Standardizing a larger, higher-quality, homogeneous sample of reverberation-mapped H$\beta$ active galactic nuclei using the broad-line region radius-luminosity relation

Amit Kumar Mandal; Bharat Ratra; Michal Zaja\v{c}ek; Shulei Cao

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 184 references

Standardizing a larger, higher-quality, homogeneous sample of reverberation-mapped H$\beta$ active galactic nuclei using the broad-line region radius-luminosity relation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 157-source AGN sample standardizes via the Hβ radius–luminosity relation.

desk verdict Bigger, cleaner Hβ RM sample gives a flatter R-L slope and a mild Eddington-ratio trend, but the standardizability claim is undercut by a nearly cosmology-insensitive test. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17422 v2 pith:AYLBD6WS submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th

Shulei Cao , Amit Kumar Mandal , Michal Zajaček , Bharat Ratra This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th

keywords activegalacticnucleireverberationmappingbroad-lineregionradius-luminosityrelationstandardizabledistanceindicatorsEddingtonratioHβemissionlinecosmologicalparameterconstraints

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 assembles a homogeneous sample of 157 Hβ reverberation-mapped active galactic nuclei (AGN)—galaxies whose accreting supermassive black holes power broad emission lines—about 3.8 times larger than the previous high-quality homogeneous sample, and asks whether the broad-line region radius–luminosity ($R$–$L$) relation can standardize them as cosmological distance indicators. Fitting the $R$–$L$ relation and cosmological parameters simultaneously in six flat and nonflat dark-energy models, it finds that the relation's slope, intercept, and intrinsic scatter vary by at most 0.06σ to 0.53σ across models. That near-invariance is the paper's evidence that the sample is standardizable. The inferred slope, $\gamma = 0.428 \pm 0.025$ in flat $\Lambda$CDM, is flatter than the photoionization expectation of 0.5 and flatter than the slope from the earlier 41-source sample, an effect attributed to the larger number of high-accreting sources. A mild dependence of the relation on Eddington ratio is also found, so the authors caution that a yet larger sample spanning a wider range of luminosities and Eddington ratios is needed to confirm the result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the broad-line region radius–luminosity relation, written as $\log(\tau_{\rm H\beta}/{\rm day}) = \beta + \gamma \log(L_{5100}/10^{44}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}})$, where $\tau_{\rm H\beta}$ is the rest-frame Hβ time delay and $L_{5100}$ is the monochromatic luminosity at 5100 Å derived from the flux and the cosmological luminosity distance. The argument works by fitting $\beta$, $\gamma$, and an intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{\rm int}$ simultaneously with the parameters of six flat and nonflat $\Lambda$CDM, XCDM, and $\phi$CDM models; if the $R$–$L$ parameters are insensitive to which cosmology is assumed, the relation can serve as a standardizable distance indicator without circularity. The likelihood includes $\sigma_{\rm int}$ as a free Gaussian scatter added to the measurement errors, and asymmetric lag errors are folded in through the total variance in Eq. (12).

What would settle it

Refit the $R$–$L$ relation after keeping only one observation per AGN; if the slope, intercept, or intrinsic scatter shifts by more than the quoted uncertainties, the independent-point assumption fails. Alternatively, split the sample by luminosity at fixed Eddington ratio: a slope change larger than $\sim0.025$ would indicate that the standardization is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Hβ mono reverberation-mapping dataset of 157 measurements is standardizable through the $R$–$L$ relation: when the intercept $\beta$, slope $\gamma$, and intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{\rm int}$ are fitted simultaneously with the cosmological parameters of six models, the $R$–$L$ parameters stay essentially fixed. In the flat $\Lambda$CDM model the relation is $\log(\tau_{\rm H\beta}/{\rm day}) = 1.368 \pm 0.022 + (0.428 \pm 0.025)\log(L_{5100}/10^{44}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}})$ with $\sigma_{\rm int}=0.202^{+0.015}_{-0.017}$, and the slope is $2.8$–$2.9\sigma$ shallower than the simple photoionization value of 0.5. The 1D cosmological constraints from the AGN sample alone agree within $2\sigma$ with those from Hubble-parameter and baryon-acoustic-oscillation data, with the two nonflat models that other data already disfavor showing the largest shifts. The paper also reports a mild Eddington-ratio dependence: splitting the sample at the median Eddington ratio gives a steeper slope ($\gamma\simeq0.48$) and smaller intercept for high-accreting sources, consistent with shortened lags in high-accretion AGNs.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that after the quality cuts, one power-law $R$–$L$ relation with a single constant Gaussian intrinsic scatter describes all 157 measurements, and that repeated observations of the same AGN (NGC5548 appears about ten times in the table) can be treated as independent data points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the 157-source Hβ sample becomes a standardizable distance indicator that can be combined with other probes at intermediate redshifts.
The flatter slope implies that the simple photoionization expectation $R\propto L^{1/2}$ does not hold for the full AGN population; high-accreting sources systematically have shorter lags.
The small intrinsic scatter ($\sigma_{\rm int}\simeq0.20$ dex) and narrow parameter uncertainties make the sample competitive for future cosmological fits, though the AGN-only constraints remain weaker than those from H(z)+BAO data.
Because the $R$–$L$ parameters shift by less than about $0.5\sigma$ across models, adding Hβ mono data to H(z)+BAO changes cosmological constraints by only $\lesssim0.2\sigma$, so the AGN data are consistent but not yet powerful.
The Eddington-ratio dependence means future samples must control accretion-rate selection to avoid biasing the slope and scatter.

