Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 101 references

A Detailed Look at a Trio of Changing-Look Quasars: Spectral Energy Distributions and the Dust Extinction Test

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For three changing-look quasars, variable dust obscuration is strongly disfavored; their dramatic fading instead reflects a change in the central engine's intrinsic luminosity.

desk verdict A carefully executed multi-wavelength test convincingly rules out dust as the sole cause of three CLQ transitions; the LLAGN comparison is suggestive but not yet a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13174 v1 pith:H6DAAYSC submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA

Laura Duffy , Michael Eracleous , Jessie C. Runnoe , John J. Ruan , Scott F. Anderson , Sabrina Dimassimo , Paul Green , Stephanie LaMassa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords changing-lookquasarsactivegalacticnucleidustextinctionultravioletspectroscopyopticalspectralenergydistributionaccretionflowEddingtonratio
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 tests the two leading explanations for changing-look quasars, active galaxies whose broad emission lines and continuous spectrum fade dramatically within a few years. Using newly obtained ultraviolet and optical spectra taken while three quasars were in their faint state, together with archival spectra from brighter and fainter epochs, the authors measure the dust extinction implied by four independent spectral tracers. Because those tracers give mutually inconsistent extinction values, they conclude that a single variable dust screen cannot account for the state change and that the transformation instead reflects a change in the intrinsic luminosity of the central engine. The low-state spectra also lack the usual ultraviolet bump and resemble the spectral energy distributions of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, suggesting a drop in Eddington ratio and a change in the structure of the accretion flow.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dust extinction test: under a fixed extinction law, each independent reddening tracer—the Balmer decrement, the absolute H-alpha and H-beta flux drops, the Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio, and the 5100 Å continuum dimming—predicts its own V-band extinction, and variable-obscuration is viable only if those predictions agree. The test uses the Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with RV = 3.1, and brackets the ultraviolet tracers with a steeper Small Magellanic Cloud law and a greyer starburst attenuation law. The companion piece is the low-state SED comparison: the observed SEDs are matched in shape to advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) plus truncated thin disk models for low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (Nemmen et al. 2014), where a hot, radiatively inefficient flow plus a truncated thin disk shifts the peak emission from the far-ultraviolet to the infrared/optical and removes the ultraviolet bump.

What would settle it

A high-state ultraviolet spectrum of any of these three quasars that showed an intrinsic Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio near unity, rather than the assumed 2–5, would bring the ultraviolet-derived extinction into agreement with the optical values and would invalidate the dust-rejection for that object.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For three changing-look quasars (J1011, J1021, and J2336), the authors combined new low-state ultraviolet and optical spectra with archival spectra from both the high and low states. Taking the high-state broad-line fluxes and the H-alpha/H-beta ratio as the intrinsic, unreddened values, they derived V-band extinction from the Balmer decrement, the drop in broad H-alpha flux, the drop in broad H-beta flux, the Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio (assuming an intrinsic ratio of 2–5), and the drop in the 5100 Å continuum. In all three quasars these values are mutually inconsistent: for J1011 even the optical line measurements alone disagree, and for J1021 and J2336 the ultraviolet- and continuum-derived values fall well below the optical-line values. The authors therefore conclude that variable dust obscuration alone cannot explain the state changes and that the observed transformation reflects a change in the intrinsic luminosity of the central engine. They further find that the low-state spectral energy distributions peak at longer wavelengths than standard quasar SEDs, lack the ultraviolet bump, and resemble the SEDs of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, which is consistent with a change from a thin accretion disk to an advection-dominated flow with a truncated disk as the Eddington ratio drops.

