Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Long Term Reverberation Mapping of Iron Coronal Lines in MKN 110

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The iron coronal line [Fe VII] in MKN 110 lags the optical continuum by about 650 days, while [Fe X] does not, revealing a stratified coronal-line region.

desk verdict A careful 30-year coronal-line light curve for MKN 110 with a plausible but not overdetermined [Fe VII] lag; the stratification claim rests more on line widths than on the lag. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04337 v1 pith:NKOTHEQS submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.GA

Charles Yin , Andy Lawrence , Martin Ward , David Homan , Wolfram Kollatschny This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleicoronallinesreverberationmappingforbiddenhighionizationSeyfertgalaxiesemission-linevariabilityphotoionizationmodellingMKN110
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 sets out to show that the iron coronal lines of the active galaxy MKN 110 vary on timescales of years and can be used as long-term reverberation probes of the extreme-UV ionizing continuum. Using spectra spanning 1987 to 2019, it measures the [Fe VII] 6087 Å line lagging the 5100 Å continuum by a modal 652 days, while the [Fe X] 6375 Å line shows no significant lag and is inconsistent with the [Fe VII] lag at 97.8 per cent confidence. Because the two lines also have different velocity widths (about 330 km/s versus about 780 km/s), the paper concludes that the coronal line region is stratified, with [Fe X] forming closer to the black hole than [Fe VII]. The result matters because it demonstrates that coronal lines, which are sensitive to the shape of the EUV ionizing spectrum, can be tied to the optical continuum on parsec scales, and it shows that single-cloud photoionization models are insufficient to describe the region.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two line light curves: the [Fe VII] 6087 Å and [Fe X] 6375 Å fluxes, measured from spectra spanning 1987-2019 and normalized to the narrow [O I] 6300 Å line to suppress cross-instrument calibration and aperture effects. The coronal lines are isolated by fitting a pseudo-continuum and Gaussian components, with the [Fe X] flux recovered by fixing the [O I] 6363 Å to [O I] 6300 Å flux ratio to its theoretical value of 0.323. The lag is quantified with two estimators, a Monte Carlo flux-randomization/random-subset cross-correlation and a damped random-walk time-series model, and the region sizes are connected to cloud densities through photoionization modelling that scans gas density at the lag-derived radii. The same machinery yields a responsivity plot from which a non-varying component and saturation of the [Fe VII] response are fitted.

What would settle it

A new, densely sampled spectroscopic campaign covering another large swing in MKN 110's continuum would settle it: if the [Fe VII] flux again reaches its minimum roughly 650 days after the continuum minimum while [Fe X] reaches its minimum earlier or simultaneously, the stratified picture is confirmed; if both lines respond with the same delay, or if the apparent lag disappears when a different narrow-line normalization is used, the claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coronal line region of MKN 110 is not a single zone but a stratified structure extending from roughly 100 light-days to beyond 10 pc. The evidence is the disparity between [Fe VII] and [Fe X]: the flux-randomization/random-subset cross-correlation gives a modal [Fe VII] lag of 652 days against the 5100 Å continuum (median 533 days, with +113/-133 day errors), while the [Fe X] lag is consistent with zero (modal -41 days, median -65 days with +138/-147 day errors), and the two lag distributions are inconsistent at 97.8 per cent confidence. The measured mean line widths also differ by more than a factor of two: 330 km/s for [Fe VII] versus 778 km/s for [Fe X]. The authors combine the lag distance of 652 light-days, a virial scaling of line widths, and photoionization modelling to argue that the bulk of [Fe VII] is emitted at parsec scales whereas [Fe X] is emitted closer in (about 116 light-days by the width scaling), and that a separate non-varying component of the [Fe VII] flux arises from a more extended region at or beyond 10 pc. On short timescales neither line responds to continuum changes, so the variability only shows up across the factor-of-three, decade-long decline in the continuum.

