Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Time-resolved Hubble Space Telescope UV observations of an X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The bright far-ultraviolet point source in eRO-QPE2's nucleus is not a young stellar cluster; the X-ray-to-UV spectral energy distribution is consistent with a compact accretion disk with outer radius about 343 gravitational radii, ruling…

desk verdict New HST FUV data on eRO-QPE2 are a real step forward, but the single FUV point can't support the paper's claim to rule out a classic AGN disk. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03335 v2 pith:XQTAYQJN submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE

Thomas Wevers , Muryel Guolo , Sean Lockwood , Andrew Mummery , Dheeraj R. Pasham , Riccardo Arcodia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodiceruptionsaccretiondiskstidaldisruptioneventsblackholemassfar-ultravioletastronomyspectralenergydistributionactivegalacticnuclei
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 aims to show that the nuclear far-ultraviolet emission of the quasi-periodic eruption source eRO-QPE2 comes from a small, hot accretion disk rather than from young stars or from a large active-galactic-nucleus disk. Coordinated far-ultraviolet and X-ray observations find a bright FUV point source that does not flicker between eruption and quiescent phases, and whose X-ray-to-UV spectral energy distribution is matched by a thin disk truncated at roughly 343 gravitational radii. If this picture is right, the eruptions are powered by a compact disk of the kind left over after a star is tidally disrupted, and both classic AGN-disk models and no-disk models are ruled out for this object. The result matters because quasi-periodic eruptions are a newly recognized mode of black-hole variability and almost all previous data were confined to X-rays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the diskSED thin-disk model, a standard Shakura-Sunyaev accretion disk with a null-stress boundary condition at the inner edge and a temperature-dependent color correction, extended so that the outer radius $R_{\rm out}$ is a free parameter. Jointly fitting the X-ray spectrum and the single FUV photometric point lets the model tie together the inner disk temperature, black hole mass, inclination, and outer truncation. The companion machinery is a simple stellar population synthesis comparison, which sets upper limits on FUV light from a young nuclear cluster and shows it can supply at most about ten percent of the observed flux.

What would settle it

Resolve the FUV source spatially: if it is an extended young stellar cluster rather than a point-like disk, the central claim fails. Alternatively, detect FUV variability synchronized with the X-ray eruptions above the quoted limits, or measure an optical/NIR SED that shows no disk-truncation break near the inferred $R_{\rm out}$; either would contradict the compact-disk interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the deepest time-resolved FUV observations of an X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source to date. A point source with luminosity $L_{\rm FUV}\approx 5\times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ sits at the nucleus and shows no statistically significant change between X-ray eruption and quiescence, down to 3$\sigma$ limits of $1.8\times10^{-18}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$ (visit 1) and $0.9\times10^{-18}$ (visit 2). Modeling the quiescent X-ray spectrum together with this one FUV photometric point using a thin-disk model with a free outer radius yields $R_{\rm out}/R_{\rm in}=86^{+36}_{-25}$, i.e. $R_{\rm out}=343^{+202}_{-138}\,R_{\rm g}$, a black hole mass $\log_{10}(M_{\rm BH})=5.9\pm0.3\,M_\odot$, and an Eddington ratio $0.13^{+0.18}_{-0.07}$. The authors argue these numbers exclude a young nuclear stellar cluster as the UV source, exclude a standard large AGN disk, and exclude models with no disk at all, while leaving disk-orbiter interaction models viable if the orbit crosses the disk at the radius implied by the eruption period.