Reading between the lines

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

The 157 entries include repeated observations of the same AGNs (NGC5548 appears roughly ten times), so the effective number of independent objects is smaller than 157; re-fitting with one epoch per object would test how much of the precision comes from duplicated sources.
If the mild Eddington-ratio dependence correlates with luminosity or redshift, the near-constancy of the $R$–$L$ parameters across cosmologies could be a property of this particular sample rather than of the underlying population; a luminosity-stratified split at fixed Eddington ratio would expose that.
A sample spanning more extreme Eddington ratios could reveal whether the slope for low-accreting sources approaches 0.5 while high-accreting sources continue to pull the global slope below it, possibly requiring a second parameter such as the shape of the ionizing spectral energy distribution.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about arXiv:2506.17422. First, it delivers a genuinely bigger and cleaner Hβ RM sample: 157 sources from Wang & Woo with uniform lag analysis, 3.8× the 41-source sample used before, and the empirical R-L slope comes out flatter than 0.5 (0.428 ± 0.025) with a mild dependence on Eddington ratio. Second, the paper's headline claim—that this sample is standardizable—is not established by the test they run. The invariance of γ and β across six cosmologies is nearly guaranteed by the redshift distribution, not by any property of the AGNs.

What's good: the sample construction is careful, with host-galaxy contamination handled upstream, quality cuts explicit, and peculiar-velocity corrections. The MCMC treatment is standard, priors are listed, and the simultaneous fit of R-L and cosmological parameters is the right way to avoid circularity. The comparison with the previous 41-source sample is informative: the flatter slope tracks the inclusion of higher-accreting sources, and the Eddington-ratio subsample fits (low- and high-λ_Edd) give slopes of 0.43 and 0.48 with a smaller intrinsic scatter in the high-accreting half. Those are useful empirical results, and the authors are appropriately cautious that the sample's Eddington-ratio range is limited.

Where it's soft: the standardizability test has very low power. The median redshift is 0.065; the 84th percentile is 0.234. Over that range, luminosity distances among the six models differ by a few percent, so the R-L fit parameters are barely affected by the cosmology. The problem is compounded by treating multi-epoch observations of the same AGN (NGC5548 appears about ten times in Table I) as independent data points; these repeats sit at the lowest redshifts where the cosmological signal is weakest and allow a handful of objects to dominate the fit. The near-constancy of γ, β, and σ_int in Table V therefore does not discriminate between standardizable and non-standardizable R-L relations. A redshift-dependent intercept would survive this test. The Eddington-ratio analysis also leans on λ_Edd computed from L5100 and τ themselves, which the authors acknowledge, but they don't propagate the additional uncertainties from line widths and bolometric corrections. And there is no public code or data table outside the paper, which makes the analysis harder to reuse.

Bottom line: this is a real advance in the empirical R-L relation for Hβ AGNs, and the sample will be used. The cosmological standardizability conclusion deserves a serious referee because the dataset is important, but the current test doesn't support it. I'd send it to review with a request to add a sensitivity check—e.g., allow a redshift-dependent intercept, or fit with duplicate sources collapsed—and to tone down the standardizability wording.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles the 157-measurement "Best" Hβ reverberation-mapping sample of Wang and Woo (2024) and fits the BLR radius–luminosity relation, log(τ/day) = β + γ log(L5100/10^44 erg/s), simultaneously with the cosmological parameters of six Friedmann models (flat and nonflat ΛCDM, XCDM, and φCDM). Using an MCMC likelihood with an intrinsic-scatter term (Eqs. 10–12), the authors report that the R–L slope, intercept, and intrinsic scatter are nearly invariant across the six models (Table V), interpret this as standardizability, and derive weak cosmological constraints from the AGN sample alone as well as slightly shifted constraints when the AGN data are combined with H(z)+BAO data. They also split the sample by Eddington ratio and find a mild dependence of the R–L parameters on accretion rate (Sec. V.A). The central conclusion is that Hβ RM AGNs are standardizable and can in principle serve as cosmological distance indicators.