Load-bearing premise

The lag measurement assumes that the narrow [O I] 6300 Å line is a constant flux standard across 30 years and many different telescopes; if that line varies in time, or if the aperture used to observe it samples the spatially extended coronal lines differently from epoch to epoch, the normalized [Fe VII] and [Fe X] fluxes and their derived lags are systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sustained multi-year continuum swing is required to see coronal-line response; weekly or monthly monitoring alone will not detect it.
  • The coronal line region of MKN 110 is stratified, with the higher-ionization [Fe X] gas located closer to the black hole than [Fe VII].
  • A substantial part of the [Fe VII] flux does not respond to the continuum, so the emitting region extends beyond the 652-light-day lag radius, probably to 10 pc or more.
  • Single-cloud photoionization models are insufficient; a range of gas densities and a radial density profile are required to reproduce [Fe VII] and [Fe X] simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed by a second continuum swing, the same archival stacking approach could be applied to other AGNs with multi-decade spectral archives, producing a sample of coronal-line lags that directly maps the radius-ionization relation of the CLR.
  • The non-varying [Fe VII] component implies that low-density gas far outside the lag radius also contributes coronal-line flux; high-spatial-resolution observations of MKN 110 could test whether that extended emission is diffuse or clumpy.
  • The disagreement between the two lag estimators (652 days versus 869 days) points to an intrinsically broad transfer function, so a velocity-resolved reverberation campaign with better spectral resolution could measure its shape directly.
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 compiles optical spectra of MKN 110 spanning three decades from eleven different instruments and measures the fluxes of the coronal lines [Fe VII] 6087 Å and [Fe X] 6375 Å, after subtraction of a pseudo-continuum and, for [Fe X], correction for blending with [O I] 6363. The authors find that [Fe VII] shows variability on multi-year timescales and detect a lag relative to the 5100 Å continuum with a modal value of 652 days from the FR/RSS method (median 533 +113/-133 days), while [Fe X] shows no significant lag. They also measure line widths, finding [Fe X] to be roughly twice as broad as [Fe VII], and they apply a simple emissivity-weighted response model to infer a non-varying component in the [Fe VII] flux. Combining the lag, the line widths, and photoionization models, they argue for a stratified coronal line region in which [Fe VII] arises predominantly at parsec scales and [Fe X] closer in, and they caution that single-cloud models are insufficient for describing the CLR.