Load-bearing premise

The dust test assumes that the high-state broad-line fluxes and the H-alpha/H-beta ratio are the intrinsic, unreddened values, so that any change in the low state is attributed to dust; if the high state is itself reddened, the derived extinction values shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For these three quasars, variable dust obscuration alone cannot explain the state change, so the transformation most plausibly reflects an intrinsic change in the quasar's luminosity.
  • In the low state, the quasars' spectral energy distributions resemble those of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, implying a drop in Eddington ratio and a possible transition from a thin disk to an advection-dominated flow.
  • Bolometric corrections calibrated on standard quasars and on low-luminosity active galactic nuclei give mostly consistent Eddington ratios, so existing luminosity estimates remain usable even when a quasar is in its low state.
  • Two of the three quasars continued to slowly brighten after entering their low state, indicating that the low state is not static and that continued monitoring of confirmed changing-look quasars can reveal further evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the low states truly correspond to advection-dominated accretion, X-ray observations taken during a state transition should show spectral hardening alongside the optical and ultraviolet decline; this is a testable prediction of the paper's interpretation.
  • The same cross-tracer extinction test could be applied to larger changing-look quasar samples using only optical line ratios plus a continuum measurement, since the paper shows that the 5100 Å continuum tracer alone can expose a dust-screen inconsistency.
  • The near-identical low-state SED shapes of J1011 and J2336 suggest that at similar low Eddington ratios the accretion flow settles into a similar configuration; a larger sample could test whether SED shape is determined by Eddington ratio alone.
  • Future high-state ultraviolet spectra of these quasars would directly measure the intrinsic Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio that the paper had to assume, which would sharpen or overturn the dust rejection for individual objects.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports contemporaneous HST/COS ultraviolet and HET/LRS2 optical spectroscopy of three changing-look quasars (J1011, J1021, J2336) obtained in their low states, together with archival SDSS high- and low-state spectra. The authors decompose the spectra, measure broad H-alpha, H-beta, and Ly-alpha fluxes and 5100 Angstrom continuum levels, and use the high-to-low state changes to derive V-band extinctions under four different assumptions. Because the resulting A_V values disagree strongly among methods for all three objects, they conclude that variable dust obscuration cannot be the sole cause of the changing-look transitions. They also construct low-state UV-to-X-ray SEDs and note the absence of the canonical UV bump, a peak at log nu ~ 15-15.2, and qualitative resemblance to LLAGN SEDs, which they interpret as evidence for a transition to a radiatively inefficient accretion flow driven by a reduced Eddington ratio.

