Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Quantifying the impact of variable BLR diffuse continuum contributions on measured continuum inter-band delays

T0 review · 2 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 Models that reproduce NGC 5548's strong UV lines also produce a diffuse continuum reaching about 40 percent of the light in some continuum bands, contaminating measured inter-band delays with a several-day, wavelength-dependent signature.

desk verdict BLR diffuse continuum contamination of inter-band delays is real and quantitatively modeled; the correction recipe assumes a lag-less disk, which fails for the source it targets. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07757 v1 pith:VWGPU6JE submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.GA

K.T. Korista , M.R. Goad This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleibroadlineregiondiffusecontinuumreverberationmappinginter-banddelaysaccretiondiskNGC5548photoionizationmodeling
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

Disk reverberation mapping measures time delays between continuum bands to infer the structure of the accretion disk, but the disk is not the only variable continuum source. The paper argues that the same broad-line-region gas that emits AGN spectral lines also emits a diffuse continuum, and that in a BLR model reproducing the strong UV lines of NGC 5548 this diffuse component can reach about 40 percent of the total light in a band near the Balmer jump. Because the diffuse continuum arises over a large volume and responds on time scales of days, it adds a wavelength-dependent delay signal that contaminates measured inter-band delays. The authors show that the contamination is diluted by the underlying delay-free continuum, derive a nonlinear correction recipe, and demonstrate that the size of the effect depends on the amplitude and variability timescale of the driving continuum. Getting this correction right matters because failing to remove it biases inferred disk sizes and mass accretion rates.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a locally optimally emitting cloud (LOC) model: a spherical ensemble of photoionized clouds spanning a range of hydrogen densities and column densities, whose summed emission is forced to match the observed Lyα and C IV strengths and lags in NGC 5548. Within this model, the diffuse-continuum bands have radial surface emissivity distributions $F(r)$ approximately proportional to $r^{-2}$, i.e. a responsivity $\eta(r)\approx1$, which makes their response to driving continuum variations simple and relatively insensitive to BLR geometry. The second load-bearing element is the dilution formula, Equation 3, $\tau_\lambda\approx\tau_\lambda^{\rm DC}(1-A)x/(1-Ax)$, which connects the measured delay in a band to the diffuse-continuum fraction $x$ and to $A$, a constant encoding how the cross-correlation centroid responds to a mixture of lag-less disk light and delayed diffuse-continuum light.

