Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Time Evolution of Mg II in SDSS J2320+0024: Implications for a Subparsec Binary Supermassive Black Hole System

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three spectra of one quasar point to a 278-day binary supermassive black hole.

desk verdict A genuinely new pair of spectra shows real Mg II variability, but the binary parameters are not tightly constrained and the phase bookkeeping has an internal inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16877 v1 pith:7JYJ5CAM submitted 2025-01-28 astro-ph.GA

Marta Fatović , Dragana Ilić , Andjelka B. Kovačević , Lovro Palaversa , Saša Simić , Luka Č. Popović , Karun Thanjavur , Oleksandra Razim
show 3 more authors
Željko Ivezić Minghao Yue Xiaohui Fan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholebinaryMgIIemissionlinebroad-lineregionvariabilityperiodicquasarsub-parsecspectroscopycircumbinary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the quasar SDSS J2320+0024 hosts a sub-parsec binary supermassive black hole, using the shape and motion of its Mg II emission line as the evidence. The 278-day periodicity already seen in its optical light curves is interpreted as the orbital period, and two new spectra from 8-meter-class telescopes show the Mg II line changing from a single peak to a double-peaked, asymmetric profile whose blue peak shifts by hundreds of kilometers per second while the red peak stays nearly fixed. A binary model with a less massive black hole of $2 \times 10^7 M_\odot$, a more massive one of $2 \times 10^8 M_\odot$, eccentricity 0.1, and a circumbinary broad-line region reproduces all three observed epochs. If correct, the object would be one of the most massive and most compact known binary black hole candidates, with an orbital period under a year.

What carries the argument

The PoSKI model carries the argument: it represents a sub-parsec binary supermassive black hole in which each accreting component ionizes gas into a moving broad-line region, while the combined continuum ionizes a stationary circumbinary broad-line region, so the observed line is the sum of Doppler-shifted and stationary components. In the adopted configuration with mass ratio $q = 0.1$, only the broad-line region around the less massive black hole moves with its orbital motion, which produces the shifting blue peak while the circumbinary region keeps the red peak stable. Supporting machinery includes a Gaussian-process fit with a periodic cosine kernel that places the two new photometric points within $1\sigma$ of the 278-day waveform, and the standard Mg II single-epoch mass scaling relation that gives the $\sim 10^9\,M_\odot$ total mass.

