Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 61 references

Morphological Granulometric Analysis of Particle Imagery from Microgravity Experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Morphological granulometry, applied after preprocessing, yields statistical size distributions of particles and agglomerates and their dynamics in microgravity particle-experiment image sequences.

desk verdict The submission is an abstract about particle granulometry attached to an unrelated AGN paper; none of the abstract's claims can be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06593 v1 pith:ZYCNQQES submitted 2025-08-08 physics.ins-det

Shima Shabani , Michael Breu{ss} , Marvin Kahra , Jens Teiser , Gretha Swantje Völke , Nico Wenders This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords morphologicalgranulometryparticleagglomeratesmicrogravityexperimentssizedistributionimagesequenceanalysismathematicalmorphologypatternspectrumastrophysicaldust
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish morphological granulometry as an automated, statistically grounded way to measure the sizes of particles and their agglomerates in image sequences from microgravity experiments. It proposes a preprocessing pipeline (thresholding, illumination correction, handling of overlaps) to make imagery amenable to granulometric analysis, which probes size by opening the binary image with structuring elements of increasing scale. Applying this to two key microgravity experiments, it argues the resulting size distributions and their frame-to-frame evolution reliably capture experimental aspects such as agglomerate growth. If right, this gives experimenters a cheap, quantitative, and reproducible substitute for manual particle sizing.

What carries the argument

Morphological granulometry: a family of morphological openings of the binary (or gray-level) image by structuring elements of increasing size; the pattern spectrum (derivative of the size distribution) gives the relative abundance of structures at each scale. It carries the argument because it converts pixel geometry into a size proxy without needing to identify individual particles.