Load-bearing premise

The quiescent X-ray emission is assumed to come entirely from the thin-disk model, with the outer radius pinned by one FUV photometric point and no optical or near-infrared data; if a warm corona adds X-rays, or if the disk extends farther while emitting mainly at longer wavelengths, the compact radius and black hole mass would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For eRO-QPE2, the eruptions cannot be powered by a persistent, large AGN accretion disk or by a scenario with no disk; the quiescent X-ray/UV emission is itself a compact accretion disk.
  • Orbiter models with the recurrence time 2.4 hr mapped to a quasi-circular orbit place the companion inside the disk outer radius, making disk-orbiter crossings a natural part of the eruption mechanism.
  • Disk-instability models for this source are disfavored, because the inferred black hole mass, Eddington ratio, and compact outer radius place the disk in the stable parameter space.
  • Any eruption-only model must produce far more X-ray than FUV light, with $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm FUV}>16$--$85$ after subtracting the quiescent disk, so bright UV eruptions are not expected for this object.
  • The inferred compact outer radius predicts a disk truncation break at longer wavelengths, testable with future NUV/optical observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the compact disk is a tidal-disruption remnant, the absence of late-time disk cooling across four years of X-ray monitoring implies the disk is being replenished or its viscous time is far longer than typical TDE disks; the paper raises this possibility but does not commit to a mechanism.
  • Applying the same FUV-plus-photometry to X-ray SED mapping to other quasi-periodic eruption sources could determine whether compact outer radii are a universal property of QPEs or peculiar to eRO-QPE2.
  • The inferred $R_{\rm out}$ rests on a single FUV point together with the assumed thin-disk SED shape; adding optical/NIR photometry would test whether the break actually occurs at the claimed radius or whether the FUV point is partly stellar light.
  • A less extincted analogue of eRO-QPE2 would push the eruption-component flux ratio constraints an order of magnitude deeper, providing a sharper target for shock-emission models of disk-orbiter collisions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports coordinated HST/STIS FUV and XMM-Newton X-ray observations of eRO-QPE2, the shortest-period X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source known. Using orbit-averaged photometry with a custom STIS dark-current correction, the authors detect a bright nuclear FUV point source at L_FUV ~ few × 10^41 erg/s and find no statistically significant UV variability between eruption and quiescent phases. They argue that a young nuclear star cluster cannot readily produce the FUV luminosity. Fitting the quiescent X-ray spectrum and the single FUV photometric point with the diskSED thin-disk model, they infer a compact disk with Rout/Rin = 86+36/−25 (Rout = 343+202/−138 Rg), a black hole mass log10(MBH) = 5.9 ± 0.3, and an Eddington ratio λEdd = 0.13+0.18/−0.07. On this basis they claim to rule out classic AGN accretion disks and no-disk models for eRO-QPE2, interpret the source as hosting a TDE-like compact disk, and discuss implications for orbiter and disk-instability models.

