Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 159 references

Stacked Reverberation Mapping of High Redshift Quasars in DESI. I. Feasibility Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacked reverberation mapping with sparse spectroscopy recovers high-redshift CIV lags and the radius–luminosity relation from DESI-style observations.

desk verdict A careful mock-based feasibility study that convincingly shows the stacking method works under idealized DRW/top-hat conditions, but leaves the real-world case unproven because the simulations never break those assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21869 v1 pith:UBDDI7ZA submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.GA

Rahma Alfarsy , R.E.A. Canning , Eva-Maria Mueller , Jessica Aguilar , Steven Ahlen , David Alexander , Davide Bianchi , David Brooks
show 44 more authors
Peter Clark Todd Claybaugh Andrei Cuceu Tamara Davis Axel de la Macorra Saisrinivas Dhavala Victoria A. Fawcett Benjamin Floyd Andreu Font-Ribera Jaime Forero-Romero Enrique Gaztañaga Wei-Jian Guo Gaston Gutierrez Klaus Honscheid Richard Joyce Stephanie Juneau David Kirkby Theodore Kisner Anthony Kremin Claire Lamman Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Paul Martini Hugh McDougall Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Seshadri Nadathur Nathalie Palanque-Delabrouille Zhiwei Pan Swayamtrupta Panda Ignasi Pérez-Ràfols Francisco Prada Ragadeepika Pucha Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez David Schlegel Michael Schubnell Tom Shanks Ma{l}gorzata Siudek David Sprayberry Gregory Tarlé Benjamin Alan Weaver Hu Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stackedreverberationmappingCIVemissionlineradius-luminosityrelationquasarvariabilitydampedrandomwalkDESIbroadregionhigh-redshiftquasars
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 tries to establish that ensemble reverberation mapping can work when individual quasars have only a handful of spectra, sometimes as few as two, provided the continuum is well sampled photometrically. Using mock light curves built to resemble quasar observations from DESI and ZTF-like photometry, the authors stack per-object lag posteriors from JAVELIN across luminosity–redshift bins. They report that 96% of the stacked lag measurements fall within 1σ of the simulated input lags, and the recovered radius–luminosity relation matches the input CIV relation to 1σ. If this holds, large cosmological surveys can double as reverberation-mapping machines, extending the R–L relation to high redshift and high luminosity without dedicated observing campaigns.

What carries the argument

The machinery is stacked Bayesian lag inference: each quasar's sparse CIV line light curve and dense photometric continuum light curve are fed to JAVELIN, which models the continuum as a damped random walk and the line response as a top-hat transfer function, producing a per-object lag posterior. These posteriors are additively stacked within equal-population luminosity–redshift bins, and the maximum a posteriori peak of the stacked distribution is the bin's lag. A cross-correlation peak distribution pipeline serves as an independent consistency check.

What would settle it

Generate mock light curves with intrinsic R–L scatter of about 0.5 dex and variability that deviates from a damped random walk (or use empirical DESI+ZTF light curves with independently known lags), run the stacked pipeline, and check whether the recovered R–L slope and zero-point remain within 1σ of the input; a clear offset or smeared stacked peak would falsify the feasibility claim for realistic populations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that additively stacking MCMC lag posteriors recovers average CIV lags for quasar ensembles from light curves with only 2–10 spectroscopic epochs at irregular cadence. The recovered relation log R[days] = (0.78 ± 0.035) + (0.51 ± 0.025) log(λL_1350/10^44) agrees with the input Hoormann et al. (2019) relation to 1σ. Accuracy improves with more quasars per stack up to a plateau near 400, with longer spectroscopic baselines mattering more than extra epochs, and with photometric baselines of roughly 1400 days. The method degrades at high luminosity and high redshift, and shows a systematic tendency to underestimate lags.

Load-bearing premise

The mocks assume the same damped random walk continuum and top-hat transfer function that JAVELIN uses to recover lags, and the input radius–luminosity relation has zero intrinsic scatter; real CIV lags show roughly 0.5 dex scatter and can involve outflows or BLR holidays, which would add noise and possibly bias the stacked peak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DESI quasars with as few as two spectra can yield a CIV radius–luminosity relation out to z≈5 without new dedicated reverberation campaigns.
  • The method recovers average lags even when no single quasar's light curve is sufficient for an individual lag detection.
  • Stacking at least 400 quasars per bin and using photometric baselines of at least 1000 days are recommended design choices for future stacked RM programs.
  • Extending the spectroscopic baseline improves lag recovery more than adding extra epochs; a few spectra spread over years suffice.
  • The cross-correlation alternative also recovers lags but shows a stronger systematic underestimation, especially at low luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real CIV scatter around the R–L relation (about 0.5 dex) and non-DRW variability are added to the mocks, the stacked peak may broaden and the recovered slope could shift; the paper leaves this misspecification untested.
  • The systematic low-lag overdensity visible in the averaged stacked posterior (MAP near 55 days versus an average input lag near 108 days) may contaminate real R–L fits at the low-luminosity end; separating this numerical bias from physical scatter is a natural next step.
  • The same stacking pipeline could be applied to MgII or Hβ where DESI's spectral coverage overlaps, giving cross-line consistency checks at high redshift.
  • The approach likely transfers to other wide-area programs with sparse multi-epoch spectroscopy, since the ≥2-epoch requirement is already satisfied by many existing survey designs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using 250 mock C IV quasar light curves per luminosity–redshift bin, the authors simulate DESI sparse spectroscopy plus ZTF photometry, measure lags with JAVELIN, and stack the individual lag posteriors additively. They report 96% of stacked lags within 1σ and recover the input Hoormann et al. (2019) R–L relation as log R = (0.78±0.035)+(0.51±0.025)log(λL1350/10^44) (Eq. 6). They then map sensitivity to flux errors, photometric baseline, seasonal gaps, stack size, spectral epochs, and bin width, and cross-check with a CCF-based pipeline (Eq. 10). The abstract frames this as evidence that stacked RM with DESI-like data can extend the C IV R–L relation to high redshift.

