Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Interband Lag Variability in Active Galactic Nuclei across ZTF Data from Multiple Years

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using six years of Zwicky Transient Facility photometry for 94 active galactic nuclei, this paper reports that optical interband lags vary seasonally in more than half of the sample and that lags grow with the light-curve baseline…

desk verdict A genuinely new sample-level multi-season lag analysis with useful data, but the headline 'more than half vary' and the baseline-growth claim both need a null-hypothesis test and a quantified treatment of broad-CCF outliers before they are established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04359 v1 pith:W3Q46E4B submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.GA

Zhen-Bo Su , Zhen-Yi Cai , Hengxiao Guo , Mouyuan Sun , Jun-Xian Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleiinterbandlagscontinuumreverberationmappingaccretiondisksZwickyTransientFacilitystochasticvariabilitytime-domainastronomy
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

Using six years of Zwicky Transient Facility photometry, this paper asks whether the time delays between optical bands in active galactic nuclei are fixed or change over time. The authors divide each of 94 AGN light curves into six one-year seasons, measure g-r and g-i interband lags with the interpolated cross-correlation function, and compare these seasonal lags with lags measured from the full six-year light curves. They report that more than half of the AGN show significant seasonal lag variations, and that the averaged seasonal lags are systematically smaller than the six-year lags. They interpret this baseline dependence as evidence that lag estimates are affected by the inherent randomness of AGN variability, consistent with simulations in which stochastic fluctuations produce randomly varying, baseline-sensitive lags. This has consequences for continuum reverberation mapping, which uses these lags to infer accretion-disk sizes: variable lags would mean single-epoch or short-campaign measurements are not stable disk-size estimators.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the interpolated cross-correlation function (ICCF) centroid lag, defined as the rcc-weighted average lag over points with correlation coefficient at least 80% of the peak (rcc >= 0.8 rmax), with uncertainties estimated by flux randomization and FR/RSS. Light curves are split into six one-year seasons based on visibility windows; seasonal lags are searched within ±50 days and full-baseline lags within ±300 days. Lag significance is calibrated by damped-random-walk simulations that reproduce each band's variability, and lag variation across seasons is quantified with three estimators (weighted excess variance, fractional variability, and weighted standard deviation). The comparison between averaged seasonal lags and full-baseline lags is what carries the baseline-dependence argument.

