Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Echo mapping of the black hole accretion flow in NGC 7469

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Measured black hole disc lags arrive three times too late, pointing to a larger, hotter accretion disc in NGC 7469.

desk verdict The RM data are excellent, but the headline 3x lag excess collapses to a null result once you use the paper's own mdot and X=5; still worth refereeing after a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06731 v1 pith:FOIPWGU3 submitted 2025-06-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Raj Prince , Juan V. Hernández Santisteban , Keith Horne , J. Gelbord , Ian McHardy , R. Edelson , C.A. Onken , F.R. Donnan
show 15 more authors
M. Vestergaard S. Kaspi H. Winkler E. M. Cackett H. Landt A.J. Barth T. Treu S. Valenti P. Lira D. Chelouche E. Romero Colmenero M.R. Goad D. H. Gonzalez-Buitrago E. Kara C. Villforth
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords reverberationmappingaccretiondiscNGC7469activegalacticnucleiinter-bandlagsbroad-lineregiondustyoutflowSeyfertgalaxy
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

An intensive 250-day campaign combining sub-day-cadence seven-band ground-based photometry with weekly X-ray and UV satellite monitoring of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7469 measures inter-band lags of about 1.5 days from UV to optical. The lags follow the $\tau\propto\lambda^{4/3}$ law expected for a steady thin accretion disc, but with a normalization three times larger than standard disc theory predicts, while the variable disc SED is close to $f_\nu\propto\nu^{1/3}$. The paper argues that standard flat blackbody reprocessing cannot explain this combination, and explores two modifications that can: a low-spin relativistic disc with a color-temperature boost $f_{\rm col}\approx1.8$, and a blackbody 'Bowl' disc whose steep outer rim sits near the dust sublimation temperature and raises optical lags. If the paper is right, the disc of NGC 7469 is larger at every wavelength and hotter at every radius than the standard model allows, with dust opacity at the inner broad-line region shaping the outer disc.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the measured delay spectrum $\tau(\lambda)=\tau_0[(\lambda/\lambda_0)^{4/3}-1]+y_0$, built from a simultaneous multi-band light-curve model in which every band shares one normalised variability shape but has its own delay, mean flux, and rms amplitude. A flux-flux analysis decomposes each band into a constant host-galaxy SED and a variable AGN-disc SED. The comparison to theory runs through the standard disc-size conversion (Eq. 3), which turns the fitted $\tau_0\approx1$ day into a radius using a dimensionless parameter $X$; the paper adopts $X=2.5$ (flux-weighted radius) and notes that $X\approx5$ (response-weighted) would reduce the discrepancy from a factor of three to about 50%. In the Bowl model the central mechanism is the steep outer rim: its inward-tilted face intercepts lamp-post irradiation, heats to roughly 3000 K, and produces U-shaped delay maps at optical wavelengths that raise the lags without changing the UV.

What would settle it

Fit the existing multi-band light curves with a finite-width, skewed delay distribution instead of a delta function. If the recovered optical delay distributions are broad and centred near the response-weighted radius ($X\approx5$), the factor-of-three discrepancy shrinks toward 50%; a narrow distribution centred at the flux-weighted radius ($X\approx2.5$) would confirm the discrepancy. A sub-day-cadence near-infrared campaign would sharpen the test: the Bowl model predicts a steep rise and U-shaped delay structure from the rim at 5 to 10 light days, whereas a flat disc predicts a smooth $\lambda^{4/3}$ continuation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the measured inter-band lags of NGC 7469 are consistent with $\tau\propto\lambda^{4/3}$, as expected for a geometrically thin, optically thick steady-state accretion disc with $T\propto R^{-3/4}$, but are about three times larger than the predicted normalization for a $9\times10^6\,M_\odot$ black hole. The variable disc SED is simultaneously close to $f_\nu\propto\nu^{1/3}$, so the spectral shape is standard while the size at each wavelength is not. The paper shows two self-consistent resolutions: a relativistic lamp-post model with low spin requires a disc color-temperature boost $f_{\rm col}\approx1.8$ to match lags and SED together, which the authors read as another way of stating that the disc is hotter than the standard model; and a blackbody Bowl model with $f_{\rm col}=1$ and a flat inner disc plus a steep outer rim at $R_{\rm out}/c\approx5$--$10$ days, $H/R<1\%$, near the $\sim10^3$ K dust sublimation temperature, fits both the SEDs and the lags, with the rim raising optical lags through reprocessing on its inward-tilted face. Excess lags and fluxes in the $u$ and $r$ bands indicate 10 to 20 percent Balmer continuum and H$\alpha$ contributions from the broad-line region.

