Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 120 references

Optically active and optically inactive radio galaxies as sub-populations of the main galaxy sample of the SDSS

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that only very-high-excitation radio galaxies have Eddington ratios above 0.01, which would mean the standard radiative-mode versus jet-mode division of radio AGN needs revision.

desk verdict Useful W(Halpha)-based radio-galaxy classification and population comparisons, but the headline Eddington-ratio claim rests on an unvalidated, BPT-dependent bolometric calibration that needs serious scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16006 v1 pith:ZMEIVJV4 submitted 2024-11-24 astro-ph.GA

Grazyna Stasinska , Natalia Vale Asari , Anna Wojtowicz , Dorota Koziel-Wierzbowska This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radiogalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiEddingtonratioBPTdiagrambolometricluminosityphotoionizationmodelsSDSSaccretionmodes
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

The paper proposes a physically motivated split of radio galaxies into optically inactive (OPIRGs, H$\alpha$ equivalent width below 3 Å) and optically active (OPARGs, above 3 Å) classes, using 16,803 radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGN) from the ROGUE catalogues in the SDSS main galaxy sample. It then devises a photoionization-based method to estimate bolometric luminosities from optical spectra, subtracting the contribution of young stars to the emission lines. With those luminosities, it finds that only a small sub-group of OPARGs at the top of the BPT diagram (the standard AGN emission-line diagnostic), the very high-excitation radio galaxies (VHERGs), have Eddington ratios above $10^{-2}$. The paper concludes that the commonly used HERG/LERG classification overstates the size of the radiatively efficient population and that the radiative-mode versus jet-mode picture of radio galaxies needs revision.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a calibration that converts an optical spectrum into an AGN bolometric luminosity. A grid of photoionization models for AGN and H II regions is mixed in varying proportions; two polynomial surfaces, one giving the AGN fraction of H$\alpha$ and one giving $L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}$ as functions of log([N ii]/H$\alpha$) and log([O iii]/H$\beta$), are fitted to the model grid. Applying the surfaces to BPT position, dividing by a covering factor of 0.65, and combining with black hole masses from velocity dispersions yields the Eddington ratios that drive the paper's conclusion. Simpler regressions from $L_{[\mathrm{O\,iii}]}$ to $L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ are also provided.

What would settle it

Measure bolometric luminosities of a sample of OPARGs with log([O iii]/Hβ)<0.8 using independent tracers such as X-ray or mid-infrared luminosity; if a substantial fraction of these objects have Eddington ratios above $10^{-2}$, the claim that only VHERGs are radiatively efficient is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the W(H$\alpha$)$\ge$3 Å threshold to define optically active radio galaxies, the paper finds 2,721 OPARGs and 14,082 OPIRGs. After Malmquist correction, the radio luminosity distributions of the two classes are indistinguishable, while OPIRGs host more massive black holes and stellar masses, and OPARGs show recent star formation. Placing OPARGs on the BPT diagram reveals a distinct sub-family at the top of the AGN wing, slightly left of the main AGN sequence, with the highest [O iii]/[O ii], He ii/H$\beta$, H$\alpha$ luminosity and equivalent width, indicating a harder ionizing field and higher ionization parameter. The paper's bolometric-luminosity method, which mixes AGN and H II region photoionization models according to BPT position, yields Eddington ratios that exceed $10^{-2}$ only for these VHERGs, defined by log([O iii]/H$\beta$)$\ge$0.8. Thus most canonical HERGs fall below the threshold generally taken to mark radiatively efficient accretion, and the radiatively efficient radio-loud population is a small, high-excitation subset.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the model grid that turns measured line strengths into bolometric luminosity, especially the assumed covering factor of 0.65; if the true covering factor or input SEDs are systematically different, every Eddington ratio and the conclusion about which radio galaxies are radiatively efficient shifts accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HERG class as usually defined contains many objects accreting below $10^{-2}$ Eddington, so surveys that select HERGs by W[O iii]$>$5 Å are not selecting radiatively efficient AGN.
  • Radio luminosity alone cannot distinguish accretion modes: OPARGs and OPIRGs have indistinguishable $L_{1.4}$ distributions.
  • True radiatively efficient radio-loud AGN are concentrated in a small BPT-top region, so studies of quasar-mode feedback should target VHERGs.
  • The new $L_{\mathrm{bol}}$–$L_{[\mathrm{O\,iii}]}$ relations give lower bolometric luminosities than several earlier corrections, shifting Eddington-ratio estimates for type II AGN downward.
  • OPARGs with recent star formation and active nuclei support cold-gas fuelling of radio AGN, tying the optically active class to gas-rich galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the VHERG threshold is stable, it could serve as a cheap single-diagnostic selector for radiatively efficient radio AGN in surveys without full spectral modelling.
  • The same bolometric-correction machinery could be tested against X-ray or mid-infrared AGN luminosities; disagreement would reveal which model ingredient dominates.
  • The paper's result suggests that the canonical $10^{-2}$ Eddington threshold, if correct, should be applied to VHERG-like objects only, so previous demographic studies of AGN accretion modes may need re-binning.
  • Since VHERGs have low mechanical-to-radiative output, their jets may be produced by a different mechanism than those of OPIRGs, a prediction that high-resolution radio observations could test.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the ROGUE I and II radio catalogues matched to the SDSS main galaxy sample to define two classes of radio galaxies: optically inactive radio galaxies (OPIRGs, W(H-alpha)<3 A) and optically active radio galaxies (OPARGs, W(H-alpha)>=3 A). After applying Vmax completeness corrections, the authors compare stellar masses, black hole masses, radio luminosities, stellar ages, and dust properties of the two classes, and place them in the context of the full SDSS galaxy population. They then identify a subgroup of OPARGs at the top of the AGN wing of the BPT diagram, call them very-high-excitation radio galaxies (VHERGs), and compute Eddington ratios using a new photoionization-model-based bolometric calibration described in Appendix B. The central claim is that only VHERGs have Eddington ratios above 10^-2, so that only a small fraction of canonical HERGs are radiatively efficient.

