Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

This paper reports the spectroscopic confirmation of 16 dual quasars and 36 projected quasar pairs selected by Gaia astrometry, using the 2000 km/s line-of-sight velocity difference to separate physical pairs from chance alignments, and fla

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 ↗

T0 review

2026-08-02 19:10 UTC pith:ELDU6U4M

load-bearing objection A useful but sloppy catalog paper: the headline counts don't match the text, and the one 'interesting' system is likely a lens, not a dual quasar. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03042 v2 pith:ELDU6U4M submitted 2026-03-03 astro-ph.GA

Search for quasar pairs with Gaia astrometric data IV. Confirmation of 17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars

Zhuojun Deng , Qihang Chen , Liang Jing , Xingyu Zhu , Jianghua Wu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dual quasarsquasar pairsGaia astrometryproper motion and parallax selectionspectroscopic confirmationgravitational lensingcircumgalactic mediumsupermassive black hole mergers
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 paper tries to turn a large catalog of quasar-pair candidates built from Gaia astrometry into a spectroscopically confirmed sample. It retrieves archival spectra from DESI and SDSS, applies a standard velocity-difference cut of 2000 km/s, visually inspects every spectrum, and ends up with 16 dual quasars at redshifts 0.609–2.758 plus 36 projected pairs where the two quasars are unrelated line-of-sight coincidences. That matters because kiloparsec-scale dual quasars are thought to be the immediate precursors of binary supermassive black holes and eventually low-frequency gravitational-wave sources, while close projected pairs give foreground-background sightlines through the circumgalactic medium. Along the way the paper finds one system, J0023+0417, whose nearly identical spectra and a possible foreground galaxy make it a likely gravitational lens rather than a true pair.

Core claim

The central claim is that an astrometric selection — quasars have near-zero proper motion and parallax in Gaia, so candidates near known quasars with the same null signal are likely companions — can be converted into a reliable spectroscopically confirmed sample using archival data. Cross-matching the candidate catalog against DESI DR1 and SDSS DR16, removing known lenses and duplicates, and applying |Δvr| ≤ 2000 km/s, the paper identifies 16 new dual quasars (z = 0.609–2.758) and 36 new projected quasar pairs. Visual inspection of every spectrum is part of the method; it caught one redshift calibration error that would otherwise have misclassified a pair. The paper also presents one likely

What carries the argument

The load-bearing selection is the MGQPC catalog of 4,112 candidate pairs built from Gaia astrometry: quasars are expected to have essentially zero proper motion and parallax, so an optically selected companion to a known quasar that also shows null astrometric signal is a candidate physical companion. The confirmation machinery is archival spectroscopy: DESI DR1 and SDSS DR16 spectra, followed by a line-of-sight velocity difference computed from the two catalog redshifts with the standard formula, a 2000 km/s cut, and visual inspection of every spectrum. The velocity cut does the dual/projected separation; the imaging and spectral comparisons do the lens rejection; the J0023+0417 example sho

Load-bearing premise

The whole dual-versus-projected classification rests on the catalog redshifts being accurate enough that the 2000 km/s line-of-sight velocity cut separates true physical pairs from chance alignments, and on survey imaging being deep enough that any foreground lensing galaxy would be visible; the J0023+0417 system already violates the second assumption in one case.