What would settle it

Re-measure all seasonal and full-baseline lags using a shape-insensitive estimator, such as the CCF peak or a model-based lag, on the same ZTF DR22 light curves; if the fraction of AGN with seasonal variation drops below a majority and the averaged seasonal lags no longer lie systematically below the full-baseline lags, the claim that short-term lags are smaller and that stochastic baseline dependence is present would be refuted. A synthetic test injecting known constant lags into damped-random-walk light curves with the same cadence and noise would also show whether the pipeline itself produces the reported baseline growth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that interband lags in the optical continua of AGN are variable rather than fixed. In a 94-object sample from ZTF Data Release 22, over half of the AGN show statistically significant seasonal variations in the g-r and g-i lags, and the short-term lags (the average of season-by-season measurements) are consistently smaller than the long-term lags from the full six-year light curves. The paper claims this baseline dependence is expected from the inherent randomness of AGN variability, citing simulations in which finite light-curve baselines produce randomly varying lag estimates that increase and saturate as the baseline grows. The paper also claims that inferred disk sizes depend on the choice of centroid threshold: with a correlation threshold of rcc >= 0.8 rmax, the disk-size versus black-hole-mass correlation is weak, while with rcc >= 0.95 rmax it is strong, which the authors say reconciles previously contradictory results.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that a centroid lag computed from the CCF above 80% of its peak, within a fixed search window, is a faithful estimator of the true interband lag; if real AGN light curves produce broad or asymmetric CCFs, this estimator's value and uncertainty depend on the chosen threshold and window, as the paper itself demonstrates for one object whose long-term lag drops from about 49 to about 6 days when the threshold is raised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-season interband lags are not reliable proxies for a stable disk size; they can underestimate the lag that a longer baseline would produce.
  • Lag measurements from campaigns of different lengths are not directly comparable, so part of the scatter between reported disk sizes may be baseline-induced rather than astrophysical.
  • The strength of the disk-size versus black-hole-mass correlation depends on the CCF centroid threshold, which explains why previous studies using different thresholds disagreed.
  • Long, high-cadence, multi-band surveys can test this picture by measuring how lag scatter and baseline growth depend on black-hole mass, luminosity, and Eddington ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A re-analysis of the same ZTF sample with a lag estimator that is insensitive to CCF shape and window, rather than the rcc >= 0.8 rmax centroid, would show whether the seasonal-variation fraction and the short-versus-long lag difference survive; the paper's Appendix A shows the threshold can change one object's long-term lag from about 49 to about 6 days.
  • The same pipeline applied to simulated light curves with a known constant lag and identical cadence and noise would quantify how much of the reported variation is produced by the method itself, giving a cleaner null hypothesis for the stochastic-variability interpretation.
  • If baseline-dependent lag growth is real, published black-hole mass estimates that use a fixed lag-disk-size scaling carry a systematic uncertainty that grows with monitoring duration, not just random scatter.
  • The absence of a within-object lag-magnitude correlation does not rule out slow structural changes in the disk that operate on timescales longer than the seasonal windows; testing that would require comparing lags across decades rather than years.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes interband lags for 94 AGN at z<0.8 using ZTF DR22 gri-band light curves split into six one-year seasons and a full six-year baseline. Lags are measured with the interpolated CCF method, using centroid lags with rcc thresholds of 0.8 rmax or 0.95 rmax, search windows of ±50 days for seasonal light curves and ±300 days for the full light curves, and success criteria rmax>0.6 and p(rmax)<0.2. The authors quantify seasonal lag variability with three estimators (σK24, σF16, σS17) using both FR and FR/RSS uncertainties, and compare mean seasonal lags with full-baseline lags. They claim that more than half of the AGN show significant seasonal lag variations, that short-term lags are systematically smaller than long-term lags, and that this baseline dependence supports stochastic-variability models. They also revisit the disk size--BH mass correlation using the two lag thresholds.

