Pōniuā‘ena: A Luminous Quasar Hosting a 1.5 Billion Solar Mass Black Hole
Abstract
We report the discovery of a luminous quasar, J1007+2115 at (“Pōniuā‘ena”), from our wide-field reionization-era quasar survey. J1007+2115 is the second quasar now known at , deep into the reionization epoch. The quasar is powered by a supermassive black hole (SMBH), based on its broad Mg II emission-line profile from Gemini and Keck near-IR spectroscopy. The SMBH in J1007+2115 is twice as massive as that in quasar J1342+0928 at , the current quasar redshift record holder. The existence of such a massive SMBH just 700 million years after the Big Bang significantly challenges models of the earliest SMBH growth. Model assumptions of Eddington-limited accretion and a radiative efficiency of 0.1 require a seed black hole of at . This requirement suggests either a massive black hole seed as a result of direct collapse or earlier periods of rapid black hole growth with hyper-Eddington accretion and/or a low radiative efficiency. We measure the damping wing signature imprinted by neutral hydrogen absorption in the intergalactic medium (IGM) on J1007+2115’s Ly line profile, and find that it is weaker than that of J1342+0928 and two other quasars. We estimate an IGM volume-averaged neutral fraction . This range of values suggests a patchy reionization history toward different IGM sightlines. We detect the 158 m [C II] emission line in J1007+2115 with ALMA; this line centroid yields a systemic redshift of and indicates a star formation rate of yr-1 in its host galaxy.
1 Introduction
Luminous reionization-era quasars () provide unique probes of supermassive black hole (SMBH) growth, massive galaxy formation, and intergalactic medium (IGM) evolution in the first billion years of the Universe’s history. However, efforts to find such objects have proven to be difficult because of a combination of the declining spatial density of quasars at high redshift, the limited sky coverage of near-infrared (NIR) photometry, and the low efficiency of spectroscopic follow-up observations.
During the past few years, high-redshift quasar searches using newly available wide-area optical and IR surveys have resulted in a sixfold increase in the number of known quasars at : 47 luminous quasars at have been discovered (e.g., Fan et al., 2019; Venemans et al., 2013, 2015; Wang et al., 2019; Mazzucchelli et al., 2017; Reed et al., 2019; Matsuoka et al., 2019a; Yang et al., 2019), although among them only six are at (Mortlock et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2018; Matsuoka et al., 2019a, b; Yang et al., 2019) and one at (Bañados et al., 2018). These discoveries show that 800 million solar-mass black holes exist already at (Bañados et al., 2018) and that the IGM is significantly neutral at (e.g. Bañados et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2018b; Greig et al., 2017, 2019; Wang et al., 2020). However, both early SMBH growth history and IGM neutral fraction evolution at are still poorly constrained because of the small sample size. For statistical analysis, more quasars are necessary to investigate the IGM, SMBH masses, and quasar host galaxies at this critical epoch.
In this paper, we report the discovery of a new quasar J100758.264+211529.207 (“Pōniuā‘ena” in the Hawaiian language, hereinafter J1007+2115) at . This object is only the second quasar known at , close to the mid-point redshift of reionization (Planck Collaboration et al., 2018). Its discovery enables new measurements of a quasar Ly damping wing and provides new constraints on the earliest SMBH growth. In this paper, we adopt a CDM cosmology with parameters , , and . Photometric data are reported on the AB system after applying a Galactic extinction correction (Schlegel et al., 1998; Schlafly & Finkbeiner, 2011).
2 Candidate Selection and Observations
In this section we describe the selection method that led to the discovery of J1007+2115 and the spectroscopic observations. This quasar was selected based on the same photometric dataset used for our previous quasar surveys (Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Yang et al., 2019) but with selection criteria focused on a higher redshift range.
2.1 Selection Method
We have constructed an imaging dataset by combining all available optical and infrared photometric surveys that covers 20,000 deg2 of high Galactic latitude sky area with , and WISE photometry to the depth of (), and have used this dataset to carry out a wide-field systematic survey for quasars at (Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Yang et al., 2019). J1007+2115 was selected in the area covered by the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys (DECaLS, Dey et al., 2019), the Pan-STARRS1 (PS1, Chambers et al., 2016) survey, the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey (UHS, Dye et al., 2018), and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer survey (WISE, Wright et al., 2010). For the WISE photometry, when we applied the selection cuts, we used the photometric data from the ALLWISE catalog 111http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allwise/. To identify quasars at , we required the object to be undetected in all optical bands. We used a simple IR color cut , S/NJ 5, S/NW1 5. Forced aperture photometry in all PS1 and DECaLS bands was used to reject contaminants further. After the selection cuts, we visually inspected images of each candidate in all bands. In this step, both the ALLWISE and unWISE (Lang, 2014; Meisner et al., 2018) images were included. All photometric data are summarized in Table 1.