Significance. The observational campaign is valuable and carefully executed: these are the first time-resolved HST FUV observations of a QPE source, the variability limits are roughly two orders of magnitude deeper than those from XMM-Newton's Optical Monitor, and the custom dark-current subtraction and Bayesian nested-sampling analysis are described in detail. If the compact-disk inference were secure, the result would strongly favor TDE-like disks in QPE sources and would discriminate among model families. However, the central claim rests on a single FUV photometric point and the assumed thin-disk model; as argued below, the outer disk radius is not actually constrained by the present data. The paper should be revised so that the conclusions match what the data can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.5.1, Fig. 2, §3.1] The single FUV photometric point cannot measure the outer disk radius as an upper limit. For the best-fit Tp ≈ 10^5.5 K, the 1596 Å filter samples the Wien/Rayleigh-Jeans crossover of annuli at r ≈ 5–30 R_in, and annuli beyond r ≈ 100 R_in contribute negligibly at FUV wavelengths. An AGN-like disk with Rout/Rin ≈ 10^5 consequently produces essentially the same X-ray and FUV fluxes as the best-fit model, differing only at rest wavelengths ≳0.5 μm, where this paper has no data. The quoted Rout/Rin = 86+36/−25 is therefore not a measurement of compactness; the data can only enforce a lower limit on Rout/Rin. The statement in the abstract and in §3.1 that a classic AGN accretion disk is ruled out is not supported. This is consistent with the paper's own closing remark that NUV/optical observations are needed to constrain the disk extent.
  2. [Appendix C, Fig. A1, Table 1] The prior on Rout/Rin is not stated explicitly, and the displayed posterior in Fig. A1 is restricted to the range 50–250. If the prior is bounded near 250, the reported median of 86+36/−25 is an artifact of the prior range rather than a constraint from the data. The authors should state the prior bounds, rerun the fit with Rout/Rin extending to at least 10^5, and demonstrate that the posterior does not pile up at the boundary. In the absence of optical/NIR data, the upper limit on Rout/Rin should be removed from the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [§2.3, §2.5.1, §3] The extinction treatment introduces a further degeneracy. The Balmer-decrement E(B–V) = 0.31 ± 0.04 and the SED-inferred E(B–V) = 0.50+0.05/−0.10 are in significant tension, and the latter is not an independent measurement: it is converted from the fitted NH using an assumed gas-to-dust ratio of 100. Because the FUV constraint is a single photometric point, the dereddened FUV luminosity and the derived disk parameters are degenerate with the gas-to-dust ratio and the adopted attenuation law. The paper notes the tension and appeals to a gas-rich host, but it does not quantify how the compact-radius and black-hole-mass inferences change if E(B–V) = 0.31 is adopted instead. This systematic check should be added.
  4. [Abstract and §3.1] The claim that models with no accretion disk are strongly disfavored is stronger than the analysis supports. Section 2.4 argues that a young nuclear star cluster is very unlikely to dominate the FUV emission under the adopted stellar-population assumptions, but this is not an exhaustive exclusion of non-disk origins (for example, hot shocked gas or an unresolved point-source population). The X-ray quiescent spectrum may independently favor a disk, but the FUV point source alone does not uniquely identify a disk. The wording should be softened to state what is actually demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5.1 vs Appendix C] The parameter count is inconsistent: the main text says that allowing for intrinsic extinction introduces a free E(B–V), while Appendix C correctly states that E(B–V) is tied to NH through a fixed gas-to-dust ratio; these statements should be reconciled.
  2. [Table 1 and §3] The quoted neutral hydrogen column differs slightly between Table 1 (log NH = 21.63+0.06/−0.05) and the text in §3 (log NH = 21.60+0.10/−0.05); the values should be unified.
  3. [Fig. 2] Since the compact-radius conclusion is a central claim, Figure 2 should overplot the best-fit model with a large outer radius (for example Rout/Rin = 10^4–10^5) so that the reader can see directly that the FUV and X-ray data do not distinguish it from the compact model.
  4. [§3.2] The statement that the bright FUV point source is the limiting factor for variability searches should also mention that the extinction uncertainty directly sets the luminosity of that point source and therefore the sensitivity to underlying UV variability.
  5. [Appendix C] The priors on spin and inclination used for the black-hole-mass estimate appear only in the main text (§3); moving them into the fitting-methodology appendix would make the analysis more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compact-disk claim is a fitted SED-model inference, not a prediction equal to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model fit rather than a circular derivation. The compact outer radius is a free parameter (Rout/Rin) of the diskSED model, simultaneously fit to the XMM-Newton quiescent spectrum and the single HST FUV photometric point; the paper does not relabel this fitted value as an independent prediction. The black hole mass follows from the fitted inner radius via the standard ISCO relation (Eq. 3), and the Eddington ratio and gravitational-radius scalings are unit conversions from these fitted quantities; none of these steps equals an input by construction. The diskSED model and mass relation are cited to co-authored papers, but they are stated physical models with explicit assumptions (Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk, null-stress boundary condition, color correction, ISCO identification) that do not include the target compact-disk conclusion, and the paper checks against independent M-sigma and TDE-plateau mass estimates. The main vulnerability — that one FUV point and no optical/NIR data leave Rout weakly constrained and possibly prior-driven — is a data-sensitivity and model-dependence concern, not circularity; the paper itself flags in Section 4 that NUV/optical observations are needed to more accurately constrain the disk extent. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fitted disk parameters (Tp, R*in, Rout/Rin, NH) carry the central result. The key domain assumptions are that the X-ray emission is a bare thin disk and that the extinction conversion is fixed; both are acknowledged but not independently verified in this paper. No new physical entities are introduced beyond the pre-existing QPE model ingredients.

