Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

The spatial extension of extended narrow line regions in MaNGA AGN

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single power law links the size of AGN-ionized gas to [O III] luminosity across four orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely useful IFU-based ENLR sample, but the headline 0.42 slope needs a clear statement that the quasar isophotal threshold is rest-frame. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02885 v2 pith:NE7RFF3Z submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.GA

Jianhang Chen , Yong Shi , Ross Dempsey , David R. Law , Yanmei Chen , Renbin Yan , Longji Bing , Sandro B. Rembold
show 5 more authors
Songlin Li Xiaoling Yu Rogemar A. Riffel Joe R. Brownstein Rogério Riffel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleiextendednarrowlineregionsize-luminosityrelationMaNGAsurveyintegralfieldspectroscopy[OIII]emissionphotoionizationSeyfertgalaxies
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 measure how far AGN-ionized gas extends as a function of AGN luminosity, using a uniform integral-field sample rather than mixed long-slit data. It reports that the size of the extended narrow line region at a fixed surface brightness follows $\log(R/\mathrm{pc}) = (0.42\pm0.02)\log(L_{\mathrm{[O\,III]}}/\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}) - (13.97\pm0.95)$ across four orders of magnitude in [O III] luminosity, from nearby Seyferts to luminous quasars. A sympathetic reader would care because the slope discriminates between models: it is close to the 0.5 of simple photoionization and to the 0.45 predicted by a cloud-population model, and it implies radiation alone can push ionized gas to kiloparsec scales without outflows or jets. The result also suggests that previous slope disagreements came largely from small samples and from slit-based size definitions that underestimate the true ENLR extent.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three linked tools: spatially resolved BPT classification using the Kewley et al. (2001) boundary to select AGN-dominated spaxels; summing the dust-corrected [O III] flux of those spaxels as the AGN luminosity; and fitting the [O III] surface-brightness profile with a Sersic law, with and without convolution by the MaNGA PSF, to read off R16. The threshold-based radius is the same quantity the quasar studies used, which is what makes the four-dex combination possible.

What would settle it

Re-measure the quasar sizes at the rest-frame equivalent of $10^{-16}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,arcsec^{-2}}$ by multiplying observed surface brightness by $(1+z)^4$, then re-fit the combined sample; if the slope moves by more than the quoted $0.02$ uncertainty, the claimed universal relation is an artifact of the threshold mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ENLR size, defined as the radius at the $10^{-16}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,arcsec^{-2}}$ [O III] surface-brightness isophote, is a single power-law function of AGN [O III] luminosity: $\log(R/\mathrm{pc}) = (0.42\pm0.02)\log(L_{\mathrm{[O\,III]}}/\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}) - (13.97\pm0.95)$. The relationship holds over four dex when the MaNGA Seyferts are combined with IFU quasar measurements, and the slope is insensitive to whether radio-loud AGN or galaxies with detected outflows are present. This supports the picture of an ENLR as a population of photoionized clouds in pressure equilibrium with the radiation field, rather than gas mechanically transported by jets.