What would settle it

Take spectra of SDSS J2320+0024 across at least two consecutive 278-day cycles. If the blue Mg II peak's velocity shift and the red/blue intensity ratio do not repeat in step with the photometric phase, or if an additional broad line like H$\beta$ shows no corresponding periodic change, the binary-SMBH interpretation would be ruled out in favor of single-black-hole broad-line-region kinematics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal variability of the broad Mg II line in SDSS J2320+0024 is the spectroscopic signature of a binary supermassive black hole rather than stochastic or single-black-hole broad-line-region kinematics. In the archival spectrum the line has a single peak; in the two new spectra it shows two peaks, with the peak separation changing by roughly 400 km/s and the blue peak shifting while the red peak remains steady. The paper argues that these changes, phased to the 278-day photometric periodicity, are reproduced by a binary configuration with component masses $M_1 = 2\times10^7\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 2\times10^8\,M_\odot$, eccentricity $e = 0.1$, inclination $i = 10^\circ$, mean separation $a = 0.0025$ pc, and a total system mass near $10^9\,M_\odot$, where only the less massive component carries its own broad-line region and the rest of the line comes from a circumbinary broad-line region. The paper concludes that the binary model successfully reproduces the spectra and that the orbital period it requires aligns with the periodicity in the historical light curve.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 278-day photometric periodicity is the orbital period of a binary and that the photometric phase tracks the orbital phase; if the periodicity comes from red noise, a warped disk, or a single black hole, the binary interpretation loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation holds, SDSS J2320+0024 is a sub-parsec binary with a 278-day orbital period, total mass near $10^9\,M_\odot$, and mean separation $0.0025$ pc, placing it among the most massive sub-annual binary candidates.
  • The blue-peak motion with a stable red peak gives a concrete spectroscopic pattern that can be checked in future epochs of this object.
  • The PoSKI configuration predicts that other broad lines, such as H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$, should show similar phase-dependent profile changes, so those lines are the natural next test.
  • With a period of a few hundred days, the system would occupy the evolutionary stage between long-period binaries and binaries whose orbits shrink mainly by gravitational-wave emission, connecting galaxy merger remnants to future low-frequency gravitational-wave detectors.
  • The alignment of the new synthetic magnitudes with the periodic light curve demonstrates a workflow for using spectroscopic follow-up to validate photometric binary candidates in wide-field time-domain surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A prediction the paper does not spell out: the PoSKI configuration implies a specific radial-velocity curve for the blue peak, so a single spectrum taken at the phase of maximum predicted blueshift could distinguish the binary model from a single-black-hole outflow that merely mimics asymmetry.
  • The fitted inclination of $10^\circ$ and the lack of radio detections together suggest that radio-quietness may be a useful selection prior for similar short-period candidates, an extension the paper only hints at.
  • The 278-day period sits near the upper end of what theoretical predictions considered for future surveys, so this source may represent the detectable edge of the population; a systematic search of multi-decade light curves for periods near 200-400 days would test whether such systems are rare or common.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. SDSS J2320+0024 is a z=1.05 quasar previously identified as a subparsec binary SMBH candidate from a 278-day photometric periodicity. The manuscript presents two new epochs of Mg II spectroscopy from Gemini and Magellan, together with the archival SDSS spectrum. The authors extract the broad Mg II line by subtracting continuum and Fe II, measure a set of line-profile parameters, estimate the total black hole mass from the Mg II virial relation, compute synthetic r-band magnitudes, and compare the three epochs to the PoSKI binary SMBH model. They conclude that the dramatic variability of the Mg II profile (changing peak separation, peak intensity ratio, and asymmetry) can be reproduced by a binary with M1=2e7 Msun, M2=2e8 Msun, e=0.1, i=10 deg, and a=0.0025 pc, and that the orbital period inferred from the model aligns with the photometric 278-day period.

Significance. If correct, the system would be one of the most compact and massive subannual binary SMBH candidates known, with implications for LISA-band sources and for spectroscopic follow-up of time-domain surveys. The paper has real strengths: it secures high-quality 8-m spectra of a faint target, uses a transparent and reproducible line-extraction pipeline (Fantasy), quantifies the profile variability in Table 1, and explicitly discusses alternative interpretations such as warped disks and complex BLR kinematics. However, the central binary interpretation is currently not quantitatively established: it rests on an unvalidated photometric periodicity, a hand-tuned qualitative PoSKI fit, internally inconsistent mass and separation calculations, and an unsupported conclusion about the inferred period. These issues must be addressed before the dynamical claim can be accepted.

major comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5] Conclusion (iv) states that "the orbital period inferred from the PoSKI model aligns with the periodicity identified in the historical photometric light curve," but Sec. 3.3 explicitly says "fixing the periodicity" and "Optical photometry allowed us to determine the orbital period." The period is an input to PoSKI, not an output, so conclusion (iv) is circular and should be removed or rephrased as a consistency check rather than an inference.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The Gaussian Process test is not a significance test for periodicity: the CosineKernel is periodic by construction and initialized at 265 days, and no comparison is made against a red-noise or quasi-periodic alternative (e.g., a damped random walk) in either the time domain or the periodogram. This is needed to support the Sec. 4 claim that the photometric variability "cannot be attributed solely to red noise."
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 4] The orbital phases assigned to the three epochs are internally inconsistent with the adopted period. Gemini (Nov 14, 2022) and Magellan (Dec 22, 2022) are 38 days apart, which for P=278 days is 0.137 cycles, while the quoted phases (0.53 and 0.70) differ by 0.17 cycles; the quoted eccentricity e=0.1 can change the true anomaly by at most about 0.03 cycles, so it does not resolve the discrepancy. The authors should specify the exact ephemeris and zero point, or recompute the phases consistently, because the PoSKI model outputs in Fig. 4 depend directly on these phase inputs.
  4. [Sec. 2.5, Table 1, and Sec. 3.3] The mass and separation determinations are mutually inconsistent. Equation (3) defines the rest-frame orbital period as P/(1+z)=136 days for z=1.05, but the separations quoted in Table 1 and in Sec. 3.3 (a=0.0025-0.004 pc) appear to use the observed 278-day period. With the PoSKI masses (M1+M2=2.2e8 Msun), Kepler's law gives a~0.0015 pc for the rest-frame period, not 0.0025 pc. Moreover, the virial mass estimates (log M~8.8-9.0) are about 0.5-0.7 dex higher than the sum of the PoSKI masses (log ~8.34). The authors should reconcile these numbers or explicitly state which period and mass are used in each calculation.
  5. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 5] The PoSKI model is described as "qualitatively fit" with hand-picked parameters, and the paper provides no quantitative goodness-of-fit, parameter uncertainties, or comparison against a single-SMBH BLR model (e.g., a disk emitter or outflow model) applied to the same three epochs. The claim that "the spectra were successfully interpreted within the framework of a binary SMBH system using the PoSKI model" is therefore not quantitatively established. The authors should provide a fitting statistic, a parameter search, or at least a formal model-comparison criterion.
  6. [Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 3] The SDSS synthetic magnitude deviates by about 3 sigma from the GP model and is excluded from Fig. 3 based on "uncertainties related to the absolute flux calibration." Since the SDSS epoch is the longest-baseline spectroscopic point, the exclusion should be justified quantitatively (e.g., with an independent flux calibration check), and the figure should show the excluded point, or the analysis should be repeated with it included as a caveat.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4] The definition of the asymmetry metric contains a typo: the quarter-maximum shift is written twice as "ShiftHM"; it should read "ShiftQM."
  2. [Sec. 3.2] There is a typo "preformed" (should be "performed") and the Fig. 3 caption says "blue lent" rather than "blue line."
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The GP kernel is written without a noise term; the paper should specify the full kernel (including any white-noise/jitter component) and the priors or initialization used, for reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. 2.5 and Table 1] The black-hole symbol is rendered as "●●" in the text and table; this is presumably a font/encoding issue and should be fixed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Conclusion (iv) is circular: the orbital period is fixed from photometry before the PoSKI model is run, so the model's 'inferred' period aligning with the photometric periodicity is by construction; the rest of the modeling is a fit, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 (Implementation of the PoSKI model) and Sec. 5, conclusion (iv)]
    "To find a model of SMBBHs that can describe the observed variability and complex Mgii line shape, we explored several different configurations of SMBBHs, changing the mass ratio and dynamical parameters but fixing the periodicity. ... (iv) The orbital period inferred from the PoSKI model aligns with the periodicity identified in the historical photometric light curve."

    The orbital period is fixed as an input before PoSKI is run ('fixing the periodicity'). The model therefore cannot independently infer an orbital period; the claimed alignment in conclusion (iv) is a restatement of the input, not an output of the model. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction: the photometric period is imposed, and the conclusion that the model's period 'aligns' with photometry is true by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical content—dramatic Mg II profile variability, line-parameter measurements, and synthetic magnitudes from Gemini and Magellan—is not circular. The PoSKI modeling is a qualitative fit to three epochs at phases chosen from the photometric ephemeris; with many free parameters (masses, q=0.1, i=10°, e=0.1, BLR geometry) it can reproduce the profiles, but that is a fit, not a prediction. The one clear circularity is conclusion (iv), where the orbital period is an input to the model and is then presented as an inferred quantity that aligns with the photometric periodicity. Also noted but not definitionally circular: the paper excludes the 3σ-deviant SDSS synthetic magnitude (Sec. 3.2) and uses a periodic-only GP kernel without a red-noise alternative, both of which weaken the empirical support. The 278-day period from Fatović et al. (2023) is a prior published detection, not itself a circular step. Overall, the central conclusion (iv) reduces to an input by construction, while the binary parameters and line-profile reproduction retain independent though weak content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the photometric period being the orbital period, on a virial mass estimate with large scatter, and on hand-chosen PoSKI model parameters (masses, mass ratio, eccentricity, inclination, BLR configuration). No wholly new physical entities are introduced; the BLR1 and cBLR components are modeling constructs from prior work.

