Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Exploring the Origins of Optical Variability in AGNs: Correlations with Black Hole Properties, X-ray, and Radio Emission

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that long-term optical variability in active galactic nuclei is driven by thermal emission from the accretion disk, traced by a damping timescale that grows with black hole mass and luminosity while X-ray and radio propert

desk verdict Confirmatory DRW timescale study with a real censoring problem in its central correlations; the null X-ray/radio results are the useful part. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06610 v1 pith:DUDATE57 submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Vivek Kumar Jha , Debbijoy Bhattacharya , Hum Chand This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords AGNopticalvariabilitydampedrandomwalkaccretiondiskthermalemissionblackholemassSwift/BATZTFlightcurvesX-rayradioloudness
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 asks what drives the long-term (months-to-years) optical brightness changes of active galactic nuclei (AGN). Using roughly five years of ZTF optical light curves for hard-X-ray-selected AGN from the Swift/BAT catalog, it models each light curve as a damped random walk and extracts a characteristic variability timescale, $\tau_d$, and amplitude. The central result is that $\tau_d$ correlates positively with supermassive black hole mass and bolometric luminosity (Spearman $r_s = 0.35$ and $0.40$), while optical variability shows no significant dependence on X-ray photon index and only weak anti-correlations with radio flux and radio loudness. The paper takes this as evidence that long-term optical variability is primarily thermal emission from the accretion disk, with jets and X-ray reprocessing playing little role. If true, variability timescales become a useful probe of black hole mass, disk scale, and the unified AGN picture.

What carries the argument

The Damped Random Walk (DRW) model: a Gaussian-process description in which a light curve has finite memory, so that after a characteristic damping timescale $\tau_d$ fluctuations decorrelate. Fitting DRW to each ZTF light curve yields $\tau_d$ and the asymptotic variability amplitude $\sigma$; the excess variance $F_{\rm var}$ provides a model-independent variability measure. $\tau_d$ is interpreted as the thermal timescale of the accretion disk, so its correlations with black hole mass and luminosity carry the argument.

What would settle it

Restrict the analysis to Type 1 AGN with ZTF baselines longer than ten times their fitted $\tau_d$, or correct for censoring using simulated light curves, and recompute the Spearman correlations with mass and luminosity; if the correlations disappear or drop below significance, the claim that disk thermal timescales drive long-term variability is not supported. A second check: simultaneous optical and X-ray monitoring over several years should show correlated reprocessing signatures if X-rays drive optical variations, whereas the paper predicts they remain uncorrelated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the characteristic damping timescale $\tau_d$ recovered from damped random walk fits to optical light curves is a physical clock set by the accretion disk, not by X-ray reprocessing or jet activity. For 227 Type 1 AGN with BASS-DR2 properties, $\tau_d$ correlates with SMBH mass ($r_s=0.35$, $p\approx 10^{-7}$) and bolometric luminosity ($r_s=0.40$, $p\approx 10^{-10}$), while the Eddington ratio shows only weak dependence ($r_s=0.13$). The variability amplitude $\sigma$ shows weaker mass and luminosity correlations ($r_s=0.24$ and $0.33$) and essentially none with Eddington ratio ($r_s=0.08$). The paper finds no significant correlation between optical variab

