Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

An Extremely-High Velocity Outflow in SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr hosts a persistent outflow reaching about 13% of the speed of light, and its X-ray weakness may be what allows the wind to launch.

desk verdict First EHVO detection in the most luminous early-universe quasar, with X-ray weakness; solid measurement but continuum-systematic and persistence claims need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08891 v1 pith:TTCTKPID submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.GA

Giustina Vietri , Paola Rodriguez Hidalgo , Amy Rankine , Luca Zappacosta , Enrico Piconcelli , Liliana Flores , Ivano Saccheo , Andrea Melandri
show 11 more authors
Vincenzo Testa Patrick B. Hall Flaminia Sarnari Wendy F. Garcia Naranjo Tzitzi Romo Perez Valentina D'Odorico Giorgio Lanzuisi Toru Misawa Christopher A. Onken Cristian Vignali Christian Wolf
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords extremelyhigh-velocityoutflow(EHVO)broadabsorptionlines(BALs)CIVquasaroutflowsX-rayweakSMSSJ2157-3602AGNfeedbackhigh-redshiftquasars
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 reports the discovery of an extremely high-velocity outflow (EHVO) in SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous quasar known in the first 1.3 billion years of cosmic history. The outflow is traced by CIV absorption and reaches a maximum velocity of about 42,000 km/s (0.13c), with a balnicity index of 2200 km/s that places it among the strongest EHVOs found. The absorption is stable across observations spanning months to a year, indicating the wind is persistent rather than episodic. The same quasar is found to be X-ray weak (alpha_OX = -2.03), which the authors argue prevents overionization of the inner disk and enables efficient acceleration of the UV outflow. The system matters because it tests models of AGN-driven feedback under extreme luminosity, with kinetic power that could range from a tiny fraction of the quasar's output to a significant fraction depending on the outflow's distance and column density.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CIV absorption doublet in the quasar's rest-frame UV spectrum. The authors model the entire spectral region with a Gaussian-profile decomposition, separating the high-velocity CIV EHVO from lower-velocity SiIV blended narrow absorption lines. The EHVO is quantified with the balnicity index (a standard measure of broad absorption-line strength) and its velocity is measured relative to the MgII-based systemic redshift. A second key ingredient is the independent-component-analysis reconstruction of the unabsorbed continuum, which sets the normalization for the absorption measurements. The X-ray weakness is quantified by the alpha_OX index, the ratio of 2 keV to 2500 Å

What would settle it

A high-resolution spectrum of the CIV region combined with an independent systemic redshift (e.g., from CO or [OII] lines) that places the absorption at a lower velocity would falsify the EHVO claim; alternatively, detecting variability in the absorption on year timescales that shows the trough is transient would weaken the persistence claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous QSO in the first 1.3 Gyr, hosts an extremely high-velocity outflow (EHVO) reaching v_max ~ 42,350 km/s (about 0.13c), identified through CIV absorption in the rest-frame 1350–1400 Å region. The outflow has a balnicity index BI_CIV = 2200 km/s, among the largest for EHVOs with velocities above 35,000 km/s, and it persists over rest-frame timescales of months to one year. The authors also find the quasar is X-ray weak, with optical-to-X-ray spectral index alpha_OX = -2.03, which they interpret as a condition that prevents overionization of the innermost disk atmosphere and facilitates the launch of the fast wind. They derive

