Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

The possible long-term periodic variability of the extremely luminous quasar WISE J090924.01+000211.1

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A distant quasar repeats its brightness every ~660 to 689 days, hinting at a binary supermassive black hole.

desk verdict A genuinely new periodic quasar candidate in an ELIRG, but the claimed significance rests on DRW simulations that do not match the measured noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19573 v1 pith:ZAWTWILF submitted 2024-12-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Takashi Horiuchi , Yoshiki Toba , Toru Misawa , Katsuhiro L. Murata , Keisuke Isogai , Yoichi Yatsu , Ichiro Takahashi , Mahito Sasada
show 6 more authors
Masafumi Niwano Narikazu Higuchi Shunsuke Hayatsu Hibiki Seki Yumiko Oasa Rikuto Sato
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationssupermassiveblackholebinaryDopplerboostWISEJ090924.01+000211.1extremelyluminousinfraredgalaxydampedrandomwalkAGNvariabilityLomb-Scargleperiodogram
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 claims that WISE J0909+0002, an extremely luminous infrared quasar at redshift 1.87, has been oscillating in brightness with a quasi-sinusoidal period of roughly 660 to 689 days in the quasar's own frame, sustained for about 3.6 cycles. The periodicity appears in archival CRTS, Pan-STARRS, and ZTF light curves and in new ground-based monitoring, and signal-to-noise, Lomb-Scargle, autocorrelation, and power-spectrum analyses all point to the same period. The authors argue this is not ordinary quasar flickering: the structure functions do not follow the damped random walk that describes most AGN variability, and mock damped-random-walk light curves produce such a clean sinusoid only rarely. They conclude that the most likely cause is relativistic Doppler boosting of emission from a supermassive black hole binary, and they rule out circumbinary disk features and radio jet precession as alternatives. If right, this object becomes one of the clearest periodic-quasar candidates found inside an extremely luminous galaxy merger, a rare place to look for binary black hole signatures.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on the Doppler boost amplitude-ratio identity and on a carefully merged multi-band light curve. For a power-law spectrum $F_\nu\propto\nu^{\alpha_\nu}$, Doppler boosting gives $\Delta F_\nu/F_\nu = (3-\alpha_\nu)\beta\cos\varphi\sin i$, so the ratio of variability amplitudes between two bands equals $(3-\alpha_s)/(3-\alpha_l)$; this identity is what separates the boost scenario from intrinsic disk variability. Around it the paper wraps a sinusoidal model $F(t)=A\sin(2\pi t/P+\varphi)+b$ with a signal-to-noise criterion $\xi=A^2/(2\sigma_{\rm res}^2)$, Lomb-Scargle periodograms with bootstrap false-alarm probabilities, a z-transformed discrete correlation function for the autocorrelation, JAVELIN CAR(1) fits and structure functions to test the damped random walk null, and 10,000 simulated SPL and DRW light curves compared by BIC. The same data and SED are then used to test and reject the circumbinary disk and jet precession alternatives.