Load-bearing premise

The fit assumes that measuring sizes at the same observed-frame surface brightness of $10^{-16}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,arcsec^{-2}}$ is equivalent for the nearby MaNGA galaxies and the higher-redshift quasars; if the threshold was not converted to rest frame, the quasar sizes sit at a different intrinsic brightness and the combined slope could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 0.42 slope implies ENLR sizes scale roughly as $L^{0.4}$, a scaling that standard photoionization and the Dempsey & Zakamska cloud-population model can both accommodate.
  • The MaNGA-only slope of $0.49\pm0.04$ is consistent with the combined slope, suggesting the same physical scaling connects nearby Seyferts and luminous quasars.
  • Radio-loud AGN, nine of the 152 galaxies, lie on the same relation, so jets are not the dominant driver of ENLR size in this luminosity range.
  • Because PSF-smearing corrections change measured sizes by up to about 50 percent for marginally resolved sources, PSF-corrected sizes are essential when comparing IFU surveys.
  • If the relation is universal, the spatial extent of ionized gas alone can serve as a rough luminosity indicator for AGN whose broad lines are hidden.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the surface-brightness threshold was left in observed frame, the quasar R16 values are measured at a fainter intrinsic brightness than the MaNGA values; correcting with $(1+z)^4$ and refitting would test whether the 0.42 slope survives.
  • The same method applied to JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations at $z\sim1\text{--}3$ could test whether the relation holds at higher redshift or turns over.
  • Combining ENLR sizes with molecular-gas maps would test whether the $n_c\propto r^{-2}$ cloud distribution assumed by the model is physically present.
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 measures the size-luminosity relation of extended narrow line regions (ENLRs) in a sample of 152 MaNGA AGN selected via spatially resolved BPT diagnostics. ENLR sizes are defined by a 10^-16 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2 [O III] surface brightness isophote (R16), measured from PSF-deconvolved Sersic fits to the [O III] surface brightness profiles. By combining the MaNGA Seyferts with IFU quasar data from Liu et al. (2013, 2014), the authors fit a log-linear relation, log(R16/pc) = (0.42 +/- 0.02) log(L[O III]/erg/s) - (13.97 +/- 0.95), over four orders of magnitude in luminosity (Eq. 2, Fig. 6). They interpret the slope with the Dempsey & Zakamska (2018) photoionized cloud model and argue that outflows and jets are not required to explain the ENLR extension in low-luminosity Seyferts.

Significance. If the central result holds, it provides a well-calibrated ENLR size-luminosity relation over a much wider luminosity range than previous studies, connecting local Seyferts to luminous quasars with a uniform IFU-based size definition. The analysis has notable strengths: Monte Carlo radius uncertainties, PSF-deconvolved Sersic profile fitting, dust correction via the Balmer decrement, and a Bayesian regression method (Kelly 2007) are used, and the code is publicly available. The main caveats concern the rest-frame versus observed-frame threshold convention and the treatment of unresolved galaxies/upper limits; these issues are testable and should be clarified before the quoted slope is taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The paper never states whether the 10^-16 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2 surface brightness threshold is defined in the rest frame or the observed frame. Section 3.3 notes that cosmological dimming scales surface brightness by (1+z)^4 and says this is important for high-redshift comparisons, but Section 4 does not specify that the Liu et al. (2013, 2014) profiles were converted to rest frame before measuring R16. For z ~ 0.5-1 quasars the dimming factor is 5-16, so an observed-frame threshold would make the quasar R16 values larger than a rest-frame threshold would, which would flatten the combined slope relative to the MaNGA-only value of 0.49 +/- 0.04. Please state the convention explicitly, verify what Liu et al. actually quote, and re-fit with the threshold consistently defined (or demonstrate that the two conventions give the same result at the relevant redshifts).
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 4] The treatment of unresolved galaxies and upper limits is unspecified. The text says that galaxies whose PSF-deconvolved fit fails are assigned upper limits from the non-deconvolved fit, and Fig. 6 plots upper limits, but the fit description says 'Based on all the valid IFU observations' without stating whether upper limits are included as censored data in the Kelly (2007) regression. Table 1 contains many entries with resolved=False. If these points are omitted, the low-luminosity end of the fit is biased toward resolved ENLRs; if they are included as detections, the slope is biased downward. Please specify the censoring scheme, report the fit with and without upper limits, and state how many galaxies required extrapolation of the Sersic profile beyond the data to reach R16.
  3. [Section 5 and Figure 8] The agreement with the Dempsey & Zakamska (2018) model is presented as support, but the model has two free parameters (cloud mass mc and covering factor Omega) that are adjusted to match the data. The 'best' model in Fig. 8 is therefore a two-parameter fit to the same relation, not an a priori prediction, so the comparison is illustrative rather than a strong test. Please either provide a formal model comparison that accounts for the fitted parameters, or soften the Abstract/Conclusions wording to 'consistent with' rather than 'supports'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Several entries list log L[O III] uncertainties larger than 10 dex (e.g., 8483-12703, 9502-9101, 9893-6102); these values are unphysical and should be corrected or explained.
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'Both the number of radio-loud AGN in our sample and their ENLR sizes These results suggest...' is grammatically incomplete; please rewrite.
  3. [Figure 5 caption and Section 3.4] '1th fitting' and '2th fitting' should be '1st fitting' and '2nd fitting'.
  4. [Section 3.3] The warning about cosmological dimming is placed in the MaNGA methods section, but the relevant application is to the quasar sample; please expand it where the combined fit is described and state the numerical correction used for each source.
  5. [Figure 6] Please state explicitly how many galaxies are included in each fit (MaNGA-only and combined) and make clear in the figure/legend which points are detections and which are upper limits.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The central size-luminosity fit is an independent empirical measurement; only the Dempsey & Zakamska model comparison in Fig. 8 is a mildly circular 'prediction' with free parameters tuned to the data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Fig. 8 and caption]
    "Model predictions of Dempsey & Zakamska (2018) are superimposed on our data points. ... If the surface brightness cut at 10−16erg s−1cm−2arcsec−2 is adapted, the model fits our data well as shown in Fig. 8. The model takes the masses of clouds (mc) and their covering factor (Ω) as free parameters. A cloud mass of 10 7M⊙ with a covering factor of 3 × 10−3 fits our data well as the black solid line in Fig. 7."

