Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

NVSS J151002+570243: accretion and spin of a z > 4 Fermi detected blazar

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A z=4.31 blazar, the most distant steady Fermi source, is accreting at only a few percent of the Eddington rate.

desk verdict A plausible single-object disk-mass measurement for a z>4 blazar, but the 'three models' language oversells what is really one disk fit plus two re-parameterizations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11500 v1 pith:N2VTALRZ submitted 2025-05-16 astro-ph.HE

Gabriele Alzati , Tullia Sbarrato , Gabriele Ghisellini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords high-redshiftblazaraccretiondiskEddingtonratiosupermassiveblackholeFermi/LATbigbluebumpseedrelativisticjet
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 how a supermassive black hole can grow so massive in the first 1.5 billion years of the Universe, and answers with a surprising measurement: the z=4.31 blazar 1508+5714, the most distant source Fermi/LAT has consistently detected, is accreting at only about 2-6 percent of the Eddington rate. The authors model the optical-UV big blue bump with three accretion disk models - a standard thin disk, a relativistic disk around a spinning black hole, and a slim disk built for super-Eddington accretion - and all three agree on a black hole mass near $10^{8}$.2 to $10^{8}$.8 solar masses and a strongly sub-Eddington rate. Because continuous slow accretion since z~20 would require an implausible seed of $10^{6}$ to $10^{8}$ solar masses, the paper argues that the black hole must have gone through an earlier super-Eddington phase that spun it up and launched the jet, with the low rate observed only after the jet was active.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the big blue bump in the source's rest-frame optical-UV spectrum, assumed to be thermal emission from a geometrically thin, optically thick, face-on accretion disk. The paper fits the bump first with the standard Shakura-Sunyaev disk, then applies analytic approximations of the KERRBB and SLIMBH numerical models developed by Campitiello et al.; these approximations convert the peak frequency and peak luminosity of the fitted bump into families of black hole mass, spin, and Eddington ratio. The fixed peak coordinates from the Shakura-Sunyaev fit are the shared ingredient, so the KERRBB and SLIMBH steps test whether adding spin or advection-dominated slim-disk physics changes the accretion-rate conclusion.

