Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

A six-year multiwavelength study shows SDSS J1548+2208 is an extreme changing-look AGN that launched radio outflows into a clumpy medium, not a normal stellar tidal disruption event.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 04:50 UTC pith:FY7HHB67

load-bearing objection Solid multi-year follow-up that strengthens the CLAGN case for J1548+2208 and documents rare late radio rebrightening; radio modeling is qualitative but honest about its limits. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11546 v1 pith:FY7HHB67 submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Radio and X-ray flux rebrightening six years after outburst in a partially-obscured extreme changing-look AGN

Tianyao Zhou , Xinwen Shu , Lei Yang , Tao Wu , Luming Sun , Yibo Wang , Guobin Mou , Ning Jiang
show 9 more authors
Wenjie Zhang Hucheng Ding Fabao Zhang Yujun Yao Liming Dou Yogesh Chandola Ningyu Tang Jianguo Wang Tinggui Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords changing-look AGNtidal disruption eventsradio outflowsmid-infrared echoX-ray flarecoronal linescircumnuclear mediumsynchrotron SED
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.

SDSS J1548+2208 flared in mid-infrared, X-ray and radio. Follow-up spanning roughly 2500 days shows the mid-infrared and hard X-ray emission remain elevated relative to the pre-flare state, high-ionization coronal lines evolve slowly, and the mid-infrared color turns blue only gradually during the rise. These traits match an extreme, partially obscured changing-look AGN whose central black hole suddenly increased and then sustained its accretion rate; a normal stellar tidal disruption event is disfavored. The radio spectrum between 0.65 and 15 GHz is double-peaked and later rebrightens above 3 GHz more than six years after the initial outburst, accompanied by a possible late X-ray upturn. The authors attribute the radio behavior to a nascent outflow expanding into and shocking a diffuse circumnuclear medium that contains denser clouds. The object therefore supplies a rare example of a changing-look AGN that can launch radio outflows, and continued monitoring can map the parsec-scale dust and gas that may regulate such state changes.

Core claim

Long-lived elevated mid-infrared and hard X-ray flux, slowly evolving coronal lines, and a mid-infrared color-variation rate of about -0.08 mag per year establish that the outburst of SDSS J1548+2208 is an extreme partially obscured changing-look AGN rather than a normal tidal disruption event; the unusual double-peaked radio SED and late rebrightening arise from a nascent outflow shocking a clumpy circumnuclear medium.

What carries the argument

Two-component self-absorbed synchrotron model (Granot & Sari spectrum with fixed electron index p = 3) fitted to multi-epoch radio SEDs, combined with equipartition analysis under spherical or mildly collimated geometry, that recovers the distinct radii and energies of the low- and high-frequency radio components.

Load-bearing premise

That the two-component radio model and equipartition calculation correctly recover the physical sizes and energies of the two emitting regions, and that the late X-ray upturn is a genuine flare rather than noise or a change in absorption.

What would settle it

Continued multi-frequency radio and X-ray monitoring that either shows the high-frequency radio component and equipartition radius remaining constant while a new cloud interaction is predicted, or reveals a clean return of mid-infrared, X-ray and coronal-line fluxes to their pre-flare levels on a TDE-like decay, would decide the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Changing-look AGN outbursts can launch radio-emitting outflows even when the optical continuum is heavily obscured.
  • Double-peaked radio SEDs and late rebrightenings become diagnostic of outflow–cloud interactions in the nuclear environment.
  • The mid-infrared color-variation rate supplies a practical filter for separating extreme CLAGNs from stellar TDEs in dust-obscured nuclear transients.
  • Parsec-scale mapping of dust and gas around SDSS J1548+2208 can test whether clumpy media regulate AGN state changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If dense clouds routinely sit inside the circumnuclear medium of changing-look systems, late radio rebrightenings should appear in a non-negligible fraction of future CLAGN samples once multi-year radio cadences become standard.
  • The same outflow–cloud geometry that hardens the late X-ray spectrum may also photoionize the coronal-line gas, offering a single physical link between the radio, hard X-ray and high-ionization optical lines.
  • A similar double-peaked radio SED plus slow mid-infrared color evolution could be used as a selection criterion for other partially obscured turn-on CLAGNs in ongoing wide-field surveys.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multiwavelength (optical, MIR, X-ray, radio) monitoring of SDSS J1548+2208 spanning ~2500 days after its MIR discovery. It argues that the long-lived elevated MIR and hard X-ray fluxes, slowly evolving high-ionization coronal lines, and MIR color variation rate CVR = -0.08 mag yr^-1 favor an extreme partially-obscured changing-look AGN over a stellar TDE. The radio SED (0.65–15 GHz) is double-peaked and is modeled with two synchrotron components; a late-time rebrightening at >3 GHz (~2300 d) is reported, with a possible coincident X-ray upturn of modest significance. The radio behavior is interpreted as a nascent outflow shocking a diffuse CNM that contains denser clouds.