free parameters (6)
  • Orbital period P = 278 days (photometric; about 270 days from GP fit)
    Determined from the optical light curve in Fatovic et al. 2023 and re-fit with a Gaussian Process in Sec. 3.2; used as the orbital period input to the PoSKI model.
  • Mass ratio q = 0.1
    Chosen in Sec. 3.3 because 'the Mg ii line deviation is asymmetric'; the paper explores configurations with fixed period and varying mass ratio.
  • Primary mass M2 = 2 x 10^8 Msun
    Adopted to make the total mass consistent with the virial scaling-relation estimate in Sec. 2.5 (log M about 9 with about 0.5 dex uncertainty).
  • Secondary mass M1 = 2 x 10^7 Msun
    Adopted with M2 to give q = 0.1 and total of about 2.2 x 10^8 Msun.
  • Eccentricity e = 0.1
    Chosen in Sec. 3.3; the paper says observations close in time 'allow us to put additional constraints' but the value is stated without a fitting procedure.
  • Inclination i = 10 degrees
    Chosen in Sec. 3.3 to keep predicted orbital line shifts small, since large shifts are 'not supported by spectroscopic observations'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 278-day photometric periodicity is the orbital period of a binary and the photometric phase tracks orbital phase.
    Inherited from Fatovic et al. 2023 and used throughout; the GP fit in Sec. 3.2 assumes a periodic model, and the phases of the spectra are computed from this ephemeris.
  • domain assumption The virial scaling relation (Eq. 1) applies to this object to estimate M_BH from Mg II FWHM and L3000.
    Used in Sec. 2.5 to derive total masses; the relation has intrinsic scatter of about 0.5 dex.
  • ad hoc to paper The broad Mg II emission originates from a BLR around the less massive component plus a circumbinary BLR, with the massive component having no BLR.
    PoSKI model configuration in Sec. 3.3; the paper justifies it by stating the smaller component cleans material, but this is a modeling choice.
  • standard math Kepler's third law relates period, total mass, and separation for the binary.
    Used in Sec. 2.5 (Eq. 2).
  • domain assumption The observed Mg II line-profile changes are dominated by orbital or Doppler effects rather than stochastic BLR variability, outflows, or other single-SMBH phenomena.
    The paper argues against alternatives in Sec. 4.2 but assumes the binary interpretation in the PoSKI modeling.
invented entities (1)
  • BLR1 and cBLR model components
    purpose: To produce the moving blue peak and the stable red peak in the Mg II profile.
    These are components of the existing PoSKI model (Popovic et al. 2021), used as modeling constructs rather than newly postulated physical entities; they are not independently falsifiable outside the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time Evolution of Mg II in SDSS J2320+0024: Implications for a Subparsec Binary Supermassive Black Hole System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JYJ5CAM

@misc{pith2026250116877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time Evolution of Mg II in SDSS J2320+0024: Implications for a Subparsec Binary Supermassive Black Hole System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JYJ5CAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16877}
}
abstract

