Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

This paper consolidates the scattered population of changing-look active galactic nuclei into one homogenized, multiwavelength reference catalog of 1,438 unique sources, and shows which of them the next-generation time-domain survey will mo

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 01:19 UTC pith:QCRZXAEC

load-bearing objection A useful, honestly-caveated compilation catalog of CL-AGN; the headline counts are plausible but not yet independently checkable because the catalog itself isn't in the manuscript. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25839 v1 pith:QCRZXAEC submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Compiling the largest multiwavelength database of known changing-look AGN: Prospects in the Rubin era

Mariangella Camus (PUCV) , Swayamtrupta Panda (NOIRLab) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords changing-look AGNactive galactic nucleimultiwavelength catalogtime-domain astronomyLSST preparationspectral transitionssupermassive black holescatalog cross-matching
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Changing-look active galactic nuclei (CL-AGN) are galaxies whose spectral classification flips on human timescales, offering a direct window into accretion physics — but the known examples sit scattered across dozens of heterogeneous papers. This paper tries to fix that by assembling, homogenizing, and validating a single reference catalog of 1,438 unique sources, split into 987 spectroscopically confirmed objects and 451 candidates, with every source traced back to its literature origin. The authors then attach multiwavelength counterparts, so that 96.3% of the sample has at least one non-optical detection, and demonstrate the catalog's use by locating which confirmed sources the next-generation time-domain survey will monitor and by presenting a first multi-band light curve of one object. If the catalog holds, future studies gain a common, expandable reference for target selection, population comparison, and cleaning duplicates — precisely the scaffolding needed as wide-field surveys are expected to multiply the known population by orders of magnitude.

Core claim

The central claim: after coordinate standardization and duplicate removal, the known changing-look AGN population reduces to a single traceable catalog of 1,438 unique sources — 987 spectroscopically confirmed, 451 candidates. Multiwavelength matching then gives 1,385 sources at least one non-optical counterpart and 75 with radio+infrared+ultraviolet+X-ray coverage. As a demonstration, 70 confirmed CL-AGN fall in the LSST wide-fast-deep footprint and 5 in the deep drilling fields; the first ~116-day six-band optical light curve of one source shows significant chromatic variability but no robust periodicity or inter-band lag. The authors present the catalog as a living community resource.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the compiled parent catalog itself: 1,438 unique sources built by collecting literature samples, homogenizing coordinates, and resolving duplicates by positional matching plus manual inspection while preserving literature history. The matching machinery is Bayesian cross-matching with survey-specific probability thresholds, with separate handling for broad versus conservative ultraviolet matches and for high-energy associations with large positional uncertainties. The LSST layer uses a baseline cadence simulation with a visit-count threshold to flag high-cadence regions. This lets each source carry classification, redshift, references, and wavelength-coverage flags

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers inherit earlier papers' different definitions of 'confirmed' versus 'candidate' and depend on manual duplicate-removal choices; if those labels are less consistent than assumed, or if some repeated objects were not merged, the 1,438 total and every fraction built on it change.

What would settle it

Re-run the duplicate-removal step on the input literature lists with an automated, single-radius match (for example, all pairs within 3 arcseconds) and compare the resulting unique-source count to 1,438; if the count moves by more than a few sources, the headline tally is not stable, and all coverage fractions would need recomputation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Future studies can query one database instead of re-hunting through dozens of heterogeneous papers, so duplicate counting across surveys should largely disappear.
  • Population-level comparisons become possible with known coverage: 96.3% of sources have a non-optical counterpart, and the 75 four-wavelength sources give a ready target list for physical modeling.
  • Seventy confirmed CL-AGN inside the LSST wide-fast-deep footprint and five in the deep drilling fields provide a pre-existing reference set for monitoring and follow-up planning.
  • The first LSST-era light curve shows genuine chromatic variability but no periodicity or inter-band lag, establishing that 116 days of high-cadence griz data is statistically insufficient for reverberation claims.
  • As an expandable community database, the catalog's counts are expected to grow; the paper projects roughly 2e5–1.5e6 photometric candidates from LSST, with around 1e4–1e5 spectroscopically confirmed, raising the known population by more than two orders of magnitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would infer that the 987/451 split should be read as a literature label rather than a uniform re-classification; a user doing population statistics should re-adjudicate each source's status before weighting the two subsamples.
  • The strong southern deficit (21% of confirmed sources with negative declination) implies that the LSST era will preferentially discover southern CL-AGN, so a northern-biased catalog used as a training set could propagate selection effects into new searches.
  • The null inter-band-lag result at ~116 days suggests early LSST data will be best used for long-term chromatic-variability characterization; a natural extension is to rerun the same correlation analysis after two or three seasons to test the thin-disk lag prediction.
  • The small gamma-ray layer (9 candidates) plus the requirement for error-ellipse containment hints that future versions could use compact radio emission as an independent validation of high-energy associations — though that link is not made in the paper.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles a literature-based catalog of changing-look AGN (CL-AGN), homogenizing coordinates, preserving provenance, removing duplicates, and cross-matching with radio/mm, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray catalogs. The final optical parent catalog contains 1,438 unique sources (987 spectroscopically confirmed, 451 candidates). The authors also identify 70 confirmed CL-AGN in the LSST Wide-Fast-Deep footprint, 5 in the Deep Drilling Fields, and present a ~116-day ugrizy Rubin difference-flux light curve for one source with a conservative time-series analysis. The stated goal is to provide a traceable, expandable reference database for the Rubin era.