What would settle it

Regenerate the 10,000 mock damped-random-walk light curves with the measured noise parameters ($SF_\infty \approx 0.27$ to $1.40$ mag, $\tau\simeq29$ day) and count how often they match the best-fit sinusoid; if the false-positive fraction exceeds a few percent, the quasi-periodic signal is not distinguishable from red noise. Continued monitoring that shows the ~660–689 day phase drifting or the amplitude fading would also falsify the binary and Doppler-boost interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combined optical/UV light curve of WISE J0909+0002, assembled from CRTS V-band, Pan-STARRS, ZTF, and new ground-based observations, is quasi-periodic with a rest-frame period of 660–689 days, significant at a bootstrap false-alarm probability below 0.001, with a z-transformed autocorrelation period of 659.6 days and a power spectrum that favors a power-law-plus-periodic model. The paper identifies the cause as a relativistic Doppler boost: in the model $\Delta F_\nu/F_\nu = (3-\alpha_\nu)\beta\cos\varphi\sin i$, the measured ratios of variability amplitudes between bands agree with the ratios of $(3-\alpha_\nu)$ predicted from SDSS spectral slopes in three of six band-pair cases, and a viable parameter space allows inclination near $10^\circ$ for mass ratios $q=0.11$ to $0.43$. The circumbinary disk model is disfavored because the spectral energy distribution shows no predicted UV cut-off or notch, and radio jet precession is excluded by a FIRST upper limit implying radio loudness $R\leq0.4$. The paper therefore proposes that WISE J0909+0002 is a supermassive black hole binary candidate, while acknowledging that the damped random walk null is not completely rejected because rare mock DRW curves can mimic the signal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the red-noise baseline used to judge the periodicity—a damped random walk with $SF_\infty = 0.1$ to $0.2$ mag and $\tau = 200$ to $600$ day—is representative of this object's noise; the measured $SF_\infty$ (up to about 1.4 mag) and combined-light-curve $\tau\simeq29$ day suggest the real noise is stronger and faster, so the reported false-positive probability of 0.02% to 0.08% could be optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the periodicity is real, WISE J0909+0002 is a supermassive black hole binary candidate with an orbital period near 660–689 days, one of the few found in an extremely luminous infrared galaxy.
  • The Doppler boost explanation predicts that variability amplitude should scale with wavelength through the $(3-\alpha_\nu)$ factor; future simultaneous UV, optical, and infrared monitoring can confirm or reject this within a few cycles.
  • The absence of damped-random-walk structure in such a luminous quasar would mark it as a variability outlier, strengthening the view that ELIRGs are in a distinct, merger-driven accretion phase.
  • Continued monitoring should show the same phase and amplitude persisting; if they do, the QPO becomes a robust binary candidate suitable for gravitational-wave follow-up.
  • If a binary is confirmed, the system joins the small set of periodic quasars that can be used to probe sub-parsec supermassive black hole pairs and their merger-driven fueling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct robustness test the paper does not carry out: rerun the 10,000 mock DRW simulations with the measured noise parameters ($SF_\infty \approx 0.27$ to $1.40$ mag, $\tau\simeq29$ day for the combined curve) instead of the adopted $SF_\infty=0.1$ to $0.2$ mag and $\tau=200$ to $600$ day; the reported 0.02% to 0.08% false-positive rates could rise substantially.
  • A Doppler-boosted binary predicts that all bands oscillate in phase with amplitude ratios fixed by the spectral slope; simultaneous multi-band photometry across one full observed cycle (~1900 days) could discriminate this from a single-disk instability producing a similar period.
  • If confirmed, the ~660 day rest-frame period places the pair at sub-parsec separation, offering a rare environmental test of merger-driven fueling in hyperluminous infrared systems, which the paper leaves implicit.
  • The z- and Ic-band light curves deviate from the common sinusoid; more frequent, well-sampled infrared photometry could determine whether these deviations are real band-dependent behavior or artifacts of sparse epochs, which matters for the Doppler boost interpretation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports optical monitoring of the ELIRG/type-1 quasar WISE J0909+0002 at z=1.87 using archival CRTS, Pan-STARRS, and ZTF data supplemented by new OISTER/MITSuME/MuSaSHI observations. Sinusoidal fits, Lomb-Scargle periodograms, and a ZDCF autocorrelation analysis are used to identify a rest-frame period of roughly 660-689 days in the combined light curve and in the CRTS V, g, and r bands, spanning about 3.6 cycles. The authors then test the periodicity against single power-law and damped random walk red-noise simulations, examine structure functions and DRW parameters, perform PSD model selection, and compare observed amplitude ratios with spectroscopic power-law slopes to test the Doppler-boost scenario for a supermassive black hole binary. They also argue against a circumbinary disk and radio-jet precession, concluding that the periodic variability is likely caused by relativistic Doppler boosting in an SMBHB system.