Significance. Strengths: the work is transparent, builds mocks from DESI/ZTF survey characteristics, supplies public data/code, and conducts systematic parameter studies. The internal validation clearly shows the pipeline can recover lags under its assumed model. However, the feasibility claim is supported only in a closed loop: the mocks share the DRW/top-hat model assumed by JAVELIN and have zero intrinsic scatter, and the paper itself concedes these limitations. The CCF validation is valuable because it exposes a method-dependent 4σ offset (Eq. 10), indicating that realistic deviations could alter the conclusions. If the central claim can be demonstrated under misspecification, the impact is substantial.

major comments (4)
  1. [5.3, 6.1, 8.1] The recovery statistics in §7 (96% within 1σ; Eq. 6 vs Eq. 5) are internal-consistency checks: the mocks are generated with DRW continuum and top-hat transfer function (§5.3), the same parametric family JAVELIN assumes (§6.1). The input R–L relation is injected with zero dispersion (§5.3), whereas observed C IV lags show ~0.5 dex intrinsic scatter (Shen et al. 2024), and real C IV may have non-DRW variability, outflows/FeII contamination, or BLR holidays. Since §8.1 explicitly defers these to future work, the paper's central feasibility conclusion is conditional. I request either additional mock runs that inject 0.3–0.5 dex scatter and/or non-DRW variability, or a substantially softened claim of feasibility outside the model assumptions.
  2. [8.1, Fig. 21, Eq. 10] The pipeline has a systematic tendency to underestimate lags: the averaged stacked posterior peaks at 55 days versus an expected average of 108 days (Fig. 21), and the CCF pipeline returns an R–L relation 4σ below the input (Eq. 10). The authors attribute this to a low-lag overdensity but do not correct for it or quantify its effect on the fitted slope/intercept in Eq. (6). Because the same bias is present in the main pipeline, the quoted 1σ agreement with Hoormann et al. (2019) may partly reflect compensating errors rather than unbiased recovery. Please quantify and, if possible, model or correct this bias.
  3. [6.1, App. A] The base run fixes JAVELIN's damping timescale to 700 days, restricts the top-hat width to 3–40 days, and uses a lag prior (0–500 days) that brackets the maximum simulated lag of 383 days (§5.3). Appendix A shows that the recovered lag accuracy is sensitive to the lag prior range. This tuning is acceptable for a self-consistency test, but the paper should state more explicitly how the prior choices would be made in a blind application to DESI data, where such knowledge is unavailable. I would like to see the 0–1000 day prior case included in the R–L fit and discussed.
  4. [6.2] The stacking procedure is described as 'admittedly... not a mathematically robust way of combining posterior distributions,' and the authors note that the prior-independence assumption is violated by the binning design. The fact that additive stacking works on the mocks is reassuring, but it cannot validate the method for data where the true lags are unknown. Since later papers will apply this to DESI, I recommend replacing or supplementing the additive stack with a hierarchical model (e.g., Brewer & Elliott 2014), or providing a formal justification/simulation study of when additive stacking yields unbiased peaks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, 5.3] The abstract quotes 2–10 spectral epochs; §5.3 gives a maximum of 13. These numbers should be aligned.
  2. [Fig. 8] The example in the text says the quasar has redshift 1.63, but the sample cut is z≥1.67; either the figure or the text is inconsistent.
  3. [5.3] The text says the median number of spectroscopic epochs is 'three days'; the unit should be epochs, not days.
  4. [9] 'Elveldt et al.' should be 'Eltvedt et al.' to match the reference used elsewhere.
  5. [5.1] The redshift range is reported inconsistently as 1.48<z<5.2 and 1.67<z<5.23; make this consistent after the ZTF-band cut.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Closed-loop mocks: the recovered R-L relation is benchmarked against the same Eq. 5 used to assign input lags, and JAVELIN assumes the same DRW+top-hat model used to generate the light curves.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.3 (Eq. 5) and Section 7 (Eq. 6)]
    "The assigned luminosity to the mock quasar is also used to calculate the input ‘observed’ time lag using the R-L relation from Hoormann et al. 2019, logR[days]=0.82+0.49log... (5) ... The recovered CIV R-L relation is logR[days]= (0.78±0.035) + (0.51±0.025) ... which is in agreement with the input relation given in Equation 5 to 1σ."