Significance. The analysis is careful and transparent in its construction: the priors are explicit (Table II), the likelihood is the standard one used for this type of simultaneous fit, and the comparison of the inferred slope with the Wang and Woo (2024) value of γ = 0.42 ± 0.02 is a useful cross-check. The enlarged homogeneous sample is a genuine observational asset and represents progress over the previous 41-source sample. However, the standardizability test is much weaker than the conclusion requires. The redshift distribution is strongly concentrated at low z (median 0.065, 84th percentile 0.234), and the sample is dominated by repeated epochs of a few nearby AGNs, so the six-model comparison has little chance of detecting cosmology-dependent R–L parameters. The paper's own Eddington-ratio split (Eqs. 14–15) also indicates that the single-power-law model is incomplete. If the R–L parameters drifted with redshift or Eddington ratio, the reported Δγ and Δβ in Table V would likely still be small. The claim that the sample is standardizable therefore needs additional support before Hβ AGNs can be treated as reliable distance indicators.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III.A, Fig. 1, Table V] The standardizability test has low statistical power because of the sample's redshift distribution. With a median redshift of 0.06458 and an 84th percentile of 0.23371, the luminosity distance DL(z) changes by only a few percent among very different cosmological models; indeed, the Hβ-only cosmological constraints in Table IV are mostly one-sided lower limits (for example Ωm0 > 0.319 at 2σ in flat ΛCDM). The near-constancy of γ and β in Table V is therefore almost a foregone conclusion even if the R–L relation were intrinsically cosmology-dependent. I ask the authors to quantify the sensitivity of the test, for example by injecting a redshift-dependent intercept into simulated data generated from the same redshift and lag-error distribution and reporting how often the six-model Δγ/Δβ would exceed the observed values, or by fitting the R–L relation separately for low- and high-redshift subsamples (for instance z < 0.1 and z > 0.1).
[Table I, Sec. III.A] Repeated observations of a few nearby AGNs are treated as independent data points. NGC5548 appears about thirteen times and Mrk335 at least six times, all at z ≈ 0.02–0.03; these epochs carry almost no cosmological information, and treating them as independent overweights a small number of objects and can bias the R–L fit if the repeated epochs are correlated. I request that the authors report results with one randomly chosen or averaged epoch per object, or adopt a hierarchical model with an object-level random effect, and state the effective number of independent AGNs in the sample.
[Sec. V.A, Eqs. (14)–(15), Fig. 6] The Eddington-ratio split shows that the simple single-power-law R–L relation is not the complete description of the sample: the high-accreting subsample has γ = 0.48 ± 0.04 and β = 1.31 ± 0.03, while the low-accreting subsample has γ = 0.43 ± 0.05 and β = 1.42 ± 0.04. If λEdd correlates with redshift or luminosity, the constant-γ,β fit used in Eqs. (8)–(12) will absorb a systematic, redshift-dependent bias that the six-model invariance test cannot reveal, because the low-redshift points dominate the likelihood. I request a direct test of whether the R–L residuals correlate with redshift and with L5100 after the global fit, together with a discussion of how the lag-quality cuts described in Sec. III.A might select a biased subsample.

minor comments (6)

[Table I note and Sec. IV] The tabulated L5100 values are computed for a fixed flat ΛCDM model (H0 = 72 km/s/Mpc, Ωm0 = 0.3), whereas Eq. (9) in Sec. IV recomputes L5100 for each cosmological model in the fit; the paper should clarify that the Table I luminosities are only illustrative and are not the values used directly in the likelihood.
[Abstract] The phrase "six spatially flat and nonflat cosmological models" is confusing; there are three flat and three nonflat models, and the wording should be adjusted accordingly.
[Sec. V, Fig. 4] The statement that the Hβ mono dataset "favors a currently decelerating cosmological expansion" is stronger than the constraints warrant, since the posteriors peak at the prior boundary (e.g., Ωm0 > 0.319 in flat ΛCDM); the result is better described as an unconstraining lower limit.
[Fig. 3 caption] The zero-acceleration lines are said to be computed for the third cosmological parameter set to the H(z)+BAO best-fit values only in panels (d) and (f); the caption should either specify the same procedure for all panels or explain why those two panels are special.
[References] Reference [72] contains a typo ("netron stars" instead of "neutron stars").
[Eq. (12)] The total uncertainty in Eq. (12) includes the fitted parameter γ in the term γ²σ²_logF,i; this parameter dependence is standard but should be explicitly noted so that readers do not misinterpret the error budget as fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the R-L and cosmological parameters are jointly fitted, and the Eddington-ratio self-correlation is explicitly flagged.

full rationale

The paper's central standardizability claim is derived by simultaneously fitting the R-L relation parameters (γ, β, σ_int) and cosmological parameters for six cosmological models, rather than by calibrating the relation in one cosmology and then 'predicting' it in another. The likelihood in Eqs. (8)-(12) uses the measured time delays and fluxes with the luminosity distance entering through Eq. (9), so the R-L parameters are genuinely re-fit under each assumed cosmology. Table V then compares the resulting posteriors across models; this is an internal-consistency test, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The sample itself comes from the external Wang and Woo (2024) compilation, and the previous Cao et al. (2025) results are used only for comparison, not as a load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem. The Eddington-ratio subsample analysis does involve a self-correlation, since λ_Edd ∝ L5100/τ and the residuals ΔR_Hβ are functions of the same L5100 and τ; however, the authors explicitly state that 'it is not appropriate to explicitly use the Eddington ratio as the third parameter in the R−L relation as it artificially enhances the correlation because of the proportionality λEdd∝ L5100/τ (self-correlation),' and they use it only as a diagnostic comparison, not as part of the standardizability derivation. The paper also cautions that a larger sample spanning broader luminosity and Eddington-ratio ranges is needed to confirm standardizability, indicating a robustness limitation rather than a circular step. The low-redshift concentration of the sample may reduce the power of the cross-model invariance test, but that is a statistical power concern, not a circularity of the derivation. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The main free parameters are the R-L relation parameters and cosmological parameters fit by MCMC. The axioms are standard cosmological and statistical assumptions plus the external sample-selection choices from Wang and Woo. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

