Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The X-ray properties of $z>6$ quasars: no evident evolution of accretion physics in the first Gyr of the Universe

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first Gyr of quasar activity shows the same disk–corona structure seen at low redshift.

desk verdict A careful, credible extension of high-z quasar X-ray studies; the null result holds up, though the 2 keV extrapolation assumption deserves a clear caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09849 v1 pith:3UH64K6Z submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.GA

Fabio Vito , William Nielsen Brandt , Franz Erik Bauer , Francesco Calura , Roberto Gilli , Bin Luo , Ohad Shemmer , Cristian Vignali
show 5 more authors
Gianni Zamorani Marcella Brusa Francesca Civano Andrea Comastri Riccardo Nanni
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasarsX-rayastronomyhighredshiftactivegalacticnucleiaccretiondiskssupermassiveblackholesChandragalaxyevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the way quasars convert accreting matter into light did not change during the first billion years of the universe. It adds ten new Chandra observations of $z>6$ quasars to fifteen archival ones, giving the largest X-ray sample yet assembled at these redshifts. Comparing the measured UV-to-X-ray flux ratios, traced by $\alpha_{\rm ox}$, with relations built from thousands of lower-redshift quasars, the authors find no statistically significant offset. The average X-ray spectrum of the $z>6$ sample is slightly steeper than, but consistent with, the typical spectrum of $z=1$–$6$ quasars. If the result is right, the accretion disk and hot corona that power quasar X-rays operate under the same rules in the first Gyr as they do later.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is $\alpha_{\rm ox}=0.38\log(L_{\rm 2\,keV}/L_{2500})$, which collapses the UV-to-X-ray spectral slope into a single number. Comparing the $z>6$ values with the lower-redshift $\alpha_{\rm ox}$–$L_{2500}$ relation is what carries the no-evolution claim. Supporting machinery includes binomial no-source probabilities for source detection, probability-distribution photometry for converting counts to fluxes, and joint power-law spectral fits that yield the average photon index $\Gamma$, a probe of the disk–corona coupling.

What would settle it

Take the same 25 quasars and obtain spectra with enough counts to measure each photon index directly instead of assuming $\Gamma=2.0$; if the mean $\Gamma$ comes out above about 2.5, or if the measured $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ values move systematically off the lower-redshift relation, the no-evolution conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that there is no substantial evolution of the inner accretion-disk/hot-corona structure in quasars from low redshift to $z>6$. Analysing new and archival X-ray observations of 25 quasars in the first Gyr, the authors find that the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ distribution is statistically indistinguishable from the lower-redshift $\alpha_{\rm ox}$–$L_{2500}$ relation. Joint spectral fitting gives average photon indices $\Gamma=2.20^{+0.39}_{-0.34}$ and $\Gamma=2.13^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$ for the fainter and brighter subsamples, slightly steeper than but still consistent with typical $z=1$–$6$ quasars. The bolometric corrections also follow the same luminosity trend seen at low redshift, and the data hint at generally high Eddington ratios.