Here we present results from our spectroscopic follow-up of SDSS J2320+0024, a candidate binary supermassive black hole (SMBH) with a suspected sub-pc separation, identified by a 278-day periodicity observed in its multi-band optical light curves. We investigate the dramatic variability of the complex Mg II emission line profile aiming to test the alignments of the observed photometric light curves and the spectroscopic signatures in the context of the binary SMBH system. We extract the pure broad Mg II line from the newly obtained Gemini and Magellan spectra and measure the emission line parameters to reveal fundamental dynamical parameters of the SMBHs binary system. We adopt the PoSKI sub-pc binary SMBH model, which includes broad-line region (BLR) around less massive component and a circumbinary BLR, to interpret the observed variability in the spectral profile. We find that the Mg II line profile has a distinctive complex shape with the asymmetry and two peaks present which is varying across recent and archival observations. The temporal variability of the Mg II line profile may be associated with the emission from the binary SMBH system consisting of components with masses $M_1 = 2 \times 10^7 \, M_{\odot}$ and $M_2 = 2 \times 10^8 \, M_{\odot}$, and eccentricity e = 0.1. With an total estimated mass of $\sim 10^9 M_{\odot}$ and a subannual orbital period, this system may be a rare example of high-mass compact candidate of SMBH binary, thus important for further investigations of the evolution of the binary system. This study is a prototype of synergies of spectroscopic follow-up and future massive time-domain photometric surveys like Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the multi-component decomposition (fitting result, dashed red line) of the complex Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The normalized line profiles of the extracted Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curve of the SDSS J2320+0024 source in the r band (black error bars) of historical SDSS, ZTF and PS1 data. GP periodic curve (blue line) that best matches the data, shows a period of ∼270 days and an amplitude of 0.3 mag. The blue lent represents the 1σ uncertainty of the GP curve. Green and red error bars represent the newly observed Gemini and Magellan r magnitudes, respectively, extracted using our procedur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PoSKI model of Mg ii broad line (black solid line) for all three epochs (top panel: SDSS, middle panel: Gemini, bot￾tom panel: Magellan data). The components are coming from the smaller BLR (BLR1, dotted line) and cBLR (dashed line). Upper insets in each panel shows th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Krawczynski, H

    Abarr, Q. & Krawczynski, H. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 28

    2021

  2. [2]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002 Bogdanovi´c, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 3

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 118

    Bon, E., Jovanovi´c, P., Marziani, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 118

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 29

    Bon, E., Zucker, S., Netzer, H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 29

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Boroson, T. A. & Lauer, T. R. 2009, Nature, 458, 53

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    arXiv 2016

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    R., Runnoe, J., Bogdanovic, T., & Trump, J

    Charisi, M., Taylor, S. R., Runnoe, J., Bogdanovic, T., & Trump, J. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5929

    2022

  2. [10]

    M., Amaya-Almazán, R

    Chavushyan, V ., Patiño-Álvarez, V . M., Amaya-Almazán, R. A., & Carrasco, L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 68

    2020

  3. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245

    Chen, Y .-C., Liu, X., Liao, W.-T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245

    2020

  4. [12]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    2020

  5. [13]

    C., Grace, K

    Davis, M. C., Grace, K. E., Trump, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 34

    2024

  6. [14]

    S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W

    Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 151, 44 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2016

  7. [15]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1492 Dias dos Santos, D., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Panda, S., & Marinello, M

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1492 Dias dos Santos, D., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Panda, S., & Marinello, M. 2023, ApJ, 953, L3 D’Orazio, D. J. & Charisi, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., Haiman, Z., & Ho, L

    Dotti, M., Bonetti, M., D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Ho, L. C. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 212

    2022

  9. [17]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23

    2012

  10. [18]

    & Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M. & Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1

    1994

  11. [19]

    U., Landt, H., & Vacca, W

    Esser, J., Pott, J. U., Landt, H., & Vacca, W. D. 2019, A&A, 621, A46 Fatovi´c, M., Palaversa, L., Tisani ´c, K., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 138

    2019

  12. [20]

    2009, A&A, 496, 361

    Faure, C., Anguita, T., Eigenbrod, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 496, 361

    2009

  13. [21]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 485

    2006

  14. [22]

    R., Pleiss, G., Bindel, D., Weinberger, K

    Gardner, J. R., Pleiss, G., Bindel, D., Weinberger, K. Q., & Wilson, A. G. 2018, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2018

  15. [23]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  16. [24]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, nat, 518, 74

    2015

  17. [25]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  18. [26]