Significance. If correct, this would be a notable SMBHB candidate: a z=1.87 ELIRG with a ~660-689 day rest-frame optical QPO and a 7.4e9 solar-mass black hole, with multi-band amplitude ratios at least partially consistent with Doppler boosting. The paper's strengths are that it brings new ground-based monitoring data into the period search, applies several independent period-finding diagnostics, and systematically tests competing mechanisms, including a radio-jet precession constraint from the FIRST nondetection. The amplitude-ratio test is not circular because it connects measured photometric amplitudes to independently measured spectral slopes. However, the central significance estimate depends on a red-noise null that is not calibrated to the object's measured variability parameters, and the multiband consistency is weakened by the excluded z and Ic bands and by the small number of cycles in individual bands; the evidence as presented is not yet strong enough to support the 'likely SMBHB' conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Tables 3 and 4] The DRW false-alarm simulations are run with tau = 200-600 d and SF_inf = 0.1-0.2 mag, whereas the JAVELIN fits in Table 3 yield tau = 28.7 d and SF_inf ~ 0.27 mag for the combined light curve and SF_inf ~ 0.9-1.4 mag with tau ~ 350-435 d for the three bands. The statement that simulated DRW curves with tau <~ 100 d produce 'extremely large amplitude (e.g., 10 mag)' indicates that the simulation pipeline is being run outside the parameter regime that describes the data, not that the measured short damping timescale is unphysical. Because the quoted 0.02%-0.08% false-positive probabilities and the Delta-BIC distributions in Figure 7 are conditional on this unrepresentative null, they cannot yet be used as the quantitative significance of the 660-689 d periodicity. I request a reanalysis with CAR(1) parameters drawn from the Table 3 posteriors, including the short-tau combined solution and the per-band SF_inf values, with the resulting false-alarm rates reported; if the simulator cannot realize those parameters, the simulation procedure must be corrected or the significance claim removed.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 2, Figures 2-4] The presentation of the periodicity as confirmed by 'three-band light curves' is weakened by the small number of cycles and by post-hoc band selection. In the rest frame, the CRTS V-band data span only ~1010 d, i.e., ~1.5 cycles at 654 d; the g-band light curve spans ~1805 d but contains a ~600 d gap and only ~2.7 cycles; and the r-band spans ~1430 d, i.e., ~2.2 cycles. Only the combined light curve reaches the ~3.6 cycles quoted in the text, and that curve is built by rescaling and stitching together different filters. I ask the authors to report per-band cycle counts and gap statistics and to fit a common-period model with per-band amplitudes and phases; as written, the independent multiband confirmation is overstated.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The z- and Ic-band light curves are excluded from the periodicity claim after the fact, yet they are part of the same monitoring program and cover the same source. Their best-fit periods, 1232.69 +/- 74.26 d and 378.56 +/- 40.58 d, are inconsistent with the proposed 660-689 d period, and the text notes that these bands show 'very different trends from the other curves.' Since the abstract and Section 5 describe a multiband quasi-periodic oscillation, the paper should demonstrate quantitatively whether z and Ic are compatible with the common period given their sampling and photometric noise. Without such a test, the possibility that the selected bands are a chance subset is not addressed.
  4. [Section 4.1.1, Figure 9] The Doppler-boost test is only marginally consistent: three of six amplitude-ratio combinations agree with equation (12) within 1 sigma, and the spectral slopes from the two SDSS epochs differ substantially (e.g., the r-band alpha_nu is -0.966 +/- 0.017 at MJD 55532 versus -0.111 +/- 0.021 at MJD 51929), so the agreement depends on which epoch is adopted. The parameter-space plot in Figure 10 also assumes cos(phi) = 1, f2 = 0.8, and the single measured black-hole mass, and it yields i ~ 10 degrees only for a restricted q range, which the paper itself notes is in tension with the usual BAL orientation interpretation. I recommend presenting this as a weak consistency check rather than as 'likely' evidence for Doppler boosting unless additional multi-wavelength amplitude ratios are added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.1] The text contains the typo 'BHSH theory' in the discussion of PG 1302-102; this should be 'BSBH.'
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 5] Section 3.2 says the periodic variability continued for ~6.6 yr in the quasar rest frame, corresponding to ~3.6 cycles, but conclusion (2) of Section 5 says 'at least ~3.6 yr in the rest frame'; the latter should be '6.6 yr' or '3.6 cycles.'
  3. [Section 2.2] The phrases 'signal-to-noise ratio of >~ 10' and 'removed those data with a wrong weather condition' need editorial correction for clarity.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says all panels include Pan-STARRS, ZTF, and 'our observation data,' but panel (b) shows the CRTS V-band light curve; please clarify which data sets contribute to each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: periodicity detection and Doppler boost tests use independent observables; the DRW null parameter mismatch is a statistical concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from observed light curves and independently measured spectra, with no fitted quantity serving as both input and output. The combined light curve is built by adjusting per-band magnitudes to the CRTS V band, and the periodicity is then assessed through sinusoidal fits, Lomb-Scargle periodograms, an ACF/ZDCF analysis, and a PSD model comparison; none of these steps fits a parameter to data and then re-predicts that same parameter as a result. The Doppler boost test compares photometric sinusoidal amplitudes with power-law slopes measured from SDSS spectra, and the inclination-mass parameter space is a consistency check rather than a prediction from the fitted values. The DRW simulations in Section 3.5 use tau = 200-600 day and SF_inf = 0.1-0.2 mag, which differ from the JAVELIN-inferred values in Table 3, so this is a possible mismatch of the null hypothesis that could affect the false-positive probability, but it is not circular: the simulation parameters are not the measured parameters being reused as the output, and the paper openly concedes that pure red noise cannot be completely rejected and that longer monitoring is needed. Self-citations to Toba et al. (2021) supply the black hole mass and SED as external inputs, not as results derived in this paper, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through a self-citation chain. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the false-positive test (DRW simulations) and on the reliability of the combined light curve. The DRW simulation parameters are ad hoc and do not match measured noise properties; the combined LC stitching assumes constant inter-band offsets. The Doppler boost and CBD interpretations inherit standard model assumptions plus the Toba et al. (2021) black hole mass.