What would settle it

Feed the pipeline a test image sequence of monodisperse spherical particles of known diameter with realistic overlap and illumination; if the granulometric size distribution's peak does not coincide with the known particle size (within tolerance), the image-space proxy is not faithful to physical sizes. Alternatively, compare granulometric results against manual measurements on the same frames; systematic divergence would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that morphological granulometry, after appropriate preprocessing, yields useful size distributions of particles and agglomerates and tracks their dynamics in sequences of several hundred images from astrophysical microgravity experiments. The paper demonstrates this on two key experiments and conjectures that the approach forms a basis for the quantitative assessment of such experiments. The technique's strength is that it works on image geometry directly—via openings with structuring elements of increasing size—and thus does not require segmentation of individual particles, making it robust to overlapping structures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the size proxy measured in the processed image (via granulometric openings) corresponds to the true physical sizes of particles and agglomerates, which requires the preprocessing not to distort the size signal and a calibration between pixel scale and physical length.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method works, experimenters can replace manual, frame-by-frame particle sizing with an automated pipeline that yields full size distributions per frame.
  • The frame-to-frame evolution of the pattern spectrum can quantify agglomerate growth or breakup dynamics statistically across the whole sequence.
  • The approach extends to other imaging modalities where objects overlap and individual segmentation fails.
  • Size distributions obtained this way can be compared with physical models of aggregate growth in microgravity, providing quantitative constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The key untested assumption—that the image-space size proxy maps to physical sizes—could be validated by running the pipeline on images of monodisperse spheres with known diameters; the recovered peak should match the known size.
  • Beyond the two experiments shown, the method could apply to ground-based dusty plasma or granular gas experiments, where overlapped particles are common.
  • A natural extension is to use the pattern spectrum's temporal autocorrelation to extract characteristic growth timescales, something the paper does not compute.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The submission presents an abstract claiming that morphological granulometric analysis of image sequences from two microgravity particle experiments enables quantitative assessment of particle and agglomerate size distributions and their dynamics. The full text, however, is not the granulometry paper: from the title, authors, running header, and arXiv number (arXiv:2508.06610) to the abstract, sections, figures, tables, and references, it is a distinct manuscript on AGN optical variability using ZTF and Swift-BAT data. No section, equation, figure, or table in the body addresses particle imagery, preprocessing, granulometry, structuring elements, calibration, or microgravity experiments. The abstract's central claims are therefore entirely unsupported by the supplied manuscript text.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were realized, the work could be useful: morphological granulometry is a well-established image-analysis tool, and applying it to sequences of microgravity particle images could provide automated, statistically grounded size distributions and dynamics for such experiments. However, the manuscript as submitted contains none of the necessary material: no algorithmic derivation, no preprocessing or calibration description, no validation against known sizes, no error analysis, and no results from the two claimed experiments. Because the body is an unrelated AGN study, the significance of the granulometric contribution cannot be assessed from this submission.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (title through references)] The body of the submission is a complete AGN variability paper, 'Exploring the Origins of Optical Variability in AGNs...' (arXiv:2508.06610), not the granulometry paper described in the abstract. There is no section on morphological granulometry, no description of microgravity experiments, no preprocessing or segmentation method, and no particle-size results. The abstract's assertion that the authors 'show how to extract useful information on size of particle agglomerates as well as underlying dynamics' is therefore unsupported by any derivable content in the manuscript. This is a load-bearing missing-support defect: the central claim cannot be verified from the submitted text.
  2. [Abstract; absent methodology section] The abstract promises 'preprocessing steps that facilitate granulometric analysis' and extraction of size information, but the manuscript provides no specification of these steps. There is no statement of the structuring-element family (e.g., disk, line, octagon), the scale range used, thresholding or illumination-correction procedures, or handling of overlapping/contacting agglomerates. Granulometric size distributions are defined only relative to these choices, so the absence of methodology makes the claimed measurements irreproducible and untestable.
  3. [Abstract; absent validation and calibration] No pixel-to-physical-size calibration is given, and no independent validation against known monodisperse or otherwise characterized particle sizes is presented. Without such calibration, a granulometric size proxy in image space cannot be equated with physical particle or agglomerate size. The several-hundred-frame sequences are also not analyzed as a representative sample: no discussion of frame-to-frame independence, particle overlap density, or statistical uncertainty of the derived distributions appears anywhere. These omissions are not cosmetic; they are prerequisites for the quantitative assessment claimed in the abstract.
  4. [Absent results/discussion of 'two different microgravity key experiments'] The abstract states that the granulometric analysis 'enables to assess important experimental aspects' and is demonstrated on two key microgravity experiments, but neither experiment is identified, no image data are shown, and no granulometric output (size distributions, time evolution, or comparison between experiments) is presented. There is thus no empirical content to evaluate for the paper's stated subject.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] Title contains an obvious typo: 'V ariability'.
  2. [Header/arXiv metadata] The running header and arXiv number (arXiv:2508.06610) correspond to the AGN paper, not the granulometry paper (arXiv:2508.06593), indicating a submission/packaging mismatch.
  3. [Abstract-body consistency] The abstract's keywords, claims, and concluding conjecture have no matching discussion or conclusion in the body; the body's conclusions concern AGN variability only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No exhibited circularity: the claimed granulometric derivation is absent because the full text is an unrelated AGN-variability paper.

