Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Unveiling AGN Outflows: [O iii] Outflow Detection Rates and Correlation with Low-Frequency Radio Emission

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio-detected AGN host ionised-gas outflows more often than matched radio-undetected AGN, after removing AGN luminosity as a driver.

desk verdict A solid, carefully matched comparison showing radio-detected AGN have higher [O III] outflow rates, though the missing SFR control for the radio-undetected sample leaves the physical interpretation open. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19326 v1 pith:NM5DEWSJ submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.GA

Emmy L. Escott , Leah K. Morabito , Jan Scholtz , Ryan C. Hickox , Chris M. Harrison , David M. Alexander , Marina I. Arnaudova , Daniel J. B. Smith
show 5 more authors
Kenneth J. Duncan James Petley Rohit Kondapally Gabriela Calistro Rivera Sthabile Kolwa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:activequasars:emissionlineskinematicsanddynamicsjetsradiocontinuum:galaxiesISM:outflowsAGNfeedbackLOFAR
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the radio emission seen in many active galactic nuclei is physically connected to the ionised-gas outflows that can reshape a host galaxy. The authors examine 198 AGN with SDSS spectra in the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey Deep Fields, 115 of them detected at 144 MHz, and match the radio-detected and radio-undetected populations in mid-infrared luminosity ($L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$) and redshift to remove AGN luminosity biases. Using two-Gaussian fits to the [O iii] $\lambda$5007 line plus the non-parametric line-width measure $W_{80}$, they find that 67.2$\pm$3.4 per cent of radio-detected AGN show signs of an outflow, versus 44.6$\pm$2.7 per cent of radio-undetected AGN. They also report that, in stacked spectra normalised by the narrow [O iii] component, the broad outflowing component is brighter in the radio-detected population. If correct, this establishes a statistical link between low-frequency radio emission and ionised outflows that does not reduce to AGN luminosity, and points toward low-powered jets or AGN-wind shocks as the common driver.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on three linked tools. First, the [O iii] $\lambda$5007 emission line is fitted simultaneously with H$\beta$ using one or two Gaussian components (with Fe II templates when a broad H$\beta$ is present), and outflows are identified either by a second, blueshifted Gaussian or by the non-parametric width $W_{80}$ (the velocity range containing 80 per cent of the line flux), using thresholds of 600 and 800 km s$^{-1}$ to define 'likely' and 'definite' single-component outflows. Second, the radio-detected and radio non-detected populations are matched in $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ and redshift with a tolerance of $\Delta\log L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}=0.3$ and $\Delta z=0.06$, repeated 1000 times to bootstrap the outflow rates; $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ serves as an orientation-free proxy for AGN luminosity. Third, median stacked spectra are normalised by the continuum and by the peak of the narrow [O iii] component, so that the relative strength of the broad outflow component can be compared between the two populations. The pairing of the spectral decomposition with the luminosity matching is what allows the authors to attribute differences in outflow incidence to the presence of radio emission rather than to AGN luminosity.

