Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Success of Optical Variability in Uncovering AGNs in Low-stellar Mass Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Applying random forest classifiers to optical light curves confirms 87% of low-mass galaxy AGN candidates, showing variability is a reliable route to black holes in dwarf galaxies.

desk verdict A high-purity variability-selected AGN sample in low-mass galaxies, but the 87% confirmation rate needs an explicit hold-out statement before it becomes fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14298 v1 pith:LLRM46V6 submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.GA

S. Bernal , P. Sánchez-Sáez , P. Arévalo , F.E. Bauer , P. Lira , B. Sotomayor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleilow-stellar-massgalaxiesopticalvariabilityrandomforestclassificationintermediate-massblackholesbroademissionlinesZwickyTransientFacilityX-raycounterparts
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 whether optical variability alone can reliably uncover actively accreting black holes in low-stellar-mass galaxies, the places where intermediate-mass black hole seeds are expected to hide. It reports yes: of 415 candidates selected by random forest classifiers on Zwicky Transient Facility light curves and cleaned by visual spectral inspection, 87% show broad Balmer emission lines or BPT/WHAN AGN diagnostics in archival SDSS spectra. Purity is higher when selection uses complete light curves rather than the alert stream, with 94–98% of complete-light-curve candidates showing broad lines and the forced-photometry set reaching 97%. Black hole masses run from about $2.2\times10^6$ to $4.2\times10^7\,M_\odot$ and cluster near 0.1% of host stellar mass, and two-thirds of candidates with X-ray coverage have eROSITA counterparts. The point that matters is that a variability-based census can populate the low-mass end of the black hole mass function, though it appears biased toward larger black holes for a given host.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a set of hierarchical random forest classifiers that turn multi-epoch ZTF photometry into AGN classes: the alert-stream classifier, the ZTF data-release classifiers in g and r, and a forced-photometry classifier run on difference images. Their job is to separate AGN variability from ordinary stellar variability, transients, and artifacts using features such as damped random walk timescales, excess variance, colors, Gaia proper motion, and morphology. These classifiers select the 506 candidates; the confirmation step then uses pPXF spectral fitting of SDSS spectra with stellar-population templates, Gaussian narrow lines, Gauss-Hermite broad lines, Fe II pseudo-continuum, and power-law AGN continua to measure broad Balmer lines, black hole masses, and narrow-line ratios.

What would settle it

Compare the object IDs of the 506 candidates against the training sets used to build the random forest classifiers; if a substantial fraction of the 357 confirmed AGNs appear there, the 87% confirmation rate is not an independent validation, and a cleaner test would be to retrain on labels that explicitly exclude all 506 candidates and remeasure the broad-line confirmation rate on the held-out set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that random-forest classifiers applied to multi-epoch optical light curves select genuine type I AGNs in low-stellar-mass galaxies with high purity. Starting from 506 variability-selected candidates matched to NASA-Sloan Atlas galaxies with $M_*<2\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$ and $z<0.15$, the authors obtain 415 clean low-redshift spectra and confirm 362 (87%) as AGNs: 357 through significant broad Balmer lines (EW$_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}>5$ Å and SNR>3) and five more through BPT/WHAN narrow-line diagnostics. Candidates chosen from complete light curves, namely the ZTF data-release g and r sets and a custom forced-photometry set on difference images, are confirmed at 94–98%, while the alert-based set is 80% and contains essentially all the false positives, mostly bad image subtraction and nuclear transients. The inferred black hole masses span $2.2\times10^6$ to $4.2\times10^7\,M_\odot$, and the host-to-black-hole mass ratio clusters near $M_*/M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sim1000$, above the Reines & Volonteri relation but near the 0.1% ratio seen in more massive ellipticals. Among candidates in the eROSITA-DE footprint, 67% have X-ray counterparts, rising to 75% for those with broad lines, and this X-ray match rate does not depend on BPT class.

