Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

The outflow impacts on the size of the narrow-line region among type-2 AGNs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that gas outflows do not significantly change the spatial extent of the [O III]-emitting narrow-line region in type-2 AGNs, so the NLR size–luminosity relation is set by photoionization from the central engine rather…

desk verdict A useful large-sample null result on outflows and NLR size, but the fiber-based outflow diagnostic and unmatched luminosities make the conclusion overreaching. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18692 v2 pith:BFXWLXOE submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.GA

Kantapon Jensangjun , Suraphong Yuma This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleinarrow-lineregionoutflows[OIII]emissionbroadbandimagingsize-luminosityrelationSDSStype-2AGN
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 gas outflows, detected as broadened [O III] emission, do not change the measured size of the narrow-line region (NLR) in type-2 active galactic nuclei. Using SDSS broadband images to reconstruct [O III] maps for 2,009 galaxies, the authors find that at a given AGN luminosity, galaxies with and without outflow signatures have indistinguishable [O III] areas and nearly identical size–luminosity slopes. The size of the NLR therefore appears to be set by photoionization from the central engine rather than by mechanical outflow feedback, at least in the moderate-luminosity regime studied. A sympathetic reader would care because this directly tests a key assumption behind AGN feedback models: that outflows inflate or deplete the ionized gas reservoir in the host galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a broadband-excess technique: subtracting a PSF-matched i- or z-band continuum image from the SDSS r-band image isolates the emission-line flux, which is rescaled by the spectral ratio $\gamma_{5007}$ to produce a pure [O III] map whose isophotal area is measured down to $1.4\times10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcsec$^{-2}$. The outflow diagnostic is Eq. (4), $\sigma_{[\rm O\,III]}^2 = \sigma_{\rm gr}^2 + \sigma_{\rm non-gr}^2$, with $\sigma_{\rm gr} = \sigma_\star$, so a ratio $\sigma_{[\rm O\,III]}/\sigma_\star > 1.4$ marks a non-gravitational (outflow) component equal to the gravitational one. The claim rests on comparing the area–luminosity relations of the two subsamples.

What would settle it

If a spatially resolved IFU study of a luminosity-matched sample found that galaxies with kinematically distinct outflow components have systematically larger [O III] isophotal areas than those without, or that the extra line width is produced by turbulence rather than outflows, the paper's central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a null result: the presence of an outflow does not significantly affect the extension of the [O III] λ5007 emission, so the NLR size–luminosity relation is independent of outflow state. The [O III] areas of outflow and non-outflow subsamples, selected by $\sigma_{[\rm O\,III]}/\sigma_\star > 1.4$ from SDSS fiber spectra, follow the same best-fit slope ($0.21\pm0.03$ versus $0.19\pm0.03$) against bolometric luminosity, and their area distributions are statistically consistent. Since the area–luminosity correlation ($r\sim0.3$) is much stronger than the area–velocity-dispersion correlation ($r\sim0.12$), the authors conclude that photoionization from the central AGN, not outflow kinematics, determines the spatial extent of the NLR.

