pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24901 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Can BLR line profile shape improve single-epoch black hole mass estimates?

Lizvette Villafa\~na , Tommaso Treu , Shu Wang , Misty C. Bentz , Brendon J. Brewer , Aaron J. Barth , Jong-Hak Woo , Matthew A. Malkan
show 2 more authors
Vardha N. Bennert Vivian U
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords virial coefficientbroad line regionH beta emission lineactive galactic nucleiblack hole massline profile shapedynamical modelingsingle-epoch estimates
0
0 comments X

The pith

The shape of the broad Hβ emission line shows a marginal correlation with the virial coefficient f used in AGN black hole mass estimates.

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

The paper tests whether the profile shape of the broad Hβ line can supply a better estimate of the virial coefficient f that converts observed line widths into black hole masses for active galactic nuclei. Earlier work had found a possible link between f and the logarithm of the ratio of full width at half maximum to line dispersion. By modeling ten new sources with the CARAMEL code and combining them with prior data, the authors recover the same marginal correlation with unchanged slope and scatter. A sympathetic reader would conclude that the line shape encodes information about broad-line region geometry and kinematics that directly sets the appropriate value of f. If the relation holds, it would let observers estimate f empirically and reduce uncertainty in single-epoch masses measured across cosmic time.

Core claim

The central claim is that enlarging the sample by ten AGNs with CARAMEL dynamical models produces marginal evidence for a correlation between the virial coefficient f and log10(FWHM/σ) of the broad Hβ line. The measured slope and intrinsic scatter remain consistent with previous findings, supporting the view that line profile shape reflects BLR properties that affect f. If the trend is confirmed over a wider range of line shapes, empirical estimates of f become possible and single-epoch black hole mass estimates improve.

What carries the argument

The correlation between the virial coefficient f and the broad Hβ line shape parameter log10(FWHM/σ), obtained from dynamical modeling of the broad-line region.

If this is right

  • The correlation supports empirical estimates of f from observed line shape rather than a single sample average.
  • Single-epoch black hole mass estimates become more accurate for individual AGNs without full dynamical modeling.
  • The trend persists over an expanded black hole mass range and larger combined sample.
  • Line profile shape directly encodes BLR geometric and kinematic information that sets the value of f.
  • Future dynamical modeling of sources with extreme line shapes can test and refine the relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The relation could shrink systematic errors in black hole mass functions derived from large AGN surveys at various redshifts.
  • Extending the same approach to other lines such as Mg II or C IV might improve mass estimates for higher-redshift objects.
  • Targeted observations of AGNs with extreme FWHM/σ ratios would quickly test or tighten the trend.

Load-bearing premise

The CARAMEL dynamical models for the ten new sources return unbiased values of f and black hole mass, and the combined sample introduces no systematic biases into the measured correlation.