Significance. If the CLAGN classification and the outflow–cloud interpretation hold, the source is a rare example of a changing-look AGN that launches radio outflows, and the multi-epoch radio SEDs plus equipartition radii provide a concrete probe of pc-scale gas structure. Strengths include the long temporal baseline, uniform reprocessing of VLA/uGMRT data, AIC/BIC preference for two-component SEDs, and chi-squared support for the radio rebrightening. The work is observationally solid and timely for the growing sample of nuclear transients that blur TDE/CLAGN boundaries.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3 / Appendix B] Section 3.3 and Appendix B: the late X-ray upturn at t~2350–2360 d is stated to exceed the 95% confidence envelope of the delayed-peak Gaussian-rise + power-law model, yet the abstract and Section 4.2 correctly note that its significance is not high. Because the paper links this feature temporally to the radio rebrightening and to a new bow-shock, the claim should be quantified more carefully (e.g., false-alarm probability under a pure power-law or constant-flux null, or a simple Bayesian model comparison) or the language should be softened to “possible” throughout the discussion of the outflow–cloud scenario.
  2. [Section 3.4–3.5 / Appendix D] Section 3.4–3.5 and Appendix D: the two-component Granot & Sari fits fix p=3 and assume nu_m << nu_a << nu_c. While AIC/BIC strongly favor two components, the equipartition radii and energies (and the inference of a nearly static Component 2) inherit these assumptions. A short sensitivity test (p free or p=2.5/3.5; alternative spectral shapes) would show whether the distinct evolutionary tracks of the two components remain robust; without it the physical interpretation of Component 2 as a bow shock around a dense cloud rests on a single fixed-parameter family.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 caption and text: the optical light curves are host-subtracted only for MIR; clarify whether any host subtraction or aperture correction was applied to the ZTF/CRTS/ASASSN points.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1: several VLASS epochs list phases with a leading minus sign that appears inconsistent with the stated zero-point (MJD 58156); a quick consistency check would help readers.
  3. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2: the 99% contours of Gamma vs NH for XMM2021 and EP/FXT are mutually exclusive, but the stacked Swift spectrum is intermediate; a brief note on whether the hardening is gradual or abrupt would be useful.
  4. [Figure 6] Figure 6: the CVR threshold band is shown but the numerical value of the threshold used for classification (0.4 mag yr^-1) is only stated in the text; adding it to the figure legend would improve readability.
  5. A few typographical issues: “Observ ations” (Section 2 header), “attapprox” spacing, and occasional missing spaces around math symbols.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard multiwavelength observational analysis with independent data-driven classification and conventional modeling.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (extreme CLAGN origin preferred over TDE; radio double-peak SED and late rebrightening from outflow shocking CNM with denser clouds) rest on direct multi-epoch photometry, spectroscopy, and radio SEDs spanning ~2500 days, plus standard external formulae (Granot & Sari 2002 synchrotron spectrum with fixed conventional p=3; Barniol Duran et al. 2013 equipartition). The MIR CVR diagnostic and hardness-ratio comparisons are applied to the new data of this source and compared against published sample distributions; they do not reduce the classification to a fitted parameter of the present object by construction. Radio two-component fits extract peak frequencies/fluxes from the observed SEDs and then derive Req/Eeq; no free parameter is tuned to force the CLAGN conclusion or the outflow-cloud scenario. Self-citations (Yao et al. 2025 for the CVR diagram; Mou & Shu 2025 for qualitative outflow-cloud simulations) supply empirical context or a physically motivated interpretation but are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that close a derivation loop. The paper itself flags the modest significance of the late X-ray upturn and calls for future simulations, confirming that the results are not forced by internal definition. No self-definitional, fitted-as-prediction, or renaming circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard cosmological parameters, conventional synchrotron and equipartition formulae, an empirical MIR color diagnostic from prior work, and a handful of fixed model choices (electron index p=3, conical half-opening 30 deg). No new particles or forces are invented; the 'dense clouds' are postulated as the natural environment of a partially-obscured AGN and are given a qualitative falsifiable handle via continued multi-band monitoring.