What would settle it

Give the 83 radio non-detected AGN reliable SED-based star-formation rates (or deep far-infrared limits) and re-match the two populations in SFR as well as $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ and redshift; if the outflow-detection gap of roughly 23 percentage points disappears or drops below significance, the claimed connection between radio emission and outflows would be shown to be a byproduct of star formation. Alternatively, sub-arcsecond radio imaging that resolves the radio emission into regions coincident with star-forming clumps rather than AGN-related structures would directly falsify the low-powered-jet/wind-shock interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, after matching radio-detected and radio non-detected AGN in $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ and redshift, the radio-detected AGN have a higher rate of [O iii] outflow classification (67.2$\pm$3.4 per cent across all outflow categories) than the radio non-detected AGN (44.6$\pm$2.7 per cent), with the difference driven mainly by AGN in which a second, blueshifted Gaussian component is required by the spectral fit (52.3$\pm$2.8 per cent versus 34.3$\pm$2.3 per cent). The authors further show that in median-stacked spectra normalised by the peak of the narrow [O iii] component, the area of the broad outflow component is larger for radio-detected AGN, which they interpret as a sign that these AGN host outflows with more gas. Because the majority of the radio-detected sources fall below the radio-excess threshold defined by the star-formation–radio luminosity relation, the radio emission is not attributable to powerful jets; instead the authors argue the combination of results is consistent with low-powered jets or with radio emission generated by shocks within AGN-driven winds.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the assumption that the higher outflow rate in radio-detected AGN is caused by the radio emission itself, rather than by higher star formation or other host-galaxy properties, because reliable star-formation rates are only available for the radio-detected half of the sample and the $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$–redshift matching cannot control for SFR.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the radio–outflow connection is real, deep low-frequency radio surveys such as LoTSS can be used to identify AGN that are likely driving ionised outflows, even without high-resolution radio imaging.
  • The outflow-rate gap implies that a substantial fraction of so-called radio-quiet AGN still produce synchrotron emission connected to their winds, so 'radio-quiet' does not mean 'radio-inactive' at 144 MHz.
  • The combination of a higher outflow detection rate with mostly unresolved radio morphologies strengthens the case for compact, low-powered jets or wind shocks as the origin of radio emission in the majority of AGN, rather than large-scale jets or star formation.
  • The paper's consistency check with the Mullaney et al. (2013) flux-weighted FWHM method indicates that the same trend holds when the sample is restricted to their luminosity and redshift range, extending their result to deeper radio luminosities.
  • A direct corollary is that AGN feedback via outflows may produce observable synchrotron radiation, so radio observations can trace the same gas that carries kinetic energy out of the galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because reliable star-formation rates are only available for the radio-detected half of the sample, the cleanest test of the paper's interpretation is to obtain SED-based SFRs (or deep far-infrared upper limits) for the radio non-detected AGN and re-match in SFR; if the gap in outflow rates collapses, star formation rather than radio emission would be the true driver.
  • The normalised-stack result predicts a quantitative relation: if outflows and radio emission share a physical origin, then in a larger matched sample the area of the broad [O iii] component should correlate with 144 MHz luminosity even after controlling for $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ and redshift; this is directly testable with the forthcoming sub-arcsecond LOFAR imaging of the same fields.
  • An alternative interpretation the authors do not fully explore is that the radio-detected AGN may be at a different evolutionary stage (e.g., recently triggered), where both the outflow and the radio emission are enhanced; testing this would require comparing outflow rates at fixed Eddington ratio or black-hole mass.
  • The threshold-based outflow definition means the gap could in part reflect a shift in the narrow-component FWHM rather than in the broad component; the authors show radio-detected AGN have broader narrow components, so a re-analysis with a continuous outflow metric (e.g., flux fraction above a velocity threshold) could confirm whether the difference is genuinely in the outflowing gas.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper selects 198 AGN in the LoTSS Deep Fields with SDSS spectroscopy, splits them into 115 radio-detected and 83 radio-non-detected sources at 144 MHz, fits the [O III] λ5007 and Hβ profiles with MCMC, and classifies outflows using either a second Gaussian component or W80 thresholds from Harrison et al. (2014). After matching the two populations in L6μm and redshift over 1000 random realizations, the authors report that radio-detected AGN show a higher total outflow detection rate (67.2±3.4%) than radio-non-detected AGN (44.6±2.7%), and that the stacked, narrow-component-normalized spectra of radio-detected AGN have a slightly brighter broad component. They interpret the result as evidence for a connection between ionized outflows and low-frequency radio emission, possibly from low-powered jets or AGN-wind shocks, while noting that most sources are not radio excess and hence not dominated by powerful jets.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper gives one of the first statistical demonstrations at 144 MHz that AGN with low-frequency radio detections show higher [O III] outflow rates after matching in AGN luminosity and redshift, extending earlier work to low radio luminosities. The 1000-iteration matching bootstrap, the use of the public QubeSpec fitting module, the transparent outflow definitions, and the comparison with previous literature are all strengths. However, the headline interpretation that radio presence is directly connected to ionized outflows is weakened by the lack of SFR control for the radio-non-detected population and by a partly subjective model-selection step; the result is more securely described as a correlation between radio presence and outflow classification that survives L6μm-z matching.