Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Changing-look AGNs are not a distinct host-galaxy population; the trigger is likely a change in the black hole's accretion rate.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:31 UTC pith:V4DLC3EG

load-bearing objection Largest matched CL AGN host-galaxy study to date; the central result is defensible, but the two-epoch decomposition's untested shared-stellar-population assumption is the main unresolved risk. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28735 v1 pith:V4DLC3EG submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA physics.data-an

Changing-Look AGNs from DESI. VI. Host Galaxies

Shengxiu Sun , Linhua Jiang , Wei-Jian Guo , Sarah E. I. Bosman , Zhiwei Pan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA physics.data-an
keywords changing-look AGNhost galaxiesquiescent galaxiespost-starburstspectrophotometric decompositionAGN accretion ratenarrow line regionDESI survey
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.

Changing-look AGNs abruptly switch their broad emission lines and continuum on timescales of months to years, but whether their host galaxies are special has been unclear. This paper analyzes 105 such objects with two epochs of optical spectroscopy and deep imaging, decomposing each spectrum into a constant stellar population and a varying nucleus. The hosts turn out to be overwhelmingly quiescent, and when matched to ordinary quasars of the same redshift and stellar mass, their star formation activity and absorption-line strengths are statistically indistinguishable. The one difference is a higher post-starburst fraction among the changing-look objects (35% vs 18%, p=0.02). Because the narrow forbidden lines do not respond while the broad lines do, the paper concludes that the transitions are driven by changes in the central black hole's accretion rate or inner disk, not by events that reshape the whole galaxy.

Core claim

At the population level, changing-look AGNs with measurable extended host emission do not occupy a distinct host galaxy population from similarly selected extended quasars. Among 105 two-epoch objects (SDSS and DESI spectra plus deep HSC imaging), 75.2% of hosts are quiescent and 29.5% post-starburst. Matched one-to-one against 82 extended quasars at the same redshift and stellar mass, CL hosts show consistent log sSFR (−12.87 vs −12.62), consistent Hδ_A (2.54 vs 1.36 Å; CI [−0.59,+2.94]), and a consistent quiescent fraction (81.7% vs 70.7%, p=0.108). The post-starburst fraction is higher (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020). [O III] and [O II] remain stable over rest-frame baselines up to 18 yr while

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition that ties the two spectra to a single shared host stellar population. The model expresses each epoch's flux as an independent AGN component plus the same intrinsic stellar population mapped into the different fiber apertures. Deep multi-band imaging provides an independent constraint on the host flux in each aperture, and an imaging-derived 'additional host spectrum' accounts for the aperture difference. The stellar population parameters (mass, star formation history, dust) are fit jointly across epochs, so the fainter state anchors the host while the brighter state constrains the AGN. The paper also constructs a matched compa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one shared stellar population model can describe the host galaxy at both epochs and in both fiber apertures; if the host has strong radial age or metallicity gradients, or if the imaging-based aperture correction is off, the tied host fit can absorb AGN residuals and bias the derived stellar mass, star formation rate, and Hδ strength.

What would settle it

Spatially resolved integral-field spectroscopy of these CL AGN hosts: if the derived stellar mass, sSFR, or Hδ strength depends on the assumed aperture scaling, or if strong radial age/metallicity gradients are present, the tied-host assumption fails and the population-level conclusions would need revision.