    J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A

    Grier, C. J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 146

    2017

  19. [27]

    A., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Fawcett, V . A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 26

    2024

  20. [28]

    Haehnelt, M. G. & Kau ffmann, G. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 336, L61

    2002

  21. [29]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, V ol

    Hall, P., Balogh, M., Barmby, P., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, V ol. 2020, 30

    2019

  22. [30]

    A., Becker, R

    Hodge, J. A., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., Richards, G. T., & Zeimann, G. R. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 3

    2011

  23. [31]

    L., Lawrence, A., Ross, N

    Homan, D., MacLeod, C. L., Lawrence, A., Ross, N. P., & Bruce, A. 2020, MN- RAS, 496, 309 Ili´c, D., Raki´c, N., & Popovi´c, L. ˇC . 2023, ApJS, 267, 19 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111 Ivezi´c, Z., Smith, J. A., Miknaitis, G., et al. 2007, Th...

    2020

  24. [32]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 12

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Bian, F., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 12

    2014

  25. [33]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688

    2024

  26. [34]

    E., Rafikov, R

    Ju, W., Greene, J. E., Rafikov, R. R., Bickerton, S. J., & Badenes, C. 2013, ApJ, 777, 44

    2013

  27. [35]

    2015, AJ, 150, 172

    Kessler, R., Marriner, J., Childress, M., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 172

    2015

  28. [36]

    S., et al

    Kim, D.-C., Yoon, I., Evans, A. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 23

    2020

  29. [37]

    W., Zetzl, M., et al

    Kollatschny, Ochmann, M. W., Zetzl, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A168

    2018

  30. [38]

    M., Ochmann, M

    Kollatschny, W., Weilbacher, P. M., Ochmann, M. W., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A79

    2020

  31. [39]

    2003, ApJ, 582, L15 Kovaˇcevi´c, A

    Komossa, S., Burwitz, V ., Hasinger, G., et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, L15 Kovaˇcevi´c, A. B., Pérez-Hernández, E., Popovi ´c, L. ˇC., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2051 Kovaˇcevi´c, A. B., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., & Ili´c, D. 2020a, Open Astronomy, 29, 51 Kovaˇcevi´c, A. B., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., S...

    2003

  32. [40]

    Labrie, K., Anderson, K., Cárdenes, R., Simpson, C., & Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 523, Astro- nomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W

    2019

  33. [41]

    Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 321 León-Tavares, J., Chavushyan, V ., Patiño-Álvarez, V ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, L36

    2013

  34. [42]

    T., Eracleous, M., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Lewis, K. T., Eracleous, M., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2010, ApJS, 187, 416

    2010

  35. [43]

    C., et al

    Li, Y .-R., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 4

    2016

  36. [44]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 36

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., Ayers, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 36

    2019

  37. [45]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 140

    Liu, X., Shen, Y ., Bian, F., Loeb, A., & Tremaine, S. 2014, ApJ, 789, 140

    2014

  38. [46]

    I., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    W., Plauchu-Frayn, I., & del Olmo, A

    Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Plauchu-Frayn, I., & del Olmo, A. 2013, A&A, 555, A89 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Time_Evolution_of_Mg_II_in_SDSS_J2320+0024__Implications_for_a_Subparsec_Binary_Supermassive_Black_Hole_System

    2013

  40. [48]

    D., Murphy, T., et al

    Massardi, M., Ekers, R. D., Murphy, T., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 318

    2011

  41. [49]

    2024, A&A, 685, A116

    Mengistue, Shimeles Terefe, Marziani, Paola, del Olmo, Ascensión, et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A116

    2024

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 668, A77

    Millon, M., Dalang, C., Lemon, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A77

    2022

  43. [51]

    C., et al

    Nguyen, K., Bogdanovi´c, T., Runnoe, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 894, 105

    2020

  44. [52]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 31 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Onaka, T., Nakamura, T., Sakon, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 31 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Popovi´c, L. ˇC., Ili´c, D., Burenkov, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A178 Popovi´c, L. ˇC., Kovaˇcevi´c-Dojˇcinovi´c, J., & Marˇceta-Mandi´c, S....