Load-bearing premise

Every X-ray luminosity and $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ value in the photometric analysis is computed assuming an intrinsic power-law photon index $\Gamma=2.0$; if the true $z>6$ spectra are systematically steeper, the derived luminosities shift and the match to lower-redshift relations could be partly artificial.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\alpha_{\rm ox}$–$L_{2500}$ relation can be treated as redshift-independent out to $z\approx7.5$, so X-ray fluxes of $z>8$ quasars can be predicted from their UV magnitudes when planning observations.
  • Exposure-time estimates for future X-ray missions targeting quasars in the reionization epoch can rely on the local relation, as the paper explicitly notes.
  • The high Eddington ratios hinted by the sample, if general, imply early massive black holes grew efficiently without changing their disk–corona geometry.
  • The first heavily obscured quasar candidate at $z>6$, PSO167–13, suggests that some early accreting black holes are hidden from UV-selected samples and would be found only in X-ray surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If larger samples confirm the marginally steeper photon indices and high Eddington ratios, seed black-hole growth models that require sustained high accretion rates in the first Gyr would be favoured over models invoking a different accretion mode.
  • Inference: Because the photometric analysis assumes $\Gamma=2.0$, the measured mean $\Gamma\approx2.13$ implies a small systematic shift in all $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ values; the null result is robust to that shift, but ruling out larger systematic steepening will require higher signal-to-noise spectra.
  • Inference: The non-evolving $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ relation, if it holds at $z>6$, would extend the quasar standard-candle method into the first Gyr, a regime type Ia supernovae cannot reach; the paper cites this idea but does not itself derive cosmological constraints.
  • Inference: If the obscured candidate is confirmed as Compton-thick, UV-selected $z>6$ quasar samples are biased towards unobscured sources, which would affect the interpretation of the $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new Chandra observations of 10 z>6 quasars and combines them with archival X-ray data for 15 more, yielding a sample of 25 objects in the first Gyr of the Universe. It derives X-ray luminosities, α_ox values, bolometric corrections, hardness ratios, and photon indices from photometric and basic spectral analyses. The main results are that the α_ox distribution of z>6 QSOs is consistent with lower-redshift relations (Just et al. 2007; Lusso & Risaliti 2016), that K_bol increases with L_bol as at lower redshift, and that the mean photon index (Γ≈2.13–2.20) is slightly steeper than but consistent with z≈1–6 QSOs. The authors conclude that there is no substantial evolution of the inner accretion-disk/hot-corona structure in the first Gyr.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is an important observational constraint: it extends the LX–LUV relation and typical photon indices to the first Gyr, supports the use of QSOs as distance indicators to high redshift, and strengthens the case that the basic accretion-disk/corona configuration was already in place by z>6. The analysis is careful in several respects: detection significances use binomial no-source statistics, censored data are handled with ASURV, photometric results are cross-checked with spectral fits where photon statistics allow, and black-hole masses and bolometric luminosities are recalibrated homogeneously. The marginal detections and the systematic dependence on the assumed photon index are handled transparently, and the paper is appropriately cautious about the small sample size. The main weakness is that the photometric α_ox values depend on an extrapolation to rest-frame 2 keV that is not directly probed by the observations; this is acknowledged in the paper but the size of the resulting systematic is not quantified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.3 (Tables 3–4); Section 4.3] The photometric α_ox and L_2keV values are derived from observed 0.5–2 keV counts assuming an intrinsic power law with Γ=2.0, but at z>6 rest-frame 2 keV is redshifted below the soft-band edge and is therefore not directly measured. The hardness ratios and spectral fits in Section 4.3 constrain only rest-frame energies above roughly 3.5 keV, so they do not validate the continuum between rest 2 and 3.5 keV. A systematic slope error or an unmodeled soft excess in that interval would shift all z>6 α_ox values coherently relative to lower-redshift relations that are based on direct measurements of rest 2 keV; the paper itself notes the lack of direct probing in Section 3.3 and shows in Section 4.3.1 that the Γ=2.0 photometric assumption can disagree with the spectral fit in the case of PSOJ338+29. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis: recompute α_ox and Δα_ox under the authors' measured average Γ values (e.g., 2.13 and 2.20) and under an alternative continuum with a soft-excess component normalized to the observed hardness ratios, and quote the resulting shifts against the intrinsic scatter of the reference relations. This is needed to bound the systematic uncertainty on the central null result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3.1] The sentence 'For two other sources, PSOJ036+03, SDSS1048+5251, and SDSSJ2310+1855' lists three objects and should say 'three'; in addition, 'SDSS1048+5251' appears inconsistent with the source name 'SDSSJ1048+4637' in Table 1 and Table 7.
