Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

AGN with massive black holes have closer galactic neighbors: k-Nearest-Neighbor statistics of an unbiased sample of AGN at z~0.03

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Active galaxies whose central black holes are more massive have closer galactic neighbors than those with lighter black holes, at 99.98% confidence in the local universe.

desk verdict The MBH–environment trend looks real, but the advertised 99.98% significance is not supported by the paper's own null procedure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21705 v1 pith:LTDCL5D3 submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.GA

A. Mhatre , M. C. Powell , S. Yuan , S. W. Allen , T. Caglar , M. Koss , I. del Moral-Castro , K. Oh
show 5 more authors
A. Peca C. Ricci F. Ricci A. Rojas M. Signorini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords AGNclusteringk-nearest-neighborstatisticssupermassiveblackholemasslarge-scalestructureSwift/BATsurvey2MASSgalaxiesgalaxyenvironmentgrowth
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 sets out to show that the large-scale environment of an active galactic nucleus depends on the mass of its central supermassive black hole, not on how fast the black hole is currently feeding. Using the hard-X-ray-selected Swift/BAT sample of 419 local AGN and the angular distances to their seven nearest 2MASS galaxies, it finds that AGN with massive black holes have significantly closer galactic neighbors than AGN with less-massive black holes, at 99.98% confidence in the low-redshift range and with a combined p-value of $8.06\times10^{-5}$ across both redshift ranges. If the claim holds, it would confirm and greatly strengthen earlier 2-point correlation-function hints (about 2.3$\sigma$), and would mean that kth-nearest-neighbor statistics can extract small-scale clustering information that standard correlation functions miss. The natural reading of the result is that massive local black holes live in more massive dark matter halos and denser parts of the cosmic web, tying cumulative black hole growth to environment while leaving the instantaneous accretion rate environmentally insensitive.

What carries the argument

The central object is the kth-nearest-neighbor cumulative distribution function (kNN CDF): for each AGN, the angular distances to its first seven 2MASS galaxy neighbors are collected, and each CDF gives the probability that the $k$th neighbor lies within a given angular separation, with $k$ running from 1 to 7. Because these CDFs are sensitive to all orders of the correlation function, they capture higher-order, small-scale clustering information that the two-point function cannot, and this is the first application of the data-data kNN cross-correlation to X-ray-selected AGN. The significance engine is a correlated $\chi^2$ computed from jackknife covariance matrices built from 49 sky patches, calibrated against a null distribution generated by 1000 random splits of the AGN sample into equal-sized subsamples; all quoted confidence levels are percentiles of that empirical null.