Significance. If the dust-extinction rejection holds, this is a valuable contribution: it is the first test of the variable-obscuration hypothesis for CLQs using contemporaneous rest-frame UV and optical spectra, and the multi-method A_V comparison is a well-designed differential test. The paper also provides useful new low-state measurements of three previously identified CLQs, including UV line fluxes that are rarely available in the low state. The bootstrap-resampled fitting and the explicit exploration of different extinction/attenuation laws are commendable. The second part of the claim, concerning accretion-flow structure, is considerably less secure, as it rests on qualitative SED comparison rather than quantitative modeling; the paper itself defers detailed SED fitting to future work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figures 8-10; Section 6; Section 7] The abstract and Section 6 state that the low-state SEDs are 'reminiscent of' LLAGN and that the transition 'may result from a change in accretion flow structure caused by a reduced Eddington ratio,' and Section 7 lists this as a main conclusion. However, the evidence presented is a qualitative visual comparison with the Nemmen et al. (2014) ADAF+truncated-disk model fits, with no quantitative fitting, no goodness-of-fit statistics, and no comparison against alternative models such as a reddened standard disk or a low-luminosity thin disk. Section 7 explicitly states that 'detailed SED modelling and fit LLAGN-type SEDs to the observed data' remains future work. Because the accretion-flow conclusion is a load-bearing part of the paper's central claim, it needs either to be backed by quantitative model fitting or to be explicitly downgraded to a hypothesis rather than presented as a finding.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 3.5, Section 5.2, Figures 8-9] The UV data used to define the low-state SED shapes have very low signal-to-noise: Section 3.1 reports a mean continuum SNR of approximately 2 in the G140L band at 1350 Angstroms, and Section 3.5 states that no emission lines are discernible in the G230L spectra except C IV in J1021. The SED bins in Figure 8 carry error bars that are the standard deviation of pixel values within each bin. The claims that the SEDs 'lack the canonical UV bump' and peak near log nu ~ 15-15.2 therefore need a statistical justification, for example a test that the observed UV-optical continuum is inconsistent with a single power law or with a standard thin-disk SED, or at least a propagation of the SNR into the binned fluxes. Without such a test, the apparent UV turnover and the absence of a UV bump may not be significant, weakening the LLAGN interpretation.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 5] The derivation of A_V from the emission lines in Table 5 assumes that the high-state H-alpha/H-beta ratio and the high-state broad-line fluxes are the unreddened intrinsic values. This is stated explicitly in Section 5.1. If the high state is itself reddened, the absolute A_V values in Table 5 shift, and the 'presence of Ly-alpha alone' argument is priors-dependent through the assumed intrinsic Ly-alpha/H-alpha = 2-5 range. The qualitative conclusion that dust alone cannot explain the transitions is nevertheless likely robust, because the different methods then measure (A_V_low - A_V_high) and the cross-method disagreement persists. The manuscript would be stronger if it stated this differential interpretation explicitly and demonstrated, even with a simple algebraic example, that a constant high-state extinction cannot reconcile the different A_V values. As written, the text invites the reader to think the central conclusion depends on the unreddened-high-state assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/Title] The title contains 'T rio' with a stray space; please correct to 'Trio'.
  2. [Section 2.3] The COS entrance aperture is described as having a 'redius' of 1.25 arcseconds; this should be 'radius'.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption contains 'spectruum'; it should read 'spectrum'.
  4. [Section 7] The summary says the SEDs are 'remniscent' of LLAGN; the correct spelling is 'reminiscent'.
  5. [Section 4.2] The text refers to 'telluric Na I D emission'; telluric features of this kind are absorption, not emission, so the wording should be adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dust-extinction test is a self-consistency check on measured fluxes and standard extinction laws, and the LLAGN comparison is qualitative and external.

full rationale

The central claim that variable dust obscuration alone cannot explain the observed state changes is derived from a differential comparison of independently measured quantities (broad H-alpha, H-beta, Ly-alpha, and 5100 Angstrom continuum fluxes) using standard extinction laws (Cardelli et al. 1989; Calzetti et al. 1994; Gordon et al. 2003). The derived A_V values are not fitted to the conclusion; the conclusion follows from their mutual inconsistency, which is not imposed by any assumption. The assumption that the high-state Balmer decrement is intrinsic is stated explicitly (Section 5.1) and affects only the absolute A_V scale, not the ordering that rules out dust. The LLAGN resemblance is established by qualitative comparison with independent templates and models (Nemmen et al. 2014; Eracleous et al. 2010), with the paper itself acknowledging that detailed SED modeling is deferred to future work (Section 7). Literature values used for black hole masses (Runnoe et al. 2016; MacLeod et al. 2016; Ruan et al. 2016) and X-ray fluxes (Ruan et al. 2019) are external measurements, not quantities derived from the present data or the paper's own conclusions; they are not load-bearing for the dust argument. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to the paper's conclusions. The paper is self-contained and externally falsifiable through its observed spectral changes.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dust-extinction test rests on measured line fluxes and standard extinction laws, so the ledger is short. The main hand-chosen input is the adopted intrinsic Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio. The larger assumptions are the unreddened high state and constant narrow lines, both explicitly stated in the text.