Significance. If the bolometric calibration is correct, the result would challenge the standard HERG/LERG division as a proxy for radiative-mode versus jet-mode accretion and would identify the radiatively efficient population with a small BPT-selected subgroup rather than with the whole high-excitation class. The strengths of the paper include the large, visually classified ROGUE sample, the use of Vmax corrections for a magnitude-limited and flux-limited sample, the MaNGA-based check of contamination in low-W(H-alpha) galaxies, and the explicit presentation of the fitted polynomial formulae for the bolometric correction. The weakness is that the headline conclusion is conditional on an unvalidated model-dependent calibration, and the paper itself concedes in Section 10 that the conclusion holds only if the bolometric-luminosity estimates are correct. With independent validation and sensitivity tests, the result would be an important contribution; as it stands, the significance is high but provisional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B.3)-(B.4); Section 7.1] The central claim that only VHERGs have Eddington ratios above 10^-2 rests entirely on the calibration of Eq. (B.4), which maps the BPT coordinates to log Lmod_bol/LH-alpha, combined with the adopted covering factor of 0.65 in Section 7.1. The paper provides no external validation of this calibration against independent bolometric indicators such as X-ray or mid-infrared luminosities, and no propagated uncertainties from the model grid (SED choice, density, dust/depletion, abundances, mixing prescription, covering factor) into the Eddington ratios reported in Section 7.2 and Table 1. Because the VHERG region is located at the high-excitation end of the fitted surface, a systematic error in that part of the surface would directly change the inferred fraction of radiatively efficient radio galaxies. I request an external validation for at least a subsample and a sensitivity analysis that varies the most important model parameters, especially the covering factor and the treatment of dust.
  2. [Section 7.2; Appendix B, Eq. (B.4)] The VHERG class is defined by the condition log [OIII]/H-beta >= 0.8, while Eq. (B.4) assigns log Lmod_bol/LH-alpha as an increasing function of y = log [OIII]/H-beta (positive coefficients in y and y^3). The conclusion that VHERGs preferentially have high Eddington ratios is therefore partly built into the calibration: selecting objects on the same coordinate that enters the bolometric correction tends to select objects with a larger assigned Lbol for a given H-alpha luminosity. This is not a purely circular argument, because the Eddington ratio also depends on the extinction-corrected H-alpha luminosity and on MBH, but the effect should be quantified. I request a robustness test in which the Eddington ratios are recomputed with a BPT-independent bolometric correction (e.g., Lbol = 600 L[OIII] or Lbol = 3500 L[OIII]) and with an independent bolometric indicator, to show how much of the VHERG excess survives.
  3. [Section 4.2; Section 6; Figures 5-11] Several quantitative claims are made on the basis of visual inspection rather than statistical tests. In particular, the statement that the radio-luminosity distributions of OPARGs and OPIRGs are 'undistinguishable' (Section 4.2 and the abstract) is not supported by any two-sample test; with 16,803 objects, even small distribution differences can be highly significant, and percentile overlap is not a substitute for a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling test. Similarly, the claimed displacement of the VHERG subgroup to the left of the main AGN wing in Section 6 is not quantified. These tests are needed to establish the secondary claims and to support the interpretation that the VHERG location is special.
  4. [Abstract; Section 7.2; Section 10] The abstract and Section 10 state that 'Only very-high excitation radio galaxies (VHERGs) have Eddington ratios higher than 10^-2', but Section 7.2 states that 'Almost all radio galaxies with Eddington ratios lambda larger than 0.01 are at the top right of the BPT diagram.' These statements are not equivalent. The paper should quantify the fraction of objects with lambda > 0.01 that fall inside and outside the VHERG region defined by log [OIII]/H-beta >= 0.8, and align the wording of the abstract and conclusions with the actual numbers. This is directly relevant to the headline claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] The text contains incomplete citations, e.g., '?Best & Heckman 2012; ?' in the discussion of the DLM diagram; these should be completed.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.4) and Figure B.2] The notation 'Lmod_bol/LH-alpha' is ambiguous: it is not clear from the text whether the ratio is taken with respect to the AGN H-alpha luminosity or the total H-alpha luminosity after mixing with H II regions. Since the fitted formula is applied to observed total H-alpha luminosities, this point must be clarified explicitly.
  3. [Appendix B, Section B.2] The H II region models assume a solar-metallicity stellar population even when the nebular oxygen abundance is sub-solar or super-solar, and the mixing prescription assumes the same O/H for the AGN and H II regions. These choices should be justified and their impact on the fitted surfaces discussed.
  4. [Section 7.2] The black hole masses are derived from the Tremaine et al. (2002) relation using starlight stellar velocity dispersions; the paper does not discuss possible systematics from fibre-aperture effects or from the use of a different MBH-sigma relation. A brief statement of the expected systematic uncertainty would be useful.
  5. [Figure 19 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'OPIGRs' should be 'OPIRGs'. There are also scattered typographical issues such as 'di fferent' and 'Objets' that should be corrected during editing.
  6. [Appendix B, Section B.4] The statement that HOLMES do not strongly affect the bolometric luminosity is plausible but is argued qualitatively; a quantitative estimate of the HOLMES contribution for objects near W(H-alpha)=3 A would be more convincing.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline Eddington-ratio result is partly built into the BPT-based bolometric calibration, and the OPIRG radiative-inefficiency conclusion is assumed by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.1-7.2 and Appendix B.3 (Eq. B.4); VHERG definition in Section 7.2]
    "The fitted coefficients for log Lmod_bol /LHα as a function of x = log [Nii]/Hα and y = log [Oiii]/Hβ are log Lmod_bol /LHα = 1.8279 + 0.9598x + 0.1025y − 0.5880x2 + 0.1639y2 + 1.5134x3 + 0.1410y3 − 0.6535xy + 1.2002x2y − 0.0656xy2. (B.4) ... In the following we call VHERGs objects for which log [Oiii]/Hβ ≥ 0.8."