    The curves labeled 'Prediction' in Fig. 8 are computed using two free parameters, cloud mass mc and covering factor Ω, which Section 5 states are chosen so that the model 'fits our data well'; the figure caption itself calls the curve the 'best fitting model.' Thus the model-data agreement displayed as a 'Prediction' is a retrodiction with fitted parameters, not an independent first-principles derivation. This is not load-bearing for the paper's central result: Eq. (2) is obtained by a Kelly (2007) Bayesian fit to the measured R16 and [O III] luminosities, with no DZ18 parameter entering that fit. It is a mild circularity in presentation, and DZ18 is a self-citation by coauthor Dempsey, but the measured size-luminosity relation stands on independent data.

full rationale

Equation (2) and Figure 6 are produced by a Bayesian log-linear fit to the authors' MaNGA R16 and [O III] luminosities combined with Liu et al. (2013, 2014) IFU data; no Dempsey & Zakamska (2018) parameter enters this fit, and R16 is not defined in terms of L[O III]. The size-luminosity correlation is therefore an empirical measurement, not a consequence of the model. The only circular element is the interpretive comparison in Section 5/Fig. 8: curves labeled 'Prediction' use two free parameters explicitly chosen to match the data, so their agreement is a fit rather than an independent prediction. This is illustrative and does not feed back into Eq. (2). The Section 3.3 caveat about cosmological dimming is a real calibration ambiguity for combining MaNGA and quasar samples, but ambiguity about observed- vs rest-frame thresholds is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction of the fitted relation. Overall, there is no significant load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical scaling relation with two fitted parameters (slope and intercept), plus a hand-chosen surface brightness threshold. The Sersic parameters and the cloud model mass/covering factor are ancillary fitting inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile accounting item is the threshold: the measured slope is defined only with respect to 10^-16 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2, and the paper does not fully document the rest-frame correction across redshifts.