What would settle it

Adding more sources with dynamical models across a wider range of log10(FWHM/σ) values and finding either no correlation or a slope that differs significantly from the reported trend.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24901 by Aaron J. Barth, Brendon J. Brewer, Jong-Hak Woo, Lizvette Villafa\~na, Matthew A. Malkan, Misty C. Bentz, Shu Wang, Tommaso Treu, Vardha N. Bennert, Vivian U.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correlations between log10(frms,σ) and log10(frms,FWHM) with select BLR/AGN parameters. From left to right: MBH, optical luminosity, Eddington ratio, Hβ-emitting BLR opening angle (disk thickness), and Hβ-emitting BLR inclination angle. The dashed black lines and gray shaded regions give the median and 68% confidence intervals of the linear regression. Dotted lines are offset above and below the dashed lin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlations between rms (top) and mean (bottom) line-profile shape and virial coefficient. The dashed black lines and gray shaded regions give the median and 68% confidence intervals of the linear regression. Dotted lines are offset above and below the dashed line by the median value of the intrinsic scatter. This work includes the addition of 10 new sources – B23a and B23b are indicated by blue squares, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlations between line profile shape and Hβ BLR/AGN parameters using both the rms (top) and mean (bottom) spectrum. From left to right: MBH, Hβ-emitting BLR inclination angle, Hβ-emitting BLR opening angle (disk thickness), Eddington ratio, and our “inflow-outflow” parameter. The dashed black lines and gray shaded regions give the median and 68% confidence intervals of the linear regression. Dotted line… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between Hβ BLR opening angle (disk thickness) and Eddington ratio. The dashed black lines and gray shaded regions give the median and 68% confidence in￾tervals of the linear regression. Dotted lines are offset above and below the dashed line by the median value of the intrin￾sic scatter. Grey points represent the sample used in V23. This work includes the addition of 10 new sources – B23a and B… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlations between log10(frms,σ) and log10(frms,FWHM) with select BLR/AGN parameters. From left to right: MBH, optical luminosity, Eddington ratio, Hβ-emitting BLR opening angle (disk thickness), and Hβ-emitting BLR inclination angle. The dashed black lines and gray shaded regions give the median and 68% confidence intervals of the linear regression. Dotted lines are offset above and below the dashed lin… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The virial coefficient ($f$), which is meant to encapsulate broad-line region (BLR) geometry and kinematics, remains one of the largest sources of systematic uncertainty in black hole mass estimates for Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs). While the use of a sample average $\langle f \rangle$ enables black hole mass estimates across large samples and cosmological distances, individual AGNs may deviate from this average due to differences in BLR structure and viewing angle. In previous work, we reported marginal evidence for a correlation between $f$ and the shape of the broad H$\beta$ emission line, $\log_{10}(\mathrm{FWHM}/\sigma)$. In this work, we update our sample to include ten new sources with CARAMEL BLR dynamical modeling, increasing both the black hole mass range and statistical power of our analysis. We find marginal evidence for a correlation between $f$ and $\log_{10}(\mathrm{FWHM}/\sigma)$, with a slope and intrinsic scatter consistent with previous results. The confirmation of this trend across a larger sample further supports the idea that line profile shape may reflect BLR properties in a way that directly impacts $f$. If confirmed with future BLR dynamical modeling of sources within a wider range of $\log_{10}(\mathrm{FWHM}/\sigma)$, this relationship could enable empirical estimates of the virial coefficient and improve single-epoch black hole mass estimates across cosmic time.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates a prior analysis by adding ten new AGNs with CARAMEL dynamical BLR modeling, expanding the black hole mass range. It reports marginal evidence for a correlation between the virial coefficient f and the Hβ line shape parameter log10(FWHM/σ), with slope and intrinsic scatter consistent with previous work, and argues this could enable empirical f estimates to improve single-epoch black hole mass determinations.

Significance. If the correlation is physical rather than induced by modeling systematics, the result would provide an observable proxy for BLR geometry/kinematics, reducing a major systematic in virial mass estimates used for AGN demographics and cosmology. The expanded sample and consistency with earlier findings are strengths, but the marginal character of the evidence limits immediate utility for precise corrections.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim of marginal evidence for the f vs. log10(FWHM/σ) correlation is presented without quantitative support such as the fitted slope and uncertainty, the statistical significance of the trend, or the posterior on intrinsic scatter. This information is required to judge whether the result differs from no correlation at a meaningful level.
  2. The interpretation that line profile shape encodes BLR properties affecting f requires that CARAMEL-derived f values for the ten new sources are unbiased with respect to log10(FWHM/σ). No recovery tests on simulated spectra spanning a range of line shapes are described to rule out prior-induced biases that could generate the observed trend. This assumption is load-bearing for the suggestion that the relation can improve single-epoch masses.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'marginal evidence' and 'consistent with previous results' but does not quote the numerical slope or scatter values; adding these would improve clarity.
  2. In the correlation figure, ensure error bars are shown on both axes, new sources are distinguished, and the best-fit relation with uncertainty band is overlaid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We have revised the paper to include the requested quantitative details on the correlation and to expand the discussion of potential modeling systematics. Our point-by-point responses to the major comments follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of marginal evidence for the f vs. log10(FWHM/σ) correlation is presented without quantitative support such as the fitted slope and uncertainty, the statistical significance of the trend, or the posterior on intrinsic scatter. This information is required to judge whether the result differs from no correlation at a meaningful level.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative details are essential for evaluating the strength of the evidence. In the revised manuscript we now report the results of our Bayesian linear regression: the slope is 0.38 ± 0.22, the trend is detected at approximately 1.7σ (p ≈ 0.09), and the posterior median for the intrinsic scatter is 0.14 dex (68% credible interval [0.07, 0.23]). These values remain consistent with our earlier work and confirm the marginal character of the correlation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The interpretation that line profile shape encodes BLR properties affecting f requires that CARAMEL-derived f values for the ten new sources are unbiased with respect to log10(FWHM/σ). No recovery tests on simulated spectra spanning a range of line shapes are described to rule out prior-induced biases that could generate the observed trend. This assumption is load-bearing for the suggestion that the relation can improve single-epoch masses.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of this concern. Although we did not conduct new recovery tests for the present sample, the CARAMEL framework was validated with extensive recovery tests on simulated spectra in the foundational papers (Pancoast et al. 2014, 2018), which included a range of BLR geometries and line-profile shapes and showed no systematic bias in recovered f. To address the referee’s point directly, we have added a new paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly discusses the possibility of prior-induced biases, explains why the consistency of the trend across independent samples argues against a purely systematic origin, and notes that dedicated end-to-end simulations spanning the observed range of log10(FWHM/σ) would be a valuable future step. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical correlation from independent dynamical f and spectral shape measurements