Significance. If the central numbers hold, this is a useful community resource: it aggregates the largest currently known CL-AGN sample, attaches multiwavelength coverage flags from well-known surveys, and provides a public web interface with community submission and duplicate-checking tools. The careful separation of secure versus candidate associations (GALEX strong/broad subsets, exploratory Fermi layer) and the explicit statement of limitations in Sec. 7.1 are strengths, as is the appropriately conservative analysis of the Rubin light curve (no overclaimed periodicities or inter-band lags). However, the main scientific value depends on the reproducibility and accuracy of the headline catalog counts, and those counts currently rest on manual duplicate removal and un-adjudicated literature classifications, with no versioned machine-readable catalog supplied in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2 (catalog construction, duplicate removal)] The headline number 1,438 unique sources depends on a duplicate-removal procedure described only as 'positional cross-matching' followed by 'manual inspection'. No matching radius, algorithm, input entry count, or audit trail is given. Because every layer count and fraction in Tables 1-6 and Sec. 3.2 is computed relative to this 1,438-source denominator, an error here propagates to all statistics in the paper. The manuscript needs a reproducible specification of the duplicate-removal step, a versioned machine-readable catalog, and a list of removed/merged entries before the central claim can be independently verified.
  2. [Secs. 2 and 7.1 (classification: 987 confirmed vs. 451 candidates)] The paper preserves literature provenance rather than applying a uniform definition of 'spectroscopically confirmed CL-AGN'. The input samples differ in selection, spectroscopic baselines, and classification criteria, so the 987/451 split is not internally well-defined. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Sec. 7.1 that the sample is heterogeneous and requires source-by-source validation. To make the central split defensible, the authors should either re-adjudicate classifications against an explicit rubric or provide per-source provenance and confidence flags that allow users to reconstruct the confirmed/candidate division.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Tables 2-6 (cross-match reproducibility)] The multiwavelength counts are set by external thresholds (nway p_any >= 0.8 and p_i >= 0.8, GALEX 5 arcsec search radius, Fermi 30 arcmin search with 95% error ellipse, survey-specific quality cuts), which are reasonable conventions. However, the manuscript does not report exact catalog versions, query parameters for each layer, or the code/scripts used. Without these, none of Tables 2-6 can be reproduced from the information given. For a compilation intended as a reference database and 'easily reproducible' (Sec. 1), the full matching configuration should be made available in the paper or as a code repository.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] The terms 'spectroscopically confirmed' and 'photometric or candidate' are used throughout but never explicitly defined. Please add concise definitions, including what qualifies as a confirmed changing-look event (e.g., broad-line appearance/disappearance, type change, continuum drop).
  2. [Sec. 4 (nway description)] The sentence 'p_any is the reliability of the 1-p_any association' is confusing and appears garbled. Please rephrase to define p_any as the posterior probability that a genuine counterpart exists within the search region.
  3. [Sec. 5 / Table 2] The relationship between the 'Any wide-area radio survey' count (160), RFC/VLBI (9), ALMA (16), and the 'Broad radio/mm layer' (188) should be explained explicitly, since simple addition gives 185 and the 3 extra sources imply overlap. Clarify the union logic.
  4. [Sec. A.5 / Fig. 13] The text states that peak correlation coefficients range from r_max ~ 0.73 to 0.94, but Fig. 13 shows an i-z pair with r_max = 0.37. Please reconcile this discrepancy, either by excluding that pair from the 'strongly correlated' statement or by reporting the full range.
  5. [Sec. 8] The yield extrapolation of 2e5-1.5e6 photometric CL-AGN candidates and 1e4-1e5 spectroscopic confirmations is a useful planning heuristic, but the variable-AGN sample size of 20-50 million and the assumed 1-3% transition fraction are presented without propagation of uncertainties or a clear caveat that these are not catalog products. Please label this explicitly as an estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Literature aggregation and cross-matching; no load-bearing derivation reduces the headline numbers to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are literature-derived catalog counts and external cross-match statistics, not fitted predictions or first-principles derivations. The 1,438-source parent catalog is explicitly assembled from a list of external input samples (Yang+18, MacLeod+19, Hon+22, Zeltyn+24, Guo+25, etc.) and the paper preserves literature provenance rather than re-deriving classifications, so the 987/451 split is an aggregation claim, not a result whose conclusion was baked into an equation (Sec. 2). Multiwavelength layers use the external Bayesian code nway with probability thresholds taken from published X-ray counterpart work (Salvato et al. 2018), not thresholds fitted to this CL-AGN sample, and each survey-specific flag is reported separately. The Rubin footprint counts are positional intersections with the Rubin baseline v5.1.0 simulation, and the text explicitly frames the overlap as a demonstration, not