Load-bearing premise

The measurement of outflow velocity and balnicity index depends on the adopted systemic redshift (from MgII) and the reconstructed continuum; if either is biased, the velocity could drop below the 25,000 km/s threshold that defines an EHVO.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, EHVOs can be launched even at the highest luminosities in the early universe, with velocities comparable to X-ray ultra-fast outflows.
  • The persistence over a year suggests these winds are stable over typical monitoring timescales, so they are not short-lived events.
  • The X-ray weakness connection implies that the ionizing SED plays a causal role in enabling fast UV outflows, providing a selection criterion for finding EHVOs.
  • The kinetic power, if the high-column, large-distance case holds, could make such outflows significant for AGN feedback in the early universe.
  • The measured EHVO properties provide a benchmark for theoretical models of radiation-driven winds in extreme Eddington-ratio quasars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the X-ray weakness–EHVO connection holds, then X-ray-weak quasars in the early universe should be prime targets for finding additional EHVOs, and the fraction of EHVOs may track alpha_OX.
  • The paper's conservative energetics may underestimate the outflow's power by orders of magnitude if the wind is located at hundreds of parsecs; variability monitoring that detects changes in absorption strength could pin down the distance and settle the feedback potential.
  • The technique of using the absence of SiIV absorption to identify CIV EHVOs could be applied to large spectroscopic surveys at high redshift to measure the EHVO luminosity function.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyses multi-epoch VLT/XSHOOTER and Keck/NIRES spectroscopy of SMSS J2157-3602, a z=4.692 quasar with L_Bol ~ 2.29e48 erg/s, and reports a broad CIV absorption trough in the rest-frame 1350-1400 Å region interpreted as an extremely high-velocity outflow. From a simultaneous Gaussian-doublet fit of the CIV EHVO and SiIV blended NALs, the authors measure v_min ~ 31,170 km/s, v_max ~ 42,350 km/s (~0.13c), and BI_CIV = 2200 km/s (Eq. 2), with NV and Lyα counterparts treated as upper limits. The CIV emission line is strongly blueshifted (v50 ~ 4660 km/s). An XMM-Newton observation yields a steep alpha_OX = -2.03 and intrinsic NH ~ 1.1e23 cm^-2, classifying the source as X-ray weak. The outflow energetics are estimated under conservative assumptions (R_EHVO = R_BLR = 0.35 pc; NH range from Cf=0.44-1), giving EK ~ 3.6e43-1.45e44 erg/s (0.002-0.006% L_Bol), with the caveat that larger NH and R could raise this by orders of magnitude.