Load-bearing premise

The size of the claimed discrepancy rests on the adopted value of X, the dimensionless factor that converts a wavelength to a disc radius; the paper uses X=2.5 (flux-weighted), where the lags are three times too large, but notes X=5.0 (response-weighted) cuts the discrepancy to 50%, and nothing in the data fixes X independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard flat-disc model under-predicts the size of the NGC 7469 disc at each wavelength, so any successful model must enlarge the effective reprocessing surface or add broad-line-region contamination.
  • Fitting lags and SED together with the relativistic lamp-post model rules out the maximally spinning black hole with $f_{\rm col}\approx1.1$: that combination needs an order-of-magnitude higher accretion rate for the lags than the SED allows.
  • The Bowl model places the outer rim at $R_{\rm out}\approx5$--$10$ light days, near the $10^3$ K dust sublimation temperature, so the lag data directly support dust-opacity thickening or failed dusty outflows at the inner edge of the broad-line region.
  • The excess $u$- and $r$-band lags and fluxes imply the broad-line region contributes roughly 10 to 20 percent of the variable light in those bands, so continuum reverberation models that ignore diffuse BLR emission will overestimate the disc size.
  • The published lag and SED tables provide a direct testbed for combined disc-plus-BLR reverberation models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the response-weighted $X\approx5$ interpretation is right, the 'discs are too big' problem for AGN in general may be much weaker than the factor of 2 to 4 often quoted, because mean-lag fits with $X=2.5$ exaggerate the excess.
  • Extension: the dust-sublimation rim predicts optical lags that scale with the sublimation radius, roughly as $L^{1/2}$; comparing reverberation-mapped AGN over a range of luminosities would test whether the rim radius is set by dust rather than by accretion rate.
  • Extension: the rarely seen $r$-band excess implies H$\alpha$ contamination may affect redder lag measurements in other sources, so re-fitting existing lag spectra with line-affected bands excluded could shrink previously reported disc sizes.
  • Extension: a finite-width delay-distribution fit to these same light curves would directly measure whether $X\approx5$ is supported; if it is, the factor-of-three headline would need revision, not the data.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a 257-day, sub-day-cadence optical/UV reverberation-mapping campaign on NGC 7469 using LCO and Swift, with the goal of measuring inter-band continuum lags and the variable accretion-disc SED. The authors report inter-band lags of order 1.5 days, a disc SED close to f_nu ∝ nu^{1/3}, and a lag spectrum that they argue is consistent with tau ∝ lambda^{4/3} but roughly three times larger than standard thin-disc predictions. They then interpret this discrepancy with two classes of models: a relativistic lamp-post disc model (KYNSED/Kammoun-type) requiring a color-temperature correction f_col ~ 1.8, and a 'Bowl' model with a flat disc plus a steep outer rim located near the dust-sublimation temperature, which they connect to FRADO/BLR-launching scenarios. They also identify excess lags and SED fluxes in the u and r bands, attributed to Balmer continuum and H-alpha emission.