Significance. If the reported lag is robust, this would be one of the first long-term reverberation measurements of optical coronal lines, providing a direct estimate of the CLR size and supporting the long-standing idea of stratification within the CLR. The paper is also valuable for its compilation of three decades of archival spectra and its careful, transparent treatment of line fitting and systematics. The authors explicitly acknowledge several sources of uncertainty (e.g., aperture effects, flux calibration, blending) and are appropriately cautious in places, which strengthens the credibility of the data presentation. However, the central claim rests on a fairly weak statistical detection and on a normalization assumption that is not fully validated, so the significance of the paper depends on whether those issues can be addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Table C1] The [Fe VII] light curve is normalized by dividing by the narrow [O I] 6300 Å flux under the assumption that this line is constant, but Table C1 shows that the measured [O I] flux varies by roughly a factor of two across the data set (e.g., 150.5 at MJD 49870, 305.0 at MJD 53043, and 95.2 at MJD 57834). Because the eleven observing runs have no temporal overlap, these variations cannot be separated into intrinsic [O I] variability, aperture differences, or calibration offsets, and dividing [Fe VII] by [O I] imprints all of them onto the coronal-line light curve. For example, the raw [Fe VII] flux at MJD 53043 is 28.5, comparable to many K01 values, yet its normalized value is approximately half of the K01 values because the [O I] flux at that epoch is an outlier at 305.0; the deep normalized [Fe VII] points in 2002–2005 (such as 15.3/206.5 = 0.074 at MJD 53108) are thus partly a consequence of the [O I] normalization rather than genuine coronal-line behavior. The 652-day lag and the stratification claim depend directly on this normalization. The authors should demonstrate robustness by redoing the lag analysis using an alternative reference line (e.g., [O III] 5007, which they note is stable to ~10%), by fitting for a floating instrumental offset per epoch, or by analyzing the raw fluxes with a hierarchical model that includes aperture and calibration terms.
  2. [Section 6.1] The statistical significance of the 652-day lag is modest: only 90.5% of the FR/RSS lag distribution lies at positive lags, and the modal lag (652 days) differs substantially from the median (533 +113/-133 days). The JAVELIN result gives a modal lag of 869 days, which the authors note is inconsistent with 652 days, and they dismiss JAVELIN because the continuum is not a damped random walk. However, the discrepancy between the two methods indicates that the lag estimate is sensitive to the assumed form of the transfer function and the stochastic model, especially given that the light curve contains only a single broad continuum dip and that the fitted non-varying component in Section 7 accounts for ~68% of the [Fe VII] flux. The paper should either provide a more conservative interpretation (e.g., a lag in the range ~500–900 days rather than a specific 652-day value) or perform additional tests, such as a time-series analysis without the modal-lag assumption, to establish that the lag is not driven by the normalization artifacts described above.
  3. [Sections 6.2 and 8] The claim of 'strong evidence for stratification' in the Abstract and Section 8 rests on two pieces of evidence: the difference between the [Fe VII] and [Fe X] lags (652 days versus consistent with zero, with the distributions stated to be inconsistent at 97.8% confidence) and the factor-of-two difference in line widths. However, the [Fe X] flux measurements are heavily affected by blending with [O I] 6363 and by the choice of pseudo-continuum, which the authors themselves state changes the measured fluxes by ~25% (Section 3.2). The [Fe X] line-width values in Table 3 also show large run-to-run scatter (586 to 979 km/s) and are only marginally resolved. The persuasive power of the line-width comparison is limited by these systematics, and the predicted [Fe X] distance of 116 days relies on an assumption of virial motion and on a particular black hole mass and inclination. Given the large and unquantified systematic errors in the [Fe X] measurements, the stratification conclusion should be framed as suggestive rather than strong; the paper would benefit from a quantitative error budget for the [Fe X] fluxes and lags, including the effect of the [O I] subtraction uncertainty.
  4. [Section 7 and Figure 17] The responsivity analysis uses the 652-day lag to align the [Fe VII] and continuum light curves and then interprets the resulting correlation as supporting the lag, but this is a circular consistency check rather than an independent confirmation. The caption of Figure 17 states that '704 days' corresponds to the modal FR/RSS lag, while the text and Table 5 use 652 days; this inconsistency must be corrected. In addition, the linear response fit in Table 5 gives a slope k = 0.122 ± 0.123, which is consistent with zero, so the evidence for a positive responsivity slope is weak without the saturation model; the large chi-square values (3607 for the linear model, 1834 with saturation) suggest that the model is missing significant scatter, and the improvement in chi-square is presented without a formal model comparison (e.g., an F-test or AIC) or a discussion of the number of free parameters. The non-varying component c = 0.682 ± 0.067 is a robust conclusion, but the claims about saturation and the slope less than unity should be toned down or supported by a proper statistical comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 17 caption] The caption says '704 days' but the text and Table 5 refer to the modal lag as 652 days; please correct this numerical inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.2] The ratio [O I] 6363/6300 = 0.323 is quoted without a reference; please provide a citation for this value, as the ratio is used to subtract the blend.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] The mean velocities quoted in Tables 2 and 3 (330 km/s for [Fe VII] and 778 km/s for [Fe X]) do not match the simple averages of the listed values (which are approximately 371 km/s for [Fe VII] and 801 km/s for [Fe X]); please clarify how the mean and the instrumental-broadening correction were computed, or correct the values.
  4. [Section 5.1] The text notes that the error bars in Figure 9 do not fully capture the variance due to differences in resolution and other systematics; please consider adding a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty, for instance the ~10% scatter in [O III] 5007 that is mentioned in the text, to the light-curve plots or to the lag error analysis.
  5. [Section 6.1] The secondary peak at ~5000 days in the FR/RSS distribution is omitted; please specify its amplitude and provide a more explicit justification for the 2000-day cutoff, since the data set spans about 10,000 days.
  6. [Key words] The key word 'Transients' appears in the header but the paper is not about transients; consider replacing it with a more relevant term such as 'techniques: spectroscopic' or 'galaxies: Seyfert'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 652-day lag is measured by FR/RSS cross-correlation from observed light curves; later uses of the lag are explicitly illustrative consistency checks, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The central claim, a 652-day [Fe VII] lag, is derived directly from the observed [Fe VII] and F5100 light curves using the standard FR/RSS method (Section 6.1), with the lag as an output of the cross-correlation rather than an input. The [Fe X] lag is likewise measured independently (Section 6.2). The subsequent responsivity fit (Section 7) shifts F5100 by the already-measured 652-day lag and fits a linear/saturated model; this is a consistency check and characterization of the response, not a derivation of the lag. The Cloudy models in Section 8.2 place clouds at distances 'com[ing] from taking the lag distance of 652 light days' and the width-derived 116 light days, and the authors explicitly state 'these results are illustrative only, and are not proposed as actual predictions.' The stratification evidence rests on the measured lag distributions being inconsistent at 97.8% confidence and on measured line widths (Tables 2 and 3), which are independent of any model. The normalization against [O I] 6300 is an assumption that could introduce systematics, but it is not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its inputs by construction. Minor self-citations exist (the H23 dataset, K01, and the Kollatschny 2003 mass estimate), but none is load-bearing for the lag measurement; the lag would stand or fall on the light curves regardless of those citations. JAVELIN gives a different lag (869 days), and the authors caution against it rather than forcing consistency. Therefore no significant circularity is present; the paper is largely self-contained against external benchmarks, with a score of 2 reflecting only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on several standard assumptions of AGN reverberation mapping and on the normalization to [O I] 6300. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are in the responsivity and cloudy models, which the authors label as illustrative.