2.2 Near-infrared Spectroscopy



J1007+2115 was confirmed as a quasar during our Gemini/GNIRS run in 2019 May. The discovery spectrum was of low quality because of the high airmass when it was observed. A one-hour (on-source) observation with Magellan/FIRE was used further to confirm this new quasar shortly after the GNIRS observations. To obtain higher quality spectra, we observed the quasar for 5.5 hours (on-source) with GNIRS and for 2.2 hours (on-source) with Keck/NIRES in May and June of 2019. The redshift measured from the Mg II line is . Since J1007+2115 was first discovered with the Gemini North Telescope in Hawaii, J1007+2115 was given the Hawaiian name “Pōniuā‘ena”, which means “unseen spinning source of creation, surrounded with brilliance” in the Hawaiian language.
With Gemini/GNIRS, we used the short-slit (cross-dispersion) mode (32 l/mm) with simultaneous coverage of 0.85–2.5 m. A 10 slit () was used for the discovery observations, while a 0675 slit () was used for the additional high quality spectrum. For Magellan/FIRE, the echelle mode with a 075 slit () was used. Keck/NIRES has a fixed configuration that simultaneously covers 0.94 to 2.45 m with a fixed narrow slit resulting in a resolving power of (Wilson et al., 2004). All NIR spectra were reduced with the open-source Python-based spectroscopic data reduction pipeline PypeIt222https://github.com/pypeit/PypeIt (Prochaska et al., 2020). We corrected the telluric absorption by fitting an absorption model directly to the quasar spectra using the telluric model grids produced from the Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM333http://rtweb.aer.com/lblrtm.html; Clough et al., 2005). We stacked the spectra from GNIRS and NIRES, weighted by inverse-variance, and scaled the result with the -band magnitude. The final stacked spectrum is shown in Figure 1.
2.3 [C II]-based Redshift and Dust Continuum from ALMA
We observed J1007+2115 with ALMA (configuration C43-4, Cycle 7) to detect the [C II] emission line and underlying dust continuum emission from the quasar host galaxy. The observations were taken in 2019 October with 15 min on-source integration time. The synthesized beam size is and the final data cube reaches an rms noise level of 0.4 mJy beam-1 per 10 km s-1 channel. The ALMA data were reduced with the CASA 5.4 pipeline (McMullin et al., 2007). J1007+2115 is strongly detected in both the [C II] emission line and the continuum. The source is not spatially resolved.
The [C II] emission line provides the most accurate measurement of the quasar systemic redshift. A Gaussian fit to the [C II] line yields a redshift of 7.51490.0004. We use the [C II]-based redshift as the systemic redshift of the quasar. We obtain a line flux of Jy km s-1, and an FWHM km s-1, corresponding to a line luminosity of . Applying the relation between star formation rate (SFR) and for high-redshift () galaxies from De Looze et al. (2014) which has a systematic uncertainty of a factor of 2.5, we obtain SFR yr-1. This is similar to the SFR of quasar J1342+0928 at (Venemans et al., 2017). The underlying dust continuum is also detected, and we measure 1.20.03 mJy at 231.2 GHz. We obtain far-infrared (FIR: rest-frame 42.5–122.5 m) and total infrared luminosities (TIR: 8–1000 m) of = (3.30.1) and = (4.70.1) , assuming an optically thin grey body with dust temperature = 47 K and emissivity index = 1.6 (Beelen et al., 2006) and taking the effect of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) on the dust emission into account (e.g., da Cunha et al., 2013). The SFRTIR is estimated as 700 /yr by applying the local scaling relation from Murphy et al. (2011).