    Every Eddington ratio in the paper uses Lbol = Lmod_bol/0.65, and Lmod_bol/LHα is fixed by Eq. B.4 as a polynomial in the BPT coordinates. In the AGN wing this polynomial increases with y = log[OIII]/Hβ, because the y, y2 and y3 terms have positive coefficients. The VHERG class is defined by exactly that coordinate, y ≥ 0.8. Therefore the statement that almost all λ > 0.01 objects are VHERGs is not an independent empirical discovery: the bolometric correction assigns higher Lbol to high-y objects at fixed LHα, so the classification coordinate directly shapes the Eddington-ratio pattern. LHα and MBH still enter, so the relation is not a complete tautology, but the central claim is partly produced by the calibration surface rather than by the data.

  2. self definitional [Section 8, footnote 4; Section 9.3.1]
    "For OPIRGs we assume that the bolometric luminosity of the AGN is zero, even if W(Hα) is not null. ... Thus the OPIRGs emission is fully consistent with a radiatively inefficient flow."

    OPIRGs are defined as radio galaxies with W(Hα) < 3 Å, i.e. objects without an optical AGN signature. The paper then sets their AGN bolometric luminosity to zero before computing any Eddington-scaled quantity, and later reports that OPIRGs are consistent with radiatively inefficient flows. Removing the radiative term by definition guarantees the qualitative conclusion; the inference is a restatement of the zero-Lbol assumption, not a result measured from the data.

full rationale

The central claim that only VHERGs have Eddington ratios above 10^-2 is not fully circular: LHα and black-hole masses enter the denominator, and the bolometric calibration is anchored to an external Cloudy model grid. However, the Lbol/LHα factor that drives the result is a fitted polynomial in the same BPT coordinate (log[OIII]/Hβ) used to define VHERGs, so the high-Eddington-ratio status of VHERGs is partially imposed by construction. The paper even hedges with 'If our estimates of the bolometric luminosities are correct', which acknowledges the fragility but does not remove the construction. A second, genuine circular step is the OPIRG analysis: their Lbol is assumed to be zero by definition, which makes the later 'radiatively inefficient flow' conclusion for OPIRGs a restatement of the input. The self-citations to the ROGUE catalogues and DLM diagram are data/tools from prior work and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Overall, partial circularity in the headline radiative-efficiency claim plus a by-construction OPIRG inference justify a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are mostly model choices in the bolometric calibration, not fits to observed data; each shifts Lbol and hence Eddington ratios. The VHERG threshold is a chosen cut. Axioms are standard observational assumptions inherited from prior work; the most fragile are the Cloudy SED and dust grid and the covering factor. No new physical entities are introduced; OPARG, OPIRG, and VHERG are classification labels.

