Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 70 references

Weak-emission-line quasars: A new clue from their optical variability

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak-emission-line quasars are systematically less optically variable than normal quasars, by a factor of about 1.76 in amplitude.

desk verdict A credible, well-matched observational claim that WLQs are milder optical variables than normal QSOs, though the headline factor's error bar is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16328 v1 pith:DTCGVUZJ submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.GA

Ritish Kumar (CUHP) , Gopal-Krishna (CEBS) , Hum Chand (CUHP) , Vibhore Negi (IUCAA) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords weakemissionlinequasarsopticalvariabilitystructurefunctionZwickyTransientFacilityCatalinaReal-TimeSurveyradio-quietaccretiondiskstorusclumpiness
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

Using six years of Zwicky Transient Facility light curves for 76 radio-quiet weak-emission-line quasars (WLQs) and 603 normal radio-quiet QSOs matched in redshift and r-band magnitude, this paper shows that WLQs vary more mildly than normal QSOs on month/year-like time scales, by a factor of about $1.76\pm0.05$ in amplitude. The same factor is recovered independently from V-band light curves of 51 WLQs and 361 controls from the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey. If the difference is real, it adds a new observational handle on an enigmatic quasar subclass and suggests that the weak broad emission lines and the calm optical continuum share a common cause, such as a smoother, less clumpy inflow of torus material feeding the central engine. The authors argue that the effect is far too large to be explained by emission-line contamination of the control sample magnitudes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the ensemble structure function, defined as $\mathrm{SF}(\Delta t)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}\langle |m(t+\Delta t)-m(t)|\rangle^2 - \langle\sigma^2\rangle}$, computed in bins of rest-frame time lag across all light curves of a sample; because the bins are independent, it gives a per-timescale measure of average variability. The companion statistic is the per-object variability amplitude $\psi=\sqrt{(A_{\max}-A_{\min})^2-2\sigma^2}$. These are applied to two matched samples built from 76 WLQs and 603 normal QSOs (10 per WLQ, matched in redshift and r-band magnitude), and the structure functions are compared between surveys, with the line-contamination concern handled by a bounded K-correction argument.

What would settle it

Match WLQs and normal QSOs by continuum luminosity measured at line-free rest-frame wavelengths (or by mid-infrared luminosity) instead of by r-band magnitude, and recompute the ensemble structure functions; if the ~1.76 amplitude ratio disappears, the central claim was a selection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, as a class, WLQs have intrinsically milder optical continuum variability than normal radio-quiet QSOs. In the ZTF data, median variability amplitudes are $\psi = 0.35\pm0.03$ (r band) and $0.40\pm0.04$ (g band) for WLQs, versus $0.62\pm0.01$ and $0.72\pm0.01$ for the matched controls, and the ensemble structure functions differ by a factor of $\sim1.76\pm0.05$ in amplitude over rest-frame lags of about 100 to 1000 days. The CRTS V-band data confirm the pattern, ruling out a filter-specific or survey-specific artifact. After bounding the possible emission-line contribution through K-corrections and comparing with the known luminosity-variability anti-correlation, the authors conclude that the milder variability is intrinsic to the quasar continuum, not a luminosity-matching artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the match between the 603 normal QSOs and the 76 WLQs being representative in continuum luminosity, and on the external calibrations that say emission-line contamination can brighten a normal QSO by at most about 0.6 magnitudes while a factor-of-1.76 variability gap would need a factor-of-20 luminosity offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WLQs form a distinct variability class: on month/year-like time scales they are about 1.76 times less variable in optical amplitude than normal radio-quiet QSOs.
  • The variability difference is a new observational discriminator that is at least as clean as the equivalent-width criterion that defines WLQs.
  • The difference persists across two independent surveys and two filter systems, so it is not an artifact of one photometric band or cadence.
  • The size of the effect rules out emission-line contamination of r-band magnitudes as its cause, pointing to an intrinsic continuum property.
  • If the proposed torus-clumpiness scenario is correct, weak broad emission lines and mild optical variability are twin symptoms of the same inflow condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to check whether the variability amplitude correlates continuously with Ly-alpha+NV equivalent width across the WLQ-to-normal-QSO sequence, which would tie the two defining properties quantitatively.
  • The variability floor could be used photometrically to pre-select WLQ candidates in time-domain surveys before spectroscopy.
  • If smooth inflow is the cause, WLQs should show comparatively subdued variability in UV/X-ray bands as well, since those bands probe the innermost disk; a multi-wavelength campaign could test this.
  • A complementary test is to search for rare high-variability WLQs; they would be natural transitional objects in which the inflow becomes clumpy while the lines are still weak.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper compares the optical variability of 76 radio-quiet weak-emission-line quasars (WLQs) with a matched control sample of 603 radio-quiet normal QSOs using ZTF g- and r-band light curves spanning 2018-2024, and independently verifies the result with CRTS V-band light curves for 51 WLQs and 361 control QSOs. Variability is quantified by the per-object amplitude ψ (Eq. 1) and by the ensemble structure function (Eq. 2) over rest-frame lags of roughly 50-1000 days. The authors find that WLQs are systematically less variable, with the ensemble structure functions differing by a factor of about 1.76±0.05 in amplitude on month/year-like timescales. They argue that this difference is not an artifact of emission-line contribution to the r-band photometry of normal QSOs, using a K-correction range as an upper limit and the luminosity-variability anti-correlation. The paper concludes with a speculative scenario in which the clumpiness of torus material feeding the central engine simultaneously explains the weak emission lines and the reduced variability.