What would settle it

Re-observing the 16 claimed dual quasars with high-resolution spectroscopy and imaging that reaches below the current survey depth would settle the classification: a confirmed foreground galaxy with matching spectra in any system would move it to the lens column, and redshift measurements with precision well below 200 km/s would test whether the |Δvr| values are real. Counting the systems in the published tables would immediately resolve the abstract-vs-body discrepancy in the sample size.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The 16 confirmed dual quasars, eight at z ≥ 1.5, add to the small spectroscopically confirmed census of kiloparsec-scale pairs at cosmic noon, where galaxy mergers and black-hole accretion peak.
  • The five projected pairs with projected separations below 30 kpc provide foreground-background sightlines that can be used in future absorption-line studies of the circumgalactic medium around the foreground quasar host.
  • Several projected pairs have Lyα forest coverage in the background spectrum, which could be used to search for a transverse proximity effect near the foreground quasar.
  • J0023+0417, if follow-up mass modeling confirms the lens interpretation, becomes a wide-separation (≈9″) lensed quasar with interesting microlensing diagnostics from the chromatic flux ratio.
  • The cleaned candidate catalog, with 3,643 remaining candidates, gives future follow-up programs a target list with known confirmed systems removed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The opening abstract states 17 dual and 143 projected quasars, while the body and summary report 16 and 36; this count mismatch needs to be resolved before the sample is used for statistical inference.
  • Inference: If the zero-proper-motion filter is as efficient as this sample suggests, applying it to deeper or future Gaia data releases should reveal more close quasar pairs than fiber-fed surveys select, because it does not rely on color or double-peaked line morphology.
  • Inference: The 2000 km/s cut is a rough separator; some pairs labeled projected could be physically associated quasars with large infall velocities, so the reported dual-quasar count is likely a lower limit on the true physical-pair fraction.
  • Inference: The J0023+0417 example implies that a few percent of astrometrically selected pair candidates will turn out to be lenses; deeper near-infrared imaging of the other 15 dual systems would test whether any more hide a foreground deflector.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports spectroscopic confirmation of quasar pair candidates selected from the MGQPC catalog, using DESI DR1 and SDSS DR16 spectra retrieved through SPARCL. The classification separates physical dual quasars from projected pairs using the literature velocity-difference criterion |Δvr| ≤ 2000 km/s, followed by visual inspection. The body of the manuscript reports 16 dual quasars and 36 projected pairs, with parameters in Tables 1 and 2. One system, J0023+0417, is separately argued in §5.3 to be a high-confidence strong lensing candidate, yet it is included in the dual-quasar count. A second, incompatible set of numbers appears in the arXiv abstract (17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars), and the paper's series number also differs between the title and abstract. The projected-pair sample is presented as useful foreground-background sightlines for CGM absorption studies.