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, §4.4.1, §5.1] The headline comparison controls for L6μm and redshift but not for star formation rate. Section 2.1.1 states that SFRs from Best et al. (2023) are available only for radio-detected AGN, and the Figure 9 caption explicitly says no reliable SFRs are available for the radio non-detected AGN. The matched 67.2% vs 44.6% outflow rate gap (Section 4.1) could therefore be partly driven by higher SFR or gas content among radio-detected sources, producing both 144 MHz emission and broader [O III] kinematics. The argument in Section 5.1 that star formation is 'unlikely' is a physical argument, not a statistical control. Please either obtain SFR estimates (even with upper limits) for the non-detected population, match in SFR or stellar mass in addition to L6μm and redshift, or present a sensitivity analysis showing how large an SFR difference would be needed to erase the outflow-rate gap.
  2. [§2.4, §4.1] The matching procedure's effective sample size is unclear. In the 'closest matched population' of Figure 1, only 59 of the 83 radio non-detected AGN are matched (118 total), yet Section 4.1 reports outflow detection rates averaged over 1000 random matching runs without stating how many sources are matched in each run. If the number and composition of matched subsets vary, the reported rates mix different populations and the uncertainties from bootstrapping over runs may not reflect the true sampling variance. Please report the distribution of matched sample sizes across the 1000 runs, state how outflow rates are computed when a non-detected AGN has no matched counterpart, and verify that the matched subset is representative of the full non-detected sample.
  3. [§3.1] The outflow classification depends on a model-selection step that is partly subjective: the authors state that the lowest-BIC fit was overridden by visual inspection for 'several spectra' in order to prioritize the [O III] fit. Since the central result is a difference in outflow detection rates, the number and nature of these overrides should be quantified, and the visual-inspection criteria should be specified more concretely (e.g., residual thresholds, priority rules). Without this, readers cannot assess whether the classification is reproducible or whether the BIC overrides could systematically favor radio-detected AGN.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] Typo: 'catalouges' should be 'catalogues'.
  2. [§4.4.1] The sentence 'Above these lines, sources are considered to be radio excess, where their radio emission is dominated by star formation' is internally inconsistent with the next paragraph, which says radio emission in sources above the radio excess line can be attributed to radio jets; please clarify the definition of radio excess.
  3. [§4.3] The 'best fit with a slope of 0.58' is not described: please state the fitting method, the quantity being fit, and the uncertainty on the slope.
  4. [§5.1] Typo: 'Zakamska & Greene (2014) suggests that utflows trigger shocks' should read 'outflows'.
  5. [§4.4.2] It would help to state explicitly how many of the eight resolved sources show jet-like morphology, since only two are shown in Figure 10.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radio-detected versus radio-non-detected outflow contrast is a measured count, not a fitted or definitionally forced result, and the matching step is a control rather than a construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) build a sample of 198 AGN from SDSS catalogs and LoTSS Deep Fields; (2) split by 144 MHz detection; (3) match radio-detected to radio-non-detected AGN in L6microm and redshift (Section 2.4) to control AGN luminosity; (4) fit [O III] profiles with QubeSpec and classify outflows using a second blueshifted Gaussian or W80 thresholds 'following the definitions stipulated in Harrison et al. (2014)'; (5) compare outflow rates. None of these steps reduces to the conclusion: the outflow classification uses only [O III] kinematics, never radio data, so the 67.2 +/- 3.4 versus 44.6 +/- 2.7 percent difference is a direct count rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; and the L6microm-z matching is a symmetric control applied identically to both populations, not a fit to the outcome. The only author-overlap citations (Harrison et al. 2014 for W80 criteria; Scholtz et al. 2021 for QubeSpec; Arnaudova et al. 2024 for the stacking code) are tools or externally established threshold definitions with stated assumptions that do not include the radio-outflow contrast, so per the review rules they are real evidence rather than load-bearing self-citation. The paper also states an explicit limitation in the Figure 9 caption: 'No upper limits are shown for the radio non-detected AGN because we do not have access for reliable SFR measurements for these AGN'; this acknowledged lack of SFR control for the radio-non-detected population is a potential confounding-variable concern (radio-detected AGN could be more star-forming, driving both radio emission and broader [O III]), but it is a scientific validity limitation, not a circularity: the derivation does not secretly use SFR or host properties to construct the outflow-rate difference. The paper further discloses robustness checks (SNR cuts of 3 and 10, removing FIRST-targeted sources) and notes the stacked broad-component difference is not significant by <5 km2 s-2, consistent with an honest, non-circular analysis. Overall circularity score 1: essentially self-contained, with only harmless author-overlap citations for methods and thresholds.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on public survey data and standard AGN diagnostics. The main analysis choices are literature thresholds and matching tolerances chosen by the authors; no new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential unverified inputs are the assumptions that L6μm traces AGN luminosity and that W80 thresholds cleanly separate outflows from NLR kinematics.