Significance. If confirmed, this would be an important data point: the most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr hosting a CIV outflow at 0.13c with a large balnicity index, and an X-ray weak SED that may favor wind launching. The paper makes good use of multi-epoch data, explicitly models the CIV/SiIV blend, propagates the Cf degeneracy into NH and energetics, and is transparent about the lower-limit nature of R_EHVO. However, the kinematic quantities that anchor the discovery are quoted for a single continuum reconstruction and a single Cf value; the quantitative robustness of vmax and BI to these systematics is not demonstrated. The persistence timescale stated in the abstract also exceeds the demonstrable rest-frame baseline. These issues are fixable but must be addressed before the central claim can be considered secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sects. 2.2 and 3.1] The quoted vmax = 42,350 km/s and BI = 2200 km/s are derived from a single median ICA reconstruction of the continuum, while the paper itself states that individual reconstructions 'differ significantly at the CIV and SiIV emission' (Fig. 2). Because the CIV EHVO trough sits on the SiIV/CIV emission complex, a modest continuum offset could change the trough depth and the measured velocity extent. I request a quantitative propagation of the reconstruction-to-reconstruction scatter into vmin, vmax, and BI (e.g., compute these quantities for all reconstructions in the grid, or quote a bootstrapped range), and a sensitivity check to the adopted MgII systemic redshift, since a ~1% redshift error shifts vmax by ~3,000 km/s.
  2. [Sect. 3.1] The Cf exploration shows that all solutions with Cf >= 0.44 are statistically equivalent (Delta BIC < 10), yet vmin, vmax, and BI are quoted only for the Cf = 1 best fit. The line-profile parameters (centroid, Doppler b, tau0) are re-fit for each fixed Cf, so the acceptable Cf range should produce a range of kinematic quantities. This is particularly relevant because Cf = 0.44 yields NH a factor of ~4 higher (Sect. 3.3). Please report the kinematic quantities for Cf = 0.44 and Cf = 1, or demonstrate explicitly that they are invariant over the allowed Cf range.
  3. [Abstract, Sects. 2.1 and 5] The claim that the EHVO persists over 'rest-frame timescales of a few months to one year' is not supported by the data as presented. The directly comparable absorption epochs are XSHOO-1 (2019 June 03) and XSHOO-2 (2019 July 08), and the NIRES-XSHOO composite built from 2018 June and 2019 October data. At z=4.692, the longest observed baseline (~16 months) corresponds to only ~2.8 months rest-frame. No epoch-resolved normalized profiles or quantitative variability limits are shown. Please correct the timescale statement and provide per-epoch measurements of vmax/BI or upper limits on variability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The sign of the integral appears inconsistent with the reported positive BI. With f(v) a normalized flux, the standard Weymann et al. (1991) definition is BI = ∫[1 - f/0.9] C dv; as printed, the minus sign would give negative values for absorbed flux. Please check.
  2. [Introduction] The reference list in the first paragraph is malformed: '...Bischetti et al. 2022),Tombesi et al. 2010, Matzeu et al. 2023).'
  3. [Sect. 3.1 / Abstract] 'One of the highest balnicity index discovered' should read 'one of the highest balnicity indices discovered'.
  4. [Sect. 3.2] There is a doubled 'and' in 'Lai et al. (2023) and and SED-based estimate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a measurement-driven study whose claims are derived directly from spectra and standard analysis tools, not from self-referential definitions or fitted targets.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the coadded spectra to the reported EHVO velocity, balnicity index, column density, and X-ray weakness. The central quantities are observational measurements: vmax and BI_CIV are computed from a Gaussian decomposition of the normalized CIV trough using the standard definition in Eq. (2), with the observed flux, adopted MgII systemic redshift (Onken et al. 2020), and a median ICA continuum reconstruction as inputs. Those inputs do not contain vmax or BI as fitted parameters, so the measurement does not reduce to its own conclusion. The continuum reconstruction uncertainty is explicitly acknowledged (Sect. 2.2: individual reconstructions 'differ significantly at the CIV and SiIV emission'), and the paper uses a median reconstruction before measuring; this is a systematic uncertainty, not a circularity. The ionic column densities are obtained from the measured Gaussian optical depths via Eq. (4) and Cloudy photoionization calculations using the independently fitted SED; the SED is not tuned to force the outflow properties. The energetics in Eq. (5) are explicitly labeled conservative lower limits based on external assumptions (R_BLR from Lira et al., Q from incidence statistics), and the alternative VHP/excited-state scalings are presented as hypothetical upper-end cases, not as derived predictions. Self-citations such as RH2020, Rodriguez Hidalgo & Rankine 2022, and Zappacosta et al. 2020 supply empirical context, comparison samples, and correlation relations; none of the paper's central detections is forced by an unverified self-citation chain. There are legitimate concerns about continuum-placement systematics and the adopted redshift, but those are accuracy/robustness issues, not circular reasoning. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the stated measurements, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements depend on the adopted redshift, the reconstructed continuum, the empirical SiIV-CIV pairing rule, the photoionization modeling assumptions, and the assumed outflow distance. All are stated in the text, but only the distance is flagged by the authors as uncertain.

free parameters (5)
  • covering fraction Cf (CIV EHVO) = 1 (fiducial); Cf >= 0.44 statistically equivalent
    Systematically explored between 0.1 and 1; best-fit Cf=1 minimizes chi2 and BIC, but lower Cf gives different column densities.
  • Gaussian component parameters of CIV EHVO (centroid velocity, Doppler b, optical depth) = not tabulated in text (three doublets fitted)
    Free parameters in the simultaneous fit of the CIV EHVO doublets.
  • X-ray absorber column density NH, intrinsic = 1.1e23 cm^-2 (0.4-1.7e23 range)
    Fitted ztbabs component in X-ray spectral fit; drives intrinsic LX.
  • SED extinction E(B-V) = 0.07 +/- 0.005
    Fitted with BQSO1 template and Prevot reddening law.
  • Photon index Gamma = 2.08 (+0.27/-0.23)
    Fitted X-ray power-law slope.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SiIV absorption always has corresponding CIV absorption at similar outflow velocities; thus a feature between Lyα and SiIV without CIV can be CIV EHVO.
    Used in Sect. 1 (from RH2020) to identify the broad trough as CIV EHVO; an empirical generalization, not proven for this object.
  • domain assumption Photoionization equilibrium and solar abundances in Cloudy models.
    Sect. 3.3; used to convert ionic column densities to NH(U).
  • domain assumption Outflow is an expanding shell located at R_BLR = 0.35 pc for the kinetic power estimate (Eq. 5).
    Sect. 5; the paper calls it a conservative lower limit; distance is not measured.
  • domain assumption The ICA reconstruction from SDSS quasars provides a reliable intrinsic spectrum for normalization at higher S/N and resolution.
    Sect. 2.2; affects measured velocities and BI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Extremely-High Velocity Outflow in SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTCTKPID

@misc{pith2026250908891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Extremely-High Velocity Outflow in SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTCTKPID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08891}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of an extremely high-velocity outflow (EHVO) in the most luminous ($L\rm_{Bol}$ $\sim$ 2.29 $\times$ 10$^{48}$ erg/s) QSO, SMSS J2157-3602, at z=4.692. Combined XSHOOTER and NIRES observations reveal that the EHVO reaches a maximum velocity of v$_\mathrm{max} \sim 0.13c$ and persists over rest-frame timescales of a few months to one year. SMSS J2157-3602 also exhibits one of the highest balnicity index discovered in an EHVO so far. In addition, the blueshifted CIV emission traces a high-velocity (v$\rm_{CIV}^{50}\sim$ 4660 km/s) outflow from the broad-line region. Thanks to an XMM-Newton observation, we also discover the X-ray weak nature of this QSO, which likely prevents the overionization of the innermost disk atmosphere and facilitates the efficient launch of the detected EHVO and BLR winds. The extraordinary luminosity of SMSS J2157-3602 and the extreme velocity of the EHVO make it a unique laboratory for testing AGN driven feedback under extreme conditions. Current uncertainties on the outflow's location and column density strengthen the case for dedicated follow-up, which will be essential to assess the full feedback potential of this remarkable quasar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Final coadded spectrum of SMSS J2157, with the CIV, NV and Lyα EHVO highlighted in light red. The blended NALs systems are indicated in aquamarine. The AlIII+CIII] and MgII emission lines are also marked. The regions affected by telluric absorption are marked as light grey color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We therefore adopt the Cf=1 solution as our fiducial best￾fit model. Solutions with very low Cf (≈ 0.1–0.41), correspond￾ing to a quasi-saturated regime, are strongly disfavored by the fit statistics (∆BIC ≫ 10), whereas solutions with Cf ≥ 0.44 are statistically equivalent (∆BIC < 10) and cannot be formally excluded. This range of acceptable Cf values allows us to esti￾mate a conservative range for the hydrogen col… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized, coadded spectrum of SMSS J2157, overlaid with the best-fit model (red curve) for the EHVO features of the CIV doublet (three blue-red pairs of dashed Gaussian components for modeling 1548,1550 Å lines respectively), NV doublet (three blue-red pairs of dotted Gaussian curves for modeling 1238,1242 Å lines respectively), Lyα (three blue dash-dotted Gaussian curves), and SiIV doublet blended NALs (seven gre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Theoretical values of the ionization parameter U and the com￾puted column density NH from Nion as derived from Eq. 4 (see Sect. 3.3). Solid and dashed lines correspond to the values of NH derived usingC min f and C max f , respectively. The purple curves show the NH co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity of different types of outflows as a function of LBol (left panel) and redshift (right panel). The green star symbol denotes the EHVO outflow of SMSS J2157 with vout=vmax. High-redshift BALs and EHVOs from Bischetti et al. (2022) are represented as empty red ci…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of E˙K,out as a function of LBol for different types of outflows. The dashed, dot-dashed and dotted lines indicate the thresh￾olds of 0.1, 1 and 10 percent, respectively. The dark and light green star symbols denote the EHVO outflow of SMSS J2157 as report…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T., Hewett, P

