Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Modelling the AGN broad line region using single-epoch spectra I. The test case of Arp 151

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single-epoch spectrum can constrain the geometry and dynamics of the broad line region around a supermassive black hole.

desk verdict Solid, honest method paper for single-epoch BLR modelling, but the validation is partly internal and the MBH output is inherited from the size prior. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03230 v1 pith:Q54Z3VLZ submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.GA

S. I. Raimundo , A. Pancoast , M. Vestergaard , M. R. Goad , A. J. Barth This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords broadlineregionactivegalacticnucleisingle-epochspectrareverberationmappingdynamicalmodellingBayesianinferenceArp151blackholemasses
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

One spectrum of an active galactic nucleus may be enough to recover the shape and motion of the broad line region around its central black hole. The authors adapt a Bayesian dynamical model built for reverberation-mapping light curves so that it can use a single epoch, replacing the lost timing information with a prior on the mean time delay between the continuum and line emission. Testing on the well-studied AGN Arp 151, they find that five structural parameters — opening angle, inclination, mid-plane transparency, inflow/outflow fraction, and rotation angle — are recovered with uncertainties comparable to, or at most about 3.5 times larger than, the full monitoring-data analysis; the inferred black hole mass is consistent but carries larger, roughly 1 dex uncertainties. Because single-epoch spectra exist for far more AGN than monitoring campaigns, the approach offers a way to map broad-line-region structure across the AGN population and to sharpen black hole mass estimates at low and high redshift.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a particle-based phenomenological model of the broad line region: thousands of point particles reprocess the ionising continuum, their spatial distribution controlled by parameters such as the opening angle $\theta_o$, inclination $\theta_i$, radial profile shape $\beta$, and mid-plane transparency $\xi$, and their orbits by the black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$, the elliptical-orbit fraction $f_{\rm ellip}$, the inflow/outflow choice $f_{\rm flow}$, and a rotation angle $\theta_e$. The model maps a set of parameters to a predicted line profile, and Bayesian inference with diffusive nested sampling turns the observed single profile into posterior distributions for the parameters. The key modification for single-epoch use is replacing the temporal information that monitoring light curves supply with a Gaussian prior on the mean time delay $\tau_{\rm mean}$, which fixes the BLR physical scale; in a general application that prior is set by the radius–luminosity relation. What makes the recovery work is that some parameters change the line profile strongly — the angles, transparency, and inflow/outflow direction leave clear asymmetries and profile shapes — while others, such as $\gamma$, barely affect the profile and therefore stay unconstrained.