free parameters (7)
  • W80 outflow threshold = 800 km/s
    Threshold from Harrison et al. (2014) used to classify single-component [O III] profiles as definite outflows; a chosen literature threshold, not fitted here.
  • W80 likely outflow threshold = 600-800 km/s
    Lower boundary for the 'likely outflow' category; chosen from literature and directly affects the 67.2% versus 44.6% outflow-rate comparison.
  • L6μm-z matching tolerance = Δz=0.06, Δlog L6μm=0.3
    Tolerances for matching radio detected and radio non-detected AGN; chosen by the authors and central to the matched comparison.
  • Radio k-correction spectral index = α=0.7
    Assumed synchrotron spectral index used for 144 MHz luminosity k-correction.
  • SNR cut = 5
    Minimum [O III] signal-to-noise for sample inclusion; authors tested 3 and 10 and report consistent results.
  • Radio excess divide = 0.7 dex above SFR-L144MHz, plus 0.1z correction for Boötes
    Used to identify jet-dominated radio emission; a choice made when comparing with the Best et al. (2023) SFR-radio relation.
  • Broad component FWHM prior = 2000 km/s +/- 500 km/s
    Prior for the second Gaussian component in the MCMC fit; constrains which profiles are classified as broad.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption L6μm is an orientation-free proxy for AGN bolometric luminosity
    Used in Section 2.4 to justify matching the radio detected and non-detected populations; if false, the matched comparison may not remove AGN luminosity bias.
  • domain assumption W80 thresholds separate outflowing gas from NLR or star-formation kinematics
    Section 3.2 adopts Harrison et al. (2014) limits; outflow rates depend directly on these labels.
  • domain assumption The SFR-L144MHz relation of Best et al. (2023) gives the correct radio excess baseline
    Used in Section 4.4.1 to conclude that most sources are not jet-dominated.
  • domain assumption Matching in L6μm and redshift removes AGN luminosity dependencies
    Core premise of the comparison in Section 2.4; other covariates such as SFR are not matched.
  • domain assumption SDSS spectroscopic redshifts are accurate
    Used for k-corrections, rest-frame stacking, and luminosity distances.
  • domain assumption The [O III] λ5007/λ4959 flux ratio is fixed to 2.99
    Fixed doublet ratio in spectral fitting following Dimitrijević et al. (2007); affects broad component flux estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling AGN Outflows: [O iii] Outflow Detection Rates and Correlation with Low-Frequency Radio Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NM5DEWSJ