Load-bearing premise

The outflow classification assumes Eq. (4), namely that the non-stellar part of the [O III] line width is entirely outflow-driven with $\sigma_{\rm gr}=\sigma_\star$, and that the 3-arcsec SDSS fiber samples the gas that sets the overall NLR extent, so if the extra width comes from turbulence or the outflows lie outside the fiber, the subsamples are not cleanly separated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result holds, the NLR size–luminosity relation can be treated as a photoionization scaling law that is unaffected by outflow activity.
  • Mechanical AGN feedback does not inflate the NLR at luminosities of $10^{43}$–$10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$, so models that require outflows to push ionized gas to large radii need revision in this regime.
  • Outflow diagnostics (broad [O III] wings, high $\sigma_{[\rm O\,III]}/\sigma_\star$) and NLR extent decouple: a galaxy can show strong outflow kinematics without a larger ionized region.
  • The measured slope of the size–luminosity relation depends strongly on the isophotal surface-brightness threshold, so comparisons across surveys must use matched thresholds.
  • Broadband imaging of large SDSS samples can substitute for IFU surveys in statistical studies of NLR sizes, enabling samples of thousands instead of dozens.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if outflows do not set NLR extent, the [O III] area at fixed luminosity is a cleaner photoionization luminosity indicator than the [O III] line width, which mixes gravitational and non-gravitational kinematics.
  • Editorial inference: the null result suggests the extended gas is pre-existing in the host and lit up by the AGN, so distant [O III] emission may trace past (flickering) luminosity rather than current outflow transport.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test would measure outflow extent with IFU observations of a matched subsample; the paper's picture predicts outflow size is typically 0.2–0.7 times the NLR size, consistent with the cited outflow-size studies.
  • Editorial inference: the threshold dependence of the slope implies that single-epoch broadband size measurements need surface-brightness correction before being used as standard rulers or distance indicators.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs [O III] λ5007 emission-line images for 2,724 SDSS type-2 AGNs at 0.13<z<0.34 by subtracting i- or z-band stellar continuum from r-band images, measures isophotal [O III] areas for 2,009 objects down to 1.4e-15 erg/s/cm2/arcsec2, and derives area-luminosity correlations using [O III] and WISE 15 μm luminosities. Outflow presence is assigned from the SDSS 3-arcsec fiber spectra using σ[O III]/σ* > 1.4 (Eq. 4). The central claim is that the [O III] area–luminosity relation is the same for objects with and without outflows, so outflows do not affect the NLR size and photoionization is the dominant driver.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the result is astrophysically meaningful: it would show, with a much larger sample than previous IFU studies, that mechanical AGN feedback does not inflate the NLR at moderate luminosities. The paper also demonstrates a cheap broadband-imaging technique that can be applied to large photometric surveys, and it includes useful calibration checks, such as the MaNGA-based simulation of the Hβ contamination (Section 3.5) and a comparison with Sun et al. (2018). However, the central inference is currently not established because the outflow classification is made from a central aperture that does not sample the gas whose area is measured, and the subsample comparison is not controlled for the strong luminosity difference between outflow and no-outflow objects.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3 vs §3.4] The outflow classification uses the SDSS 3-arcsec fiber spectrum (physical diameter 6.0–14.5 kpc), while the [O III] areas measured in Section 3.4 extend up to 224 kpc² and are dominated by fainter, more extended gas. Equation (4) and the σ[O III]/σ* > 1.4 criterion therefore characterize only the central kiloparsecs of gas, not the gas that sets the measured isophotal area. If outflows are centrally concentrated, as the paper itself notes in Section 6.3 from Fischer et al. (2018), Kim et al. (2023), and Polack et al. (2024), then a null correlation between the fiber-based outflow flag and the total NLR area is expected even when outflows influence the extended NLR. The central claim in Section 5.4 and the Summary thus requires either spatially resolved kinematics of the extended gas or an explicit demonstration that the 3-arcsec fiber samples the same gas that dominates the area measurement.
