Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Fading Light, Fierce Winds: JWST Snapshot of a Sub-Eddington Quasar at Cosmic Dawn

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A z ~ 6.25 quasar appears to be a fading supermassive black hole caught in transition, with sub-Eddington accretion and a gas companion that may be AGN-driven outflow.

desk verdict Solid single-object JWST study with a new Balmer-based BH mass and a genuinely new 5 kpc gas companion, but the abstract oversells the outflow interpretation and the BH mass needs error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04548 v2 pith:QBKWGFRD submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Jianwei Lyu , George H. Rieke , Meredith Stone , Jane Morrison , Stacey Alberts , Xiangyu Jin , Yongda Zhu , Weizhe Liu
show 1 more author
Jinyi Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords sub-Eddingtonquasarz~6supermassiveblackholemassAGNfeedbackbroadabsorptionlinesgascompanionJWSTNIRSpecIFUEddingtonratio
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

The paper argues that HSC J2239+0207, a relatively faint quasar seen when the Universe was less than 1 Gyr old ($z\approx6.25$), is caught in the late stage of black-hole growth rather than the vigorous early phase typical of most luminous reionization-era quasars. Using JWST/NIRSpec prism spectroscopy, the authors measure a black hole mass near $3.3\times10^8\,M_\odot$ from the broad Balmer lines, giving an Eddington ratio of about $0.44$, and combine this with earlier NIRCam imaging showing an undermassive, compact host galaxy. They also report a gas cloud 5 kpc away with line ratios ($[\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta\gtrsim10$, $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha\gtrsim1.5$) that place it in AGN/shock territory, which they interpret as the most plausible sign of AGN-driven outflow. If correct, the system is a direct view of a quasar transitioning from peak accretion to a fainter, feedback-dominated phase, with implications for how early black holes and their hosts stop growing in lockstep.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by single-epoch black-hole mass estimators built on broad Balmer lines: the H$\beta$ estimator, with FWHM(H$\beta$)=2992 km/s and $\lambda L_\lambda(5100\,\text{\AA})=2.04\times10^{45}$ erg/s giving $3.28\times10^8\,M_\odot$, and the H$\alpha$ estimator giving $3.51\times10^8\,M_\odot$, together with a bolometric correction $L_{\rm bol}=9.26\,L_{5100}$ that turns the mass into an Eddington ratio of $0.44$. The companion's classification rests on a BPT-style diagnostic: with no detected H$\beta$ and an unresolved H$\alpha$+[N II] blend, the observed $[\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta\gtrsim10$ and inferred $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha\gtrsim1.5$ push the gas into the AGN/shock region of the diagram. Supporting machinery includes the balnicity index for the UV broad absorption lines (BI $\approx2700$ km/s for C IV), the proximity-zone size versus luminosity relation used to estimate a roughly 1 Myr active lifetime, and a comparison of the companion spectrum to high-redshift emission-line galaxy templates.

What would settle it

Resolve the companion's H$\alpha$ and [N II] lines at high spectral resolution and detect H$\beta$. If the companion's H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio is well above the Case B value of 2.86, or if $[\mathrm{N\,II}]\lambda6583$/H$\alpha$ drops below roughly 0.5 after dust correction, the gas is not necessarily AGN/shock-ionized and the outflow interpretation loses its main line-ratio support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that HSC J2239+0207 is a sub-Eddington, metal-rich, highly evolved quasar at $z\approx6.25$ whose black hole is overmassive relative to its host galaxy, and that the system is surrounded by gas being displaced by AGN feedback. The Balmer-based mass estimate, $M_{\rm BH}\approx3.3\times10^8\,M_\odot$, and bolometric luminosity $L_{\rm bol}\approx1.9\times10^{46}$ erg/s yield $\lambda_{\rm Edd}\approx0.44$, well below the near-Eddington or super-Eddington accretion inferred for most bright quasars at this epoch. The quasar shows strong FeII emission ($R_{\rm FeII}\approx1.27$), a proximity zone of 1.2 proper Mpc implying an active phase of roughly 1 Myr, broad UV absorption lines with outflow velocities up to about $2\times10^4$ km/s, and almost no dust reddening along the line of sight. The newly found gas companion, at a projected 5 kpc separation, has $[\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta\gtrsim10$ and, under a zero-extinction assumption, $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha\gtrsim1.5$, which the authors argue most plausibly indicates gas blown out by AGN radiation or shocks rather than a star-forming galaxy or tidal debris. The paper presents the object as a fading quasar in transition where feedback has begun to regulate both the black hole's fuel supply and the host galaxy's growth.