@misc{pith2026241119326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling AGN Outflows: [O iii] Outflow Detection Rates and Correlation with Low-Frequency Radio Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NM5DEWSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19326}
}
abstract

Some Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) host outflows which have the potential to alter the host galaxy's evolution (AGN feedback). These outflows have been linked to enhanced radio emission. Here we investigate the connection between low-frequency radio emission using the International LOFAR Telescope and [O III] $\lambda$5007 ionised gas outflows using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Using the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey (LoTSS) Deep Fields, we select 198 AGN with optical spectra, 115 of which are detected at 144 MHz, and investigate their low-frequency radio emission properties. The majority of our sample do not show a radio excess when considering radio luminosity - SFR relationship, and are therefore not driven by powerful jets. We extract the [O III] $\lambda$5007 kinematics and remove AGN luminosity dependencies by matching the radio detected and non-detected AGN in $L_{\mathrm{6\mu m}}$ and redshift. Using both spectral fitting and $W_{80}$ measurements, we find radio detected AGN have a higher outflow rate (67.2$\pm$3.4 percent) than the radio non-detected AGN (44.6$\pm$2.7 percent), indicating a connection between ionised outflows and the presence of radio emission. For spectra where there are two components of the [O III] emission line present, we normalise all spectra by the narrow component and find that the average broad component in radio detected AGN is enhanced compared to the radio non-detected AGN. This could be a sign of higher gas content, which is suggestive of a spatial relationship between [O III] outflows and radio emission in the form of either low-powered jets or shocks from AGN winds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19326 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 𝐿6μm and redshift relation of our radio and radio non-detected populations. The coloured markers show one iteration from the 1000 trials to match a radio detected AGN (purple diamonds) in 𝐿6μm and redshift to a radio non-detected AGN (pink circles). The grey points represent the AGN which, in this iteration, are removed as these are unmatched, with diamonds portraying the radio detected AGN, and circles for the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example spectra for the four categories of the [O iii] SDSS spectral fitting results. The top panel of each subplot represents the SDSS spectral data in black, alongside the MCMC fitting results. The dark purple solid lines shows the final MCMC fitting result. The pink Gaussians represent the narrow component to [O iii] and the Gaussians in magenta, if plotted, is the broad component of [O iii] which implies an outf… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Average cumulative distribution functions of [O iii] properties. The solid purple step function shows the distribution for the radio detected AGN and the dashed pink line shows the information from the radio non￾detected sources. Left: Average CDFs of 𝑊80 [O iii] showing the results from all 1000 matching iterations. Right: Average CDFs of the FWHM of the narrow component of [O iii] with the all matching iterations.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The stacked bar chart represents the average outflow detection rates from all 1000 iterations of randomly matching the radio detected AGN to the radio non-detected AGN. The light pink bar showing the 𝑊80 likely outflows, the darker pink is the 𝑊80 outflows, and the pur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Further average cumulative distribution functions of [O iii] properties. The solid purple step function shows the distribution for the radio detected AGN and the dashed pink line shows the information from the radio non-detected sources. All three panels have AGN with …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Composite spectra which are normalised by the peak of the narrow [O iii] component and are produced from the closest matched 𝐿6μm and 𝑧 run, containing 59 AGN in each population with the MCMC fitting tool results applied. Left: Radio detected AGN. Right: Radio non-dete…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Total λ5007 Å 𝐿[OIII] as a function of redshift. The star markers show the median values for six redshift bins, with purple indicating the median for the radio detected AGN, and pink for the radio non-detected AGN. The errors are the median absolute deviation. Fo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 𝐿144MHz as a function of total 𝐿[OIII] with the 𝑊80 traced by a colour scale. Radio detected AGN are plotted with diamonds and the upper limits for the radio non-detected AGN are shown by the downward triangles. The dashed black line show the best fit relationship for …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relationship between SFR and 𝐿144MHz. The left subplot shows the result of the Boötes field (pink markers) and on the right Lockman Hole (blue markers) and ELAIS-N1 (yellow markers), the fields have been split because of the need for an extra adjustment to the radi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cut outs (150′′ x 150′′ ) of the only two resolved Boötes radio sources within our sample. We use the 𝑔, 𝑟 and 𝑖 bands from SDSS to make a composite rgb optical image. The LoTSS radio contour plots are overlayed and the noise is set to 30μJy (Tasse et al. 2021). The c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 7 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The DESI View of the Faint Radio Source Population in LoTSS DR2

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Probabilistic spectroscopic classification of 251k LoTSS radio sources yields the largest high-confidence sample and confirms LERGs accrete below ~1% Eddington while HERGs accrete above it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psx081 , 70, S8

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  2. [2]

    M., Hickox R

    Alexander D. M., Hickox R. C., 2012, @doi [New Astronomy Reviews] 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 , 56, 93