Significance. If established, the claims would be important for continuum reverberation mapping: variable and baseline-dependent interband lags would imply that single-epoch lag measurements may not trace a stable disk size, and would favor stochastic variability models. The paper benefits from a relatively large sample, a six-year baseline, and an honest presentation of the sensitivity of the results to the lag threshold and uncertainty estimator, including explicit examples of broad asymmetric CCFs in Appendix A. The main weaknesses are that the headline variability fraction depends strongly on the choice of uncertainty estimator and that no null-hypothesis simulation is performed to show whether a constant intrinsic lag, passed through the same CCF pipeline, could produce the reported seasonal scatter and baseline growth. These issues currently prevent the paper from supporting its central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Figure 9] The claim that more than half of the AGN show variable lags is not robust to the choice of uncertainty estimator. With FR/RSS uncertainties, σK24 gives roughly 30--40% variable AGN and σF16 gives 25--35%; with FR uncertainties those fractions rise to roughly 75--80% and 50--70%, while σS17 yields essentially 100% because it does not subtract the noise contribution. The paper itself states that 'none of the above estimators are robust enough,' yet the conservative conclusion of ≳50% does not follow from the most conservative estimator that subtracts measurement uncertainties (FR/RSS), which yields below 50%. A quantitative statement of the variability fraction requires either a calibrated null-hypothesis test or a model comparison that treats the uncertainty estimator as part of the measurement model.
  2. [§3.2.2, Figure 11, Appendix A] The baseline-growth claim (short-term lags τ̄s smaller than full-baseline lags τf) may be an artifact of the CCF-centroid estimator rather than evidence for stochastic variability. The seasonal and full light curves are analyzed with different search windows (±50 days versus ±300 days), and the same centroid threshold rcc ≥ 0.8 rmax is applied to CCFs of very different widths. Appendix A shows that one AGN's τgr decreases from 49.25 days at 0.8 rmax to 6.16 days at 0.95 rmax, and another's τgi decreases from 21.11 to 5.54 days, directly demonstrating threshold sensitivity. The text states that such anomalies are rare, but it does not count them, does not show that the median τf − τ̄s offset survives their exclusion, and does not provide a null-hypothesis simulation with a constant underlying lag through the same pipeline. Without such a simulation, the systematic offset in Figure 11 is not yet established as a physical baseline dependence.
  3. [§3.3, Figure 12] The claim that the use of distinct centroid thresholds is the major reason for the discrepant disk size--BH mass correlations rests on an arbitrary and data-dependent threshold choice. At rcc ≥ 0.8 rmax, the full-baseline disk size Rf shows essentially no correlation with BH mass (rs = −0.093, p = 0.376), while at rcc ≥ 0.95 rmax it shows rs = 0.284, p = 0.009. Because the threshold is selected after inspecting the data and because the same CCF-shape sensitivity that affects Figure 11 also affects Rf, the analysis demonstrates sensitivity of the result to the threshold rather than resolving the astrophysical discrepancy. The authors should either motivate the threshold from first principles or test both thresholds against a common null model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.1] There is a typographical error: 'Acutally' should be 'Actually'.
  2. [§2.3, Figure 6] The success criteria rmax > 0.6 and p(rmax) < 0.2 are applied uniformly, but the paper acknowledges that the proper thresholds may differ from AGN to AGN. It would be helpful to state how the resulting uncertainty in the success-rate denominators propagates into the sub-sample numbers quoted in Figures 9 and 11.
  3. [§3.1, Equation (2)] The σK24 estimator sets the variability amplitude to zero when the square root argument is negative. This means that 'στ > 0' used in Figure 9 is not equivalent to a statistically significant detection of variability, and the numerator/denominator counts should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.
  4. [Figure 9] The violin plots combine the 0.8 rmax and 0.95 rmax distributions into left and right halves, but the caption is not explicit about which half corresponds to which threshold; adding direct labels or annotation inside each panel would help the reader.
  5. [§2.4] The definition of the lag-luminosity relation in the text as 'τ ∝ L^{1/2}' is inconsistent with the immediately following statement that a 0.7 mag change gives a 0.14 dex lag change; the latter assumes a different normalization or slope convention, and the two statements should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lag comparisons are measured quantities, and the self-cited simulations are independent predictions rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claims—seasonal lag variability and tau_f > tau_s—are direct measurements from seasonal and full-baseline CCFs (Section 2.3, Figures 5, 9, 11), not quantities defined in terms of one another. The full-baseline lag is not computed from the seasonal lag estimates; both are estimated from the same photometry with the same centroid rule on different data subsets, so the baseline trend is not forced by construction. The interpretation cites Su et al. (2024b), Cai et al. (2018, 2020), and Guo et al. (2022a), which include overlapping authors, but these citations supply physical models or sample selection, not fitted parameters; the simulations are parameterized independently and are not fitted to the 94-object lag distribution. The threshold dependence of the centroid (Appendix A) and the sensitivity of the "variable" fraction to the uncertainty estimator are explicitly conceded (Section 3.1: "none of the above estimators are robust enough"), making them statistical robustness concerns rather than circular reductions. The absence of a constant-lag null simulation is a statistical concern, but it is not a circularity under the defined patterns. No equation was found in which a predicted quantity equals an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are measurement conventions: the CCF threshold, the lag search window, the minimum epoch number, and the success criteria. Each of these can change the central statistics. The robustly interpretable physical claim is therefore diluted by the freedom in these choices.