What would settle it

A rest-frame optical-UV spectrum of 1508+5714 showing intrinsic reddening or a polarized jet component in the big blue bump region, or an independent black hole mass measurement from H-beta or reverberation mapping that pushes the Eddington ratio above about 0.3, would overturn the sub-Eddington conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that 1508+5714 accretes well below the Eddington limit even when the data are forced through models built for super-critical accretion. The standard Shakura-Sunyaev disk fit gives log M/Msun = 8.65 +/- 0.19 and an Eddington ratio lambda = 0.02 +/- 0.01, consistent with the independent virial mass of 8.52 +/- 0.39. The KERRBB approximation yields log M/Msun around 8.2-8.5 and lambda around 0.03-0.06 depending on black hole spin, and the SLIMBH approximation gives log M/Msun between 8.18 and 8.83 and lambda between 0.032 and 0.062. The authors conclude that the current accretion is significantly sub-Eddington, and that a continuous sub-Eddington history would demand a seed black hole mass incompatible with stellar seed formation; instead, the black hole was likely spun up during a super-Eddington phase that also triggered the relativistic jet.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the optical-UV bump is thermal emission from a face-on, standard accretion disk with negligible jet contamination; if the continuum is partly non-thermal jet light, reddened, or affected by absorption, the fitted peak - and with it the derived mass and Eddington ratio - would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conclusion is right, continuous sub-Eddington accretion from a stellar-mass seed cannot build the observed mass of 1508+5714 by z=4.31; an early super-Eddington phase is required.
  • The measured slow rate must be a late-time state: the 135 kpc jet seen by LOFAR, estimated to be about 7.3 Myr old, implies the black hole already had 97-99 percent of its final mass when the jet formed.
  • A super-Eddington phase starting from a 50-200 solar mass seed can occur as late as z~8 for a radiative efficiency of 10 percent, or z~5.5 for 5 percent, making massive Pop III star seeds viable.
  • The consistency of KERRBB and SLIMBH with the Shakura-Sunyaev result means that adding black hole spin or advection does not rescue a super-Eddington interpretation for this source.
  • Relativistic jets in the early Universe may be tracers of a past super-critical accretion episode rather than evidence of ongoing fast growth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this pattern holds for other z>4 blazars, the overabundance of jetted sources at high redshift could be a fossil record of the super-Eddington growth episodes that built their black holes, not a sign of currently fast accretion.
  • The KERRBB and SLIMBH results inherit the Shakura-Sunyaev fitted peak coordinates, so they do not independently confirm that the bump is purely thermal disk emission; an independent test would need a reddening-free tracer of the disk or a mass measurement from a different emission line.
  • A testable extension would be to search the rest-frame UV spectrum of 1508+5714 for outflow or wind signatures indicative of past super-Eddington accretion, or to monitor for optical variability that would reveal a jet-contaminated continuum.
  • The seed-mass argument assumes a roughly constant Eddington ratio before the jet phase; if accretion was instead episodic with brief high-rate bursts, the required seed mass could be even smaller and the jet-launching link less direct.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the broad-band spectral energy distribution of the z=4.31 Fermi-detected blazar NVSS J151002+570243. After modeling the jet component with a phenomenological SED, the authors fit the optical-UV 'big blue bump' with a Shakura-Sunyaev (SS73) disk, obtaining log M/Msun = 8.65 +/- 0.19 and an Eddington ratio lambda = 0.02 +/- 0.01, consistent with the virial mass. They then feed the fitted peak frequency and luminosity into analytic approximations of the KERRBB and SLIMBH models, obtaining lambda in the range 0.032-0.062 and log M/Msun in 8.18-8.83 for different spins. The paper concludes that the source accretes at a significantly sub-Eddington rate, which is difficult to reconcile with continuous growth from a stellar seed, and proposes a scenario with an early super-Eddington phase that spins up the black hole and triggers the jet, followed by the currently observed low accretion rate.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: how can massive black holes at z>4 grow in the presence of powerful jets? If the sub-Eddington accretion rate is robust, it strengthens the case for a super-Eddington phase in the early evolution of such systems and offers a plausible link between jet launching and black hole spin-up. The use of analytic approximations for KERRBB and SLIMBH is practical and extends these models to AGN applications. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of independence among the three disk models and by the informal uncertainty estimation; the 'all models tested' claim is stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2-3.3, Eqs. (8)-(15)] The KERRBB and SLIMBH analyses are not independent confirmations of the sub-Eddington result. The peak frequency and peak luminosity from the SS73 fit (Eq. 7) are the direct inputs to the KERRBB analytic mapping (Eqs. 8-10) and the SLIMBH mapping (Eqs. 13-15). These approximations are constructed to reproduce the same peak properties as SS73, so they cannot falsify the SS73 peak determination; they only translate the same fitted point into different (M, lambda) families. Consequently, the abstract and Section 4 statement that 'all models tested' support a significantly sub-Eddington regime overstates the evidence. The central measurement is a single SS73 fit, with KERRBB and SLIMBH acting as consistency checks. The authors should either reframe the claims to reflect this, or perform an actual fit of the photometric data with the KERRBB and SLIMBH models (varying the peak within the SS73 uncertainties) to make the tests independent.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The confidence intervals on the SS73 fit parameters are not determined statistically. The text states that the intervals are defined as the parameter values outside which the model 'does not properly describe the data reliably,' based on a visual exploration of the parameter space. No photometric uncertainties are propagated, and the resulting 0.19 dex uncertainty on log M is smaller than the 0.39 dex uncertainty of the virial mass, which is difficult to justify given the informal method. A quantitative fitting approach with realistic photometric errors (e.g., chi-square grid or Monte Carlo) is needed to support the quoted errors and the sub-Eddington claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Ly-alpha exclusion] The decision to exclude the rest-frame blue side shortward of Ly-alpha, after the Meiksin correction was judged unreliable, means the disk peak is constrained only by the red side of the bump. The resulting systematic uncertainty in nu_max and nuL_max (Eq. 7) is not quantified. Because the KERRBB and SLIMBH results depend on these coordinates (e.g., Eq. (15) scales as nu_p^2 sqrt(nu_p L_p) for fixed L_p), a biased peak would propagate directly into the derived lambda and M. The authors should estimate the magnitude of this systematic error, for example by testing alternative absorption corrections or by omitting the innermost red points, and include it in the quoted uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The text states that characterizing the jet allowed the authors 'to evaluate its contribution to the optical/UV emission,' but it is not described how this contribution was subtracted before fitting the disk. Please clarify whether the disk fit used the total observed flux or the residual after jet subtraction.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] The expression L_disk(theta) = 2 cos(theta) Mdot c^2 = 2 eta Mdot c^2 is unclear: the factor 2 cos(theta) is an anisotropy factor, but the equality L_disk = 2 eta Mdot c^2 suggests the total luminosity exceeds eta Mdot c^2 by a factor of 2. Please clarify the definition and the normalization.
  3. [Section 5, bullet 3] There is a typo: 'lambda ~ 0.03 - 0.6' should presumably read 'lambda ~ 0.03 - 0.06'.
  4. [Table 3] The rows for the z=5.5 super-Eddington scenarios list eta=0.5, whereas the text (Section 4) describes eta=0.05 as the low-efficiency case; this appears to be a typo.
  5. [Section 4] The paper uses 'accretion rate' for both the luminosity Eddington ratio lambda and the matter accretion rate Mdot/Mdot_Edd. Since lambda = L_d/L_Edd is defined in Eq. (10), it would be helpful to explicitly distinguish the matter accretion rate, particularly in the discussion where lambda=1 with eta=0.1 implies Mdot/Mdot_Edd=10.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