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  3. [3]

    Andonie C., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2800 , 517, 2577

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2800 2022

  4. [4]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , 31, 473

    arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    I., et al., 2024, Exploring the radio-loudness of SDSS quasars with spectral stacking, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08774

    Arnaudova M. I., et al., 2024, Exploring the radio-loudness of SDSS quasars with spectral stacking, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08774

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Ashby M. L. N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/428 , 701, 428

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/428 2009

  7. [7]

    Ayubinia A., Woo J.-H., Rakshit S., Son D., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0ba , 954, 27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace0ba 2023

  8. [8]

    N., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1308 , 523, 1729

    Best P. N., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1308 , 523, 1729

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1308 2023

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    A., McNamara B

    Birzan L., Rafferty D. A., McNamara B. R., Wise M. W., Nulsen P. E. J., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/383519 , 607, 800

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    Bonzini M., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1675 , 453, 1079

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Green R

    Boroson T. A., Green R. F., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/191661 , 80, 109

    1992 doi

  4. [13]

    Brown M. J. I., Dey A., Jannuzi B. T., Brand K., Benson A. J., Brodwin M., Croton D. J., Eisenhardt P. R., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/509652 , 654, 858

    2007 doi

  5. [14]

    Brown M. J. I., et al., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/589538 , 682, 937

    2008 doi

  6. [15]

    Calistro Rivera G., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040214 , 649, A102

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Calistro Rivera G., et al., 2023, Ubiquitous radio emission in quasars: predominant AGN origin and a connection to jets, dust and winds, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2312.10177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231210177C

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    C., 2017, SpectRes : A Fast Spectral Resampling Tool in Python , http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05165

    Carnall A. C., 2017, SpectRes : A Fast Spectral Resampling Tool in Python , http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05165

    2017 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Carniani S., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526557 , 580, A102

    2015 doi

  10. [20]

    Delvecchio I., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629367 , 602, A3

    2017 doi

  11. [21]

    S., Popović L., Kovačević J., Dačić M., Ilić D., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11238.x , 374, 1181

    Dimitrijević M. S., Popović L., Kovačević J., Dačić M., Ilić D., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11238.x , 374, 1181

    2007

  12. [22]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809 , 648, A4

    Duncan K. J., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809 , 648, A4

    2021 doi

  13. [23]

    C., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , 50, 455

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , 50, 455

    2012 doi

  14. [24]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2603 , 525, 5575

    Fawcett V. A., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2603 , 525, 5575

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    L., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    1999 doi

  16. [26]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  17. [27]

    E., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21491.x , 425, 1185

    Frey S., Paragi Z., An T., Gabányi K. E., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21491.x , 425, 1185

    2012

  18. [28]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312840 , 539, L13

    2000 doi

  19. [29]

    Girdhar A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac073 , 512, 1608

    2022 doi

  20. [30]

    R., 2012, @doi [Advances in Astronomy] 10.1155/2012/950641 , 2012, e950641

    Gitti M., Brighenti F., McNamara B. R., 2012, @doi [Advances in Astronomy] 10.1155/2012/950641 , 2012, e950641

    2012 doi

  21. [31]

    H., et al., 2010, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#216

    Gonzalez A. H., et al., 2010, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#216. p. 415.13

    2010

  22. [32]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , 5, 65

    2010 doi

  23. [33]

    E., Ho L

    Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/430590 , 627, 721

    2005 doi

  24. [34]

    Greenwell C., Gandhi P., Stern D., Boorman P., Toba Y., Lansbury G., Mainieri V., Desira C., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab019 , 503, L80

    2021 doi

  25. [35]

    Haarlem M. P. v., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , 556, A2

    2013 doi

  26. [36]

    M., Alexander D

    Harrison C. M., Alexander D. M., Mullaney J. R., Swinbank A. M., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu515 , 441, 3306

    2014 doi

  27. [37]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    2013 doi

  28. [38]

    T., Dey A., 1999, The NOAO Deep Wide - Field Survey , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..193..258J