Load-bearing premise

The classifiers that pick the candidates were trained on previously labeled variable sources, and the paper does not show that the 506 candidates were excluded from that training; if they were not, the high confirmation rate partly reflects how well the classifier repeats its own training labels rather than an independent test of variability selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Variability selection can be used to build a census of low-mass black holes in nearby galaxies, adding hundreds of objects to the small set of spectroscopically confirmed AGNs in dwarfs.
  • BPT-only searches miss a large fraction of type I AGNs: over half of the candidates classified as star-forming by narrow-line ratios still show broad Balmer lines.
  • Selection from complete, difference-image-based light curves is both purer and more sensitive to the lowest black hole masses than alert-based selection.
  • X-ray follow-up is most productive for candidates with broad lines: the fraction with eROSITA counterparts is 75% for broad-line objects and only 4% for those without.
  • Because variability selection preferentially finds the largest black holes for a given host mass, the low-mass end of the scaling relation remains incomplete until deeper, higher-cadence surveys such as LSST supply more sensitive light curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: verify whether the 506 candidates were excluded from the random forest training labels; without that exclusion, part of the 87% rate measures label reproduction rather than independent generalization.
  • Editorial extension: apply the forced-photometry classifier to the full NSA galaxy catalog, not just the mass-limited sample, to map how purity and mass bias vary with host mass.
  • Editorial extension: stack eROSITA images at the 33% of candidates without catalog counterparts to separate genuinely X-ray-faint AGNs from objects below the detection limit.
  • Editorial extension: high-spatial-resolution spectroscopy of the star-forming-classified broad-line objects would test whether their narrow lines are diluted by host galaxy emission, as the paper suggests.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports on the use of random-forest classifiers applied to ZTF light curves to select AGN candidates in low-stellar-mass galaxies from the NASA-Sloan Atlas, using four different input data products: the ALeRCE alert stream, ZTF DR11 g-band and r-band light curves, and custom forced photometry. The 506 matched candidates are cross-checked against SDSS DR17 spectra; 415 pass the author's visual and redshift-quality cuts, and from these 362 (87%) are confirmed as AGNs, mainly through broad Balmer lines (357 objects) plus five additional BPT/WHAN-selected objects. The paper also derives black hole masses and Eddington ratios from spectral fits, compares BPT classifications with external catalogs, and reports X-ray counterpart fractions from eRASSv1.1 (67% of the VCS sample in the eROSITA-DE sky, rising to 75% for objects with broad lines). The central claim is that variability-based classification, especially when based on complete light curves, is a highly pure method for finding AGNs in low-mass galaxies.

Significance. If the reported purity holds, this is a valuable result for AGN censuses in low-mass galaxies and for planning IMBH searches with future facilities such as LSST. The paper's strengths include a careful spectral-fitting approach with Monte Carlo error estimation, visual inspection of borderline objects and light curves, comparison with MPA-JHU and Portsmouth emission-line catalogs, and an independent X-ray validation using eROSITA. The eROSITA match rates are particularly useful as an external check that does not depend on the optical classifiers. However, the main quantitative claim—the 87% confirmation rate—depends on the classifiers' training labels, and the paper does not establish that the candidates were held out from training. This must be addressed before the selection purity can be accepted as demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Sections 3-4] The manuscript adopts the random-forest classifiers of Sánchez-Sáez et al. (2021a), Sánchez-Sáez et al. (2023), and Arévalo et al. (in prep.) but never states that the 506 NSA-matched candidates (or the 415 VCS objects) were excluded from those classifiers' training labels. If the training sets include spectroscopically confirmed SDSS AGN, as is standard practice for such classifiers, then the 86% broad-line fraction in Section 4.1 and the per-set 94-98% fractions partly measure how well the classifier recalls its own training labels rather than how well optical variability selects new AGNs in low-mass galaxies. Because this confirmation rate is the paper's central quantitative claim, please (a) report whether any of the 506 candidates appear in the training sets, (b) recompute the confirmation fractions after removing any overlapping objects, or (c) clearly justify that the classifiers' labels were obtained without using SDSS spectroscopy of these candidates. The eROSITA match rate in Section 5 is an important independent check, but it does not by itself validate the spectroscopically defined purity numbers.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 2, Section 4.1] The headline '87% confirmed' is computed only for the 415-object VCS sample after excluding 35 spectra that include 22 higher-redshift AGN and 5 suspected AGN, and the 52 candidates without spectra are not in the denominator. The paper is transparent about the 65 unconfirmed objects, but it should also state the unconditional confirmation rate among all 506 candidates (at least 362/506 = 71.5%, rising to about 77% if the 22 higher-z and 5 suspected AGN are counted) and discuss how the exclusion of the lowest-mass, lowest-redshift candidates without spectra (Section 3.2) affects the reported confirmation and mass statistics. This would prevent the abstract's conditional rate from being read as the overall selection success rate.
  3. [Section 2 (Forced Photometry)] The Forced Photometry selection, which produces the paper's highest confirmation rate (168/170 in the VCS sample), relies on a classifier and feature definitions described only as in Arévalo et al. (in prep.), with no public code, training-label description, or hyperparameters. The additional features (PAN-STARRS i-z color, Gaia proper motion, Mexican-Hat variances, flux asymmetry) are listed, but the labeled training set and classifier construction are not available for inspection. Because this set is central to the comparison in Section 4.1 and to the conclusion that forced photometry finds twice as many AGNs in the same sky region, please include the method details or a public reference that the reader can inspect; otherwise the main result for the most sensitive set is not reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo: 'Whit this reduction' should be 'With this reduction'; also, Sánchez-Sáez et al. 2021a and 2021b appear to be the same paper and should be merged in the reference list.
  2. [Conclusion, item 4] The text 'below 1.8×16M⊙' appears to be a typo for '1.8×10^6 M⊙'; similarly, '6.4−6.4×10^6 M⊙' should likely be '6.4×10^6 M⊙' for both DR-g and DR-r.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 4.1] The per-set confirmation percentages are computed only for objects with good spectra; adding the total candidate counts per set (e.g., 168/188 for Forced Photometry, 40/54 for DR-g, 40/54 for DR-r) would make the selection purity less dependent on SDSS spectral availability.
  4. [Section 5 and Table 8] The text gives both 5 arcsec and 10 arcsec match rates (123 and 150 objects) and later uses 10 arcsec in Table 8; please state explicitly in the table caption that the quoted percentages use a 10 arcsec matching radius.
  5. [Figure 9] The green diamonds and the green square are described in the text, but the markers may be difficult to distinguish in printed grayscale; consider using distinct shapes or a colorblind-safe palette.
  6. [Appendix D] The sentence 'The dashed grey line correspond to zero Flux' should be 'The dashed grey line corresponds to zero flux.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the confirmation rates are measured against external SDSS spectra and eROSITA X-ray data, not derived from the classifiers' inputs by construction.

