adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Bolometric light curves (bottom panel) and effective temperatures (top panel) as a function of time since peak or discovery for a sample of LRNe. See Table 1 for references to the data used to construct the figure.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Characteristic luminosity, timescale, radiated energy, and ratio of radiated energy to recombination energy calculated for a range of stellar (donor) mass and radius for our fiducial velocity profile (Equation (8)). The ejecta mass is linked to the stellar mass via M ej = η M ⋆ (η = 0.25), and the velocity is set to the escape velocity. White curves denote the mass and radius relation for TAMS, 10TAMS, and brown dwarfs and giant planets. A white dashed–dotted curve shows the radius of the He core for the corresponding zero age main sequence (ZAMS) mass (M ⋆), which gives a rough lower limit of the mass ejection radius R 0 from an evolved star. A black solid line denotes the contour along which the peak luminosities of the initial cooling phase and later recombination plateau are equal (see Figure 4), as calculated directly from the light-curve models. A gray dotted curve shows the contour on which the mean ionization degree of the typical shell (﹩v={\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩) is ﹩\bar{x}=0.9﹩ (partially ionized) at the initial time.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Luminosity L 90 (left) and duration t 90 (right) of stellar merger transients compared to LRNe with progenitor donor masses M ⋆ inferred from pretransient imaging (Table 1). Red and blue shaded regions show the predictions of our light-curve model as a function of donor mass M ⋆ for a range of η = M ej/M ⋆ = 0.01 (thinnest lines) to 1 (thickest lines) and where we have assumed ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}={v}_{\mathrm{esc},\star }={(2{{GM}}_{\star }/{R}_{\star })}^{1/2}﹩ for stars on the TAMS or 10 times their TAMS radii. In the left panel, a dashed curve denotes the stellar luminosity at TAMS (Hurley et al. 2000), while a dotted line shows the luminosity at the tip of the red giant branch (Paczyński 1970; Cummings et al. 2018).
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Example light curve for fiducial parameters M ej = M ⊙, R 0 = 10 R ⊙, ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}=300\,\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}﹩ (v ej ≃ 320 km s−1). Colored curves denote one-zone light curves for shells with v = 50 to 650 km s−1 (violet to orange) with a shell width dv = 5 km s−1. The total light curve is characterized by two peaks, an early cooling peak (≲10 days) and a late recombination plateau, produced by distinct physical processes. The gray dashed curve shows an otherwise equivalent model but neglecting energy release from recombination. The approximate effective temperature of the emission is shown in the top panel (Equation (19)).
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Colored lines show trajectories in the density–temperature plane of mass shells with v = 50–650 km s−1 from our fiducial model (following the same labeling scheme as in Figure 4). Background contours indicate the opacity κ (left panel) and effective adiabatic index γ 3 (right panel). Dotted and dashed contours indicate different hydrogen ionization fractions ﹩\bar{x}﹩ and ratios of gas-to-radiation pressure. Prior to hydrogen recombination, each shell decompresses and cools adiabatically with γ 3 ∈ [4/3, 5/3], moving from the upper right-hand corner of the plot to the lower left. However, once recombination starts at T ≃ 104 K, the energy released from recombination holds the temperature roughly constant at T ≃ 104 K (γ 3 ≃ 1.1), causing a convergence of the mass shell trajectories. However, as the density continues to drop, once P rad > P gas (ρ ≲ 10−11 g cm−3 for T ∼ T  i  ≃ 5000 K), γ 3 again starts to rise, causing T to decrease faster and recombination to complete. The resulting decrease in the opacity leads to the light curve peaking, thus motivating our analytic estimate of the transient duration (Equation (16)).