free parameters (4)
  • Peak disk temperature Tp = log10(Tp/K) = 5.52+0.02-0.02
    Free parameter in the diskSED fit to quiescent X-ray + FUV SED.
  • Projected inner disk radius R*in = log10(R*in/km) = 6.54+0.19-0.14
    Free parameter in diskSED fit; used with assumed spin/inclination to derive black hole mass and gravitational radii.
  • Outer-to-inner radius ratio Rout/Rin = 86 +36 -25
    Free parameter in diskSED fit; the compact disk claim (Rout=343 Rg) depends on this fit value.
  • Intrinsic hydrogen column density NH = log10(NH/cm^-2) = 21.63+0.06-0.05
    Free parameter in the fit; converted to E(B-V)=0.50 via assumed gas-to-dust ratio 100, affecting FUV luminosity and disk size.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk model with null-stress boundary and color correction describes the quiescent UV-to-X-ray SED.
    Invoked in Section 2.5.1; if the X-ray spectrum has a non-disk component such as a warm corona, the inferred Tp and R*in (and hence MBH and Rout/Rg) would be biased.
  • domain assumption Quiescent X-ray emission is dominated by the accretion disk with no significant power-law component.
    Section 2.5.1 fits the quiescent spectrum with diskSED only; no additional corona or power-law is modeled.
  • domain assumption Host extinction follows the Calzetti law and the gas-to-dust ratio is fixed to 100 to convert NH to E(B-V).
    Appendix C; the paper notes the resulting E(B-V)=0.50 is higher than the Balmer-decrement value 0.31, and attributes the difference to a different gas-to-dust ratio.
  • domain assumption The putative orbiter is in a quasi-circular orbit with period equal to twice the QPE recurrence time.
    Section 3.3; used to convert T_QPE to an orbital radius for the disk-crossing argument and the orbiter mass limits.
  • domain assumption The FUV point source is the nucleus of eRO-QPE2 and is physically associated with the X-ray source.
    Section 2.2 photometry assumes the point source coincides with the active nucleus; a chance background object would invalidate the SED interpretation.
  • domain assumption Main-sequence mass-radius relation applies to the orbiting star in the quasi-spherical configuration.
    Section 3.3.1 uses Kippenhahn and Weigert to derive tidal radius and mass limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-resolved Hubble Space Telescope UV observations of an X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQTAYQJN

@misc{pith2026250103335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-resolved Hubble Space Telescope UV observations of an X-ray quasi-periodic eruption source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQTAYQJN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03335}
}
abstract

X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are a novel mode of variability in nearby galactic nuclei whose origin remains unknown. Their multi-wavelength properties are poorly constrained, as studies have focused almost entirely on the X-ray band. Here we report on time-resolved, coordinated Hubble Space Telescope far ultraviolet and XMM-Newton X-ray observations of the shortest period X-ray QPE source currently known, eRO-QPE2. We detect a bright UV point source ($L_{\rm FUV} \approx {\rm few} \times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$) that does not show statistically significant variability between the X-ray eruption and quiescent phases. This emission is unlikely to be powered by a young stellar population in a nuclear stellar cluster. The X-ray-to-UV spectral energy distribution can be described by a compact accretion disk ($R_{\rm out} = 343^{+202}_{-138} \ R_{\rm g}$). Such compact disks are incompatible with typical disks in active galactic nuclei, but form naturally following the tidal disruption of a star. Our results rule out models (for eRO-QPE2) invoking i) a classic AGN accretion disk and ii) no accretion disk at all. For orbiter models, the expected radius derived from the timing properties would naturally lead to disk-orbiter interactions for both quasi-spherical and eccentric trajectories. We infer a black hole mass of log$_{10}(M_{\rm BH}) = 5.9 \pm 0.3$ M$_{\odot}$ and Eddington ratio of 0.13$^{+0.18}_{-0.07}$; in combination with the compact outer radius this is inconsistent with existing disk instability models. After accounting for the quiescent disk emission, we constrain the ratio of X-ray to FUV luminosity of the eruption component to be $L_{\rm X} / L_{\rm FUV} > 16-85$ (depending on the intrinsic extinction).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image and lightcurves of eRO-QPE2. The top left panel shows an FUV image of the eRO-QPE2 host galaxy, while the top right panel shows a zoom-in of the white box (0.75 arcsec on a side), indicating the 0.122 arcsec aperture used to perform the photometry of the nucleus. The middle panels show the X-ray lightcurves overlaid with the HST on-source periods in orange. Grey datapoints indicate quiescence, while blue/red/g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quiescent SED modeling results. The observed (top left) and extinction-corrected, rest-frame (top right) SEDs are shown (black: X-ray data, orange: FUV data). The shaded regions show the best-fit model with the grey band indicating region containing 68% of the model posteriors. Also shown are upper limits for young stars (green: 10 Myr, red: 100 Myr) in a NSC, using simple stellar populations models (see §2.4 for de… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the eruption SED. The top left panel shows the X-ray spectra in the quiescent (black/gray), rise (blue) and peak (red) phases. The decay phase is omitted for clarity. Shaded regions illustrate the 68% CI of the posterior distributions. Dashed lines show the median values of the posteriors for the thermal/bbody component. The top right panel illustrates the 68% confidence contours of the posteriors of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relevant length scales and parameter inferences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  2. [2]