    Allen, J. T., Hewett, P. C., Richardson, C. T., Ferland, G. J., & Baldwin, J. A. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3510

    2013

  2. [2]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3286

    Arav, N., Borguet, B., Chamberlain, C., Edmonds, D., & Danforth, C. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3286

    2013

  3. [3]

    T., et al

    Arav, N., de Kool, M., Korista, K. T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 118

    2001

  4. [4]

    A., & Plesha, R

    Arav, N., Xu, X., Miller, T., Kriss, G. A., & Plesha, R. 2020, ApJS, 247, 37

    2020

  5. [5]

    2022, Nature, 605, 244

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., D’Odorico, V ., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 244

    2022

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 44

    Bischetti, M., Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 44

    2023

  7. [7]

    J., Page, M

    Blustin, A. J., Page, M. J., Fuerst, S. V ., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, A&A, 431, 111

    2005

  8. [8]

    C.-J., Large, M

    Bock, D. C.-J., Large, M. I., & Sadler, E. M. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 117, 1578

    1999

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  2. [10]

    2019, A&A, 630, A111

    Bruni, G., Piconcelli, E., Misawa, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A111

    2019

  3. [11]

    M., Hamann, F., Shields, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Hamann, F., Shields, J. C., Halpern, J. P., & Barlow, T. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1872

    2013

  4. [12]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2023, Rev

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59, 327

    2023

  6. [14]

    N., et al

    Chen, Y ., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 191

    2024

  7. [15]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 115, 1693

    1998

  8. [16]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & George, I. M. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 117

    2003

  9. [17]

    1997, The Messenger, 87, 19

    Devillard, N. 1997, The Messenger, 87, 19

    1997

  10. [18]

    P., Bautista, M., Arav, N., et al

    Dunn, J. P., Bautista, M., Arav, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 611

    2010

  11. [19]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73

    2020

  12. [20]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143

    2017

  13. [21]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864

    2019

  14. [22]

    C., Brandt, W

    Gallagher, S. C., Brandt, W. N., Chartas, G., & Garmire, G. P. 2002, ApJ, 567, 37

    2002

  15. [23]

    E., Bianchi, S., Petrucci, P

    Gianolli, V . E., Bianchi, S., Petrucci, P. O., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A235

    2024

  16. [24]

    R., Brandt, W

    Gibson, R. R., Brandt, W. N., Gallagher, S. C., & Schneider, D. P. 2009, ApJ, 696, 924

    2009

  17. [25]

    R., Brandt, W

    Gibson, R. R., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., & Gallagher, S. C. 2008, ApJ, 675, 985

    2008

  18. [26]

    & Ferland, G

    Hamann, F. & Ferland, G. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 487

    1999

  19. [27]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    Hamann, F., Herbst, H., Paris, I., & Capellupo, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    2019

  20. [28]

    A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AA VSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Hen- den+, 2016), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L....

    2016

  21. [29]

    Hopkins, P. F. & Elvis, M. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7

    2010

  22. [30]

    Kaastra, J. S. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  23. [31]

    & Pounds, K

    King, A. & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115

    2015

  24. [32]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18

    2011

  25. [33]

    A., & Bian, F

    Lai, S., Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., & Bian, F. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3682

    2023

  26. [34]

    2024, A&A, 689, A337

    Laurenti, M., Tombesi, F., Vagnetti, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A337

    2024

  27. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 56

    Lira, P., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 56

    2018

  28. [36]

    N., et al

    Liu, H., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 103

    2021

  29. [37]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  30. [38]

    2024, A&A, 691, A357

    Luminari, A., Piconcelli, E., Tombesi, F., Nicastro, F., & Fiore, F. 2024, A&A, 691, A357

    2024

  31. [39]

    N., Hall, P

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Hall, P. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 122

    2015

  32. [40]

    2010, A&A, 512, A34

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34

    2010

  33. [41]

    & Risaliti, G

    Lusso, E. & Risaliti, G. 2016, ApJ, 819, 154

    2016

  34. [42]