free parameters (1)
  • Intrinsic high-state Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio = 2-5 (adopted range)
    Adopted from literature composite quasar spectra (Vanden Berk et al. 2001; Kuraszkiewicz et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2012) because no high-state Ly-alpha exists for these objects; Section 5.1. The resulting A_V from Ly-alpha/H-alpha is used as one of the consistency tests, and the range is propagated into the error bars.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The high state of each CLQ is unreddened, so its broad-line fluxes and Balmer decrement represent the intrinsic values.
    Section 5.1 states this assumption when attributing low-state changes entirely to dust. If false, all derived A_V values shift, though the cross-method inconsistencies likely persist.
  • domain assumption Narrow emission-line fluxes are constant between epochs and across apertures.
    Section 3.4 uses this to rescale HET to SDSS via [O III] and to fix high-state narrow-line strengths. If narrow lines vary, the flux calibration and line decompositions are affected.
  • domain assumption Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with R_V = 3.1 applies to the dust in these quasars.
    Used throughout Section 5.1 to convert line ratios and flux drops into A_V; the range of possible attenuation laws is only partially explored via Calzetti and SMC laws for the UV.
  • domain assumption The bolometric corrections from Runnoe et al. (2012), Lusso et al. (2010), and Eracleous et al. (2010) are applicable to these CLQs.
    Section 5.3 uses these to convert monochromatic luminosities to L_bol and hence Eddington ratios. The paper itself notes the corrections largely agree but J1021's X-ray-based value is implausibly high.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Detailed Look at a Trio of Changing-Look Quasars: Spectral Energy Distributions and the Dust Extinction Test." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6DAAYSC

@misc{pith2026250113174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Detailed Look at a Trio of Changing-Look Quasars: Spectral Energy Distributions and the Dust Extinction Test},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6DAAYSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13174}
}
read the original abstract

Changing-look quasars exhibit dramatic variability in broad emission-line fluxes on short timescales. This behavior is challenging to many models of the quasar broad line region, due in large part to the short transition times between high and low states. In order to constrain the cause of the dramatic variability, we obtained contemporaneous Hubble Space Telescope UV and Hobby Eberly Telescope optical spectra of three changing-look quasars caught in their low state. We use these spectra, along with archival spectra taken during both the high and low states, to investigate potential scenarios for the change in state. Our data strongly disfavor a variable dust obscuration scenario for these three CLQs, and instead suggest that the observed transformation reflects a change in the intrinsic luminosity of the central engine. We also find that the low-state spectral energy distributions of all three quasars are reminiscent of those of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, which suggests that the transition may result from a change in accretion flow structure caused by a reduced Eddington ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13174 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MDM images of the three CLQs. Plotted on top in white is an aperture that represents the PSF 90% light radius for each observation. We integrate the flux in that aperture and take that as the r or V-band flux from the unresolved quasar within the larger extended galaxy. All three CLQs remained in their low states at the time of observation. aperture of the SDSS fibers varies between observations, and also differs fr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Best-fit spectral decomposition for the low and high states of J1011, J1021, and J2336. We do not show broad and narrow emission line fits, but only the best-fit stellar contribution (orange), power law contribution (blue), Fe II and Balmer continuum contributions (green), and the sum of those components (red). The regions blocked in light grey were not used for the fits, in order to avoid obvious broad emission lin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Low-state Lyα, Hα, and Hβ emission line profiles for J1011, J1021, and J2336 respectively. We show the continuum￾subtracted spectrum in black, the total best fit emission line profile in red, and various components of the fit in blue, green, and orange. In most cases, the emission lines are best fit with two components, a broad and a narrow one. In J1021, Lyα has both a more complex profile and contributions from N … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: High-state Hα and Hβ emission line profiles for J1011, J1021, and J2336 respectively. We show the continuum subtracted spectrum in black, the total best-fit emission line profile in red, and various components of the broad fit in blue in green. For high-state narrow Hα…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Lyα and N V emission lines in J1021’s low state. Nominal wavelengths of Lyα and N V are marked by the dotted and dashed lines respectively. We note that N V is stronger than typical quasar composite spectra would suggest (Vanden Berk et al. 2001). Right: Si IV an…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The (non-stellar) spectral energy distribution for each low-state CLQ. We show J2336 in the black circles, J1011 in the blue stars, and J1021 in the red triangles. J1011 and J2336 have nearly identical SED shapes, but J1021 dif￾fers at low frequency from the other two.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Full IR through X-ray SED of J1021. Over￾plotted in the black solid, dot-dashed and dotted lines are three different ADAF+truncated thin disk fits to LLAGN from Nemmen et al. (2014) and scaled to the luminosity at log(ν/Hz) = 14.8. The Nemmen et al. (2014) fits were p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Full IR through X-ray low-state SEDs of J1011 (top), J1021 (middle), and J2336 (bottom). Overplotted in the grey dashed and dotted lines are Elvis et al. (1994) com￾posite radio loud and radio quiet quasar SEDs. The IR data are drawn from NEOWISE and X-ray data come fr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2017, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2017, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2017