full rationale

No step in the paper's derivation chain equates an output to an input by construction. The central quantitative claims are measured confirmation rates of a variability-selected sample against archival SDSS spectra and eROSITA X-ray catalogs, both external to the variability features used by the classifiers. The classifiers are adopted from prior work (Sanchez-Saez et al. 2021a, 2023; Arevalo et al. in prep.), and the paper does not state whether the 506 candidates were excluded from training; if they were not, the spectroscopic confirmation rate could partly reflect training-label reproduction. This is a legitimate reproducibility or data-leakage concern, but the manuscript provides no quote or equation demonstrating that any candidate was in the training set, so under the hard rules it cannot be scored as demonstrated circularity. The eROSITA match rate (67% of VCS candidates; 75% of BEL objects) provides an independent benchmark not derived from classifier inputs. The filtering of DR samples to improve purity and the subsequent reporting of purity on the filtered sample is a characterization of the resulting selection, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Citations to the authors' own classifiers are methodological, not load-bearing validation of the confirmation claim. Therefore the analysis is self-contained against external spectroscopic and X-ray benchmarks, and no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a small number of hand-tuned selection thresholds (the DR filter cuts, the broad-line detection thresholds, the X-ray matching radius), on the validity of the single-epoch virial mass estimator at low masses, and on the reliability of the training labels for the random forest classifiers. The paper introduces no new physical entities; the 'method' is a pipeline of existing classifiers and diagnostics. The most consequential free parameters are the purity-filter cuts, because the report's headline confirmation rates are measured on the filtered samples.