3 A 1.5 Billion Solar Mass Black Hole
The central black hole mass of the quasar can be estimated based on its luminosity and the FWHM of the Mg II line. We fit the near-IR spectrum with a pseudo-continuum, including a power-law continuum, Fe II template (Vestergaard & Wilkes, 2001; Tsuzuki et al., 2006), and Balmer continuum (De Rosa et al., 2014). Gaussian fits of the C IV and Mg II emission lines are performed on the continuum-subtracted spectrum. A two-component Gaussian profile is used. The uncertainty is estimated using 100 mock spectra created by randomly adding Gaussian noise at each pixel with its scale equal to the spectral error at that pixel (e.g. Shen et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). All uncertainties are then estimated based on the 16th and 84th percentile of the distribution. The best-fit pseudo continuum and the line fitting of C IV and Mg II are shown in Figure 1.
From the spectral fit, we find that the power-law continuum has a slope (). The rest-frame 3000 Å luminosity is measured to be erg s-1, corresponding to a bolometric luminosity of erg s-1 assuming a bolometric correction factor of 5.15 (Richards et al., 2006). The apparent and absolute rest-frame 1450 Å magnitudes are derived to be and from the best-fit power law continuum. The line fitting of Mg II yields an FWHM = km s-1 and a Mg II-based redshift of , implying a km s-1 blueshift relative to the [C II] line, similar to other luminous quasars (e.g., Mortlock et al., 2011; Bañados et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020). The C IV fitting results in an FWHM of 68212055 km s-1. The C IV line has a 3220362 km s-1 blueshift compared to the Mg II line. These measurements are summarized in Table 1.
We estimate the black mass based on the bolometric luminosity and the FWHM of the Mg II line by adopting the local empirical relation from Vestergaard & Osmer (2009). The black hole mass is derived to be , resulting in an Eddington ratio of . Note that the black hole mass uncertainty estimated here does not include the systematic uncertainties of the scaling relation, which could be up to dex. The uncertainty of the Eddington ratio is subject to the same systematic uncertainty as the black hole mass.


Observations of previously known luminous quasars (e.g., Mortlock et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2015; Bañados et al., 2018) have already raised the question of how these early SMBHs grew in such a short time (e.g., Volonteri, 2012; Smith et al., 2017; Inayoshi et al., 2019), which probably requires massive seed black holes, as illustrated in Figure 2. The black hole of J1007+2115, which is twice as massive as that of the other quasar J1342+0928, further exacerbates this early SMBH growth problem. To reach the observed SMBH mass at , a seed black hole with a mass of would have to accrete continuously at the Eddington limit starting at , assuming a radiative efficiency of 0.1 (see Figure 2). Under this same set of fixed assumptions about black hole growth, J1007+2115 requires the most massive seed black hole compared to any other known quasar. This is consistent with the direct collapse black hole seed model rather than the Pop III stellar remnant seed model. Even with a massive seed black hole, Eddington accretion with a high duty cycle and low radiative efficiency () is required. A lower mass seed would imply an even higher accretion rate (e.g., hyper-Eddington accretion) or a lower radiative efficiency (Davies et al., 2019). It has been suggested that maintaining super-Eddington accretion might be possible in specific environments (Inayoshi et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017), but whether or not this mode of rapid black hole growth is sustainable remains an important open question.
4 Constraint on the IGM Neutral Fraction from a Weak Damping Wing at


At , the damping wing profile, detectable as absorption redward of the Ly emission line caused by the highly neutral IGM, is one of the most promising tracers of the IGM neutral fraction. J1007+2115 provides us with a new sightline to estimate the IGM neutral fraction through damping wing analysis at a time deep into the reionization epoch.
To estimate the IGM neutral fraction through damping wing analysis, we follow the procedures described in Davies et al. (2018a, b), which has also been used to analyze the spectra of three other luminous quasars (Davies et al., 2018a; Wang et al., 2020). Briefly, we first model the quasar intrinsic continuum around the Ly region using the principal component analysis (PCA) approach in Davies et al. (2018b). This approach predicts the intrinsic blue-side quasar spectrum (rest-frame 1175–1280 Å) from the red-side spectrum (1280–2850 Å) using a training sample of 13,000 quasar spectra from the SDSS/BOSS quasar catalog. We then apply the method from Davies et al. (2018a) to quantify the damping wing strength and estimate the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction, . This method models the quasar transmission spectrum with a multi-scale hybrid model, which is a combination of the density, velocity, and temperature fields, large-scale semi-numerical reionization simulations around massive quasar-hosting halos (Davies & Furlanetto in prep), and one-dimensional radiative transfer of ionizing photons emitted by the quasar (Davies et al., 2016). We construct realistic forward-modeled representations of quasar transmission spectra, accounting for the covariant intrinsic quasar continuum uncertainty. We then perform Bayesian parameter inference on the mock spectra to recover the joint posterior probability distribution functions (PDF) of and from the observed spectrum. In the Bayesian inference, the likelihood is computed from maximum pseudo-likelihood model parameters and the pseudo-likelihood is defined as the product of individual flux PDFs of 500 km/s binned pixels, equivalent to the likelihood function of the binned transmission spectrum in the absence of correlations between pixels (see more details in Davies et al. 2018a).