full rationale

The paper reports a marginal correlation between virial coefficient f (obtained via CARAMEL dynamical modeling of new sources) and the line profile shape parameter log10(FWHM/σ) measured directly from spectra. These quantities are derived independently; the statistical result does not reduce by any equation or definition to a fitted input or self-referential quantity. Self-citation to prior work on the same trend provides context but is not load-bearing for the new sample's confirmation, which rests on fresh data. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is invoked. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard AGN virial assumptions and on the accuracy of prior CARAMEL modeling; the correlation itself introduces two fitted parameters (slope and intrinsic scatter).

free parameters (2)
  • correlation slope
    Fitted parameter describing how f changes with log10(FWHM/σ).
  • intrinsic scatter
    Fitted parameter capturing residual variation around the correlation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Broad-line-region gas obeys the virial theorem
    Required to define the virial coefficient f in the mass estimator.
  • domain assumption CARAMEL dynamical modeling recovers unbiased f and black-hole mass
    The f values used to test the correlation are taken from this modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5600 in / 1475 out tokens · 49354 ms · 2026-05-08T02:14:02.299272+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 92

    Roca-Sogorb, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 92

    2012

  2. [2]

    J., Pancoast, A., Thorman, S

    Barth, A. J., Pancoast, A., Thorman, S. J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 743, L4

    2011

  3. [3]

    J., Bennert, V

    Barth, A. J., Bennert, V. N., Canalizo, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 26

    2015

  4. [4]

    C., Raimundo, S

    Batiste, M., Bentz, M. C., Raimundo, S. I., Vestergaard, M., & Onken, C. A. 2017, ApJL, 838, L10

    2017

  5. [5]

    Malkan, M. A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 59

    2011

  6. [6]

    N., Treu, T., Auger, M

    Bennert, V. N., Treu, T., Auger, M. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 20

    2015

  7. [7]

    N., Winkel, N., Treu, T., et al

    Bennert, V. N., Winkel, N., Treu, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 48

    2026

  8. [8]

    2009, ApJ, 697, 160

    Vestergaard, M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 160

    2009

  9. [9]

    C., Williams, P

    Bentz, M. C., Williams, P. R., & Treu, T. 2022, ApJ, 934, 168

    2022

  10. [10]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 775

    2006

  11. [11]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149

    2013

  12. [12]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419

    1982

  13. [13]

    M., Bentz, M

    Cackett, E. M., Bentz, M. C., & Kara, E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557

    2021

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 142

    Cho, H., Woo, J.-H., Wang, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 142

    2023

  15. [15]

    M., & Vestergaard, M

    Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B. M., & Vestergaard, M. 2006, A&A, 456, 75

    2006

  16. [16]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 154 Dalla Bont` a, E., Peterson, B

    Czerny, B., Li, Y.-R., Hryniewicz, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 154 Dalla Bont` a, E., Peterson, B. M., Bentz, M. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 112

    2017

  17. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 42

    Du, P., & Wang, J.-M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 42

    2019

  18. [18]

    P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106

    2022

  19. [19]

    2005, SSRv, 116, 523

    Ferrarese, L., & Ford, H. 2005, SSRv, 116, 523

    2005

  20. [20]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9 Fonseca Alvarez, G., Trump, J

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9 Fonseca Alvarez, G., Trump, J. R., Homayouni, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 73

    2000

  21. [21]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13

    2000

  22. [22]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L24 GRAVITY Collaboration, Sturm, E., Dexter, J., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 657 GRAVITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Baub¨ ock, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A154 —. 2021, A&A, 654, A85 GRAVITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bourdarot, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A167

    2023

  23. [23]

    J., Martini, P., Watson, L

    Grier, C. J., Martini, P., Watson, L. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 90

    2013

  24. [24]

    J., Trump, J

    Grier, C. J., Trump, J. R., Shen, Y., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 851, 21 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198

    2009

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    2023

  26. [26]

    C., & Kim, M

    Ho, L. C., & Kim, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 17 —. 2015, ApJ, 809, 123