free parameters (6)
  • Covering factor of the AGN ionizing source = 0.65
    Adopted in Sect. 7.1 from Stalevski et al. (2016). Lbol = Lmod_bol/0.65, so it directly scales every Eddington ratio.
  • AGN nebular hydrogen density = 10^3 cm^-3
    Constant density assumed in Appendix B.1 for Cloudy AGN models; affects line ratios and the Lbol/LH-alpha calibration.
  • H II region nebular density = 10^2 cm^-3
    Assumed in Appendix B.2 for the H II region models used in the mixing grid.
  • Abundance and ionization parameter grid = O/H = 8.60, 8.80, 9.02; log U = -2.0 to -4.0
    Grid choices in Appendix B.1 set the BPT-to-Lbol mapping; changing the grid changes the fitted surfaces.
  • Polynomial coefficients for eta and log Lbol/LH-alpha = Eqs. B.3 and B.4 coefficients
    Fitted to the model grid with ZunZun; these coefficients assign Lbol from BPT position and therefore feed the Eddington ratios.
  • VHERG excitation threshold = log [O III]/H-beta >= 0.8
    Defines the sub-population claimed to be radiatively efficient; chosen by inspection of the BPT and Eddington diagrams in Sect. 7.2.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Galaxies with W(H-alpha) < 3 Angstrom are ionized by HOLMES, not by an AGN.
    Used to define OPIRGs in Sect. 3.2; based on Cid Fernandes et al. (2011) and quantified in Appendix A as about 4% contamination.
  • domain assumption The DLM diagram (Dn(4000) vs L1.4/M*) separates radio AGN from star-forming radio emitters.
    Used to build the 16,803-object radio-AGN sample in Sect. 2.3; taken from Koziel-Wierzbowska et al. (2021), with 4 of 1034 FR I/II galaxies misclassified.
  • domain assumption Cloudy photoionization models with Ferland et al. (2020) SEDs, given dust and depletion prescriptions, represent the AGN narrow-line region.
    Appendix B.1; the entire bolometric correction rests on these models.
  • domain assumption H II regions can be represented by Starburst99 4 Myr continuous star formation with a Salpeter IMF at fixed metallicity.
    Appendix B.2; used for the H II component in the mixing model.
  • ad hoc to paper Composite AGN plus H II spectra are represented by mixing AGN and H II models with the same oxygen abundance and low-U H II models.
    Appendix B.3; a specific modeling choice that defines the BPT surfaces for eta and Lbol/LH-alpha.
  • domain assumption The covering factor of the ionizing source by line-emitting gas is 0.65.
    Sect. 7.1, adopted from Stalevski et al. (2016); Lbol = Lmod_bol/0.65 so it directly scales every Eddington ratio.
  • domain assumption Black hole masses follow the Tremaine et al. (2002) M_BH-sigma relation.
    Sect. 2.2; all Eddington ratios and Eddington-scaled accretion rates depend on these masses.
  • domain assumption Jet mechanical luminosity follows the Cavagnolo et al. (2010) scaling L_mech = 7.3e36 (L1.4/1e24)^0.70.
    Sect. 8; used to compute total Eddington-scaled output and mechanical efficiencies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optically active and optically inactive radio galaxies as sub-populations of the main galaxy sample of the SDSS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZMEIVJV4

@misc{pith2026241116006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optically active and optically inactive radio galaxies as sub-populations of the main galaxy sample of the SDSS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZMEIVJV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16006}
}
read the original abstract