Significance. If the corrected sample is as claimed, the paper would add a modest but useful number of confirmed dual quasars and close projected quasar pairs to the existing census, with potential applications to merger-driven SMBH growth and CGM absorption studies. The work uses public spectroscopic data, applies a standard literature threshold, and includes visual spectral inspection and imaging checks. However, the central quantitative claim is currently inconsistent (16/36 vs 17/143), and one object counted as a dual quasar is internally identified as a likely gravitational lens. These issues must be resolved before the scientific content can be assessed reliably; the data products, once corrected, could still support a publishable catalog paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.2/§3/§6] The central census is internally inconsistent. The arXiv abstract reports '17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars,' while the title, §2.2, §3, §6, and Tables 1–2 report 16 dual quasars and 36 projected quasars. The reader cannot determine which sample is being claimed, and the two numbers cannot be reconciled from the text. This is the paper's main quantitative result, so the correct counts must be stated consistently in the abstract, body, and tables.
  2. [§4.1.1, §5.3, Table 1] J0023+0417 is counted as a dual quasar in Table 1 and in the total of 16, but §4.1.1 states that a lensed interpretation 'cannot be excluded,' and §5.3 says that the nearly identical spectra, constant flux ratio, and a potential foreground galaxy 'strongly favor' a gravitational-lens interpretation. These statements contradict the classification. The system should either be removed from the dual-quasar sample and presented separately as a lens candidate, or the paper must justify why it remains in the dual census despite the evidence in §5.3.
  3. [§5.1 and §5.3] The lensing-exclusion criterion used to separate duals from lenses is the absence of an 'obvious deflector' in DESI-LS DR9 imaging. For separations of 4–12 arcsec, group-scale or faint deflectors may not be obvious in survey imaging, and J0023+0417 demonstrates that a potential foreground galaxy was indeed present in at least one system classified as a dual. The criterion needs quantitative support, e.g., limiting surface brightness/magnitude within the relevant radius, and it should be applied to all systems, not only selected ones.
  4. [§5.4] The description of MGQPC version 2 says 'we first remove the 58 confirmed dual quasars reported in this work,' but this paper reports 16 dual quasars (or 52 total pairs). The number 58 is inconsistent with the rest of the paper and makes the construction of the updated catalog, including the final count of 3643 candidates, non-transparent. Please clarify the arithmetic and the relationship to the 52 newly confirmed pairs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The text says that 37 of 52 systems exceed the 2000 km/s threshold (leaving 15 duals), then a redshift calibration error changed one classification, yielding 16 duals and 36 projected. The intermediate arithmetic should be spelled out so the final numbers are auditable.
  2. [Table 1] Redshift uncertainties are not propagated into the |Δvr| values. All tabulated |Δvr| for the duals are below 2000 km/s by a wide margin, so this is unlikely to change the classification, but reporting uncertainties would strengthen the velocity-difference criterion.
  3. [Title / running head] The series number is inconsistent: the arXiv metadata and one abstract say 'IV' and 'fourth in the series,' while the paper title and body say 'III' and 'third in the series.' This should be harmonized.
  4. [§3 and §6] The text alternates between 'projected quasars' and 'projected quasar pairs' (e.g., §3 title says 'projected quasars' but §6 says 'projected pairs'). Define the terminology once and use it consistently.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos, e.g., 'both both' and 'deflactors' in §4.1.4, 'Disscussion' in the §5 title, and a malformed first reference with a missing author name. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the classification rests on independent public spectra and an external velocity criterion; the internal inconsistencies (16/36 vs 17/143, J0023+0417) are correctness risks, not circular derivations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: take MGQPC candidates (Chen et al. 2025, same group) → retrieve independent DESI DR1/SDSS DR16 spectra via SPARCL → remove duplicates against Jing et al. (2025a) and known lenses in SLED → classify by the standard Hennawi et al. (2010) |Δvr| ≤ 2000 km/s criterion (Eqs. 1–2, Hogg 2000) with visual inspection. No parameter is fitted to the outcome; the velocity threshold comes from external literature and is applied, not tuned. The Δvr calculation is a standard cosmological formula, and the dual/projected split is an operational definition, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs. The MGQPC catalog is self-produced, but the confirmation rests on public spectra and external lens databases, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The manuscript does contain serious internal inconsistencies: the front abstract reports '17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars' while the body and Section 6 report 16 dual and 36 projected; Section 5.4 says 'remove the 58 confirmed dual quasars reported in this work' although only 16 are reported; and J0023+0417 is counted in Table 1 as a dual quasar while Section 5.3 states the characteristics 'strongly favor the interpretation that J0023+0417 is a gravitationally lensed quasar system' and Section 4.1.1 says lensing 'cannot be excluded.' These are correctness/consistency issues, not circularity: the classification procedure does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the MGQPC catalog from prior self-cited work and on literature thresholds. No new free parameters are fitted in this paper. The main assumptions are the 2000 km/s velocity criterion and the visual absence of a deflector; both are stated, but the second is fragile.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3.
    Adopted in §1 and used to convert angular separations to projected distances rp in Tables 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption Two quasars with |Δvr| ≤ 2000 km/s are physically associated (dual); otherwise they are projected.
    Adopted from Hennawi et al. (2010) in §2.2; the central classification threshold for the paper.
  • domain assumption Gaia zero proper motion and zero parallax isolates quasar candidates near known quasars.
    Basis of the MGQPC catalog (Chen et al. 2025); not re-derived here but inherited from the series.
  • ad hoc to paper Absence of an obvious deflector in DESI-LS DR9 imaging disfavors strong lensing.
    Used in §5.1 and individual notes to classify systems as dual quasars; shallow survey imaging may miss lens galaxies, and J0023+0417 is an internal counterexample.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for quasar pairs with Gaia astrometric data IV. Confirmation of 17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELDU6U4M

@misc{pith2026260303042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for quasar pairs with Gaia astrometric data IV. Confirmation of 17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELDU6U4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03042}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Dual quasars separated at the kiloparsec scale are widely regarded as precursors to binary supermassive black holes and offer a key insight into the dynamical evolution of galaxy mergers. Our series of studies focuses on searching for dual quasars by using a selection strategy of zero proper motion and zero parallax to isolate candidate quasars near known ones and by follow-up spectroscopy of the candidates. This paper, the fourth in the series, reports the spectroscopic confirmations of our quasar pair candidates based on the spectroscopic data of the SDSS and DESI DR1. We newly identified 17 dual quasars and 143 projected quasars. The redshifts of the 17 dual quasars range from 0.573 to 2.758, with a median of 1.512. One notable system, J0023+0417, exhibits nearly identical spectral features in the two members and shows evidence of a potential foreground galaxy, making it a high-confidence strong gravitational lensing system. The redshifts of the 143 projected quasars are from 0.301 to 4.030, with a median of 1.596. Among them, four have projected distances below 30 kpc, offering valuable opportunities to probe the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of the foreground host galaxy through absorption lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03042 by Jianghua Wu, Liang Jing, Qihang Chen, Xingyu Zhu, Zhuojun Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DESI-LS DR9 pseudo-color cutout images and spectra of the 16 dual quasars. Blue and red circles mark the known and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: continued rations up to ∼ 10.1 ′′ (Stern et al. 2021). Therefore, J0023+0417 remains a potential lensed system. As part of our ongoing work, we are carrying out spectroscopic observations to determine the redshift of the central red source and confirm its nature as a fore￾ground lensing galaxy. In parallel, we are constructing detailed lens mass models to test whether the observed configuration can be repr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cutout images and spectra of 36 projected quasars. All pseudo-color images are from DESI-LS DR9. The blue and red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: continued Article number, page 9 of 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: continued Article number, page 10 of 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: One-dimensional spectra of J0023 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    , S., Sesana, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 401