Significance. If the headline claim were robust, the paper would strengthen the existing evidence that accretion discs inferred from continuum reverberation are larger/hotter at each radius than standard thin-disc predictions, and the Bowl model would provide a concrete geometric explanation tied to dust-opacity rim formation. The observational products are valuable: the inter-calibrated LCO/Swift light curves, the PyROA/PyCCF lag comparison, and the flux-flux SED decomposition provide community-useful constraints, and the lag and SED tables can be used by other modeling efforts. The paper is also exemplary in stating many of its own limitations, especially regarding the delta-function delay distribution and the simplified Bowl geometry. However, as detailed below, the central normalization claim depends on a mis-stated accretion rate and on the poorly constrained X factor, so the significance of the paper in its current form is substantially weakened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (3), Fig. 8] The central claim that the observed lags are 'three times larger than expected' is not robust because the prediction in Eq. (3) is evaluated with an internally inconsistent accretion rate. The text states that mdot_Edd = 0.15 is used, described as the average of the spin 0 and spin 1 models in Table 3, but Table 3 reports mdot_Edd = 0.23 and 0.24; the average is 0.235, not 0.15. Since Eq. (3) scales as X^(4/3) * mdot^(1/3), the combination of the response-weighted value X = 5 (which the paper itself cites as plausible) and the correct mdot gives a predicted tau0 = 0.83 d * (0.235/0.15)^(1/3) = 0.96 d, compared with the measured tau0 = 1.05 +/- 0.08 d. The 'factor of three' excess then disappears, and the data are consistent with the standard thin-disc prediction at about 1 sigma. The paper must correct the mdot value, present both X choices with the correct mdot, and either provide an independent constraint on X for NGC 7469 or substantially soften the abstract/conclusion claims.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (2), Table 4] The fit of the lag spectrum is formally rejected for the full data set: chi^2/dof = 221/12 = 18.4, p < 0.0001. The acceptable chi^2/dof = 1.46 is achieved only after excluding the u and r bands. The abstract states that the lags are 'consistent with tau ∝ lambda^{4/3}' without this caveat, and the slope alpha is fixed to 4/3 rather than fitted. The paper should state explicitly that the slope is assumed, that two physically motivated outliers are excluded to obtain an acceptable normalization fit, and ideally report a fit with alpha free so that the wavelength-dependence claim is actually tested.
  3. [Sec. 6 vs Table 3 and Sec. 4.1] The summary section lists SED-fit parameters that are not those reported in Table 3: it gives inclination 65 or 41 degrees, accretion rate 16 or 13% Eddington, corona height 25 or 41 R_g, and coronal power 75 or 90%, whereas Table 3 and Sec. 4.1 report inclination ~15 degrees for both spins, mdot = 0.23 and 0.24, and corona height 46 and 27 R_g. This is a direct internal contradiction in a section that is meant to summarize the paper's results. It also undermines confidence in the mdot value used in the lag prediction. The authors must correct the summary and check that every reported parameter in the conclusions matches the tables.
  4. [Sec. 5.3, Table 6] The text and abstract state that the Bowl-model rim is 'not tall, H/R < 1%', but Table 6 lists H_out/R_out = 0.0276, i.e., 2.76%. This is more than a factor of two discrepancy and should be reconciled, since the shallow-rim property is part of the model's physical interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.3] The claim that the rim temperature of ~1000-1500 K 'supports' dust-opacity thickening/FRADO should be phrased more cautiously: R_out and Mdot are fitted to the lag and SED data, so the rim temperature is an output of the fit rather than an independent prediction. The authors partly acknowledge this, but the abstract and conclusions present it as support.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption contains a garbled expression '0 (( / 0)4/3 - 1) + y0', which appears to be a typesetting error for the model tau = tau0[(lambda/lambda0)^(4/3) - 1] + y0. Please fix the LaTeX.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The statement that the model light curve turns up at the final epoch 'probably not real' while retaining that epoch is a minor robustness concern; the authors should quantify how the lags change if that epoch is removed, or omit it.
  4. [Table 1] The Swift Bs lag (-0.96 +/- 0.30 d) is 2.8 sigma below the LCO B lag and is retained in the lag-spectrum fit as an unexplained outlier; the paper notes this, but a robustness test of the power-law fit with Bs removed would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: lag measurements and SED inputs are independent, and the factor-of-three headline is a parameter-sensitivity issue rather than a tautology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The inter-band lags are measured by fitting the light curves with PyROA (Section 3) using a delay model that is independent of disc theory, and the resulting lag spectrum is compared against standard thin-disc predictions. The theoretical normalization in Eq. (3) uses the accretion rate from the KYNSED SED fit (Table 3) and the black hole mass from Bentz & Katz (2015), not quantities fitted to the lags; therefore the comparison is not self-referential. The X factor in Eq. (3) is admittedly unconstrained, and the paper itself states that X=5 reduces the claimed excess from a factor of 3 to 50%. Moreover, the paper states it adopts mdot_Edd = 0.15, whereas Table 3 lists 0.23 and 0.24; using the tabulated values together with X=5 would remove most of the excess. This is an internal-consistency and sensitivity problem for the headline quantitative claim, but it is not a circular reduction: the prediction is not defined in terms of the observed lags. The Bowl model fits a steep rim to the lag data, and the fact that the rim temperature lands near dust sublimation is a posterior interpretive check, not an input used to force the fit; likewise the fcol values are constrained from the SED and then checked against lag constraints, rather than being derived from the lags alone. Self-citations (PyROA, Donnan et al.; Bowl model, Starkey et al.) are methodological and are not used to import an unverified uniqueness theorem; PyROA is independently cross-checked against PyCCF in Appendix A. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The free parameters are dominated by SED-fit quantities (mdot, f_col, corona height, inclination) and Bowl-model geometric parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the steep rim is a model geometry rather than a new component. The X factor is a hand-chosen constant that materially affects the headline discrepancy.