Load-bearing premise

The companion's classification as AGN/shock-ionized gas rests on assuming the cloud has zero dust extinction and an intrinsic H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio of 2.86; if the gas is even moderately dusty, the inferred $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha$ lower limit weakens and the cloud could be an extreme star-forming galaxy instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quasar's sub-Eddington state shows that not every luminous $z\sim6$ quasar is in a rapid-growth phase; some already have low accretion rates and overmassive black holes.
  • The combination of an overmassive black hole and an undermassive, compact host supports the picture that black hole growth can outpace host-galaxy growth in at least some reionization-era systems.
  • A roughly 1 Myr recent active phase, inferred from the proximity zone, implies the quasar's current bright episode is short compared with the system's overall enrichment history, consistent with episodic activity.
  • If the gas companion is outflowing material, AGN feedback at $z\sim6$ can move ionized gas out to about 5 kpc and clear dust along the polar direction, helping to explain the low measured reddening and the suppressed host growth.
  • The strong BAL winds and the companion's high $[\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$ together suggest that a single feedback mechanism connects nuclear outflows to kiloparsec-scale gas in this system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the authors leave implicit is that confirming the companion's extreme $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha$ ratio at higher spectral resolution would place the outflow in the shock-dominated regime, making this system a rare spatial link between nuclear BAL winds and kiloparsec-scale shocked gas at $z\sim6$.
  • A testable extension: deeper, higher-resolution NIRSpec spectroscopy that separates H$\alpha$ from [N II] and detects H$\beta$ in the companion would settle whether it is AGN/shock-ionized or a dusty extreme starburst, and would measure its dynamical mass and confirm the roughly 1200 km/s velocity offset.
  • If fading quasars like this are common among the fainter $z\sim6$ population, the typical accretion rate at cosmic dawn could be lower than the bright, near-Eddington samples suggest, implying that luminosity-function-based growth estimates may overstate the average black-hole growth rate.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents JWST/NIRSpec prism IFU observations of HSC J2239+0207, a z ~ 6.25 quasar that is less luminous than the typically studied bright quasars at these redshifts. From decompositions of the broad Hbeta and Halpha lines the authors derive a black hole mass of ~3.3e8 Msun, an Eddington ratio of ~0.44, and hence a sub-Eddington accretion state. They also report strong FeII emission, a proximity zone of typical size for the quasar luminosity, broad-absorption-line features with velocities up to ~2e4 km/s, and little dust reddening along the polar direction. The paper further identifies an emission-line companion at ~5 kpc projected separation, with [OIII]/Hbeta > 10 and an unresolved Halpha+[NII] complex that, under an assumed Case B Balmer decrement and zero extinction, implies [NII]/Halpha > 1.5. The companion is interpreted as most plausibly AGN-driven outflowing gas, and the quasar is argued to be a fading, overmassive system in a late stage of mass assembly.