    2019

  2. [2]

    Adelberger, K. L. 2004, ApJ, 612, 706

    2004

  3. [3]

    Ahumada, R. & et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3

    2020

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Aird, J., Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2531

    2010

  5. [5]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26

    2023

  6. [6]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307

    1980

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 136

    Bellovary, J., Brooks, A., V olonteri, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 136

    2013

  8. [8]

    Blanton, M. R. & et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  9. [9]

    H., et al

    Bonvin, V ., Courbin, F., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4914

    2017

  10. [10]

    2002, A&A, 383, 71

    Burud, I., Courbin, F., Magain, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 383, 71

    2002

  11. [11]

    M., Hamann, F., Shields, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Hamann, F., Shields, J. C., Halpern, J. P., & Barlow, T. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1872

    2013

  12. [12]

    R., Dotti, M., V olonteri, M., et al

    Capelo, P. R., Dotti, M., V olonteri, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4437

    2017

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17777

    Chen, Q., Jing, L., Zhu, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17777

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2023, Nature, 616, 45

    Chen, Y .-C., Liu, X., Foord, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 45

    2023

  15. [15]

    W., Trujillo-Gomez, S., Nielsen, N

    Churchill, C. W., Trujillo-Gomez, S., Nielsen, N. M., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 779, 87

    2013

  16. [16]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168

    2000

  17. [17]

    M., Gerke, B

    Comerford, J. M., Gerke, B. F., Stern, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 42

    2012

  18. [18]

    2018, A&A, 609, A71

    Courbin, F., Bonvin, V ., Buckley-Geer, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A71

    2018

  19. [19]

    Crotts, A. P. S. 1989, ApJ, 336, 550

    1989

  20. [20]

    Dawson, K. S. & et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´c, T., et al. 2019, New A Rev., 86, 101525

    2013

  21. [21]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04627 DESI Collaboration et al

    Deng, Z., Xiang, C., Chen, Q., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04627 DESI Collaboration et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  23. [23]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 465, 4634–4649

    Ding, X., Liao, K., Treu, T., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 465, 4634–4649

    2016

  24. [24]

    Djorgovski, S. G. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 193, The Hy-Redshift Universe: Galaxy Formation and Evolution at High Redshift, ed. A. J. Bunker & W. J. M. van Breugel, 397

    1999

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 682, A47

    Dux, F., Lemon, C., Courbin, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A47

    2024

  26. [26]

    2008, A&A, 490, 933 Elíasdóttir, Á., Hjorth, J., Toft, S., Burud, I., & Paraficz, D

    Eigenbrod, A., Courbin, F., Meylan, G., et al. 2008, A&A, 490, 933 Elíasdóttir, Á., Hjorth, J., Toft, S., Burud, I., & Paraficz, D. 2006, ApJS, 166, 443

    2008

  27. [27]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2491 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A94

    2019

  28. [28]

    Eracleous, M., Halpern, J. P., M. Gilbert, A., Newman, J. A., & Filippenko, A. V . 1997, ApJ, 490, 216

    1997

  29. [29]

    E., Impey, C

    Falco, E. E., Impey, C. D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 523, 617

    1999

  30. [30]

    & Ford, H

    Ferrarese, L. & Ford, H. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 523 Filiz Ak, N., Brandt, W. N., Hall, P. B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 168

    2005

  31. [31]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 29

    Foord, A., Gültekin, K., Nevin, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 29

    2020

  32. [32]

    L., Gross, A

    Fu, H., Steffen, J. L., Gross, A. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 93

    2018

  33. [33]

    D., et al

    Fu, H., Yan, L., Myers, A. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 67

    2012

  34. [34]

    2000, ApJ, 539, L13

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13

    2000

  35. [35]

    R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W

    Gibson, R. R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 758

    2009

  36. [36]

    A., et al

    Glikman, E., Langgin, R., Johnstone, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L18