What would settle it

Compute the diffuse-continuum fraction $x$ in each continuum band from a high signal-to-noise spectrum of an AGN with a measured inter-band delay spectrum. Equation 3 predicts the delay should approach zero as $x\to0$ and follow $(1-A)x/(1-Ax)$ at intermediate $x$; observing multi-day, wavelength-dependent lags in the lowest-$x$ bands, or a delay-versus-$x$ curve that cannot be fitted with a single $A$, would falsify the lag-less disk assumption and demonstrate that the disk itself contributes wavelength-dependent delays.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a spherical ensemble of photoionized clouds that reproduces the observed Lyα and C IV luminosities and time delays in NGC 5548, the paper shows that the same gas emits a diffuse continuum made of free-bound, free-free, and scattered light. In the steady-state model, the diffuse continuum reaches roughly 60 percent of the incident continuum at the Balmer jump (about 40 percent of total light), with emissivity-weighted radii of about 20 to 40 light-days across 1000 to 10000 Å. Driven by the 2014 monitoring light curve, the diffuse-continuum-only cross-correlation delays average about $6.5 \pm 1.7$ days over that range, with a strong wavelength dependence and abrupt changes at the Balmer and Paschen jumps. When a scaled, lag-less version of the 1157 Å driver is added to represent the underlying disk, the measured delay is a nonlinear function of the diffuse-continuum fraction $x$, approximately $\tau_\lambda \approx \tau_\lambda^{\rm DC}(1-A)x/(1-Ax)$ with $A\approx0.65$ to $0.76$ for the 2014 campaign. The paper provides a recipe for scaling these predictions to other AGN luminosities and for correcting observed delay spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The correction recipe assumes the underlying accretion-disk continuum in each longer-wavelength band is a scaled, lag-less replica of the 1157 Å driver; if the disk itself has wavelength-dependent delays of several days, comparable to the diffuse-continuum delays, the measured lags cannot be separated using Equation 3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uncorrected inter-band delays fitted with $\tau(\lambda)\propto\lambda^{4/3}$ will overestimate disk sizes and mass accretion rates, because each measured delay is a mixture of disk response and BLR diffuse-continuum response.
  • The enhanced delays observed around the Balmer continuum can be reproduced by BLR diffuse continuum without requiring an anomalous disk temperature profile.
  • Corrections that linearly scale measured lags by the diffuse-continuum fraction will overestimate the contamination for large $x$; Equation 3 with a fitted $A$ is needed.
  • The Hβ lag is a poor proxy for the Balmer-continuum delay: the diffuse continuum responds from radii about a factor of two smaller, so its lag and variability amplitude differ from Hβ.
  • The contamination, and hence the required correction, depends on the amplitude and characteristic timescale of the driving continuum, so campaign-specific light-curve properties enter the delay calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1157 Å reference band itself contains diffuse continuum, all measured delays are relative to a contaminated zero point; switching the driver to a band closer to the ionizing continuum or to a high-ionization line should reveal a uniform shift in the recovered delay spectrum.
  • Because the diffuse-continuum surface emissivity is nearly $r^{-2}$, its transfer function is a smoothed, almost linear mirror of the driver; lag spectra could be fit with a two-component model, a compact disk response plus an $r^{-2}$ BLR response, to estimate both the disk temperature profile and the BLR radius from the same data.
  • Since AGN are bluer when brighter, the diffuse-continuum fraction $x$ changes with continuum state; Equation 3 then predicts that measured lags in a given band should vary as the source brightens, a testable prediction with simultaneous spectral and lag monitoring.
  • Sources with stronger emission lines relative to the underlying continuum should show systematically larger diffuse-continuum fractions; the Lyα equivalent width could serve as a cheap predictor of the expected contamination level.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Cloudy v17.00 photoionization models in a LOC framework to compute the broad-line-region diffuse continuum (DC) flux and delay spectra for NGC 5548, spanning 1000–10000 Å. The model is calibrated by matching the observed Lyα and C IV equivalent widths and line ratios, and the predicted line lags are compared against the 1989 IUE, 1993 HST, and 2014 AGN STORM campaigns. The authors find that models matching the strong UV lines also produce a significant DC component, reaching roughly 40% of the total light near the Balmer jump, and that this component contributes wavelength-dependent delays of order a few days to the measured continuum inter-band delays. They explore how the DC luminosity and delays depend on gas density, column density, driving-continuum amplitude, and variability timescale, and they provide a recipe (Eq. 3) for estimating and correcting the DC contribution in disk reverberation mapping experiments.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper establishes that BLR diffuse continuum emission is a non-negligible contaminant in UV-optical disk reverberation mapping, potentially biasing measured disk sizes and time lags. The strengths of the paper are its use of a public, well-documented photoionization code; the explicit calibration against observed line strengths and line lags from three campaigns (Table 2); and the falsifiable, quantitative predictions for the wavelength dependence of DC delays and flux fractions. The finding that the DC delay spectrum is much shorter than the Hβ lag, and that Hβ is a poor proxy for Balmer-continuum delays, is a useful and nontrivial result. The paper also makes a clear case that the DC contribution can partly explain the 'bluer-when-brighter' behavior. However, the quantitative correction recipe and the reported diluted-delay amplitudes depend on an assumption about the underlying disk lags that is not satisfied for the target source, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5, Fig. 10, Eq. (3)] The quantitative analysis that produces the diluted delays and the correction recipe assumes the underlying disk continuum in each band is a scaled, lag-less replica of the λ1157 Å driver ('we here assume to be lag-less with respect to the driver'). This assumption is not satisfied for NGC 5548, the source to which the model is applied: observed UV-optical inter-band lags relative to a UV reference are of order 1–3 days, while the diluted DC delays in Fig. 10 are ~0.5–3 days (and the undiluted DC delays in Fig. 6 are ~2–10 days). With two comparable delay scales, the CCF centroid of the summed light is a nonlinear mixture of the disk lag spectrum and the BLR DC lag spectrum, so Eq. (3), which interpolates between τ=0 and τ=τ_DC at fixed DC fraction, cannot by construction recover either the DC fraction or the clean disk lag. Section 3.3 limits the recipe to cases where disk lags are 'much shorter' than the DC delays, which excludes the NGC 5548 case for which the numbers are computed. The quantitative contamination amplitudes in Fig. 10 and the proposed correction are therefore not uniquely determined from this model. I recommend the authors either forward-model a wavelength-dependent disk lag spectrum and recompute the dilution, or explicitly reframe the recipe and the quoted amplitudes as upper limits applicable only when the disk lag spectrum is known to be sub-dominant.
  2. [§2.4.2, footnote 6, and §2.7] The driving continuum proxy is the λ1157 Å band, and the paper acknowledges in a footnote that the UV-optical continuum may be a poor proxy for the driving EUV continuum during the anomalous 2014 state. Because all predicted delays in Figs. 6, 10, and 11 are correlations with this proxy, a mismatch between the proxy and the true ionizing continuum would shift the DC delay spectra and also change the fractional DC contributions used in the dilution simulations. The paper's sensitivity analysis in §2.7.1 scales the amplitude of the driver, but the full simulations in §2.4–2.6 are not rerun with the EUV-scaled driver, so the impact on the reported delay spectra and on Eq. (3) is not quantified. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity test (e.g., rerun the dilution simulations with the α=1.5 driver and report the resulting changes in Figs. 10 and 11) or state a conservative uncertainty on the absolute delays due to the driver-proxy ambiguity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.4.1, Fig. 5] The text says the extended light curve includes a significant continuum event 'starting ≈200 days prior to the start of the HST campaign,' while the lower-panel caption of Fig. 5 says the event is '≈140 days prior.' Please reconcile the numbers.
  2. [Table 2] The observed line lags are quoted without uncertainties, which makes it difficult to judge the quality of the model match. Adding the published measurement uncertainties (e.g., from De Rosa et al. 2015 and Pei et al. 2017) would strengthen the calibration claim.
  3. [§2.2] There is a typo in 'NGGC 5548' (extra G). Also, the abundance description '0.5× solar metallicity, except solar values in C/H and N/H' would benefit from a brief reminder that this is the same abundance set as KG00, to avoid forcing the reader to look up the reference.
  4. [§3.2] The discussion of open vs. closed geometries and the missing Lyman continuum is interesting but is not directly connected to the quantitative results in §2.5–2.6; consider condensing it or adding a sentence that states its implications for the DC delay predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DC delays are forward-model outputs from a Cloudy LOC model calibrated to observed line strengths, not to the measured inter-band continuum delays being predicted.

