On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter

Extracted source text · arXiv 2606.22575

%\documentclass[iop]{emulateapj}
%\documentclass[twocolumn,linenumbers,tighten,twocolappendix]{aastex631}
\documentclass[twocolumn,tighten,twocolappendix]{aastex7}
%\linenumbers
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{ragged2e}
\usepackage{scalerel}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{blindtext}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[referable]{threeparttablex}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{longtable,tabu}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{ragged2e}
%\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\newcommand\textlcsc[1]{\textsc{\MakeLowercase{#1}}}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{tablefootnote}
\usepackage{apjfonts}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{afterpage}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{gensymb}

%\setlength{\skip\footins}{0.5cm}

%\newcommand\blfootnote[1]{%
%  \begingroup
%  \newcommand\thefootnote{}\footnote{#1}%
%%  \addtocounter{footnote}{-1}%
%  \endgroup
%}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, citecolor=blue, linkcolor=blue, urlcolor=blue}

\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
\newcommand\aastex{AAS\TeX}
\newcommand\latex{La\TeX}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{beramono}
\usepackage{listings}

\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{2212}{-}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{0177}{\^y}
\shorttitle{On the TF Relation for AGN Hosts}
\shortauthors{Robinson et al.}

\begin{document}
\title{On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter}


\author[0000-0002-4262-4845]{Justin H. Robinson}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA} 
\email{jrobinson138@gsu.edu}

\author[0000-0002-4917-7873]{Mitchell Revalski}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}
\email{mrevalski@stsci.edu}

\author[0000-0002-2816-5398]{Misty C. Bentz}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA}
\email{bentz@gsu.edu}

\author[0000-0002-6465-3639]{D. Michael Crenshaw}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA}
\email{dcrenshaw@gsu.edu}

\author[0000-0003-0509-1776]{H\'el\`ene M. Courtois}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Universit\'e Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IUF, IP2I Lyon, 4 rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne, France}
\email{h.courtois@ip2i.in2p3.fr}

\author[0009-0000-3960-167X]{Veronica Lahue}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Chemistry and Physics, Troy University, Troy, AL 36081, USA}
\email{vlahue@troy.edu}

\author[0000-0001-7238-7062]{Julian Falcone}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA}
\email{jfalcone2@sc.edu}

\author[0000-0003-0792-863X]{Rachael L.\ Merritt}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA }
\email{Rachael.Merritt@colorado.edu}

\author{Ishita Chintala}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 837 State Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0430,
USA}
\email{ichintala3@gatech.edu}

\author{Thomas Kay}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Chemistry and Physics, Troy University, Troy, AL 36081, USA}
\email{tkay@troy.edu}

\author{Mira Menon}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering LAMP High School, Montgomery, AL, 36111, USA}
\email{astro.grav@icloud.com}

\author{Naveen Ali}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 837 State Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0430,
USA}
\email{nali68@gatech.edu}

\author{Bradley Clemons}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA}
\email{jrobinson138@gsu.edu}

\author{Atul Gautam}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 837 State Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0430,
USA}
\email{agautam70@gatech.edu}

\author{Thomas Gregoire}
\affiliation{\normalfont \centering Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA}
\email{jrobinson138@gsu.edu}

\begin{abstract}
We present an investigation of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation solely for galaxies hosting an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Using 22 galaxies with primary, $z-$independent distances, we find that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter about all TF relations compared to each respective calibration for (largely) inactive galaxies. The larger scatter persists despite removal of the AGN contamination from the photometry of the Type 1 AGNs via 1) careful surface brightness decompositions or 2) employing SEDs to constrain the light contribution of the AGN. These results suggest that the influence of an AGN on its host galaxy's surface brightness may extend beyond the nucleus. We also calculate the percentage difference between TF and primary distances, and find that TF-based distances are biased towards overestimation of the primary distances to active galaxies by anywhere from $\sim$$5 - 10$\% for the optical/near-infrared and $\sim$15\% for distances predicted from inverting the Baryonic TF (BTF) relation. As TF-based distances (especially the $I−$band) are relied on heavily for analysis and modeling of the local peculiar velocity ($V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$) field, we suggest that active galaxies be removed from future $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ modeling samples.