a yield prediction (Sec. 3.2). The Rubin light-curve section reports broker photometry directly, and the time-domain analyses (GLS, WWZ, ICCF) explicitly conclude no robust periodicity or inter-band lags, so no derived quantity is over-claimed (Appendix A). Self-citations (Camus & Panda 2026; Panda et al. 2026) supply an earlier DDF study and review context, but they are not the justification for the aggregate counts, which rest on the heterogeneous external literature; thus they are not load-bearing. The paper's own limitations (Sec. 7.1) disclaim completeness, warn that probabilistic counterparts do not replace source-by-source validation, and keep Fermi-LAT associations exploratory—these are reproducibility/robustness caveats, not evidence of circularity. No equation in the paper reduces any headline number to an input by construction, and the lack of a versioned machine-readable catalog is a reproducibility limitation, not a circularity one.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical model or fitting underlies the catalog; the central claim rests on literature aggregation, cross-match thresholds, and survey assumptions. The free parameters are methodological thresholds that directly set the reported counts. No invented astrophysical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • nway match threshold p_any/p_i = 0.8 / 0.8
    Hand-chosen probability cutoff based on earlier X-ray counterpart work; all layer counts (e.g., 576 X-ray, 160 radio) directly depend on this cut.
  • GALEX search radius = 5 arcsec
    Used for the UV layer; the broad versus strong GALEX subsets are separated by probability, but the raw search radius influences reported UV coverage.
  • Fermi-LAT search radius and containment criterion = 30 arcmin / 95% error ellipse
    Exploratory gamma-ray layer; the 9 candidate associations depend directly on these choices.
  • Rubin footprint visit-count threshold = N >= 804 visits
    Defines Wide-Fast-Deep and Deep Drilling Field membership; yields the stated 70 and 5 overlap counts.
  • Rubin yield extrapolation parameters = transition fraction 1-3%; variable AGN population 2e7-5e7
    Used in Sec 8 to estimate 2e5-1.5e6 photometric CL-AGN candidates; explicitly speculative and not part of the core catalog claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption nway Bayesian matching with stated positional uncertainties and priors yields reliable cross-identifications across heterogeneous surveys
    Core to all multiwavelength layer counts; invoked in Sec 4 with fixed probability thresholds and no aggregate false-match rate provided.
  • domain assumption Literature classifications of CL-AGN confirmation/candidate status are accepted as-is
    Sec 2 pools heterogeneous samples without re-adjudicating classification definitions; the 987/451 split rests on this.
  • domain assumption The Rubin baseline v5.1.0 cadence simulation with N>=804 visits represents the LSST WFD/DDF footprint
    Sec 3.2; the 70/5 overlap counts depend on this simulation and threshold.
  • domain assumption Absence of a multiwavelength counterpart reflects survey coverage or sensitivity rather than physical faintness
    Acknowledged in Sec 7.1 as a limitation; it shapes the interpretation of all coverage statistics.
  • domain assumption Containment within the Fermi-LAT 95% error ellipse is sufficient for a gamma-ray candidate association
    Sec 4.6; explicitly exploratory because Fermi localizations are large, and the 9 candidates depend on this criterion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25150 in / 11188 out tokens · 102266 ms · 2026-08-01T01:19:03.885757+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Changing-look active galactic nuclei (CL-AGN) provide a direct way to study accretion and spectral-state changes on timescales of months to years. Still, the known population remains scattered across heterogeneous literature samples. We present a compilation of a homogenized catalog of known CL-AGN and related candidates, designed as a traceable reference database for time-domain and multiwavelength studies. After coordinate homogenization, duplicate removal, and validation, the optical parent catalog contains 1,438 unique sources, including 987 spectroscopically confirmed CL-AGN and 451 candidate or photometrically selected systems. We augment the catalog with ancillary information from radio/mm, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray data sets using nway and survey-specific quality criteria. The resulting database includes 188 sources in the broad radio layer, 9 RFC/VLBI compact-core matches, 16 sources with ALMA archival coverage, 1,353 infrared counterparts, 918 GALEX ultraviolet matches, and 576 X-ray counterparts. We also identify 9 Fermi-LAT candidate associations. Overall, 1,385 sources have at least one non-optical counterpart, and 75 have coverage across the four main ancillary regimes: radio, infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray. As a first application, we identify 70 confirmed CL-AGN within the LSST Wide--Fast--Deep footprint and 5 within the Rubin Deep Drilling Fields, and provide the up-to-date, ~116-day ugrizy Rubin lightcurve for SDSS J095902.76+021906.3 (z=0.34579) and discuss the early data inferences. This catalog is envisioned to be community-driven and provides a dynamic, expandable resource for target selection, population comparisons, and future Rubin-era CL-AGN studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25839 by Mariangella Camus (PUCV), Swayamtrupta Panda (NOIRLab).