Load-bearing premise

The fitted DRW damping timescales are treated as exact values in the correlations, even though the paper says timescales longer than about one tenth of the light-curve baseline should be treated as upper limits; if many of those upper limits are biased low, the reported correlations could be biased or weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\tau_d$ is a disk thermal timescale, variability monitoring gives an indirect way to estimate black hole mass and accretion-disk scale in AGN where spectroscopy is unavailable.
  • Distinct $\tau_d$ and $\sigma$ distributions for Type 1 versus Type 2 AGN support orientation-based unification and can flag misclassified or transitional sources.
  • Long-term optical variability is not a reliable proxy for X-ray or radio activity; multi-wavelength variability models should treat the disk as the primary driver.
  • The measured correlations are lower limits because many $\tau_d$ values are upper limits, so longer-baseline surveys should reveal the true, possibly stronger, relations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: If the $\tau_d$-mass relation is real, it could be sharpened into a black hole mass estimator once censoring is handled; the paper's correlations treat upper limits as exact values, so a survival-analysis refit is a direct next test.
  • Editorial: The weak X-ray/optical anti-correlation, if confirmed with simultaneous monitoring, could indicate that X-ray variability and disk optical fluctuations share a fixed accretion-energy budget, with more X-ray variation corresponding to less optical variation.
  • Editorial: Because the sample is hard-X-ray selected, the correlations may be diluted by orientation and absorption biases; repeating the analysis on an optically selected quasar sample with identical light-curve treatment would isolate those effects.
  • Editorial: The same DRW fits could be extended to the ZTF $g$ and $i$ bands to test whether $\tau_d$ scales with wavelength as predicted by disk thermal models, a prediction the paper does not make.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies optical variability of 528 Swift/BAT AGN using ~5-year ZTF r-band light curves. The authors fit damped random walk (DRW) models to estimate the damping timescale tau_d and amplitude sigma, and correlate these with black hole mass, bolometric luminosity, Eddington ratio, X-ray properties, and radio properties for a subset of 227 Type 1 AGN. They report a positive correlation between tau_d and both MBH (Spearman rs = 0.35) and Lbol (rs = 0.40), weak positive correlations of sigma with MBH and Lbol, no significant dependence on X-ray photon index or X-ray variability, and weak anti-correlations with radio flux/loudness. These findings are interpreted as support for thermal accretion-disk emission as the primary driver of long-term optical variability.