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

If this is right

  • If CL AGN hosts are statistically identical to quasar hosts, the changing-look phenomenon is decoupled from galaxy-scale properties, and CL selection is nearly random with respect to host star formation history.
  • The stable narrow lines imply the narrow-line region extends beyond a few parsecs in these objects, giving a population-level size constraint from variability alone.
  • The higher post-starburst fraction, if confirmed, suggests a mild association between recent quenching and CL activity, but not a synchronized event.
  • The positive broad-line/continuum correlation supports a stratified BLR where inner lines respond before outer lines, consistent with an accretion-rate-change origin.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If CL transitions are purely accretion-rate driven, then any quasar could in principle undergo a changing-look event; the observed CL fraction would be set by survey cadence and sensitivity rather than by a special host property, a prediction testable in unbiased samples.
  • The modest post-starburst excess might be a selection effect: post-starburst hosts have a bright young stellar continuum that makes the AGN easier to detect in the faint state, artificially boosting their representation among CL AGNs found by spectral comparison.
  • The narrow-line stability could be turned into an echo-mapping tool: a delayed [O III] response to a known CL transition would directly measure the NLR radius on decade timescales.
  • A next step is comparing CL AGN hosts to inactive galaxies of the same stellar mass and redshift, not just to quasars, to see whether the apparent consistency with quasars is shared by the general galaxy population.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a host-galaxy study of 105 changing-look (CL) AGNs identified from DESI/SDSS spectral comparisons. A two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition model (Eq. 1) is used, tying the host stellar population parameters across the DESI and SDSS epochs while allowing the AGN component to vary, with HSC imaging providing external host-flux constraints. The authors report that the CL AGN hosts are predominantly quiescent (75.2%) and that 29.5% show post-starburst signatures. For 82 CL AGNs with extended host emission, matched one-to-one to extended quasars from the same pipeline in redshift and stellar mass, they find no clear offset in log sSFR or Hδ_A and no significant difference in quiescent fraction, but a higher post-starburst fraction (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020). The [O III] and [O II] narrow lines show no population-wide response over rest-frame baselines of 2.4–18.4 yr. The paper interprets the combined host, broad-line, and narrow-line evidence as favoring changes in the central accretion rate or inner disk structure as the main origin of CL transitions.

Significance. If the host-galaxy measurements are reliable, this is a valuable population-level result: CL AGNs with measurable extended host emission do not appear to form a distinct host population from similarly selected extended quasars, strengthening the interpretation that the CL phenomenon is primarily nuclear rather than driven by galaxy-scale transformations. The study has notable strengths: the CL sample and comparison quasars are analyzed with the same pipeline, reducing methodology-induced differences; HSC imaging provides external constraints on the host flux; the two-epoch design uses the stellar population invariance as a physical consistency check; and the paper includes an explicit, honest limitations section. The broad-line/continuum correlations and narrow-line stability provide independent evidence consistent with the central interpretation. However, the central claim rests on an untested modeling assumption—the shared stellar population across epochs with only an SED-scaled aperture correction—and on statistical comparisons that omit individual measurement uncertainties and multiple-testing corrections. These issues are addressable and do not require abandoning the main conc