Significance. The qualitative result—that WLQs are milder optical variables than normal radio-quiet QSOs on month/year timescales—is well supported by the highly significant KS tests on the per-object ψ distributions (p ≈ 2.7×10^-15 in r, 4.3×10^-14 in g) and by the consistency between ZTF and CRTS. The use of two independent surveys, a matched control sample, and public data are strengths. The principal weakness is statistical: the quoted uncertainty on the 1.76 factor is derived from pair-level photometric errors rather than object-level variance, and the SF error bars are not displayed or tabulated. Thus the precise factor, and especially its stated error, is not yet established. With a proper object-level resampling the paper could make a solid contribution to the debate on WLQ nature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (2) and Section 4, Fig. 2] The uncertainty budget for the ensemble structure functions is not adequate to support the headline factor of 1.76±0.05. The text states that error bars are smaller than the symbol size, but the only described error propagation averages photometric uncertainties over all magnitude-difference pairs within a rest-frame lag bin. Because pairs drawn from the same light curve are correlated, the effective independent sample size is the number of objects (76 WLQs and 603 QSOs), not the number of pairs. This procedure estimates the standard error of a mean of many correlated pairs and does not capture the object-to-object variance in variability amplitude, which is known to be large among AGN. Please compute object-level bootstrap or jackknife uncertainties on the SF points (or per-object SF distributions) and quote the resulting confidence interval on the WLQ/QSO SF ratio. Without such an analysis, the ±0.05 attached to the 1.76 factor is not justified.
  2. [Section 4] The paper quotes a single factor 1.76, but the SF curves in Figs. 2a, 2b and 3 do not show a lag-dependent ratio; the ratio may vary across the probed Δt range. Please present the ratio as a function of rest-frame lag with object-level uncertainties, or explicitly define the averaging used to obtain 1.76 (e.g., the range of lags and whether it is a mean or median of bin-wise ratios). The KS tests on ψ establish that the two samples differ, but they do not by themselves calibrate the magnitude of the difference on month/year timescales.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2 / Data Availability] Section 2 states that ZTF-DR22 light curves are used, but the Data Availability section mentions ZTF DR16; please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Abstract / Section 5] The abstract quotes 1.76±0.05 while Section 5 says '~1.7'; please reconcile these values.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] For light curves where (Amax−Amin)^2 < 2σ², ψ is undefined; state explicitly how such cases were treated (e.g., set to zero or excluded).
  4. [Section 4 and Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 2a is confusing: it says the SF is derived from r-band light-curves but describes insets comparing g and r bands; also 'CTRS' in Section 4 and Fig. 3 should be 'CRTS'.
  5. [Section 4] The power-law slopes are quoted with uncertainties, but the fitting procedure (e.g., least squares over which lag range) is not described; please specify.
  6. [Section 4] The phrase 'factor of ~1.76±0.05 in amplitude' is ambiguous: the structure function is in magnitudes, so the ratio is a ratio of magnitude amplitudes, not flux amplitudes; please clarify.
  7. [Appendix A] The x-axis labels of Fig. A2 appear garbled; please fix the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central variability comparison is derived directly from public light curves, and the self-citations present are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claim is an observational measurement: the ensemble structure functions of 76 WLQs and 603 matched normal QSOs are computed from public ZTF light curves via Eq. (2), and the factor 1.76±0.05 is the ratio of the resulting SF amplitudes. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then relabeled as a prediction; the ratio is an output of the data. The CRTS V-band analysis is an independent check using a separate survey and a smaller subset, so the central result is not defined in terms of itself. The only self-citations are to prior catalog compilations and earlier variability hints (e.g., Kumar et al. 2018, 2023), but these are used as sample sources or background context, not as justification for the measured factor. The luminosity-offset check uses external calibrations (Richards et al. 2006 K-corrections and Laurenti et al. 2020 luminosity-variability relation), so it does not reduce to the paper's own assumptions. The reported 'error bars smaller than symbol size' and the possibility that quoted uncertainties do not capture object-to-object variance are statistical robustness concerns, not circularity; they do not imply that the conclusion was assumed in the input. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific textual reduction.