What would settle it

Generate mock spectra from a BLR simulation that includes radiation pressure, winds, or photoionisation structure, feed those spectra through the single-epoch modelling pipeline, and check whether the recovered $\theta_o$, $\theta_i$, $\xi$, $f_{\rm flow}$, $\theta_e$, and $M_{\rm BH}$ match the simulation's true inputs; a systematic bias in the recovered parameters despite a good line-profile fit would show that the omitted physics is load-bearing. A complementary test is to compare the single-epoch inferred inclinations with independent inclination indicators, such as radio jet orientation, across a sample of AGN.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the geometry and dynamics of the broad line region are imprinted strongly enough in the shape of a single broad emission line that a physically parameterised model can extract them without any time-series information. Using one epoch each of low, mid, and high flux for Arp 151, the modified model infers values for the opening angle $\theta_o$, inclination $\theta_i$, mid-plane transparency $\xi$, inflow/outflow fraction $f_{\rm flow}$, and rotation angle $\theta_e$ that agree with the full light-curve result within their 68% confidence ranges; the uncertainties are comparable to or up to a factor of about 3.5 higher, depending on the epoch. The black hole mass is recovered within uncertainties but is coupled to the assumed mean time delay, so a biased or too-narrow prior on that delay can shift the mass. The model also identifies which parameters cannot be recovered from one spectrum: the particle concentration parameter $\gamma$ is essentially unconstrained, and $\beta$, $\kappa$, and $f_{\rm ellip}$ vary with the chosen epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference depends on the adopted generative BLR model being an adequate description of the real broad line region; the paper states in Section 4.4 that photoionisation physics, radiation pressure, and winds are not included, so if those processes operate in real AGN, the constrained parameters are parameters of an incomplete model rather than direct measurements of the true geometry and dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method can be applied to the large existing archive of single-epoch AGN spectra, extending BLR structure studies well beyond the roughly one hundred objects with reverberation-mapping campaigns.
  • AGN population trends in BLR geometry and dynamics become measurable as functions of luminosity, redshift, and black hole mass, because single-epoch spectra are available for both low- and high-redshift AGN.
  • The five parameters $\theta_o$, $\theta_i$, $\xi$, $f_{\rm flow}$, and $\theta_e$ are the useful recovered quantities for such surveys; $\gamma$ should be treated as effectively unconstrained, and $\beta$, $\kappa$, and $f_{\rm ellip}$ as epoch-dependent.
  • Black hole masses from this route carry about 1 dex uncertainties, comparable to existing single-epoch scaling relations, and require a conservative, wide prior on the mean time delay to avoid bias when the radius–luminosity relation is offset.
  • Even when the radius–luminosity relation overestimates the true BLR size by a factor of three, the recovered structural parameters remain consistent within uncertainties, so the method is robust to moderate errors in the assumed physical scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the method's weakest link shifts from observing time to the prior on the mean time delay; hierarchical modelling that ties $\tau_{\rm mean}$ to luminosity across a sample could reduce this systematic and let the geometry parameters borrow strength across objects.
  • Because the low-flux epoch produced the most discrepant radial profile $\beta$, applying the method to flux-limited samples may introduce a selection effect related to BLR 'breathing'; surveys using archival spectra should check whether their objects' flux states bias the recovered parameters.
  • A natural testable extension is to run the same pipeline on the C IV and Mg II lines: those profiles are more blended and their radius–luminosity relations are less well calibrated than H$\beta$, so comparing single-epoch and monitoring-derived parameters for those lines would show how much the method's success depends on line isolation and prior accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper adapts the Pancoast et al. (2014a) Bayesian BLR dynamical model to single-epoch spectra. The key modification is to add a Gaussian prior on the mean time delay tau_mean, which substitutes for the temporal information normally provided by monitoring data, and to marginalize over Gaussian-process continuum histories whose hyperparameters are given flat priors. The method is applied to three single epochs extracted from the Arp 151 LAMP 2008 dataset, and the resulting posterior distributions are compared with the full light-curve analysis of Pancoast et al. (2018). The authors report that the opening angle, inclination, mid-plane transparency, inflow/outflow fraction, and rotation angle can be constrained from a single spectrum with uncertainties comparable to, or up to roughly 3.5 times larger than, those from monitoring data, while gamma is essentially unconstrained and beta, kappa, and fellip depend on the chosen epoch. Additional tests examine the effect of the tau_mean prior width and mean, the use of tau_median instead of tau_mean, and a radius-luminosity based prior. Appendix A presents simulations with known input parameters, reporting that 34 of 45 parameters are recovered within the 68% credible intervals.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method would be valuable: it would allow BLR geometry and dynamics constraints to be extracted from the large existing archive of single-epoch AGN spectra, and it would reduce one of the main systematic uncertainties in single-epoch black hole mass estimates. The paper is honest about model limitations in Section 4.4, and it makes an explicit comparison with an independently published full light-curve analysis. The simulation tests with known input parameters are a useful internal consistency check, and the paper clearly identifies which parameters are not constrainable from single-epoch data. However, as argued below, the simulation validation is self-consistent rather than externally grounded, and the recovery statistics overstate how often the parameters are actually informative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1.2 and Appendix A] The single-epoch likelihood marginalizes over Gaussian-process continuum histories with flat hyperpriors, and the Appendix A simulations generate the mock spectra with the same Gaussian-process model. This validates internal consistency, but it cannot detect a systematic degeneracy introduced by an unconstrained continuum history when real AGN variability is not GP-distributed. The paper tests sensitivity to the prior range of the hyperparameters, but that is not a test of whether the GP family adequately spans realistic continuum histories. I request a validation in which mock single-epoch spectra are generated from the observed LAMP continuum light curve (or from a non-GP stochastic process) with known BLR parameters and then fitted with the single-epoch code. This directly tests the paper's central claim that the line profile alone can separate BLR structure from the unknown ionizing continuum history.
  2. [Appendix A] The aggregate recovery statistics (34 of 45 within 68%, 44 of 44 within 95%) are not, by themselves, evidence that the parameters are constrained. A parameter whose posterior equals its prior will contain the true input value at the stated coverage by construction, and the paper itself labels many simulation outputs as unconstrained (e.g., Simulation 1 reports fflow as unconstrained and Simulation 4 says most parameters are not constrained). The recovery fraction therefore mixes genuinely informative posteriors with uninformative ones. Please report, for each parameter and simulation, a measure of posterior shrinkage relative to the prior (for example, the ratio of posterior to prior width or a Kullback-Leibler divergence), and base the 'constrained' classification on posterior informativeness rather than on coverage alone.
  3. [Section 4.1.1 and Table 3] The central claim that theta_o, theta_i, xi, fflow, and theta_e can be determined with uncertainties comparable to, or at most a factor of a few higher than, the full light-curve analysis is not uniformly supported by Table 3. For the low-flux epoch, theta_e = 27.3+43.2-18.9 degrees is effectively unconstrained, and xi has an upper uncertainty of 0.51 compared with 0.12 for the full light curve; for the high-flux epoch, theta_o and theta_i also have substantially broader posteriors than the full light-curve values. Since the paper's headline result is based on a subset of epochs and parameters, the abstract and conclusions should either quantify the success rate over all three epochs and all five parameters (for example, the fraction of cases where the posterior width is reduced by a specified factor relative to the prior) or explicitly state that the claim applies only to favorable line shapes and epochs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A] The text states '44 out of 44' parameters are recovered within the 95% confidence range; since 5 simulations times 9 parameters gives 45 parameters, this should presumably be '44 out of 45' (or the counting should be clarified).
  2. [Section 4.3 and Figure 10] The black hole mass is not an independent single-epoch output: Figure 10 shows a tight MBH-tau_mean correlation and Section 4.3 notes that the MBH posterior is strongly sensitive to the tau_mean prior. The introduction's motivation in terms of black hole masses should be qualified in the conclusions so that readers do not infer that the method provides an independent mass measurement beyond the adopted radius-luminosity prior.
  3. [Section 3.2] The discussion of the low-flux epoch's high beta value, while plausible as a 'breathing' effect, is speculative; the paper could be clearer that the single-epoch beta posteriors are not necessarily tracing the same physical quantity as the full light-curve beta.
  4. [Appendix C] The temperature parameter T is chosen post hoc to exclude 'streaks' in the convergence distributions; this is a reasonable practical choice, but the paper should note more explicitly how the value of T affects the reported 68% intervals, since increasing T effectively inflates the data uncertainties by sqrt(T).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: single-epoch constraints are tested against independent monitoring data and external R-L priors.

