Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 2 cited by

Despite real differences, local narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies can serve as a low-redshift laboratory for understanding the extreme accretion physics and early growth of the black holes JWST is finding at high redshift.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

NLS1s and high-z JWST AGN share low black hole mass, high Eddington ratio, and narrow broad lines, so NLS1s are useful analogs, though host-to-BH ratios and line profiles differ.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, honest review that makes the NLS1–high-z analogy plausible, but its main quantitative claim rests on a virial assumption the paper itself flags as questionable.

arxiv 2509.03576 v1 pith:GMMOFDTQ submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

How similar are narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and high-z type 1 AGN?

M. Berton , E. J\"arvel\"a , A. Tortosa , C. Mazzucchelli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxieshigh-redshift AGNlittle red dotsEddington ratioblack hole massesJWSTaccretion physicsAGN evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This review argues that the extreme-accretion regime seen in JWST's newly discovered high-redshift AGN—low black hole masses around 10^5–10^8 solar masses, Eddington ratios near or above one, and narrow broad emission lines—is already accessible in the local universe in the form of narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies. The paper assembles the multiwavelength evidence (radio, UV/optical/NIR, X-ray, gamma-ray) showing NLS1s are low-mass, high-Eddington AGN in an early evolutionary stage, and compares it point-by-point with high-z type 1 AGN, in particular the 'little red dots.' It concludes that, despite reversed host-galaxy-to-black-hole mass ratios, lower metallicities, and unusual X-ray weakness in the high-z sources, the underlying accretion physics is the same, so studying NLS1s can directly inform models of early black hole growth. A key quantitative claim is that more than half of JWST-identified high-redshift AGN would formally be classified as NLS1s if their Hα widths were translated to the standard Hβ threshold.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the physical state of most JWST-discovered broad-line AGN at z>4—including little red dots—is a high-redshift counterpart of the local NLS1 phenomenon: an undermassive black hole accreting at or above the Eddington limit, whose broad emission lines are narrow because the gravitational potential is shallow. The authors support this by showing that the defining NLS1 properties (FWHM(Hβ) < 2000 km/s, low black hole mass, high Eddington ratio, steep and variable X-ray spectrum, strong Fe II, outflows, late-type host) map onto what JWST sees, once selection effects and the Hα-to-Hβ width conversion are accounted for. They also catalogue the genu

What carries the argument

The comparison rests on the NLS1 classification itself: the FWHM(Hβ) < 2000 km/s threshold that selects low-mass, high-Eddington AGN in the local universe, carried to high redshift by the empirical FWHM(Hα) ≈ 0.8–0.9 FWHM(Hβ) scaling so that Hα-based JWST samples can be placed on the same plane. The physical driver is the Eddington ratio, which organizes the quasar main sequence (eigenvector 1) and is invoked to explain the steep X-ray spectra, outflows, Fe II strength, and disk-wind signatures in both populations. The virial mass estimator M_BH = f R_BLR v^2/G connects observed line widths to black hole mass, and is the load-bearing step that makes the NLS1 analogy quantitative.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison assumes that the measured widths of the broad emission lines trace the gravitational (virial) motion of gas around the black hole, so that line width is a faithful mass indicator; if electron scattering or outflow broadening dominates in high-z sources, the mass estimates and the NLS1 classification lose their footing.