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

The central measurement (ensemble structure functions and psi distributions) is directly derived from public photometry with no fitted parameters in the claim itself. The interpretation relies on external relations (K-corrections, luminosity-variability anti-correlation) and on a qualitative torus-clumpiness scenario that is not used in the measurement. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Adopted in Section 1 for computing rest-frame time lags and other redshift-dependent quantities.
  • domain assumption The structure function estimator (Eq. 2) assumes intrinsic variability and photometric noise follow Gaussian distributions, accounting for the pi/2 factor from Di Clemente et al. (1995) and Wilhite et al. (2008).
    Invoked in Section 3; if the magnitude-difference distribution is non-Gaussian, the SF amplitude and slopes could be biased, though the relative comparison between samples is likely less affected.
  • domain assumption The range of K-corrections (0.6 mag) from Richards et al. (2006) over z=0.5-3.5 is an upper limit to the emission-line contribution to the observed r-band magnitude.
    Used in Section 4 to bound the continuum luminosity offset between WLQs and control QSOs; since the K-correction also includes continuum shape changes, this is a conservative upper limit.
  • domain assumption Optical variability anti-correlates with optical luminosity according to Eq. 9 of Laurenti et al. (2020), with a slope implying that a factor 1.76 deficit requires roughly 20x higher luminosity.
    Used in Section 4 to argue that the observed variability difference cannot be a luminosity artifact; if the true anti-correlation is much steeper, the argument would weaken.
  • domain assumption WLQs are defined as radio-quiet (R<10) objects with rest-frame Ly-alpha+N v equivalent width < 15 A, and the control sample consists of radio-quiet normal QSOs.
    Sample definition in Section 2; the classification is taken from prior compilations (Plotkin et al. 2010; Meusinger & Balafkan 2014; KCJ23) and is not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak-emission-line quasars: A new clue from their optical variability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTCGVUZJ

@misc{pith2026250116328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak-emission-line quasars: A new clue from their optical variability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTCGVUZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16328}
}
abstract

Weak-emission-line QSOs (WLQs) are an enigmatic subclass of the QSO population, as their optical/UV spectra are marked by abnormally weak (or absent) emission lines. To obtain much-needed additional clues to the origin of this and other known peculiarities of WLQs, we have determined the 'ensemble' optical variability characteristics for a large, well-defined sample of 76 radio-quiet WLQs and also for a matched control sample comprising 603 normal radio-quiet QSOs. This analysis was done using their light-curves recorded in the $g$ and $r$ bands, under the ZTF survey during 2018-2024, with a typical cadence of 3 days. We find that, compared to normal QSOs, WLQs exhibit systematically milder optical variability on month/year-like time scales (by a factor of $\sim$ 1.76$\pm$0.05 in amplitude). We have independently verified this by carrying out an equivalent analysis of the V-band light-curves acquired under the CRTS during 2007- 2014, with a typical cadence of 10 days. This new observational differentiator between WLQs and normal QSOs may provide clues to understanding the intriguing nature of WLQs. It is proposed that the clumpiness of the torus material flowing into the central engine may play a key role in explaining the observed differences between the WLQs and normal QSOs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The kernel smooth probability distribution function (PDF) of the variability amplitude (𝜓) for the 𝑟-band (upper panel) and 𝑔-band (lower panel) light-curves of the WLQ sample (blue solid line) and the matched control sample of normal QSOs (red dashed line). The median values of 𝜓 are also shown. The distributions of 𝜓 in the 𝑔-band and 𝑟-band among the WLQs and the normal QSOs are significantly different, with the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The computed ensemble Structure-function (SF) for the sample of 51 WLQs (orange) and for the control sample 361 normal QSOs (blue), based on the V-band light-curves taken from the CRTS survey. The error bar on each point is smaller than the symbol size. 0.41±0.06 and 0.18±0.01, respectively ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alloin D., Pelat D., Phillips M., Whittle M., 1985, , 288, 205