γ (R-L slope) = 0.428 ± 0.025 (flat ΛCDM, Hβ mono)
Slope of the log τ-log L5100 relation; fitted jointly with cosmology.
β (R-L intercept) = 1.368 ± 0.022 (flat ΛCDM, Hβ mono)
Normalization of the R-L relation; fitted jointly.
σ_int (intrinsic scatter) = 0.202 +0.015/-0.017 (flat ΛCDM, Hβ mono)
Extra scatter in the likelihood; fitted jointly.
Ω_m0 = > 0.319 (2σ lower limit, flat ΛCDM Hβ mono)
Present matter density; free parameter in the simultaneous fit.
Ω_k0 = > -0.362 (2σ, nonflat ΛCDM Hβ mono); -0.166 +0.353/-0.440 (nonflat ϕCDM)
Spatial curvature density; free in nonflat models.
w_X = -1.758 +1.917/-0.855 (flat XCDM Hβ mono)
Dark-energy equation-of-state parameter in XCDM; free in the fit.
α = > 3.868 (1σ, flat ϕCDM Hβ mono)
Inverse-power-law potential exponent in ϕCDM; free in the fit.
H0 = Fixed to 70 km/s/Mpc for Hβ-only; approximately 66 to 70 in joint fits
Hubble constant; fixed as a prior in AGN-only analysis because AGN data weakly constrain it.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The R-L relation is a single power law in L5100 with a constant Gaussian intrinsic scatter (Eq. 8 and Eq. 12).
This is the model being tested; if the true relation is curved or has a third parameter that correlates with redshift, the standardizability test could be biased.
domain assumption FLRW cosmology and the luminosity distance formula Eq. (1) are correct.
Standard cosmological framework assumed throughout.
domain assumption Neutrino sector with Neff = 3.046 and Σmν = 0.06 eV, radiation neglected.
Standard assumptions from Sec. II; affect E(z) but negligibly for the central claim.
domain assumption The Best sample quality cuts in Wang and Woo (2024) and the use of ICCF lags (Sec. III A) provide an unbiased, homogeneous dataset.
If the selection is biased by lag reliability or luminosity, the R-L slope and standardizability would be affected.
domain assumption Peculiar-velocity corrections from NED are accurate enough for the low-redshift sources.
Section III A; at z approximately 0.003, errors here directly shift L5100.
domain assumption Eddington ratios computed with f_BLR = 4.47/1.12 and bolometric correction 9.26 are adequate for splitting the sample.
Section V A; used only for the subsample comparison, not the main fit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Standardizing a larger, higher-quality, homogeneous sample of reverberation-mapped H$\beta$ active galactic nuclei using the broad-line region radius-luminosity relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYLBD6WS

@misc{pith2026250617422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Standardizing a larger, higher-quality, homogeneous sample of reverberation-mapped H$\beta$ active galactic nuclei using the broad-line region radius-luminosity relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYLBD6WS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17422}
}

abstract

We present a high-quality, homogeneous sample of 157 H$\beta$ reverberation-mapped active galactic nuclei (RM AGNs) spanning redshifts $0.00308 \leq z \leq 0.8429$, which is approximately 3.8 times larger than the previously available high-quality homogeneous sample. Using the broad-line region radius$-$luminosity relation ($R-L$), which involves the broad H$\beta$ line time delay and the monochromatic luminosity at 5100\,\AA\,, we show that the sample is standardizable by using six spatially flat and nonflat cosmological models. The inferred cosmological model parameters are consistent within 2$\sigma$ uncertainties with those from better established baryon acoustic oscillation and Hubble parameter measurements, with the exception of two nonflat models that are ruled out by other data. The $R-L$ relation slope is found to be flatter ($\gamma=0.428 \pm 0.025$ in the flat $\Lambda$CDM model) than the slope expected from a simple photoionization model as well as the slope found previously for the smaller homogeneous sample. In addition, we find a mild dependence of H$\beta$ $R-L$ relation parameters as well as its intrinsic scatter on the Eddington ratio by comparing the $R-L$ relations for low- and high-accreting equal-sized subsamples. A future analysis of a larger homogeneous sample containing a broader range of luminosities and Eddington ratios is necessary to confirm the standardizability of H$\beta$ AGNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17422 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. One-dimensional likelihoods and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top: Deviations in the BLR radii based on H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

184 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J.284, 439 (1984)

1984
[2]

Farooq, F

O. Farooq, F. Ranjeet Madiyar, S. Crandall, and B. Ra- tra, Astrophys. J.835, 26 (2017)

2017
[3]

and Woo et al. [129]. Using this velocity estimate, we compute the black hole mass (MBH) via the virial method, adopting a virial factorfBLR = 4.47 when us- ing σline or fBLR = 1.12 for FWHM [172], from MBH = fBLR(cτHβ∆V 2/G). Next, we compute the bolomet- ric luminosity (Lbol) by applying a bolometric correction factor of 9.26 toL5100, [173], for the fla...
[4]

Astrophys

Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

2020
[5]

J. E. Bautista, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.500, 736 (2021)

2021
[6]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022)

2022
[7]

D. M. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018)

2018
[8]

Di Valentino, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.01669 (2025)

E. Di Valentino, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.01669 (2025)

arXiv 2025

Show all 184 references

[9]

Cao and B

S. Cao and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D107, 103521 (2023)

2023
[10]

de Cruz Perez, C.-G

J. de Cruz Perez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023506 (2024)

2024
[11]

Abdalla, et al., J

E. Abdalla, et al., J. High Energy Astrophys. 34, 49 (2022)

2022
[12]

C.-G. Park, J. de Cruz Perez, and B. Ratra, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2410.13627 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[13]

Y. Chen, S. Kumar, B. Ratra, and T. Xu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 964, L4 (2024)

2024
[14]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Astrophys. J. 985, 203 (2025)