  3. [3]

    S., & Wills, B

    Bennert, N., Falcke, H., Schulz, H., Wilson, A. S., & Wills, B. J. 2002, ApJL, 574, L105, doi: 10.1086/342420

    doi:10.1086/342420 2002

  4. [4]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10967176 2024

  5. [5]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ec1 2019

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    S., Hill, G

    Chonis, T. S., Hill, G. J., Lee, H., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99084C, doi: 10.1117/12.2232209

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1336, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1336

    Constantin, A., Green, P., Aldcroft, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1336, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1336

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W

    Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly213

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, astropy/specutils: v1.0, v1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3718589

    Earl, N., Tollerud, E., Jones, C., et al. 2020, astropy/specutils: v1.0, v1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3718589

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    A., & Flohic, H

    Eracleous, M., Hwang, J. A., & Flohic, H. M. L. G. 2010, ApJS, 187, 135, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/135

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a6

    Feng, J., Cao, X., Li, J.-w., & Gu, W.-M. 2021, ApJ, 916, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a6

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

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

    2002

  14. [22]

    B., et al

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

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Giveon, U., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., & Smith, P. S. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 637, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02556.x

    1999

  16. [24]

    Goodrich, R. W. 1989, ApJ, 340, 190, doi: 10.1086/167384 —. 1990, ApJ, 355, 88, doi: 10.1086/168743 —. 1995, ApJ, 440, 141, doi: 10.1086/175256

    1989 doi

  17. [25]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Ross, N

    Graham, M. J., Ross, N. P., Stern, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3244

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Grandi, S. A. 1982, ApJ, 255, 25, doi: 10.1086/159799

    1982 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/6010.1086/141956

    2012

  21. [29]

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

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

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Peterson, B

    Grier, C. J., Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/60

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15277.x

    Gu, M., & Cao, X. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15277.x

    2009

  24. [32]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2ce

    Guo, H., Peng, J., Zhang, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2ce

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al

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

    doi

  27. [35]

    L., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Greenwell, C. L., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00402

    doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    M., Viallet, M., & Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., Viallet, M., & Lasota, J. P. 2009, A&A, 496, 413, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810928

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Hirschauer, A. S. 2023, in COS Instrument Handbook v. 16.0, Vol. 16, 16 19

    2023

  31. [39]

    Ho, L. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 672, doi: 10.1086/307137

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Grier, C

    Homayouni, Y., Trump, J. R., Grier, C. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2638

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

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

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Richards, G

    Jester, S., Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 873, doi: 10.1086/432466

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Haggard, D., et al

    Jin, X., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb17 Kovaˇ cevi´ c, J., Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., & Kollatschny, W. 2014, Advances in Space Research, 54, 1347, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.11.035

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Green, P

    Kuraszkiewicz, J. K., Green, P. J., Forster, K., et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 257, doi: 10.1086/342789

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    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 L´ opez-Navas, E., Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M. L., Bernal, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L57, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac033

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, A&A, 512, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Ross, N

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

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Green, P

    MacLeod, C. L., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa99da —. 2019, ApJ, 874, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    2010, A&A, 517, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913985

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Salvati, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913985

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1696, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11735.x

    Maoz, D. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1696, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11735.x

    2007

  45. [54]

    2001, A&A, 372, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010420

    Markoff, S., Falcke, H., & Fender, R. 2001, A&A, 372, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010420

    2001 doi

  46. [55]

    G., Krumpe, M., & Nikutta, R

    Markowitz, A. G., Krumpe, M., & Nikutta, R. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2492