full rationale

The central derivation is a forward photoionization calculation. The paper adopts the KG00/KG01 LOC BLR model, but this is not the result being predicted: the model is anchored to independent measured line luminosities and lags (Table 2 vs. De Rosa et al. 2015 and Pei et al. 2017), and the DC flux/delay spectra are then computed with Cloudy using the same gas distribution. The claim that DC is a significant contaminant is therefore not equivalent to any fitted input; the model could have failed to reproduce the observed Ly-alpha/C IV strengths or the line lags. The dilution calculation in Sec. 2.5 ('a scaled (in flux) version of the driver, which we here assume to be lag-less') is a stated modeling assumption, not a hidden redefinition of the measured delay. Sec. 3.3 explicitly limits the correction recipe to cases where disk lags are 'much shorter' than BLR DC delays, and the Sec. 2.4.2 footnote concedes that the UV-optical continuum may be a poor proxy for the EUV driver during the anomalous 2014 state. These are honest limitations on identifiability, not circular reductions: the predicted DC delays in Fig. 6 and the mixed delays in Fig. 10 are outputs of convolving the driver with the model transfer function, not inputs. Equation 3 is an empirical fit to those simulations, and the suggested use is to fit x and A to data, i.e., a standard inverse/recipe step, not a 'prediction' of the measured delay from the same delay. No step in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself, and no load-bearing result is justified solely by an author self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on a set of adopted BLR parameters from the authors' prior KG00 LOC model, plus two explicit simplifications for the variability analysis. No new physical entities are introduced. The recipe constant A in Equation 3 is fit to the paper's own simulations, and the driving continuum proxy carries acknowledged uncertainty.