full rationale

The main claim is that single-epoch spectra can recover several BLR geometry/dynamics parameters within the Pancoast et al. generative model. That claim is not circular: it is an empirical demonstration on Arp 151, benchmarked against full lightcurve modelling of the same object, which is an independent, richer dataset, and against parameter-recovery simulations in Appendix A that use known input parameters. The recovery simulations test the inference machinery; they are not presented as proof that the model is physically complete, and Section 4.4 explicitly lists omitted physics. The MBH output is explicitly acknowledged to be tied to the externally imposed tau_mean prior (Section 4.3), so the paper does not rename a fit as a prediction for MBH. The use of a tau_mean prior centred on the earlier Pancoast et al. (2014b) value is a convenience and is shown not to alter full-lightcurve results; the R-L based tests use an independent empirical relation. The GP continuum marginalisation is a model-robustness limitation, not circular reasoning: the authors test prior sensitivity and acknowledge that real variability may not follow the GP assumption. Self-citations to the authors' previous model papers are methodological continuity, not load-bearing circular evidence. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by definition or by a self-citation chain to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central result rests on the adequacy of a pre-existing phenomenological BLR model and on external or hand-chosen scale inputs (the τmean prior and the temperature). The geometry and dynamics parameters are inferred within that model; the black hole mass is largely inherited from the τmean prior rather than independently measured.