  2. [§5.4, Figure 12] The comparison between the outflow and no-outflow subsamples is not controlled for AGN luminosity. The authors report a KS p<0.01 for the Lbol distributions of the two subsamples, yet they compare the raw [O III] area distributions and the slopes of two separate fits. Similar slopes do not establish that the NLR size is the same at fixed luminosity; the intercepts, the luminosity ranges, and the scatter matter. A luminosity-matched control sample, an analysis of area residuals from the global area–luminosity relation, or a binned comparison in Lbol is needed before the statement 'at the given luminosity, the objects with and without outflows exhibit the same extension' can be supported.
  3. [§6.2 and Figure 13] The measured area–luminosity relation is strongly dependent on the adopted isophotal threshold: changing from 1.4e-15 to 3e-15 erg/s/cm2/arcsec2 changes the slope from 0.27 to 0.39 and Pearson's r from 0.31 to 0.52. In addition, the [O III] detection fraction increases with luminosity and with the chosen threshold, and 588 objects were excluded because no [O III] emission was recovered. Because the outflow subsample is more luminous, both the threshold dependence and the luminosity-dependent detection fraction can bias the relative areas of the two subsamples. The outflow comparison should be repeated at the same brighter isophote used in Figure 14, and the excluded objects should be accounted for (e.g., with survival-analysis methods) rather than simply dropped.
  4. [§5.3, Eq. (4)] The decomposition σ²[O III] = σ²_grav + σ²_non-grav with σ_grav = σ* assumes that all excess line broadening above the stellar dispersion is an outflow signature. Broadening from turbulence, radiation pressure, unresolved multiple kinematic components, or a different stellar–gas kinematic relation would also produce σ[O III]/σ* > 1.4. The threshold of 1.4 additionally assumes equal contributions of the two terms in quadrature. This assumption is common in the literature but should be validated for the present sample, for example by checking the outflow classification against objects with IFU observations or against a kinematic criterion based on the wing component from the double-Gaussian fits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'AGNS' should be 'AGNs.'
  2. [Figure 8] The caption mentions 'the density map in the middle panel,' but the figure appears to have only a central scatter plot with a color density representation; please clarify or relabel the panels.
  3. [§3.1] The power-law fit used to derive the continuum ratio Θ is described only briefly; please state the spectral fitting range and whether emission-line pixels were masked.
  4. [§4] Equation (3) defines the non-parametric linewidth Δλ, but the text then refers to ΔV[O III] without explicitly giving the conversion; please write the conversion to velocity units.
  5. [§6.3] The statement that outflow sizes are usually smaller than NLR sizes with ratios 0.22–0.72 would benefit from specifying whether these are ratios of radii or areas, since the quoted range differs across the cited studies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: outflow classification, [O III] area measurement, and AGN luminosity are independent inputs, and the size–luminosity fits are empirical correlations rather than predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The [O III] images are constructed from SDSS broadband r-band images after continuum subtraction and PSF matching, with the area measured at a fixed isophotal threshold (Section 3.4). The outflow classification in Section 5.3 uses the SDSS fiber spectra and the ratio sigma_[O III]/sigma_star > 1.4, which is independent of the spatially measured [O III] area. The AGN luminosity is obtained from WISE mid-infrared photometry (Section 2.3), not from the area or the outflow classification. The area–luminosity relations reported in Sections 5.2 and 5.4 are fitted correlations describing the data, not predictions that are fed back into the measurement or classification. The decomposition in Eq. (4) is a kinematic assumption about the origin of line broadening, but it does not define the [O III] area or the luminosity in terms of each other. The authors' citations to their own prior work (Yuma et al.) concern the broadband excess imaging technique and are not load-bearing for the central null result that outflow and non-outflow subsamples have similar area–luminosity relations. Potential concerns about the 3-arcsec fiber aperture not sampling the extended gas that sets the measured area are threats to the physical interpretation of the null result, but they are not instances of circular reasoning. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claim is justified solely by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of observational proxies: fixed-isophote area as NLR size, sigma_[O III]/sigma_star as outflow presence, MIR luminosity as AGN power, and the r-minus-continuum broadband subtraction as a clean [O III] map. Each proxy introduces choices that are not independently calibrated for the full sample against resolved [O III] data.