free parameters (4)
  • synchrotron electron index p = 3 (fixed)
    Fixed to p=3 in all SED fits (Section 3.4), a conventional but non-unique choice that affects the optically-thin slope and derived equipartition quantities.
  • conical half-opening angle phi = 30 deg
    Set to 30 deg for the collimated-outflow equipartition case (Section 3.5); changes the inferred velocity and energy by factors of a few.
  • Gaussian rise timescale sigma and power-law index p for X-ray light-curve model = sigma ~ 10^3 d, p free or -5/3
    Fitted via MCMC to the delayed-peak X-ray model (Appendix B); used to claim the late X-ray points exceed the 95 % model envelope.
  • black-hole mass = 10^5.87 M_sun
    Adopted as 10^5.87 M_sun to convert MIR luminosity to Eddington ratio; enters the physical interpretation of the flare amplitude.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology (Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H_0=70 km s^-1 Mpc^-1)
    Used throughout for luminosity distances and rest-frame times (Section 1).
  • domain assumption Granot & Sari (2002) synchrotron spectrum with nu_m << nu_a << nu_c is an adequate description of the radio SED at late times
    Adopted for all MCMC SED fits (Section 3.4); justified by the late observing epochs but not independently verified for this source.
  • domain assumption Equipartition between magnetic and particle energy holds in the radio-emitting regions
    Scaling relations of Barniol Duran et al. (2013) are applied without free deviation parameters (Section 3.5).
  • domain assumption MIR color variation rate (CVR) threshold of ~0.4 mag yr^-1 cleanly separates TDEs from CLAGNs
    Taken from Yao et al. (2025) and used as the decisive diagnostic placing the source in the CLAGN region (Section 4.1, Figure 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Column density of the X-ray absorber remains constant on multi-year timescales
    Invoked to argue that the late X-ray spectral hardening and possible flare are intrinsic rather than absorption-driven (Section 3.2).
invented entities (1)
  • nascent outflow interacting with denser clouds in the CNM no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the double-peaked radio SED, the near-constant equipartition radius of Component 2, and the late-time radio (and possibly X-ray) rebrightening.
    Postulated on the basis of qualitative agreement with two-fluid simulations (Mou & Shu 2025); independent evidence is limited to the multi-band light-curve morphology itself and is therefore only weakly external.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 33117 in / 3480 out tokens · 34851 ms · 2026-07-14T04:50:18.968387+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