free parameters (4)
  • Responsivity slope k = 0.122 +/- 0.123 (linear); 0.783 +/- 0.092 (saturated)
    Fitted to the lag-corrected [Fe VII] versus F5100 relation in Section 7.
  • Non-varying component c = 0.682 +/- 0.067 (linear); 0.317 +/- 0.051 (saturated)
    Fitted offset representing constant [Fe VII] flux component in Section 7.
  • Saturating ionizing flux x_sat = 0.840 +/- 0.067
    Threshold in the saturated responsivity model (Eq. 1), fitted in Section 7.
  • Cloud boundary fraction for matter-limited models = 0.1
    Chosen by hand in Section 8.2 as 10% of the distance to the ionizing source; affects the density range where matter and radiation limited models diverge.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The [O I] 6300 Å line flux is constant over the observing baseline and across apertures, so it can normalize all spectra.
    Used to produce the normalized light curves in Figures 9 and 12; Section 5.1 notes narrow lines vary by about 10%, which is an estimate.
  • domain assumption The 5100 Å optical continuum is a faithful proxy for the EUV ionizing continuum that drives the coronal lines.
    The lag and responsivity are measured against F5100 from H23; see Section 5 and Section 6.
  • domain assumption Line widths reflect virialized orbital motion, so v^2 is proportional to r^-1.
    Used in Section 6.2 to scale the [Fe VII] lag to a predicted [Fe X] lag of 116 days.
  • domain assumption The [O I] 6363/6300 flux ratio is exactly 0.323 and any Si III 6371 contribution to the [Fe X] blend is small.
    Section 3.2; used to deblend [Fe X]. The paper checks for Si III but does not quantify residual contamination.
  • domain assumption Cloudy photoionization models with the default AGN SED reproduce the relative line fluxes closely enough to infer densities.
    Section 8.2; the authors state these models are illustrative and not predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long Term Reverberation Mapping of Iron Coronal Lines in MKN 110." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKOTHEQS

@misc{pith2026250604337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long Term Reverberation Mapping of Iron Coronal Lines in MKN 110},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKOTHEQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04337}
}
read the original abstract

We present flux measurements of the coronal lines [Fe VII] and [Fe X] spanning three decades, in the highly variable Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) MKN 110. These coronal lines are sensitive to the spectral energy distribution (SED) of AGNs in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV). Neither [Fe VII] nor [Fe X] demonstrates variability in the short term on a weekly or monthly timescale. However, by taking advantage of a long term decrease in the continuum flux of MKN 110 on the order of years, we were able to track the [Fe VII] and [Fe X] fluxes as they respond to the continuum. We were able to detect a lag for [Fe VII] relative to the continuum at 5100 {\AA}, with a modal lag of 652 days, but were unable to detect a significant lag in the [Fe x] flux, though there exist significant uncertainties in the [Fe X] fit. These two lag results are not consistent and the line widths for the two line species also do not match. This provides strong evidence for stratification within the coronal line region (CLR). There is also evidence of a non-varying component within the coronal line flux, probably a result of a more extended region of origin. Taken together, these results suggest a CLR where the bulk of the [Fe VII] originates on parsec scales, but a portion of the [Fe VII] flux originates further out, at or beyond a 10 pc scale. These results also indicate the limitations of single-cloud models in describing the physical conditions of the CLR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04337 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Demonstrating the process used for fitting both the telluric feature as well as the [Fe vii] emission in a sample spectrum (taken on MJD 51605). Here the pseudo-continuum has been subtracted from the observed spectrum. blending of other features of significant strengths. By fixing the ratio of [O i] 𝜆6300 Å and [O i] 𝜆6363 Å fluxes, and subtracting the latter from the total flux of the blend, we can obtain the stren… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The pseudo-continuum as well as the [O i] 𝜆6300 Å, [O i] 𝜆6363 Å and [Fe x] line fit compared against the observed spectrum for a sample spectrum (taken on MJD 51605). The pseudo-continuum shown includes the strongly rising blue wing of the H𝛼 line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. The [Fe VII] 𝜆5721 Å line in a sample spectrum (taken on MJD 51605), compared with the [Fe vii] line. The [Fe vii] line is shifted vertically, but not scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstrating the confirmation of [Fe x] emission, here using a stacked spectrum combined both FAST-RM1 and FAST-RM2 spectra. The top panel shows the fit, with the pseudo-continuum removed. The bottom panel shows the spectrum with the [O i] components subtracted. We hi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the [Ne v] emission line in a sample spectrum where the blue optical is available (taken on MJD 57539). −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 Wavelength (˚A) 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 Fλ (10−16 erg/s/cm2/˚A) [Fe VII] λ5721˚A [Fe VII] λ6087˚A [PITH_FU…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison of the distribution of [Fe vii], F5100, He ii and H𝛽 fluxes, all normalized to their respective values at MJD 47574. As K01 spans a short period of time, for this figure only, we have stacked the K01 data set to avoid the large number of similar fluxes di…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fitted fluxes for the [Fe vii] emission lines, and the errors from fitting. The F5100 flux measured in H23 is shown for comparison. All fluxes are normalized against the narrow [O i] 𝜆6300 Å line flux. However the fitting error does not cover the overall variance due t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Short term variability of the F5100 continuum, H𝛽, [Fe vii] and [Fe x] line fluxes from the K01 set of spectra. All fluxes are normalized against their respective values at MJD 47574 in keeping with H23. The lines are 7-epoch moving averages, included to demonstrate g…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fitted line fluxes for the [Ne v] emission line, along with the error from fitting. The F5100 flux measured in H23 is shown for comparison. The fitting error does not fully represent the total variance in the data. Each separate observing run is colour coded and label…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of Cross-Correlation Centroids using the FR/RSS method outlined in Peterson et al. (1998) for both [Fe vii] and [Fe x]. 100,000 light curves were sampled for both [Fe vii] and [Fe x]. The highlighted lags are 652 days, the [Fe vii] lag result; 116 days, t…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The fitted [Fe vii] fluxes versus the F5100 flux. All values are normalized against their values at MJD 47574. No corrections to take into account a lag are included. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 F5100 (Normalized) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 [Fe VII] flux 652 days in the future (Norm…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The fitted [Fe vii] flux corrected for lag versus the F5100 flux. For each date with [Fe vii] flux data, the F5100 flux 704 days ago was taken from the interpolated light curve. The 704 days corresponds to the modal FR/RSS lag. All values are normalized against their …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: [Fe vii] and [Fe x] fluxes as predicted by cloudy, normalized against the respective observed fluxes, for both matter and radiation limited models. The dashed lines represent the radiation limited cloudy models, and the solid lines represent the matter limited cloudy …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., R \'o \.z a \'n ska A., Czerny B., Hryniewicz K., Ferland G