    2018

  45. [53]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit /PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, Zenodo

    2020

  46. [54]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308 Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Fonseca-Faria, M. A., dos Santos, D. D., Panda, S., &

    2020

  47. [55]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 244

    Marinello, M. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 244

    2024

  48. [56]

    C., Eracleous, M., Mathes, G., et al

    Runnoe, J. C., Eracleous, M., Mathes, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 7

    2015

  49. [57]

    C., Eracleous, M., Pennell, A., et al

    Runnoe, J. C., Eracleous, M., Pennell, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1683

    2017

  50. [58]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 54

    Sandrinelli, A., Covino, S., Dotti, M., & Treves, A. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 54

    2016

  51. [59]

    C., Kelson, D

    Schweizer, F., Seitzer, P., Whitmore, B. C., Kelson, D. D., & Villanueva, E. V . 2018, ApJ, 853, 54

    2018

  52. [60]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 49

    Shen, Y ., Liu, X., Loeb, A., & Tremaine, S. 2013, ApJ, 775, 49

    2013

  53. [61]

    J., Sundelius, B., & Byrd, G

    Sillanpaa, A., Haarala, S., Valtonen, M. J., Sundelius, B., & Byrd, G. G. 1988, ApJ, 325, 628

    1988

  54. [62]

    L., Mushotzky, R

    Smith, K. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Boyd, P. T., & Wagoner, R. V . 2018, The Astro- physical Journal Letters, 860, L10

    2018

  55. [63]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 87

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Eracleous, M., Teresa Ruiz, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, 87

    1997

  56. [64]

    S., et al

    Thanjavur, K., Ivezi´c, Z., Allam, S. S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5941

    2021

  57. [65]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  58. [66]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  59. [67]

    L., Wiita, P

    Tripathi, A., Smith, K. L., Wiita, P. J., & Wagoner, R. V . 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 9132

    2023

  60. [68]

    VanderPlas, J. T. & Ivezi´c, Ž. 2015, ApJ, 812, 18 V oggel, K. T., Seth, A. C., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A152 V olonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559

    2015

  61. [69]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 1334

    Wang, J.-G., Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 1334

    2009

  62. [70]

    & Bon, E

    Wang, J.-M. & Bon, E. 2020, A&A, 643, L9

    2020

  63. [71]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 171

    Wang, J.-M., Songsheng, Y .-Y ., Li, Y .-R., & Yu, Z. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 171

    2018

  64. [72]

    & Li, X.-D

    Wang, Y . & Li, X.-D. 2012, ApJ, 744, 186

    2012

  65. [73]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 402, 537

    Wu, S.-M., Chen, L., & Yuan, F. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 402, 537

    2010

  66. [74]

    & Haiman, Z

    Xin, C. & Haiman, Z. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2408

    2021

  67. [75]

    & Komossa, S

    Xu, D. & Komossa, S. 2009, ApJ, 705, L20

    2009

  68. [76]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 117

    Yan, C.-S., Lu, Y ., Dai, X., & Yu, Q. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 117

    2015

  69. [77]

    Neilsen, J., et al

    Yoachim, P., Jones, L., Eric H. Neilsen, J., et al. 2023, lsst/rubin_sim: v1.3.1

    2023

  70. [78]

    G., Adelman, J., John E

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., John E. Anderson, J., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579

    2000

  71. [79]

    2014, Research in Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 14, 933

    Zhang, B.-K., Zhao, X.-Y ., Wang, C.-X., & Dai, B.-Z. 2014, Research in Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 14, 933

    2014

  72. [80]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 33

    Zhang, S., Zhou, H., Shi, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 33

    2019

  73. [81]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5205

    Zhang, X. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5205

    2021

  74. [82]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 1588 Article number, page 10 of 10

    Zhang, X. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 1588 Article number, page 10 of 10

    2023

Pith tools

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