What would settle it

Recompute the kNN CDFs on a volume-complete AGN sample, or apply an explicit completeness correction as a function of $M_{\rm BH}$: if the close-neighbor excess for massive black holes survives, the environmental claim stands, and if it shrinks toward the null when faint low-mass AGN in dense regions are recovered, it is a selection effect. A second decisive check is measuring kNN statistics at fixed stellar mass but split by black hole mass, which the authors' SMBH-halo interpretation predicts should retain a residual difference while the stellar-mass-only explanation predicts none.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the distribution of distances to galactic neighbors shifts inward as black hole mass grows. The authors bin 412 BASS AGN with measured black hole masses into redshift-controlled upper and lower tertiles of $M_{\rm BH}$, bolometric luminosity, and Eddington ratio, then compute kth-nearest-neighbor cumulative distribution functions ($k=1$ through $7$) for angular separations to 36,584 2MASS galaxies in two redshift ranges, $0.01<z<0.03$ and $0.03<z<0.06$. In the lower redshift range the high-mass black hole bin shows a higher probability of close neighbors for essentially every $k$, strongest on one-halo scales of roughly $0.25$-$0.75\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, with a correlated $\chi^2$ that lands in the 99.98th percentile of the empirical null distribution; the combined significance across both redshift ranges is $p = 8.06\times10^{-5}$. Luminosity trends are weaker and traced back to black hole mass, Eddington-ratio trends go the opposite way and are not significant once mass is controlled, and no dependence on obscuring column density remains after controlling for mass and redshift. Interpreting the result with toy models in an N-body simulation, the paper argues that the small-scale kNN trend with black hole mass goes beyond what stellar mass alone predicts, favoring a direct connection between black hole mass and host dark matter halo mass.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the hard-X-ray AGN sample is as complete for low-mass as for high-mass black holes within each redshift bin after the redshift-controlled tertile binning; the paper does not quantify sample completeness as a function of black hole mass, so if faint AGN with low-mass black holes in dense environments are preferentially missing, the closer-neighbor signal could be a selection artifact rather than a true environmental dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Black hole mass is tied to cosmic environment: at 99.98% confidence in the low-redshift range, massive SMBHs sit closer to their galactic neighbors, which the paper reads as evidence that they occupy more massive dark matter halos.
  • kNN statistics are a sharper probe of AGN clustering: the mass trend is detected at far higher significance than the 2.3$\sigma$ hint from the 2-point correlation function on the same sample, recommending kNN CDFs for future wide-field AGN surveys like Euclid and eROSITA/SDSS-V/4MOST.
  • Instantaneous accretion rate is decoupled from environment: Eddington-ratio-binned kNN differences are not significant once black hole mass is controlled, so what environment tracks is cumulative black hole growth, not current fueling.
  • Previously reported obscured-versus-unobscured clustering differences may be mass-driven: no kNN difference with column density survives controlling for mass and redshift.
  • Small-scale and larger-scale clustering may require different physical models: the N-body toy model with a direct SMBH-halo correlation matches the inner neighbors ($k=1,2$) but not the outer ones, so more sophisticated models or secondary parameters are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit a quantitative prediction: the kNN mass difference should grow as tracer completeness improves, so repeating this analysis with deeper spectroscopic surveys at the same redshifts should sharpen the signal on sub-megaparsec scales.
  • A decoupling experiment follows directly: if the trend is driven by stellar mass, binning AGN by stellar mass at fixed black hole mass should reproduce the kNN difference; if a direct SMBH-halo link exists, the difference should persist at fixed stellar mass.
  • Because the quoted angular distances mix physical scales within each redshift bin, converting to physical projected separations per object rather than at bin-median redshifts would tighten the one-halo versus two-halo interpretation the authors offer.
  • The opposite-signed Eddington-ratio trend is consistent with the mass-driven picture, but a cleaner test is matching high- and low-Eddington bins in black hole mass exactly; the paper controls for redshift in its binning but matches mass only approximately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents kth-nearest-neighbor (kNN) statistics of 2MRS galaxies around 419 hard-X-ray-selected AGN from the BASS DR2 sample, split into redshift-controlled bins of black hole mass, bolometric luminosity, and Eddington ratio. The authors find that the high-MBH bin has closer neighbors than the low-MBH bin, quote a 99.98% confidence level for the low-redshift range, and report a combined p-value of 8.06e-5 across the two redshift ranges. They also compare the observed kNN differences with N-body mocks built from empirical MBH-M* and M*-Mhalo relations, concluding that the MBH trend may go beyond stellar mass dependencies.