  2. [Section 2.3] The text refers to 'SDSSJ0109−3047' when discussing the Mg II blueshift; the source in the sample is VIKJ0109−3047, so the acronym appears to be a typo.
  3. [Section 3.2] The expected number of false detections is written as '111×PB≈1', which is slightly confusing because PB is also used for the per-image no-source probability; stating the expected number as the sum of PB over all images and bands would be clearer.
  4. [Section 5] In the Conclusions, the expression 'log Lbol LL⊙' appears garbled; it should read 'log(L_bol/L_⊙)' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the z>6 comparison is made against external lower-redshift relations and independent spectral fits.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (no evolution of alpha_ox and Gamma) are tested against external baselines, not derived from fitted inputs. alpha_ox is computed from soft-band photometry under an explicitly stated Gamma=2.0 assumption; the comparison relations of Just et al. (2007) and Lusso & Risaliti (2016) are external fits that do not use the z>6 data, so the consistency test is not self-referential. The average photon indices are obtained from joint power-law fits with free photon index, independent of the Gamma=2.0 photometric assumption. Self-citations (Nanni et al. 2017, Nanni et al. 2018, Vito et al. 2019) provide data or prior measurements but are not load-bearing logical premises for the null result. The paper explicitly flags the Gamma=2.0 extrapolation and the fact that rest-frame 2 keV is not directly probed at z>6 (Section 3.3), which is a systematic uncertainty rather than circular reasoning. No equation in the paper reduces a derived quantity to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derived quantities (alpha_ox, K_bol, Eddington ratios) depend on standard assumptions: a power-law X-ray spectrum with Gamma=2.0 for count-rate to flux conversion, a UV power-law slope of -0.3, literature calibrations for Mg II black-hole masses and 1450 A bolometric corrections, and a Planck cosmology. No new physical entities are introduced. These are inputs from prior measurements or standard practice, not fitted in this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Assumed intrinsic photon index for photometric conversions = Gamma = 2.0
    Adopted in Section 3.3 to convert count rates to fluxes and rest-frame 2 keV luminosities, and thus to compute alpha_ox. If the true z>6 spectra are systematically steeper (the paper's own joint fit gives Gamma ~ 2.13-2.20), derived L_2keV and alpha_ox values would shift, potentially changing the comparison with lower-redshift relations.
  • Assumed UV continuum slope = alpha = -0.3
    Used to compute L_2500 from M_1450 (Section 4.1). The authors note that alpha = -0.5 would make alpha_ox steeper by about 0.02, within the reported errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption X-ray spectra of z>6 QSOs are power laws with photon index Gamma=2.0 for photometric conversions
    Section 3.3; needed to derive fluxes and luminosities; checked against hardness ratios and spectral fits which give consistent results.
  • domain assumption UV continuum is a power law with slope alpha=-0.3 from 1450 A to 2500 A
    Section 4.1; used to compute L_2500; alternative slope changes alpha_ox by ~0.02.
  • domain assumption Mg II virial black-hole mass calibration of Vestergaard & Osmer (2009)
    Section 2.2; used to compute Eddington ratios and correlations with alpha_ox; single-epoch masses have ~0.5 dex uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity from the Venemans et al. (2016) relation log L_bol = 4.553 + 0.911 log(lambda L_lambda(1450))
    Section 2.3; used for L_bol and K_bol; typical uncertainty ~7%.
  • standard math Standard flat LCDM cosmology (H0=67.7, Omega_m=0.307)
    Adopted in the paper for luminosity distances; values from Planck 2016.
  • domain assumption Radio-quiet selection ensures X-ray emission is dominated by the accretion-disk corona rather than a jet
    Section 2.3; based on radio-loudness upper limits R<10 or R<40; radio-loud QSOs at z>6 are not covered by X-ray observations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The X-ray properties of $z>6$ quasars: no evident evolution of accretion physics in the first Gyr of the Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UH64K6Z