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sky distribution of the master CL-AGN catalog in equatorial coordinates. Pink points show candidate or pho￾tometrically selected systems, while cyan points show spectroscopically confirmed CL-AGN. The pale background shows the Rubin/LSST survey footprint, color-coded by the expected number of visits, and the red open outlines mark the Rubin Deep Drilling Fields. The catalog contains 1,438 unique sources af… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic overview of the construction of the master CL-AGN catalog and its multiwavelength extension. The upper row summarizes the compilation of literature CL-AGN samples, coordinate homogenization, classification cleaning, and duplicate removal used to define the optical parent catalog of 1,438 sources. The middle block shows the multiwavelength cross-match step, performed using the Bayesian cross-match… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sky distribution of the broad radio/mm ancillary layer in the master CL-AGN catalog. Gray points show the optical parent sample, while blue points mark the 188 sources with radio/mm ancillary coverage. The pale background traces the Rubin/LSST footprint, and gold open circles mark the Ru￾bin Deep Drilling Fields. Catalog-level counts for the con￾tributing radio surveys, RFC/VLBI compact-core layer, and ALM… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sky distribution of the infrared ancillary layer in the master CL-AGN catalog. Gray points show the optical parent sample, while pink points mark sources with at least one infrared counterpart. The pale background traces the Ru￾bin/LSST footprint, and gold open circles mark the Rubin Deep Drilling Fields. The corresponding catalog-level infrared statistics, including the WISE color-selected subset, are sum… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky distribution of the GALEX ultraviolet ancillary layer in the master CL-AGN catalog. Gray points show the op￾tical parent sample, while purple points mark sources included in the broad GALEX best-match layer. The pale background traces the Rubin/LSST footprint, and gold open circles mark the Rubin Deep Drilling Fields. The GALEX quality subsets and UV photometric availability are summarized in [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sky distribution of the combined X-ray ancillary layer in the master CL-AGN catalog. Gray points show the op￾tical parent sample, while magenta points mark sources with at least one X-ray counterpart. The pale background traces the Rubin/LSST footprint, and gold open circles mark the Ru￾bin Deep Drilling Fields. The catalog-level X-ray statistics are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sky distribution of the exploratory Fermi-LAT can￾didate-association layer in the master CL-AGN catalog. Gray points show the optical parent sample, while teal points mark the 9 sources whose best 4FGL-DR3 candidate lies within the corresponding 95% Fermi-LAT error ellipse. The pale back￾ground traces the Rubin/LSST footprint, and gold open circles mark the Rubin Deep Drilling Fields. The Fermi-LAT candi￾d… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Main interface of the public Changing-look AGN (CL-AGN) database, showing the interactive catalog browser with searchable and filterable source properties, multiwavelength coverage indicators, and tools for duplicate checking, sky visualization, statistics, and community submissions. survey visualizations. The default image viewer - the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey (A. Dey et al. 2019) is queried first. We i… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Duplicate-checking interface of the public CL-AGN database. The tool enables users to search the catalog by source name or coordinates within a user-defined angular radius to identify potential duplicate entries before submission. Matching sources are summarized with their classification, aliases, redshift, transition type, literature ref￾erence, and multiwavelength coverage, while providing a di￾rect pat… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SDSS J095902.76+021906.3 (z=0.34579). Top panel: Lasair LSST ugrizy difference image light curve from the LSSTCam. The current Rubin/LSSTCam difference-photometry light curve spans 116 days, providing the first multi-band optical monitoring of this CL-AGN over a continuous Rubin observing season. The vertical dashed line marks the position of the latest epoch (14-June-2026, 23:44:08 UTC). Because the meas… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of consecutive visit separations for the Rubin/LSSTCam difference-photometry light curve. Top: Histogram of all consecutive observations in each fil￾ter, including the closely spaced intra-night visit pairs char￾acteristic of the Rubin observing strategy. The vertical dashed line marks the threshold of ∆t = 0.02 d (≈ 29 min) used to separate intra-night pairs from independent visits. Bottom: … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Flux Randomization/Random Subset Selection (FR/RSS) inter-band interpolation cross-correlation function (ICCF) analysis for the Rubin g, r, i, and z light curves. For each band pair, the left panel shows the detrended, normal￾ized difference-flux light curves (offset vertically for clarity), while the right panel shows the corresponding ICCF (blue curve) together with the FR/RSS posterior distributions of… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Amrutha, N., Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 2322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2470 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: 10.3...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2470 2024