free parameters (4)
  • CCF centroid threshold rcc >= 0.8 rmax or >= 0.95 rmax = 0.80 or 0.95 times rmax
    The lag values and all conclusions change with this choice. The paper presents both, but the disk-size/BH-mass correlation result depends on which threshold is adopted.
  • Seasonal lag search window = -50 to +50 days
    Chosen to ensure sufficient coverage of the seasonal CCF. The long-term window is -300 to +300 days. The width affects the centroid for broad CCFs.
  • Minimum epochs per season per band = 20
    Adopted to alleviate uncertain lags from light curves with few epochs; it changes the effective sub-samples for the success rates.
  • Success lag criteria rmax > 0.6 and p(rmax) < 0.2 = 0.6 and 0.2
    Imported from U et al. (2022); the paper cautions that the proper thresholds may differ from one AGN to another, so the success-rate statistics depend on this choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The CCF centroid lag with rcc >= 0.8 rmax corresponds to the luminosity-weighted radius of the emission region in the reprocessing scenario.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 when choosing the centroid lag definition. This is a standard CRM assumption but is not independently validated for this sample.
  • domain assumption The lag-wavelength relation tau = tau_g[(lambda/lambda_g)^(4/3) - 1] holds for each season with fixed beta = 4/3.
    Used to convert measured lags into disk sizes in Sections 2.4 and 3.3. The paper notes the validity of using lags to estimate disk size has not been justified.
  • domain assumption The DRW process adequately models the full six-year light curves for simulating lag significance.
    Used in Section 2.3 with celerite; the paper itself later cites studies showing DRW is inconsistent with observations on very short and very long timescales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interband Lag Variability in Active Galactic Nuclei across ZTF Data from Multiple Years." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3Q46E4B

@misc{pith2026250704359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interband Lag Variability in Active Galactic Nuclei across ZTF Data from Multiple Years},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3Q46E4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04359}
}
abstract