    2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia , R., Liu , Z., Merloni , A., et al. 2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  3. [4]

    2024 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17020, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17020

    ---. 2024 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17020, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17020

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.17020 2024

  4. [5]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  5. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [8]

    M., Press , W

    Bardeen , J. M., Press , W. H., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1972, , 178, 347, 10.1086/151796

    doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  8. [9]

    C., & Pringle , J

    Begelman , M. C., & Pringle , J. E. 2007, , 375, 1070, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11372.x

    arXiv 2007

Show all 81 references
  1. [10]

    2016, BXA: Bayesian X-ray Analysis , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1610.011

    Buchner , J. 2016, BXA: Bayesian X-ray Analysis , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1610.011

    2016

  2. [11]

    2019, , 131, 108005, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    ---. 2019, , 131, 108005, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908

    Bykov , S., Gilfanov , M., Sunyaev , R., & Medvedev , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16908, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16908

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682, 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  6. [15]

    Cannizzo , J. K. 1993, , 419, 318, 10.1086/173486

    1993 doi

  7. [16]

    K., Lee , H

    Cannizzo , J. K., Lee , H. M., & Goodman , J. 1990, , 351, 38, 10.1086/168442

    1990 doi

  8. [17]

    2017, , 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari , M. 2017, , 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Masterson , M., et al. 2021, , 921, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    J., Lang , D., et al

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

    2019 doi

  11. [21]

    2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., Lupi , A., et al. 2023, , 675, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  12. [22]

    D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A. 2016, , 818, L21, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L21

    2016 doi

  13. [23]

    J., et al

    Gabriel , C., Denby , M., Fyfe , D. J., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein , M. G. Allen , & D. Egret , 759

    2004

  14. [24]

    J., Eracleous , M., Haggard , D., & Runnoe , J

    Gilbert , O., Ruan , J. J., Eracleous , M., Haggard , D., & Runnoe , J. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10486, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10486

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [25]

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., & Saxton , R. D. 2020, , 636, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  16. [26]

    2017, , 603, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    Grzedzielski , M., Janiuk , A., Czerny , B., & Wu , Q. 2017, , 603, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    2017 doi

  17. [27]

    2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo , M., Gezari , S., Yao , Y., et al. 2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17296, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17296

    Guolo , M., & Mummery , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17296, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17296

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    Guolo , M., Mummery , A., Wevers , T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03333, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    u ver , T., & \

    G \"u ver , T., & \"O zel , F. 2009, , 400, 2050, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    2009

  21. [31]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU

    Heasarc . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU . 1408.004

    2014

  22. [32]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  23. [33]

    H., & Agol , E

    Hubeny , I., Blaes , O., Krolik , J. H., & Agol , E. 2001, , 559, 680, 10.1086/322344

    2001 doi

  24. [34]

    2011, , 414, 2186, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18544.x

    Janiuk , A., & Czerny , B. 2011, , 414, 2186, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18544.x

    2011

  25. [35]

    S., & Bleeker , J

    Kaastra , J. S., & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  26. [36]

    Kaur , K., & Stone , N. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18500. 2405.18500

    2024 arXiv

  27. [37]

    C., & Gilbaum , S

    Kaur , K., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2023, , 524, 1269, 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    King , A. 2022, , 515, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/stac1641

    2022 doi

  29. [39]

    1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn , R., & Weigert , A. 1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    1990

  30. [40]

    H., & Linial , I

    Krolik , J. H., & Linial , I. 2022, , 941, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  32. [42]

    R., Harrison , F

    Kulkarni , S. R., Harrison , F. A., Grefenstette , B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  33. [43]

    R., Belfiore , F., Bershady , M

    Law , D. R., Belfiore , F., Bershady , M. A., et al. 2022, , 928, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5620

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 957, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    2024 a , , 963, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2464

    ---. 2024 a , , 963, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2464

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12421, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12421

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12421, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12421

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Lockwood , S., Branton , D., Carlberg , J., et al. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 236, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#236, 341.04