KERRBB and SLIMBH 'confirm' sub-Eddington accretion by re-parameterizing the SS73-fitted peak coordinates, so the three-model claim is the same single disk fit mapped through different analytic functions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eqs. (7)-(10)]
    "The analytic approximations we will use in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 need the disk emission peak frequency and luminosity as input parameters. Therefore we derived these values for the best fitting SS73 model: ... We can thus use the peak position derived in Section 3.1 to apply the KERRBB analytic approximation ... This analytical approximation provides a family of sets of physical parameters M , Mdot and a, that reproduce the SS73 emission profile fixed at specific peak coordinates."

    In Eq. (10), lambda = D eta(a) g1^-2 sqrt(cos theta g2) nu_p^2 sqrt(nu_p L_p), with g_i evaluated at spin a. The inputs nu_p and nu_p L_p are exactly the SS73 best-fit peak coordinates of Eq. (7), not independent data. Hence every KERRBB (M, lambda) point in Fig. 3 is a deterministic remapping of the single SS73 peak; the statement 'these models confirm' in the abstract presents this arithmetic as a second, independent test.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eqs. (13)-(15)]
    "As for the case of KERRBB, the emission profile of SLIMBH is a multi-temperature black body with a peak profile consistent with SS73. Therefore we adopted the same approach as in Section 3.2 ... Similarly to the analytical approximation of KERRBB, sets of three parameters a, M, lambda replicate the SS73 emission profile of given peak coordinates. We therefore followed an analogous procedure to what shown in Section 3.2 at the same fixed spin values (Equation 12). Then we solved numerically Equation 15 to find the Eddington ratios and the masses."