    Jannuzi B. T., Dey A., 1999, The NOAO Deep Wide - Field Survey , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..193..258J

    1999

  29. [39]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz556 , 485, 2710

    Jarvis M. E., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz556 , 485, 2710

    2019 doi

  30. [40]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab549 , 503, 1780

    Jarvis M. E., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab549 , 503, 1780

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H

    Kaiser N., et al., 2010, in Stepp L. M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H. J., eds, Society of Photo - Optical Instrumentation Engineers ( SPIE ) Conference Series Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III . p. 77330E, @doi 10.1117/12.859188

    2010 doi

  32. [42]

    Kakkad D., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038551 , 642, A147

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D

    Kellermann K. I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D. B., Green R., 1989, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/115207 , 98, 1195

    1989 doi

  34. [44]

    Klein U., Lisenfeld U., Verley S., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731673 , 611, A55

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    M., Rosario D

    Klindt L., Alexander D. M., Rosario D. J., Lusso E., Fotopoulou S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1771 , 488, 3109

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    Kondapally R., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038813 , 648, A3

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/171528 , 393, 559

    1992 doi

  38. [48]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , 33, 581

    1995

  39. [49]

    Kukreti P., Morganti R., Tadhunter C., Santoro F., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245691 , 674, A198

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    Lacy M., et al., 2020, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb , 132, 035001

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    Lawrence A., et al., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x , 379, 1599

    2007

  42. [52]

    Liao M., Wang J., Ren W., Zhou M., 2024, Outflow-related radio emission in radio-quiet quasars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05212v1

    2024 arXiv

  43. [53]

    L., Greene J

    Liu G., Zakamska N. L., Greene J. E., Nesvadba N. P. H., Liu X., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1755 , 436, 2576

    2013 doi

  44. [54]

    Liu H.-Y., Liu W.-J., Dong X.-B., Zhou H., Wang T., Lu H., Yuan W., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b , 243, 21

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    J., et al., 2003, SWIRE : The SIRTF Wide - Area Infrared Extragalactic Survey

    Lonsdale C. J., et al., 2003, SWIRE : The SIRTF Wide - Area Infrared Extragalactic Survey

    2003

  46. [56]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623 , 250, 8

    Lyke B. W., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623 , 250, 8

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    Macfarlane C., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1998 , 506, 5888

    2021 doi

  48. [58]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/300353 , 115, 2285

    1998 doi

  49. [59]

    C., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    Martin D. C., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    2005 doi

  50. [60]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/666945 , 124, 714

    Mauduit J. C., et al., 2012, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/666945 , 124, 714

    2012 doi

  51. [61]

    R., Nulsen P

    McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., 2012, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023 , 14, 055023

    2012 doi

  52. [62]

    Merritt D., Ferrarese L., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/318372 , 547, 140

    2001 doi

  53. [63]

    K., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649 , 658, A1

    Morabito L. K., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649 , 658, A1

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/520512 , 173, 682

    2007 doi

  55. [65]

    R., Alexander D

    Mullaney J. R., Alexander D. M., Fine S., Goulding A. D., Harrison C. M., Hickox R. C., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt751 , 433, 622

    2013 doi

  56. [66]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., De Breuck C., Lehnert M. D., Best P. N., Collet C., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528040 , 599, A123

    2017 doi

  57. [67]

    Nims J., Quataert E., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2648 , 447, 3612

    2015 doi

  58. [68]

    I., Mainieri V., Rosati P., Tozzi P., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/20 , 740, 20

    Padovani P., Miller N., Kellermann K. I., Mainieri V., Rosati P., Tozzi P., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/20 , 740, 20

    2011 doi

  59. [69]

    D., Laor A., Padovani P., Behar E., McHardy I., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4 , 3, 387

    Panessa F., Baldi R. D., Laor A., Padovani P., Behar E., McHardy I., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4 , 3, 387

    2019 doi

  60. [70]

    J., Ho L

    Park D., Barth A. J., Ho L. C., Laor A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3f3e , 258, 38