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The tied stellar-population assumption is load-bearing but untested. In Eq. (1), a single θ⋆ is mapped into the two fiber apertures via T^i, with the SDSS–DESI aperture difference represented by an additional host spectrum fit with the same SED model. If the host has radial age or metallicity gradients, the extra light entering the larger SDSS fiber is not drawn from the same SED, and the tied fit may compensate by adjusting the AGN residual or averaging the two host spectra, biasing M⋆, sSFR, and Hδ_A. The internal checks in §5.5 use only two nearly host-dominated objects and mock tests from Sun et al. (2026) that do not inject radial gradients; §5.7 does not list this limitation. A concrete test is needed—for example, injecting radially varying stellar population models into mock HSC+spectral data and recovering them with this pipeline, or comparing a subset with IFU stellar-population
  2. [Table 2, §4.2] The post-starburst excess (35.4% vs 18.3%, p=0.020) is one of four primary comparisons in Table 2, and the paper performs additional morphology, state, and disturbance tests elsewhere without multiplicity control. With a Bonferroni correction for the four Table 2 outcomes (α=0.0125), p=0.020 is not significant. The abstract and summary state that post-starburst hosts are "more common" among CL AGNs, which overstates the evidence. Please report the number of tests, provide corrected p-values, or explicitly label p=0.020 as suggestive only.
  3. [§3.5, §5.2] The reported bootstrap 95% CIs and McNemar p-values are computed from pairs without propagating the measurement uncertainties of the individual decomposition quantities. The paper acknowledges this for the intervals ("The quoted intervals describe sampling uncertainty"), but the same omission affects the classification fractions and the p=0.020 result; host-measurement scatter can move objects across the quiescent and post-starburst boundaries. Additionally, §5.2 excludes ID 177 and ID 497 from the [O III] population statistics after visual inspection of "poor local spectral quality"; this post hoc exclusion should be justified with quantitative S/N or line-fit quality cuts, and the population statistics should be shown with these objects included or with a robust estimator.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are formatting typos: "T able 1" in the text, "GalfitMusing" in §2.2, and mismatched math-mode/regular text for [O II] and [O III] in several places. These should be corrected.
  2. [§3.5] The transition from 83 extended CL AGNs with at least one candidate comparison to 82 matched pairs is stated, but the reason the last object is dropped is not explained. Clarify whether the 83rd has no unique partner after the without-replacement matching.
  3. [§4.3] The simple scaling of the star-forming fraction by the cosmic SFR-density ratio (1.48) assumes the star-forming fraction scales linearly with the cosmic SFR density. This is a rough heuristic; state that it is not a quantitative evolutionary correction.
  4. [Figure 6] Panel (b) would benefit from explicitly marking the matched-pair status of the post-starburst excess, e.g., by annotating the McNemar p-value on the figure, since the p=0.020 result is a headline number in the abstract.
  5. [§5.1] The text says PS16dtm is "not included in our final host decomposition sample" because it is PSF-dominated, but the object appears in the earlier sample counts (§2.1 lists 137 HSC-matched objects). Clarify that the light-curve atlas includes all 137 objects while the host property sample is 105.
  6. [§5.2] The statement that "the robust result is the absence of a population-wide [O III] or [O II] response" is stronger than the evidence because the two largest [O III] changes are excluded and the remaining distribution has a median absolute deviation of only 0.087 dex. Consider rephrasing to "no population-wide response is detected within the limitations of the current spectra."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the host-galaxy measurements and matched-quasar comparison are independent of the conclusions they support, despite author overlap in the parent sample and comparison pipeline.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the two-epoch decomposition (Eq. 1), where the observed flux is modeled as an epoch-dependent AGN component plus an epoch-independent host stellar population. This is a modeling assumption, not a quantity derived from the result it supports. The key comparison (Table 2) is between 82 CL AGNs and 82 extended quasars drawn from the prior S. Sun et al. (2026) catalog; that sample is external data analyzed with a consistent pipeline, so the comparison is not constructed from the CL sample itself. Self-citations to Guo et al. (2024, 2025a,b) and Sun et al. (2026) are used for sample selection, line-response priors, and method details, but the paper also presents independent internal checks: stable [O III]/[O II] over multi-year baselines, correlated broad-line/continuum changes from its own fits, and host-dominated faint states. The tied stellar-population assumption (theta_star shared across epochs) could bias M_star, sSFR, and Hδ_A if radial stellar-population gradients exist, but this is an unverified systematic risk acknowledged as a limitation in §5.7 rather than a circular reduction. No equation reduces to a fitted value, and no conclusion is forced by a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard cosmology, a shared stellar-population assumption, SED-model assumptions, and imaging-decomposition assumptions. The headline fractions depend on hand-chosen classification thresholds, which are listed as free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Quiescence threshold in log sSFR = -10.94 yr^-1
    Adopted from Dodd et al. (2021)/Sun et al. (2026) to classify 75.2% of hosts as quiescent; changing this threshold changes headline fractions.
  • Post-starburst Hδ A threshold = 4 Å
    Defines post-starburst as quiescent with Hδ_A>4 Å; drives the 29.5% fraction and the p=0.020 excess.
  • Morphology extended/compact threshold = R_e,i/R50,PSF,i > 1
    Chosen by hand to split sample; compact systems are excluded from the primary comparison.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7
    Stated in §1; used for distances and stellar mass estimates.
  • domain assumption The host stellar population is unchanged between SDSS and DESI epochs and is shared through θ⋆ (Eq. 1)
    Core modeling assumption of the two-epoch decomposition; if false, host measurements are biased.
  • domain assumption The AGN continuum/line model (broken power law, Fe II templates, Balmer continuum) accurately represents the nuclear component after host subtraction
    §3.2; template mismatches would be absorbed into the host fit.
  • domain assumption HSC PSF+Sersic decomposition correctly separates nuclear and host light, and the single-Sersic host profile is adequate