    Adhikari T. P., R \'o \.z a \'n ska A., Czerny B., Hryniewicz K., Ferland G. J., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/68 , 831, 68

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/68 2016

  2. [2]

    L., Popovi \'c L

    Afanasiev V. L., Popovi \'c L. C ., Shapovalova A. I., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2995 , 482, 4985

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2995 2019

  3. [3]

    J., 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 250, 57

    Appenzeller I., Wagner S. J., 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 250, 57

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Bischoff K., Kollatschny W., 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 345, 49

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , 59, 327

    doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Osterbrock D

    De Robertis M. M., Osterbrock D. E., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/162585 , 286, 171

    work page doi:10.1086/162585 1984

  7. [7]

    Erkens U., Appenzeller I., Wagner S., 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 323, 707

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    W., Korista K

    Ferguson J. W., Korista K. T., Ferland G. J., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/312998 , 110, 287

    doi:10.1086/312998 1997

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    M., Mullaney J

    Gelbord J. M., Mullaney J. R., Ward M. J., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14961.x , 397, 172

    2009

  2. [10]

    C., Micheva G., Weilbacher P

    Herenz E. C., Micheva G., Weilbacher P. M., Monreal-Ibero A., Hayes M., Anders F., Rivinius T., 2023, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/acd69e , 7, 99

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Homan D., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3571 , 519, 1745

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Kollatschny W., 2003, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034611 , 412, L61

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Kollatschny W., Bischoff K., 2002, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020388 , 386, L19

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Welsh W

    Kollatschny W., Bischoff K., Robinson E. L., Welsh W. F., Hill G. J., 2001, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011323 , 379, 125

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    Komossa S., et al., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/588281 , 678, L13

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Ferland G

    Kynoch D., Landt H., Dehghanian M., Ward M. J., Ferland G. J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2443 , 516, 4397

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Lamperti I., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx055 , 467, 540

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Ward M

    Landt H., Bentz M. C., Ward M. J., Elvis M., Peterson B. M., Korista K. T., Karovska M., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/522373 , 174, 282

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Bentz M

    Landt H., Elvis M., Ward M. J., Bentz M. C., Korista K. T., Karovska M., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18383.x , 414, 218

    2011

  12. [20]

    J., Steenbrugge K

    Landt H., Ward M. J., Steenbrugge K. C., Ferland G. J., 2015a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv062 , 449, 3795

    doi

  13. [21]

    J., Steenbrugge K

    Landt H., Ward M. J., Steenbrugge K. C., Ferland G. J., 2015b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2176 , 454, 3688

    doi

  14. [22]