free parameters (6)
  • Surface brightness threshold = 10^-16 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2
    Chosen in Section 3.3 as the isophote defining R16; the derived sizes and slope depend on this hand-selected threshold.
  • Size-luminosity slope = 0.42 ± 0.02
    The central fitted parameter from the Bayesian regression in Equation 2, combining MaNGA and Liu et al. data.
  • Size-luminosity intercept = -13.97 ± 0.95
    Fitted together with the slope in Equation 2.
  • Per-galaxy Sersic index n and scale k = n in [0.5, 10], k in [0.01, 10]; values per galaxy
    Used in Section 3.4 to fit and extrapolate surface brightness profiles to obtain R16; 15 galaxies with failed fits are excluded.
  • Model cloud mass mc = 10^7 M_sun
    Chosen in Section 5 so the Dempsey and Zakamska 2018 model matches the data in Figure 8.
  • Model covering factor Omega = 3 x 10^-3
    Chosen together with mc in Section 5 to match the observed relation; the model comparison is not an independent prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A fixed observed-frame surface brightness threshold defines ENLR size equivalently at all redshifts in the combined sample.
    Required to combine MaNGA and literature quasars; Section 3.3 notes (1+z)^4 dimming but the correction is not explicitly applied.
  • domain assumption Spatially resolved BPT classification with the Kewley et al. (2001) boundary separates AGN-ionized spaxels from star-forming spaxels.
    The ENLR identification and the AGN [O III] luminosity measurement both rely on this classification in Sections 2.2 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption A Sersic profile convolved with a Gaussian PSF represents the intrinsic [O III] surface brightness distribution outside the observed map.
    This assumption powers the PSF correction and extrapolation used to derive R16 in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption The dust-corrected [O III] luminosity of AGN-classified spaxels is a reliable proxy for the AGN ionizing luminosity.
    Adopted from prior literature in Section 3.2; composite and star-forming spaxels are excluded, and the correction uses an assumed intrinsic Balmer ratio of 3.1.
  • domain assumption The Dempsey and Zakamska 2018 cloud model assumptions apply to the galaxies in this sample.
    The interpretation in Section 5 assumes a cloud distribution n_c proportional to r^-2 and pressure equilibrium with the radiation field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The spatial extension of extended narrow line regions in MaNGA AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NE7RFF3Z

@misc{pith2026190802885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The spatial extension of extended narrow line regions in MaNGA AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NE7RFF3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02885}
}
abstract

In this work, we revisit the size-luminosity relation of the extended narrow line regions (ENLRs) using a large sample of nearby active galactic nuclei (AGN) from the Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey. The ENLRs ionized by the AGN are identified through the spatially resolved BPT diagram, which results in a sample of 152 AGN. By combining our AGN with the literature high-luminosity quasars, we found a tight log-linear relation between the size of the ENLR and the AGN [O III]{\lambda}5007{\AA} luminosity over four orders of magnitude of the [O III] luminosity. The slope of this relation is 0.42 $\pm$ 0.02 which can be explained in terms of a distribution of clouds photoionized by the AGN. This relation also indicates the AGN have the potential to ionize and heat the gas clouds at a large distance from the nuclei without the aids of outflows and jets for the low-luminosity Seyferts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Five example galaxies observed by different bundles of MaNGA. Their fiber numbers are 19, 37, 61, 91, 127 from top to bottom. The bundle edges are indicated by the magenta hexagon in the SDSS RGB images and the grey shaded region in maps. In the second column, we take each spaxel of the galaxy and plot it on the BPT diagram, using the same separation curves as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All the AGN candidates selected from MaNGA MPL￾8. All the line ratios derived from the median ratio of each galaxy in their central region(within the radius of 300). Light grey circles (background) show all the MPL-8 galaxies and color coded circles are our selected galaxies with their colors standing for the median EW(Hα) of the central region as before. The solid orange line is the empirical line (Ka03) which sepa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of full spectrum fitting with broad emission lines. On the left, it is the SDSS image with fibers superimposed. On the right, it is a spectrum extracted from one of the spaxels belong to the red fiber. The black line shows the observed flux in this spaxel, with the sky lines masked by grey shaded area. The stellar continuum (red) is from DAP hybrid fitting results (Westfall et al. 2019) and the total best fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing size measurements based on IFU and mock long-slit observations. Two directions of the long-slit are applied, one aligned with the major axis (left) and the other with the minor axis (right) of the galaxies. The X axis is the ratio between two size at the surf…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effects of PSF on the distribution of [O III] surface brightness profile. The first two columns are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The overall relation between the size of ENLR and luminosity of [O III]. R16 is the ENLR size at a surface brightness cut of 10−16erg s−1cm−2arcsec−2 and the [O III] luminosity is measured from the AGN region of each galaxy with dust extinction corrected. The data from…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Model predictions of Dempsey & Zakamska (2018) are superimposed on our data points. The black line shows the best fitting model, with cloud mass of 107M and a covering factor of Ω = 3 × 10−3 . Other lines are the models with ±1 dex variation in the free parameters. Hig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019ApJS..240...23A 240, 23