    The benchmark relation Eq. 6 is compared against Eq. 5, the very relation used to assign input lags to every mock quasar. With zero intrinsic scatter imposed, the true lags in each bin are deterministic functions of Eq. 5; an unbiased recovery must return Eq. 5 up to sampling noise. Therefore the 1σ agreement of Eq. 6 with Eq. 5 is a self-consistency check, not an independent constraint on the R-L relation. The paper explicitly defers testing with realistic scatter to future work.

  2. other [Sections 5.3 and 6.1]
    "The emission line light curves are then assumed to be the lagged, smoothed, and scaled versions of the continuum light curves. ... JAVELIN models the continuum light curve variability using a DRW and models the emission-line response with a parametrised top-hat transfer function. ... By using JAVELIN in our mock pipeline, we are assuming the same quasar variability and light curve model as those assumed in the light curve simulations."

    The generative model (DRW continuum + top-hat transfer function, Eq. 3) is identical to the model JAVELIN assumes for recovery. Recovery is therefore maximum-likelihood under the true generative model; the test demonstrates that the sparse-sampling/stacking pipeline can invert its own assumptions, but it does not probe misspecification such as non-DRW variability, outflows, FeII contamination, BLR holidays, or the ~0.5 dex intrinsic scatter of real CIV lags (Shen et al. 2024), all of which the paper defers to future work. This is an acknowledged but real closed loop.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its mock setup and does not hide the closed-loop nature: the simulated lags come from Hoormann et al. (2019) Eq. 5, and the pipeline evaluates success by agreement with that same relation. The recovery of Eq. 6 in 1σ agreement with Eq. 5 is therefore an internal consistency test rather than an externally grounded prediction. Similarly, JAVELIN's assumed DRW+top-hat model matches the simulation model, so the test verifies that the pipeline can invert its own generative assumptions under ideal conditions. This is a legitimate feasibility sanity check, but the paper's broader conclusion—that stacked RM with DESI-like data can reliably constrain and extend the R-L relation to high redshift—goes beyond what the closed-loop mocks can establish. The CCF validation in Section 9 does not break the loop: it uses the same idealized mocks, and its recovered R-L relation is 4σ from the input (Eq. 10), indicating that method misspecification can substantially bias recovery. The authors explicitly note that real CIV lags have ~0.5 dex scatter, about 10 times larger than simulated, and defer testing with scatter or alternative variability models to future work. These are limitations and acknowledged assumptions, not hidden circularity; however, the central quantitative claim of recovering the input R-L relation is, by construction, the expected outcome of an unbiased pipeline on data generated from that same relation. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the prediction reduces to the input by construction, even though the paper is candid and the pipeline testing is still useful.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on several domain assumptions about quasar variability and the BLR response, plus hand-chosen JAVELIN settings that are tuned to the simulated data. The most consequential choices are the closed-loop DRW/top-hat model and the zero-dispersion input R–L relation, both of which make the mock recovery easier than a real-data application.

free parameters (4)
  • Damping timescale τ_damp = 700 days
    Fixed to the median of the simulated light curves (Section 6.1); JAVELIN cannot constrain it from sparse DESI data, so it is set by hand to make the MCMC converge.
  • Top-hat transfer function width prior = 3–40 days
    Flat prior range chosen to cover the simulation widths (w = 0.1τ) (Section 6.1).
  • Time-lag prior range = [0, 500] days observed frame
    Chosen because the maximum simulated lag is 383 days (Section 6.1); tighter priors change recovery accuracy (Appendix A).
  • Photometric baseline = 1400 days
    Selected to match current ZTF data availability; shortening to 600 days severely degrades recovery (Section 7.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DRW model describes quasar continuum variability
    Used to generate mocks (Section 5.3) and assumed by JAVELIN (Section 6.1); Section 8.1 acknowledges DRW does not hold universally.
  • domain assumption Top-hat transfer function describes C IV BLR response
    Simulated emission-line light curves use a top-hat with width 0.1τ (Section 5.3); JAVELIN assumes the same parametric form (Section 6.1).
  • domain assumption Zero intrinsic scatter in the input R–L relation
    Section 5.3 uses Hoormann et al. (2019) without adding dispersion; real C IV scatter is ~0.5 dex (Shen et al. 2024), which is not simulated.
  • domain assumption Hoormann et al. (2019) C IV R–L relation is correct
    Equation 5 sets the input lags; the recovered relation (Eq. 6) is compared against this same relation.
  • ad hoc to paper Additive stacking of MCMC posteriors is statistically valid
    Section 6.2 admits 'this is not a mathematically robust way of combining posterior distributions' and notes dependent priors; the method is justified empirically via simulations.
  • domain assumption Selected ZTF band is uncontaminated by broad lines
    Section 5.1 picks bands to avoid C IV and Mg II; other lines, FeII, and scattered BLR emission may still contaminate real photometry (Section 8.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stacked Reverberation Mapping of High Redshift Quasars in DESI. I. Feasibility Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UBDDI7ZA

