi

  38. [46]

    Slepian, D., & Pollak, H. O. 1961, The Bell System Technical Journal, 40, 43, doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1961.tb03976.x

    1961

  39. [47]

    Stalevski, M., Fritz, J., Baes, M., Nakos, T., & Popovi´ c, L. ˇC. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2756, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19775.x

    2012

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Stern, D., McKernan, B., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac726 Classifying Quasar Types Without a Spectrum21 Figure 14.(continued) 22H ´elias et al

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  42. [50]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    1997 doi

  43. [51]

    S., & Uttley, P

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

    2003

  44. [52]

    A., et al

    Wolf, C., Lai, S., Onken, C. A., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 520, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02195-x

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2008, Hierarchical Clustering, 31–62, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470382776.ch3

    Xu, R., & Wunsch, D. 2008, Hierarchical Clustering, 31–62, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470382776.ch3

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

    S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A. 2013, ApJ, 765, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/106

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.