@misc{pith2026190809849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The X-ray properties of $z>6$ quasars: no evident evolution of accretion physics in the first Gyr of the Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UH64K6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09849}
}
abstract

X-ray emission from QSOs has been used to assess SMBH accretion properties up to $z$~6. However, at $z>6$ only ~15 QSOs are covered by sensitive X-ray observations, preventing a statistically significant investigation of the X-ray properties of QSOs in the first Gyr of the Universe. We present new Chandra observations of 10 $z>6$ QSOs, selected to have virial black-hole mass estimates from Mg II line spectroscopy. Adding archival X-ray data for an additional 15 $z>6$ QSOs, we investigate the X-ray properties of the QSO population in the first Gyr of the Universe, focusing in particular on the $L_{UV}-L_{X}$ relation, which is traced by the $\alpha_{ox}$ parameter, and the shape of their X-ray spectra. We performed photometric analyses to derive estimates of the X-ray luminosities, and thus the $\alpha_{ox}$ values and bolometric corrections ($K_{bol}=L_{bol}/L_{X}$). We compared the resulting $\alpha_{ox}$ and $K_{bol}$ distributions with the results found for QSO samples at lower redshift. Finally, we performed a basic X-ray spectral analysis of the brightest $z>6$ QSOs to derive their individual photon indices, and joint spectral analysis of the whole sample to estimate the average photon index. We confirm a lack of significant evolution of $\alpha_{ox}$ with redshift, extending the results from previous works up to $z>6$, and the trend of an increasing bolometric correction with increasing luminosity found for QSOs at lower redshifts. The average power-law photon index of our sample ($\Gamma=2.20_{-0.34}^{+0.39}$ and $\Gamma=2.13_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ for sources with $<30$ and $>30$ net counts, respectively) is slightly steeper than, but still consistent with, typical QSOs at $z=1-6$. All these results point toward a lack of substantial evolution of the inner accretion-disk/hot-corona structure in QSOs from low redshift to $z>6$. Our data hint at generally high Eddington ratios at $z>6$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top and middle panels: distribution of M1450Å and m 1450Å as a function of redshift. Small black open circles are QSOs not covered by X-ray observations (Bañados et al. 2016; Mazzucchelli et al. 2017; Reed et al. 2017; Tang et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2017, 2018a,b; Chehade et al. 2018; Matsuoka et al. 2018b,a; Yang et al. 2019). Cyan symbols are QSOs with archival X-ray data (see Tab. 1). Red symbols are QSOs covered … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Smoothed Chandra images (40 × 40 pixels; i.e. ≈ 2000 × 2000) of our ten new targets (rows, as annotated) in the soft (first column), hard (second column), and full (third column) band. Circles represent the source extraction regions (R = 2 arcsec) centred on the optical positions of the targets, and used to compute source photometry. Green and red circles are used for detected and undetected sources, respectively. n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. αox vs. L 2500Å for z ≥ 6 QSOs, compared with a compilation of optically selected QSOs at lower redshifts (Shemmer et al. 2006b; Steffen et al. 2006; Just et al. 2007; Lusso & Risaliti 2016). Downward pointing triangles represent upper limits. We also show the best-fitting relations of Just et al. (2007), Lusso & Risaliti (2016), and Martoc￾chia et al. (2017). For visual purposes, we do not plot X-ray undetected sou… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ∆αox vs. redshift for z ≥ 6 QSOs, compared with a compilation of QSOs at lower redshifts (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: X-ray versus bolometric luminosity of our sample of z > 6 QOSs (red and cyan symbols), compared with the compilation of lower lumi￾nosity QSOs of Lusso et al. (2012, empty grey circles). We also add the sample of luminous QSOs from Martocchia et al. (2017, green sym￾bo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Photon index as a function of redshift. We report the individual best-fitting values for sources with > 30 total net counts (grey symbols), the results derived from joint spectral analysis of QSOs with > 30, < 30 net counts, and of z > 6.5 QSOs (red, blue, and cyan cir…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Confidence contours at 68%, 90%, and 99% confidence levels (red, green, and blue curves, respectively) of the best-fitting column density and photon index derived from a joint spectral analysis of the QSOs with > 30 counts (see § 4.3.2). among the spectra, and fixed th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Smoothed 2 − 5 keV image (40 × 40 pixels; ≈ 2000 × 2000) of PSO167–13. The red cross marks the optical position of the QSO. 4.4. Comments on individual QSOs 4.4.1. PSOJ167–13 This QSO (z = 6.515) falls slightly below our detection thresh￾old in the hard band (PB = 0.98…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The most extreme high-z radio quasars in the eRASS:1 X-ray survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The team confirmed 39 new high-redshift radio quasars and found that the number of X-ray-selected blazars at z>4 grows with redshift faster than a constant X-ray/radio ratio model, in broad agreement with the IC/CMB model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Article number, page 14 of 15 F. Vito et al.: The X-ray properties of z> 6 QSOs