free parameters (8)
  • X factor = 2.5 (alternative 5.0)
    Chosen dimensionless factor in Eq. (3) connecting wavelength to disc radius. The factor-of-three discrepancy depends on this choice; X=5 gives only a 50% discrepancy.
  • mdot_Edd for lag prediction = 0.15 (average of SED fits; SED fits give 0.23/0.24)
    Accretion rate used in Eq. (3) to predict the lag scale; taken as the average of spin 0 and spin 1 SED fits from Table 3.
  • Color correction factor f_col = 1.82 ± 0.07 (spin 0), 1.06 ± 0.10 (spin 1)
    Fitted to the broadband SED with KYNSED and then used in the lag model. The value 1.8 is central to the relativistic disc interpretation.
  • Corona height h = 46 Rg (spin 0), 27 Rg (spin 1)
    Fitted to the SED with KYNSED, and later compared with lag-fit constraints.
  • Disc inclination i = 14.9 deg (spin 0), 15.0 deg (spin 1)
    Fitted to the SED; the Bowl model fixes i = 15 deg.
  • Bowl outer rim radius R_out = 7.23 light days
    Fitted in the Bowl model to match the optical lags; central to the dusty-rim interpretation.
  • Bowl rim aspect ratio H_out/R_out = 0.0276
    Fitted in the Bowl model; the rim is steep but low, allowing irradiation to pass over it.
  • Bowl noise parameters sigma_0, sigma_tau = 8.5%, 0.32 day
    Fitted noise terms added in quadrature to SED and lag uncertainties; they soften the constraints and improve the apparent fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard thin accretion disc temperature profile T ∝ R^(-3/4) (Shakura-Sunyaev) is the correct baseline for the lag spectrum.
    Used in Eq. (3) and throughout Section 5.1 to compute the expected lag-wavelength relation.
  • domain assumption UV/optical variability is dominated by thermal reprocessing of a central irradiating source by the disc surface.
    Adopted in the KYNSED and Bowl models; alternative variability mechanisms are not considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The inter-band delay distribution can be approximated as a delta function in the PyROA model.
    Acknowledged in Section 3.1; finite-width delays are neglected, which could bias the measured lags.
  • domain assumption The X-ray corona can be treated as an isotropic point source on the rotation axis (lamp-post geometry).
    Used in both KYNSED and Bowl models; the Bowl model also uses a second lamp below the plane.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bowl model geometry, a flat disc with a steep outer rim parameterized by H ∝ R^β with β = 100, is a valid description.
    The steep rim is introduced to fit the optical lags; there is no direct observational evidence for this geometry.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy contribution can be anchored by extrapolating the flux-flux relation to X_g where UVW2 flux is 1 sigma above zero.
    Section 3.4; the paper notes the starburst ring may violate this convention, shifting the host/disc decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Echo mapping of the black hole accretion flow in NGC 7469." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOIPWGU3

@misc{pith2026250606731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Echo mapping of the black hole accretion flow in NGC 7469},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOIPWGU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06731}
}
abstract