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Time evolution of key quantities as measured at the shell that dominates the luminosity at a given epoch for the fiducial model shown in Figure 4. The top panel shows the effective adiabatic index γ 3 (Equation (3)); for comparison, dashed lines show the usual values for radiation (gas) pressure–dominated gas, γ 3 = 4/3 (5/3), absent recombination effects. A dashed–dotted curve in the top panel shows the value of γ 3 for the single fixed shell with ﹩v={\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Same parameter space shown in Figure 9 but showing the ratio of the plateau luminosity and duration predicted by our analytical formulae (Equations (16) and (18); for fixed f ad,0.3 = 1 and ρ i,−11 = 1) to those obtained from the full numerical model (Figure 9). The analytic formulae accurately predict the luminosity and duration within a factor of ≲3 along the parameter space surrounding the TAMS sequence.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Impact on the fiducial model light curve (Figure 4) of changing the shape of the ejecta velocity distribution (Equation (8)) for a fixed mean velocity ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩. The left panel shows the effect of varying the parameter β ex that enters the exponential velocity distribution ﹩{M}_{\mathrm{ej}}(\gt v)\propto {e}^{-{(v/{v}_{\mathrm{ej}})}^{{\beta }_{\mathrm{ex}}}}﹩, while the right panel shows the impact of varying the power-law index β pl for ﹩{M}_{\mathrm{ej}}(\gt v)\propto {v}^{-{\beta }_{\mathrm{pl}}}﹩. Although the light-curve shape changes for different velocity distributions, the qualitative features of an early peak followed by a second peak or plateau are robust to the details.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Comparison of the light curve for the fiducial model (M ej = 1 M ⊙, R 0 = 10 R ⊙, ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}=300﹩ km s−1; Figure 4) to otherwise similar models in which the ejecta mass is increased to 3 M ⊙ (blue), the initial radius is increased to R 0 = 30 R ⊙ (red), and the mean velocity is increased to ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}=900﹩ km s−1 (orange). The trends in the luminosity and duration of the first and second peaks follow Equations (11) and (12) and Equations (16) and (18), respectively.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Comparison of our assumed opacity law (dashed curves; Equation (7)) as a function of gas temperature and density with results from the OPAL opacity code (solid curves) for solar-metallicity gas.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption:  B − V color evolution (top) and absolute r/R mag light curves (bottom) of SN 2019esa compared with other interacting SNe. The black curve shows our adopted reddening of E(B − V) = 0.52 mag, but the full uncertainty range between the MW only reddening and E(B − V) = 0.75 mag is shown for SN 2019esa shaded in gray. We show data for SN 1998S from Liu et al. (2000), SN 2005gj from Prieto et al. (2007) and Krisciunas et al. (2017), SN 2009ip from Pastorello et al. (2013), SN 2006gy from Smith et al. (2007) and Agnoletto et al. (2009), SN 2015 da from Tartaglia et al. (2020), and AT2019abn from Williams et al. (2020). SN 2015 da has been shifted so that the initial rise matches that of SN 2019esa instead of the absolute maximum which was ∼100 days after explosion.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Blackbody temperature (top) and radius (bottom) evolution of SN 2019esa derived from the optical photometry shown by magenta squares. All data have been dereddened by our assumed E(B − V)tot = 0.52, with the uncertainties from the reddening indicated by the shaded regions. Data of SN 2006gy (Smith et al. 2010a) and SN 2009ip (Graham et al. 2014) are shown for comparison. Any scaling values are indicated. Additionally, lines of constant velocity of the full width zero intensity (FWZI; dotted) and FWHM (dashed) of Hα are shown in the bottom panel.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Pseudobolometric, blackbody-corrected light curve of SN 2019esa (black diamonds) constructed from the optical photometry and assuming an E(B − V) = 0.52 mag. The gray shaded region spans the possible reddening uncertainties. The 56Co decay rate for ﹩{M}_{{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}}﹩ = 0.55 M ⊙ is indicated by the dashed magenta line. The DLT40 light curve is also shown shifted to match the late-time bolometric luminosity to show the possible light-curve evolution during the lack of Las Cumbres Observatory data.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Left: Comparison of optical spectra of SN2019esa (black) with other IIn and Ia-CSM SNe near maximum light. Spectra have been corrected for reddening and come from Smith et al. (2007, SN 2006gy), Fassia et al. (2001, SN 1998S), Fraser et al. (2013, SN 2009ip), and Dilday et al. (2012, PTF11kx). The epoch with respect to maximum brightness is listed by the SN name. Right: Same as left panel, but at later times. Spectra are from Leonard et al. (2000, SN 1998S), Smith et al. (2014, SN 2009ip), Kawabata et al. (2009, SN 2006gy), and Silverman et al. (2013b, PTF11kx).
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption:  Hα emission line on day 18 (top) and 572 (bottom). Day 18 can be reproduced by a Lorentzian emission profile combined with a much narrower Gaussian absorption profile. This creates a P Cygni feature with a FWHM of 300 km s−1. Day 572 is better represented by a 900 km s−1 Gaussian emission profile combined with a 250 km s−1 absorption profile.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Optical photometry of SN 2019esa. The DLT40 r data are shown as black plus symbols and the marker size is larger than uncertainties for all data. The adopted date of explosion is MJD 58608.44 (2019 May 5.94). The inset shows a zoomed-in region of the first 35 days. The data set can be retrieved as the data behind the figure.(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Optical spectroscopic evolution of SN 2019esa listed in Table 1. The rest wavelengths of the hydrogen Balmer lines are indicated by vertical black line. The spectra have not been corrected for reddening, and note that the epochs are measured from the estimated date of explosion, not from maximum light.(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: TESS and DLT40 light curves of SN 2019esa normalized to maximum light. TESS points are six-hour medians, and the JD of explosion is taken to be 2458608.94. The last nondetection from DLT40 (JD 2458607.65) is shown as a black triangle, and epochs of FLOYDS spectroscopy are indicated at the top of the plot by gray lines.