To measure , we set a broad range of with a flat log-uniform prior, and compute the posterior PDF of by marginalizing over quasar lifetime. As shown in Figure 4, from the posterior PDF, we can estimate and its 68% confidence interval as , which is consistent with the maximum pseudo-likelihood model parameters shown in Figure 3. To avoid possible contamination from any intervening damped Ly absorber, we search for associated metal absorption. No such absorption has been found in our current spectrum. We conclude that the neutral IGM should be responsible for the damping wing features of J1007+2115. If any potential damped Ly absorber plays a role in generating the damping wing feature, the IGM neutral fraction will be even lower.
The detection of damping wing signatures in two quasar spectra has previously provided strong evidence for a significantly neutral Universe at (e.g., Mortlock et al., 2011; Bañados et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2018a). Specifically, neutral gas fractions of at and at have been reported (Davies et al., 2018a). Recent analysis of the damping wing feature of the quasar J0252–0503 at (Wang et al., 2020) also suggests a highly neutral IGM with . All of these measurements are based on the same methodology used in this work. We compare our result with these estimates, as shown in Figure 4. It is evident that the damping wing absorption is much weaker in J1007+2115 compared to that in the other three quasars. At the resonant Ly wavelength, the observed spectrum of J1007+2115 does not deviate from the blue-side prediction based on red-side PCA reconstruction. This result is to be compared with J0252–0503 (Wang et al., 2020) where the observed spectrum is % lower than the prediction without damping wing absorption. The estimated from J1007+2115 at is lower than the measurements from all of the other three sightlines. Studies of the Ly emission from galaxies have suggested neutral fractions of at and at (Mason et al., 2018, 2019). The sightline of J1007+2115 is thus a outlier, compared to the previous results. Although it is difficult to draw solid conclusions because of the large uncertainties (and the broad PDF) on the value of , the much weaker damping wing seen in J1007+2115’s spectrum indicates a significant scatter of the IGM neutral fraction in the redshift range to , which can be interpreted as observational evidence of patchy reionization.
5 Summary
We report the discovery of a new quasar J1007+2115 with a [C II]-based redshift of , selected with DECaLS, PS1, UHS, and WISE photometry and observed with the Gemini, Magellan, Keck, and ALMA telescopes. The [C II] and dust continuum emission from the quasar host galaxy are well detected, and imply a SFR yr-1. It is only the second quasar known at such high redshift and thus provides a valuable new data point for early SMBH and reionization history studies.
By fitting the NIR spectrum, we derive and an Eddington ratio of using the broad Mg II emission line. The black hole in J1007+2115 is twice as massive as that of J1342+0928 at a very similar redshift of , and thus places the strongest constraint to the early SMBH growth, requiring a seed black hole with a mass of at . Through damping wing modeling of the quasar spectrum, we estimate the volume-averaged neutral fraction to be at . Together with three previous measurements from quasar damping wing analyses, our new result indicates a large scatter of the IGM neutral fraction from to , indicative of a patchy reionization process.