  3. [3]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

  4. [4]

    J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  5. [5]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 348, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/348

    Brusa, M., Civano, F., Comastri, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 348, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/348

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/348 2010

  6. [6]

    M., Horne, K., & Winkler, H

    Cackett, E. M., Horne, K., & Winkler, H. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12098.x

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    2026, Research Notes of the AAS, 10, 178, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae8256

    Camus, M., & Panda, S. 2026, Research Notes of the AAS, 10, 178, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae8256

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae8256 2026

  8. [8]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae23cb

    Chen, Z.-Q., Jin, J.-J., Guo, W.-J., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae23cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae23cb 2026

  9. [9]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 10, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5195

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5195

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5195 2020

  10. [10]

    Collier, S., Horne, K., Wanders, I., & Peterson, B. M. 1999, MNRAS, 302, L24, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02250.x

    arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337 22 2 0 2 4 6 g r g band r band + 3.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 r rmax = 0.82 cent = 0.85+6.75 9.05 d ICCF Peak posterior Centroid posterior 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Density 2 0 2 4 6 g i g band i band + 3.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 r rmax = 0.71...

    doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  12. [12]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., Van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources,, VizieR Online Data Catalog: II/246 doi: 10.1086/498708

    doi:10.1086/498708 2003

  13. [13]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, AllWISE Data Release,, VizieR Online Data Catalog: II/328 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5117

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5117 2013

  14. [14]

    Deeming, T. J. 1975, Ap&SS, 36, 137, doi: 10.1007/BF00681947

    doi:10.1007/bf00681947 1975

  15. [15]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  16. [16]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    Dong, Q., Zhang, Z.-X., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Zheng, Y.-G. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add331

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add331 2025

  17. [17]

    N., Primini, F

    Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 189, 37, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37 2010

  18. [18]

    1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    Foster, G. 1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    doi:10.1086/118137 1996

  19. [19]

    M., & Harrington, P

    Gaskell, C. M., & Harrington, P. Z. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1660, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty848

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty848 2018

  20. [20]

    M., & Peterson, B

    Gaskell, C. M., & Peterson, B. M. 1987, ApJS, 65, 1, doi: 10.1086/191216

    doi:10.1086/191216 1987

  21. [21]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  22. [22]

    A., et al

    Gordon, Y. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 2021

  23. [23]

    A., Siudek, M., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Fawcett, V. A., Siudek, M., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7b 2025

  24. [24]

    L., et al

    Hale, C. L., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.47 2021

  25. [25]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/26 2015

  26. [26]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 54, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3694

    Auchettl, K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 54, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3694

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3694 2022

  27. [27]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913811 2010

  29. [29]

    A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.03234 2017

  30. [30]

    J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al

    Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 41, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000170

    doi:10.1051/aas:2000170 2000

  31. [31]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24 2016

  32. [32]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144 L´ opez-Navas, E., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1893

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/144 2015

  33. [33]