free parameters (4)
  • Isophotal threshold for [O III] area = 1.4e-15 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2 (2 sigma_med)
    Adopted cutoff for measuring the [O III] area. The paper shows the area-luminosity slope and correlation strength change strongly when this threshold is changed (Section 3.4, Section 6.2).
  • Outflow classification threshold = sigma_[O III]/sigma_star = 1.4
    Chosen as the point where non-gravitational and gravitational broadening contribute equally (Section 5.3). The sample split, and therefore the main comparison, depends on this value.
  • Continuum power-law index beta = Per-object best fit
    Used in Eq. (1) to rescale i- or z-band continuum to the r band. Fitted per object from the SDSS spectrum; directly affects the subtracted [O III] images.
  • Central search radius for [O III] emission = 5 arcsec
    Chosen to avoid contamination by nearby sources or foreground stars. This can exclude off-nuclear emission and light echoes (Section 3.4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM cosmology with h=0.7, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Used to convert angular sizes into kiloparsecs throughout (end of Section 1).
  • domain assumption BPT emission-line classification identifies genuine type-2 AGNs
    The sample is selected from the Thomas et al. (2013) 'Seyfert' classification based on [N II]-BPT diagrams (Section 2.1). Misclassified LINERs or composites would dilute the sample.
  • domain assumption Stellar velocity dispersion traces the gravitational potential, so sigma_gr = sigma_star
    Eq. (4) in Section 5.3 assumes the only non-gravitational broadening of [O III] is outflows. Turbulence, multiple kinematic components, or radiation pressure effects would bias the outflow classification.
  • domain assumption The r-band broadband excess isolates [O III] after continuum subtraction
    The method assumes the scaled i/z-band continuum accurately represents the r-band stellar continuum, and that PSF matching residuals (kept below 10% of the peak) do not bias the area measurement (Sections 3.1-3.3).
  • domain assumption MIR luminosity at rest-frame 15 micron traces bolometric AGN luminosity
    Used to estimate Lbol (Section 5.2). The MIR can include a host-galaxy contribution, which is not modeled.
  • domain assumption The isophotal area at the 2 sigma_med threshold is a fair proxy for NLR physical size
    Area is measured down to a fixed observed surface-brightness limit, which mixes physical size with luminosity and surface-brightness sensitivity across the redshift range (Section 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The outflow impacts on the size of the narrow-line region among type-2 AGNs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFXWLXOE

@misc{pith2026250118692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The outflow impacts on the size of the narrow-line region among type-2 AGNs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFXWLXOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18692}
}
abstract

We present the study of the gas kinematics in narrow-line regions (NLRs) of 2,009 type-2 AGNs at $z<0.34$. We construct the [O III]$\lambda$5007 emission-line images using publicly available broadband images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The [O III] emission area of the samples, measured down to $1.4\times10^{-15}$ erg/s/cm$^2$/arcsec$^2$, ranges from 3.7 kpc$^2$ up to 224 kpc$^2$. With our broadband technique, we found the strong correlation between [O III] area and AGN luminosity inferred from the [O III] luminosity and the mid-infrared luminosity at the rest-frame $15\mu$m. The isophotal threshold used to determine the [O III] area affects the correlation strength in that the brighter isophote yields the stronger correlation between the [O III] area and AGN luminosity. The presence of gas outflow is examined by the ratio of the [O III] velocity dispersion to the stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{\rm [O\,III]}/\sigma_\star > 1.4$) using the SDSS spectra. At the given luminosity, the objects with and without outflows exhibit the same extension of the [O III] emission. Their correlation between the [O III] area and luminosity is almost identical. It is suggested that the size of NLRs is not affected by outflow mechanisms but rather by photoionization from the central AGNS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The [N II]-based BPT diagnostic diagram of 6,673 in the “emissionlinesport” table. Navy blue dots denote our parent sample of 2,724 type-2 AGNs. Gray crosses represent galaxies classified as non-AGNs. The dashed line shows the empirical division between star-forming galaxies (SFs) and AGNs from Kauffmann et al. (2003). The solid line repre￾sent the theoretical demarcation line between SFs and AGNs presented by Kewle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. L[O III]λ5007 vs spectroscopic redshift (zspec) of 2,724 type-2 AGNs at 0.13 < z < 0.34. The solid black and open red squares represent the samples with and without WISE/MIR detection, respectively (see Section 2.3). The histograms in the x-axis and y-axis show the distribution of zspec and L[O III]λ5007 for samples with MIR detections (black) and no MIR detections (red), respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra of SDSS J092729.11 + 193640.1 at z = 0.13 (gray) and SDSS J162209.41 + 352107.5 at z = 0.27 (black). The green, yellow, and red lines represent the area normalized transmission curve of r, i, and z bands, respectively. The vertical dashed lines indicate the location of emission lines. power-law spectrum to convolve with the filters. The ratio (Θ) of the continuum in the r band to that in the i- or z-band is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the PSF models of the r-band image (left), the z-band image (middle), and the residual (right). The colorbar represents the normalized intensity such that the sum equals unity. The top and bottom panels show the PSF models before and after the matching using…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The noise distribution of 2,724 [O III] emission line images of 2,724 samples. The median noise σmed of 7.0 × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 arcsec−2 is illustrated by the solid line, while the dashed line shows 2σmed level. The shaded histograms show 127 samples with σ > 2σmed, w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The percentage of area difference measured from the [O III]+Hβ map and from the reference [O III] map from MaNGA at each [O III]/Hβ ratio. Solid line indicates the median percentage of the isophotal areas from the [O III] maps, and the blue contour represents the stand…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [O III] λ5007 image construction of two examples: SDSS J092729.11 + 193640.1 at z = 0.13 (top) and SDSS J162209.41 + 352107.5 at z = 0.27 (bottom). The image size is 20′′ × 20′′. The left, middle, and right panels show the original r-band, constructed continuum, and re…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [O III] area-luminosity relation of 2,009 AGNs. The density map in the middle panel indicates the number of samples at z < 0.26. The red dots are samples at z ≥ 0.26. The top and right panels show the distributions of [O III] area and [O III] luminosity, respectively. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The [O III] area as a function of [O III] luminosity (L[OIII]); left) and bolometric luminosity (Lbol,15µm; right). Solid circles are 2,009 (left) and 1,945 (right) AGNs, while their colors indicate the velocity dispersion of [O III] emission (σ[O III]). Gray open circ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: [O III] λλ4959,5007 emission lines with the fitting residual of SDSS J134520.51 − 004835.0 at z = 0.17 (left) and SDSS J102536.38 + 011124.1 at z = 0.18 (right). The black solid line shows the original SDSS spectrum. The top and bottom panels show the case of using si…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The ratio of the [O III]-to-stellar velocity dis￾persion versus velocity shift of 1,545 objects. Yellow circles and green stars mark samples with the double-Gaussian and single-Gaussian profiles in their [O III] emission lines, respec￾tively. The red line marks the va…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The [O III] area-Lbol,15µm relations of AGNs with outflows (solid blue circles) and without outflows (open red circles). The solid blue and red lines show the best-fit relation of samples with and without outflows, respectively. The histograms along an x-axis and y-ax…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Detection fraction of [O III] emission using our broadband selection technique as a function of [O III] lumi￾nosity. Orange squares, blue stars, and magenta dots rep￾resent the rest-frame isophotal thresholds at 2σmed, 3σmed, and 3 × 10−15 erg s−1 cm−2 arcsec−2 , resp…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The [O III] isophotal area - bolometric luminos￾ity relation. Black circles are samples from this work, while green and red cross symbols represent objects from Sun et al. (2018) at z < 0.34 and z > 0.34, respectively. The black solid line shows the size-luminosity re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Georgakakis, A., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 1892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1062

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  2. [2]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  3. [3]

    F., Dickey, C., Geha, M., & Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Dickey, C., Geha, M., & Reines, A. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba0c1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba0c1 2020

  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]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    S., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Binette, L., Wilson, A. S., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1996, A&A, 312, 365

    1996

  7. [7]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    work page arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875

    doi:10.1086/381875 2004

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    2009

  2. [10]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936649

    Carraro, R., Rodighiero, G., Cassata, P., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936649

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2183

    Chen, J., Shi, Y., Dempsey, R., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2183

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al

    Chen, Z., He, Z., Ho, L. C., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 339, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01561-3