    Lawrence A., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20889.x , 423, 451

    2012

  15. [23]

    Mazzalay X., Rodr \'i guez-Ardila A., Komossa S., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16533.x , 405, 1315

    2010

  16. [24]

    D., Satyapal S., Laor A., Abel N

    McKaig J. D., Satyapal S., Laor A., Abel N. P., Doan S. M., Ricci C., Cann J. M., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a7910.1134/S1063772908070020 , 976, 130

    2024

  17. [25]

    Meyer-Hofmeister E., Meyer F., 2011, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015478 , 527, A127

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Ward M

    Mullaney J. R., Ward M. J., Done C., Ferland G. J., Schurch N., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00599.x , 394, L16

    2009

  19. [27]

    M \"u ller-S \'a nchez F., Hicks E. K. S., Malkan M., Davies R., Yu P. C., Shaver S., Davis B., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9ad , 858, 48

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Murayama T., Taniguchi Y., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/311264 , 497, L9

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    M., S \'a nchez F

    Negus J., Comerford J. M., S \'a nchez F. M., Revalski M., Riffel R. A., Bundy K., Nevin R., Rembold S. B., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb772 , 945, 127

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Sargent W

    Oke J. B., Sargent W. L. W., 1968, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/149486 , 151, 807

    1968 doi

  23. [31]

    Oliva E., Salvati M., Moorwood A. F. M., Marconi A., 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 288, 457

    1994

  24. [32]

    A., Ferrarese L., Merritt D., Peterson B

    Onken C. A., Ferrarese L., Merritt D., Peterson B. M., Pogge R. W., Vestergaard M., Wandel A., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/424655 , 615, 645

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    Onori F., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints

    2022

  26. [34]

    V., Fosbury R

    Penston M. V., Fosbury R. A. E., Boksenberg A., Ward M. J., Wilson A. S., 1984, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/208.2.347 , 208, 347

    1984 doi

  27. [35]

    Perez E., Robinson A., de La Fuente L., 1992, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/256.1.103 , 256, 103

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Wanders I., Horne K., Collier S., Alexander T., Kaspi S., Maoz D., 1998, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316177 , 110, 660

    Peterson B. M., Wanders I., Horne K., Collier S., Alexander T., Kaspi S., Maoz D., 1998, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316177 , 110, 660

    1998 doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423269 , 613, 682

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423269 , 613, 682

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    O., Doan S

    Reefe M., Satyapal S., Sexton R. O., Doan S. M., Secrest N. J., Cann J. M., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8981 , 936, 140

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab901b , 895, L9

    Rodr \'i guez-Ardila A., Fonseca-Faria M. A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab901b , 895, L9

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    M., 2004, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921304002273 , 222, 283

    Rodr \'i guez-Ardila A., Prieto A., Viegas S. M., 2004, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921304002273 , 222, 283

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Viegas S., Gruenwald R., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508864 , 653, 1098

    Rodr \'i guez-Ardila A., Prieto M. A., Viegas S., Gruenwald R., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508864 , 653, 1098

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Portilla J

    Rodr \'i guez-Ardila A., Prieto M. A., Portilla J. G., Tejeiro J. M., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/100 , 743, 100

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    N., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv113 , 448, 2900

    Rose M., Elvis M., Tadhunter C. N., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv113 , 448, 2900

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Short P., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2270 , 525, 1568

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Veilleux S., 1988, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/114766 , 95, 1695

    1988 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1033 , 504, 4337

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1033 , 504, 4337

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    M., McHardy I., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J

    Vincentelli F. M., McHardy I., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J. V., Cackett E. M., Gelbord J., Horne K., Miller J. A., Lobban A., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac009 , 512, L33

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Webb W., Malkan M., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/309341 , 540, 652

    2000 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Peterson B

    Zu Y., Kochanek C. S., Peterson B. M., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80 , 735, 80

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.