    1996

  2. [2]

    1976, ApJ, 210, 642 Bañados, E., Connor, T., Stern, D., et al

    Avni, Y . 1976, ApJ, 210, 642 Bañados, E., Connor, T., Stern, D., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 856, L25 Bañados, E., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2015a, ApJ, 805, L8 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 11 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018b, Nature, 553, 473 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Morganson, E., et a...

    1976

  3. [3]

    C., & McMahon, R

    Banerji, M., Alaghband-Zadeh, S., Hewett, P. C., & McMahon, R. G. 2015, MN- RAS, 447, 3368

    2015

  4. [4]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  5. [5]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141

    2017

  6. [6]

    Brandt, W. N. & Alexander, D. M. 2015, A&A Rev., 23, 1

    2015

  7. [7]

    N., Schneider, D

    Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., Fan, X., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, L5

    2002

  8. [8]

    Brandt, W. N. & Vito, F. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 241

    2017

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    D., Mainieri, V ., et al

    Brightman, M., Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V ., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2485

    2013

  2. [10]

    S., Feigelson, E

    Broos, P. S., Feigelson, E. D., Townsley, L. K., et al. 2007, ApJS, 169, 353 Cano-Díaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, L8

    2007

  3. [11]

    C., Shanks, T., Chehade, B., et al

    Carnall, A. C., Shanks, T., Chehade, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L16

    2015

  4. [12]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939 Castelló-Mor, N., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., et al

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939 Castelló-Mor, N., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1209

    1979

  5. [13]

    C., Shanks, T., et al

    Chehade, B., Carnall, A. C., Shanks, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1649

    2018

  6. [14]

    1992, ApJ, 384, 62

    Comastri, A., Setti, G., Zamorani, G., et al. 1992, ApJ, 384, 62

    1992

  7. [15]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693 De Rosa, G., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 56 De Rosa, G., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 145

    1998

  8. [16]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97

    2018

  9. [17]

    M., Fan, X., Brandt, W

    Diamond-Stanic, A. M., Fan, X., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 782

    2009

  10. [18]

    F., Richards, G

    Fan, X., Hennawi, J. F., Richards, G. T., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 515

    2004

  11. [19]

    K., Lupton, R

    Fan, X., Narayanan, V . K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

    2001

  12. [20]

    A., Gunn, J

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1999, ApJ, 526, L57

    1999

  13. [21]

    A., Schneider, D

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649

    2003

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 870, L11

    Fan, X., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L11

    2019

  15. [23]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 648

    Fanali, R., Caccianiga, A., Severgnini, P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 648

    2013

  16. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, L13

    Farrah, D., Priddey, R., Wilman, R., Haehnelt, M., & McMahon, R. 2004, ApJ, 611, L13

    2004

  17. [25]

    Feigelson, E. D. & Nelson, P. I. 1985, ApJ, 293, 192

    1985

  18. [26]

    2014, A&A, 565, A91

    Feruglio, C., Bongiorno, A., Fiore, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A91

    2014

  19. [27]

    A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G

    Galeev, A. A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G. S. 1979, ApJ, 229, 318

    1979

  20. [28]

    C., Brandt, W

    Gallagher, S. C., Brandt, W. N., Chartas, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 709

    2006

  21. [29]

    C., et al

    Gallerani, S., Zappacosta, L., Orofino, M. C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3590

    2017

  22. [30]

    Gibson, R. R. & Brandt, W. N. 2012, ApJ, 746, 54

    2012

  23. [31]

    R., Brandt, W

    Gibson, R. R., Brandt, W. N., & Schneider, D. P. 2008, ApJ, 685, 773

    2008

  24. [32]

    R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W

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

    2009

  25. [33]

    & Maraschi, L

    Haardt, F. & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, L51

    1991

  26. [34]