    2022 doi

  61. [71]

    W., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2067 , 515, 5159

    Petley J. W., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2067 , 515, 5159

    2022 doi

  62. [72]

    A., Mackay C

    Rawlings S., Saunders R., Eales S. A., Mackay C. D., 1989, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/240.3.701 , 240, 701

    1989 doi

  63. [73]

    T., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/506525 , 166, 470

    Richards G. T., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/506525 , 166, 470

    2006 doi

  64. [74]

    N., Rose M., Holt J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt423 , 432, 138

    Rodríguez Zaurín J., Tadhunter C. N., Rose M., Holt J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt423 , 432, 138

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    J., Fawcett V

    Rosario D. J., Fawcett V. A., Klindt L., Alexander D. M., Morabito L. K., Fotopoulou S., Lusso E., Calistro Rivera G., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa866 , 494, 3061

    2020 doi

  66. [76]

    Sabater J., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038828 , 648, A2

    2021 doi

  67. [77]

    Schinnerer E., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/424860 , 128, 1974

    2004 doi

  68. [78]

    Schinnerer E., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/516587 , 172, 46

    2007 doi

  69. [79]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305772 , 500, 525

    1998 doi

  70. [80]

    Scholtz J., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa030 , 492, 3194

    2020 doi

  71. [81]

    Scholtz J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1631 , 505, 5469

    2021 doi

  72. [82]

    W., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313 , 598, A104

    Shimwell T. W., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313 , 598, A104

    2017 doi

  73. [83]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559 , 622, A1

    Shimwell T. W., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559 , 622, A1

    2019 doi

  74. [84]

    W., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , 659, A1

    Shimwell T. W., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , 659, A1

    2022 doi

  75. [85]

    Speranza G., et al., 2023, Multi-phase characterization of AGN winds in 5 local type-2 quasars, http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10132

    2023 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Sweijen F., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01573-z

    2022 doi

  77. [87]

    Tadhunter C., Tsvetanov Z., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/341422a0 , 341, 422

    1989 doi

  78. [88]

    Tasse C., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804 , 648, A1

    2021 doi

  79. [89]

    Timmerman R., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140880 , 658, A5

    2022 doi

  80. [90]

    Tsuzuki Y., Kawara K., Yoshii Y., Oyabu S., Tanabe T., Matsuoka Y., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/506376 , 650, 57

    2006 doi

  81. [91]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/133630 , 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/133630 , 107, 803

    1995 doi

  82. [92]

    Villar-Martín M., Binette L., Fosbury R. A. E., 1999, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903122 , 346, 7

    1999 doi arXiv

  83. [93]

    Véron-Cetty M.-P., Joly M., Véron P., 2004, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035714 , 417, 515

    2004 doi

  84. [94]

    H., Harwood J

    Webster B., Croston J. H., Harwood J. J., Baldi R. D., Hardcastle M. J., Mingo B., Röttgering H. J. A., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2939 , 508, 5972

    2021 doi

  85. [95]

    W., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/422992 , 154, 1

    Werner M. W., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/422992 , 154, 1

    2004 doi

  86. [96]

    V., Jarvis M

    White S. V., Jarvis M. J., Häußler B., Maddox N., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv134 , 448, 2665

    2015 doi

  87. [97]

    Woo J.-H., Bae H.-J., Son D., Karouzos M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108 , 817, 108

    2016 doi

  88. [98]

    Yue B.-H., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae725 , 529, 3939

    2024 doi

  89. [99]

    L., Greene J

    Zakamska N. L., Greene J. E., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu842 , 442, 784

    2014 doi

  90. [100]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw718 , 459, 3144

    Zakamska N. L., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw718 , 459, 3144

    2016 doi

  91. [101]

    Zhou H., Wang T., Zhang X., Dong X., Li C., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/383310 , 604, L33

    2004 doi

  92. [102]

    de Jong J. M. G. H. J., et al., 2024, Into the depths: Unveiling ELAIS - N1 with LOFAR 's deepest sub-arcsecond wide-field images, http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13247

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.