What would settle it

Take a sample of little red dots and measure the Hα line profile shape and polarization at high signal-to-noise: if the profiles are exponential and substantially polarized, consistent with electron scattering rather than rotation, then virial masses and the NLS1 analogy fail for those objects. A second decisive test would be reverberation mapping of a bright or lensed high-z NLS1-like AGN to see whether the BLR size–luminosity relation holds there as it does locally.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the analogy holds, local NLS1s become a practical laboratory for studying super-Eddington accretion, disk winds, and jet launching under conditions similar to those of early-universe AGN, at distances where detailed multiwavelength monitoring is feasible.
  • More than half of JWST-identified AGN at high redshift should be treated as NLS1-like, implying that census statistics for early black hole growth should be interpreted with the NLS1 physical picture (low masses, high Eddington ratios) rather than the classical massive-quasar picture.
  • The X-ray weakness of many high-z AGN and little red dots can be understood as a consequence of high accretion rate—coronal cooling, winds, and shielding—rather than requiring hidden or absent AGN, informing how X-ray surveys select against early growth phases.
  • The reversed black-hole-to-host mass ratio in high-z sources, compared to NLS1s, implies that the local NLS1 population is a later, secularly evolved descendant rather than a direct analogue of the earliest growth phase; comparisons must account for this offset.
  • Future simultaneous radio, X-ray, and optical monitoring of NLS1s can predict the variability patterns expected of high-z AGN, providing observable tests for the analogy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the exponential line profiles seen in some little red dots are confirmed as electron-scattering broadening rather than virial motion, the virial mass estimates—and hence the NLS1 classification of those objects—would need revision; the paper itself flags this as an open alternative, and a direct test is to measure polarization or profile shape across a sample of LRDs.
  • The parent-population puzzle for high-z blazars (too few known parents for the number of beamed sources) mirrors the same problem for jetted NLS1s, suggesting that some of the missing parents at high redshift may be compact steep-spectrum or low-luminosity compact sources, analogous to the LLC/NLS1 connection locally.
  • The V-shaped SED that defines little red dots may exist as a rare, overlooked phase among local NLS1s; systematically searching archival SEDs of large NLS1 samples for such shapes could identify a local LRD population and test whether the dust-cocoon phase is truly absent at z~0.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes the multiwavelength properties of local narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) and compares them with high-redshift type 1 AGN discovered by JWST, including little red dots (LRDs). After summarizing radio, UV/optical/NIR, X-ray, and gamma-ray observations, the authors argue that NLS1s are low-mass, high-Eddington AGN in an early evolutionary stage, and that many high-redshift JWST AGN satisfy the formal FWHM-based NLS1 criterion, with comparable black hole masses, Eddington ratios, and some X-ray properties. The paper also emphasizes key differences, such as low metallicity, compact host galaxies, X-ray weakness, and the possible electron-scattering origin of LRD line broadening. The central conclusion is that, despite these differences, local NLS1s are useful laboratories for understanding the extreme accretion physics of high-redshift AGN.

Significance. If the analogy holds, the paper provides a valuable bridge between the well-studied local NLS1 population and the newly discovered JWST AGN, enabling detailed tests of super-Eddington accretion physics in the early universe. The review is timely and comprehensive, covering radio through gamma rays, and it is careful to list selection effects, S/N limitations, and the Halpha/Hbeta scaling issue. A particular strength is that the authors repeatedly acknowledge the major caveat that virial black-hole mass estimates may be invalid for sources whose line broadening is due to electron scattering rather than virial motion. The paper contains no new fits or machine-checked derivations, but its synthetic value and balanced treatment make it a useful reference for the community.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 7.1] The quantitative statement 'more than half of the JWST-identified AGN at high redshift should be classified as NLS1s' is presented without an explicit qualifier, even though the same section later notes that (a) the Halpha-to-Hbeta FWHM scaling is not 1:1, (b) spectral typing is unreliable at low S/N, (c) most LRDs show line profiles closer to intermediate-type Seyferts than to Lorentzian NLS1 profiles, and (d) an exponential/electron-scattering broadening mechanism would invalidate virial mass interpretations. Please add an explicit qualifier such as 'under the virial assumption' at the point of the statistic, and reconcile it with the later statement that only a handful of LRDs show the typical NLS1 Lorentzian profile.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2)] The velocity term in Eq. (2) appears as 'v2' rather than v^2; please ensure the superscript is typeset correctly.
  3. [Section 4 / reference list] The name 'Lvminari et al. 2021' appears both in the text and in the references; this is likely a typo for 'Luminari et al. 2021'.
  4. [Section 2.1] In the sentence reporting the 4000 reliably classified NLS1s, a comma is missing before the citation 'Berton et al. (2020a)'.
  5. [Section 7.1] The phrase 'with a FWHM of less than ∼2000 km s−1' is grammatically awkward; consider 'with FWHM < ∼2000 km s−1'. Also, clarify whether 'formally classified as NLS1s' refers only to the FWHM threshold or also to the other NLS1 criteria (e.g., Fe II strength and [O III]/Hbeta ratio) that are not always measurable in high-z spectra.
  6. [Abstract / Introduction] The terms 'type 1' and 'type 1 AGN' are used inconsistently; choose a single capitalization convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper is a literature review whose comparative claims rest on cited external measurements, and the main quantitative claim is explicitly conditional and self-flagged as caveated.