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x

    Matt, G., Guainazzi, M., & Maiolino, R. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x

    2003

  48. [57]

    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

  49. [58]

    J., Anderson, S

    Morganson, E., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 244, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/244

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1995 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M

    Nemmen, R. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2388

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

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

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

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    E., Shaw, R

    Osterbrock, D. E., Shaw, R. A., & Veilleux, S. 1990, ApJ, 352, 561, doi: 10.1086/168558 pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10957263

    1990 doi

  54. [63]

    Peterson, B. M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247, doi: 10.1086/133140

    1993 doi

  55. [64]

    2007, A&A, 473, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077630

    Piconcelli, E., Fiore, F., Nicastro, F., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077630

    2007 doi

  56. [65]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    1998 doi

  57. [66]

    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

  58. [67]

    E., Arevalo, P., et al

    Ricci, C., Bauer, F. E., Arevalo, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/5

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    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

  60. [69]

    P., Graham, M

    Ross, N. P., Graham, M. J., Calderone, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2415

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/105

    2014 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Cales, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 188, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/188

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Brotherton, M

    Runnoe, J. C., Brotherton, M. S., & Shang, Z. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 478, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20620.x

    2012

  65. [74]

    C., Cales, S., Ruan, J

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

    2016 doi

  66. [75]

    P., Richards, G

    Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2360, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    E., Kriss, G

    Scott, J. E., Kriss, G. A., Brotherton, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 135, doi: 10.1086/422336

    2004 doi

  68. [77]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  69. [78]

    S., Wills, B

    Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, B. J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/2

    2011 doi

  70. [79]

    W., Homayouni, Y., Trump, J

    Sharp, H. W., Homayouni, Y., Trump, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cea

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    N., Dawson, K

    Shen, Y., Brandt, W. N., Dawson, K. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/4

    2015 doi

  73. [82]

    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 20

    2013 doi

  74. [83]

    2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    Sniegowska, M., Czerny, B., Bon, E., & Bon, N. 2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    A., Siemiginowska, A., & Gierli´ nski, M

    Sobolewska, M. A., Siemiginowska, A., & Gierli´ nski, M. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2259, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18302.x

    2011

  76. [85]

    J., & Hummer, D

    Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41

    1995 doi

  77. [86]

    1979, ApJL, 234, L9, doi: 10.1086/183100

    Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y., Branduardi, G., et al. 1979, ApJL, 234, L9, doi: 10.1086/183100

    1979 doi

  78. [87]

    S., & Runnoe, J

    Tang, B., Shang, Z., Gu, Q., Brotherton, M. S., & Runnoe, J. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 38, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/38

    2012 doi

  79. [88]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, do...

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

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

    2006 doi

  81. [90]

    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

  82. [91]

    A., & Horne, K

    Wade, R. A., & Horne, K. 1988, ApJ, 324, 411, doi: 10.1086/165905

    1988 doi

  83. [92]

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

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

    2024 doi

  84. [93]

    C., Vanden Berk, D

    Wilhite, B. C., Vanden Berk, D. E., Kron, R. G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 638, doi: 10.1086/430821

    2005 doi

  85. [94]

    J., Netzer, H., & Wills, D

    Wills, B. J., Netzer, H., & Wills, D. 1985a, ApJ, 288, 94, doi: 10.1086/162767 —. 1985b, ApJ, 288, 94, doi: 10.1086/162767

    doi

  86. [95]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf839

    Wu, W.-B., & Gu, W.-M. 2023, ApJ, 958, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf839

    2023 doi

  87. [96]

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

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., Wu, X.-B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16183, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16183

    2024 doi arXiv

  88. [97]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481a

    Yang, Q., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481a

    2019 doi

  89. [98]

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

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

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    J., MacLeod, C

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdedd

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

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

    2000 doi

  92. [101]

    Younes, G., Porquet, D., Sabra, B., & Reeves, J. N. 2011, A&A, 530, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116806

    2011 doi

  93. [102]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47 —

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47 —. 2024, ApJ, 966, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.