    §2.2; PSF-Sersic degeneracy is acknowledged for compact systems.
  • domain assumption Bagpipes nonparametric SFH with 14 bins and Student-t prior returns unbiased M* and sSFR
    §3.2; sSFRs near the model boundary are upper limits, stated in §5.7.
  • domain assumption NLR [O III]/[O II] emitting gas is extended and does not respond on multi-year baselines; recombination times can be short
    §5.2; used to interpret narrow-line stability and to estimate R_NLR lower limits. If the NLR responds faster, the stability argument weakens.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25487 in / 14179 out tokens · 139192 ms · 2026-08-03T00:31:44.190920+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Changing-look (CL) AGNs trace rapid changes in nuclear activity, but their connection to host galaxy properties remains unclear. We present a study of the host galaxies of 105 CL AGNs previously selected by comparing DESI and SDSS data. We apply a two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition to the DESI and SDSS spectra of the 105 objects. Meanwhile, HSC images are used to constrain their varying AGN components and non-varying stellar population components. We find that 79 of the 105 (75.2%) CL AGN hosts are quiescent galaxies, and 31/105 (29.5%) also show post-starburst signatures. We focus on 82 CL AGNs with extended host emission in the HSC images and compare them with extended quasars at similar redshift and stellar mass. Their star formation activity, Balmer absorption, and quiescent fractions are broadly consistent with those of the comparison quasars, although post-starburst hosts are more common among the CL AGNs. Our CL AGNs with extended host emission are more often quiescent than those with compact morphology, but this difference is not apparent after matching in redshift and stellar mass. The $\mathrm{O\, \small II}$ and $\mathrm{O\, \small III}$ narrow lines show no population-wide response to the continuum and broad line changes, consistent with the slower response expected from the narrow line region. Together, these results favor changes in the central supermassive black hole accretion rate as the main origin of the CL transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28735 by Linhua Jiang, Sarah E. I. Bosman, Shengxiu Sun, Wei-Jian Guo, Zhiwei Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example five-band HSC imaging decomposition for internal identification number (ID) 121. From left to right, the columns show the image, model, point-source-subtracted image, normalized residual, and surface-brightness profile from the GalfitM fitting result. When spectrophotometry from the Spectro￾Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization, and Ices Explorer (SPHEREx) Quick Release … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition of ID 121, a representative turn-off CL AGN in our sample at z = 0.247. The earlier SDSS spectrum is shown in the upper panel and the DESI spectrum in the lower panel. The model allows the AGN continuum and broad Hα and Hβ emission to vary independently while tying the underlying stellar population across the two epochs. strain the host flux level, and is more fle… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-epoch spectrophotometric decomposition of ID 445, a turn-on CL AGN with an SDSS faint state nearly dominated by the host galaxy. The SDSS spectrum and HSC morphology information jointly anchor the host flux level. narrow components are separated at a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 1200 km s−1 . Lines are fitted only when covered by the observed spectrum, and all AGN continuum and emission line pa… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: HδA measured from the decom￾posed DESI host spectrum versus sSFR. Blue filled circles and red open triangles denote turn-on and turn-off CL AGNs, respectively. Dashed lines show the adopted post-starburst criteria, and post-starburst host galaxies reside at the bot￾tom right corner. Lower panel: median-stacked decomposed spectrum of the post-starburst hosts, displaying the Balmer absorption se… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Host galaxy comparison between extended CL AGNs and redshift–stellar-mass matched extended quasars analyzed with the same decomposition pipeline. The panels show the HδA–sSFR distribution, quiescent and post-starburst fractions, and state-separated sSFR distributions. Each CL AGN is paired with one unique comparison quasar. Error bars in the middle panel show 95% binomial confidence intervals [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: i-band S´ersic effective radius relative to the HSC PSF half-light radius. Red and blue points denote quiescent and star-forming hosts, respectively; the dashed line marks the adopted threshold for extended morphology. Right: Observed differences in the quiescent and post-starburst fractions, defined as systems with compact morphology minus systems with extended morphology. Circles show the unadjuste… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multi-survey differential light curves of ID 423 (PS16dtm), the previously identified TDE candidate among the DESI CL AGNs. Top: CRTS, PS1, PTF, and ZTF optical photometry. Bottom: WISE/NEOWISE W1 and W2. Open diamonds show W1 and W2 photometry synthesized by integrating the SPHEREx spectrophotometric spectrum over the covered WISE response curves; the W2 point is marked as partial because the available sp… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-epoch forbidden line variability in the CL AGN sample. Left: fractional line-flux changes in [O III] λ5007 and [O II] λ3728 for objects with reliable [O II] measurements, where ∆F ≡ FDESI − FSDSS and FSDSS is the fitted line flux at the SDSS epoch. The star marks ID 223, a possible mild narrow line response. Right: distribution of ∆ log L[O III]. Positive values indicate a brighter DESI epoch, and dash… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Black hole mass versus host stellar mass (top) and stellar velocity dispersion (bottom). The red line in the top panel is an orthogonal distance regression fit to the 105 CL AGNs, with systematic uncertainties in log M⋆ and log MBH included in the fit. The bottom panel shows the 81 objects from the same sample with reliable host stellar ve￾locity dispersion measurements. Blue contours indicate the two-dim… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute changes in emission line luminosity versus the change in the decomposed AGN continuum luminosity between the DESI and SDSS epochs. Columns show Mg II, Hβ, and Hα from left to right. The top row uses λLλ(5100 ˚A), and the bottom row uses λLλ(2500 ˚A) with the same continuum definition. The positive correlations show that the broad line changes are coupled to nuclear continuum variability, while th… 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