free parameters (4)
  • DR-g and DR-r filter thresholds = pred_init_class_prob >= 0.9; abs(gal_b) >= 20; pmsig <= 3; PM < 3; IAR_phi >= 0.8; GP_DRW_sigma >= 0.0001; GP_DRW_tau…
    Hand-chosen to improve the purity of the DR selections; the reported confirmation rates are measured on the filtered sample, so the tuning directly affects the central success-rate claim.
  • Broad-line detection thresholds = EW_Halpha > 5 A and SNR > 3
    Adopted to define a significant broad Balmer line; the choice is not derived from data and could affect the confirmation fraction.
  • X-ray matching radius = 5 and 10 arcsec
    Chosen for the eROSITA cross-match; the 10 arcsec radius is used for the headline 67% match rate.
  • Forced photometry aperture and quality cuts = 4 arcsec aperture; infobits = 0; maglimit > 20; seeing < 4 arcsec; at most one observation per night
    Pipeline choices for the custom forced photometry; not tuned to the purity result but determine which light curves enter the classification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The single-epoch virial mass estimator (Mejía-Restrepo et al. 2016, Eq. 1) is valid for the low-mass AGNs in this sample.
    Used for all black hole mass estimates (Section 3.4); the calibration sample may not cover M_BH < 10^6 Msun or the lowest luminosities.
  • domain assumption The random forest classifiers were trained on reliable, representative labeled datasets.
    The ALeRCE and Sánchez-Sáez classifiers (Section 2) are assumed to have accurate labels; the paper does not describe the training sets or validate the classifiers on this new sample independently of the spectral confirmation.
  • domain assumption NSA SERSIC-MASS estimates are accurate for low-mass galaxies.
    Used to define the LSMG sample (Section 2); the authors cite Buchner et al. (2024) showing active galaxies can have overestimated SED masses, but do not correct the sample.
  • domain assumption The BPT and WHAN diagnostics correctly separate AGN from star-forming ionization in low-mass galaxies.
    Used in Sections 4.3 and 6.1; photoionization models (Cann et al. 2019) show these diagnostics can fail for low-mass AGNs, and the paper relies on them for a subset of confirmations.
  • domain assumption The eRASSv1.1 X-ray catalog is sufficiently complete and correctly astrometrized for the matching analysis.
    Used in Section 5; the paper notes depth limits but assumes the reported match fractions are meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Success of Optical Variability in Uncovering AGNs in Low-stellar Mass Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLRM46V6

@misc{pith2026241214298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Success of Optical Variability in Uncovering AGNs in Low-stellar Mass Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLRM46V6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14298}
}
abstract