We use the ROGUE I and II catalogues of radio sources associated with optical galaxies to revisit the characterization of radio active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in terms of radio luminosities and properties derived from the analyses of the optical spectra of their associated galaxies. We propose a physically based classification of radio galaxies into `optically inactive' and `optically active' (OPARGs and OPIRGs). In our sample, there are 14082 OPIRGs and 2721 OPARGs.After correcting for the Malmquist bias, we compared the global properties of our two classes of radio galaxies and put them in the context of the global population of galaxies. To compare the Eddington ratios of OPARGs with those of Seyferts, we devised a method to obtain the bolometric luminosities of these objects, taking into account the contribution of young stars to the observed line emission. We provide formulae to derive bolometric luminosities from the [Oiii] luminosity. We find that the distributions of radio luminosities of OPARGs and OPIRGs are undistinguishable. On average, the black hole masses and stellar masses in OPIRGs are larger than in OPARGs. OPARGs show signs of some recent star formation. Plotting the OPARGs in the BPT diagram and comparing their distribution with that of the remaining galaxies, we find that there is a sub-family of very high excitation OPARGs at the top of the AGN wing. This group is slightly displaced towards the left of the rest of the AGN galaxies, suggesting a stronger ionizing radiation field with respect to the gas pressure. Only very-high excitation radio galaxies (VHERGs) have Eddington ratios higher than 0.01, which are canonically considered as the lower limit for the occurrence of radiative efficient accretion. If our estimates of the bolometric luminosities are correct, this means than only a small proportion of mainstream HERGs are indeed radiatively efficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DLM diagram for ROGUE radio sources from the MGSz sample. Blue points are pure SF galaxies as defined by Stasinska et al. (2006) ´ on the [N ii]λ6584/Hα versus [O iii]λ5007/Hβ plane. Red points are the secure FR I and FR II radio sources from our sample. fer using just one criterion, providing a simpler classification and an easier discussion of selection effects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of several properties of ROGUE AGN radio sources: L1.4, the excitation index as defined by Buttiglione et al. (2010), log W[O iii], log W(Hα), log [O iii]/Hβ, and log [O iii]/[O ii]. The number of objects for which these properties can be defined is indicated at the top right (see text). −1 0 1 2 3 log W[O iii] [˚A] −1 0 1 2 3 log WH ¸ ˚[A] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Excitation ratio [O iii]/[O ii] as a function of W(Hα) (left) and W[O iii] (right). Only objects with a S/N of at least of 3 have been plot￾ted. Dark blue is for OPARGs. Cyan is for ‘active’ galaxies from the MGSz sample according to the Stasinska et al. (2006) line (see text). ´ 3.3. Relation with excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of the distributions of various parameters in the OPARG and OPIRG samples: the radio luminosity L1.4, the total stellar mass M⋆, the black hole mass MBH, the galaxy concentration index CI, the galaxy flatness parameter b/a, the stellar extinction AV , and th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median, 16, and 84 percentiles of the distributions (corrected for completeness) of OPARGs and OPIRGs, for the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Median, 16, and 84 percentiles of the distributions (corrected for completeness) of HERGs and LERGs, for the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the distributions of SF galaxies (light blue), AGN hosts (green), retired galaxies (orange), and radio galaxies (black) in the MGSz sample. The horizontal segments show the 16 to 84 percentiles of each distribution, with the dot marking the median. Left: …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BPT diagram for all the MGSz galaxies with an S/N of at least 3 in all the relevant lines. Left: pure SF galaxies are in blue, galaxies containing an AGN are in green; retired galaxies are in orange. Right: blue points represent OPARGs, superimposed on the remaining M…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: BPT diagram for the whole MGSz′ sample (left) and for OPARGs (right). Colour-coding is done with respect to specific pa￾rameters. From top to bottom: W(Hα), LHα (corrected for extinction), [O iii]/[O ii] (dereddened), He ii/Hβ, [O i]/Hα, and M⋆. that these objects do …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Eddington ratio histograms for non-radio Seyferts (left), OPARGs (middle), and VHERG (right). The horizontal segments on top of the histograms indicate the values of the (16, 50, 84) percentiles. These are (−2.73, −2.20, −1.61) for non-radio Seyferts, (−3.71, −3.02, −…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Simple proxies for Lbol for OPARGs. Left: L[O iii] corrected for extinction; right: L[O iii] without extinction correction. The black, red and blue lines have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Eddington ratio versus black hole mass, colour-coded by the values of M⋆. Left panel: OPARGs; right panel: Seyferts. −4 −2 0 log Λ 0 1000 2000 OPIRG 14068 −4 −2 0 log Λ 0 200 OPARG 2681 −4 −2 0 log Λ 0 200 VHERG 347 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Eddington-scaled accretion-rate histograms for OPIRGs (left), OPARGs (middle), and VHERGs (right). The horizontal segments on top of the histograms indicate the values of the (16, 50, 84) percentiles. These are (−3.47, −2.97, −2.41) for the OPIRGs, (−3.10, −2.48, −1.6…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Eddington-scaled mechanical power, Lmech/LEdd, histograms for OPIGRs (left), OPARGs (middle), and VHERGs (right). The horizontal segments on top of the histograms indicate the val￾ues of the (16, 50, 84) percentiles. These are (−3.47, −2.97, −2.41) for the OPIRGs, (−3…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Mechanical to bolometric luminosity ratio as a function of the Eddington ratio colour-coded by [O iii]/Hβ for OPARGs (left) and VHERGs (right). can claim that the emission of OPIRGs is fully consistent with the model of truly radiatively inefficient radiation flow (i.…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: 2D histograms of energy outputs versus black hole mass for the different categories of AGN galaxies. The two leftmost panels show (a) the mechanical energy output for OPARG and (b) the radiative energy output for OPARGs. The three rightmost panels show the total energ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy , J

    Abazajian , K. N., Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2009, , 182, 543

    2009

  2. [2]

    2024, , 530, 1512

    Aggarwal , Y. 2024, , 530, 1512

    2024

  3. [3]