@misc{pith2026260721869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stacked Reverberation Mapping of High Redshift Quasars in DESI. I. Feasibility Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UBDDI7ZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21869}
}
abstract

The broad line region of quasars has long been probed by reverberation mapping techniques that measure time lags between continuum and broad emission line variations. Stacked reverberation mapping has been proposed as a less observationally expensive alternative to traditional methods. This ensemble approach also reduces biases from small-number statistics. The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) is conducting the most extensive spectroscopic survey of quasars to date. We create mock light curves emulating expected DESI quasar observations at redshifts $1.48<z<5.2$ and luminosities $ 44.68 \leq \log L_{1350} \lambda / \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}} \leq 45.99 $ to test stacked reverberation mapping feasibility using sparse spectroscopic data paired with well-sampled photometric data. The pipeline, using the lag estimation code JAVELIN, successfully recovers the simulated C IV lags within one sigma of the true values using spectroscopic light curves composed of only a few spectral epochs (2-10) with irregular cadences. We investigate how observational factors, including C IV flux error magnitude, number of stacked quasars, and spectral epoch count, affect performance. This work motivates a pathway for future stacked reverberation mapping projects with large scale spectroscopic surveys of quasars having $\geq 2$ spectroscopic observations. Our results suggest an economical alternative for constraining and extending the radius-luminosity relation to higher redshifts and luminosities. Subsequently, this relation can be employed more reliably in single-epoch black hole mass measurements and quasar cosmology in these distant regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot showing the wavelengths at which the typically brighter broad emission lines found in the DESI spectrum Hα, Hβ, Mg II, and C IV are situated in the spectrum at a given redshift. The DESI observed wavelength range is from 3600Å to 9800Å. These lines also indicate the overall redshift (z) ranges the broad lines are visible in the spectrum. The shaded regions highlight the redshift ranges in which more than one br… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The sky coverage for the DESI quasar C IV RM sample used in this feasibility study (refer to the sample description in Section 5.1). The colour map represents the density of targets. The ZTF sky area for the r-band is shown in the purple block-shaped region with a declination range of −28°< dec < 66°. Only 1% of the quasar sample lies outside ZTF’s sky coverage. propose to use photometry data to construct continuum … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The filter transmission functions for the g, r, and i photometric bands used in the ZTF survey. The solid black lines provide an example of the central locations of the observed frame C IV and Mg II emission lines for an object at a redshift of 2. In this case, it is important we avoid g and i bands which are contaminated by C IV and Mg II broad lines respectively. Rather, we pick the r-band to ensure the flux for t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The luminosity-redshift distribution of the C IV RM sample is dis￾played by the purple colour map and is overlaid with the luminosity-redshift bins. The samples redshift range is 1.67 < z < 5.23. The redshift (z) lower limit at z = 1.67 is set by requiring the presence…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Distribution of the number of repeat observations on separate nights per target (≥2). Right: Distribution of the baseline of observations per target i.e. number of days between first observation and most recent observa￾tion. This spans the first three years of DE…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A set of plots used to illustrate the spectroscopic and photometric cadence of the mock light curve suite. These plots have been generated from the cadences of a representative sample of 1000 mock light curve pairs. Left: A histogram of the time interval between the fi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of ZTF (left) and C IV (right) fractional flux errors used to simulate the errors in the mock photometric and spectroscopic light curves respectively. Both distributions are fractional flux errors in units of 10−17 erg cm2 s −1 . the continuum and C IV lig…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example mock light curve pair. The solid blue lines are the underlying simulated light curves for the continuum and C IV emission line flux. The emission line light curve is the scaled and lagged continuum light curve. The orange points show how the observed light curv…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows an example stacked time lag distribution with the input and recovered lag for that luminosity-redshift bin marked. Af￾ter the stacking procedure, the noisy multi-modal individual lag dis￾tributions build up to consistently reveal a clear lag peak that aligns with…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A flow chart summarising the mock stacked RM pipeline. The first half illustrates the various data sets needed to simulate the mock light curves. The second half presents the steps taken to measure a stacked lag from the mocks. MNRAS 000, 1–28 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The recovered lag of the stacked lag posterior distributions from every luminosity-redshift bin plotted on the radius-luminosity plane. The rest frame lag is equivalent to the light travel time across the BLR. The luminosity of the points is the average luminosity of …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The SNR of the lag peak in the stacked lag posterior distributions of every luminosity-redshift bin as a function of luminosity (x-axis) and red￾shift (colour bar). The SNR has a strong inverse relation with luminosity. There is also an inverse relation with redshift.…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The absolute difference between the measured lag and the input lag of a bin against the SNR of the lag peak in the bins stacked posterior distribution. The results are shown for three runs in which the spectroscopic flux errors are multiplied by the factors: 0.5 (red …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: R-L lines recovered for three runs in which the distribution of seasonal gap lengths is shifted by -100 days (dashed red), +100 days (dotted orange) and the original with no shift (solid blue). The method seems fairly resistant to the narrowing and widening the season…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Left: Evolution of the averaged stacked lag posterior distribution as the number of objects stacked is increased from 150 to 550. The distributions have been translated so their minima align. As the number of objects stacked in the bin is increased the peak becomes mo…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The difference between the measured lag and the input lag of a bin against the SNR of the lag peak in the bins stacked posterior distribu￾tion. The results are shown for three runs in which the minimum number of spectroscopic points in the broad emission line light cu…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The SNR of the lag peak in the stacked posterior distributions as we increase the width of the luminosity bin. A strong correlation is not present. we do not find a strong correlation between the SNR and the width of the luminosity bin. There is a shallow slope toward…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Average of all the posterior distributions across all time-lag bins. The peak is shifted to shorter lags (maximum at 55 days) in comparison to the expected average of the peaks of the stacked posterior distributions (maximum at 108 days). This is a manifestation of th…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A stacked cross-correlation peak distribution (CCPD) from 250 quasars in a bin with average luminosity at 1350Å of 6.1×1045ergs−1 and average redshift 2.76. The average input lag is 187 days (solid blue line) and the recovered lag is very close at 189 days (solid oran…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: An adapted flow chart to show how stacked RM can be done using cross correlation functions. This first part of the pipeline that produces the mock light curves is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The recovered lag of each stacked CCPD plotted on the radius￾luminosity plane. Details same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_24.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The recovered radius-luminosity relation using CCFs shown as a solid red line. Details same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_26.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aigrain S., Foreman-Mackey D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..329A 61, 329