\end{abstract}

\keywords{AGN host galaxies (2017), Galaxy distances (590), Seyfert galaxies (1447), Galaxy masses (607), Distance indicators (394)}
\received{}
\accepted{June 19, 2026}

\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
%Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) have revealed that supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and galaxies have a symbiotic relationship \citep{kh2013,hb2014}. Observed, empirical scaling relationships between black hole mass ($M_{\mathrm{BH}}$) and large scale galaxy properties served as first indicators of this relationship, including the correlation of black hole mass$-$bulge stellar velocity dispersion ($M_{\mathrm{BH}} - \sigma_{\star}$; \citealt{fm2000,gebhardt2000,kh2013,batiste2017}) and black hole mass$-$bulge luminosity ($M_{\mathrm{BH}} - L_{\mathrm{BULGE}}$; \citealt{kr1995,kh2013}). The size scales of these empirical correlations have grown to include the total mass of the host galaxy globular clusters \citep{bs2010,hh2011,sj2012} and even the dynamical mass, or effectively, the mass of the dark matter halo \citep{ferrarese2002,Baes2003,bandara2009,me2}. These results have also contributed significantly to the constraints on parameters in large-scale hydrodynamical simulations of black hole$-$galaxy growth \citep{Volonteri2011,steinborn2015,volonteri2016,mutlu2018}.

%The generally accepted interpretation of these scaling relations is that galaxies and SMBHs are evolutionarily linked, and their evolution is regulated by the feeding and feedback of an active galactic nucleus (AGN; \citealt{sr1998,bower2006,ciotti2009,fanidakis2011,Bluck2011,Maiolino2012}; see review by \citealt{Fabian2012}). Studies on black hole-galaxy scaling relationships have since focused on samples of systems hosting an AGN (e.g., \citealt{Reines2015,Mountrichas2023,Poitevineau2023}), for example finding general agreement between several black hole-bulge scaling relations for samples of active and inactive galaxies, with differences arising in larger-scale black hole-galaxy relations \citep{misty2018}. Investigations of large ($\gtrsim10,000$) samples of AGN host galaxies have shown that the placement of AGNs on SMBH-galaxy relations, such as the SMBH mass$-$galaxy stellar mass relation, is related to SMBH accretion \citep{Zhuang2023}, observational results of which provide important constraints for numerical simulations of galaxy-black hole growth on cosmological scales \citep{Miller2006,Bonoli2009,Kim2011,DeGraf2015,Habouzit2017,Weinberger2018,catmabacak2022}. Thus, SMBHs and AGN activity have been shown to be an integral tool for unveiling new aspects of galaxy evolution, stressing the importance of obtaining accurate measurements of both galaxy and SMBH properties.

%AGN environments provide a unique mechanism of directly measuring SMBH mass via reverberation mapping (RM; \citealt{bm1982,peterson1993}, see review by \citealt{cackett2021}). The stochastic variation of continuum emission from the AGN accretion disk is echoed through the reprocessed flux emitted by the broad line region (BLR) gas. The delay in time ($\tau$) between variations in the continuum and BLR is caused by the extra path length traveled by the ionizing photons, thus the time delay provides a direct measurement of the physical size of the BLR radius ($R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$). The combination of $R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$ with the rotational velocity of the BLR gas provides a constraint on the mass enclosed, which is dominated by the SMBH. While RM has provided $M_{\mathrm{BH}}$ constraints for $~\sim$100 SMBHs \citep{bhdatabase}, and large-scale surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) V Black Hole Mapper aiming to measure an additional $\sim$100 masses (e.g., \citealt{Fries2023,Wheatley2024,Fries2024}), the technique is both time and resource-intensive. The discovery of the $R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$$-$luminosity of the AGN ($R_{\mathrm{BLR}} - L_{\mathrm{AGN}}$; \citealt{kg1991,kaspi2000}) relation has since provided an important shortcut, using a single spectrum and measurement of $L_{\mathrm{AGN}}$  to predict $R_{\mathrm{BLR}}$. This allows an estimate of $M_{\mathrm{BH}}$ free from the significant investment of observation time and applicable at any redshift \citep{vp2006,Jiang2007,Kurk2007,Kurk2009,willott2010}.