Interband lags in the optical continua of active galactic nuclei (AGN) have been observed over years of monitoring, yet their physical origins remain unclear. While variable interband lags have been found in a few individual AGN potentially, the temporal behavior of interband lags of an AGN sample has not been explored systematically. Here, we analyze the interband lags of 94 bright AGN at $z<0.8$, using both seasonal one-year and full six-year $gri$-band light curves from Zwicky Transient Facility Data Release 22. We find that more than half of 94 AGN show significant seasonal variations in the interband lags. Besides, the short-term lags, derived by averaging lags inferred from multiple seasonal light curves, are consistently smaller than the long-term lags, which are inferred from the full six-year light curves. This supports recent theoretical simulations where the lag measurement is sensitive to the baseline of light curve and the lag variation could be simply attributed to the inherent randomness of AGN variability. Our findings suggest that the interband lags of AGN are more complex and stochastic than commonly thought, and highlight the importance of high-precision time-domain surveys in uncovering the properties of AGN variability as well as the associated accretion physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: distribution on the sky in equatorial coordinates of the 94 AGN with significant interband lags reported by Guo et al. (2022a). Right panel: distributions of the apparent r-band magnitude for the 94 AGN (Guo et al. 2022a, red filled histogram) and ≃ 0.75 million SDSS DR16 quasars (Lyke et al. 2020, black histogram). 0 2 4 z 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 N (a) SDSS DR16 (Wu & Shen 2022) 94 AGN (Guo et al. 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From left to right panels, distributions of four physical properties, i.e., redshift (z), 5100 ˚A monochromatic luminosity (L5100), BH mass (MBH), and Eddington ratio (λEdd), for the 94 AGN (red filled histogram) and the whole SDSS DR16 quasars (black histogram). The typical (i.e., median and 16-84th percentile ranges) properties of the 94 AGN are z = 0.18+0.17 −0.09, log L5100 = 44.56+0.59 −0.72, log MBH = 8.2 +0.4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the ZTF gri-band light curves (main panel) and the interband CCF results (panels in the top row and the right column) for a typical AGN in the sample. In the main panel, according to the minimal visibility of the AGN over years (vertical dashed lines), the ZTF g- (blue circles), r- (green triangles), and i-band (orange pentagons) light curves are subdivided into six seasons. In the j-th season, the s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three observational characteristics, i.e., the number of observed epochs (Nj ; top panels), the median cadence (⟨∆t⟩ med j ; middle panels), and the median photometric uncertainty (⟨σe⟩ med j ; bottom panels) of each AGN observed in the j-th season and in the ZTF g (le…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the rest-frame interband lags measured in six seasons (left panel) and the annual lag-wavelength relations (right panel) for the same AGN shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: an example of the observed CCF between the first seasonal g- and r-band light curves of the same AGN shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the success rate of the lag measurement for the g (left panel), r (middle panel), and i (right panel) bands relative to the g band for sub-samples of the 94 AGN selected with more than observed 20 epochs per season in both bands. The success rates infer…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panels: distributions of the variation amplitude of lags, στ , for sub-samples with at least three successful lags of τgr or τgi across six seasons. Three distinct estimators, i.e., σ K24 τ (Equation 2, left panel), σ F16 τ (Equation 3, middle panel), and σ S17 τ (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: contour plots of changes in the median magnitudes between two seasons (∆ms) versus changes in the seasonal lags (Rτ ) for τgr (blue solid contours) and τgi (red dashed contours) of the 94 AGN. The lags are derived using rcc ⩾ 0.8 rmax. For both lags, the S…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the short-term lag, ¯τs, in￾ferred by averaging the seasonal one-year lags, and the long￾term lag, τf , inferred from the full six-year light curves, for those AGN with at least three successful seasonal lags (see the nominated N for the correspondi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Correlations between 2500 ˚A disk size and BH mass. The disk size is inferred from the centroid lags weighted with rcc ⩾ 0.8 rmax (left panel) or rcc ⩾ 0.95 rmax (right panel). Using the seasonal one-year and full six-year light curves, asterisks (Rs) and circles (Rf …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Simulating the timescale dependent color variation in quasars with a revised inhomogeneous disk model

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    F., Vernardos , G., O'Dowd , M

    Bate , N. F., Vernardos , G., O'Dowd , M. J., et al. 2018, , 479, 4796, 10.1093/mnras/sty1793

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1793 2018

  5. [5]

    M., Bentz , M

    Cackett , E. M., Bentz , M. C., & Kara , E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557, 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Chiang , C.-Y., McHardy , I., et al

    Cackett , E. M., Chiang , C.-Y., McHardy , I., et al. 2018, , 857, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab4f7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab4f7 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Zoghbi , A., & Ulrich , O

    Cackett , E. M., Zoghbi , A., & Ulrich , O. 2022, , 925, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3913

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3913 2022

  8. [8]

    2024, Universe, 10, 431, 10.3390/universe10110431

    Cai , Z. 2024, Universe, 10, 431, 10.3390/universe10110431

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10110431 2024

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    Cai , Z.-Y., & Wang , J.-X. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, , 826, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/7

    Cai , Z.-Y., Wang , J.-X., Gu , W.-M., et al. 2016, , 826, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/7

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, , 892, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7991

    Cai , Z.-Y., Wang , J.-X., & Sun , M. 2020, , 892, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7991

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, , 855, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab091

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

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

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

    Chelouche , D., Pozo Nu \ n ez , F., & Kaspi , S. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251, 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, , 962, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16ea

    Chen , J., Sun , M., & Zhang , Z.-X. 2024, , 962, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16ea

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Ely , J., et al

    De Rosa , G., Peterson , B. M., Ely , J., et al. 2015, , 806, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/128

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2011, , 727, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24

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

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Horne , K., & Hern \'a ndez Santisteban , J