SDSS J1548+2208 is a unique partially-obscured nuclear transient that exhibits multiwavelength outbursts in mid-infrared, X-ray and radio. We present the results from multiwavelength photometric and spectroscopic follow-up observations with a time span of ~2500 days since its discovery. We find that the mid-infrared and X-ray emission (with a hard X-ray spectrum) are still in a high flux level relative to the pre-flare state, suggesting a sudden increased, and possibly long-sustained accreting activity from central black hole. This is supported by the slowly-evolving high-ionization coronal lines. The mid-infrared color turns blue slowly in the rising phase, which is distinct from stellar tidal disruption events (TDEs). All these properties point to the origin of outbursts from an extreme changing-look AGN and the scenario with a normal TDE seems disfavored. The radio spectral energy distribution (SED) in ~0.65-15 GHz is unusual, displaying a double-peak feature with distinct variability characteristics. In addition, we find evidence for the late-time radio rebrightening more than six years since the initial outburst, as well as a possibly new X-ray flare, though the significance for the latter is not high. The peculiar radio flux and SED evolution could be explained by a nascent outflow expanding into and shocking circumnuclear diffuse medium filled by denser clouds. In this case, SDSS J1548+2208 represents a rare changing-look AGN which can launch radio outflows. Continued multiwavelength observations are required to map the dust and gas distribution on pc-scales, providing new insights into the environmental properties that could regulate AGN changing-look phenomenon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11546 by Fabao Zhang, Guobin Mou, Hucheng Ding, Jianguo Wang, Lei Yang, Liming Dou, Luming Sun, Ning Jiang, Ningyu Tang, Tao Wu, Tianyao Zhou, Tinggui Wang, Wenjie Zhang, Xinwen Shu, Yibo Wang, Yogesh Chandola, Yujun Yao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The light curves of SDSS J1548+2208 in different bands. The optical light curves obtained from CRTS, ASASSN, and ZTF. For comparison, we also show the host-subtracted MIR light curves at 3.4µm and 4.6µm. SDSS J154843.06+220812.6 (hereafter SDSS J1548+2208, z = 0.031) was initially identified as an obscured nuclear transient through a systematic search for MIR outbursts in nearby galaxies (MIRONG, Jiang et … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The spectral evolution of SDSS J1548+2208. The vertical dashed lines mark some of the characteristic emission lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: X-ray spectrum by stacking XMM-Newton (black), Swift (red), EP-FXTA (blue) and EP/FXTB (green) observations. The inset panel shows the 99% confidence contours of the NH vs. Γ with the power-law model. Right panel: The X-ray light curve obtained from XMM/PN, Swift/XRT and EP/FXT. The 3σ upper limit on the pre-flare from XMM/PN was also shown. The dotted vertical line marks the time of X-ray peak… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Radio SED and its evolution over four epochs, using the data taken from VLA and GMRT observations. For the non￾detections, the corresponding 3σ upper limits on flux density are shown. Data for the four epochs are represented by orange (epoch I), magenta (epoch II), blue (epoch III) and green (epoch IV). The GMRT, VLA and VLASS data are represented by diamonds, circle and squares. The color-code… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results from radio SED fittings and equipartition analysis for epoch I, III and IV. The top panels show the temporal evolution of peak frequency (a) and peak flux density (b) of the synchrotron spectrum for Component 1 and 2. The bottom panels show the corresponding evolution of derived equipartition radius Req (c) and energy Eeq (d). high-frequency observations, we fit the radio SED using the synchrot… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of initial colors and color variation rates (CVRs) of the optically selected sample. Blue and purple repre￾sent TDE and CLAGN, respectively. The SDSS J1548+2208 was marked with pink star symbol specifically. The CVR thresholds are showed in a grey shade used to distinguish TDE and CLAGN. requires more than one synchrotron emission component to fit the radio SED (Section 3.4). Alternatively… 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 · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  2. [2]

    Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  3. [3]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 1993

  4. [4]

    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 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 1996

  5. [5]

    1976, ApJ, 210, 642, doi: 10.1086/154870 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T

    Avni, Y . 1976, ApJ, 210, 642, doi: 10.1086/154870 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 772, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.1086/154870 1976

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2009, A&A, 495, 421, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810620

    Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., Fonseca Bonilla, N., & Ponti, G. 2009, A&A, 495, 421, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810620

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810620 2009

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01355

    Birmingham, S., Ward, C., Nyland, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01355 2025

  9. [9]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  10. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    Cendes, Y ., Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., & Polisensky, E. 2021, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd323 2021

  11. [11]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y ., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

  12. [12]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b 2024

  13. [13]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.14317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.14317

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.14317 2025

  14. [14]

    J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S

    Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 647, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2005290

    doi:10.1109/jstsp.2008.2005290 2008

  15. [15]

    B., Shu, X

    Dai, B. B., Shu, X. W., Jiang, N., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab97ac

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab97ac 2020

  16. [16]