full rationale

This is a review/synthesis paper, not a derivation. The central claim that NLS1s can inform high-z accretion physics is supported by comparing independently published properties (line widths, black hole masses, Eddington ratios, X-ray slopes, host galaxies) of local NLS1 samples and JWST-discovered AGN. I checked the one quantitative step, Section 7.1's 'more than half of the JWST-identified AGN at high redshift should be classified as NLS1s'. It is explicitly framed as a classification exercise using FWHM(Hα) ~ 0.8-0.9 FWHM(Hβ) quoted from Rakshit et al. (2017) and Paliya et al. (2024), applied to the published Hα FWHM distribution of Maiolino et al. (2025); it is not a fit to data being relabeled as a prediction. The paper itself flags the main vulnerability in the same section: 'the line profile could be exponential, thus pointing toward an electron scattering origin for the line broadening' and 'If this were true, the black hole mass estimates derived from the emission lines would have to be corrected for this factor, since the virial theorem cannot be applied'. That is a scientific caveat about the virial assumption, not a circular reduction. The many citations to Berton, Järvelä, Tortosa, and Mazzucchelli are normal expert self-citations supporting specific empirical claims (e.g., Lorentzian line profiles, jet/host properties, X-ray comparisons); none is invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the high-z comparison. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard virial estimators and the FWHM scaling relation from earlier surveys, plus the assumption that high-z sources are unobscured type 1 AGN. These are reasonable but not established at high redshift, and the paper itself flags the electron-scattering caveat.

free parameters (1)
  • FWHM(Halpha)/FWHM(Hbeta) scaling factor = 0.8-0.9
    Taken from Rakshit et al. 2017 and Paliya et al. 2024; used in Section 7.1 to translate the NLS1 threshold to Halpha for high-z sources.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Broad-line region gas is virialized: MBH = f R_BLR v^2 / G (Eq. 2, Section 3.3).
    Underpins all black hole mass estimates in the comparison. The paper notes it may fail for LRDs if electron scattering broadens lines (Section 7.1).
  • domain assumption The NLS1 definition, FWHM(Hbeta) < 2000 km/s, can be applied to high-z sources with FWHM(Halpha) scaled by 0.8-0.9.
    Used in Section 7.1 to classify 'more than half' of JWST AGN as NLS1-like.
  • domain assumption The selected high-z AGN are type 1 sources with an unobscured nucleus.
    The paper itself discusses a dense gas cocoon in LRDs, which would hide the nucleus and complicate the comparison (Section 7.1).
  • standard math Standard physics: Eddington limit, c, G, M_sun, Compton scattering, virial theorem.
    Background physical constants and relations used throughout.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How similar are narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and high-z type 1 AGN?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMMOFDTQ

@misc{pith2026250903576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How similar are narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and high-z type 1 AGN?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMMOFDTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03576}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The recent observations of highly accreting supermassive black holes (SMBH) at very high redshift ($>$4) with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) allowed us to shed light for the very first time on the early evolutionary phases of active galactic nuclei (AGN). Perhaps unsurprisingly, several of the physical properties observed in these new objects, including those known as little red dots (LRDs), are closely reminiscent of the low-mass and high-Eddington AGN in the local Universe, and in particular of the class of narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies. However, some differences also emerged, likely due to the radically different evolutionary path and the environment where LRDs and NLS1s live. In this work, we review the multiwavelength properties of local NLS1s and compare them with type 1 AGN found at high-$z$, showing that despite some differences, the study of NLS1s can be extremely useful to better understand the extreme accretion physics of high-$z$ quasars and the early stages of AGN evolution.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The X-ray weakness of Little Red Dots and JWST-selected AGN: comparison with local AGN in different accretion regimes

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    High-z LRDs and JWST AGN exhibit X-ray weakness consistent with local super-Eddington accreting SMBHs, supporting a link to highly accreting systems across cosmic time.

  2. Unveil the nature of JWST-AGN and Little Red Dots with SKAO continuum surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    SKAO continuum surveys will detect radio emission from JWST AGN and LRDs and distinguish between Compton-thick absorption, intrinsically weak accretion, and dense gas cocoon scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 912

    2010

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    2020

  3. [3]

    A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

    Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646

    1988

  4. [4]

    Abramowicz, M. A. & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1

    2013

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 575, A55

    Angelakis, E., Fuhrmann, L., Marchili, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A55

    2015

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 627, A148 Ant´on, S., Browne, I

    Angioni, R., Ros, E., Kadler, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A148 Ant´on, S., Browne, I. W. A., & March˜a, M. J. 2008, A&A, 490, 583

    2019

  7. [7]

    A., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Culhane, J

    Arnaud, K. A., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Culhane, J. L., et al. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 105 Ba˜nados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 293 Ba˜nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473

    1985

  8. [8]