Significance. If the central conclusions hold, the paper provides a valuable data point on the low-luminosity end of the z ~ 6 quasar population: a sub-Eddington accretor with an overmassive black hole relative to its host stellar mass, strong BAL winds, and a possible feedback signature in a kiloparsec-scale gas companion. The sub-Eddington result is robust to the factor-of-2 to 3 difference between the Balmer-based mass and the earlier MgII/CIV estimates, and the BAL and FeII features are clearly present in the prism data. The analysis uses standard, externally calibrated estimators, and the manuscript is commendably explicit about several caveats, including the ambiguity in the companion's nature in Section 5.2. The most novel and abstract-level claim, however, is the companion's AGN/shock ionization and outflow origin, and that claim is substantially less secure than the paper's presentation in the abstract and summary suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 and Abstract] The classification of the companion as AGN/shock-ionized, and hence the abstract's claim that it is 'likely representing outflowing gas blown away by AGN feedback,' rests on the inferred [NII]/Halpha lower limit. That limit is obtained by assuming zero extinction and Case B IHalpha/IHbeta = 2.86, then using the 3-sigma Hbeta upper limit (IHbeta < 4.6e-19 erg/s/cm2) to set IHalpha < 1.3e-18 erg/s/cm2. Because Hbeta is only a 3-sigma non-detection and the Halpha+[NII] complex is unresolved at prism resolution, even modest reddening in the companion raises the allowed IHalpha and lowers the [NII]/Halpha limit; with E(B-V) of order 1 the constraint weakens substantially, and with a dust- or shock-elevated intrinsic Balmer decrement it can disappear entirely. Section 5.2 itself acknowledges this ('true nature remains ambiguous', 'possibly favoring'), but the abstract and Section 6 present the outflow interpretation as the likely conclusion. Please either add a quantitative treatment of extinction and intrinsic Balmer-decrement uncertainties for the companion line ratios, or soften the abstract and summary statements to match the acknowledged ambiguity.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The quoted black hole mass MBH = 3.3e8 Msun and Eddington ratio lambda_Edd = 0.44 are given without propagated uncertainties. The FWHM corrections are large (e.g., the instrument width of 2244.8 km/s must be removed from the measured Hbeta FWHM of 3740.2 km/s), the single-epoch estimators have intrinsic scatter of roughly 0.3-0.4 dex, and the Onoue et al. (2019) MgII- and CIV-based masses are 2-3 times larger. Since the sub-Eddington and overmassive-black-hole conclusions are central to the paper, please report the statistical and systematic uncertainty on MBH and lambda_Edd, and state explicitly whether lambda_Edd < 1 remains robust when the MgII/CIV mass estimates are included as a systematic alternative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in the paragraph discussing the Onoue et al. mass estimates: 'HSC J2230+0207' should be 'HSC J2239+0207'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'by adopting a typical UV bolometric luminosity (~4)' is unclear; this should be 'a typical UV bolometric correction (~4)' with the appropriate reference.
  3. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in Section 5.1: 'sufficient activtiy' should be 'sufficient activity'.
  4. [Section 2.2] There is an extra period after 'we have adopted PyQSOFit (Guo et al. 2018). and conducted the spectral fittings'.
  5. [Section 3.6] The phrase 'consistent with the an undermassive host galaxy' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'consistent with an undermassive host galaxy'.
  6. [Figure 5 and Section 5.2] The comparison of the companion spectrum with the Boyett et al. (2024) EELG and non-EELG templates is qualitative; since this comparison is used to argue against a star-forming-galaxy interpretation, a quantitative statement (e.g., chi-square or continuum/line-flux residuals) would strengthen the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the black hole mass, Eddington ratio, and proximity-zone lifetime rest on external calibrations and textbook formulae; the companion outflow classification is assumption-limited but not circular.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The black hole mass is obtained from broad Hβ and Hα using the externally calibrated single-epoch relations of Vestergaard & Peterson (2006) and Greene & Ho (2005), with FWHM and luminosity measured from the NIRSpec spectrum; the Eddington ratio uses the Richards et al. (2006) bolometric correction. The proximity-zone lifetime follows from a standard photoionization balance formula with an adopted IGM density. None of these steps fits a parameter to the quantity it is used to predict. The only same-author result that enters the argument is Stone et al. (2023) for the host stellar mass; that is an independent NIRCam PSF-subtraction measurement, not derived from the present NIRSpec data, so it does not constitute a self-citation chain. The companion's classification as AGN/shock ionized gas does depend on the stated assumption of zero optical extinction and intrinsic Hα/Hβ = 2.86 (Section 4), and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 5.2 that the 'true nature remains ambiguous' with several alternative scenarios. That is a robustness limitation, not circularity: the line-ratio inference is conditional on an external assumption and is not definitionally identical to the conclusion. No circular step is present, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No genuinely new free parameters are fitted to make the derivation work; all numerical inputs are either measured or adopted from prior literature. The most fragile adopted assumptions are the zero-extinction/composition of the companion, the BH mass calibration, and the host galaxy mass from a self-cited paper.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Empirical single-epoch BH mass estimators (Vestergaard & Peterson 2006 for Hbeta, Greene & Ho 2005 for Halpha) are valid at z~6 for this quasar.
    Used in Section 3.1 to convert measured FWHM and luminosity into MBH. The factor-of-3 discrepancy with the MgII-based estimate (Onoue et al. 2019) suggests large systematic uncertainty in these calibrations.
  • domain assumption Bolometric correction Lbol = 9.26 L5100 (Richards et al. 2006) applies to this source.
    Section 3.1, used to derive Lbol and the Eddington ratio. Uncertainties in the bolometric correction directly propagate to the 0.44 value.
  • domain assumption IGM neutral hydrogen density n_H ~ 1e-4 cm^-3 at z~6 and the simple proximity-zone lifetime formula tQ ~ 4 pi R^3 n_H / (3 Q_H).
    Section 3.2, used to estimate tQ ~ 2 Myr. The authors note this is order-of-magnitude only.
  • ad hoc to paper The gas companion has negligible dust extinction and an intrinsic Balmer decrement Halpha/Hbeta = 2.86.
    Section 4, used to decompose the unresolved Halpha+[NII] complex and infer [NII]/Halpha > 1.5. If the companion is dusty, this ratio could be much lower, weakening the AGN/shock interpretation.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy stellar mass M* ~ 1e10 Msun from Stone et al. (2023) is correct.
    Section 3.6 and Discussion, used to argue the SMBH is overmassive relative to the host. This comes from a self-cited prior paper with overlapping authors.
  • domain assumption The broken power-law AGN continuum shape (alpha_lambda = -1.5 for 1241-1380 A, -0.59 for <1000 A) describes the unabsorbed quasar continuum.
    Section 3.2, used to define the continuum for the proximity-zone measurement. A different continuum slope would change the measured zone size.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fading Light, Fierce Winds: JWST Snapshot of a Sub-Eddington Quasar at Cosmic Dawn." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBKWGFRD

@misc{pith2026241204548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fading Light, Fierce Winds: JWST Snapshot of a Sub-Eddington Quasar at Cosmic Dawn},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBKWGFRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04548}
}
abstract

The majority of most luminous quasars during the epoch of reionization accrete near or above the Eddington limit, marking the vigorous growth of primitive supermassive black holes (SMBHs). However, their subsequent evolution and environmental impact remain poorly characterized. We present JWST/NIRSpec prism IFU observations of HSC J2239+0207, a low-luminosity quasar at $z\sim6.25$ likely in a late stage of mass assembly with an overmassive SMBH relative to its host galaxy. Using H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ broad emission lines, we estimate an SMBH mass $M_{\rm BH}\sim3\times10^8~M_{\odot}$ and confirm its sub-Eddington accretion at $\lambda_{\rm Edd}\sim0.4$. Strong FeII emission and a proximity zone of typical size suggest a metal-rich, highly evolved system. In the far-UV, this quasar presents strong broad-absorption-line features, indicative of high-velocity winds ($\nu\sim10^4~{\rm km/s}$). Meanwhile, minimal dust reddening is inferred from the quasar continuum and broad-line Balmer decrement, suggesting little dust along the polar direction. Most interestingly, we identify a gas companion $\sim$5 kpc from the quasar with a high [OIII]/H$\beta$ ratio ($\gtrsim10$), likely representing outflowing gas blown away by AGN feedback. These results highlight HSC J2239+0207 as a likely fading quasar in transition, providing rare insights into SMBH evolution, AGN feedback, and AGN-galaxy interactions in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The observed nuclear quasar spectrum of HSC J2239+0207 (blue line). A normal quasar template built from SDSS is also plotted in red as a comparison. We have highlighted various spectral features. We have plotted a galaxy template with stellar mass M∗ ∼ 1010M⊙ (orange line) and show the resulting QSO+galaxy spectrum (green dashed line). All the templates have been smoothed to match the NIRSpec prism resolutions. rati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PyQSOFit spectral decomposition results of the UV (top) and optical bands (bottom) of HSC J2239+0207 NIRSpec prism spectrum. The integrated model (black dots) is composed of the AGN power-law continuum (dashed orange line), the iron emission model (thin blue line), the broad line components (red lines) and narrow line components (yellow lines). The data is shown in thick light blue line. The wavelengths of some stro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: continuum-normalized spectrum of HSC J2239+0207. The dashed green vertical line denotes the Lyα wave￾length (1215.7A) and the pink vertical line denotes the wavelength ˚ where the quasar flux (blue line) starts to drop below 10% of the quasar continuum (red dotted line). The wavelength difference be￾tween the two (δλ) gives the size of quasar proximity zone. Bottom panels: the location of HSC J2239+0207 o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized spectrum of HSC J2239+0207 for the BAL feature measurements. The x-axis indicates the velocity relative to the rest-frame wavelength of the ionic species indicated by the la￾bel. The solid (dashed) horizontal line represents a normalized flux level of 1.0 (0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: The IFU re-constructed images of the quasar HSC J2239+0207. The post-stamps show images at the flux peak of the [OIII] and Hα+[NII] emission as well as the adjacent emission-line-free continuum. We have highlighted the rectangular aperture used to extract th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-Luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). XXIV. 54 New Quasars and Candidate Obscured Quasars at $5.71 \le z \le 7.02$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spectroscopic follow-up of the completed HSC-SSP survey yields 43 new quasars, 11 candidate obscured quasars, and 29 galaxies at z 5.71 to 7.02.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., & Hickox, R