    T., Brisken, W

    Deller, A. T., Brisken, W. F., Phillips, C. J., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 275, doi: 10.1086/658907

    doi:10.1086/658907 2011

  17. [17]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    Dong, Q., Zhang, Z.-X., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Zheng, Y .-G. 2025, ApJ, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add331 2025

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  20. [20]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  21. [21]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38 2019

  22. [22]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  23. [23]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144 2017

  24. [24]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1 2025

  25. [25]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  26. [26]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7

    doi:10.1007/0-306-48080-8 2003

  27. [27]

    Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Perola, G. C. 2005, A&A, 444, 119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053643

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053643 2005

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    L., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc124 2025

  30. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  31. [31]

    T., Holoien, T

    Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W.-S., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f54

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f54 2022

  32. [32]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 2021

  33. [33]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Dou, L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc 2021

  34. [34]

    C., Li, D

    Jin, C. C., Li, D. Y ., Jiang, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09580

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09580 2025

  35. [35]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6 2021

  36. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9 2017

  37. [37]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    C., Shu, X

    Liang, W. C., Shu, X. W., Wang, J. X., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 33, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.01.002 2022

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade153

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade153

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade153 2025

  42. [42]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  43. [43]

    T., Laha, S., Shuvo, O

    Meyer, E. T., Laha, S., Shuvo, O. I., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8651

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8651 2025

  44. [44]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

    Mou, G., & Shu, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25033 2025

  45. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd475 24 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Mou, G., Dou, L., Jiang, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd475 24 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd475 2021

  46. [46]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., Holoien, T. W.-S., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa859

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa859 2020

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    doi:10.1086/131027 1982

  49. [49]

    2020a, JOSS, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020a, JOSS, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi:10.21105/joss.02308

  50. [50]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3743493

  51. [51]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117104 2011

  52. [52]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad 2017

  55. [55]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a 2019

  56. [56]

    C., Cales, S., Ruan, J

    Runnoe, J. C., Cales, S., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2385

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2385 2016

  57. [57]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  58. [58]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 Science Software Branch at STScI

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 Science Software Branch at STScI. 2012, PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011. http://ascl.net/1207.011

    1978

  59. [59]

    2025, ApJL, 992, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26

    Sfaradi, I., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26 2025

  60. [60]

    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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48 2014

  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 —. 2020, ApJ, 889, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5af9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de 2017

  62. [62]

    Shepherd, M. C. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G. Hunt & H. Payne, 77

    1997

  63. [63]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z

    Shu, X., Zhang, W., Li, S., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z

    doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z 2020

  64. [64]

    J., Ravi, V ., Dong, D., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V ., Dong, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e29 Szydłowski, M., Krawiec, A., Kurek, A., & Kamionka, M. 2015, European Physical Journal C, 75, 5, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3236-1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e29 2022

  65. [65]

    J., Ricci, C., Koss, M

    Temple, M. J., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3279

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3279 2023

  66. [66]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4 2019

  67. [67]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  68. [68]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 149, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149

    Wang, C.-J., Bai, J.-M., Fan, Y .-F., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 149, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149 2019

  69. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Gallo, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049 2024

  70. [70]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/115

    Wang, T.-G., Zhou, H.-Y ., Komossa, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/115 2012

  71. [71]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    Wang, Y ., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6 2022

  72. [72]

    J., et al

    Yang, J., Paragi, Z., Beswick, R. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab706

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab706 2021

  73. [73]

    2025a, ApJL, 993, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0caa

    Yang, L., Shu, X., Mou, G., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 993, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0caa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0caa 2041

  74. [74]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed

  75. [75]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    Yang, Q., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a 2018

  76. [76]

    2025, ApJS, 281, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae047a

    Yao, Y ., Ye, J., Sun, L., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae047a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae047a 2025

  77. [77]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    Zabludoff, A., Arcavi, I., LaMassa, S., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4 2021

  78. [78]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29f0

    Zhang, Z., Shu, X., Yang, L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae29f0 2026

  79. [79]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    Zhuang, J., Shen, R.-F., Mou, G., & Lu, W. 2025, ApJ, 979, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98 2025