79 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  3. [3]

    P., Crill, B

    Akeson, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Crill, B. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15823, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15823 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15823 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27783

    Aydar, C., Merloni, A., Zeltyn, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27783. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    2005, MNRAS, 358, 1043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08841.x

    Baskin, A., & Laor, A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08841.x

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

  8. [8]

    1987, A&A, 177, 11

    Binette, L., & Robinson, A. 1987, A&A, 177, 11

    1987

  9. [9]

    K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7 2017

  10. [10]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2 2026

  11. [11]

    A., & Green, R

    Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, doi: 10.1086/191661

    doi:10.1086/191661 1992

  12. [12]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx080 2018

  13. [13]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.03248 2019

  14. [14]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 19

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  15. [15]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade307 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M

    Chen, J., Jiang, L., Sun, S., Zhang, Z., & Sun, M. 2025, ApJ, 988, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade307 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    J., & Pearson, E

    Clopper, C. J., & Pearson, E. S. 1934, Biometrika, 26, 404, doi: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00037 DESI Colla...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1934

  18. [18]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Foley, R. J. 2021, ApJL, 907, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd852

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd852 2021

  19. [19]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/870 2009

  20. [20]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d 2020

  21. [21]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  22. [22]

    Goodrich, R. W. 1995, ApJ, 440, 141, doi: 10.1086/175256

    doi:10.1086/175256 1995

  23. [23]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    doi:10.1086/431897 2005

  24. [24]

    2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1809.008

    2018

  25. [25]

    A., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Fawcett, V. A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a 2024

  26. [26]

    L., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Greenwell, C. L., et al. 2025a, ApJS, 278, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc124

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc124

  27. [27]

    A., Siudek, M., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Fawcett, V. A., Siudek, M., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 995, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7b