    J., Salim , S., Ellison , S

    Agostino , C. J., Salim , S., Ellison , S. L., Bickley , R. W., & Faber , S. M. 2023, , 943, 174

    2023

  4. [4]

    S., Ahumada , R., Almeida , A., et al

    Aguado , D. S., Ahumada , R., Almeida , A., et al. 2019, , 240, 23

    2019

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  8. [8]

    K., Maeda , Y., Morris , M., et al

    Baganoff , F. K., Maeda , Y., Morris , M., et al. 2003, , 591, 891

    2003

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    D., Capetti , A., & Giovannini , G

    Baldi , R. D., Capetti , A., & Giovannini , G. 2019, , 482, 2294

    2019

  2. [10]

    D., Williams , D

    Baldi , R. D., Williams , D. R. A., Beswick , R. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 2019

    2021

  3. [11]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  4. [12]

    Best , P. N. & Heckman , T. M. 2012, , 421, 1569

    2012

  5. [13]

    Binette , L., Zovaro , H. R. M., Villar Mart \' n , M., et al. 2024, , 684, A53

    2024

  6. [14]

    Blandford , R. D. & Begelman , M. C. 1999, , 303, L1

    1999

  7. [15]

    Blandford , R. D. & Payne , D. G. 1982, , 199, 883

    1982

  8. [16]

    Blandford , R. D. & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433

    1977

  9. [17]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    2003

  10. [18]

    A., Law , D

    Bundy , K., Bershady , M. A., Law , D. R., et al. 2015, , 798, 7

    2015

  11. [19]

    2010, , 509, A6

    Buttiglione , S., Capetti , A., Celotti , A., et al. 2010, , 509, A6

    2010

  12. [20]

    2005, , 439, 935

    Capetti , A., Verdoes Kleijn , G., & Chiaberge , M. 2005, , 439, 935

    2005

  13. [21]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  14. [22]

    W., McNamara , B

    Cavagnolo , K. W., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2010, , 720, 1066

    2010

  15. [23]

    2002, , 394, 791

    Chiaberge , M., Capetti , A., & Celotti , A. 2002, , 394, 791

    2002

  16. [24]

    Ching , J. H. Y., Croom , S. M., Sadler , E. M., et al. 2017, , 469, 4584

    2017

  17. [25]

    Cid Fernandes , R., Mateus , A., Sodr \'e , L., Stasi \'n ska , G., & Gomes , J. M. 2005, , 358, 363

    2005

  18. [26]

    M., et al

    Cid Fernandes , R., Schoenell , W., Gomes , J. M., et al. 2009, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 35, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 127--132

    2009

  19. [27]

    2011, , 413, 1687

    Cid Fernandes , R., Stasi \'n ska , G., Mateus , A., & Vale Asari , N. 2011, , 413, 1687

    2011

  20. [28]

    S., et al

    Cid Fernandes , R., Stasi \'n ska , G., Schlickmann , M. S., et al. 2010, , 403, 1036

    2010

  21. [29]

    Condon , J. J. 1989, , 338, 13

    1989

  22. [30]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

    1998

  23. [31]

    A., Sutherland , R

    Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., Nicholls , D. C., Kewley , L. J., & Vogt , F. P. A. 2013, , 208, 10

    2013

  24. [32]

    L., Maiolino , R., Cardaci , M

    Dors , O. L., Maiolino , R., Cardaci , M. V., et al. 2020, , 496, 3209

    2020

  25. [33]

    L., Valerdi , M., Riffel , R

    Dors , O. L., Valerdi , M., Riffel , R. A., et al. 2023, , 521, 1969

    2023

  26. [34]

    Draine , B. T. 2011, , 732, 100

    2011

  27. [35]

    J., Annis , J., Gunn , J

    Eisenstein , D. J., Annis , J., Gunn , J. E., et al. 2001, , 122, 2267

    2001

  28. [36]

    O., & Paturel , G

    Ekholm , T., Baryshev , Y., Teerikorpi , P., Hanski , M. O., & Paturel , G. 2001, , 368, L17

    2001

  29. [37]

    A., McClintock , J

    Esin , A. A., McClintock , J. E., & Narayan , R. 1997, , 489, 865

    1997

  30. [38]

    Fanaroff , B. L. & Riley , J. M. 1974, , 167, 31P

    1974

  31. [39]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385

    2017

  32. [40]

    J., Done , C., Jin , C., Landt , H., & Ward , M

    Ferland , G. J., Done , C., Jin , C., Landt , H., & Ward , M. J. 2020, , 494, 5917

    2020

  33. [41]

    A., Dopita , M

    Groves , B. A., Dopita , M. A., & Sutherland , R. S. 2004, , 153, 9

    2004

  34. [42]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 273

    Hardcastle , M. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 273

    2018

  35. [43]

    Hardcastle , M. J. & Croston , J. H. 2020, , 88, 101539

    2020

  36. [44]