2025
[15]

A. G. Adame, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 021 (2025)

2025
[16]

A. L. González-Morán, R. Chávez, R. Terlevich, E. Ter- levich, F. Bresolin, D. Fernández-Arenas, M. Plionis, S. Basilakos, J. Melnick, and E. Telles, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 487, 4669 (2019)

2019
[17]

A. L. González-Morán, R. Chávez, E. Terlevich, R. Ter- levich, D. Fernández-Arenas, F. Bresolin, M. Plionis, J. Melnick, S. Basilakos, and E. Telles, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 1441 (2021)

2021
[18]

S. Cao, J. Ryan, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 3191 (2020)

2020
[19]

Mania and B

D. Mania and B. Ratra, Phys. Lett. B715, 9 (2012)

2012
[20]

J. P. Johnson, A. Sangwan, and S. Shankaranarayanan, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022 (1), 024

2022
[21]

Mehrabi, et al., Mon

A. Mehrabi, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.509, 224 (2022)

2022
[22]

S. Cao, X. Zheng, M. Biesiada, J. Qi, Y. Chen, and Z.-H. Zhu, Astron. Astrophys.606, A15 (2017)

2017
[23]

S. Cao, J. Ryan, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 4745 (2022)

2022
[24]

S. Cao, J. Ryan, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 300 (2021)

2021
[25]

Y. Lian, S. Cao, M. Biesiada, Y. Chen, Y. Zhang, and W. Guo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 2111–2123 (2021)

2021
[26]

X.Zheng, S.Cao, M.Biesiada, X.Li, T.Liu,andY.Liu, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy64, 259511 (2021)

2021
[27]

J. Ryan, Y. Chen, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488, 3844 (2019)

2019
[28]

Khadka and B

N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492, 4456 (2020)

2020
[29]

Khadka and B

N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 263 (2020)

2020
[30]

Khadka and B

N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 502, 6140 (2021)

2021
[31]

Risaliti and E

G. Risaliti and E. Lusso, Nat. Astron.3, 272 (2019)

2019
[32]

T. Yang, A. Banerjee, and E. Ó Colgáin, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123532 (2020)

2020
[33]

Rezaei, J

M. Rezaei, J. Solà Peracaula, and M. Malekjani, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.509, 2593 (2021)

2021
[34]

Zhao and J.-Q

D. Zhao and J.-Q. Xia, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 694 (2021)

2021
[35]

Lusso, et al., Astron

E. Lusso, et al., Astron. Astrophys.642, A150 (2020)

2020
[36]

J. S. Wang, F. Y. Wang, K. S. Cheng, and Z. G. Dai, Astron. Astrophys. 585, A68 (2016)

2016
[37]

Fana Dirirsa, S

F. Fana Dirirsa, S. Razzaque, F. Piron, M. Arimoto, M. Axelsson, D. Kocevski, F. Longo, M. Ohno, and S. Zhu, Astrophys. J.887, 13 (2019)

2019
[38]

J. P. Hu, F. Y. Wang, and Z. G. Dai, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507, 730 (2021)

2021
[39]

Khadka and B

N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 510, 2753 (2022)

2022
[40]

Cao and B

S. Cao and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.513, 5686 (2022)

2022
[41]

Favale, M

A. Favale, M. G. Dainotti, A. Gómez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics44, 323 (2024)

2024
[42]

Li, Y.-P

J.-L. Li, Y.-P. Yang, S.-X. Yi, J.-P. Hu, Y.-K. Qu, and F.-Y. Wang, Astron. Astrophys.689, A165 (2024)

2024
[43]

Luongo, M

O. Luongo, M. Muccino, E. Ó. Colgáin, M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, and L. Yin, Phys. Rev. D105, 103510 (2022)

2022
[44]

Deng, Y.-F

C. Deng, Y.-F. Huang, F. Xu, and A. Kurban, Galaxies 13, 15 (2025)

2025
[45]

Cao and B

S. Cao and B. Ratra, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.08429 (2025)

2025
[46]

Gravity Collaboration, et al., Nature (London)563, 657 (2018)

2018
[47]

Bargiacchi, M

G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, and S. Capozziello, New Astron. Rev. 100, 101712 (2025)

2025
[48]

J.-M. Wang, P. Du, D. Valls-Gabaud, C. Hu, and H. Netzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 081301 (2013)

2013
[49]

Marziani and J

P. Marziani and J. W. Sulentic, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442, 1211 (2014)

2014
[50]

Marziani, E

P. Marziani, E. Bon, N. Bon, A. del Olmo, M. L. Martínez-Aldama, M. D’Onofrio, D. Dultzin, C. A. Ne- grete, and G. M. Stirpe, Atoms7, 18 (2019)

2019
[51]

Wang, Y.-Y

J.-M. Wang, Y.-Y. Songsheng, Y.-R. Li, P. Du, and Z.- X. Zhang, Nature Astronomy4, 517 (2020)

2020
[52]

B. P. Abbott, et al., Nature (London)551, 85 (2017)

2017
[53]

Mastrogiovanni, C

S. Mastrogiovanni, C. Karathanasis, J. Gair, G. Ashton, S. Rinaldi, H.-Y. Huang, and G. Dálya, Annalen der Physik 536, 2200180 (2024)

2024
[54]