Significance. The paper is potentially valuable: it applies kNN statistics to an AGN-galaxy cross-correlation for the first time, exploits a large hard-X-ray-selected sample with a high completeness of spectroscopic MBH measurements, and includes useful robustness tests (jackknife covariance stability checks, consistent-MBH subsamples in Appendix C, and a permutation-based null). If the significance claim is correct, the result would strengthen previous 2.3-sigma correlation-function hints and demonstrate the extra sensitivity of higher-order clustering statistics. However, the headline significance is not reproducible from the stated methodology, and the flux-limited sample completeness as a function of MBH is not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2 and 4.5] The claim that the low-z MBH kNN difference (chi^2 = 99.57, 28 dof) is at the 99.98th percentile of the null is not reproducible from the described 1,000-split null: with 1,000 realizations the empirical percentile is quantized in steps of 0.1%, so the 99.98th percentile (p = 2e-4) requires an unstated tail extrapolation or many more null realizations. In addition, the same measurement is quoted as 3.8 sigma in Section 4.3 and 3.6 sigma in Section 4.5, and the reported combined p = 8.06e-5 is not derived: combining the stated low-z p = 2e-4 and high-z p = 0.06 via Fisher or Stouffer yields approximately 1.5e-4, not 8.06e-5. Please describe the combination method, reconcile the sigma values, and either run more null realizations or report the empirical p-value with its resolution limit.
  2. [Section 4.5] Even if the observed chi^2 exceeds all 1,000 null values, the paper should state this explicitly (e.g., p < 10^-3) rather than quoting a finer percentile that the empirical null cannot resolve; if a parametric fit to the null tail is used, it should be described and justified in the text.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 4.3] The BASS sample is flux-limited, and the paper does not quantify the completeness of the hard X-ray sample as a function of MBH within each redshift interval. Since the low-MBH bin has lower median Lbol (Table 1), a flux limit could preferentially remove faint low-MBH AGN, and if those missing objects reside in different environments, the observed kNN difference could be partly a selection artifact. The redshift-controlled tertile binning removes the redshift-luminosity degeneracy but not a possible MBH-dependent completeness. Please add a test (e.g., a volume-limited subsample, a completeness-weighted analysis, or a comparison with the X-ray luminosity function) to demonstrate that the MBH trend is not driven by incompleteness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.5] The sentence 'Combining the two redshift ranges results in p-values of 8.06e-5 for the mass trends' lacks a description of the combination method; please specify (e.g., Fisher's method, Stouffer's method, or a direct chi^2 combination).
  2. [Section 3.1] The statement 'we have 28 independent elements, sufficiently smaller than our number of jackknifes (49)' is confusing: the covariance matrix has 28 dimensions, so it has 28*29/2 = 406 independent elements, while the number of jackknife samples is 49; please clarify what is meant by independent elements.
  3. [Section 4.3] The phrase '3.8 sigma compared to 2.3 sigma' in the last paragraph should be reconciled with the 3.6 sigma quoted in Section 4.5 for the same measurement.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Figure 12] The comparison between data and mock models is purely qualitative; consider adding a quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or stating explicitly that no model is preferred at high significance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kNN measurement is self-contained, and the self-citations are contextual or methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central kNN measurement is computed directly from angular distances between BASS AGN and 2MRS galaxies, with cumulative distribution functions and correlated chi-squared values obtained from the data and jackknife covariances; no parameter is fitted to the kNN data to produce the MBH trend. The significance is assessed against an internal empirical null built by randomly splitting the AGN sample, so the headline MBH result does not depend on any external or prior result. Self-citations to Powell et al. (2022, 2024) appear in the random-catalog generation, the N-body mock construction, and in comparisons with earlier correlation-function measurements; these are methodological or contextual and are not required for the measurement itself. The mock interpretation uses literature MBH-M* relations with three alternative parameterizations and fixed scatters, and the conclusion is explicitly tentative ('may go beyond'), so the interpretation is not forced by construction. The internal inconsistencies in the reported significance levels (the 99.98th percentile from 1000 null realizations and the combined p-value of 8.06e-5) are statistical reproducibility concerns rather than circularity, and do not affect the circularity verdict.