    J., Evans , D

    Hardcastle , M. J., Evans , D. A., & Croston , J. H. 2007, , 376, 1849

    2007

  37. [45]

    Heckman , T. M. 1980, , 87, 142

    1980

  38. [46]

    Heckman , T. M. & Best , P. N. 2014, , 52, 589

    2014

  39. [47]

    M., Kauffmann , G., Brinchmann , J., et al

    Heckman , T. M., Kauffmann , G., Brinchmann , J., et al. 2004, , 613, 109

    2004

  40. [48]

    Hine , R. G. & Longair , M. S. 1979, , 188, 111

    1979

  41. [49]

    Huang , J., Lin , D. N. C., & Shields , G. 2023, , 525, 5702

    2023

  42. [50]

    & Rawlings , S

    Jackson , N. & Rawlings , S. 1997, , 286, 241

    1997

  43. [51]

    Janssen , R. M. J., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Best , P. N., & Brinchmann , J. 2012, , 541, A62

    2012

  44. [52]

    2005, , 625, 667

    Jester , S. 2005, , 625, 667

    2005

  45. [53]

    2012, , 425, 907

    Jin , C., Ward , M., & Done , C. 2012, , 425, 907

    2012

  46. [54]

    2018, , 864, 32

    Jin , J.-J., Zhu , Y.-N., Meng , X.-M., Lei , F.-J., & Wu , H. 2018, , 864, 32

    2018

  47. [55]

    & Heckman , T

    Kauffmann , G. & Heckman , T. M. 2009, , 397, 135

    2009

  48. [56]

    M., & Best , P

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., & Best , P. N. 2008, , 384, 953

    2008

  49. [57]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    2003

  50. [58]

    J., Dopita , M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., Heisler , C. A., & Trevena , J. 2001, , 556, 121

    2001

  51. [59]

    2020, , 247, 53

    Kozie -Wierzbowska , D., Goyal , A., & \.Z ywucka , N. 2020, , 247, 53

    2020

  52. [60]

    & Stasi \'n ska , G

    Kozie -Wierzbowska , D. & Stasi \'n ska , G. 2011, , 415, 1013

    2011

  53. [61]

    2021, , 910, 64

    Kozie -Wierzbowska , D., Vale Asari , N., Stasi \'n ska , G., et al. 2021, , 910, 64

    2021

  54. [62]

    2017, , 228, 9

    Koz owski , S. 2017, , 228, 9

    2017

  55. [63]

    Y., Asada , K., Rao , R., et al

    Kuo , C. Y., Asada , K., Rao , R., et al. 2014, , 783, L33

    2014

  56. [64]

    A., Jenkins , C

    Laing , R. A., Jenkins , C. R., Wall , J. V., & Unger , S. W. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 54, The Physics of Active Galaxies, ed. G. V. Bicknell , M. A. Dopita , & P. J. Quinn , 201

    1994

  57. [65]

    & Draine , B

    Laor , A. & Draine , B. T. 1993, , 402, 441

    1993

  58. [66]

    D., et al

    Leitherer , C., Schaerer , D., Goldader , J. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 3

    1999

  59. [67]

    2014, , 788, 71

    Li , S.-L. 2014, , 788, 71

    2014

  60. [68]

    & Begelman , M

    Li , S.-L. & Begelman , M. C. 2014, , 786, 6

    2014

  61. [69]

    & Cao , X

    Li , S.-L. & Cao , X. 2012, , 753, 24

    2012

  62. [70]

    2007, , 468, 979

    Maiolino , R., Shemmer , O., Imanishi , M., et al. 2007, , 468, 979

    2007

  63. [71]

    P., Moran , J

    Marrone , D. P., Moran , J. M., Zhao , J.-H., & Rao , R. 2007, , 654, L57

    2007

  64. [72]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, , 423, 3083

    2012

  65. [73]

    2006, , 447, 863

    Nagao , T., Maiolino , R., & Marconi , A. 2006, , 447, 863

    2006

  66. [74]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 55, L69

    2003

  67. [75]

    1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed

    Narayan , R., Mahadevan , R., & Quataert , E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed. M. A. Abramowicz , G. Bj \"o rnsson , & J. E. Pringle , 148--182

    1998

  68. [76]

    & McClintock , J

    Narayan , R. & McClintock , J. E. 2008, , 51, 733

    2008

  69. [77]

    E., & Yi , I

    Narayan , R., McClintock , J. E., & Yi , I. 1996, , 457, 821

    1996

  70. [78]

    & Yi , I

    Narayan , R. & Yi , I. 1994, , 428, L13

    1994

  71. [79]

    & Yi , I

    Narayan , R. & Yi , I. 1995, , 452, 710

    1995

  72. [80]

    Nemmen , R. S. & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2015, , 449, 316

    2015

  73. [81]

    2009, , 399, 1907

    Netzer , H. 2009, , 399, 1907

    2009

  74. [82]