free parameters (3)
  • μτ (Gaussian prior centre on τmean) = 3.07 days (RM-based); 5.21 days (R-L); 15.63 days (3x R-L)
    Sets the physical scale of the BLR for single-epoch modelling; the inferred black hole mass is strongly correlated with this value (Figure 10).
  • στ (Gaussian prior width on τmean) = 0.5, 1, 2, or 3 times μτ, or 0.2/1.2 dex
    Hand-chosen uncertainty representing knowledge of the BLR size; wider widths broaden the time delay and black hole mass posteriors.
  • T (temperature) = 1 or 3 for single-epoch; 65 or 80 for light-curve
    Post-processing likelihood softening chosen to ensure convergence; it affects the width of the posterior distributions (Appendix C).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BLR is adequately described by the Pancoast et al. (2014a) particle model with Gamma radial distribution, point-source continuum, and specified orbit families.
    All inferred parameters are defined by this model; physics outside it is not represented, as acknowledged in Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption The RBLR-LAGN relation (Bentz et al. 2013) can provide a valid mean time delay prior for arbitrary AGN.
    Used in Section 3.5 to set μτ for the general population; the relation has about 0.2 dex scatter and Arp 151 lies below it.
  • domain assumption Simulated Gaussian-process continuum light curves, generated from a single flux point and flat hyperpriors, are representative of the true past continuum behaviour.
    Single-epoch data cannot constrain the continuum history, so the model marginalizes over these realizations, as described in Section 2.1.2.
  • domain assumption BLR gas reprocesses the ionising continuum instantaneously.
    Assumed in Section 2.1; finite recombination timescales could modify the line profile response in ways not captured by the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling the AGN broad line region using single-epoch spectra I. The test case of Arp 151." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q54Z3VLZ

@misc{pith2026190803230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling the AGN broad line region using single-epoch spectra I. The test case of Arp 151},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q54Z3VLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03230}
}
read the original abstract