Significance. If the correlations are robust, the result strengthens the interpretation of DRW damping timescales as disk thermal timescales and offers a useful comparison with the Burke et al. (2021) relation. The paper has several strengths: it uses a hard X-ray selected sample from the 105-month Swift/BAT catalog; it includes a control sample of passive galaxies from GAMA to check against PSF-induced variability; it describes DRW recovery simulations (Appendix A); and it compares its MBH-tau_d relation with an external reference. The main physical claim, however, depends on the reliability of DRW timescales for light curves whose baselines are often shorter than 10*tau_d, a regime the authors themselves flag as yielding only upper limits. Because this censoring directly affects the two correlations that the abstract emphasizes, the significance of the paper is conditional on demonstrating that the correlations survive when censored data are treated properly.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Appendix A] The paper states that for light-curve lengths shorter than 10*tau_d, the derived tau_d 'should be considered as upper limits.' With a ZTF baseline of ~5 yr (~1800 d) and median Type 1 tau_d ≈ 295 d, the baseline is only ~6*tau_d for the median source, so a large fraction of the 227 sources are in the flagged unreliable regime. Yet Table 2 uses these tau_d values as exact point estimates in Spearman rank correlations, and the central MBH-tau_d (rs=0.35) and Lbol-tau_d (rs=0.40) claims rely on this. The Appendix A simulation tests only a single input tau_d=300 d and baselines up to 3000 d; it does not test sources with tau_d > 300 d, where baseline < 10*tau_d and the fitted value is likely censored at the baseline scale. This can bias the correlations, especially if longer-true-tau_d sources (often more massive/luminous) are systematically more censored. The authors should either repeat th
  2. [Table 2] The Spearman coefficients are reported without any uncertainty (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals), and the p-values assume the tau_d and sigma values are exact and independent. The DRW parameter uncertainties are not propagated into the correlation analysis. Given that tau_d for many sources is an upper limit and that the coefficients are modest (rs < 0.4), the statistical evidence is weaker than the p-values alone suggest. The authors should provide bootstrap or posterior-based confidence intervals, and ideally a null-hypothesis test that accounts for measurement uncertainties.
  3. [§4.1–§4.2] The sample selection entering the primary correlations is not fully transparent. The paper says 'out of 528 sources, we are left with 303 sources' after discussing Type 2 AGN, but Table 1 implies 338 Type 1 sources (528 − 190). The reduction from 338 to 303 is not explained. More importantly, the decision to exclude Type 2 AGN because their DRW timescales are 'unphysical' means the correlations are established only for unabsorbed Type 1 sources; the abstract's generalization to 'AGN' overstates the scope. The authors should clarify the selection steps and state more carefully that the conclusions apply to unobscured Type 1 AGN.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] Typo: 'Spearmann' should be 'Spearman'.
  2. [References] The reference list contains two 'Kozlowski 2016' entries (ApJ 826, 118 and MNRAS 459, 2787) with identical author/year; these should be distinguished as 2016a/2016b or merged if they are the same work.
  3. [Appendix A, Figure A1] The caption repeats '1-day Cadence' twice; the legend is confusing because the panels are labeled '1-day Cadence', '3-day Cadence', '10-day Cadence', and 'Seasonal Cadence', but the bottom-left panel label appears twice. Please correct.
  4. [§4.2, last paragraph] The sentence 'and is consistent with the recently obtained results' appears incomplete; specific citations or a description of the comparison would improve clarity.
  5. [Figure 6] The red line from Burke et al. (2021) is plotted but the relation is not given in the text or caption; readers cannot assess the normalization and slope. Please state the relation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports direct empirical correlations between DRW-fitted variability parameters and external physical properties; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an observational correlation study, not a derivation. The DRW parameters (tau_d, sigma) are fit to ZTF light curves with Celerite, while MBH, Lbol, and Eddington ratio are taken from the external BASS-DR2 catalog (Koss et al. 2022). The central correlations (tau_d vs MBH, rs=0.35; tau_d vs Lbol, rs=0.40) are computed directly from these independently obtained quantities, so they are not forced by construction: nothing in the DRW fit uses MBH or Lbol as input, and no equation defines tau_d in terms of the correlated physical parameters. The paper explicitly compares its MBH–tau_d results to the external Burke et al. (2021) relation, providing an external benchmark. The self-citations (Jha et al. 2022, Ojha et al. 2022) are ordinary literature mentions and are not load-bearing. The paper's own caveat that tau_d values for light curves shorter than 10*tau_d should be treated as upper limits (Section 4.2) is a data-quality/statistical limitation that could affect the reliability of the correlations, but it is not a circularity: using uncertain or censored measured values as data points is not equivalent to defining the result from its inputs. Similarly, the simulation in Appendix A only tests recovery for a single true tau_d=300 days, which is a validity concern, not a circular-reasoning concern. No step in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The central claim—thermal disk emission governing long-term optical variability—is an interpretation of the observed correlations, not a tautology derived from the definitions of the fitted parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on fitted DRW parameters (tau_d, sigma) per light curve, on the domain assumption that DRW is a valid descriptor of AGN optical variability and that tau_d maps to the disk thermal timescale, and on the external BASS-DR2 catalog for physical parameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • DRW damping timescale tau_d per source = median ~295 days for Type 1, ~24.5 days for Type 2
    Fitted to each ZTF r-band light curve via celerite; the central correlations (rs=0.35 vs MBH, 0.40 vs Lbol) use these fits as point measurements.
  • DRW variability amplitude sigma per source = median log sigma = -1.05 (Type 1), -1.87 (Type 2)
    Second fitted parameter of the DRW model; used in correlations with MBH, Lbol, X-ray and radio parameters.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DRW is an adequate stochastic model for AGN optical variability
    Invoked in Section 3.2; the paper acknowledges higher-order CARMA models may be better but uses DRW for interpretability and comparability.
  • domain assumption The damping timescale tau_d corresponds to the thermal timescale of the accretion disk
    Used in Section 4.1 and Discussion to interpret Type 2 timescales as unphysical and to connect the MBH-tau correlation to disk theory.
  • domain assumption The Swift BAT 105-month selected AGN and the BASS-DR2 physical parameters are representative and correctly cross-matched
    Used in Section 4.2; 227 of 303 Type 1 sources have MBH/Lbol from BASS-DR2, and the analysis assumes the 70-month catalog measurements apply to the 105-month sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Origins of Optical Variability in AGNs: Correlations with Black Hole Properties, X-ray, and Radio Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUDATE57

@misc{pith2026250806610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Origins of Optical Variability in AGNs: Correlations with Black Hole Properties, X-ray, and Radio Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUDATE57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06610}
}
read the original abstract