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

  2. [2]

    arXiv:1302.1508

    Alexander T., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1302.1508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1302.1508A p. arXiv:1302.1508

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.1508 2013

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..124A 165, 124

    Alexander D. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..124A 165, 124

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc 2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv:2405.12518

    Bacon R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240512518B p. arXiv:2405.12518

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.12518 2024

  5. [5]

    N., Kozlovsky B.-Z., Salpeter E

    Bahcall J. N., Kozlovsky B.-Z., Salpeter E. E., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..467B 171, 467

    doi:10.1086/151300 1972

  6. [6]

    Bao D.-W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7beb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...14B 262, 14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7beb 2022

  7. [7]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..217...26B 217, 26

    Barth A. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..217...26B 217, 26

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/26 2015

  8. [8]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    M., Eracleous M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addec0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988...27B 988, 27

    Benati Gon c alves H., Panda S., Storchi Bergmann T., Cackett E. M., Eracleous M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addec0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988...27B 988, 27

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/595719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689L..21B 689, L21

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/595719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689L..21B 689, L21

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..149B 767, 149

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..149B 767, 149

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Markham M., Rosborough S., Onken C

    Bentz M. C., Markham M., Rosborough S., Onken C. A., Street R., Valluri M., Treu T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad08b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...25B 959, 25

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255..419B 255, 419

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Elliott T

    Brewer B. J., Elliott T. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439L..31B 439, L31

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Brodzeller A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ace35d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...66B 166, 66

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Chaussidon E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..107C 944, 107

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Chelouche D., Pozo-Nu \ n ez F., Zucker S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..146C 844, 146

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Cirasuolo M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...10C 180, 10

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Clavel J., et al., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...366...64C 366, 64

    1991 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Vestergaard M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...456...75C 456, 75

    Collin S., Kawaguchi T., Peterson B. M., Vestergaard M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...456...75C 456, 75

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    Cristiani S., Trentini S., La Franca F., Andreani P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9610108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...321..123C 321, 123

    1997 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    T., 1999, in Poutanen J., Svensson R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Czerny B., Janiuk A., R \'o za \'n ska A., Zycki P. T., 1999, in Poutanen J., Svensson R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 161, High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes. p. 331

    1999

  15. [23]

    Czerny B., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-023-04165-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Ap&SS.368....8C 368, 8

    doi

  16. [24]

    Czerny B., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.163C 675, A163

    doi

  17. [25]

    arXiv:1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100036D p. arXiv:1611.00036

    doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv:1611.00037

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100037D p. arXiv:1611.00037

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..207D 164, 207

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2404.03000

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403000D p. arXiv:2404.03000

    doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2411.12021

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241112021D p. arXiv:2411.12021

    doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167...62D 167, 62

    doi

  23. [31]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024d, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...58D 168, 58

    doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2503.14745

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314745D p. arXiv:2503.14745

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dalla Bont \`a E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc1c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..112D 903, 112

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    De Cicco D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.117D 664, A117

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    De Rosa G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..128D 806, 128

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Dehghanian M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3d41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L..30D 882, L30