full rationale

The abstract promises morphological granulometric analysis of microgravity particle imagery ('we show how to extract useful information on size of particle agglomerates as well as underlying dynamics'), but the supplied full text is the complete text of a different article, 'Exploring the Origins of Optical Variability in AGNs: Correlations with Black Hole Properties, X-ray, and Radio Emission', with different authors and arXiv number (2508.06610). There is therefore no preprocessing, structuring-element, calibration, or validation section to inspect, and no equation or fitted parameter that can be exhibited as reducing to an input. Under hard rule 1, a circularity finding requires quoting a specific reduction; none exists here. The plausible calibration loop (fitting pixel/structuring-element scale on the same population whose sizes are then reported) is neither confirmed nor excluded by the text, so treating it as circular would be speculation. Per the reviewing rule, I flag the missing support as an explicit, load-bearing defect: the central claim is unverifiable from this submission. That is a manuscript-integrity/correctness problem, but not a demonstrated circularity, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract belongs to the stated paper; the body text is a different record. The entries above are therefore read from what the abstract itself implies. Granulometry is a morphology-based size measurement in image space, so any physical claim inherits a calibration burden (pixels to physical size), a preprocessing burden (thresholds and segmentation), and a representativeness burden (frame sampling). None of these is stated or argued in the supplied text. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Pixel-to-physical-size calibration = not stated
    Granulometric measurements are made in image pixels at chosen morphology scales; converting them to physical particle or agglomerate sizes requires a calibration the abstract does not report.
  • Preprocessing parameters (thresholds, illumination correction, segmentation) = not stated
    The abstract says preprocessing 'facilitates' the granulometry but gives no parameter values; these choices directly change the measured size distributions.
  • Structuring-element family and scale range = not stated
    Granulometry is defined by the chosen morphology operator and the discrete set of scales; neither is named, so the size axis of the reported distributions is underspecified.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Agglomerates and particles appear as approximately convex, separable structures in the images
    Granulometry measures size through morphological openings; heavy overlap, blur, or merged projections bias the size distribution. The abstract asserts no validation of this against the imagery.
  • domain assumption The image sequences from the two microgravity experiments sample the ensemble representatively
    Drawing statistical size distributions from 'several hundred images' assumes frame sampling and camera geometry are unbiased views of the population; no statement of coverage or bias is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Morphological Granulometric Analysis of Particle Imagery from Microgravity Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYCNQQES

@misc{pith2026250806593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Morphological Granulometric Analysis of Particle Imagery from Microgravity Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYCNQQES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06593}
}
read the original abstract

The aim of our work is to analyze size distributions of particles and their agglomerates in imagery from astrophysical microgravity experiments. The data acquired in these experiments are given by sequences consisting of several hundred images. It is desirable to establish an automated routine that helps to assess size distributions of important image structures and their dynamics in a statistical way. The main technique we adopt to this end is the morphological granulometry. After preprocessing steps that facilitate granulometric analysis, we show how to extract useful information on size of particle agglomerates as well as underlying dynamics. At hand of the discussion of two different microgravity key experiments we demonstrate that the granulometric analysis enables to assess important experimental aspects. We conjecture that our developments are a useful basis for the quantitative assessment of microgravity particle experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H

    Ai, Y. L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y., et al. 2010, ApJL, 716, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l31 2010

  2. [3]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  3. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [5]

    M., et al

    Breedt, E., Ar´ evalo, P., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14302.x

    arXiv 2009

  5. [7]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933 13 2 3 1-day Cadence True Value 5% T olerance 1-day Cadence 3-day Cadence 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2 3 10-day Cadence 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Seasonal Cadence Baseline (days) log10 ( ) Recovered DRW Timescales vs. Baseline by Cadence Figure A1. We perf...

    doi:10.1126/science.abg9933 2021

  6. [8]

    R., & Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., & Bloom, J. S. 2011, AJ, 141, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/93

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/93 2011

  7. [9]

    C., Dexter, J., et al

    Chen, B.-Y., Bower, G. C., Dexter, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd250

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd250 2023

  8. [10]

    D., Smith, A

    Clements, S. D., Smith, A. G., Aller, H. D., & Aller, M. F. 1995, AJ, 110, 529, doi: 10.1086/117540 De Cicco, D., Bauer, F. E., Paolillo, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142750

    doi:10.1086/117540 1995

Show all 61 references
  1. [11]

    M., Horne, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J. M., Horne, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/129

    2015 doi

  2. [12]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  3. [13]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 2018, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 87, 281, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.05330

    2012 doi arXiv

  4. [14]

    J., & Wang, S

    Guo, H., Barth, A. J., & Wang, S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ec

    2022 doi

  5. [15]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  6. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1177

    Hagen, S., Done, C., & Edelson, R. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1177

    2024 doi

  7. [17]

    Hawkins, M. R. S. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 76, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04939.x

    2002

  8. [18]

    K., Joshi, R., Chand, H., et al

    Jha, V. K., Joshi, R., Chand, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac109

    2022 doi

  9. [19]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6c4

    Kang, W.-y., Wang, J.-X., Cai, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6c4

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb69

    Kang, W.-Y., Wang, J.-X., Cai, Z.-Y., & Ren, W.-K. 2021, ApJ, 911, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb69

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    Kankkunen, S., Tornikoski, M., & Hovatta, T. 2025, A&A, 693, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450562

    2025 doi

  12. [22]

    I., Sramek, R

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R. A., Schmidt, M., Green, R. F., & Shaffer, D. B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1163, doi: 10.1086/117145

    1994 doi

  13. [23]

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

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  14. [24]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05 Koz lowski, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/118 Koz lowski, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw819 ...