    Combining Eqs. (13) and (14) yields [nu_p L_p]^1/4 nu_p = E [g2s(a,theta,lambda) cos theta]^1/4 g1s(a,theta,lambda) sqrt(lambda) (Eq. 15). Since nu_p and nu_p L_p were fixed by the SS73 fit, solving Eq. (15) for lambda and M merely translates that fitted peak through the SLIMBH analytic map. The quoted range lambda = 0.032-0.062 is therefore the SS73 peak expressed in SLIMBH variables, not an independent confirmation that the source is sub-Eddington.

full rationale

The central measured result, sub-Eddington accretion with lambda ~ 0.02-0.06, ultimately rests on the SS73 fit to the big blue bump (Section 3.1, Eqs. 5-7), which is a legitimate, though informally error-bracketed, model-data comparison. The paper's presentation as 'according to all models tested' overstates the evidence, because the paper explicitly states that the KERRBB and SLIMBH analytic approximations take the SS73-derived nu_max and nuL_max as input parameters, and Eqs. (10) and (15) show lambda is computed directly from those coordinates. The paper even concedes 'the three disk emission models are intertwined.' The independent virial mass from Shen et al. (2011) is a genuinely separate check and is consistent with the derived mass, so the paper is not wholly circular; but the KERRBB/SLIMBH 'confirmations' reduce by construction to the SS73 peak. This is partial, construction-level circularity in the three-model confirmation claim, not in the underlying photometric data or the mass measurement. The evolutionary scenario (super-Eddington past, jet triggering, seed masses) is a separate argument built on the measured lambda and does not introduce additional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measured claim rests on the disk emission models (SS73, KERRBB, SLIMBH), on the face-on viewing assumption, on prior work by the authors' group for the analytic approximations, and on external measurements (virial mass, LOFAR jet age) that are not re-derived here. The evolutionary scenario adds two assumed accretion phases, but these are labeled as exploratory and do not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • SS73 black hole mass = log M/Msun = 8.65 ± 0.19
    Fitted to the optical-UV big blue bump; sets the Eddington ratio scale and is the primary measured quantity.
  • SS73 accretion rate (Eddington ratio) = log Mdot/Msun/s = -8.14, lambda = 0.02 ± 0.01
    Fitted alongside mass to the disk SED; directly yields the central sub-Eddington conclusion.
  • Jet SED spectral parameters = alpha1=0.3, alpha2=1.45, alpha3=0.14, nu_t=3e11 Hz, nu_S=1.5e12 Hz, nu_C=1e21 Hz, nu_cut values, normalization
    Hand-adapted from Ghisellini et al. (2017) to describe the jet contribution to the SED; used to subtract jet emission, though the optical-UV is treated as disk-dominated.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The optical-UV 'big blue bump' is dominated by emission from a radiatively efficient, geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disk.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to justify fitting SS73; if the bump includes jet or host galaxy contamination, M and lambda change.
  • domain assumption The source is viewed face-on, theta ~ 0, so the disk anisotropy factor is 2 cos(theta) = 2.
    Section 3.1, Equation 5; follows from blazar geometry.
  • domain assumption The analytic approximations of KERRBB and SLIMBH from Campitiello et al. (2018, 2019) accurately represent the numerical models for this source's parameters, and the parameter tables in Appendix A are correct.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3; the entire KERRBB/SLIMBH analysis depends on these approximations, which are co-authored by two of the present authors and are not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The virial black hole mass from Shen et al. (2011), log Mvir/Msun = 8.52 ± 0.39, is reliable and used as the independent comparison.
    Section 3; consistency between disk and virial masses is used to support the model choices, and the KERRBB/SLIMBH lambda_vir values depend on it.
  • domain assumption The LOFAR-based jet age of about 7.3 Myr from Kappes et al. (2022) is correct and is used to constrain the duration of the current sub-Eddington phase.
    Section 4; if the jet is much older, the seed mass problem changes and the proposed super-Eddington phase timing shifts.
  • standard math Standard Salpeter and Eddington-limited growth with constant radiative efficiency describes the accretion history.
    Section 4 and Table 3; used to compute seed masses from final mass, Eddington ratio, and growth time.
  • ad hoc to paper The early growth phase can be approximated as continuous Eddington-limited accretion with radiative efficiency 0.05 to 0.1, corresponding to Eddington ratio 10 to 20 in matter accretion rate.
    Section 4, Table 3; chosen to permit stellar-mass seeds at z~5.5 to 8. The values are motivated by literature but not directly constrained by the data in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NVSS J151002+570243: accretion and spin of a z > 4 Fermi detected blazar." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N2VTALRZ