    2015, , 53, 365

    Netzer , H. 2015, , 53, 365

    2015

  75. [83]

    2016, , 819, 123

    Netzer , H., Lani , C., Nordon , R., et al. 2016, , 819, 123

    2016

  76. [84]

    & Laor , A

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

    1993

  77. [85]

    M., Assef , R

    Padovani , P., Alexander , D. M., Assef , R. J., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  78. [86]

    I., et al

    Padovani , P., Bonzini , M., Kellermann , K. I., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints

    2015

  79. [87]

    B., Ching , J

    Pracy , M. B., Ching , J. H. Y., Sadler , E. M., et al. 2016, , 460, 2

    2016

  80. [88]

    J., et al

    Prescott , M., Mauch , T., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2016, , 457, 730

    2016

  81. [89]

    C., Galliano , F., et al

    R \'e my-Ruyer , A., Madden , S. C., Galliano , F., et al. 2014, , 563, A31

    2014

  82. [90]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161

    1955

  83. [91]

    1968, , 151, 393

    Schmidt , M. 1968, , 151, 393

    1968

  84. [92]

    Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  85. [93]

    M., & Asari , N

    Sikora , M., Stasi \'n ska , G., Kozie -Wierzbowska , D., Madejski , G. M., & Asari , N. V. 2013, , 765, 62

    2013

  86. [94]

    L., Koss , M., & Mushotzky , R

    Smith , K. L., Koss , M., & Mushotzky , R. F. 2014, , 794, 112

    2014

  87. [95]

    A., & Malkan , M

    Spinoglio , L., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., & Malkan , M. A. 2024, , 964, 117

    2024

  88. [96]

    2016, , 458, 2288

    Stalevski , M., Ricci , C., Ueda , Y., et al. 2016, , 458, 2288

    2016

  89. [97]

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Cid Fernandes , R., Mateus , A., Sodr \'e , L., & Asari , N. V. 2006, , 371, 972

    2006

  90. [98]

    2015, , 576, A83

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Izotov , Y., Morisset , C., & Guseva , N. 2015, , 576, A83

    2015

  91. [99]

    2008, , 391, L29

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Vale Asari , N., Cid Fernandes , R., et al. 2008, , 391, L29

    2008

  92. [100]

    A., Weinberg , D

    Strauss , M. A., Weinberg , D. H., Lupton , R. H., et al. 2002, , 124, 1810

    2002

  93. [101]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79

    2011

  94. [102]

    D., Kewley , L

    Thomas , A. D., Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., et al. 2018, , 861, L2

    2018

  95. [103]

    Thorne , K. S. 1974, , 191, 507

    1974

  96. [104]

    2021, , 912, 91

    Toba , Y., Ueda , Y., Gandhi , P., et al. 2021, , 912, 91

    2021

  97. [105]

    2002, , 574, 740

    Tremaine , S., Gebhardt , K., Bender , R., et al. 2002, , 574, 740

    2002

  98. [106]

    R., Impey , C

    Trump , J. R., Impey , C. D., Taniguchi , Y., et al. 2009, , 706, 797

    2009

  99. [107]

    S., Cid Fernandes , R., et al

    Vale Asari , N., Couto , G. S., Cid Fernandes , R., et al. 2019, , 489, 4721

    2019

  100. [108]

    2016, , 460, 1739

    Vale Asari , N., Stasi \'n ska , G., Morisset , C., & Cid Fernandes , R. 2016, , 460, 1739

    2016

  101. [109]

    V \'a zquez , G. A. & Leitherer , C. 2005, , 621, 695

    2005

  102. [110]

    D., Nowak , M

    Wang , Q. D., Nowak , M. A., Markoff , S. B., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 981

    2013

  103. [111]

    L., Becker , R

    White , R. L., Becker , R. H., Helfand , D. J., & Gregg , M. D. 1997, , 475, 479

    1997

  104. [112]

    H., Jarvis , M

    Whittam , I. H., Jarvis , M. J., Hale , C. L., et al. 2022, , 516, 245

    2022

  105. [113]

    L., Calistro Rivera , G., Best , P

    Williams , W. L., Calistro Rivera , G., Best , P. N., et al. 2018, , 475, 3429

    2018

  106. [114]

    A., Yukita , M., et al

    Wong , K.-W., Irwin , J. A., Yukita , M., et al. 2011, , 736, L23

    2011

  107. [115]

    & Blanton , M

    Yan , R. & Blanton , M. R. 2012, , 747, 61

    2012

  108. [116]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  109. [117]

    & Narayan , R

    Yuan , F. & Narayan , R. 2014, , 52, 529

    2014

  110. [118]

    J., & Sutherland , R

    Zhu , P., Kewley , L. J., & Sutherland , R. S. 2023, , 954, 175

    2023

  111. [119]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  112. [120]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.