free parameters (8)
  • BLR inner radius = 1 light day
    Adopted from KG00; sets the smallest DC delay and inner boundary of the emissivity integral.
  • BLR outer radius = 140 light days
    Adopted from KG00; authors note DC characteristic radii scale roughly as the square root of the outer radius.
  • Covering fraction power-law index c = -1.2
    Adopted from KG00; sets radial distribution of cloud covering, dC/dr proportional to r^c.
  • Cloud hydrogen column density log NH = 23 cm^-2
    Fiducial fixed value from KG00; explored values 22.5 and 23.5 in Section 2.3.
  • Hydrogen density range log nH = 8-12 cm^-3
    Fiducial LOC range; explored 8-11 and 8-13 in Section 2.3.
  • Metallicity = 0.5 solar, solar C/H and N/H
    Adopted from KG00 for continuity; Section 2.2 shows DC predictions nearly insensitive to this choice.
  • Driving continuum amplitude scaling exponent alpha = 1.5 and 2.0
    Illustrative enhanced-amplitude drivers in Section 2.7; alpha about 1.5 inferred from rms scaling at 228 Angstroms.
  • Recipe constant A in Equation 3 = 0.763 (3641 A), 0.6485 (5200 A) for AGN STORM
    Fitted to the paper's simulated dilution curves in Section 2.6; varies with band and driving light curve.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cloudy v17.00 photoionization calculations with large H and He atoms correctly predict line and continuum emission from BLR clouds.
    All results rely on the Cloudy code; no independent verification of the atomic data is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption The BLR can be represented as a spherical distribution of constant-density, constant-column clouds illuminated by a central point source, with the KG00 LOC weighting.
    Section 2.2; this is the standard LOC framework, acknowledged to be a simplification of the real geometry.
  • domain assumption The lambda-1157-Angstrom continuum light curve is a suitable proxy for the driving EUV ionising continuum.
    Section 2.4.1; the paper later footnotes that the UV-optical continuum may be a poor proxy during the anomalous 2014 state (Section 2.4.2).
  • ad hoc to paper In the dilution simulations, the underlying continuum in each band is a scaled, lag-less version of the lambda-1157-Angstrom driver.
    Stated explicitly in Section 2.5; the paper notes results would change with a wavelength-dependent disk delay spectrum.
  • domain assumption The radial responsivity of DC bands is approximately 1, giving F(r) proportional to r^-2, so response is linear in driving flux.
    Derived from the model in Section 2.2 and Figure 2; used to argue geometry insensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying the impact of variable BLR diffuse continuum contributions on measured continuum inter-band delays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWGPU6JE