    & Feigelson, E

    Isobe, T. & Feigelson, E. D. 1990, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    1990

  27. [35]

    2004, ApJ, 614, 69

    Iwamuro, F., Kimura, M., Eto, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 69

    2004

  28. [36]

    2008, AJ, 135, 1057

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Annis, J., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1057

    2008

  29. [37]

    D., Fan, X., et al

    Jiang, L., McGreer, I. D., Fan, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 222

    2016

  30. [38]

    Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J., & Davis, S. W. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.02845

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 3268

    Jin, C., Ward, M., & Done, C. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3268

    2012

  32. [40]

    W., Brandt, W

    Just, D. W., Brandt, W. N., Shemmer, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1004

    2007

  33. [41]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775

    2005

  34. [42]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Sha ffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Sha ffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195

    1989

  35. [43]

    D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al

    Kurk, J. D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 833

    2009

  36. [44]

    D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al

    Kurk, J. D., Walter, F., Fan, X., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 32

    2007

  37. [45]

    P., Isobe, T., & Feigelson, E

    Lavalley, M. P., Isobe, T., & Feigelson, E. D. 1992, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 24, 839–840

    1992

  38. [46]

    N., Alexander, D

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 70

    2014

  39. [47]

    N., Hall, P

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Hall, P. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 122

    2015

  40. [48]

    D., et al

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 623

    2012

  41. [49]

    2010, A&A, 512, A34

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34

    2010

  42. [50]

    & Risaliti, G

    Lusso, E. & Risaliti, G. 2016, ApJ, 819, 154

    2016

  43. [51]

    & Risaliti, G

    Lusso, E. & Risaliti, G. 2017, A&A, 602, A79

    2017

  44. [52]

    2012, A&A, 539, A48

    Marchese, E., Della Ceca, R., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A48

    2012

  45. [53]

    F., et al

    Marlar, A., Shemmer, O., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 92

    2018

  46. [54]

    2017, A&A, 608, A51

    Martocchia, S., Piconcelli, E., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A51

    2017

  47. [55]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    2016

  48. [56]

    2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    2019

  49. [57]

    P., et al

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91

    2017

  50. [58]

    Meier, D. L. 2012, Black Hole Astrophysics: The Engine Paradigm

    2012

  51. [59]

    A., Bosman, S

    Meyer, R. A., Bosman, S. E. I., & Ellis, R. S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3305

    2019

  52. [60]

    P., Brandt, W

    Miller, B. P., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 20

    2011

  53. [61]

    2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Moretti, A., Campana, S., Mineo, T., et al. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5898, UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XIV , ed. O. H. W. Siegmund, 360–368

    2005

  54. [62]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

    2011

  55. [63]

    2018, A&A, 614, A121

    Nanni, R., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A121

    2018

  56. [64]

    Nanni, R., Vignali, C., Gilli, R., Moretti, A., & Brand t, W. N. 2017, A&A, 603, A128

    2017

  57. [65]

    N., Luo, B., et al

    Ni, Q., Brandt, W. N., Luo, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5184

    2018

  58. [66]

    J., Beelen, A., et al

    Omont, A., Willott, C. J., Beelen, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A43 Pâris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg, É., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A51

    2013

  59. [67]

    L., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Park, T., Kashyap, V . L., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 610

    2006

  60. [68]

    2005, A&A, 432, 15 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 15 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594

    2005

  61. [69]

    M., Shemmer, O., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Plotkin, R. M., Shemmer, O., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 123

    2015

  62. [70]

    G., Simcoe, R

    Pons, E., McMahon, R. G., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5142

    2019

  63. [71]

    L., Banerji, M., Becker, G

    Reed, S. L., Banerji, M., Becker, G. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1874

    2019

  64. [72]

    L., McMahon, R

    Reed, S. L., McMahon, R. G., Martini, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4702

    2017

  65. [73]

    J., Stern, D., et al

    Ricci, C., Assef, R. J., Stern, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 105

    2017

  66. [74]

    & Lusso, E

    Risaliti, G. & Lusso, E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 195

    2019

  67. [75]