    Alexander, D. M., & Hickox, R. C. 2012, NewAR, 56, 93, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whe...

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  2. [2]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accea4

    Bischetti, M., Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accea4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accea4 2023

  4. [4]

    S., & Haehnelt, M

    Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 325, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12372.x

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    A., & Green, R

    Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, doi: 10.1086/191661

    doi:10.1086/191661 1992

  6. [6]

    J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.16934, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.16934

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.16934 2024

  7. [7]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  8. [8]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 D’Agostino, J. J., Kewley, L. J., Groves, B. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1611 12

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab297f

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Ba˜nados, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab297f

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Dietrich, M., Hamann, F., Shields, J. C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 912, doi: 10.1086/344410

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    D., et al

    Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06345-5

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c60

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Decarli, R., et al

    Eilers, A.-C., Hennawi, J. F., Decarli, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba52e

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Fan, X., Ba˜nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaskell, C. M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx094

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Guo, H., Shen, Y ., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1809.008

    2018

  11. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4751

    Inayoshi, K., Nakatani, R., Toyouchi, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4751

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb80b

    Ishimoto, R., Kashikawa, N., Onoue, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb80b

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 111, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz096

    Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Matsuoka, Y ., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 111, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz096

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d09

    Jiang, D., Onoue, M., Jiang, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d09

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441, doi: 10.1086/172149

    1993 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., et al

    Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 129, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15299.x

    2009

  22. [30]

    W., et al

    Marziani, P., Dultzin, D., Sulentic, J. W., et al. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 6, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2018.00006

    2018

  23. [31]

    A., Kashikawa, N., et al

    Matsuoka, Y ., Strauss, M. A., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee7a

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    A., & Lotz, J

    Mortazavi, S. A., & Lotz, J. M. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1331

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e9

    Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., Matsuoka, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e9

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    D., et al

    Onoue, M., Ding, X., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07113, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07113

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clamp...

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Kewley, L

    Rich, J. A., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2015, ApJS, 221, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/28

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Richards, G

    Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2360, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Shen, Y ., & Ho, L. C. 2014, Nature, 513, 210, doi: 10.1038/nature13712

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Stevans, M., & Danforth, C

    Shull, J. M., Stevans, M., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, ApJ, 752, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/162

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    S., & Dav´e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Alberts, S. 2023, ApJ, 953, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebe0

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., & Hainline, K. N. 2024, ApJ, 964, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a57

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Chen, Z., et al

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Chen, Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2763

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72f6

    Tazaki, R., & Ichikawa, K. 2020, ApJ, 892, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72f6

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21867, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21867 Vanden Berk, D

    Trefoloni, B., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21867, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21867 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, doi: 10.1086/320357

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 V olonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279, doi: 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    F., et al

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6f

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Morris, S

    Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., & Hewett, P. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 23, doi: 10.1086/170020

    1991 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc9c8

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc9c8

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    A., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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