@misc{pith2026190807757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying the impact of variable BLR diffuse continuum contributions on measured continuum inter-band delays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWGPU6JE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07757}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the contribution of reprocessed continuum emission (1000A - 10,000A) originating in broad line region (BLR) gas, the diffuse continuum (DC), to the wavelength-dependent continuum delays measured in AGN disk reverberation mapping experiments. Assuming a spherical BLR geometry, we adopt a Local Optimally-emitting Cloud (LOC) model for the BLR that approximately reproduces the broad emission-line strengths of the strongest UV lines (Ly-alpha and C IV) in NGC 5548. Within this LOC framework, we explore how assumptions about the gas hydrogen density and column density distributions influence flux and delay spectra of the DC. We find that: (i) models which match well measured emission line luminosities and time delays also produce a significant DC component, (ii) increased nH and/or NH, particularly at smaller BLR radii, result in larger DC luminosities and reduced DC delays, (iii) in a given continuum band the relative importance of the DC component to the measured inter-band delays is proportional (though not 1:1) to its fractional contribution to the total light in that band, (iv) the measured DC delays and DC variability amplitude depends also on the variability amplitude and characteristic variability timescale of the driving continuum, (v) the DC radial surface emissivity distributions F(r) approximate power-laws in radius with indices close to -2 (approximately 1:1 response to variations in the driving continuum flux), thus their physics is relatively simple and less sensitive to the unknown geometry and uncertainties in radiative transfer. Finally, we provide a simple recipe for estimating the DC contribution in disk reverberation mapping experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic contours of the ratio λFλ(diffuse cont.)/λFλ1215(incident cont.) in the cloud gas density-incident ionising photon flux plane for a grid of photoionised clouds with a fixed hydrogen column density log NH(cm−2 ) = 23, at four rep￾resentative wavelengths typically measured in disk and broad emission-line reverberation mapping campaigns. In each panel the minimum flux ratio contour has a value of 1 (lying n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel – Radial surface emissivity distributions F(r) for the strongest UV and optical broad emission lines. Lower panel – example diffuse continuum bands. The dashed line indi￾cates a power-law emissivity function F(r) ∝ r γ , with logarith￾mic slope γ = −2, indicative of a radial responsivity distribution η(r) = 1.0. F(r) for Mg ii is relatively flat over much of the BLR, giving rise to large emissivity-weigh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel – Wavelength-dependent diffuse contin￾uum band luminosities log10 λLλ (erg s−1 ) for our steady-state model assuming 50% coverage of the continuum source. Middle panel – the predicted emissivity-weighted radii, Rew (effectively the half-light radius), for the steady-state model. Lower-panel – the predicted responsivity-weighted radius, Rrw (see text for details). Black and blue lines denote the elemental… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel – the steady-state wavelength-dependent luminosity λLλ predicted by LOC models of three fixed val￾ues of the hydrogen column density log NH(cm−2 ) = 23 (black), 22.5 (red), 23.5 (blue), and for log NH(cm−2 ) = 23 three ranges in hydrogen gas density log nH(…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel – HST λ1157A continuum band from ˚ AGN STORM (black points). Scaled Swift UVW2 band data taken as part of AGN STORM (red points). Lower panel – ex￾tended version showing earlier Swift UVW2 data (red points), scaled in the same fashion. Note the significant …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Structure functions for the λ1350A continuum band ˚ for the 3 previous space-based reverberation mapping campaigns on NGC 5548. The break timescale for the 1993 and 2014 HST campaigns are significantly shorter than that found for the 1989 IUE campaign (≈ 40 days), and …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel – the measured delay (CCF centroid at 0.5 rmax) as determined from a cross-correlation of a driv￾ing continuum light-curve and the wavelength-dependent diffuse continuum contribution arising from the BLR. We use driving continuum light curves from the three…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper panel – The time-averaged flux spectrum for the KG00 model of NGC 5548. Colors denote the IUE 1989 (red), HST 1993 (blue), and AGN STORM (black) campaigns. Middle panel – the root mean square (rms) variation as a function of wavelength determined from the diffuse…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The measured wavelength-dependent delays, relative to three different representations of the lag-less driving continuum – AGN STORM (solid black line), HST 1993 (solid blue line) and IUE 1989 (solid red line). While the delay signature from the DC contribution is pres…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measured delay (CCF centroid at 50% rmax) of the to￾tal flux (incident+diffuse) continuum light-curve at λ3641A (solid ˚ lines), and λ5200A (long-dashed lines), with respect to the driving ˚ continuum band at λ1157A, plotted as a function of the fractional ˚ contribut…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An estimate for the variability amplitude of the driv￾ing continuum at shorter wavelengths. Values of α have been de￾termined from a fit to the relation log10 F(λ) = α log10 F(λ1157) + C . ior of the observable continuum bands (via extrapolation to shorter wavelengths…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left – representative diffuse continuum light-curves constructed using our amplitude-scaled proxy driving continuum (α = 1.5, see text for details). Right – the incident continuum in normalized units (black) and the sum of incident + diffuse continuum (red), for the s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sum of incident + diffuse continuum correlated with respect to the λ1157A continuum band. The ˚ λ1157A driver is ˚ scaled according to log10 F(driver) = α log10 F(λ1157)+C , with α = 1.0 (black) α = 1.5 (red), and α = 2.0 (blue). add the (un-scaled) underlying continu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The ratio of the integrated flux (λFλ) in two rep￾resentative continuum bands λ1356A and ˚ λ5200A versus the ob- ˚ served AGN STORM HST λ1157A continuum light-curve. The ˚ flux ratio increases as the continuum flux increases, and con￾tributes in a minor yet significan…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Physically motivated AGN emissivity profiles and their effects on quasar microlensing signatures. 1. Multi-epoch accretion disc size inference