We show that individual (single-epoch) spectra of AGN can constrain some of the geometry and dynamics of the AGN broad line region. Studies of the cosmic influence of supermassive black holes are limited by the current large uncertainties in the determination of black hole masses. One dominant limitation is the unknown geometry, dynamics and line-of-sight inclination of the broad line region, used to probe the central black hole mass. Recent progress has been made to constrain the spatial and kinematic structure of the broad line region using dynamical modelling of AGN monitoring data and an underlying physical model for the broad line region. In this work we test the ability of a modified version of this dynamical modelling code to constrain the broad line region structure using single-epoch spectra. We test our modelling code on single-epoch spectra of nearby Arp 151 by comparing our results with those obtained with monitoring data of this same object. We find that a significant fraction of the broad line region parameters can indeed be adequately constrained, with uncertainties that are comparable to, or at most a factor of ~ a few higher than those obtained from modelling of monitoring data. Considering the wealth of available single-epoch spectroscopic observations, this method is promising for establishing the overall AGN population trends in the geometry and dynamics of the broad line region. This method can be applied to spectra of AGN at low and high redshift making it valuable for studies of cosmological black hole and AGN evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a BLR geometry for two different values of β. The black dots represent BLR clouds seen in the xy plane. The β parameter describes how the clouds are distributed radially, hence β < 1 means that the distribution along the radial direction from the centre is Gaussian-like in shape. Left panel: β = 0.1; Right panel: β = 1.9. Both panels assume an inclination angle θi = 20◦ and an opening angle θo = 30◦. so t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior probability distributions for the geometry and dynamics parameters of the BLR of Arp 151 when modelling the full spectroscopic and photometric light-curves. Default modelling of the full light-curve without a Gaussian prior (Pancoast et al. 2018) is shown as the black solid line histogram. The filled histograms show the result of using different Gaussian priors on τmean. In both cases we use a Gaussian dis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams showing the LAMP 2008 optical light-curves of Arp 151 and the epochs chosen for our study. Left: Arp151 continuum light-curve (grey circles) and integrated broad Hβ emission line flux light-curve (black triangles). The three single epochs are highlighted by the coloured stars. Right: Spectra covering the broad Hβ emission line corresponding to each of the epochs selected in the light-curve. The line profile… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the continuum-subtracted Hβ spectral line profiles and the signal-to-noise ratio for the three epochs colour coded as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior probability distributions for the geometry and dynamics parameters of the BLR of Arp 151 when modelling three single epochs independently. Default modelling of the full light-curve without a Gaussian prior (Pancoast et al. 2018) is shown as the black solid li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the input observed spectrum and a representative model line profile drawn from the posterior probability distribution for each epoch. The data is in blue, the model in red and the residuals are shown in grey in the bottom panels. 3.3 Using a prior on…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inferred values for the parameters and their respective 68% confidence regions for each of the tests carried out in this work. The shaded green vertical region is the 68% confidence region for the inferred parameters, determined from the full light-curve modelling resu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continued. particle radial distribution and therefore more sensitive to β. We will therefore continue to use a Gaussian prior on τmean to explore a possible extension of this study to a more general set of sources. 3.4 Changing the mean and confidence range of the Gaus…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior probability distributions for the BLR geometry and dynamics parameters determined using the mid-flux epoch. Default modelling of the full light-curve without a Gaussian prior (Pancoast et al. 2018) is shown as the black solid line histogram. Blue: Gaussian pr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Figure illustrating the dependence between the black hole mass (MBH) and the mean time delay (τmean) for the mid￾flux epoch of Arp 151. The values for the parameters were taken from the posterior probability distribution. shifted emission more prominent than the redsh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated broad line profiles for different inclinations and opening angles for a case similar to Arp 151. The remaining parameters are set to the inferred values for Arp 151 quoted in column 2 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Figure illustrating the dependence between the incli￾nation angle, opening angle and black hole mass for Arp 151. The values for the parameters were taken from the posterior proba￾bility distribution. The coloured points represent different black hole mass bins. θo is…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Simulated broad line profiles for different inclinations and opening angles for a case similar to Arp 151. The remaining parameters are set to the inferred values for Arp 151 quoted in column 2 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Simulated broad line profiles for different inclinations and opening angles. The vertical dashed line indicates the central Hβ rest-frame wavelength. To better illustrate the effect of changing the angles, the line profiles were generated assuming fellip = 1, γ = 1, ξ…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Model-generated line profiles as a function of geometry and dynamics parameters, illustrating how the BLR structure and kinematics affect the shape of the emission line in a single-epoch spectrum. The parameters fflow, fellip, κ and ξ are different in the four panels,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/128 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..128B 769, 128

    Barth A. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/128 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..128B 769, 128

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/128 2013

  3. [3]

    C., Katz S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/679601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127...67B 127, 67

    Bentz M. C., Katz S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/679601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127...67B 127, 67

    doi:10.1086/679601 2015

  4. [4]

    C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/199 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..199B 705, 199

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/199 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..199B 705, 199

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/199 2009

  5. [5]

    C., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L46 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720L..46B 720, L46

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L46 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720L..46B 720, L46

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/l46 2010

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

  7. [7]

    D., McKee C

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

    doi:10.1086/159843 1982

  8. [8]

    J., P \'a rtay L

    Brewer B. J., P \'a rtay L. B., Cs \'a nyi G., 2009, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0912.2380B ( @eprint arXiv 0912.2380 )

    arXiv 2009

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J., P \'a rtay L

    Brewer B. J., P \'a rtay L. B., Cs \'a nyi G., 2010, DNEST: Diffusive Nested Sampling , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1010.029 )

    2010

  2. [10]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L33 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733L..33B 733, L33

    Brewer B. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L33 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733L..33B 733, L33

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Horne K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09795.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365.1180C 365, 1180

    Cackett E. M., Horne K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09795.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365.1180C 365, 1180

    2006

  4. [12]

    Capriotti E., Foltz C., Byard P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...241..903C 241, 903

    1980 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Vestergaard M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064878 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    Collin S., Kawaguchi T., Peterson B. M., Vestergaard M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064878 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Du P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/45 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...45D 782, 45

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Du P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856....6D 856, 6

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Elvis M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa82b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...56E 847, 56

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    P., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...90....1E 90, 1

    Eracleous M., Halpern J. P., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...90....1E 90, 1

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Korista K

    Goad M. R., Korista K. T., Ruff A. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21808.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.3086G 426, 3086