free parameters (4)
  • Sinusoidal model parameters (A, P, phi, b) per band = A = 0.061 to 0.087 mag; P = 378 to 1233 day depending on band; combined P = 666.03 ± 3.24 day
    Fitted to the light curves with curve_fit in Section 3.1. The period and amplitude are the central result, so they are not hidden degrees of freedom, but they are fit parameters.
  • DRW simulation parameters (tau, SF_inf) = tau = 200, 400, 600 day; SF_inf = 0.1, 0.2 mag
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.5, Table 4. SF_inf is 3 to 14 times lower than the SF_inf measured in Table 3, and tau excludes the combined-light-curve JAVELIN estimate (28.7 day). The false-positive probability depends on these choices.
  • Doppler boost model inputs (q, f2, cos phi) = q = 0, 0.11, 0.43, 1.0; f2 = 0.8; cos phi = 1
    Assumed values in Section 4.1.2. The inclination estimate i ~ 10 degrees depends on these assumptions.
  • Power-law slopes alpha_nu from SDSS spectra = -0.111 to -0.966 depending on band and epoch
    Measured from two SDSS spectra (Table 6) and used in the Doppler boost amplitude ratio test in Section 4.1.1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption DRW/CAR(1) is an adequate null model for AGN stochastic variability.
    Sections 3.4 and 3.5 use DRW as the red-noise null. The paper itself notes DRW is not necessarily fundamental (Kozlowski 2016), and the structure functions do not follow DRW, so the null may be misspecified.
  • domain assumption The combined light curve, built by rescaling bands to CRTS V, is a valid single time series.
    Section 3.1 constructs the combined LC. Band-to-band offsets and amplitudes are adjusted, which can imprint or suppress periodic structure.
  • domain assumption Doppler boost formula F_nu proportional to D^(3-alpha) F_nu^0 with a circular binary and first-order expansion in beta is applicable.
    Section 4.1.1, equation (11). Standard model, but assumes the emission is Doppler-boosted continuum and not reprocessed emission.
  • domain assumption The observed photometric period equals the binary orbital period.
    Used implicitly in equations (13) and (14). If the periodicity is due to precession or a disk instability, the orbital-period identification fails.
  • domain assumption Black hole mass 7.4e9 Msun and Eddington ratio 0.4 from Toba et al. (2021) are accurate.
    Used in the CBD model (Section 4.2) and the Doppler boost parameter space (Section 4.1.2).
  • domain assumption The variability amplitude is constant across the observation epochs in each band.
    Explicitly stated in Section 4.1.1. If the amplitude changes over time, the power-law slope comparison is invalid.
  • ad hoc to paper Choosing SF_inf = 0.1 to 0.2 and tau = 200 to 600 day for DRW mocks is representative of the object's noise.
    Section 3.5, Table 4. Not derived from Table 3; the measured SF_inf is higher and tau for the combined LC is much shorter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The possible long-term periodic variability of the extremely luminous quasar WISE J090924.01+000211.1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAWTWILF