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Interpreting composite disc-plus-BLR emission as a single compact disc systematically overestimates microlensing half-light radii, with the bias set mainly by the BLR flux fraction and the compact-disc emissivity shape.

  2. Continuum optical-UV and X-ray variability of AGN: current results and future challenges

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review of AGN continuum variability from optical/UV to X-rays, with no new data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arav, N., Chamberlain, C., Kriss, G.A., Kaastra, G.A., Cappi, M., et al.\ 2015, A&A 577, 37

    2015

  2. [2]

    Baldwin, J., Ferland, G., Korista, K., & Verner, D.\ 1995, \ 445, L119

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Baskin, A., Laor, A., & Stern, J.\ 2014, \ 438, 604

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Baskin, A., Laor, A.\ 2018, \ 474, 1970

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    C., Horne, K.D., Barth, A

    Bentz, M. C., Horne, K.D., Barth, A. J., et al.\ 2010, \ 720, 46

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Bottorff, M., Korista, K.T., Schlosman, I., & Blandford, R.\ 1997, \ 479, 200

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Bottorff, M., Baldwin, J.A., Ferland, G.J., Ferguson, J.W., & Korista, K.T.\ 2002, \ 581, 932

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Cackett, E.M., Horne, K.D., & Winkler, H.\ 2007, \ 380, 669

    work page 2007

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    et al.\ 2018, \ 857, 53

    Cackett, E.M., Chiang, C-Y., McHardy, I. et al.\ 2018, \ 857, 53

    2018

  2. [10]

    Carswell, R., & Ferland, G.J.\ 1998, \ 235, 1121

    1998

  3. [11]

    Chelouche, D., Pozo Nunez, F., & Kaspi, S.\ 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251

    2019

  4. [12]

    Chiang, J., & Murray, N.\ 1996, \ 466, 704

    1996

  5. [13]

    Clavel, J., Reichert, G.A., Alloin, D., et al.\ 1991, \ 366, 64

    1991

  6. [14]

    2001, \ 325, 1527

    Collier, S. 2001, \ 325, 1527

    2001

  7. [15]

    Dexter, J., & Agol, E.\ 2011, \ 727, 24

    2011

  8. [16]

    De Rosa, G., Peterson, B.M., Ely, J., et al.\ 2015, \ 806, 128, (Paper i )

    2015

  9. [17]

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J.M., Horne, K.D., et al.\ 2015, \ 806, 129, (Paper ii )

    2015

  10. [18]

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., Connolly, S., Done, C., et al.\ 2017, \ 840, 41

    2017

  11. [19]

    et al.\ 2019, \ 870, 123

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., Peterson, B.M., Horne, K. et al.\ 2019, \ 870, 123

    2019

  12. [20]

    et al.\ 2016, \ 821, 56, ( Paper iii )

    Fausnaugh, M.M., Denney, K.D., Barth, A.J., Bentz, M.C., Bottorff, M.C. et al.\ 2016, \ 821, 56, ( Paper iii )

    2016

  13. [21]

    et al.\ 2017, RMxAA 53, 385

    Ferland, G.J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm\'an, F., Lykins, M.L., van Hoof, P.A.M. et al.\ 2017, RMxAA 53, 385

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fitzpatrick, E.L.\ 1999, PASP 111, 63

    1999

  15. [23]

    Gardner, E., & Done, C.\ 2017, \ 470, 3591

    2017

  16. [24]

    Goad, M.R., O'Brien, P.T., & Gondhalekar, P.M.\ 1993, \ 263, 149

    1993

  17. [25]