    2020

  38. [48]

    2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu , W., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 524, 6247, 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    2005, , 362, 799, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    Maraston , C. 2005, , 362, 799, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    2005

  40. [50]

    2023, in STIS Instrument Handbook for Cycle 32 v

    Medallon , S., Rickman , E., & Brown , J. 2023, in STIS Instrument Handbook for Cycle 32 v. 23, Vol. 23, 23

    2023

  41. [51]

    D., Stone , N

    Metzger , B. D., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2022, , 926, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1

    2022 doi

  42. [52]

    2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti , G., Giustini , M., Arcodia , R., et al. 2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    D., Giustini , M., et al

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Giustini , M., et al. 2019, , 573, 381, 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    Mummery , A., & Balbus , S. A. 2020, , 492, 5655, 10.1093/mnras/staa192

    2020 doi

  45. [55]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048

    Mummery , A., Nathan , E., Ingram , A., & Gardner , M. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048. 2408.15048

    2024 arXiv

  46. [56]

    2024 b , , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery , A., van Velzen , S., Nathan , E., et al. 2024 b , , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  47. [57]

    2023, , 519, 5828, 10.1093/mnras/stac3798

    Mummery , A., Wevers , T., Saxton , R., & Pasham , D. 2023, , 519, 5828, 10.1093/mnras/stac3798

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer , N., Seth , A., & B \"o ker , T. 2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    2020 doi

  49. [59]

    R., Mummery , A., et al

    Nicholl , M., Pasham , D. R., Mummery , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02181, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02181

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [60]

    2012, , 757, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    Nixon , C., King , A., Price , D., & Frank , J. 2012, , 757, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    2012 doi

  51. [61]

    2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    Pan , X., Li , S.-L., & Cao , X. 2023, , 952, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289

    Pasham , D., Kejriwal , S., Coughlin , E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289. 2411.00289

    2024 arXiv

  53. [63]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  54. [64]

    R., Davies , J

    Proffitt , C. R., Davies , J. E., Brown , T. M., & Mobasher , B. 2003, in HST Calibration Workshop : Hubble after the Installation of the ACS and the NICMOS Cooling System, ed. S. Arribas , A. Koekemoer , & B. Whitmore , 201

    2003

  55. [65]

    A., Guillot , S., et al

    Quintin , E., Webb , N. A., Guillot , S., et al. 2023, , 675, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  56. [66]

    Raj , A., & Nixon , C. J. 2021, , 909, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25

    2021 doi

  57. [67]

    A., Steidel , C

    Reddy , N. A., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., & Bogosavljevi \'c , M. 2016, , 828, 107, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/107

    2016 doi

  58. [68]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  59. [69]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  60. [70]

    C., Dalcanton , J

    Seth , A. C., Dalcanton , J. J., Hodge , P. W., & Debattista , V. P. 2006, , 132, 2539, 10.1086/508994

    2006 doi

  61. [71]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

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

    1973

  62. [72]

    1995, , 445, 780, 10.1086/175740

    Shimura , T., & Takahara , F. 1995, , 445, 780, 10.1086/175740

    1995 doi

  63. [73]

    2020, , 641, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

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

    2020 doi

  64. [74]

    2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    \'S niegowska , M., Grz e dzielski , M., Czerny , B., & Janiuk , A. 2023, , 672, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    Str \"u der , L., Briel , U., Dennerl , K., et al. 2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2001 doi

  66. [76]

    2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa , H., & Haiman , Z. 2023, , 526, 69, 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  67. [77]

    C., Metzger , B

    van Velzen , S., Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2019, , 878, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    2019 doi

  68. [78]

    Vurm , I., Linial , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05166, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05166

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [79]

    Wevers , T., & French , K. D. 2024, , 969, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5725

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R

    Wevers , T., Pasham , D. R., Jalan , P., Rakshit , S., & Arcodia , R. 2022, , 659, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  71. [81]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    Wevers , T., French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., et al. 2024, , 970, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    2024 doi

  72. [82]

    Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C

    Yao , P. Z., Quataert , E., Jiang , Y.-F., Lu , W., & White , C. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14578, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14578

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [83]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06429, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06429

    Zhou , C., Zhong , B., Zeng , Y., Huang , L., & Pan , Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06429, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06429

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.