@misc{pith2026241219573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The possible long-term periodic variability of the extremely luminous quasar WISE J090924.01+000211.1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAWTWILF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19573}
}
abstract

The extremely luminous infrared galaxy (ELIRG), WISE J090924.01+000211.1 (hereafter; WISE J0909+0002, $z=1.87$) is an extraordinary object with a quasar aspect. This study performs monitoring observations of WISE J0909+0002 with the 105 cm Murikabushi telescope, Okayama and Akeno 50 cm telescopes/MITSuME ($g'$, $R_{\rm c}$, and $I_{\rm c}$ bands), and the SaCRA 55 cm telescope/MuSaSHI ($r$, $i$, and $z$ bands). We obtain the following results by combining the UV/optical light curves of the CRTS, Pan-STARRS, and ZTF archive data, and our observational data: (1) the light curves of WISE J0909+0002 present quasi-periodic (sinusoidal) oscillations with the rest-frame period of $\sim$ 660$-$689 day; (2) the structure functions of WISE J0909+0002 do not show a damped random walk (DRW) trend; (3) the mock DRW light curves present periodic-like trend on rare occasions in 10000 simulations; (4) the relativistic boost scenario is favored, since the relation between variability amplitude and power-law slope ratio is consistent with the theoretical prediction of this scenario, and a substantial parameter space exists between the inclination angles and the black hole mass; (5) the circumbinary disk model is difficult to explain the spectral energy distribution of our target; (6) the significant radio flux density of WISE J0909+0002 is not detected from the VLA FIRST Survey, thus the radio jet precession scenario is ruled out. From our results, the Doppler boost scenario is likely as a cause of the periodic variability, consequently the quasi-periodic oscillations in WISE J0909+0002 is possibly interpreted by a supermassive blackhole binary. Additional observations to investigate the continuity of the periodic trend would bring new insights into mechanisms of the quasi-periodic oscillations and/or ELIRGs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The redshift dependence of quasar bolometric luminosity from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 7 (Shen et al. 2011). The redder (or bluer) contours indicate the denser (or thiner) area of this dis￾tribution. The red star, orange circle, and cyan triangle represent the data points for WISE J0909+0002 from Toba et al. (2021), the periodic quasars J024703.24-010032.0 from Chen et al. (2020), and PG 1302-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The light curves of WISE J0909+0002 with the CRTS V , Pan-STARRS (grizy), ZTF (g and r), Murikabushi telescope, Akeno and Okayama tele￾scope/MITSuME (g, Rc, and Ic), and SaCRA/MuSaSHI (r, i, and z). The solid sinusoidal curves present the best-fitting results for these light curves. Gray shadowed region indicate 1σ errors in the variability amplitude of the light curves. The y- and Rc band fitting results are not di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The combined light curve of WISE J0909+0002. The symbols in this figure are the same as those in figure 2. and Siemiginowska 2009; Koz lowski et al. 2010; MacLeod et al. 2010). If the light curves of our target (figures 2 and 3) are false-positive QPOs, they would behave similarly to the DRW or other processes. Here we examine whether the three-band light curves present the DRW trend. It should be noted that the DRW… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Lomb-Scargle periodogram of (a) the combined light curve, (b) CRTS V -, (c) g-, and (d) r-band light curves including the PanSTARRS, ZTF, and our observation data. The yellow vertical lines present the rest-frame day of their power peaks. 