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

The central kNN measurement itself introduces no fitted parameters; the angular bins, jackknife regions, and redshift ranges are methodological choices rather than physical parameters. The mock interpretation depends on literature values for the MBH-M* relation and the SMHMR, which are inputs, not fits to the kNN data. The main axioms are the tracer fidelity of 2MRS, the unbiased nature of the hard X-ray selection, the validity of the permutation null, and the correctness of the adopted scaling relations.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math kNN CDF statistics are sensitive to all orders of the correlation function on nonlinear scales (Banerjee & Abel 2020; Yuan et al. 2023).
    The paper relies on this to justify that kNN provides additional information beyond 2-point statistics; cited, not re-derived.
  • domain assumption The 2MRS galaxy sample (K_s < 11.75, spectroscopic redshifts) is a fair tracer of the local galaxy density field modulo its flux limit.
    All kNN distances are measured to 2MRS galaxies; if the tracer population is biased, the CDFs and comparisons would be affected. The flux limit's effect is discussed in Appendix A, but a residual bias could remain.
  • domain assumption The BASS hard X-ray selection (14-195 keV) is nearly unbiased to obscuring column densities up to NH = 1e24 cm^-2.
    Justifies the claim that the AGN sample is unbiased; cited from Ricci et al. 2015 and Ananna et al. 2022.
  • domain assumption The permutation null distribution, generated by random splits of the AGN sample, correctly represents the covariance of the kNN measurements under the null hypothesis.
    The reported significance (99.98th percentile) is based on this empirical null; if the random splits do not preserve sample correlations, the p-value could be inaccurate.
  • domain assumption The adopted MBH-M* relations and scatters (Reines & Volonteri 2015; Shankar et al. 2016; Powell et al. 2022) are representative of the local universe.
    The toy model conclusion that trends go beyond stellar mass depends on these relations; the paper varies three parameterizations but does not fit them to the kNN data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGN with massive black holes have closer galactic neighbors: k-Nearest-Neighbor statistics of an unbiased sample of AGN at z~0.03." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTDCL5D3

@misc{pith2026250621705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGN with massive black holes have closer galactic neighbors: k-Nearest-Neighbor statistics of an unbiased sample of AGN at z~0.03},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTDCL5D3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21705}
}
read the original abstract

The large-scale environments of active galactic nuclei (AGN) reveal important information on the growth and evolution of supermassive black holes (SMBHs). Previous AGN clustering measurements using 2-point correlation functions have hinted that AGN with massive black holes preferentially reside in denser cosmic regions than AGN with less-massive SMBHs. At the same time, little to no dependence on the accretion rate is found. However, the significance of such trends have been limited. Here we present kth-nearest-neighbor (kNN) statistics of 2MASS galaxies around AGN from the Swift/BAT AGN Spectroscopic survey. These statistics have been shown to contribute additional higher-order clustering information on the cosmic density field. By calculating the distances to the nearest 7 galaxy neighbors in angular separation to each AGN within two redshift ranges(0.01 < z < 0.03 and 0.03 < z < 0.06), we compare their cumulative distribution functions to that of a randomly distributed sample to show the sensitivity of this method to the clustering of AGN. We also split the AGN into bins of bolometric luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio (while controlling for redshift) to search for trends between kNN statistics and fundamental AGN properties. We find that AGN with massive SMBHs have significantly closer neighbors than AGN with less-massive SMBHs (at the 99.98% confidence level), especially in our lower redshift range. We find less significant trends with luminosity or Eddington ratio. By comparing our results to empirical SMBH-galaxy-halo models implemented in N-body simulations, we show that small-scale kNN trends with black hole mass may go beyond stellar mass dependencies. This suggests that massive SMBHs in the local universe reside in more massive dark matter halos and denser regions of the cosmic web, which may indicate that environment is important for the growth of SMBHs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AGN parameters (luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio) vs. redshift for the BASS AGN sample used in our kNN analysis. We categorized the parameter bins into large (sky blue) and small (or￾ange) subsamples to have similar redshift distributions. For each plot, the top histogram shows the redshift distribution of the two bins, and the rightward histogram shows the parameter distribution. Luminosity bins are… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift distributions of the full AGN sample (blue) and the galaxy catalog(black). The redshift separating our two redshift ranges (0.03) is shown by the dotted line. environments. We show the effect of the flux limit on kNN distances using a volume-limited AGN sample in Appendix A. As a result of this flux limit, we expect less significant AGN kNN trends in the higher-z range due to poorer statistics and less dive… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panels: Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of nearest galaxy angular separations for the AGN (solid lines) compared to randomly generated points (dashed lines) within two redshift ranges: 0.01 < z < 0.03 (left) and 0.03 < z < 0.06 (right). Each color corresponds to a k th nearest neighbor, from the 1st nearest (k = 1; purple) to the 7th nearest (k = 7; yellow). For clarity, the 4th and 6th neighbors are ex… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: kNN CDFs of the two luminosity bins across the low redshift range (left) and higher redshift range (right). The solid lines represent the high luminosity bin and the dashed lines represent the low luminosity bin. The measurements for each galactic neighbor are marked w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: kNN CDFs of the two black hole mass bins for the low redshift range (left) and higher redshift range (right). The solid lines correspond to the high-BH mass AGN and the dashed lines represent the low-BH mass subsample. The color scheme is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: kNN CDFs of the two Eddington ratio bins for the low redshift range (left) and higher redshift range (right). The solid lines correspond to the high-λEdd AGN and the dashed lines represent the low-λEdd subsample. The color scheme is the same as in Figs. 4 and 5, and th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: kNN statistics vs. Eddington ratio, controlled for redshift and black hole mass. Top: distributions of redshift, MBH, and λEdd are shown for each bin (high-λEdd in light blue, low-λEdd in dark blue). Bottom: kNN CDF differences between the high-λEdd and low-λEdd bin fo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: kNN statistics vs. black hole mass, controlled for redshift and Eddington ratio. Top: distributions of redshift, MBH, and λEdd are shown for each bin (high-MBH in light blue, low-MBH in dark blue). Bottom: kNN CDF differences between the high-MBH and low-MBH bin for th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: kNN statistics vs. obscuration, controlled for redshift and black hole mass. Top: distributions of redshift, MBH, and NH are shown for each bin (high-NH in light blue, low-NH in dark blue). Bottom: kNN CDF differences between the high-NH and low-NH bin for the first 7…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized distributions of SMBH mass for each MBH bin (or￾ange and blue for the small and large bin, respectively) for the data (filled histograms) and mocks (step histograms). The mocks were cho￾sen to match the smoothed BASS distributions. For each model, we assume…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Differences between the high-mass and low-mass CDFs for the first 4 neighbors. The BASS measurements (black data points) are compared to two toy models: Model 1 (blue), which assumes standard MBH −M∗ and M∗−Mhalo relations, and Model 2 (orange), which additionally inc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Coil, A