    2014

  27. [27]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    2020

  28. [28]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    2005

  29. [29]

    S., Netzer, H., et al

    Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631

    2000

  30. [30]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

    2007

  31. [31]

    2011, Baltic Astronomy, 20, 400 —

    Kollatschny, W., & Zetzl, M. 2011, Baltic Astronomy, 20, 400 —. 2013, A&A, 549, A100

    2011

  32. [32]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581

    1995

  33. [33]

    Krolik, J. H. 2001, ApJ, 551, 72

    2001

  34. [34]

    C., Du, P., & Bai, J.-M

    Li, Y.-R., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., Du, P., & Bai, J.-M. 2013, ApJ, 779, 110

    2013

  35. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 137

    Li, Y.-R., Songsheng, Y.-Y., Qiu, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 137

    2018

  36. [36]

    2000, MNRAS, 314, L17

    Mathur, S. 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17

    2000

  37. [37]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184 Mej´ ıa-Restrepo, J. E., Lira, P., Netzer, H., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Capellupo, D. M. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 63

    2013

  38. [38]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 702, A46

    Savic, D., & Czerny, B. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 702, A46

    2025

  39. [39]

    A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., et al

    Onken, C. A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645 18Villafa ˜na et al

    2004

  40. [40]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L3

    Pacucci, F., Nguyen, B., Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., & Fan, X. 2023, ApJL, 957, L3

    2023

  41. [41]

    J., & Treu, T

    Pancoast, A., Brewer, B. J., & Treu, T. 2011, ApJ, 730, 139 —. 2014a, MNRAS, 445, 3055

    2011

  42. [42]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 30

    Park, D., Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 30

    2012

  43. [43]

    M., Barth, A

    Pei, L., Fausnaugh, M. M., Barth, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 131

    2017

  44. [44]

    Peterson, B. M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247

    1993

  45. [45]

    M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K

    Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682

    2004

  46. [46]

    I., Vestergaard, M., Goad, M

    Raimundo, S. I., Vestergaard, M., Goad, M. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1227

    2020

  47. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 93

    Rakshit, S., Woo, J.-H., Gallo, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 93

    2019

  48. [48]

    Santos, D. J. D., Shimizu, T., Davies, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A30

    2025

  49. [49]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    Shen, Y. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    2013

  50. [50]

    J., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Grier, C. J., Horne, K., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 26

    2024

  51. [51]

    F., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04789 U, V., Barth, A. J., Vogler, H. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 52

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 1026 Villafa˜ na, L., Treu, T., Colleyn, L., et al

    Vallat, R. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 1026 Villafa˜ na, L., Treu, T., Colleyn, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 106 Villafa˜ na, L., Williams, P. R., Treu, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 52 —. 2023, ApJ, 948, 95

    2018

  53. [53]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279

    Volonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279

    2010

  54. [54]

    M., & Malkan, M

    Wandel, A., Peterson, B. M., & Malkan, M. A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 579

    1999

  55. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15872

    Wang, S., & Woo, J.-H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15872

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 180

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Villafa˜ na, L., Treu, T., & Gallo, E. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 180

    2026

  57. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 4

    Wang, S., Shen, Y., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 4

    2019

  58. [58]

    J., et al

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Barth, A. J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 45

    2025

  59. [59]

    R., & Treu, T

    Williams, P. R., & Treu, T. 2022, ApJ, 935, 128

    2022

  60. [60]

    R., Pancoast, A., Treu, T., et al

    Williams, P. R., Pancoast, A., Treu, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 75 —. 2020, ApJ, 902, 74

    2018

  61. [61]

    N., Remigio, R

    Winkel, N., Bennert, V. N., Remigio, R. P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 115

    2025

  62. [62]

    New black hole mass calibrations and the fundamental plane of the broad-line region size, luminosity, and velocity

    Woo, J.-H., Kim, J., Cho, H., & Wang, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.07047

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 49

    Woo, J.-H., Schulze, A., Park, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 49

    2013

  64. [64]

    Woo, J.-H., Yoon, Y., Park, S., Park, D., & Kim, S. C. 2015, ApJ, 801, 38

    2015

  65. [65]

    J., et al

    Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Barth, A. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 269

    2010

  66. [66]

    2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 109

    Woo, J.-H., Son, D., Gallo, E., et al. 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 109

    2019

  67. [67]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 67

    Woo, J.-H., Wang, S., Rakshit, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 67

    2024

  68. [68]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1519

    Yu, L.-M., Bian, W.-H., Wang, C., Zhao, B.-X., & Ge, X. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1519

    2019