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509765 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..313A 133, 313

    Anderson S. F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509765 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..313A 133, 313

    doi:10.1086/509765 2007

  3. [3]

    T., et al., 2020, , 903, 34

    Andika I. T., et al., 2020, , 903, 34

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Antonucci R. R. J., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11050102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11..102A 11, 102

    doi:10.3390/galaxies11050102 2023

  5. [5]

    Antonucci R., Kinney A., Ford H., 1989, , 342, 64

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    M., 2005, , 618, 108

    Barvainis R., Leh \'a r J., Birkinshaw M., Falcke H., Blundell K. M., 2005, , 618, 108

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Bauer A., Baltay C., Coppi P., Ellman N., Jerke J., Rabinowitz D., Scalzo R., 2009, , 696, 1241

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    H., White R

    Becker R. H., White R. L., Helfand D. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...450..559B 450, 559

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al., 2018, PASP , 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2018, PASP , 131, 018002

    2018

  2. [10]

    Blandford R., Meier D., Readhead A., 2019, ARA&A , 57, 467

    2019

  3. [11]

    M., Rawlings S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/337970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...562L...5B 562, L5

    Blundell K. M., Rawlings S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/337970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...562L...5B 562, L5

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Trakhtenbrot B., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 111

    Caplar N., Lilly S. J., Trakhtenbrot B., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 111

    2017

  5. [13]

    Chand H., Kumar P., Gopal-Krishna 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu624 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..726C 441, 726

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Collin-Souffrin S., 1991, A&A , 249, 344

    1991

  7. [15]

    Courvoisier T.-L., Clavel J., 1991, A&A , 248, 389

    1991

  8. [16]

    C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13131.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.386.1557C 386, 1557

    Czerny B., Siemiginowska A., Janiuk A., Gupta A. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13131.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.386.1557C 386, 1557

    2008

  9. [17]

    De Cicco D., et al., 2022, A&A , 664, A117

    2022

  10. [18]

    Di Clemente A., Giallongo E., Natali G., Trevese D., Vagnetti F., 1995, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9512159

    1995 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/782 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..782D 699, 782

    Diamond-Stanic A. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/782 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..782D 699, 782

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    Drake A. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Fan X., et al., 1999, , 526, L57

    1999

  14. [22]

    Fan X., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500296 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1203F 131, 1203

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    J., 2018, @doi [Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege] 10.48550/arXiv.1711.05330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018BSRSL..87..281G 87, 281

    Gopal-Krishna Wiita P. J., 2018, @doi [Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege] 10.48550/arXiv.1711.05330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018BSRSL..87..281G 87, 281

    2018 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    S., Sagar R., Wiita P

    Gopal-Krishna Stalin C. S., Sagar R., Wiita P. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374655 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586L..25G 586, L25

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    Gopal-Krishna Joshi R., Chand H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts706 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1302G 430, 1302

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Djorgovski S., Drake A

    Graham M. J., Djorgovski S., Drake A. J., Mahabal A. A., Chang M., Stern D., Donalek C., Glikman E., 2014, , 439, 703

    2014

  19. [27]

    Hawkins M., 2002, , 329, 76

    2002

  20. [28]

    Heidt J., Nilsson K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116541 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    J., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    Heidt J., Wagner S. J., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  22. [30]

    Hryniewicz K., Czerny B., Niko ajuk M., Kuraszkiewicz J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16418.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.2028H 404, 2028

    2010

  23. [31]

    Ishibashi W., Courvoisier T.-L., 2009, A&A , 495, 113

    2009

  24. [32]

    I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D

    Kellermann K. I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D. B., Green R., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115207 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AJ.....98.1195K 98, 1195

    1989 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Bechtold J., Siemiginowska A., 2009, , 698, 895