    R., McDuffie, J

    Ballantyne, D. R., McDuffie, J. R., & Rusin, J. S. 2011, ApJ, 734, 112

    2011

  9. [9]

    S., Du, P., et al

    Bao, D.-W., Brotherton, M. S., Du, P., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 14 Barqu´ın-Gonz´alez, L., Mateos, S., Carrera, F. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A159

    2022

  10. [10]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128

    2024

  11. [11]

    2025, A&A, 699, A335

    Belladitta, S., Ba˜nados, E., Xie, Z.-L., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A335

    2025

  12. [12]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149

    2013

  13. [13]

    A., Wyithe, J

    Berger, S., Marshall, M. A., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2018, A&A, 614, A87

    Berton, M., Congiu, E., J¨arvel¨a, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A87

    2018

  15. [15]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 8

    Berton, M., Foschini, L., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 8

    2017

  16. [16]

    2015, A&A, 578, A28

    Berton, M., Foschini, L., Ciroi, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A28

    2015

  17. [17]

    2021, A&A, 654, A125

    Berton, M., Peluso, G., Marziani, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A125

    2021

  18. [18]

    & Zhao, Y

    Bian, W. & Zhao, Y . 2004, MNRAS, 352, 823

    2004

  19. [19]

    F., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Ponti, G

    Bianchi, S., Bonilla, N. F., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Ponti, G. 2009, A&A, 501, 915

    2009

  20. [20]

    J., Malizia, A., Bazzano, A., et al

    Bird, A. J., Malizia, A., Bazzano, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 175

    2007

  21. [21]

    2019, A&A, 630, A59

    Bischetti, M., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A59

    2019

  22. [22]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467

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

    2019

  23. [23]

    J., Page, M

    Blustin, A. J., Page, M. J., Fuerst, S. V ., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, A&A, 431, 111 Bogd´an, ´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126

    2005

  24. [24]

    N., & Fink, H

    Boller, T., Brandt, W. N., & Fink, H. 1996, A&A, 305, 53

    1996

  25. [25]

    Boroson, T. A. & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109

    1992

  26. [26]

    2004, AJ, 127, 3168

    Botte, V ., Ciroi, S., Rafanelli, P., & Di Mille, F. 2004, AJ, 127, 3168

    2004

  27. [27]

    N., Dewangan, G

    Braito, V ., Reeves, J. N., Dewangan, G. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 978

    2007

  28. [28]

    N., Mathur, S., & Elvis, M

    Brandt, W. N., Mathur, S., & Elvis, M. 1997, MNRAS, 285, L25

    1997

  29. [29]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 172

    Caccianiga, A., Ant´on, S., Ballo, L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 172

    2014

  30. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 1795

    Caccianiga, A., Ant´on, S., Ballo, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1795

    2015

  31. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 1474

    Caccianiga, A., Dallacasa, D., Ant´on, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1474

    2017

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 210

    Calderone, G., Ghisellini, G., Colpi, M., & Dotti, M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 210

    2013

  33. [33]

    M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mej´ıa-Restrepo, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mej´ıa-Restrepo, J. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3427

    2015

  34. [34]

    Castor, J. I. & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 1979, ApJS, 39, 481

    1979

  35. [35]

    Chamani, W., Savolainen, T., Hada, K., & Xu, M. H. 2021, A&A, 652, A14

    2021

  36. [36]

    B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 113

    2025

  37. [37]

    N., & Gallagher, S

    Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., & Gallagher, S. C. 2003, ApJ, 595, 85

    2003

  38. [38]

    N., Gallagher, S

    Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., Gallagher, S. C., & Garmire, G. P. 2002, ApJ, 579, 169

    2002

  39. [39]

    2018, A&A, 615, A167

    Chen, S., Berton, M., La Mura, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A167

    2018

  40. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 32

    Chen, S., Kharb, P., Silpa, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 32

    2024

  41. [41]

    B., Edwards, P

    Chen, S., Stevens, J. B., Edwards, P. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 471

    2022

  42. [42]

    2009, ApJ, 695, L130

    Chen, Y .-M., Wang, J.-M., Yan, C.-S., Hu, C., & Zhang, S. 2009, ApJ, 695, L130

    2009

  43. [43]

    M., & Norman, C

    Chiaberge, M., Gilli, R., Lotz, J. M., & Norman, C. 2015, ApJ, 806, 147

    2015

  44. [44]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    Cicone, C., Brusa, M., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    2018

  45. [45]