    2023

  37. [37]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S37

    2018

  38. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    Hamann, F., Herbst, H., Paris, I., & Capellupo, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    2019

  39. [39]

    F., Myers, A

    Hennawi, J. F., Myers, A. D., Shen, Y ., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1672

    2010

  40. [40]

    Hennawi, J. F. & Prochaska, J. X. 2007, ApJ, 655, 735

    2007

  41. [41]

    Hennawi, J. F. & Prochaska, J. X. 2013, ApJ, 766, 58

    2013

  42. [42]

    F., Strauss, M

    Hennawi, J. F., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1

    2006

  43. [43]

    Hogg, D. W. 2000, Distance measures in cosmology

    2000

  44. [44]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  45. [45]

    Hopkins, P. F. & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529

    2010

  46. [46]

    F., Somerville, R

    Hopkins, P. F., Somerville, R. S., Hernquist, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 864

    2006

  47. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 41

    Hou, M., Liu, X., Guo, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 41

    2019

  48. [48]

    2018, A&A, 610, L7

    Husemann, B., Worseck, G., Arrigoni Battaia, F., & Shanks, T. 2018, A&A, 610, L7

    2018

  49. [49]

    2012, AJ, 143, 119

    Inada, N., Oguri, M., Shin, M.-S., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 119

    2012

  50. [51]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03103

    Jing, L., Chen, Q., Deng, Z., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03103

    arXiv

  51. [52]

    C., Bennert, V

    Keel, W. C., Bennert, V . N., Pancoast, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4847

    2019

  52. [53]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 490

    Kelley, L., Charisi, M., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 490

    2019

  53. [54]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  54. [55]

    2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Treister, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    2012

  55. [56]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, ApJ, 857, 126

    2018

  56. [57]

    W., et al

    Lemon, C., Anguita, T., Auger-Williams, M. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3305

    2023

  57. [58]

    2022, A&A, 657, A113

    Lemon, C., Millon, M., Sluse, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A113

    2022

  58. [59]

    A., Auger, M

    Lemon, C. A., Auger, M. W., & McMahon, R. G. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4242

    2019

  59. [60]

    E., Shen, Y ., & Strauss, M

    Liu, X., Greene, J. E., Shen, Y ., & Strauss, M. A. 2010, ApJ, 715, L30

    2010

  60. [61]

    A., & Hao, L

    Liu, X., Shen, Y ., Strauss, M. A., & Hao, L. 2011, ApJ, 737, 101

    2011

  61. [62]

    Lyke, B. W. & et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8

    2020

  62. [63]

    L., Ivezi´c, Ž., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´c, Ž., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014

    2010

  63. [64]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 313

    McQuinn, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 313

    2016

  64. [65]

    2020, A&A, 642, A193

    Millon, M., Courbin, F., Bonvin, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A193

    2020

  65. [66]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 959

    Millon, M., Courbin, F., Galan, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 959

    2023

  66. [67]

    & Blandford, R

    Oguri, M. & Blandford, R. D. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 930

    2009

  67. [68]

    & Marshall, P

    Oguri, M. & Marshall, P. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2579

    2010

  68. [69]

    C., Bottrell, C., Bellstedt, S., et al

    Omori, K. C., Bottrell, C., Bellstedt, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 73

    2025

  69. [70]

    & Loeb, A

    Padmanabhan, H. & Loeb, A. 2024, A&A, 684, L15

    2024

  70. [71]

    W., Rothberg, B., Weaver, K

    Pfeifle, R. W., Rothberg, B., Weaver, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 167

    2023

  71. [72]

    W., Weaver, K

    Pfeifle, R. W., Weaver, K. A., Secrest, N. J., Rothberg, B., & Patton, D. R. 2025, ApJS, 281, 25

    2025

  72. [73]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 136

    2013

  73. [74]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 267

    Rauch, M. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 267

    1998

  74. [75]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L7

    2023

  75. [76]

    2011, ApJ, 742, 61

    Salvato, M., Ilbert, O., Hasinger, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 61

    2011

  76. [77]

    Sanders, D. B. & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

    1996

  77. [78]

    B., Marshall, P

    Schmidt, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 714, 1194–1208

    2010

  78. [79]

    J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 6072

    2020

  79. [80]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 38

    Shen, Y ., Hwang, H.-C., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 38

    2023

  80. [81]

    E., & Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Liu, X., Greene, J. E., & Strauss, M. A. 2011, ApJ, 735, 48

    2011

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.