Reverberation mapping (RM) can measure black hole accretion disc sizes and radial structure through observed time lags that should increase with wavelength as $\tau\propto\lambda^{4/3}$. Our 250-day RM campaign on NGC 7469 combines sub-day cadence 7-band photometry from the Las Cumbres Observatory robotic telescopes and weekly X-ray and UVOT data from Swift. By fitting these light curves, we measure the spectral energy distribution of the variable accretion disc and inter-band lags of just 1.5 days across the UV to the optical range. The disc SED is close to the expected $f_\nu\propto\nu^{1/3}$, and the lags are consistent with $\tau\propto \lambda^{4/3}$, but three times larger than expected. We consider several possible modifications to standard disc assumptions. First, for a $9\times10^6$ M$_\odot$ black hole and 2 possible spins $a^\star=(0,1)$, we fit the X-ray-UV-optical SED with a compact relativistic corona at height $H_x=(46,27)R_g$ irradiating a flat disc with accretion rate $\dot{m}_{Edd}\sim(0.23,0.24)$ inclined to the line of sight by $i<20^\circ$. To fit the lags as well as the SED, this model requires a low spin $a^\star=0$ and boosts disc color temperatures by a factor $f_{col}=1.8$, which shifts reprocessed light to shorter wavelengths. Our Bowl model with $f_{col}=1$ neglects relativity near the black hole but fits the UV-optical lags and SEDs using a flat disc with $\dot{m}_{Edd}<0.06$ and a steep outer rim at $R_{out}/c\sim5-10$ days with H/R<1%. This rim occurs near the $10^3$K dust sublimation temperature in the disc atmosphere, supporting models that invoke dust opacity to thicken the disc and launch failed radiatively-driven dusty outflows at the inner edge of the broad line region (BLR). Finally, the disc lags and SEDs exhibit a significant excess in the $u$ and $r$ bands, suggesting the Balmer continuum and H$\alpha$ emission, respectively, from the BLR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Combined HST image of NGC 7469 using archival data for the following filters: F660N (red), F547M (green), and F336W (blue). The LCO and Swift 5 ′′ radius aperture is shown as the black dashed line. Bottom: HST image from Mehdipour et al. (2018) showing the starburst ring well inside the 5′′ radius aperture. 2.1.1 Inter-telescope calibration The LCO light curves are measured from CCD images obtained with nine 1-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The inter-calibrated LCO light curves for NGC 7469 in 7 broadband filters (𝑢, 𝐵, 𝑔, 𝑉, 𝑟, 𝑖, 𝑧𝑠). The 𝑟 and 𝑧𝑆 light curves are shifted down by 5 mJy for clarity. The object is also monitored spectroscopically using a low-resolution spectrograph and the epochs at which FLOYDS spectra were taken are marked as black vertical lines along the top edge, but the FLOYDS data are not used in this work. 0 5 10 15 F [ m J y ]… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Swift UVOT and XRT light curves, shown in the upper and lower panels, respectively, for periods overlapping with the LCO light curves in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simultaneous PyROA fit to LCO light curves in all 7 photometric bands. Each light curve panel shows data (color-coded error bars) and the best-fit model light curve (solid black curve) with its 1𝜎 uncertainty envelope (grey band). All fluxes are in mJy. The subpanel be…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PyROA fits to all the 13 light curves, the weekly cadence Swift light curves in 3 UV bands (W2, M2, W1) and 3 optical bands (Us, Bs, Vs) and the sub-day cadence 7-band LCO light curves (𝑢, 𝐵, 𝑔, 𝑉, 𝑟, 𝑖, 𝑧𝑠). The panel format is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The broadband averaged SED of NGC 7469 is fitted with the KYNSED model in xspec. The left panel shows the case when spin is fixed to a minimum value ∼0 and the right panel represents the case when spin is fixed to a maximum value 1. The optical data points are the aver…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The lag spectrum 𝜏 (𝜆) derived from the measured time delays across the wavebands relative to the 𝑔 band. The black data points are the Swift observations and the colored ones are LCO’s. The squares represent the 𝑢 and 𝑟 band excess. The time-lag data are fitted with 𝜏…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The observed lag spectrum of NGC 7469 is modeled with the Kammoun et al. (2021, 2023) parametrization of lag predictions for an isotropic lamp-post irradiating a thin accretion disc, with realistic X-ray reflection and full treatment of relativity effects in the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Constraints on the lamp post height 𝐻𝑥 and accretion rate 𝑚¤ Edd in Eddington units for the Kammoun et al. (2021, 2023) model, which features a compact isotropic lamp post model of the X-ray corona, fully relativistic light propagation near the black hole, and realist…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results of fitting the SED and lag spectra for spin 0 (left column) and spin 1 (right column). Three cases shown are the SED fit (black), and lag fits with lamp height free (red) and fixed (blue). The results shown are for grids of fixed values of the disc colour temp…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bowl model fits to the disc SED and inter-band lag data for NGC 7469. The faint and bright disc SED data (a) and the inter-band lags (b) are compared with a blackbody reprocessing model for a thin disc, with a bowl-shaped power-law 𝐻 (𝑅) ∝ 𝑅 𝛽 profile, irradiated by a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Delay maps Ψ(𝜏|𝜆), showing the time delay distribution of the response to changes in lamp-post luminosity, for the Bowl model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Armus L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acac66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..37A 942, L37