0 00 000  00 000 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ACF of the combined light curve (black solid line) and the best-fit decayed cosine model (magenta dashed line) with the ZDCF method. parameters, we estimated the asymptotic value, SF∞, and compared our results with those values of figure 3 in MacLeod et al. (2010) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The two-dimension posterior distributions of variability amplitude σ and damping timescale τ for (a) combined light curve, (b) CRTS V -, (c) g-, and (d) r-band light curves. The brighter (or dimmer) contours present denser (or thinner) regions of these distributions. T…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mock light curves with the SPL (blue dashed lines) and DRW models (red dash-dotted lines), showing the maximum ∆BIC in the 10000 simulations. The black solid line is the mean-subtracted (best-fit) sinusoidal model for the combined light curve. See table 4 for the SPL a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The PSDs of the combined light curve (black solid lines). Blue dashed lines present the best-fit lines for (a) the SPL, (b) DRW, (c) SPL+periodic, and (d) DRW+periodic model. Green shadowed areas indicate the 1σ error regions for each model. Vertical shadowed regions s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panel (a) and (c): the SDSS spectrum of WISE J0909+0002 (black solid line). Red dotted line presents the model spectrum without emission lines. Blue, green, and magenta lines indicate the fitting curves to the model spectrum for the g-, CRTS V -, r-band ranges, respect…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The parameter space of the blackhole mass, orbital inclination, and blackhole mass ratio for the (a) CRTS V , (b) g, and (c) r bands. The black, cyan, orange and magenta curves correspond to mass ratios of q = 0, 0.11, 0.43, and 1.0, respectively. The dashed (or solid…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The rest-frame SED of WISE J0909+0002 (black squares) obtained from Toba et al. (2021). Panel (a): the SED normalized by the rest-frame 3550 A˚ flux. Gray solid line indicate the rest-frame UV flux obtained from the SDSS DR18 catalog. Cyan solid and dash dot lines ind…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L50 Alexander T., 1997, Is AGN Variability Correlated with Other AGN Properties? ZDCF Analysis of Small Samples of Sparse Light Curves (Dordrecht: Springer), p

    Agazie, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L50 Alexander T., 1997, Is AGN Variability Correlated with Other AGN Properties? ZDCF Analysis of Small Samples of Sparse Light Curves (Dordrecht: Springer), p. 163

    2023

  3. [3]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 860

    Belokurov, V. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 860

    2011

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 677, A1

    Benke, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A1

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    C., et al

    Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 44

    Bischetti, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 44

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R., & Roweis, S

    Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734

    2007

  8. [8]

    F., Satyapal, S., & Ellison, S

    Blecha, L., Snyder, G. F., Satyapal, S., & Ellison, S. L., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3056

    work page 2018

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Bellm, E

    Graham, M. J., Bellm, E. C., Laher, R. R., & M´ arka, S. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145

    2016

  3. [11]

    Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., Schiminovich, D., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4617

    2018

  4. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245

    Chen, Y.-C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245

    2020

  5. [13]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154

    Chen, Y.-J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154

    2024

  6. [14]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4638

    Chen, Y.-C., Liu, X., Liao, W.-T., & Guo, H. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4638