We study the optical variability characteristics of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) from the Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) AGN catalogue by utilising approximately five years of optical light curves from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) survey. We investigate dependencies of the long-term optical variability amplitudes and timescales on (i) supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass, luminosity, and Eddington ratio to explore the influence of accretion disk dynamics and radiative processes; (ii) X-ray properties, such as spectral photon indices and fluxes, to study the effect of high-energy emission mechanisms; and (iii) radio characteristics, such as integrated fluxes and radio loudness, which indicate jet activity. Our findings confirm a positive correlation between the variability time scale and both the SMBH mass and luminosity, suggesting that these physical parameters significantly impact the optical variability timescale. Conversely, no significant dependence is found between optical variability and X-ray properties, indicating that high-energy processes may not substantially influence long-term optical variability. Additionally, a weak anti-correlation between optical variability and radio parameters suggests that jet activity has a negligible effect on causing long-term AGN variability. These results support the hypothesis that long-term optical variability in AGN is primarily governed by thermal emission from the accretion disk. Further investigations with larger samples are essential to refine these correlations and develop robust physical models integrating black hole properties, accretion disk physics, and multi-wavelength radiative transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06610 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of the bolometric luminosity and redshift for the sample of the Swift/BAT AGN sample studied here. obscure radio-quiet AGN. Studies have looked for the correlation between the radio and optical emission of the light curves and found that radio emission can drive the UV optical variability (e.g. see Clements et al. 1995; Liao et al. 2022, etc.) It remains to be seen how the long term UV/Optical varia… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ZTF r-band light curves for 6 of the sources studied in this work. The common name for the source, along with right ascension (RA) and Declination (Dec.), are noted on the top of each panel. 3. ANALYSIS 3.1. Estimation of excess variance To quantify the variability in the AGN light curves, we utilise the method described by Vaughan et al. (2003) to calculate the fractional variability amplitude, Fvar. This measu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the logarithm of excess variance Fvar (left), the variability amplitudes σ (center) and the damping timescale τ (right) for our sample. The sources are divided into three types (Sy1, Sy1.9 and Sy2) based on the classification available in Koss et al. (2022) for the sample of AGN from the BAT 70-month catalogue. For clarity, we merged the Sy1.2, 1.5, and 1.8 sources into the Sy1 category for further a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relation between the excess variance (Fvar) and the DRW variability amplitude (σ) for the 227 Type-1 AGN from our sample. The Spearman rank correlation coef￾ficient is shown on the top of the panel, with the pnull value in the bracket. The median errorbar on both t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the DRW variability amplitude (σ) with the physical parameters. The left panels show the comparison with LBOL; the middle panel shows the comparison with SMBH mass, and the right panel shows the comparison with Eddington ratio REDD. The details are as per…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relation between the SMBH mass and the damping timescale (τd) for the Type-1 AGN from our sample. The red line shows the relation obtained in (Burke et al. 2021), and the black dashed lines show the 2σ deviation from their relation. rameters. The damping timescale …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The relation between the DRW variability amplitude (σ) and the 14-195 KeV X-ray flux for the Type-1 AGN from our sample in the top panel and the X-ray photon indices (Γx) in the bottom panel. The details are as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the variability parameters ob￾tained in the r band (x-axis) and in X-ray (y-axis). The details are as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relation between the DRW variability amplitude (σ) and the 1.4 Ghz integrated radio flux for the Type-1 AGN from our sample in the top panel and the Radio Loudness in the bottom panel. The details are as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H

    Ai, Y. L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y., et al. 2010, ApJL, 716, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l31 2010

  2. [3]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  3. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [5]

    M., et al

    Breedt, E., Ar´ evalo, P., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14302.x

    arXiv 2009

  5. [7]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933 13 2 3 1-day Cadence True Value 5% T olerance 1-day Cadence 3-day Cadence 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2 3 10-day Cadence 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Seasonal Cadence Baseline (days) log10 ( ) Recovered DRW Timescales vs. Baseline by Cadence Figure A1. We perf...

    doi:10.1126/science.abg9933 2021

  6. [8]

    R., & Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., & Bloom, J. S. 2011, AJ, 141, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/93

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/93 2011

  7. [9]

    C., Dexter, J., et al

    Chen, B.-Y., Bower, G. C., Dexter, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd250

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd250 2023

  8. [10]

    D., Smith, A

    Clements, S. D., Smith, A. G., Aller, H. D., & Aller, M. F. 1995, AJ, 110, 529, doi: 10.1086/117540 De Cicco, D., Bauer, F. E., Paolillo, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142750

    work page doi:10.1086/117540 1995

Show all 61 references
  1. [11]

    M., Horne, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J. M., Horne, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/129

    2015 doi

  2. [12]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  3. [13]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 2018, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 87, 281, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.05330

    2012 doi arXiv

  4. [14]

    J., & Wang, S

    Guo, H., Barth, A. J., & Wang, S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ec

    2022 doi

  5. [15]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  6. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1177

    Hagen, S., Done, C., & Edelson, R. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1177

    2024 doi

  7. [17]

    Hawkins, M. R. S. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 76, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04939.x

    2002

  8. [18]