Paper: High-Cadence TESS and Ground-based Data of SN 2019esa, the Less Energetic Sibling of SN 2006gy 
Authors: Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeniveve Pearson, M. J. Lundquist, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, K. Azalee Bostroem, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, S. Valenti, Nathan Smith, R. C. Amaro, Yize Dong, 宜泽 董, Daryl Janzen, Nicolás Meza, Samuel Wyatt, Jamison Burke, Daichi Hiramatsu, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Composite gri Las Cumbres Observatory Siding Springs image of SN 2019esa taken on 2019 May 8.
Paper: Searching for Supernova Bursts in Super-Kamiokande IV
Authors: M. Mori, K. Abe, Y. Hayato, K. Hiraide, K. Ieki, M. Ikeda, S. Imaizumi, J. Kameda, Y. Kanemura, R. Kaneshima, Y. Kashiwagi, Y. Kataoka, S. Miki, S. Mine, M. Miura, S. Moriyama, Y. Nagao, M. Nakahata, Y. Nakano, S. Nakayama, Y. Noguchi, T. Okada, K. Okamoto, A. Orii, K. Sato, H. Sekiya, H. Shiba, K. Shimizu, M. Shiozawa, Y. Sonoda, Y. Suzuki, A. Takeda, Y. Takemoto, A. Takenaka, H. Tanaka, T. Tomiya, S. Watanabe, T. Yano, S. Yoshida, S. Han, T. Kajita, K. Okumura, T. Tashiro, X. Wang, J. Xia, G. D. Megias, D. Bravo-Berguño, P. Fernandez, L. Labarga, N. Ospina, B. Zaldivar, S. Zsoldos, B. W. Pointon, F. D. M. Blaszczyk, E. Kearns, J. L. Raaf, J. L. Stone, L. Wan, T. Wester, J. Bian, N. J. Griskevich, W. R. Kropp, S. Locke, M. B. Smy, H. W. Sobel, V. Takhistov, Yankelevich A., J. Hill, J. Y. Kim, I. T. Lim, R. G. Park, B. Bodur, K. Scholberg, C. W. Walter, L. Bernard, A. Coffani, O. Drapier, S. El Hedri, A. Giampaolo, Th. A. Mueller, P. Paganini, B. Quilain, A. D. Santos, T. Ishizuka, T. Nakamura, J. S. Jang, J. G. Learned, L. H. V. Anthony, D. Martin, M. Scott, A. A. Sztuc, Y. Uchida, V. Berardi, M. G. Catanesi, E. Radicioni, N. F. Calabria, L. N. Machado, G. De Rosa, G. Collazuol, F. Iacob, M. Lamoureux, M. Mattiazzi, L. Ludovici, M. Gonin, G. Pronost, Y. Maekawa, Y. Nishimura, C. Fujisawa, M. Friend, T. Hasegawa, T. Ishida, T. Kobayashi, M. Jakkapu, T. Matsubara, T. Nakadaira, K. Nakamura, Y. Oyama, K. Sakashita, T. Sekiguchi, T. Tsukamoto, H. Ozaki, T. Shiozawa, A. T. Suzuki, Y. Takeuchi, S. Yamamoto, Y. Kotsar, Y. Ashida, C. Bronner, J. Feng, S. Hirota, T. Kikawa, T. Nakaya, R. A. Wendell, K. Yasutome, N. McCauley, P. Mehta, K. M. Tsui, Y. Fukuda, Y. Itow, H. Menjo, K. Ninomiya, T. Niwa, M. Tsukada, J. Lagoda, S. M. Lakshmi, P. Mijakowski, J. Zalipska, M. Mandal, Y. S. Prabhu, J. Jiang, C. K. Jung, C. Vilela, M. J. Wilking, C. Yanagisawa, M. Jia, K. Hagiwara, M. Harada, T. Horai, H. Ishino, S. Ito, H. Kitagawa, Y. Koshio, W. Ma, F. Nakanishi, N. Piplani, S. Sakai, G. Barr, D. Barrow, L. Cook, S. Samani, D. Wark, F. Nova, T. Boschi, J. Gao, A. Goldsack, T. Katori, F. Di Lodovico, J. Migenda, M. Taani, S. Zsoldos, J. Y. Yang, S. J. Jenkins, M. Malek, J. M. McElwee, O. Stone, M. D. Thiesse, L. F. Thompson, H. Okazawa, S. B. Kim, J. W. Seo, I. Yu, K. Nishijima, M. Koshiba, K. Nakagiri, Y. Nakajima, K. Iwamoto, N. Taniuchi, M. Yokoyama, K. Martens, P. de Perio, M. R. Vagins, M. Kuze, S. Izumiyama, T. Yoshida, M. Inomoto, M. Ishitsuka, H. Ito, T. Kinoshita, R. Matsumoto, K. Ohta, Y. Ommura, N. Shigeta, M. Shinoki, T. Suganuma, K. Yamauchi, J. F. Martin, H. A. Tanaka, T. Towstego, R. Akutsu, V. Gousy-Leblanc, M. Hartz, A. Konaka, N. W. Prouse, S. Chen, B. D. Xu, B. Zhang, M. Posiadala-Zezula, D. Hadley, M. Nicholson, M. O'Flaherty, B. Richards, A. Ali, B. Jamieson, J. Walker, Ll. Marti, A. Minamino, K. Okamoto, G. Pintaudi, R. Sasaki, S. Sano, S. Suzuki, K. Wada, S. Cao, A. ichikawa, K. D. Nakamura, S. Tairafune, K. Choi