    2012

  14. [22]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/60 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...60G 755, 60

    Grier C. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/60 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...60G 755, 60

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/47 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764...47G 764, 47

    Grier C. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/47 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764...47G 764, 47

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Pancoast A., Barth A

    Grier C. J., Pancoast A., Barth A. J., Fausnaugh M. M., Brewer B. J., Treu T., Peterson B. M., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa901b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849..146G 849, 146

    doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98dc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...21G 851, 21

    Grier C. J., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98dc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...21G 851, 21

    doi

  18. [26]

    S., Netzer H., Maoz D., Jannuzi B

    Kaspi S., Smith P. S., Netzer H., Maoz D., Jannuzi B. T., Giveon U., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308704 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..631K 533, 631

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    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 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659..997K 659, 997

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    Kollatschny W., Zetzl M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A.100K 549, A100

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Goad M

    Korista K. T., Goad M. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383193 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606..749K 606, 749

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Koz owski S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..228....9K 228, 9

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...261...25K 261, 25

    Kwan J., Carroll T. J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...261...25K 261, 25

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Du P., Bai J.-M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..110L 779, 110

    Li Y.-R., Wang J.-M., Ho L. C., Du P., Bai J.-M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..110L 779, 110

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Lira P., et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180608358L ( @eprint arXiv 1806.08358 )

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lynden-Bell D., 1969, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Natur.223..690L 223, 690

    1969

  28. [36]

    J., Jarvis M

    McLure R. J., Jarvis M. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05871.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.337..109M 337, 109

    2002

  29. [37]

    Netzer H., Maoz D., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185875 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...365L...5N 365, L5

    1990 doi

  30. [38]

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

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Pancoast A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/49 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...49P 754, 49

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

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

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

    doi

  33. [41]

    J., Treu T., Park D., Barth A

    Pancoast A., Brewer B. J., Treu T., Park D., Barth A. J., Bentz M. C., Woo J.-H., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1419 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3073P 445, 3073

    doi

  34. [42]

    Pancoast A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3c6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..108P 856, 108

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Pei L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..131P 837, 131

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J., van Groningen E., Wanders I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/271.3.561 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.271..561P 271, 561

    Perry J. J., van Groningen E., Wanders I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/271.3.561 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.271..561P 271, 561

    1994 doi

  37. [45]

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

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

    1993 doi

  38. [46]

    M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei

    Peterson B. M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei

    1997

  39. [47]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183..253P 183, 253

    Peterson B. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183..253P 183, 253

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Wandel A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312862 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540L..13P 540, L13

    Peterson B. M., Wandel A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312862 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540L..13P 540, L13

    2000 doi

  41. [49]

    M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    I., Fabian A

    Raimundo S. I., Fabian A. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14796.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396.1217R 396, 1217

    2009

  43. [51]

    I., Malkan M

    Rosenblatt E. I., Malkan M. A., Sargent W. L. W., Readhead A. C. S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...93...73R 93, 73

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    L., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08261.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354.1020S 354, 1020

    Shankar F., Salucci P., Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08261.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354.1020S 354, 1020

    2004

  45. [53]

    Shen Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...45S 194, 45

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

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

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Skilling J., 2006, @doi [Bayesian Anal.] 10.1214/06-BA127 , 1, 833

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Peterson B

    Storchi-Bergmann T., Schimoia J. S., Peterson B. M., Elvis M., Denney K. D., Eracleous M., Nemmen R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..236S 835, 236

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Vestergaard M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340045 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571..733V 571, 733

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    Vestergaard M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379758 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..676V 601, 676

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500572 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..689V 641, 689

    Vestergaard M., Peterson B. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500572 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..689V 641, 689

    2006 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Barthel P

    Vestergaard M., Wilkes B. J., Barthel P. D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312805 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...538L.103V 538, L103

    2000 doi

  53. [61]

    L., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/1/156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..156W 185, 156

    Walsh J. L., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/1/156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..156W 185, 156

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...75W 866, 75

    Williams P. R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...75W 866, 75

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Browne I

    Wills B. J., Browne I. W. A., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163973 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302...56W 302, 56

    1986 doi

  56. [64]

    Xiao M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5e1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..109X 864, 109

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.