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acac66 2023

  2. [2]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, , 558, A33

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Baskin A., Laor A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1970B 474, 1970

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2850 2018

  5. [5]

    H., Tueller J., Markwardt C

    Baumgartner W. H., Tueller J., Markwardt C. B., Skinner G. K., Barthelmy S., Mushotzky R. F., Evans P. A., Gehrels N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..207...19B 207, 19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19 2013

  6. [6]

    C., Katz S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/679601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127...67B 127, 67

    Bentz M. C., Katz S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/679601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127...67B 127, 67

    doi:10.1086/679601 2015

  7. [7]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255..419B 255, 419

    doi:10.1086/159843 1982

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    Brown T. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Horne K., Winkler H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12098.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..669C 380, 669

    Cackett E. M., Horne K., Winkler H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12098.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..669C 380, 669

    2007

  4. [12]

    M., Chiang C.-Y., McHardy I., Edelson R., Goad M

    Cackett E. M., Chiang C.-Y., McHardy I., Edelson R., Goad M. R., Horne K., Korista K. T., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab4f7 , 857, 53

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5 , 896, 1

    Cackett E. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5 , 896, 1

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfdac , 958, 195

    Cackett E. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfdac , 958, 195

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Chelouche D., Pozo Nu \ n ez F., Kaspi S., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..251C 3, 251

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..162C 500, 162

    Collier S. J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..162C 500, 162

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    arXiv:2302.12917

    Combes F., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230212917C p. arXiv:2302.12917

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Czerny B., Hryniewicz K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...525L...8C 525, L8

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Knapen J

    D \' az-Santos T., Alonso-Herrero A., Colina L., Ryder S. D., Knapen J. H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..149D 661, 149

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Jin C., Blaes O., Ward M., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x , 420, 1848

    Done C., Davis S. W., Jin C., Blaes O., Ward M., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x , 420, 1848

    2012

  13. [21]

    R., Horne K., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J

    Donnan F. R., Horne K., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J. V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5449D 508, 5449

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..545D 523, 545

    Donnan F. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..545D 523, 545

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Kammoun E

    Dov c iak M., Papadakis I. E., Kammoun E. S., Zhang W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A.135D 661, A135

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Edelson R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..129E 806, 129

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Edelson R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...41E 840, 41

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Edelson R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..123E 870, 123

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    Evans P. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    2009

  20. [28]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration Akiyama K., Alberdi A., Alef W., Asada K., Azulay R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875L...1E 875, L1

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930L..12E 930, L12

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...56F 821, 56

    Fausnaugh M. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...56F 821, 56

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa2b , 854, 107

    Fausnaugh M. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa2b , 854, 107

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....7F 251, 7

    Flewelling H. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....7F 251, 7

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JOSS....1...24F 1, 24

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Gardner E., Done C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx946 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3591G 470, 3591

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx094 , 467, 226

    Gaskell C. M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx094 , 467, 226

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Wang S., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220706432G p

    Guo H., Barth A. J., Wang S., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220706432G p. arXiv:2207.06432

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Haardt F., Maraschi L., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380L..51H 380, L51