We used random forest algorithms to classify all objects in a large portion of the sky, using optical light curves obtained, or built from images provided, by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF). We compare different selection sets based on alerts or complete light curves derived from different photometric selection algorithms. The AGN candidates thus selected are cross-matched with objects in the NASA-Sloan Atlas (NSA) of local galaxies, with $M_*<2\times10^{10}M_\odot$. The AGN nature of these candidates is verified and characterized using archival optical spectra from SDSS. We further establish the fraction of candidates with counterparts in the eROSITA data release 1 catalog of X-ray sources. From an initial sample of 506 candidates, 415 have good-quality spectra. Among these 415 objects, we found significant broad Balmer lines in the spectra for $86\%$ (357) of the candidates. When considering BPT classifications, an additional 5 candidates were confirmed, resulting in $87\%$ (362) confirmed candidates. Specifically, broad Balmer lines were detected in $94\%$-$98\%$ of the AGN candidates selected from complete light curves and in $80\%$ of those selected from the less frequent ZTF alerts. The black hole masses estimated from the spectra range from $2.2\times10^6M_\odot$ to $4.2\times10^7M_\odot$, reaching lower values for the candidates selected using the more sensitive light curves. The black hole masses obtained cluster around $0.1\%$ of the stellar mass of the host from the NSA catalog. Two-thirds of the AGN candidates are classified as Seyfert or Composite by their narrow emission line ratios (BPT diagnostics) while the rest are star-forming. Almost all the candidates classified as Seyfert and over $50\%$ of those classified as star-forming have significant BELs. We found X-ray counterparts for $67\%$ of the candidates that fall in the footprint of the eROSITA-DE DR1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14298 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Venn diagram to show the number of elements within each in￾tersection between the different sets. Note that the number of objects included only in the Alerts set is higher than in the other sets due to the larger sky region coverage of the Alerts set. ilar, with median redshift values of 0.076 for the Alerts, 0.099 for the Forced Photometry, 0.089 for DR-g, and 0.092 for DR-r. As we note in the next section, we find… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NSA v1.0.1 catalog redshift distributions for all the objects in each of the four sets: orange for Alerts, blue for Forced Photometry, green for ZTFDR11 g-band, and red for ZTFDR11 r-band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the sky locations of the matched sample. The Alerts set is marked in orange, the Forced Photometry set in blue, the DR-g in green, and DR-r in red. Evidently, most of the sky of the NSA sample is only covered by our Alerts set. The Forced Photometry set covers the area below Dec = +15.5 and the DR￾g and DR-r sets below Dec = +7. We note that in the sky area covered by both sets, most of the Alerts candidates a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Apparent rest-frame magnitude distribution of AGN candidates in low stellar-mass galaxies for the g ∗ (top) and r ∗ (middle) bands. The bottom panel shows the color g ∗ − r ∗ distributions. Each set of variability-selected AGN candidates is plotted in different colors,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of AGN candidates with SDSS spectra (blue) and without spectra (orange). The top panel shows the distribution of these samples in the sky and the bottom panel shows the distribution of their redshifts from the NSA catalog. 3.3. Spectral fitting For the spect…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the SNR of the flux of the broad component of Hα. All the variability-selected AGN candidates in low mass galaxies are plotted in orange and, of these, only the ones with EWHα > 5Å in blue. For 54 candidates in the VCS sample, a BEL was not de￾tected in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the equivalent width of the broad component of Hα (top) and of black hole masses derived using Eq. 1 (bottom) for objects with EWHα > 5Å. In both histograms, each set of variability￾selected AGN candidates is plotted in different colors, orange for Aler…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the Eddington ratios derived for each set of AGN candidates. Each set is plotted in different colors, orange for Alerts, blue for Forced Photometry, green for ZTFDR11 g-band, and red for ZTFDR11 r-band. lowing the relations in Kewley et al. (2001), Kauf…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: WHAN diagram for the five objects resulting in the AGN region on BPT diagrams but showing no BELs. Blue markers show the position of these objects in the diagram. Tree of them fall in the S-AGN region and two in the W-AGN region. 0.04 0.1 0.5 1 f5100, AGN/f5100, cont.…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: In the central plot, we present the comparison of the AGN￾continuum slope from the best fit with the ratio of the AGN component and total continuum at 5100Å. Different colors represent different sets: orange for Alerts, blue for Forced Photometry, green for DR-g, and …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: BPT diagrams from the measured flux of narrow emission lines. The color bar indicates the black hole mass on a logarithmic scale. And, the black triangles represent the objects with no mass estimation. In the top left corner, black lines represent the mean errors. We n…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Top) Distribution of the AGN relative contribution (f5100,AGN/ f5100,cont.). For different BPT classes, according to the [Oiii]/Hβ vs. [Nii]/Hα diagram. The distributions for different classes, Star-Forming (purple), Composite (pink), and Seyfert/LINER (brown) are si…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the Black hole mass computed by Eq. 1 in this work (i.e., using the FWHM of BELs and AGN luminosity at 5100Å) versus the mass computed using eq. 1 of Reines & Volonteri 2015 (i.e., using the Hα FWHM and its luminosity). The purple line shows the 1:1 rela…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distribution of Hα equivalent widths for the AGN candidates with fitted spectra in the eROSITA-DE sky (grey), of these the ones with X-ray counterparts (blue), and of these, the ones classified as star￾forming by the BPT diagnostics (red). Objects with EWHα = 0Å, 12 i…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: X-ray luminosity (2-8 keV band) and Hα (narrow+broad) lumi￾nosity comparison. The purple line plots the relation found by Ho et al. (2001) for AGN host galaxies, while the red line plots the relation for Star-forming galaxies presented in Rosa González et al. (2009). …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Venn diagram of the 195 candidates that are in the VCS sam￾ple and that lie in the eROSITA-DE sky. The groups are: objects with BEL detections (purple); objects classified as AGN (Seyfert or LINER) in at least two BPT diagrams (green); objects with X-ray counterparts …

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. AGN radiative feedback as the main regulator of [O III] outflow activity and obscuration in X-ray AGN

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.5 of 10

    Higher Eddington ratio AGN exhibit increased [O III] outflow incidence and reduced obscuration, supporting radiative feedback as the regulator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    Alexander, D. M. & Hickox, R. C. 2012, New A Rev., 56, 93

    2012

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 681, A97

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Comparat, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A97

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    F., Geha, M., & Greene, J

    Baldassare, V . F., Geha, M., & Greene, J. 2018, ApJ, 868, 152

    2018

  5. [5]

    F., Geha, M., & Greene, J

    Baldassare, V . F., Geha, M., & Greene, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 10