    Aird, J. & Coil, A. L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5962

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 99

    Allevato, V ., Finoguenov, A., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 99

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 632, A88

    Allevato, V ., Viitanen, A., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A88

    2019

  4. [4]

    T., Weigel, A

    Ananna, T. T., Weigel, A. K., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 9

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    & Abel, T

    Banerjee, A. & Abel, T. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 500, 5479–5499

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    & Abel, T

    Banerjee, A. & Abel, T. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 519, 4856–4868

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19

    2013

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379

    2010

  2. [10]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y . 2013, ApJ, 762, 109

    2013

  3. [11]

    K., Blecha, L., & Thomas, J

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., & Thomas, J. 2020, ApJ, 904, 150

    2020

  4. [12]

    G., Schaye, J., Frenk, C

    Bower, R. G., Schaye, J., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 32

    2017

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 634, A114

    Caglar, T., Burtscher, L., Brandl, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A114

    2020

  6. [14]

    J., Burtscher, L., et al

    Caglar, T., Koss, M. J., Burtscher, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 60

    2023

  7. [15]

    2010, ApJ, 716, L209

    Cappelluti, N., Ajello, M., Burlon, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, L209

    2010

  8. [16]

    2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 853701

    Cappelluti, N., Allevato, V ., & Finoguenov, A. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 853701

    2012

  9. [17]

    M., Koo, D

    Chen, Z., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 102

    2020

  10. [18]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 48

    Chuang, C.-H., Yepes, G., Kitaura, F.-S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 48

    2019

  11. [19]

    L., Mendez, A

    Coil, A. L., Mendez, A. J., Eisenstein, D. J., & Moustakas, J. 2017, ApJ, 838, 87

    2017

  12. [20]

    & Sijacki, D

    DeGraf, C. & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3331

    2017

  13. [21]

    A., Hickox, R

    DiPompeo, M. A., Hickox, R. C., Eftekharzadeh, S., & Myers, A. D. 2017, MN- RAS, 469, 4630

    2017

  14. [22]

    2002, ApJ, 578, 90

    Ferrarese, L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90

    2002

  15. [23]

    M., Powell, M

    Ghosh, A., Urry, C. M., Powell, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 142