@misc{pith2026250511500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NVSS J151002+570243: accretion and spin of a z > 4 Fermi detected blazar},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N2VTALRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11500}
}
abstract

Active galactic nuclei formation and evolution is currently an open puzzle. Their enormous mass is not explainable via sub-Eddington accretion and the frequent presence of relativistic jets at high-z, commonly linked with spinning black holes, suggest a less effective accretion process. NVSS J151002+570243 is part of this population, being the most distant blazar consistently detected by Fermi/LAT, hence hosting a powerful jet. We tested the hypothesis of a super-Eddington accretion process for this source by modeling its big blue bump with a set of accretion disk emission models. We first tested a standard geometrically thin, optically thick $\alpha$-disk, obtaining a mass of Log$M/M_\odot=8.65\pm0.19$ consistent with virial-based results and a significantly sub-Eddington accretion rate $\lambda=0.02\pm0.01$. We then focused on the analytic approximations of two numerical models that take into account the General Relativity effects of a spinning black hole (reasonable due to the presence of a jet) and a close-to- or super-Eddington accretion rate (KERBB and SLIMBH). Despite the focus on super-critical accretion, these models confirm a surprisingly low Eddington ratio, of the order of 3\%. The hypothesis of a continuous accretion at this measured rate is unrealistic, since it would imply a seed black hole mass of $\sim10^6-10^8M_\odot$ at redshift z=20. Hence we explore the possibility of a continuous super-critical accretion starting from a $\sim10^2M_\odot$ seed, that would spin up the black hole and eventually contribute in launching the relativistic jet. The measured low accretion rate would thus happen only once the jet is active. This idea would reconcile the black holes with large masses accreting at somewhat slow rates that are observed at z>4, with the need of an extremely fast evolution, by allowing the formation of stellar-size black hole seeds even as late as at $z\sim8$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Broad band SED of 1508+5714. The blue line shows the to￾tal SED that best model the data. The SED includes the jet component (dominated by the two prominent humps in radio and at high-energies) and the accretion disk emission, shown with a red line and yellow band to show its confidence range. Photometric data are shown with purple dots and orange upper limits, while the green line shows the SDSS spec￾troscopic data… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zoomed-in visual of the most reliable model for 1508+5714, focussed on the accretion disk emission. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KERRBB (solid orange line) and SLIMBH (solid blue) sets of M and λ values consistent with 1508+5714 data. The two sets of results are compared with the virial mass (vertical red line) in order to estimate the respective values of Eddington ratio λ s vir (dashed blue and orange lines, for KERRBB and SLIMBH respectively). The vertical and horizontal dashed grey lines show the estimates of M and λ derived with SS73, re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Black hole mass evolution as a function of time (or red￾shift, upper axis), for the results obtained with the SLIMBH-based ap￾proach (KERRBB-based results are consistent). The data point shows 1508+5714 virial mass and the realtive mass range obtained following Section…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    A., Czerny , B., Lasota , J

    Abramowicz , M. A., Czerny , B., Lasota , J. P., & Szuszkiewicz , E. 1988, , 332, 646

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    2017, , 837, L5

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Baldini , L., et al. 2017, , 837, L5