Y. Zhan, D. Wang, S.-X. Yi, and F.-Y. Wang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.14150 (2025)

2025
[55]

Guidorzi, et al., Astrophys

C. Guidorzi, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.851, L36 (2017). 21

2017
[56]

S. Cao, J. Ryan, N. Khadka, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.501, 1520 (2021)

2021
[57]

Khadka, O

N. Khadka, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, and B. Ratra, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021 (9), 042

2021
[58]

S. Cao, N. Khadka, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 510, 2928 (2022)

2022
[59]

Khadka and B

N. Khadka and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 391 (2020)

2020
[60]

S.Cao, M.Dainotti,andB.Ratra,Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. 516, 1386 (2022)

2022
[61]

Cao and B

S. Cao and B. Ratra, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 093 (2024)

2024
[62]

Amati, et al., Astron

L. Amati, et al., Astron. Astrophys.390, 81 (2002)

2002
[63]

S.Cao, M.Dainotti,andB.Ratra,Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. 512, 439 (2022)

2022
[64]

Melnick and E

J. Melnick and E. Telles, Astron. Astrophys.690, A157 (2024)

2024
[65]

Petrosian, J

V. Petrosian, J. Singal, and S. Mutchnick, Astrophys. J. Lett. 935, L19 (2022)

2022
[66]

Khadka, M

N. Khadka, M. Zajaček, R. Prince, S. Panda, B. Czerny, M. L. Martínez-Aldama, V. K. Jaiswal, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.522, 1247 (2023)

2023
[67]

Cao and B

S. Cao and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D109, 123527 (2024)

2024
[68]

J. Wu, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.10862 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[69]

Zajaček, B

M. Zajaček, B. Czerny, N. Khadka, M. L. Martínez- Aldama, R. Prince, S. Panda, and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. 961, 229 (2024)

2024
[70]

Netzer, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galac- tic Nuclei (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (2013)

H. Netzer, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galac- tic Nuclei (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (2013)

2013
[71]

X. Li, R. E. Keeley, and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J.983, 141 (2025)

2025
[72]

Karas, J

V. Karas, J. Svoboda, and M. Zajaček, in RAGtime: Workshops on black holes and netron stars (2021) p. E1

2021
[73]

Czerny, et al., Astrophys

B. Czerny, et al., Astrophys. Space Sci.368, 8 (2023)

2023
[74]

M. C. Bentz, et al., Astrophys. J.767, 149 (2013)

2013
[75]

M. L. Martínez-Aldama, B. Czerny, D. Kawka, V. Karas, S. Panda, M. Zajaček, and P. T. Życki, As- trophys. J. 883, 170 (2019)

2019
[76]

Yu, et al., Mon

Z. Yu, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507, 3771 (2021)

2021
[77]

Zajaček, et al., Space Science Reviews 220, 29 (2024)

M. Zajaček, et al., Space Science Reviews 220, 29 (2024)

2024
[78]

Kaspi, W

S. Kaspi, W. N. Brandt, D. Maoz, H. Netzer, D. P. Schneider, O. Shemmer, and C. J. Grier, Astrophys. J. 915, 129 (2021)

2021
[79]

Zajaček, et al., Astrophys

M. Zajaček, et al., Astrophys. J.912, 10 (2021)

2021
[80]

M. L. Martínez-Aldama, M. Zajaček, B. Czerny, and S. Panda, Astrophys. J.903, 86 (2020)

2020
[81]

Du and J.-M

P. Du and J.-M. Wang, Astrophys. J.886, 42 (2019)

2019
[82]

C. J. Grier, et al., Astrophys. J.851, 21 (2017)

2017
[83]

Du, et al., Astrophys

P. Du, et al., Astrophys. J.825, 126 (2016)

2016
[84]

Khadka, M

N. Khadka, M. L. Martínez-Aldama, M. Zajaček, B. Cz- erny, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.513, 1985 (2022)

2022
[85]

Khadka, M

N. Khadka, M. Zajaček, S. Panda, M. L. Martínez- Aldama, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.515, 3729 (2022)

2022
[86]

found that a sample of 78 Mgii QSOs in the red- shift range 0.0033 ≲ z ≲ 1.89 is standardizable and the resulting cosmological model parameter constraints, al- beit weak, are consistent with the standard spatially flat ΛCDM model, but do not exclude models with a little spatia...

2022
[87]

Fonseca Alvarez, et al., Astrophys

G. Fonseca Alvarez, et al., Astrophys. J.899, 73 (2020)

2020
[88]

S. Cao, M. Zajaček, B. Czerny, S. Panda, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.528, 6444 (2024)

2024
[89]

The median values of each distribution are indicated by dot-dashed vertical lines

(black) using the same uniform bin size for both sam- ples. The median values of each distribution are indicated by dot-dashed vertical lines. The current sample significantly in- creases the number of data points and covers a broader range in the Eddington ratio, including a ...