The Tully-Fisher (TF) relation \citep{tf1977} is an empirical correlation that places galaxy rotational velocity on a mass scale, with higher-mass late-type galaxies generally achieving faster rotational velocities. As stellar light traces mass, the observed empirical relationship is that of maximum rotational velocity (measured either from resolved rotation curves or the deprojected line width of the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line) and intrinsic brightness. Measurement of rotational velocity then predicts a corresponding absolute magnitude in a given bandpass, and comparison with the apparent magnitude constrains a distance. The Cosmicflows program (\citealt{cosmicflows1,cosmicflows2,cosmicflows3,cosmicflows4}; CF) is home to the largest catalog of $\sim$10,000 TF-based distances. Each calibration establishes a line-width-luminosity relation in each photometric bandpass by employing galaxy clusters \citep{tc2012,sorce2013,neill2014}, 
allowing a universal TF slope to be determined from multiple, independent correlations of rotation rate and apparent luminosities while also decoupling it from the contribution of peculiar velocity ($V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$). The calibrating sample includes $\sim$600 galaxies from 20 different clusters \citep{Kourkchi2020}, with zero-points in absolute magnitude provided by primary, $z-$independent distances as measured from Leavitt’s Law (Cepheid period–luminosity relationship; \citealt{lp1912}), tip of the red giant branch stars (TRGB; \citealt{iben1983,salaris1997}) surface brightness fluctuations (SBF; \citealt{tonry2001,Blakeslee2010}), type Ia supernovae (SN Ia; \citealt{phillips1993,Hamuy1996,Riess1996,Perlmutter1997,Jha2007}) type II supernovae (SN II; \citealt{Barbon1979,Doggett1985,woosley1987,Schlegel1990}), or geometric distances. 

The TF relation is also routinely employed for observational constraints on the Hubble constant $H_{0}$ (e.g., \citealt{Sakai2000,tp2000,Freedman2001,Masters2006}, CF, \citealt{Kourkchi2020}). Recent efforts have used the relation in combination with the CF program's model of the local $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ field \citep{shaya2017,graziani2019} for improved determinations of $H_{0}$ \citep{Boubel2024,Scolnic2024}. Although the TF relation remains a critical rung on the Cosmic Distance Ladder, the inherent scatter \citep{cosmicflows1,tc2012} limits its utility, necessitating its role as a secondary distance measurement technique rather than a primary one. However, the sheer quantity of TF-based distances compensates for the limited quality of individual distances, and the development of such large samples has allowed robust studies of the physical drivers of the observed scatter about, and sources of deviation from, the TF relation. 

It has been shown that the TF slope, scatter, or both can be affected by galaxy disc sizes \citep{reyes2011}, the ratio of dark to luminous matter \citep{Pizagno2007}, star formation rate \citep{Barton2001,Buchalter2001}, and/or cluster and group environments (\citealt{Ouellette2017} and references therein). Star formation rate and history specifically have long been shown to directly affect the scatter \citep{bd2001,Kannappan2002}, where bursts of star formation can elevate galaxy surface brightnesses above that inferred by their rotational velocities. Deviations in blue and near-infrared wavelengths have also been attributed to the presence of an active galactic nucleus (AGN), specifically nuclei classified with Seyfert activity \citep{Torres-Flores2013}. The analysis of \cite{Ristea2024} found that the scatter of the TF relation may be due to internal feedback processes such as star formation or AGN activity, processes that have been shown to be connected in the literature \citep{page2001,alexander2005,Netzer2007,Silverman2009,Santini2012,Azadi2015,Mountrichas2023_2}. 

In addition to the possible impact on host galaxy surface brightnesses and thus the absolute magnitude of a galaxy on the TF relation, AGN feedback can also affect galaxy-scale disk kinematics, which consequently may impact maximum rotational velocity on the TF relation. The study by \cite{Frosst2022} of 100 zoom-in simulations of isolated galaxies found evidence of significant disruption in disk kinematics compared to inactive galaxies when supermassive black hole (SMBH) feedback was included as a parameter. Observationally, recent efforts to quantify AGN-driven ionized mass outflows in the narrow-line region (NLR) have measured outflows to span kiloparsec scales \citep{of2006,revalski2018,Revalski2018_2,Revalski2021,Revalski2022,Revalski2025}. Disruption of disk-scale kinematics has even been observed in low-mass galaxies \citep{Manzano-King2019,Manzano-King2020} and in hosts of low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions (LINERS; Sankey et al. 2026, in prep). As the presence of an AGN has been shown to significantly affect both the surface brightness and the disk kinematics of their host galaxies, there is then a need for investigation of the adherence of active galaxies on the canonical TF relation and thus the accuracy of TF-based distances to active galaxies.

A direct investigation of active galaxies on the TF relation has been precluded by lack of quality distances. Only in the last $\sim$10 years have AGN hosts been routinely targeted for $z-$independent distance techniques other than the TF method \citep{sabbi2018,misty2019,yuan2020,yuan4051,anand2021,gravity2021,riess2022,markham2026}. With nearly 30 $z-$independent distances for AGN hosts now available, we present here an investigation of active galaxies on the TF relation. In \S\ref{section:data}, we present the current sample of AGN host galaxies with 1) $z-$independent, non-TF-based distances, 2) \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectral observations, 3) broad-band optical, near-infrared, and/or infrared photometry, including a brief description of the two-dimensional surface brightness decompositions of the nuclear contamination from the optical and near-infrared images of the Seyfert 1 hosts. In \S\ref{section:construction_tf}, we describe our derivations of deprojected rotational velocity and corrected absolute magnitude following the TF prescriptions in the literature to construct TF relations for active galaxies, which we present in \S\ref{section:results}. Finally, in \S\ref{section:discussion}, we place the TF and Baryonic TF (BTF) relations for active galaxies in context with known sources of deviation from and/or scatter about the canonical TF relations.