    2024

  16. [24]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26

    2012

  17. [25]

    H., Peterson, B

    Jones, D. H., Peterson, B. A., Colless, M., & Saunders, W. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 25

    2006

  18. [26]

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

    2013

  19. [27]

    2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Treister, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, L22

    2012

  20. [28]

    2010, ApJ, 716, L125

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., & Winter, L. 2010, ApJ, 716, L125

    2010

  21. [29]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 57

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 57

    2011

  22. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 74

    Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 74

    2017

  23. [31]

    J., Blecha, L., Bernhard, P., et al

    Koss, M. J., Blecha, L., Bernhard, P., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 214

    2018

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3063

    Koutoulidis, L., Georgantopoulos, I., Mountrichas, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3063

    2018

  25. [33]

    A., et al

    Krishnan, C., Almaini, O., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1693

    2020

  26. [34]

    T., Pimbblet, K

    Kristensen, M. T., Pimbblet, K. A., Gibson, B. K., Penny, S. J., & Koudmani, S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 127

    2021

  27. [35]

    L., & Aceves, H

    Krumpe, M., Miyaji, T., Coil, A. L., & Aceves, H. 2012, ApJ, 746, 1

    2012

  28. [36]

    L., & Aceves, H

    Krumpe, M., Miyaji, T., Coil, A. L., & Aceves, H. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1773

    2018

  29. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 109

    Krumpe, M., Miyaji, T., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 109

    2023

  30. [38]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 21

    Krumpe, M., Miyaji, T., Husemann, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 21

    2015

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06208

    Li, H., Chen, Y ., Wang, H., & Mo, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06208

    2024

  32. [40]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4274

    Marasco, A., Cresci, G., Posti, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4274

    2021

  33. [41]

    M., et al

    Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., Urry, C. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 77 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5

    2022

  34. [42]

    J., Coil, A

    Mendez, A. J., Coil, A. L., Aird, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 55

    2016

  35. [43]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

    2013

  36. [44]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1

    Oogi, T., Shirakata, H., Nagashima, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1

    2020

  37. [45]

    Perez, N. R. & Coldwell, G. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5344 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2022

  38. [46]

    C., Allen, S

    Powell, M. C., Allen, S. W., Caglar, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 77

    2022

  39. [47]

    C., Cappelluti, N., Urry, C

    Powell, M. C., Cappelluti, N., Urry, C. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 110

    2018

  40. [48]

    C., Krumpe, M., Coil, A., & Miyaji, T

    Powell, M. C., Krumpe, M., Coil, A., & Miyaji, T. 2024, A&A, 686, A57

    2024

  41. [49]

    C., Urry, C

    Powell, M. C., Urry, C. M., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 41

    2020

  42. [50]

    Reines, A. E. & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

    2015

  43. [51]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17

    2017

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L13

    2015

  45. [53]

    2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2505.02920]

    Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Roberts, D., et al. 2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2505.02920]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K., et al

    Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3119

    2016

  47. [55]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 23

    Shirasaki, Y ., Komiya, Y ., Ohishi, M., & Mizumoto, Y . 2016, PASJ, 68, 23

    2016

  48. [56]

    D., Kovac, K., Knobel, C., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kovac, K., Knobel, C., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 171

    2009

  49. [57]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 64

    Singh, A., Park, C., Choi, E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 64

    2023

  50. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 724

    Siudek, M., Mezcua, M., & Krywult, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 724

    2023

  51. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 6148

    Viitanen, A., Allevato, V ., Finoguenov, A., Shankar, F., & Marsden, C. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 6148

    2021

  52. [60]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3828

    Wang, Y ., Banerjee, A., & Abel, T. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3828

    2022

  53. [61]

    N., Darvish, B., et al

    Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., Darvish, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1022

    2018

  54. [62]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 522, 3935–3947 Article number, page 12 of 15 A

    Yuan, S., Zamora, A., & Abel, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 522, 3935–3947 Article number, page 12 of 15 A. Mhatre, M. C. Powell, et al.: AGN with massive supermassive black holes have closer galactic neighbors 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.