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5

    1981

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al

    Bauer, F. E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2023, The Messenger, 190, 34

    2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  2. [10]

    L., Watson, M

    Birchall, K. L., Watson, M. G., & Aird, J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2268

    2020

  3. [11]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, É., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144

    2012

  4. [12]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    2004

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297

    Buchner, J., Starck, H., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297

    2024

  6. [14]

    J., Liu, X., Shen, Y ., et al

    Burke, C. J., Liu, X., Shen, Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2736

    2022

  7. [15]

    M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

    Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L2

    2019

  8. [16]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  9. [17]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687 de Jong, R. S., Bellido-Tirado, O., Brynnel, J. G., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference ...

    2004

  10. [18]

    E., Chelouche, D., Kaspi, S., & Behar, E

    Edri, H., Rafter, S. E., Chelouche, D., Kaspi, S., & Behar, E. 2012, ApJ, 756, 73 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242

    2012

  11. [19]

    & Spyromilio, J

    Gilmozzi, R. & Spyromilio, J. 2007, The Messenger, 127, 11

    2007

  12. [20]

    Greene, J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304

    2012

  13. [21]

    C., Feigelson, E

    Ho, L. C., Feigelson, E. D., Townsley, L. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L51

    2001

  14. [22]

    E., Hainline, K

    Hviding, R. E., Hainline, K. N., Goulding, A. D., & Greene, J. E. 2024, AJ, 167, 169

    2024

  15. [23]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2020

  16. [24]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    2001

  17. [25]

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

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

    2006

  18. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 24

    Kimura, Y ., Yamada, T., Kokubo, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 24

    2020

  19. [27]

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

    2013

  20. [28]

    Latif, M. A. & Ferrara, A. 2016, PASA, 33, e051 López-Navas, E., Martínez-Aldama, M. L., Bernal, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L57 López-Navas, E., Sánchez-Sáez, P., Arévalo, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 188

    2016

  21. [29]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8

    2020

  22. [30]

    L., Ivezi´c, Ž., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´c, Ž., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014 Martínez-Palomera, J., Lira, P., Bhalla-Ladd, I., Förster, F., & Plotkin, R. M. 2020, ApJ, 889, 113

    2010

  23. [31]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Lira, P., Netzer, H., & Capellupo, D. M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 187

    2019

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

    2024

  26. [34]

    2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021

    Mezcua, M. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021

    2017

  27. [35]

    & Domínguez Sánchez, H

    Mezcua, M. & Domínguez Sánchez, H. 2020, ApJ, 898, L30

    2020

  28. [36]

    & Domínguez Sánchez, H

    Mezcua, M. & Domínguez Sánchez, H. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5252

    2024

  29. [37]

    C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H

    Moran, E. C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H. R., Vélez, D. O., & Eracleous, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 136

    2014

  30. [38]

    2006, A&A, 455, 173

    Panessa, F., Bassani, L., Cappi, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 455, 173

    2006

  31. [39]

    A., Nandra, K., Fink, H

    Pounds, K. A., Nandra, K., Fink, H. H., & Makino, F. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 193

    1994

  32. [40]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  33. [41]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116

    2013

  34. [42]

    Reines, A. E. & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82 Rosa González, D., Terlevich, E., Jiménez Bailón, E., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 487 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Arredondo, J., Bayo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A195 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Lira, P., Cartier, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 10 Sánch...

    2015

  35. [43]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    2007

  36. [44]

    E., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Greene, J. E., Strauss, M. A., Richards, G. T., & Schneider, D. P. 2008, ApJ, 680, 169

    2008

  37. [45]

    H., Smith, P., et al

    Shi, Y ., Rieke, G. H., Smith, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 115

    2010

  38. [46]

    & Miller, A

    Tachibana, Y . & Miller, A. A. 2018, PASP, 130, 128001

    2018

  39. [47]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 1383

    Thomas, D., Steele, O., Maraston, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1383

    2013

  40. [48]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  41. [49]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409 V olonteri, M

    Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., Röck, B., & Falcón-Barroso, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409 V olonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279

    2016

  42. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 104 Article number, page 19 of 25 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Ward, C., Gezari, S., Nugent, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 104 Article number, page 19 of 25 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Higher redshift AGN AGN candidates at higher redshift that are included in the NSA low-stellar mass sample because their redshift was incorre...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.