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Ajello , M., Costamante , L., Sambruna , R. M., et al. 2009, , 699, 603

    2009

  6. [6]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071

    2009

  7. [7]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07236

    Banados , E., Momjian , E., Connor , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07236

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    2013, , 431, 210

    Calderone , G., Ghisellini , G., Colpi , M., & Dotti , M. 2013, , 431, 210

    work page 2013

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 625, A23

    Campitiello , S., Celotti , A., Ghisellini , G., & Sbarrato , T. 2019, , 625, A23

    2019

  2. [10]

    2018, , 612, A59

    Campitiello , S., Ghisellini , G., Sbarrato , T., & Calderone , G. 2018, , 612, A59

    2018

  3. [11]

    2013, , 762, 68

    Dotti , M., Colpi , M., Pallini , S., Perego , A., & Volonteri , M. 2013, , 762, 68

    2013

  4. [12]

    Fan , X., Ba \ n ados , E., & Simcoe , R. A. 2023, , 61, 373

    2023

  5. [13]

    2015, , 452, 3457

    Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., Ciardi , B., et al. 2015, , 452, 3457

    2015

  6. [14]

    2013, , 432, 2818

    Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., Della Ceca , R., Volonteri , M., & Sbarrato , T. 2013, , 432, 2818

    2013

  7. [15]

    2017, , 469, 255

    Ghisellini , G., Righi , C., Costamante , L., & Tavecchio , F. 2017, , 469, 255

    2017

  8. [16]

    2024, , 974, 38

    Gokus , A., B \"o ttcher , M., Errando , M., et al. 2024, , 974, 38

    2024

  9. [17]

    Jolley , E. J. D. & Kuncic , Z. 2008, , 386, 989

    2008

  10. [18]

    R., Kadler , M., et al

    Kappes , A., Burd , P. R., Kadler , M., et al. 2022, , 663, A44

    2022

  11. [19]

    2020, , 903, 128

    Kreter , M., Gokus , A., Krauss , F., et al. 2020, , 903, 128

    2020

  12. [20]

    R., Narayan , R., & McClintock , J

    Li , L.-X., Zimmerman , E. R., Narayan , R., & McClintock , J. E. 2005, , 157, 335

    2005

  13. [21]

    2018, , 865, L17

    Liao , N.-H., Li , S., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2018, , 865, L17

    2018

  14. [22]

    2021, , 908, 124

    Liu , Y., Wang , R., Momjian , E., et al. 2021, , 908, 124

    2021

  15. [23]

    2014, , 784, L38

    Madau , P., Haardt , F., & Dotti , M. 2014, , 784, L38

    2014

  16. [24]

    2006, , 365, 807

    Meiksin , A. 2006, , 365, 807

    2006

  17. [25]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1964, , 140, 796

    1964

  18. [26]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 23

    Sbarrato , T. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 23

    2021

  19. [27]

    2012, , 426, L91

    Sbarrato , T., Ghisellini , G., Nardini , M., et al. 2012, , 426, L91

    2012

  20. [28]

    2015, , 446, 2483

    Sbarrato , T., Ghisellini , G., Tagliaferri , G., et al. 2015, , 446, 2483

    2015

  21. [29]

    2013, , 777, 147

    Sbarrato , T., Tagliaferri , G., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2013, , 777, 147

    2013

  22. [30]

    Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  23. [31]

    T., Strauss , M

    Shen , Y., Richards , G. T., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2011, , 194, 45

    2011

  24. [32]

    2009, , 183, 171

    S a dowski , A. 2009, , 183, 171

    2009

  25. [33]

    Thorne , K. S. 1974, , 191, 507

    1974

  26. [34]

    2012, Science, 337, 544

    Volonteri , M. 2012, Science, 337, 544

    2012

  27. [35]

    2011, , 416, 216

    Volonteri , M., Haardt , F., Ghisellini , G., & Della Ceca , R. 2011, , 416, 216

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.