    2003, MNRAS, 346, 447

    Cirasuolo, M., Celotti, A., Magliocchetti, M., & Danese, L. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 447

    2003

  46. [46]

    2017, A&A, 603, A32

    Congiu, E., Berton, M., Giroletti, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A32

    2017

  47. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3149

    Congiu, E., Kharb, P., Tarchi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3149

    2020

  48. [48]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1256

    Cracco, V ., Ciroi, S., Berton, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1256

    2016

  49. [49]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & Gabel, J. R. 2003, AJ, 126, 1690

    2003

  50. [50]

    2025, A&A, 696, A74

    Crepaldi, L., Berton, M., Dalla Barba, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A74

    2025

  51. [51]

    C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R

    Crummy, J., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R. R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067

    2006

  52. [52]

    2019, Universe, 5, 131

    Czerny, B. 2019, Universe, 5, 131

    2019

  53. [53]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 840 Dalla Bont`a, E., Peterson, B

    Czerny, B., Siemiginowska, A., Janiuk, A., Nikiel-Wroczy´nski, B., & Stawarz, Ł. 2009, ApJ, 698, 840 Dalla Bont`a, E., Peterson, B. M., Bentz, M. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 112 Dalla Bont`a, E., Peterson, B. M., Grier, C. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A48 D’Ammando, F. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 859 D’Ammando, F., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Capetti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS...

    2009

  54. [54]

    & Netzer, H

    Davidson, K. & Netzer, H. 1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51, 715 de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Piovezan, P. P., & Kadowaki, L. H. S. 2010, A&A, 518, A5 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16600 De Rosa, G., Fausnaugh, M. M., Grier, C. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  55. [55]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, L15

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Fontana, M., & Haardt, F. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L15

    2008

  56. [56]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, Nature, 545, 457

    2017

  57. [57]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97 del Palacio, S., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Romero, G. E. 2019, A&A, 623, A101 D’Eugenio, F., Juodˇzbalis, I., Ji, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14870

    arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    D., et al

    Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 51

    2023

  59. [59]

    & Wang, J.-M

    Du, P. & Wang, J.-M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 42

    2019

  60. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 6 Durr´e, M

    Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 6 Durr´e, M. & Mould, J. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2377

    2018

  61. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 275

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 275

    2024

  62. [62]

    P., Fan, X., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Fan, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4248

    2022

  63. [63]

    C., Ballantyne, D

    Fabian, A. C., Ballantyne, D. R., Merloni, A., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 331, L35–L39

    2002

  64. [64]

    C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R

    Fabian, A. C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R. R., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 540

    2009

  65. [65]

    Fan, X., Ba˜nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    2023

  66. [66]

    L., Davis, M., et al

    Fan, X., White, R. L., Davis, M., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1167

    2000

  67. [67]

    1995, A&A, 302, 317

    Fanti, C., Fanti, R., Dallacasa, D., et al. 1995, A&A, 302, 317

    1995

  68. [68]

    M., Grier, C

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Grier, C. J., Bentz, M. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 97

    2017

  69. [69]

    & Merritt, D

    Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

    2000

  70. [70]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143

    2017

  71. [71]

    2011, in Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the

    Foschini, L. 2011, in Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the

    2011

  72. [72]

    2012, in Proceedings of Nuclei of Seyfert galaxies and QSOs - Central engine & conditions of star formation, Proc

    Foschini, L. 2012, in Proceedings of Nuclei of Seyfert galaxies and QSOs - Central engine & conditions of star formation, Proc. of Science, V ol. Seyfert 2012, id. 10

    2012

  73. [73]

    2014, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 28, 1460188

    Foschini, L. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 28, 1460188

    2014

  74. [74]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 6

    Foschini, L. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 6

    2017

  75. [75]

    2020, Universe, 6, 136

    Foschini, L. 2020, Universe, 6, 136

    2020

  76. [76]

    2015, A&A, 575, A13

    Foschini, L., Berton, M., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A13

    2015

  77. [77]

    Y ., et al

    Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Kovalev, Y . Y ., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1671

    2011

  78. [78]

    L., Andernach, H., et al

    Foschini, L., Lister, M. L., Andernach, H., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 587

    2022

  79. [79]

    L., Ant´on, S., et al

    Foschini, L., Lister, M. L., Ant´on, S., et al. 2021, Universe, 7, 372

    2021

  80. [80]

    2009, Advances in Space Research, 43, 889

    Foschini, L., Maraschi, L., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2009, Advances in Space Research, 43, 889

    2009

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.