    Goad, M.R., Korista, K.T., & Ruff, A.J.\ 2012, \ 426, 3088

    2012

  18. [26]

    Goad, M.R., & Korista, K.T.\ 2014, \ 444, 43

    2014

  19. [27]

    Goad, M.R., & Korista, K.T.\ 2015, \ 453, 3662

    2015

  20. [28]

    Goad, M.R., Korista, K.T., De Rosa, G., Kriss, G.A., Edelson, R., et al.\ 2016, \ 824, 11, (Paper iv )

    2016

  21. [29]

    Grier, C.J., Peterson, B.M., Pogge, R.W., et al.\ 2012, \ 755, 60

    2012

  22. [30]

    et al.\ 2013, \ 764, 47

    Grier, C.J., Peterson, B.M., Horne, K., Bentz, M.C., Pogge, R.W. et al.\ 2013, \ 764, 47

    2013

  23. [31]

    et al.\ 2017, \ 849, 146

    Grier, C.J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A.J., Fausnaugh, M.M., Brewer, B.J. et al.\ 2017, \ 849, 146

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hall, P.B., Sarrouh, G.T., & Horne, K.D.\ 2018, \ 854, 93

    2018

  25. [33]

    Horne, K.D., Welsh, W.F., & Peterson, B.M.\ 1991, \ 367, 5

    1991

  26. [34]

    Horne, K., De Rosa, G., Peterson, B.M., Barth, A.J., Ely, J., et al.\ 2019, \ in prep., paper ix

    2019

  27. [35]

    Kaspi, S., & Netzer, H.\ 1999, \ 524, 71

    1999

  28. [36]

    Kaastra, J.S., Kriss, G.A., Cappi, M., Mehdipour, M., Petrucci, P.-O., et al.\ 2014, Sci 345, 64

    2014

  29. [37]

    Kelly, B.C., Bechtold, J, & Siemiginowska, A.\ 2009, \ 698, 895

    2009

  30. [38]

    Korista, K.T., Alloin, D., Barr, P., Clavel, J., Cohen, R.D., et al.\ 1995, \ 97, 285

    1995

  31. [39]

    Korista, K.T., & Ferland, G.J.\ 1998, \ 495, 672

    1998

  32. [40]

    Korista, K.T., & Goad, M.R.\ 2000, \ 536, 284 (KG00)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Korista, K.T., & Goad, M.R.\ 2001, \ 553, 695 (KG01)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Korista, K.T., & Goad, M.R.\ 2004, \ 606, 749

    2004

  35. [43]

    Koshida, S., Minezaki, T., Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Sakata, Y., et al.\ 2014, \ 788, 159

    2014

  36. [44]

    Crenshaw, D

    Kraemer, S.B. Crenshaw, D. Michael; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Peterson, Bradley M.\ 1998, \ 499, 719

    1998

  37. [45]

    Kriss, G.A., De Rosa, G., Peterson, B.M., et al.\ 2019, \ in press, AGN STORM paper viii

    2019

  38. [46]

    Lawther, D., Goad, M.R., Korista, K.T., Ulrich, O., & Vestergaard, M.\ 2018, \ 481, 533

    2018

  39. [47]

    Landt, H., et al.\ 2019, \ in press

    2019

  40. [48]

    Magdziarz, P., Blaes, O.M., Zdziarski, A.A., Johnson, W.N., and Smith, D.A.\ 1998, \ 301, 179

    1998

  41. [49]

    Mannucci, F., Salvati, M., & Stanga, R.M.\ 1992, \ 394, 98

    1992

  42. [50]

    Marshall, H.L., Carone, T.E., Peterson, B.M., Clavel, J., Crenshaw, D.M., et al.\ 1997, \ 479, 222

    1997

  43. [51]

    Mathur, S., Gupta, A., Page, K., et al.\ 2017, \ 846, 55

    2017

  44. [52]

    McHardy, I.M., Connolly, S.D., Horne, K.D., Cackett, E.M., Gelbord, J., et al.\ 2018, \ 480, 2881

    2018

  45. [53]

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J.S, Kriss, G.A., Cappi, M., Petrucci, P.-O., et al.\ 2015, A&A 575, 22

    2015

  46. [54]