R.A. (J2000) | 10:07:58.26 |
---|---|
Decl. (J2000) | +21:15:29.20 |
7.51490.0004 | |
20.430.07 | |
–26.66 0.07 | |
aaThey are 3- flux limits in PS1 , PS1 , and DECaLS bands, from our forced photometry with 3 arcsec aperture diameter. | 1.3 erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1 |
aaThey are 3- flux limits in PS1 , PS1 , and DECaLS bands, from our forced photometry with 3 arcsec aperture diameter. | 2.1 erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1 |
aaThey are 3- flux limits in PS1 , PS1 , and DECaLS bands, from our forced photometry with 3 arcsec aperture diameter. | 6.2 erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1 |
21.300.13 | |
20.200.18 | |
20.000.07 | |
19.750.08 | |
19.560.11 | |
19.440.20 | |
7.4940.001 | |
7.4030.01 | |
–1.140.01 | |
-73635 km s-1 | |
-3220362 km s-1 | |
FWHMMgII | 3247188 km s-1 |
FWHMCIV | 68212055 km s-1 |
(3.80.2) erg s-1 | |
(1.90.1) erg s-1 | |
(1.50.2)109 | |
1.060.2 | |
1.20.1 Jy km s-1 | |
FWHM[CII] | 331.331.6 km s-1 |
(1.50.2)109 | |
S | 1.20.03 mJy |
SFR[CII] | 80 – 520 yr-1 |
SFRTIR | 700 yr-1 |
References
- Bañados et al. (2018) Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473
- Beelen et al. (2006) Beelen, A., Cox, P., Benford, D. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 694
- Chambers et al. (2016) Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv:1612.05560
- Clough et al. (2005) Clough, S. A., Shephard, M. W., Mlawer, E. J., et al. 2005, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 91, 233
- da Cunha et al. (2013) da Cunha, E., Groves, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 13
- Davies et al. (2016) Davies, F. B., Furlanetto, S. R., & McQuinn, M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3006
- Davies et al. (2018a) Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., Bañados, E., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 864, 142
- Davies et al. (2018b) Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., Bañados, E., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 864, 143
- Davies et al. (2019) Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., & Eilers, A.-C. 2019, ApJ, 884, L19
- Dey et al. (2019) Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168
- De Looze et al. (2014) De Looze, I., Cormier, D., Lebouteiller, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A62
- De Rosa et al. (2014) De Rosa, G., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 145
- Dye et al. (2018) Dye, S., Lawrence, A., Read, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5113
- Fan et al. (2006) Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117
- Fan et al. (2019) Fan, X., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L11
- Greig et al. (2019) Greig, B., Mesinger, A., & Bañados, E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5094
- Greig et al. (2017) Greig, B., Mesinger, A., Haiman, Z., & Simcoe, R. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4239
- Inayoshi et al. (2016) Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., & Ostriker, J. P. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3738
- Inayoshi et al. (2019) Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.05791
- Lang (2014) Lang, D. 2014, AJ, 147, 108
- Matsuoka et al. (2019a) Matsuoka, Y., Iwasawa, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 183
- Matsuoka et al. (2019b) Matsuoka, Y., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 872, L2
- Mason et al. (2018) Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2
- Mason et al. (2019) Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3947
- Mazzucchelli et al. (2017) Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91
- McGreer et al. (2015) McGreer, I. D., Mesinger, A., & D’Odorico, V. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 499
- McMullin et al. (2007) McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al. 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 127
- Meisner et al. (2018) Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 1
- Mortlock et al. (2011) Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616
- Murphy et al. (2011) Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67
- Planck Collaboration et al. (2018) Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209
- Prochaska et al. (2020) Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020 (Zenodo), http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3743493
- Reed et al. (2019) Reed, S. L., Banerji, M., Becker, G. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1874
- Richards et al. (2006) Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470
- Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103
- Schlegel et al. (1998) Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
- Smith et al. (2017) Smith, A., Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2017, Astronomy and Geophysics, 58, 3.22
- Shen et al. (2019) Shen, Y., Wu, J., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 35
- Tsuzuki et al. (2006) Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 57
- Venemans et al. (2015) Venemans, B. P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L11
- Venemans et al. (2013) Venemans, B. P., Findlay, J. R., Sutherland, W. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 24
- Venemans et al. (2017) Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L8
- Vestergaard & Wilkes (2001) Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1
- Vestergaard & Osmer (2009) Vestergaard, M., & Osmer, P. S. 2009, ApJ, 699, 800
- Volonteri (2012) Volonteri, M. 2012, Science, 337, 544
- Wang et al. (2018) Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L9
- Wang et al. (2019) Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 30
- Wang et al. (2020) Wang, F., Davies, F. B., Yang, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 23
- Wilson et al. (2004) Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5492, 1295
- Wright et al. (2010) Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
- Yang et al. (2019) Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 236
- Wu et al. (2015) Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512