    2021

  7. [15]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575

    1992

  8. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2841 De Cicco, D., et al

    Covino, S., Tobar, F., & Treves, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2841 De Cicco, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A117 de Vries, W. H., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Loomis, C. 2005, AJ, 129, 615 di Clemente, A., Giallongo, E., Natali, G., Trevese, D., &

    2022

  9. [17]

    1996, ApJ, 463, 466 D’Orazio, D

    Vagnetti, F. 1996, ApJ, 463, 466 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2015, Nature, 525, 351

    1996

  10. [18]

    2022, A&A, 665, L3

    Dou, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L3

    2022

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Drake, A. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870

    2009

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Drake, A. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 32

    2013

  13. [21]

    L., & Zrake, J

    MacFadyen, A., Rosen, A. L., & Zrake, J. 2020, ApJ, 901, 25

    2020

  14. [22]

    P., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Eracleous, M., Livio, M., Halpern, J. P., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1995, ApJ, 438, 610

    1995

  15. [23]

    2007, ApJL, 662, L59

    Farrah, D., Lacy, M., Priddey, R., Borys, C., & Afonso, J. 2007, ApJL, 662, L59

    2007

  16. [24]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134

    2014

  17. [25]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L80

    2015

  18. [26]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 106

    Gezari, S., & Runnoe, J. 2017, ApJ, 851, 106

    2017

  19. [27]

    Foord, A., Liu, X., G¨ ultekin, K., Whitley, K., Shi, F., & Chen, Y.-C., 2022, ApJ, 927, 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  21. [29]

    R., et al

    Gibson, R. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 758

    2009

  22. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910

    Guo, H., Liu, X., Zafar, T., & Liao, W.-T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910

    2020

  23. [31]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26

    2015

  24. [32]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D., 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  25. [33]

    Horne, J. H. & Baliunas, S. L. 1986, ApJ, 302, 757

    1986

  26. [34]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 103

    Hoshi, A., Yamada, T., & Ohta, K. 2024, PASJ, 76, 103

    2024

  27. [35]

    M., Drake, A

    Mainzer, A., Cutri, R. M., Drake, A. J., & Mahabal, A. A. 2015, ApJL, 814, L12

    2015

  28. [36]

    1993, Phys

    Jung, P. 1993, Phys. Rep., 234, 175

    1993

  29. [37]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895

    2009

  30. [38]

    G., et al

    King, O. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, L114

    2013

  31. [39]

    2006, Mem

    Komossa, S. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 77, 733

    2006

  32. [40]

    2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C, 28, 755 Kovaˇ cevi´ c, A

    Kotani, T., et al. 2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C, 28, 755 Kovaˇ cevi´ c, A. B., Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., Simi´ c, S., & Ili´ c, D. 2019, ApJ, 871, 32 Koz lowski, S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2787 Koz lowski, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 927

    2005

  33. [41]

    Dietrich, M., & Gallagher, S. C. 2014, ApJ, 788, 123

    2014

  34. [42]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 33

    Li, Y.-R., Wang, J.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 33

    2019

  35. [43]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 4025

    Liao, W.-T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4025

    2021

  36. [44]

    2009, MNRAS, 392, 1295

    Lipari, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1295

    2009

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 36

    Liu, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 36

    2019

  38. [46]

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., & Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L12 Lomb N. R., 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    2018

  39. [47]

    L., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014

    2010

  40. [48]

    A., Djorgovski, S

    Mahabal, A. A., Djorgovski, S. G., & Drake, A. J. et al. 2011, BASI, 39, 38

    2011

  41. [49]

    H., Knigge, C., & Long, K

    Matthews, J. H., Knigge, C., & Long, K. S. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2571

    2017

  42. [50]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083

    2012

  43. [51]