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..80D 704, L80

    Denney K. D., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..80D 704, L80

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..715D 721, 715

    Denney K. D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..715D 721, 715

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..168D 157, 168

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Dietrich M., et al., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408..416D 408, 416

    1993 doi

  33. [41]

    Donnan F., 2021, ROA: Running Optimal Average , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2107.002

    2021

  34. [42]

    Du P., Wang J.-M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...42D 886, 42

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Du P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825..126D 825, 126

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Krolik J

    Edelson R. A., Krolik J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...333..646E 333, 646

    1988 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Gelbord J., Horne K., Goad M., McHardy I., Vaughan S., Vestergaard M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..152E 973, 152

    Edelson R., Peterson B. M., Gelbord J., Horne K., Goad M., McHardy I., Vaughan S., Vestergaard M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..152E 973, 152

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Fagin J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..104F 965, 104

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Fine S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21248.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.2701F 427, 2701

    2012

  40. [48]

    Fine S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434L..16F 434, L16

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Fonseca Alvarez G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...73F 899, 73

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    arXiv:2501.16311

    Frohmaier C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250116311F p. arXiv:2501.16311

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.167G 684, A167

    doi

  45. [53]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..76G 690, A76

    doi

  46. [54]

    M., Peterson B

    Gaskell C. M., Peterson B. M., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...65....1G 65, 1

    1987 doi

  47. [55]

    Gravity Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0731-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563..657G 563, 657

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...38G 887, 38

    Grier C. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...38G 887, 38

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Guy J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..144G 165, 144

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Haas M., Chini R., Ramolla M., Pozo Nu \ n ez F., Westhues C., Watermann R., Hoffmeister V., Murphy M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...535A..73H 535, A73

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Hawkins M. R. S., Taylor A. N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...482L...5H 482, L5

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Homayouni Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ababa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...55H 901, 55

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3650H 487, 3650

    Hoormann J. K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3650H 487, 3650

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Siegmund O

    Horne K., 2003, in Blades J. C., Siegmund O. H. W., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4854, Future EUV/UV and Visible Space Astrophysics Missions and Instrumentation.. pp 262--273 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0301250 ), @doi 10.1...

    2003 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M., Collier S

    Horne K., Peterson B. M., Collier S. J., Netzer H., 2002, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0201182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..1182H pp astro--ph/0201182

    2002 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Horne K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abce60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...76H 907, 76

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Hu C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..138H 804, 138

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Prince R., Pandey A., Naddaf M

    Jaiswal V. K., Prince R., Pandey A., Naddaf M. H., Czerny B., Panda S., Mandal A. K., Pozo Nunez F., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241003597J p. arXiv:2410.03597

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Jiang L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..222J 833, 222

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    Jiang Y., Wu X.-B., Ma Q., Gu H., Wen Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..149J 966, 149

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    Jin S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2688J 530, 2688

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Vestergaard M., Jannuzi B

    Kaspi S., Maoz D., Netzer H., Peterson B. M., Vestergaard M., Jannuzi B. T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629...61K 629, 61

    2005 doi

  64. [72]

    N., Maoz D., Netzer H., Schneider D

    Kaspi S., Brandt W. N., Maoz D., Netzer H., Schneider D. P., Shemmer O., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659..997K 659, 997

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    N., Maoz D., Netzer H., Schneider D

    Kaspi S., Brandt W. N., Maoz D., Netzer H., Schneider D. P., Shemmer O., Grier C. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915..129K 915, 129

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Bechtold J., Siemiginowska A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..895K 698, 895

    Kelly B. C., Bechtold J., Siemiginowska A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..895K 698, 895

    2009 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Czerny B., Ratra B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4722K 508, 4722

    Khadka N., Yu Z., Zaja c ek M., Martinez-Aldama M. L., Czerny B., Ratra B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4722K 508, 4722

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Denney K

    Kilerci Eser E., Vestergaard M., Peterson B. M., Denney K. D., Bentz M. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801....8K 801, 8

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.1701K 453, 1701

    King A. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.1701K 453, 1701

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648..128K 648, 128

    Kollmeier J. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648..128K 648, 128

    2006 doi

  71. [79]

    T., Goad M

    Korista K. T., Goad M. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5284K 489, 5284

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    C ., Dimitrijevi \'c M

    Kova c evi \'c J., Popovi \'c L. C ., Dimitrijevi \'c M. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..189...15K 189, 15

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac88ce , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...49K 262, 49

    Kova c evi \'c A. B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac88ce , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...49K 262, 49

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    Koz owski S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.2787K 459, 2787

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    arXiv:1308.0847

    Levi M., et al., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1308.0847L p. arXiv:1308.0847

    2013 doi arXiv

  76. [85]

    Li Y.-R., Wang J.-M., Bai J.-M., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..206L 831, 206

    doi

  77. [86]

    Li J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa845d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...79L 846, 79

    2017 doi

  78. [87]