    & Zdziarski, A

    Magdziarz, P. & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

    1995

  35. [43]

    2017, A&A, 608, A51

    Martocchia, S., Piconcelli, E., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A51

    2017

  36. [44]

    A., Brusa, M., Lanzuisi, G., et al

    Matzeu, G. A., Brusa, M., Lanzuisi, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A182

    2023

  37. [45]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  38. [46]

    R., Arav, N., Xu, X., & Kriss, G

    Miller, T. R., Arav, N., Xu, X., & Kriss, G. A. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1522

    2020

  39. [47]

    C., Eracleous, M., et al

    Misawa, T., Charlton, J. C., Eracleous, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 1

    2007

  40. [48]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Modigliani, A., Goldoni, P., Royer, F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7737, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III, ed. D. R. Silva, A. B. Peck, & B. T. Soifer, 773728

    2010

  41. [49]

    A., & V oit, G

    Murray, N., Chiang, J., Grossman, S. A., & V oit, G. M. 1995, ApJ, 451, 498

    1995

  42. [50]

    2019, A&A, 632, A109

    Nardini, E., Lusso, E., Risaliti, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A109

    2019

  43. [51]

    A., Bian, F., Fan, X., et al

    Onken, C. A., Bian, F., Fan, X., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2309

    2020

  44. [52]

    & Winther, O

    Opper, M. & Winther, O. 2005, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6, 2177

    2005

  45. [53]

    2005, A&A, 432, 15

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 15

    2005

  46. [54]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 81

    Polletta, M., Tajer, M., Maraschi, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 81

    2007

  47. [55]

    L., Lequeux, J., Maurice, E., Prevot, L., & Rocca-V olmerange, B

    Prevot, M. L., Lequeux, J., Maurice, E., Prevot, L., & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 1984, A&A, 132, 389

    1984

  48. [56]

    L., Hewett, P

    Rankine, A. L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., & Richards, G. T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4553

    2020

  49. [57]

    Reeves, J. N. & Turner, M. J. L. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 234 Rodríguez Hidalgo, P., Hamann, F., & Hall, P. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 247 Rodríguez Hidalgo, P., Khatri, A. M., Hall, P. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 151 Rodríguez Hidalgo, P. & Rankine, A. L. 2022, ApJ, 939, L24

    2000

  50. [58]

    A., Hall, P

    Rogerson, J. A., Hall, P. B., Rodríguez Hidalgo, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 405

    2016

  51. [59]

    2023, A&A, 671, A34

    Saccheo, I., Bongiorno, A., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A34

    2023

  52. [60]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  53. [61]

    T., Strauss, M

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

    2011

  54. [62]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  55. [63]

    2015, A&A, 576, A77

    Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77

    2015

  56. [64]

    N., & Braito, V

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., & Braito, V . 2012, MNRAS, 422, L1

    2012

  57. [65]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A57

    2010

  58. [66]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105

    2011

  59. [67]

    2022, A&A, 668, A87

    Vietri, G., Misawa, T., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A87

    2022

  60. [68]

    1979, ApJ, 230, 274

    Wachter, K., Leach, R., & Kellogg, E. 1979, ApJ, 230, 274

    1979

  61. [69]

    J., Morris, S

    Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., & Hewett, P. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 23

    1991

  62. [70]

    C., Henderson, C

    Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1295–1305

    2004

  63. [71]

    A., et al

    Wolf, C., Bian, F., Onken, C. A., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e024

    2018

  64. [72]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  65. [73]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 33

    Zappacosta, L., Comastri, A., Civano, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 33

    2018

  66. [74]

    2023, A&A, 678, A201

    Zappacosta, L., Piconcelli, E., Fiore, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A201

    2023

  67. [75]

    Zappacosta, L., Piconcelli, E., Giustini, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L5 Article number, page 10 of 11 Giustina Vietri et al.: An Extremely-High Velocity Outflow in SMSS J2157-3602, the most luminous quasar in the first 1.3 Gyr Appendix A: CIV blended-NALs 1510 1515 1520 1525 1...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.