  28. [28]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  29. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 H¨ außler, B., Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142935

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  30. [30]

    C., et al

    Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 78, doi: 10.1086/591838

    doi:10.1086/591838 2008

  31. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  32. [32]

    Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJL, 980, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaeb9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaeb9 2025

  33. [33]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Yan, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5 2017

  34. [34]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c

    Jin, J.-J., Wu, X.-B., & Feng, X.-T. 2022, ApJ, 926, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac410c 2022

  35. [35]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    arXiv 2003

  36. [36]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  37. [37]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  39. [39]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/144 2015

  40. [40]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395, doi: 10.1086/648598

    doi:10.1086/648598 2009

  41. [41]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a 2019

  42. [42]

    L., Ross, N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2997

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2997 2016

  43. [43]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  44. [44]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/30 2014

  45. [45]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  46. [46]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  47. [47]

    1947, Psychometrika, 12, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF02295996

    McNemar, Q. 1947, Psychometrika, 12, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF02295996

    doi:10.1007/bf02295996 1947

  48. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1095

    Merloni, A., Dwelly, T., Salvato, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1095

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1095 2015

  49. [49]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx063 2018

  50. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2032 2018

  51. [51]

    O., Laher, R., Law, N., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Laher, R., Law, N., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 62, doi: 10.1086/664065

    work page doi:10.1086/664065 2012

  52. [52]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd

    Pan, Z., Jiang, L., Guo, W.-J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add7dd 2025

  53. [53]

    M., Denney, K

    Peterson, B. M., Denney, K. D., De Rosa, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/109 20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/109 2013

  54. [54]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    Petrushevska, T., Leloudas, G., Ilic, D., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244623 2023

  55. [55]

    2021, A&A, 650, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140597

    Potts, B., & Villforth, C. 2021, A&A, 650, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140597

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140597 2021

  56. [56]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4 2023

  57. [57]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    doi:10.1086/506525 2006

  58. [58]

    P., Ford, K

    Ross, N. P., Ford, K. E. S., Graham, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2002

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2002 2018

  59. [59]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Bonning, E

    Salviander, S., Shields, G. A., Gebhardt, K., & Bonning, E. W. 2007, ApJ, 662, 131, doi: 10.1086/513086

    doi:10.1086/513086 2007

  60. [60]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 2023

  61. [61]

    2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de 2017

  62. [62]

    H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al

    Silber, J. H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 2023

  63. [63]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 2013

  64. [64]

    J., et al

    Stern, D., McKernan, B., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac726

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac726 2018

  65. [65]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e35

    Sun, S., Jiang, L., Pan, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e35

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e35 2026

  66. [66]

    2026, ApJ

    Tian, J., Zhao, Y., Bai, J.-M., & Guo, W.-J. 2026, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    L., Crenshaw, D

    Trippe, M. L., Crenshaw, D. M., Deo, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1749, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1749

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1749 2010

  68. [68]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 van Groningen, E., & Wanders, I

    Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 57, doi: 10.1086/506376 van Groningen, E., & Wanders, I. 1992, PASP, 104, 700, doi: 10.1086/133039

    doi:10.1086/506376 2006

  69. [69]

    E., French, K

    Verrico, M. E., French, K. D., Suess, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeb88 2025

  70. [70]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    doi:10.1086/500572 2006

  71. [71]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, doi: 10.1086/320357

    doi:10.1086/320357 2001

  72. [72]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  73. [73]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    Wang, J.-G., Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1334 2009

  74. [74]

    Worthey, G., & Ottaviani, D. L. 1997, ApJS, 111, 377, doi: 10.1086/313021

    doi:10.1086/313021 1997

  75. [75]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  76. [76]

    J., Wu, X.-B., et al

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., Wu, X.-B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed 2025

  77. [77]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    doi:10.1086/301513 2000

  78. [78]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    Yu, X., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2627 2020

  79. [79]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5495

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5495

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5495 2026