    Li Jennifer I.-H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab41fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..119L 884, 119

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    Lira P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...56L 865, 56

    2018 doi

  80. [89]

    378, Black Hole Winds at All Scales

    Lutz D., et al., 2024, in Bruni G., Diaz Trigo M., Laha S., Fukumura K., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 378, Black Hole Winds at All Scales. pp 22--24, @doi 10.1017/S174392132300323X

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1014M 721, 1014

    MacLeod C. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1014M 721, 1014

    2010 doi

  82. [91]

    Malik U., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3238M 516, 3238

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    Malik U., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2009M 520, 2009

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    Malik U., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531..163M 531, 163

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    Maoz D., Netzer H., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/236.1.21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.236...21M 236, 21

    1989 doi

  86. [95]

    L., Czerny B., Kawka D., Karas V., Panda S., Zaja c ek M., \.Z ycki P

    Mart \' nez-Aldama M. L., Czerny B., Kawka D., Karas V., Panda S., Zaja c ek M., \.Z ycki P. T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..170M 883, 170

    2019 doi

  87. [96]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    Masci F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    G., Davis T

    McDougall H. G., Davis T. M., Pope B. J. S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250509832M p. arXiv:2505.09832

    2025 doi arXiv

  89. [98]

    McKinney J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..39M 946, L39

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    G., Onken C

    Metzroth K. G., Onken C. A., Peterson B. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..901M 647, 901

    2006 doi

  91. [100]

    Meusinger H., Hinze A., de Hoon A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...525A..37M 525, A37

    2011 doi

  92. [101]

    N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...95M 168, 95

    Miller T. N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...95M 168, 95

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    M., 1997, in Maoz D., Sternberg A., Leibowitz E

    Netzer H., Peterson B. M., 1997, in Maoz D., Sternberg A., Leibowitz E. M., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 218, Astronomical Time Series. p. 85 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9706039 ), @doi 10.1007/978-94-015-8941-3_8

    1997 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Pan Z., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...48P 987, 48

    2025 doi

  95. [104]

    J., Treu T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730..139P 730, 139

    Pancoast A., Brewer B. J., Treu T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730..139P 730, 139

    2011 doi

  96. [105]

    J., Treu T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3055P 445, 3055

    Pancoast A., Brewer B. J., Treu T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3055P 445, 3055

    2014 doi

  97. [106]

    Panda S., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.850409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...950409P 9, 850409

    2022

  98. [107]

    Panda S., Marziani P., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1130103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1030103P 10, 1130103

    2023

  99. [108]

    L., Zaja c ek M., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6...75P 6, 75

    Panda S., Mart \' nez-Aldama M. L., Zaja c ek M., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6...75P 6, 75

    2019

  100. [109]

    Panda S., Pozo Nu \ n ez F., Ba \ n ados E., Heidt J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968L..16P 968, L16

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    K., Martinez-Aldama M

    Pandey A., Czerny B., Panda S., Prince R., Jaiswal V. K., Martinez-Aldama M. L., Zaja c ek M., \'S niegowska M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A.102P 680, A102

    2023 doi

  102. [111]

    Penton A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4008P 509, 4008

    2022 doi

  103. [112]

    Peterson B., 1991, Probing the Nuclear Regions of the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 5548 , HST Proposal ID 3484. Cycle 2

    1991

  104. [113]

    M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PASP..105..247P 105, 247

    Peterson B. M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PASP..105..247P 105, 247

    1993 doi

  105. [114]

    M., 1994, in Gondhalekar P

    Peterson B. M., 1994, in Gondhalekar P. M., Horne K., Peterson B. M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 69, Reverberation Mapping of the Broad-Line Region in Active Galactic Nuclei. p. 1

    1994

  106. [115]

    M., 1998, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00614-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AdSpR..21...57P 21, 57

    Peterson B. M., 1998, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00614-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AdSpR..21...57P 21, 57

    1998 doi

  107. [116]

    M., Horne K., 2004, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200310207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AN....325..248P 325, 248

    Peterson B. M., Horne K., 2004, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200310207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AN....325..248P 325, 248

    2004 doi

  108. [117]

    M., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392..470P 392, 470

    Peterson B. M., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392..470P 392, 470

    1992 doi

  109. [118]

    M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...632..799P 632, 799

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...632..799P 632, 799

    2005 doi

  110. [119]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..149P 795, 149

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..149P 795, 149

    2014 doi

  111. [120]

    Poppett C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..245P 168, 245

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    P., Pietrzy \'n ski G., Polsterer K

    Pozo Nu \ n ez F., Bruckmann C., Deesamutara S., Czerny B., Panda S., Lobban A. P., Pietrzy \'n ski G., Polsterer K. L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad286 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2002P 522, 2002

    2023 doi

  113. [122]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc1dc , 4, 188

    Prieto C. A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc1dc , 4, 188

    2020 doi

  114. [123]

    E., Kaspi S., Chelouche D., Sabach E., Karl D., Behar E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...24R 773, 24