    Aguado D. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019ApJS..240...23A 240, 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 2019

  2. [2]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ARA

    arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    Bae H.-J., Woo J.-H., Karouzos M., Gallo E., Flohic H., Shen Y., Yoon S.-J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f5c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...91B 837, 91

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f5c 2017

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  5. [5]

    A., Heckman T

    Baum S. A., Heckman T. M., van Breugel W., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...389..208B 389, 208

    work page doi:10.1086/171198 1992

  6. [6]

    H., White R

    Becker R. H., White R. L., Helfand D. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...450..559B 450, 559

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  7. [7]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1234 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3111B 461, 3111

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1234 2016

  8. [8]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019arXiv190100866B

    2019

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    S., Wills B

    Bennert N., Falcke H., Schulz H., Wilson A. S., Wills B. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342420 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574L.105B 574, L105

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    Bennert N., Jungwiert B., Komossa S., Haas M., Chini R., 2006a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065319 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    doi

  3. [11]

    Bennert N., Jungwiert B., Komossa S., Haas M., Chini R., 2006b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065477 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    doi

  4. [12]

    Bing L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2662 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp.2546B

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Persson S

    Boroson T. A., Persson S. E., Oke J. B., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163219 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...293..120B 293, 120

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Kaiser M

    Bradley L. D., Kaiser M. E., Baan W. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...603..463B 603, 463

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    Bradley L., et al., 2017, astropy/photutils: v0.4, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1039309 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1039309

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Bundy K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798....7B 798, 7

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Calzetti D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1449C 113, 1449

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2017MNRAS.466..798C 466, 798

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    Cappellari M., Emsellem E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381875 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2004PASP..116..138C 116, 138

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    Cherinka B., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181203833C

    2018

  14. [23]

    Cheung E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18006 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.533..504C 533, 504

    2016 doi

  15. [25]

    L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty941 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4615D 477, 4615

    Dempsey R., Zakamska N. L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty941 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4615D 477, 4615

    2018 doi

  16. [26]

    A., Sutherland R

    Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176596 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...455..468D 455, 468

    1995 doi

  17. [27]

    A., Sutherland R

    Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192255 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..102..161D 102, 161

    1996 doi

  18. [28]

    A., Groves B

    Dopita M. A., Groves B. A., Sutherland R. S., Binette L., Cecil G., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340429 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572..753D 572, 753

    2002 doi

  19. [29]

    Drory N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149...77D 149, 77

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    2012 doi

  21. [31]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., Ferguson J. W., Kingdon J. B., Verner E. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316190 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/1998PASP..110..761F 110, 761

    1998 doi

  22. [32]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..102F 856, 102

    Fischer T. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..102F 856, 102

    2018 doi

  23. [33]

    A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Levenson N

    Fraquelli H. A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Levenson N. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06397.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341..449F 341, 449

    2003

  24. [34]

    Fu H., Stockton A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/953 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690..953F 690, 953

    2009 doi

  25. [35]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz564 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3409G 485, 3409

    Gallagher R., Maiolino R., Belfiore F., Drory N., Riffel R., Riffel R. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz564 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3409G 485, 3409

    2019 doi

  26. [36]

    E., Zakamska N

    Greene J. E., Zakamska N. L., Ho L. C., Barth A. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732....9G 732, 9

    2011 doi

  27. [37]

    A., Dopita M

    Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 2004a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..153....9G 153, 9

    doi

  28. [38]

    A., Dopita M

    Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..153...75G 153, 75

    doi

  29. [39]

    E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    Gunn J. E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    2006 doi

  30. [40]