    Donnan , F. R., Horne , K., & Hern \'a ndez Santisteban , J. V. 2021, , 508, 5449, 10.1093/mnras/stab2832

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Gelbord , J., et al

    Edelson , R., Peterson , B. M., Gelbord , J., et al. 2024, , 973, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d4

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, , 870, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b4

    Edelson , R., Gelbord , J., Cackett , E., et al. 2019, , 870, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b4

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Denney , K

    Fausnaugh , M. M., Denney , K. D., Barth , A. J., et al. 2016, , 821, 56, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/56

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Starkey , D

    Fausnaugh , M. M., Starkey , D. A., Horne , K., et al. 2018, , 854, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa2b

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Angus , R., & Ambikasaran , S. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Gaskell , C. M. 2017, , 467, 226, 10.1093/mnras/stx094

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Bartel , K., Deffner , J

    Gaskell , C. M., Bartel , K., Deffner , J. N., & Xia , I. 2021, , 508, 6077, 10.1093/mnras/stab2443

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    R., & Korista , K

    Goad , M. R., & Korista , K. T. 2014, , 444, 43, 10.1093/mnras/stu1456

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Guo , H., & Barth , A. J. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 226.08

    2021

  19. [27]

    J., & Wang , S

    Guo , H., Barth , A. J., & Wang , S. 2022 a , , 940, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ec

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2017, , 847, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d71

    Guo , H., Wang , J., Cai , Z., & Sun , M. 2017, , 847, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d71

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Wang , J.-M

    Guo , W.-J., Li , Y.-R., Zhang , Z.-X., Ho , L. C., & Wang , J.-M. 2022 b , , 929, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e84

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Sarrouh , G

    Hall , P. B., Sarrouh , G. T., & Horne , K. 2018, , 854, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa768

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    V., Edelson , R., Horne , K., et al

    Hern \'a ndez Santisteban , J. V., Edelson , R., Horne , K., et al. 2020, , 498, 5399, 10.1093/mnras/staa2365

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Grier , C

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

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/ztf, 10.26131/IRSA539

    IRSA . 2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/ztf, 10.26131/IRSA539

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Prince , R., Panda , S., & Czerny , B

    Jaiswal , V. K., Prince , R., Panda , S., & Czerny , B. 2023, , 670, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244352

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Joshi , R., Chand , H., et al

    Jha , V. K., Joshi , R., Chand , H., et al. 2022, , 511, 3005, 10.1093/mnras/stac109

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Greene , J

    Jiang , Y.-F., Green , P. J., Greene , J. E., et al. 2017, , 836, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b91

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Papadakis , I

    Kammoun , E. S., Papadakis , I. E., & Dov c iak , M. 2021, , 503, 4163, 10.1093/mnras/stab725

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, , 971, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a0c

    Kang , W.-Y., Wang , J.-X., Cai , Z.-Y., et al. 2024, , 971, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a0c

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Cackett , E

    Kara , E., Barth , A. J., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2023, , 947, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcd3

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    P., & Gaskell , C

    Koratkar , A. P., & Gaskell , C. M. 1991, , 75, 719, 10.1086/191547

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Higley , A

    Lyke , B. W., Higley , A. N., McLane , J. N., et al. 2020, , 250, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C

    MacLeod , C. L., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2010, , 721, 1014, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Laher , R

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

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Beard , M., Breedt , E., et al

    McHardy , I. M., Beard , M., Breedt , E., et al. 2023, , 519, 3366, 10.1093/mnras/stac3651

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Guo , H., Barth , A

    Montano , J. W., Guo , H., Barth , A. J., et al. 2022, , 934, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7e54

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Hyer , G

    Morgan , C. W., Hyer , G. E., Bonvin , V., et al. 2018, , 869, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed3e

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Tollerud , E., Sip o cz , B., et al

    Morris , B. M., Tollerud , E., Sip o cz , B., et al. 2018, , 155, 128, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa47e