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Levine S., Terrell D., Welch D

    Henden A. A., Levine S., Terrell D., Welch D. L., Munari U., Kloppenborg B. K., 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#232. p. 223.06

    2018

  33. [41]

    V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5399H 498, 5399

    Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J. V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5399H 498, 5399

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering , 9, 90

    2007

  35. [43]

    K., Prince R., Panda S., Czerny B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.147J 670, A147

    Jaiswal V. K., Prince R., Panda S., Czerny B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.147J 670, A147

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    S., Papadakis I

    Kammoun E. S., Papadakis I. E., Dov c iak M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879L..24K 879, L24

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Papadakis I

    Kammoun E. S., Papadakis I. E., Dovčiak M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab725 , 503, 4163

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    S., Robin L., Papadakis I

    Kammoun E. S., Robin L., Papadakis I. E., Dovčiak M., Panagiotou C., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2701 , 526, 138

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    T., Goad M

    Korista K. T., Goad M. R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..695K 553, 695

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    T., Goad M

    Korista K. T., Goad M. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5284K 489, 5284

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    Kubota A., Done C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1247K 480, 1247

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Landt H., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1256088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1056088L 10, 1256088

    2023

  44. [52]

    R., Korista K

    Lawther D., Goad M. R., Korista K. T., Ulrich O., Vestergaard M., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2242 , 481, 533

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    D., Done C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5126M 491, 5126

    Mahmoud R. D., Done C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5126M 491, 5126

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1469M 444, 1469

    McHardy I. M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1469M 444, 1469

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2881M 480, 2881

    McHardy I. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2881M 480, 2881

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Mehdipour M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832604 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..72M 615, A72

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    B., Jiang J., Liu H., Riaz S., Shashank S., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a63 , 976, 229

    Mirzaev T., Bambi C., Abdikamalov A. B., Jiang J., Liu H., Riaz S., Shashank S., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a63 , 976, 229

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    A., George I

    Nandra K., Clavel J., Edelson R. A., George I. M., Malkan M. A., Mushotzky R. F., Peterson B. M., Turner T. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...505..594N 505, 594

    1998 doi

  51. [60]

    Netzer H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2637N 509, 2637

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    M., Vincentelli F., Cackett E., Peterson B

    Pahari M., McHardy I. M., Vincentelli F., Cackett E., Peterson B. M., Goad M., G \"u ltekin K., Horne K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4057P 494, 4057

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    Pal M., Naik S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5351P 474, 5351

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183..253P 183, 253

    Peterson B. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-9987-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183..253P 183, 253

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    2004 doi

  56. [65]

    Roming P. W. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120...95R 120, 95

    2005 doi

  57. [66]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  58. [67]

    K., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97...28S 97, 28

    Seyfert C. K., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97...28S 97, 28

    1943 doi

  59. [68]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  60. [69]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    arXiv:2305.01014

    Shen Y., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.01014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230501014S p. arXiv:2305.01014

    2023 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    Shimura T., Takahara F., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445..780S 445, 780

    1995 doi

  63. [72]

    M., Haynes M

    Springob C. M., Haynes M. P., Giovanelli R., Kent B. R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..160..149S 160, 149

    2005 doi

  64. [73]

    A., Huang J., Horne K., Lin D

    Starkey D. A., Huang J., Horne K., Lin D. N. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2754S 519, 2754

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    J., Peterson B

    Sun M., Grier C. J., Peterson B. M., 2018, PyCCF: Python Cross Correlation Function for reverberation mapping studies ( @eprint ascl 1805.032 )

    2018

  66. [75]

    Sun M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902....7S 902, 7

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    S., Kochanek C

    Tie S. S., Kochanek C. S., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2348 , 473, 80

    2017 doi

  68. [77]

    M., Bentz M

    Troyer J., Starkey D., Cackett E. M., Bentz M. C., Goad M. R., Horne K., Seals J. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4040T 456, 4040

    2016 doi

  69. [78]

    Wanders I., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJS..113...69W 113, 69

    1997 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Peterson B

    White R. J., Peterson B. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PASP..106..879W 106, 879

    1994 doi

Pith tools

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