Figure caption: Predicted detection probability and number of detected events as a function of distance for several models.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Best-fit M BH–M * relations from ABC results (blue and orange lines for Models 1 and 2, respectively) using only the full BASS correlation function and luminosity function as constraints. The dashed lines correspond to the relations predicted by the best-fit models when imposing the third constraint (Section 6.2). Our results are compared to the subset of BASS data with stellar mass estimates (gray circles), as well as previously reported relations from direct measurements (black lines; Kormendy & Ho 2013; Reines & Volonteri 2015; Shankar et al. 2016; Suh et al. 2020). Typical errors on the mass measurements from the data are shown by the gray cross in the lower right corner.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: 2D distributions of the mock SMBH masses (M BH) in each model example (Model 1: left; Model 2: right) as a function of host peak (sub)halo mass (M peak), shown with a lognormal color scale. The median M BH–M peak relations are shown by the solid black lines. Model 2 implements a monotonic relation between M BH and M peak for fixed stellar mass (unlike Model 1), which leads to a strong correlation between SMBH mass and halo mass.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Black hole mass vs. redshift of our AGN sample used in the clustering analysis. We defined two bins of black hole mass (large M BH: maroon; small M BH: cyan) with similar redshift distributions (top histogram) to investigate clustering trends with black hole mass.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Constraints on the M BH–M * relation for Model 1 (left; blue) and Model 2 (right; orange) based on the BASS DR2 AGN–galaxy cross-correlation function and XLF. The diagonal panels plot the posterior distributions of each parameter, where the dashed vertical lines correspond to the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles. The constraints on the normalization, scatter, and slope of the SMBH–galaxy scaling relation are consistent between both models.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Summary statistics of BASS (black data points) compared to the best-fit Model 2 mock AGNs (orange lines). The model XLF (left) and cross-correlation function (right) are well matched to the measurements. The Bayes factor (P(M 2∣D)/P(M 1∣D) = 1.30 ± 0.18) indicates that this model is preferred by the data by 1.75σ.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Schematic of our forward-modeling approach to link AGNs to their host dark matter halos. We constrain the connection between black hole mass and host (sub)halo mass (empirical halo model) by assuming a universal ERDF (measured by the data) and comparing the clustering and abundance of mock AGNs to the measured XLF and AGN–galaxy cross-correlation of the BASS DR2 sample.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: 2D distributions of the mock SMBH masses (M BH) in each model example (Model 1: left; Model 2: right) at fixed stellar mass ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}({M}_{* })=10.5﹩ (M ⊙ h −1) as a function of host peak (sub)halo mass (M peak), demonstrating the different assumptions between M BH and M peak for each model.
Paper: BASS. XXXVI. Constraining the Local Supermassive Black Hole–Halo Connection with BASS DR2 AGNs
Authors: M. C. Powell, S. W. Allen, T. Caglar, N. Cappelluti, F. Harrison, B. E. Irving, M. J. Koss, A. B. Mantz, K. Oh, C. Ricci, R. J. Shaper, D. Stern, B. Trakhtenbrot, C. M. Urry, J. Wong
Figure caption: Summary statistics of BASS (black data points) compared to the best-fit Model 1 mock AGNs (blue lines). To within error, the XLF (left) and cross-correlation function (right) are consistent between the model and data despite the very simple model assumptions.