    Rafter S. E., Kaspi S., Chelouche D., Sabach E., Karl D., Behar E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...24R 773, 24

    2013 doi

  115. [124]

    Raichoor A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..180R 4, 180

    2020 doi

  116. [125]

    C., Smith D

    Read S. C., Smith D. J. B., Jarvis M. J., G \"u rkan G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3940R 492, 3940

    2020 doi

  117. [126]

    A., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..582R 425, 582

    Reichert G. A., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..582R 425, 582

    1994 doi

  118. [127]

    M., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJS..110....9R 110, 9

    Rodr \' guez-Pascual P. M., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJS..110....9R 110, 9

    1997 doi

  119. [128]

    Rosborough S., Robinson A., Almeyda T., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 137.02D

    2023

  120. [129]

    Ruiz-Macias O., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc25a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..187R 4, 187

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..259S 166, 259

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..259S 166, 259

    2023 doi

  122. [131]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220903585S p

    Schlegel D. J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220903585S p. arXiv:2209.03585

    2022 doi arXiv

  123. [132]

    Shen Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...30S 818, 30

    2016 doi

  124. [133]

    Shen Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883L..14S 883, L14

    2019 doi

  125. [134]

    Shen Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..272...26S 272, 26

    2024 doi

  126. [135]

    H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165....9S 165, 9

    Silber J. H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165....9S 165, 9

    2023 doi

  127. [136]

    A., Horne K., Villforth C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1960S 456, 1960

    Starkey D. A., Horne K., Villforth C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1960S 456, 1960

    2016 doi

  128. [137]

    Stone Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..164S 514, 164

    2022 doi

  129. [138]

    G., Dadina M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..164T 795, 164

    Trevese D., Perna M., Vagnetti F., Saturni F. G., Dadina M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..164T 795, 164

    2014 doi

  130. [139]

    H., Comastri A., Komossa S., Crane P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..816U 350, 816

    Ulrich M. H., Comastri A., Komossa S., Crane P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..816U 350, 816

    1999 doi arXiv

  131. [140]

    E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122..549V 122, 549

    Vanden Berk D. E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122..549V 122, 549

    2001 doi

  132. [141]

    E., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..692V 601, 692

    Vanden Berk D. E., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..692V 601, 692

    2004 doi

  133. [142]

    Villafa \ n a L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...52V 930, 52

    2022 doi

  134. [143]

    Wang J.-M., Du P., Valls-Gabaud D., Hu C., Netzer H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110h1301W 110, 081301

    2013 doi

  135. [144]

    D., Vestergaard M., Davis T

    Watson D., Denney K. D., Vestergaard M., Davis T. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740L..49W 740, L49

    2011 doi

  136. [145]

    F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111.1347W 111, 1347

    Welsh W. F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111.1347W 111, 1347

    1999 doi

  137. [146]

    J., Peterson B

    White R. J., Peterson B. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PASP..106..879W 106, 879

    1994 doi

  138. [147]

    C., Brunner R

    Wilhite B. C., Brunner R. J., Grier C. J., Schneider D. P., vanden Berk D. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12655.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383.1232W 383, 1232

    2008

  139. [148]

    Wilkins D., 2019, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division. p. 205.02

    2019

  140. [149]

    Wu L., Wang J.-X., Ren W.-K., Kang W.-Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533..908W 533, 908

    2024 doi

  141. [150]

    Y \`e che C., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc01a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..179Y 4, 179

    2020 doi

  142. [151]

    Yu Z., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5e7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..246...16Y 246, 16

    doi

  143. [152]

    S., Peterson B

    Yu Z., Kochanek C. S., Peterson B. M., Zu Y., Brandt W. N., Cackett E. M., Fausnaugh M. M., McHardy I. M., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6045Y 491, 6045

    doi

  144. [153]

    Yu Z., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.3771Y 507, 3771

    2021 doi

  145. [154]

    T., Vogeley M

    Yu W., Richards G. T., Vogeley M. S., Moreno J., Graham M. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936..132Y 936, 132

    2022 doi

  146. [155]

    L., Karas V., 2019, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..577Z 340, 577

    Zaja c ek M., Czerny B., Mart \' nez-Aldama M. L., Karas V., 2019, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..577Z 340, 577

    2019 doi

  147. [156]

    Zhou R., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc0f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..181Z 4, 181

    2020 doi

  148. [157]

    Zhou S., Sun M., Cai Z.-Y., Ren G., Wang J.-X., Xue Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966....8Z 966, 8

    2024 doi

  149. [158]

    S., Peterson B

    Zu Y., Kochanek C. S., Peterson B. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...80Z 735, 80

    2011 doi

  150. [159]

    S., Koz owski S., Peterson B

    Zu Y., Kochanek C. S., Koz owski S., Peterson B. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..122Z 819, 122

    2016 doi

  151. [160]

    H., Becker R

    de Vries W. H., Becker R. H., White R. L., Loomis C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129..615D 129, 615

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.