    N., Hickox R., Greene J

    Hainline K. N., Hickox R., Greene J. E., Myers A. D., Zakamska N. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/145 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774..145H 774, 145

    2013 doi

  31. [41]

    N., Hickox R

    Hainline K. N., Hickox R. C., Greene J. E., Myers A. D., Zakamska N. L., Liu G., Liu X., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/65 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...65H 787, 65

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0165 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.165H 1, 0165

    Harrison C. M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0165 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.165H 1, 0165

    2017 doi

  33. [43]

    M., Alexander D

    Harrison C. M., Alexander D. M., Mullaney J. R., Swinbank A. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu515 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3306H 441, 3306

    2014 doi

  34. [44]

    M., Costa T., Tadhunter C

    Harrison C. M., Costa T., Tadhunter C. N., Fl \"u tsch A., Kakkad D., Perna M., Vietri G., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..198H 2, 198

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    M., Best P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA

    2014 doi

  36. [46]

    M., Miley G

    Heckman T. M., Miley G. K., van Breugel W. J. M., Butcher H. R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159050 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...247..403H 247, 403

    1981 doi

  37. [47]

    M., Kauffmann G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., White S

    Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., White S. D. M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422872 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..109H 613, 109

    2004 doi

  38. [48]

    C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA

    Ho L. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA

    2008 arXiv

  39. [49]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499298 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163....1H 163, 1

    2006 doi

  40. [51]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  41. [52]

    F., Jahnke K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810276 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    Husemann B., Wisotzki L., S \'a nchez S. F., Jahnke K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810276 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  42. [53]

    F., Jahnke K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220076 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Husemann B., Wisotzki L., S \'a nchez S. F., Jahnke K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220076 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  43. [54]

    F., Wisotzki L., Nugroho D., Kupko D., Schramm M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..755H 443, 755

    Husemann B., Jahnke K., S \'a nchez S. F., Wisotzki L., Nugroho D., Kupko D., Schramm M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..755H 443, 755

    2014 doi

  44. [55]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  45. [56]

    Kang D., Woo J.-H., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 124

    2018

  46. [57]

    Karouzos M., Woo J.-H., Bae H.-J., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..148K 819, 148

    doi

  47. [58]

    Karouzos M., Woo J.-H., Bae H.-J., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/171 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..171K 833, 171

    doi

  48. [59]

    M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14960.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..135K 397, 135

    Kauffmann G., Heckman T. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14960.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..135K 397, 135

    2009

  49. [60]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    2003

  50. [61]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20101.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..878K 420, 878

    Keel W. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20101.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..878K 420, 878

    2012

  51. [62]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519947 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2007ApJ...665.1489K 665, 1489

    Kelly B. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519947 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2007ApJ...665.1489K 665, 1489

    2007 doi

  52. [63]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  53. [64]

    J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..961K 372, 961

    Kewley L. J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..961K 372, 961

    2006

  54. [65]

    King A., Pounds K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA

    2015 doi

  55. [66]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA

    2013 doi

  56. [67]

    Lacerda E. A. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3022 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3727L 474, 3727

    2018 doi

  57. [68]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...19L 150, 19

    Law D. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...19L 150, 19

    2015 doi

  58. [69]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/83 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2016AJ....152...83L 152, 83

    Law D. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/83 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2016AJ....152...83L 152, 83

    2016 doi

  59. [70]

    R., Steidel C

    Law D. R., Steidel C. C., Chen Y., Strom A. L., Rudie G. C., Trainor R. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..119L 866, 119

    2018 doi

  60. [71]

    L., Greene J

    Liu G., Zakamska N. L., Greene J. E., Nesvadba N. P. H., Liu X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2327L 430, 2327

    2013 doi

  61. [72]

    L., Greene J

    Liu G., Zakamska N. L., Greene J. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu974 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1303L 442, 1303

    2014 doi

  62. [73]

    J., van Breugel W., Spinrad H., Djorgovski S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185000 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...321L..29M 321, L29

    McCarthy P. J., van Breugel W., Spinrad H., Djorgovski S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185000 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...321L..29M 321, L29