    2009, ApJ, 700, L6

    Risaliti, G., Young, M., & Elvis, M. 2009, ApJ, 700, L6

    2009

  68. [76]

    Selsing, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., Christensen, L., & Krogager, J. K. 2016, A&A, 585, A87

    2016

  69. [77]

    N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., & Kaspi, S

    Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., & Kaspi, S. 2008, ApJ, 682, 81

    2008

  70. [78]

    N., Paolillo, M., et al

    Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Paolillo, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 46

    2017

  71. [79]

    N., Vignali, C., et al

    Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Vignali, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 729

    2005

  72. [80]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    Shen, Y . 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    2013

  73. [81]

    N., Richards, G

    Shen, Y ., Brandt, W. N., Richards, G. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 7

    2016

  74. [82]

    & Kelly, B

    Shen, Y . & Kelly, B. C. 2012, ApJ, 746, 169

    2012

  75. [83]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 35

    Shen, Y ., Wu, J., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 35

    2019

  76. [84]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 741 Steffen, A

    Simpson, C., Martínez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 741 Steffen, A. T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2826

    2006

  77. [85]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4568

    Tang, J.-J., Goto, T., Ohyama, Y ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4568

    2017

  78. [86]

    2013, A&A, 550, A71 Vanden Berk, D

    Vagnetti, F., Antonucci, M., & Trevese, D. 2013, A&A, 550, A71 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549

    2013

  79. [87]

    P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L11

    2015

  80. [88]

    P., Findlay, J

    Venemans, B. P., Findlay, J. R., Sutherland, W. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 24

    2013

  81. [89]

    P., McMahon, R

    Venemans, B. P., McMahon, R. G., Walter, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, L25

    2012

  82. [90]

    P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L8

    2017

  83. [91]

    P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

    2016

  84. [92]

    & Osmer, P

    Vestergaard, M. & Osmer, P. S. 2009, ApJ, 699, 800

    2009

  85. [93]

    N., & Schneider, D

    Vignali, C., Brandt, W. N., & Schneider, D. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 433

    2003

  86. [94]

    N., Schneider, D

    Vignali, C., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., & Kaspi, S. 2005, AJ, 129, 2519

    2005

  87. [95]

    N., Bauer, F

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, L6

    2019

  88. [96]

    N., Stern, D., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Stern, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4528

    2018

  89. [97]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 27

    Wang, F., Fan, X., Yang, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 27

    2017

  90. [98]

    2018a, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11926

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2018a, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11926

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    L., Neri, R., et al

    Wang, R., Carilli, C. L., Neri, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 699

    2010

  92. [100]

    L., et al

    Wang, R., Wagg, J., Carilli, C. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 44

    2013

  93. [101]

    L., et al

    Wang, R., Wagg, J., Carilli, C. L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L34

    2011

  94. [102]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 53

    Wang, R., Wu, X.-B., Neri, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 53

    2016

  95. [103]

    C., Wu, K., Trimble, V ., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Wu, K., Trimble, V ., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1026

    2007

  96. [104]

    J., Albert, L., Arzoumanian, D., et al

    Willott, C. J., Albert, L., Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 546

    2010

  97. [105]

    J., Bergeron, J., & Omont, A

    Willott, C. J., Bergeron, J., & Omont, A. 2017, ApJ, 850, 108

    2017

  98. [106]

    J., Delorme, P., Omont, A., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Omont, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 2435

    2007

  99. [107]

    J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 3541

    2009

  100. [108]

    J., Omont, A., & Bergeron, J

    Willott, C. J., Omont, A., & Bergeron, J. 2013, ApJ, 770, 13

    2013

  101. [109]

    E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V ., et al

    Woods, T. E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V ., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12310

    2018 arXiv

  102. [110]

    N., Comins, M

    Wu, J., Brandt, W. N., Comins, M. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 762

    2010

  103. [111]

    2015, Nature, 518, 512

    Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512

    2015

  104. [112]

    2019, AJ, 157, 236 Article number, page 15 of 15

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 236 Article number, page 15 of 15

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.