    S., Lu, J

    Medford, M. S., Lu, J. R., & Schlafly, E. F. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 38

    2020

  44. [52]

    Millon, M., Dalang, C., Lemon, C., Sluse, D., Paic, E., Chan, J. H. H., & Courbin, F. 2022, A&A, 668, A77

    2022

  45. [53]

    C., & Rodr ´ ıguez Hidalgo P

    Shields, J. C., & Rodr ´ ıguez Hidalgo P. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4539

    2017

  46. [54]

    Nomura, M., Ohsuga, K., Wada, K., Susa, H., & Misawa, T., Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan , (2024), Vol. 00, No. 0 19 2013, PASJ, 65, 40

    2024

  47. [55]

    2020, Proc

    Akitaya, H. 2020, Proc. SPIE, 11447, 114475Z O’Neill, S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L35

    2020

  48. [56]

    & Kallman, T

    Proga, D. & Kallman, T. R. 2004, ApJ, 616, 688

    2004

  49. [57]

    A., et al

    Reichard, T. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2594

    2003

  50. [58]

    T., et al

    Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470

    2006

  51. [59]

    H., & Miller, M

    Roedig, C., Krolik, J. H., & Miller, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 785, 115

    2014

  52. [60]

    2000, MNRAS, 316, 885 Scargle J

    Rowan-Robinson, M. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 885 Scargle J. D., 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    2000

  53. [61]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    Shen, Y., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    2011

  54. [62]

    2008, Gamma-ray Bursts 2007, 1000, 543

    Shimokawabe, T., et al. 2008, Gamma-ray Bursts 2007, 1000, 543

    2008

  55. [63]

    Song, Z., Ge, J., Lu, Y., Yan, C., & Ji, X., 2021, A&A, 645, A15

    2021

  56. [64]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 956

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 956

    2003

  57. [65]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 74

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Wang, J., Cai, Z., & Guo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 74

    2018

  58. [66]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 15

    Toba, Y., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 15

    2019

  59. [67]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 76

    Toba, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 76

    2020

  60. [68]

    2021, A&A, 649, L11

    Toba, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, L11

    2021

  61. [69]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 31

    Toba, Y., Ueda, J., Lim, C.-F., Wang, W.-H., Nagao, T., Chang, Y.-Y., Saito, T., & Kawabe, R. 2018, ApJ, 857, 31

    2018

  62. [70]

    L., et al

    Tonry, J. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99

    2012

  63. [71]

    & Davis, S

    Tremaine, S. & Davis, S. W. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1408

    2014

  64. [72]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 90

    Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 90

    2015

  65. [73]

    M., & Papadakis, I

    Uttley, P., McHardy, I. M., & Papadakis, I. E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 231 Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692 VanderPlas J. T., 2018, ApJS, 236, 16

    2002

  66. [74]

    G., et al

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Markowitz, A. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3145

    2016

  67. [75]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 15

    Veilleux, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 15

    2013

  68. [76]

    J., Morris, S

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

    1991

  69. [77]

    C., Brunner, R

    Wilhite, B. C., Brunner, R. J., Grier, C. J., Schneider, D. P., & Vanden Berk, D. E. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1232

    2008

  70. [78]

    J., Stern, D., & D’Orazio, D

    Xin, C., Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., Schiminovich, D., Graham, M. J., Stern, D., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1683

    2020

  71. [79]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 117

    Yan, C.-S., Lu, Y., Dai, X., & Yu, Q. 2015, ApJ, 809, 117

    2015

  72. [80]

    2007, Physica E Low-Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 40, 434

    Yatsu, Y., et al. 2007, Physica E Low-Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 40, 434

    2007

  73. [81]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 118

    Yutani, N., Toba, Y., Baba, S., & Wada, K. 2022, ApJ, 936, 118

    2022

  74. [82]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3650

    Zhang, X. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3650

    2022

  75. [83]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., & Peterson, B. M. 2011, ApJ, 735, 80

    2011

Pith tools

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