    2022 doi

  15. [25]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2008, MNRAS, 387, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    2008

  16. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac266

    Liao, M., Wang, J., Kang, W., & Zhou, M. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac266

    2022 doi

  17. [27]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1436

    2015 doi

  18. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab952d L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al

    Liu, T., Koss, M., Blecha, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab952d L´ opez-Navas, E., Ar´ evalo, P., Bernal, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3174 15

    2020 doi

  19. [29]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5790

    Lu, K.-X., Bai, J.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5790

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    1997 doi

  21. [31]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 96, doi: 10.1086/375330

    Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., Vaughan, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 96, doi: 10.1086/375330

    2003 doi

  23. [33]

    Fender, R. P. 2006, Nature, 444, 730, doi: 10.1038/nature05389

    2006 doi

  24. [34]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2149

    Merloni, A., Bongiorno, A., Brusa, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2149

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    F., Done, C., & Pounds, K

    Mushotzky, R. F., Done, C., & Pounds, K. A. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 717, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193. 00344110.1146/annurev.astro.31.1.717 Nied´ zwiecki, A., Zdziarski, A. A., & Szanecki, M. 2016, ApJL, 821, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L1

    1993

  26. [36]

    K., Chand, H., & Singh, V

    Ojha, V., Jha, V. K., Chand, H., & Singh, V. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1627

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    E., & Binas-Valavanis, V

    Papadakis, I. E., & Binas-Valavanis, V. 2024, A&A, 685, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347995

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    A., Sazonov, S

    Prokhorenko, S. A., Sazonov, S. Y., Gilfanov, M. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae261

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b2a S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al

    Ren, G., Zhou, S., Sun, M., & Xue, Y. 2024, ApJ, 975, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b2a S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7f9 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Cartier, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 10, doi...

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    Simm, T., Salvato, M., Saglia, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    A., & Papadakis, I

    Sobolewska, M. A., & Papadakis, I. E. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1597, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15382.x

    2009

  34. [44]

    H., et al

    Soldi, S., Beckmann, V., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322653

    2014 doi

  35. [45]

    J., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Burke, C. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1259

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C

    Suberlak, K. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C. 2021, ApJ, 907, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc698

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae208

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Wang, J., Cai, Z., & Guo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae208

    2018 doi

  38. [48]

    N., et al

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab789e

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    J., Kawai, N., et al

    Tachibana, Y., Graham, M. J., Kawai, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb9a9

    2020 doi

  40. [50]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 473, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01885-8

    Tang, J.-J., Wolf, C., & Tonry, J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 473, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01885-8

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    1994, A&A, 289, 673

    Tornikoski, M., Valtaoja, E., Terasranta, H., et al. 1994, A&A, 289, 673

    1994

  42. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2775

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2775

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    J., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1117

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    1997 doi

  45. [55]

    S., Johnston, K

    Ulvestad, J. S., Johnston, K. J., & Weiler, K. W. 1983, ApJ, 266, 18, doi: 10.1086/160755

    1983 doi

  46. [56]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L53, doi: 10.1086/373887 Vanden Berk, D

    Markowitz, A. 2003, ApJL, 584, L53, doi: 10.1086/373887 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    2003 doi

  47. [57]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    2003

  48. [58]

    2023, Ap&SS, 368, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04226-x

    Wang, H., Guo, C., Cao, H., et al. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04226-x

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 1322, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1322

    Tueller, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1322, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1322

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1258

    Xin, C., Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1258

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    Graham, M. J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8351

    2022 doi

  52. [62]

    S., Koz lowski, S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., Koz lowski, S., & Peterson, B. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 122, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/122

    2016 doi

  53. [63]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., & Peterson, B. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.