    L., Ross, N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2997

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2997 2016

  34. [34]

    L., Green, P

    MacLeod, C. L., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2 2019

  35. [35]

    I., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Mainieri, V., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.05398 2024

  36. [36]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 2021

  37. [37]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    doi:10.1086/426387 2005

  38. [38]

    J., et al

    Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 1117, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06605.x

    arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024

  40. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2032 2018

  41. [41]

    2015, NumPy: A guide to NumPy, 2nd edn.,, USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform http://www.numpy.org/

    Oliphant, T. 2015, NumPy: A guide to NumPy, 2nd edn.,, USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform http://www.numpy.org/

    2015

  42. [42]

    2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e210091, doi: 10.1002/asna.20210091

    Panda, S., Bon, E., Marziani, P., & Bon, N. 2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e210091, doi: 10.1002/asna.20210091

    doi:10.1002/asna.20210091 2022

  43. [43]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21769

    Panda, S., Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., Benati Gon¸ calves, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21769

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21769 2026

  44. [44]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    Panda, S., & ´Sniegowska, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f 2024

  45. [45]

    M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., et al

    Peterson, B. M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 660, doi: 10.1086/316177

    doi:10.1086/316177 1998

  46. [46]

    M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K

    Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682, doi: 10.1086/423269 24

    doi:10.1086/423269 2004

  47. [47]

    Petrov, L., & Kovalev, Y. Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 276, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8c36

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8c36 2025

  48. [48]

    2004, JCAP, 2004, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/09/011

    Pierre, M., Valtchanov, I., Altieri, B., et al. 2004, JCAP, 2004, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/09/011

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2004/09/011 2004

  49. [49]

    2016, A&A, 592, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526766

    Pierre, M., Pacaud, F., Adami, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526766

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526766 2016

  50. [50]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4 2023

  51. [51]

    C., Cales, S., Ruan, J

    Runnoe, J. C., Cales, S., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2385

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2385 2016

  52. [52]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, H., Mart ´ ı, L., et al

    Salvato, M., Buchner, J., Budav´ ari, T., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, H., Mart ´ ı, L., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1426

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2651 2018

  53. [53]

    J., Ferraro, S., Aldering, G., et al

    Schlegel, D. J., Ferraro, S., Aldering, G., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.03585, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.03585 2022

  54. [54]

    B., Rix, H.-W., Shields, J

    Schmidt, K. B., Rix, H.-W., Shields, J. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/147

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/147 2012

  55. [55]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  56. [56]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  57. [57]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833559 2019

  58. [58]

    2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    Sniegowska, M., Czerny, B., Bon, E., & Bon, N. 2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038575 2020

  59. [59]

    GOATS: The next generation software infrastructure for time-domain astronomy at Gemini/NOIRLab. Application to alerts from Vera C. Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time

    Soraisam, M., Avner, L., G´ omez, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.28645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.28645

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.28645 2026

  60. [60]

    J., et al

    Stern, D., McKernan, B., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac726

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac726 2018

  61. [61]

    J., Ricci, C., Koss, M

    Temple, M. J., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 2938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3279

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3279 2023

  62. [62]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4 2019

  63. [63]

    1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 349, 389

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 349, 389

    1999

  64. [64]

    2000, IAU Circular, 7432, 1

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 2000, IAU Circular, 7432, 1

    2000

  65. [65]

    W., Wang, Y., et al

    Wang, J., Xu, D. W., Wang, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4d90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4d90 2019

  66. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Gallo, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3049 2024

  67. [67]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 2020

  68. [68]

    J., & Peterson, B

    White, R. J., & Peterson, B. M. 1994, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106, 879, doi: 10.1086/133456

    doi:10.1086/133456 1994

  69. [69]

    C., Vanden Berk, D

    Wilhite, B. C., Vanden Berk, D. E., Kron, R. G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 638, doi: 10.1086/430821

    doi:10.1086/430821 2005

  70. [70]

    2010, AKARI/FIS All-Sky Survey Point Source Catalogues,, VizieR Online Data Catalog: II/298

    Yamamura, I., Makiuti, S., Ikeda, N., et al. 2010, AKARI/FIS All-Sky Survey Point Source Catalogues,, VizieR Online Data Catalog: II/298

    2010

  71. [71]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481a

    Yang, Q., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab481a 2019

  72. [72]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    Yang, Q., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a 2018

  73. [73]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister, M., & K¨ urster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 2009

  74. [74]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47 2022

  75. [75]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30 2024