2013
[90]

This finding is consistent with earlier results reported by Du et al

confirm that super-Eddington AGNs (λEdd > 1) ex- hibit significantly shortened Hβ radii compared to expec- tations, resulting in deviations from the canonicalR−L relation. This finding is consistent with earlier results reported by Du et al. [143, 144], and a similar trend is ...
[91]

Khadka, Z

N. Khadka, Z. Yu, M. Zajaček, M. L. Martinez-Aldama, B. Czerny, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 4722 (2021)

2021
[92]

S. Cao, M. Zajaček, S. Panda, M. L. Martínez-Aldama, B. Czerny, and B. Ratra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 1721 (2022)

2022
[93]

S. Cao, A. K. Mandal, M. Zajaček, B. Czerny, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D111, 083545 (2025)

2025
[94]

Wang and J.-H

S. Wang and J.-H. Woo, Astrophys. J. Suppl.275, 13 (2024)

2024
[95]

J. Ooba, B. Ratra, and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J.869, 34 (2018)

2018
[96]

Park and B

C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Astrophys. Space Sci.364, 82 (2019)

2019
[97]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L9 (2021)

2021
[98]

Arjona and S

R. Arjona and S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D103, 103539 (2021)

2021
[99]

Dhawan, J

S. Dhawan, J. Alsing, and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.506, L1 (2021)

2021
[100]

Renzi, N

F. Renzi, N. B. Hogg, and W. Giarè, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 513, 4004 (2022)

2022
[101]

926, 74 (2022)

C.-Q.Geng, Y.-T.Hsu,andJ.-R.Lu,Astrophys.J. 926, 74 (2022)

2022
[102]

Mukherjee and N

P. Mukherjee and N. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063516 (2022)

2022
[103]

Glanville, C

A. Glanville, C. Howlett, and T. Davis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 3087 (2022)

2022
[104]

Wu, J.-Z

P.-J. Wu, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C47, 055106 (2023)

2023
[105]

de Cruz Pérez, C.-G

J. de Cruz Pérez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063522 (2023)

2023
[106]

Dahiya and D

D. Dahiya and D. Jain, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 095001 (2023)

2023
[107]

Stevens, H

J. Stevens, H. Khoraminezhad, and S. Saito, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 046 (2023)

2023
[108]

Favale, A

A. Favale, A. Gómez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 3406 (2023)

2023
[109]

J.-Z. Qi, P. Meng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063522 (2023)

2023
[110]

Shimon and Y

M. Shimon and Y. Rephaeli, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.00080 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[111]

Wu and X

P.-J. Wu and X. Zhang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.06356 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[112]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.325, L17 (1988)

1988
[113]

Ratra and P

B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[114]

Pavlov, S

A. Pavlov, S. Westmoreland, K. Saaidi, and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D88, 123513 (2013)

2013
[115]

J. Ooba, B. Ratra, and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J.866, 68 (2018)

2018
[116]

J. Ooba, B. Ratra, and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. Space Sci. 364, 176 (2019)

2019
[117]

Park and B

C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J.868, 83 (2018)

2018
[118]

Park and B

C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Astrophys. Space Sci.364, 134 (2019)

2019
[119]

Park and B

C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D101, 083508 (2020)

2020
[120]

Singh, A

A. Singh, A. Sangwan, and H. K. Jassal, J. Cosmol. 22 Astropart. Phys. 2019 (4), 047

2019
[121]

L. A. Ureña-López and N. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063510 (2020)

2020
[122]

Sinha and N

S. Sinha and N. Banerjee, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021 (4), 060

2021
[123]

de Cruz Perez, J

J. de Cruz Perez, J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez- Valent, and C. Moreno-Pulido, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2110.07569 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[124]

T. Xu, Y. Chen, L. Xu, and S. Cao, Phys. Dark Universe 36, 101023 (2022)

2022
[125]

J. F. Jesus, R. Valentim, A. A. Escobal, S. H. Pereira, and D. Benndorf, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022 (11), 037

2022
[126]

A. Adil, A. Albrecht, and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. D107, 063521 (2023)

2023
[127]

F. Dong, C. Park, S. E. Hong, J. Kim, H. S. Hwang, H. Park, and S. Appleby, Astrophys. J.953, 98 (2023)

2023
[128]

Van Raamsdonk and C

M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 2024, 047 (2024)

2024
[129]

Avsajanishvili, G

O. Avsajanishvili, G. Y. Chitov, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, and L. Samushia, Universe10, 122 (2024)

2024
[130]

Van Raamsdonk and C

M. Van Raamsdonk and C. Waddell, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.02688 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[131]

R. I. Thompson, Universe10, 356 (2024)

2024
[132]

D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 2011 (7), 034

2011
[133]

Woo, et al., Astrophys

J.-H. Woo, et al., Astrophys. J.962, 67 (2024)

2024
[134]

A. J. Barth, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.743, L4 (2011)

2011
[135]

A. J. Barth, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series 217, 26 (2015)

2015
[136]

A. J. Barth, et al., Astrophys. J.769, 128 (2013)

2013
[137]

M. C. Bentz, et al., Astrophys. J.651, 775 (2006)

2006
[138]

M. C. Bentz, et al., Astrophys. J.705, 199 (2009)

2009
[139]

M. C. Bentz, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.689, L21 (2008)

2008
[140]

M. C. Bentz, et al., Astrophys. J.831, 2 (2016)

2016
[141]

K. D. Denney, et al., Astrophys. J.721, 715 (2010)

2010
[142]

De Rosa, et al., Astrophys

G. De Rosa, et al., Astrophys. J.866, 133 (2018)

2018
[143]

115,185(1998)

M.Dietrich, etal.,Astrophys.J.Suppl. 115,185(1998)

1998
[144]

B. M. Peterson, et al., Astrophys. J.613, 682 (2004)

2004
[145]