    1987 doi

  63. [74]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., Lehnert M. D., De Breuck C., Gilbert A. M., van Breugel W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810346 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  64. [75]

    Netzer H., 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  65. [76]

    Netzer H., Shemmer O., Maiolino R., Oliva E., Croom S., Corbett E., di Fabrizio L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423608 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..558N 614, 558

    2004 doi

  66. [77]

    L., Wylezalek D., Liu G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2850 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2861O 456, 2861

    Obied G., Zakamska N. L., Wylezalek D., Liu G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2850 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2861O 456, 2861

    2016 doi

  67. [78]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei . University Science Books

    2006

  68. [79]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty202 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..979P 476, 979

    Penny S. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty202 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..979P 476, 979

    2018 doi

  69. [80]

    E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    Perez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    2007 doi

  70. [81]

    B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2264 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4382R 472, 4382

    Rembold S. B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2264 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4382R 472, 4382

    2017 doi

  71. [82]

    K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    Schawinski K., Thomas D., Sarzi M., Maraston C., Kaviraj S., Joo S.-J., Yi S. K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    2007

  72. [83]

    R., Donley J

    Schmitt H. R., Donley J. L., Antonucci R. R. J., Hutchings J. B., Kinney A. L., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377440 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..327S 148, 327

    doi

  73. [84]

    R., Donley J

    Schmitt H. R., Donley J. L., Antonucci R. R. J., Hutchings J. B., Kinney A. L., Pringle J. E., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381224 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...597..768S 597, 768

    doi

  74. [85]

    H., Ogle P., Jiang L., Diamond-Stanic A

    Shi Y., Rieke G. H., Ogle P., Jiang L., Diamond-Stanic A. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1107S 703, 1107

    2009 doi

  75. [86]

    Sikora M., Stawarz ., Lasota J.-P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..815S 658, 815

    2007 doi

  76. [87]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    Smee S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    2013 doi

  77. [88]

    N., Axon D

    Sol \'o rzano-I \ n arrea C., Tadhunter C. N., Axon D. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04334.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323..965S 323, 965

    2001

  78. [89]

    Stern J., Laor A., Baskin A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1843 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2014MNRAS.438..901S 438, 901

    2014 doi

  79. [90]

    L., Hennawi J

    Stern J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Zakamska N. L., Hennawi J. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..130S 819, 130

    2016 doi

  80. [91]

    W., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...316..584S 316, 584

    Stockton A., MacKenty J. W., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...316..584S 316, 584

    1987 doi

  81. [92]

    Sun A.-L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp.1342S

    2018 doi

  82. [93]

    The Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180102634T ( @eprint arXiv 1801.02634 )

    2018 arXiv

  83. [94]

    W., Pedlar A., Axon D

    Unger S. W., Pedlar A., Axon D. J., Whittle M., Meurs E. J. A., Ward M. J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/228.3.671 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.228..671U 228, 671

    1987 doi

  84. [95]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...86W 154, 86

    Wake D. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...86W 154, 86

    2017 doi

  85. [96]

    B., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019arXiv190100856W

    Westfall K. B., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2019arXiv190100856W

    2019

  86. [97]

    Woo J.-H., Bae H.-J., Son D., Karouzos M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..108W 817, 108

    2016 doi

  87. [98]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  88. [99]

    Yan R., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151....8Y 151, 8

    doi

  89. [100]

    Yan R., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/197 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..197Y 152, 197

    doi

  90. [101]

    H., Xia X., Wang Y., Sun B., Wan L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819L..27Z 819, L27

    Zhang Z., Shi Y., Rieke G. H., Xia X., Wang Y., Sun B., Wan L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819L..27Z 819, L27

    2016 doi

  91. [102]

    Zhang K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3308 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3217Z 466, 3217

    2017 doi

  92. [103]

    A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx787 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4956Z 468, 4956

    Zubovas K., Bourne M. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx787 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4956Z 468, 4956

    2017 doi

  93. [104]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  94. [105]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.