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    2006

  6. [14]

    N., & Dopita, M

    Evans, I. N., & Dopita, M. A. 1985, ApJS, 58, 125, doi: 10.1086/191032

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    Fabian, A. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Kraemer, S

    Fischer, T. C., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03e

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 12065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3964 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D

    Greenwell, C., Gandhi, P., Stern, D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 12065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3964 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 198, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/145

    Zakamska, N. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/145

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/129

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Yuma, S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/129

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 109, doi: 10.1086/422872

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629

    2007 doi

  14. [23]

    I., Guseva, N

    Izotov, Y. I., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 728, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/161

    2011 doi

  15. [24]

    2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1152, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab065

    Joh, K., Nagao, T., Wada, K., Terao, K., & Yamashita, T. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1152, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab065

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad561

    Kang, D., & Woo, J.-H. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad561

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    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

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [28]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92b

    Kim, C., Woo, J.-H., Luo, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92b

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

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

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    2006, ApJ, 650, 42, doi: 10.1086/507122 16 Jensangjun et al

    Lapi, A., Shankar, F., Mao, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 42, doi: 10.1086/507122 16 Jensangjun et al

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    L., Greene, J

    Liu, G., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., Nesvadba, N. P. H., & Liu, X. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt051

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bd9

    Liu, S., Luo, A.-L., Yang, H., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bd9

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

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

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

    1969 doi

  25. [34]

    C., Dickinson, M

    Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388

    1996 doi

  26. [35]

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

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

    1998 doi

  27. [36]

    Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A

    2009

  28. [37]

    Durand, & P

    Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler, 251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0902.2850

    doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  30. [39]

    2019, A & A, 623, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834193

    Perna, M., Cresci, G., Brusa, M., et al. 2019, A & A, 623, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834193

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    E., Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D

    Polack, G. E., Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c3

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    G., Vazdekis, A., et al

    Riffel, R., Dahmer-Hahn, L. G., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1192

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al

    Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 47, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  36. [45]

    Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1136

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    2007

  38. [47]

    W., & Schombert, J

    Scott, N., Graham, A. W., & Schombert, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/76

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

    Shin, J., Woo, J.-H., Chung, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

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

    1998 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 481, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x

    2008

  43. [52]

    E., & Zakamska, N

    Sun, A.-L., Greene, J. E., & Zakamska, N. L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/222

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    E., Zakamska, N

    Sun, A.-L., Greene, J. E., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1394

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Harrison, C

    Swinbank, A. M., Harrison, C. M., Tiley, A. L., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1275

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/190

    Terao, K., Nagao, T., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/190

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 1383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt261

    Thomas, D., Steele, O., Maraston, C., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 1383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt261

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Coziol, R., Romero-Cruz, F

    Torres-Papaqui, J. P., Coziol, R., Romero-Cruz, F. J., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abae5a

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x

    Vazdekis, A., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x

    2010

  50. [59]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae204

    Wada, K., Yonekura, K., & Nagao, T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae204

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108

    Woo, J.-H., Bae, H.-J., Son, D., & Karouzos, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    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

  53. [62]

    Wylezalek, D., & Zakamska, N. L. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1557

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    L., Greene, J

    Wylezalek, D., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2784

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    G., Adelman, J., John E

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., John E. Anderson, J., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  56. [65]

    B., et al

    Yuma, S., Ouchi, M., Drake, A. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa709f

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f87

    Sugahara, Y. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f87

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    B., et al

    Yuma, S., Ouchi, M., Drake, A. B., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 779, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/53

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    L., Strauss, M

    Zakamska, N. L., Strauss, M. A., Krolik, J. H., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2125, doi: 10.1086/378610 The outflow impacts on the size of the narrow-line region among type-2 AGNs 17

    2003 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1642

    Zheng, Z., Shi, Y., Bian, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1642

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    Zhuang, M.-Y., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ApJ, 896, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f2e

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.