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2018, , 862, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bb

    Mudd , D., Martini , P., Zu , Y., et al. 2018, , 862, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bb

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    F., Edelson , R., Baumgartner , W., & Gandhi , P

    Mushotzky , R. F., Edelson , R., Baumgartner , W., & Gandhi , P. 2011, , 743, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L12

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, , 509, 2637, 10.1093/mnras/stab3133

    Netzer , H. 2022, , 509, 2637, 10.1093/mnras/stab3133

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Connolly , S

    Pal , M., Dewangan , G. C., Connolly , S. D., & Misra , R. 2017, , 466, 1777, 10.1093/mnras/stw3173

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Bentz , M

    Peterson , B. M., Bentz , M. C., Desroches , L.-B., et al. 2005, , 632, 799, 10.1086/444494

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Doroshenko , V

    Sergeev , S. G., Doroshenko , V. T., Golubinskiy , Y. V., Merkulova , N. I., & Sergeeva , E. A. 2005, , 622, 129, 10.1086/427820

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

    Shakura , N. I., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 500, 33

    1973

  47. [55]

    W., Homayouni , Y., Trump , J

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

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    V., Gavras , P., Karampelas , A., et al

    Sokolovsky , K. V., Gavras , P., Karampelas , A., et al. 2017, , 464, 274, 10.1093/mnras/stw2262

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2024 a , , 969, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c7

    Su , Z.-B., Cai , Z.-Y., Sun , M., et al. 2024 a , , 969, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c7

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2024 b , , 976, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bc

    Su , Z.-B., Cai , Z.-Y., Wang , J.-X., et al. 2024 b , , 976, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bc

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    J., & Peterson , B

    Sun , M., Grier , C. J., & Peterson , B. M. 2018, PyCCF: Python Cross Correlation Function for reverberation mapping studies , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1805.032. 1805.032

    2018

  52. [60]

    R., & Gu , W.-M

    Sun , M., Xue , Y., Trump , J. R., & Gu , W.-M. 2019, , 482, 2788, 10.1093/mnras/sty2885

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    N., et al

    Sun , M., Xue , Y., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2020, , 891, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab789e

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    S., & Kochanek , C

    Tie , S. S., & Kochanek , C. S. 2018, , 473, 80, 10.1093/mnras/stx2348

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Vogler , H

    U , V., Barth , A. J., Vogler , H. A., et al. 2022, , 925, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d26

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Ulrich , M.-H., Maraschi , L., & Urry , C. M. 1997, , 35, 445, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    1997 doi

  57. [65]

    S., & Uttley , P

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

    2003

  58. [66]

    M., Beard , M., Hardy , I

    Vincentelli , F. M., Beard , M., Hardy , I. M., et al. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230018, 10.1002/asna.20230018

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    M., McHardy , I., Cackett , E

    Vincentelli , F. M., McHardy , I., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2021, , 504, 4337, 10.1093/mnras/stab1033

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.05261, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.05261

    Wang , S., Guo , H., & Woo , J.-H. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.05261, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.05261

    2023 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    2023 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    Wang , T., Liu , G., Cai , Z., et al. 2023 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Wilkins , D. R. 2023, , 526, 3441, 10.1093/mnras/stad2936

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Wilson, E. B. 1927, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 209, 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953

    1927

  64. [72]

    S., Peterson , B

    Yu , Z., Kochanek , C. S., Peterson , B. M., et al. 2020 a , , 491, 6045, 10.1093/mnras/stz3464

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    M., et al

    Yu , Z., Martini , P., Davis , T. M., et al. 2020 b , Apjs, 246, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5e7a

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11292, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11292

    Zhou , S., Sun , M., Feng , H.-C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11292, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11292

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    S., & Peterson , B

    Zu , Y., Kochanek , C. S., & Peterson , B. M. 2011, , 735, 80, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.