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J.S, Kriss, G.A., Cappi, M., Petrucci, P.-O., et al.\ 2015, A&A 588, 139

    2015

  47. [55]

    and Shull, J.M.\ 2014, \ 793, 100

    Moloney, J. and Shull, J.M.\ 2014, \ 793, 100

    2014

  48. [56]

    Mor, R., & Trakhtenbrot, B.\ 2011, \ 737, L36

    2011

  49. [57]

    & Netzer, H.\ 2012, \ 420, 526

    Mor, R. & Netzer, H.\ 2012, \ 420, 526

    2012

  50. [58]

    and Elitzur, M.\ 2009, \ 705, 298

    Mor, R., Netzer, H. and Elitzur, M.\ 2009, \ 705, 298

    2009

  51. [59]

    Morgan, C.W., Kochanek, C.S., Morgan, N.D., & Falco, E.E.\ 2010, \ 712, 1129

    2010

  52. [60]

    Mosquera, A.M., Kochanek, C.S., Chen, B., et al.\ 2013, \ 769, 53

    2013

  53. [61]

    Narayan, R.\ 1996, \ 462, 136

    1996

  54. [62]

    Netzer, H., & Laor, A.\ 1993, \ 404, L51

    1993

  55. [63]

    Netzer, H.\ 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

    2015

  56. [64]

    Pancoast, A., Brewer, B.J., Treu, T., et al.\ 2012, \ 754, 49

    2012

  57. [65]

    Pancoast, A., Brewer, B.J., & Treu, T.\ 2014a, \ 455, 3055

  58. [66]

    Pancoast, A., et al.\ 2014b, \ 445, 3073

  59. [67]

    Pancoast, A., Barth, A., Horne, K., Treu, T., Brewer, B.J., et al.\ 2018, \ 856, 108

    2018

  60. [68]

    Pei, L., Fausnaugh, M.M., Barth, A.J., Peterson, B.M., Bentz, M., et al.\ 2017, \ 837, 131, (Paper v )

    2017

  61. [69]

    Peterson, B.M., Balonek, T.J., Barker, E.S., et al.\ 1991, \ 368, 119

    1991

  62. [70]

    et al.\ 2013, \ 779, 109

    Peterson, B.M., Denney, K.D., De Rosa, G., Grier, C.J., Pogge, R. et al.\ 2013, \ 779, 109

    2013

  63. [71]

    Poindexter, S., Morgan, N., & Kochanek, C.S.\ 2008, \ 673, 34

    2008

  64. [72]

    Ramolla, M., Haas, M., Westhues, C., et al.\ 2018, A&A 620, 137

    2018

  65. [73]

    Rees, M.J., Netzer, H., & Ferland, G.J.\ 1989, \ 347, 640

    1989

  66. [74]

    Schlafly, E.F., & Finkbeiner, D.P.\ 2011, \ 737, 103

    2011

  67. [75]

    Shull, J.M., Stevans, M., & Danforth, C.W.\ 2012, \ 752, 162

    2012

  68. [76]

    A.J., et al.\ 2015, \ 454, 144

    Skielboe, A., Pancoast, A., Treu, T., Park, D., Barth. A.J., et al.\ 2015, \ 454, 144

    2015

  69. [77]

    Starkey, D., Horne, K.D., Fausnaugh, M.M., Peterson, B.M., Bentz, M.C., et al.\ 2017, \ 835, 65, (Paper vi )

    2017

  70. [78]

    et al.\ 2006, \ 639, 46

    Suganuma, M., Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Minezaki, T., Enya, K. et al.\ 2006, \ 639, 46

    2006

  71. [79]

    Walter, R., Orr, A., Courvoisier, T.J.-L., Fink, H.H., Makino, F., Otani, C., & Wamsteker, W.\ 1994, A&A 285, 119

    1994

  72. [80]

    Wamsteker, W., Rodriguez-Pascual, P., Wills, B.J., Netzer, H., Wills, D., et al.\ 1990, \ 354, 446

    1990

  73. [81]

    White, R.J., and Peterson, B.M.\ 1994, PASP, 106, 879

    1994

Pith tools

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