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

    2009

  26. [34]

    Koz owski S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..144K 847, 144

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Kumar P., Gopal-Krishna Chand H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv060 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1463K 448, 1463

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Kumar P., Hum C., Gopal-Krishna 2016, , 461, 666

    2016

  29. [37]

    S., Petitjean P., Gopal-Krishna 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5075K 479, 5075

    Kumar P., Chand H., Srianand R., Stalin C. S., Petitjean P., Gopal-Krishna 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5075K 479, 5075

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Kumar R., Chand H., Joshi R., 2023, , 519, 3656

    2023

  31. [40]

    Laurenti M., Vagnetti F., Middei R., Paolillo M., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 6053

    2020

  32. [41]

    M., Halpern J

    Leighly K. M., Halpern J. P., Jenkins E. B., Casebeer D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519768 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173....1L 173, 1

    2007 doi

  33. [42]

    N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L44 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728L..44L 728, L44

    Liu Y., Zhang S. N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L44 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728L..44L 728, L44

    2011 doi

  34. [43]

    Lu K.-X., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877...23L 877, 23

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    Luo B., et al., 2015, , 805, 122

    2015

  36. [45]

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

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

    2010 doi

  37. [46]

    Meusinger H., Balafkan N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423810 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    Meusinger H., Scholz R.-D., 2022, A&A , 664, L4

    2022

  39. [48]

    Meusinger H., Hinze A., de Hoon A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015520 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    Ni Q., et al., 2018, , 480, 5184

    2018

  41. [50]

    Niko ajuk M., Walter R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20216.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.2518N 420, 2518

    2012

  42. [51]

    P \^a ris I., et al., 2018, A&A , 613, A51

    2018

  43. [52]

    D., et al., 2022, , 929, 78

    Paul J. D., et al., 2022, , 929, 78

    2022

  44. [53]

    M., Anderson S

    Plotkin R. M., Anderson S. F., Brandt W. N., Diamond-Stanic A. M., Fan X., MacLeod C. L., Schneider D. P., Shemmer O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/562 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..562P 721, 562

    2010 doi

  45. [54]

    T., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2766R 131, 2766

    Richards G. T., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2766R 131, 2766

    2006 doi

  46. [55]

    Shemmer O., Lieber S., 2015, , 805, 124

    2015

  47. [56]

    N., Anderson S

    Shemmer O., Brandt W. N., Anderson S. F., Diamond-Stanic A. M., Fan X., Richards G. T., Schneider D. P., Strauss M. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/580 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..580S 696, 580

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    Shemmer O., et al., 2010, , 722, L152

    2010

  49. [58]

    Siemiginowska A., Elvis M., 1997, , 482, L9

    1997

  50. [59]

    S., Williams G

    Smith P. S., Williams G. G., Schmidt G. D., Diamond-Stanic A. M., Means D. L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517992 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..118S 663, 118

    2007 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Gopal-Krishna Sagar R., Wiita P

    Stalin C. S., Gopal-Krishna Sagar R., Wiita P. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07631.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350..175S 350, 175

    2004

  52. [61]

    Sun Y.-H., Wang J.-X., Chen X.-Y., Zheng Z.-Y., 2014, , 792, 54

    2014

  53. [62]

    T \"u rler M., 2005, A&A , 444, 417

    2005

  54. [63]

    M., 1997, ARA&A , 35, 445

    Ulrich M.-H., Maraschi L., Urry C. M., 1997, ARA&A , 35, 445

    1997

  55. [64]

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

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

    2004 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA

    Wagner S. J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA

    1995

  57. [66]

    S., Hu C., Songsheng Y.-Y., Li Y.-R., Shi Y., Zhang Z.-X., 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 775

    Wang J.-M., Du P., Brotherton M. S., Hu C., Songsheng Y.-Y., Li Y.-R., Shi Y., Zhang Z.-X., 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 775

    2017

  58. [67]

    C., Brunner R

    Wilhite B. C., Brunner R. J., Grier C. J., Schneider D. P., Vanden Berk D. E., 2008, , 383, 1232

    2008

  59. [68]

    Wu J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/28 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...28W 736, 28

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    H., Becker R., White R., Loomis C., 2005, , 129, 615

    de Vries W. H., Becker R., White R., Loomis C., 2005, , 129, 615

    2005

  61. [70]

    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.stat...

  62. [71]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.