    K., Joshi, R., Chand, H., et al

    Jha, V. K., Joshi, R., Chand, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac109

    2022 doi

  9. [19]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6c4

    Kang, W.-y., Wang, J.-X., Cai, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6c4

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb69

    Kang, W.-Y., Wang, J.-X., Cai, Z.-Y., & Ren, W.-K. 2021, ApJ, 911, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb69

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    Kankkunen, S., Tornikoski, M., & Hovatta, T. 2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    2025 doi

  12. [22]

    I., Sramek, R

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R. A., Schmidt, M., Green, R. F., & Shaffer, D. B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1163, doi: 10.1086/117145

    1994 doi

  13. [23]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  14. [24]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05 Koz lowski, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/118 Koz lowski, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw819 ...

    2022 doi

  15. [25]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2008, MNRAS, 387, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    2008

  16. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac266

    Liao, M., Wang, J., Kang, W., & Zhou, M. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac266

    2022 doi

  17. [27]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1436

    2015 doi

  18. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab952d L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al

    Liu, T., Koss, M., Blecha, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab952d L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3174 15

    2020 doi

  19. [29]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5790

    Lu, K.-X., Bai, J.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5790

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    1997 doi

  21. [31]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 96, doi: 10.1086/375330

    Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., Vaughan, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 96, doi: 10.1086/375330

    2003 doi

  23. [33]

    Fender, R. P. 2006, Nature, 444, 730, doi: 10.1038/nature05389

    2006 doi

  24. [34]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2149

    Merloni, A., Bongiorno, A., Brusa, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2149

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    F., Done, C., & Pounds, K

    Mushotzky, R. F., Done, C., & Pounds, K. A. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 717, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193. 00344110.1146/annurev.astro.31.1.717 Nied´ zwiecki, A., Zdziarski, A. A., & Szanecki, M. 2016, ApJL, 821, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L1

    1993

  26. [36]

    K., Chand, H., & Singh, V

    Ojha, V., Jha, V. K., Chand, H., & Singh, V. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1627

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    E., & Binas-Valavanis, V

    Papadakis, I. E., & Binas-Valavanis, V. 2024, A&A, 685, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347995

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    A., Sazonov, S

    Prokhorenko, S. A., Sazonov, S. Y., Gilfanov, M. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae261

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b2a S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al

    Ren, G., Zhou, S., Sun, M., & Xue, Y. 2024, ApJ, 975, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b2a S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7f9 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Cartier, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 10, doi...

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    Simm, T., Salvato, M., Saglia, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    A., & Papadakis, I

    Sobolewska, M. A., & Papadakis, I. E. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1597, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15382.x

    2009

  34. [44]

    H., et al

    Soldi, S., Beckmann, V., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322653

    2014 doi

  35. [45]

    J., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Burke, C. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1259

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C

    Suberlak, K. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C. 2021, ApJ, 907, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc698

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae208

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Wang, J., Cai, Z., & Guo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae208

    2018 doi

  38. [48]

    N., et al

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab789e

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    J., Kawai, N., et al

    Tachibana, Y., Graham, M. J., Kawai, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb9a9

    2020 doi

  40. [50]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 473, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01885-8

    Tang, J.-J., Wolf, C., & Tonry, J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 473, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01885-8

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    1994, A&A, 289, 673

    Tornikoski, M., Valtaoja, E., Terasranta, H., et al. 1994, A&A, 289, 673

    1994

  42. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2775

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2775

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    J., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1117

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    1997 doi

  45. [55]

    S., Johnston, K

    Ulvestad, J. S., Johnston, K. J., & Weiler, K. W. 1983, ApJ, 266, 18, doi: 10.1086/160755

    1983 doi

  46. [56]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L53, doi: 10.1086/373887 Vanden Berk, D

    Markowitz, A. 2003, ApJL, 584, L53, doi: 10.1086/373887 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    2003 doi

  47. [57]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    2003

  48. [58]

    2023, Ap&SS, 368, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04226-x

    Wang, H., Guo, C., Cao, H., et al. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04226-x

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 1322, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1322

    Tueller, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1322, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1322

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1258

    Xin, C., Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1258

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    Graham, M. J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8351

    2022 doi

  52. [62]

    S., Koz lowski, S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., Koz lowski, S., & Peterson, B. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 122, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/122

    2016 doi

  53. [63]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., & Peterson, B. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.