Du, et al., Astrophys

P. Du, et al., Astrophys. J.782, 45 (2014)

2014
[146]

Hu, et al., Astrophys

C. Hu, et al., Astrophys. J.804, 138 (2015)

2015
[147]

Du, et al., Astrophys

P. Du, et al., Astrophys. J.806, 22 (2015)

2015
[148]

Du, et al., Astrophys

P. Du, et al., Astrophys. J.856, 6 (2018)

2018
[149]

M. M. Fausnaugh, et al., Astrophys. J.840, 97 (2017)

2017
[150]

C. J. Grier, et al., Astrophys. J.755, 60 (2012)

2012
[151]

Hu, et al., Astrophys

C. Hu, et al., Astrophys. J.905, 75 (2020)

2020
[152]

Hu, et al., Astrophys

C. Hu, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.253, 20 (2021)

2021
[154]

Li, et al., Astrophys

J. Li, et al., Astrophys. J.922, 142 (2021)

2021
[155]

Pei, et al., Astrophys

L. Pei, et al., Astrophys. J.837, 131 (2017)

2017
[156]

B. M. Peterson, et al., Astrophys. J.581, 197 (2002)

2002
[157]

B. M. Peterson, et al., Astrophys. J.795, 149 (2014)

2014
[158]

B. M. Peterson, I. Wanders, K. Horne, S. Collier, T. Alexander, S. Kaspi, and D. Maoz, PASP110, 660 (1998)

1998
[159]

A. I. Shapovalova, et al., Astron. Astrophys.517, A42 (2010)

2010
[160]

G. M. Stirpe, et al., Astrophys. J.425, 609 (1994)

1994
[161]

U, et al., Astrophys

V. U, et al., Astrophys. J.925, 52 (2022)

2022
[162]

Zhang, et al., Astrophys

Z.-X. Zhang, et al., Astrophys. J.876, 49 (2019)

2019
[163]

C. J. Grier, et al., Astrophys. J.688, 837 (2008)

2008
[164]

Lu, et al., Astrophys

K.-X. Lu, et al., Astrophys. J.827, 118 (2016)

2016
[165]

C. M. Gaskell and L. S. Sparke, Astrophys. J.305, 175 (1986)

1986
[166]

C. M. Gaskell and B. M. Peterson, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 65, 1 (1987)

1987
[167]

F. R. Donnan, K. Horne, and J. V. Hernández Santis- teban, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.508, 5449 (2021)

2021
[168]

Y. Zu, C. S. Kochanek, and B. M. Peterson, Astrophys. J. 735, 80 (2011)

2011
[169]

A. K. Mandal, J.-H. Woo, and S. Wang, Astrophys. J. 985, 30 (2025)

2025
[170]

D’Agostini, arXiv e-prints , physics/0511182 (2005)

G. D’Agostini, arXiv e-prints , physics/0511182 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[171]

Brinckmann and J

T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Uni- verse 24, 100260 (2019)

2019
[172]

Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019)

A. Lewis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.13970 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[173]

Davidson, Astrophys

K. Davidson, Astrophys. J.171, 213 (1972)

1972
[174]

Panda, M

S. Panda, M. L. Martínez-Aldama, and M. Zajaček, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences6, 75 (2019)

2019
[175]

A. K. Mandal, J.-H. Woo, S. Wang, S. Rakshit, H. Cho, D. Son, and C. S. Stalin, Astrophys. J.968, 59 (2024)

2024
[176]

J.-H. Woo, Y. Yoon, S. Park, D. Park, and S. C. Kim, Astrophys. J. 801, 38 (2015)

2015
[177]

G. T. Richards, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.166, 470 (2006)

2006
[178]

Kaspi, P

S. Kaspi, P. S. Smith, H. Netzer, D. Maoz, B. T. Jan- nuzi, and U. Giveon, Astrophys. J.533, 631 (2000)

2000
[179]

J.-M. Wang, J. Qiu, P. Du, and L. C. Ho, Astrophys. J. 797, 65 (2014)

2014
[180]

J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, As- trophys. J. 178, 347 (1972)

1972
[181]

Shen, et al., Astrophys

Y. Shen, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.216, 4 (2015)

2015
[182]

Shen, et al., Astrophys

Y. Shen, et al., Astrophys. J.805, 96 (2015)

2015
[183]

J. A. Kollmeier, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1711.03234 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[184]

A. B. Kovacevic et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. 262, 49 (2022)

2022
[185]

Czerny, et al., Astron

B. Czerny, et al., Astron. Astrophys.675, A163 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J.284, 439 (1984)

1984

[2] [2]

Farooq, F

O. Farooq, F. Ranjeet Madiyar, S. Crandall, and B. Ra- tra, Astrophys. J.835, 26 (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

and Woo et al. [129]. Using this velocity estimate, we compute the black hole mass (MBH) via the virial method, adopting a virial factorfBLR = 4.47 when us- ing σline or fBLR = 1.12 for FWHM [172], from MBH = fBLR(cτHβ∆V 2/G). Next, we compute the bolomet- ric luminosity (Lbol) by applying a bolometric correction factor of 9.26 toL5100, [173], for the fla...

[4] [4]

Astrophys

Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

J. E. Bautista, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.500, 736 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022)

2022

[7] [7]

D. M. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018)

2018

[8] [8]

Di Valentino, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.01669 (2025)

E. Di Valentino, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.01669 (2025)

arXiv 2025