%As most optically bright AGNs are hosted by spiral galaxies,

%In Paper II, a significant number of galaxies yielded TF-based distances that were far too small with respect to the Hubble flow, even after careful modeling and removal of the AGN contamination from the galaxy apparent brightness (see \S\ref{section:photometry} for a brief description and Paper II for an in-depth discussion). All calibrating samples of the TF relation have solely employed inactive galaxies \citep{tp2000,cosmicflows1,tc2012,Kourkchi2020}, thus we posited that active galaxies may exhibit a larger scatter about, or offset from, the canonical TF.

\section{Data}\label{section:data}
We construct here the current sample of active galaxies that 1) have optical, near-infrared, and/or infrared imaging, 2) have been targeted for \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectroscopic observations, and 3) have primary, $z-$independent, non-TF-based distance measurements. The 28 galaxies that comprise the sample are listed in Table~\ref{basics}, in addition to their nuclear activity classification and distance to each AGN, and we describe here all photometric and spectroscopic data employed in this investigation.

We note here that we do not expect interacting systems to lie on the canonical TF relation, as galaxy disks are likely to be dynamically disrupted from typical rotation by interactions, collisions, and/or mergers. The interacting galaxies of this sample are tabulated in the bottom panel of each table and are as follows: NGC 3227, NGC 3786, NGC 4438, NGC 5194, NGC 7469, and NGC 7674, and are not included in any quoted statistics in this work. Therefore, the sample size used to investigate AGN hosts on the TF relation is 22.

\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
%\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.1in}
%\tablewidth{18cm} 
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{AGN Host Galaxy Sample Characteristics}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{Redshift} & \colhead{Hubble} & \colhead{Distance} & \colhead{Distance} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{AGN} & \colhead{Ref}\\
\colhead{Name} & \colhead{($z$)} & \colhead{Type} &  \colhead{(Mpc)} & \colhead{Method} & & \colhead{Type} & \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)}
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & 0.00379 & (R)SA(rs)b & 10.72 $^{+ 0.52 }_{- 0.52 }$ & PL & \cite{markham2026} & 2 & 1\\
NGC 1566 & 0.00499 & SAB(s)bc & 18.00 $^{+ 2.00 }_{- 2.00 }$ & TRGB & \cite{sabbi2018} & 1 & 2 \\
NGC 3147 & 0.00941 & SA(rs)bc & 39.30 $^{+ 1.63 }_{- 1.63 }$ & SNIa & CF2 & 2 & 3 \\
NGC 3783* & 0.00973 & (R')SB(r)a & 39.90 $^{+ 14.50 }_{- 11.90 }$  & Geo.\ & \cite{misty2021} & 1  & 4\\
& & & & & \cite{gravity2021} \\
NGC 3982 & 0.00370 & SAB(r)b & 22.12 $^{+ 0.73 }_{- 0.73 }$ & PL & \cite{riess2022} & 1.9 & 5 \\
NGC 4051* & 0.00235 & SAB(rs)bc & 16.60 $^{+ 0.30 }_{- 0.30 }$ & PL & \cite{yuan4051} & 1 & 4  \\
NGC 4138 & 0.00308 & SA0(r) & 13.80 $^{+ 1.65 }_{- 1.65 }$ & SBF & \cite{tonry2001} & 2 & 2  \\
& & & & & \cite{Blakeslee2010} \\
NGC 4151* & 0.00333 & (R')SAB(rs)ab & 15.80 $^{+ 0.40 }_{- 0.40 }$ & PL & \cite{yuan2020} & 1 & 4 \\
NGC 4258 & 0.00149 & SAB(s)bc & 7.54 $^{+ 0.20 }_{- 0.20 }$ & Geo.\ & \cite{Humphreys2013} & L & 6 \\
& & & & & \cite{riess2016} \\
NGC 4303 & 0.00523 & SAB(rs)bc & 16.47 $^{+ 0.27 }_{- 0.27 }$ & PL & \cite{markham2026} & 2 & 5  \\
NGC 4395 & 0.00107 & SA(s)m & 4.10 $^{+ 0.40 }_{- 0.40 }$ & PL & \cite{thim2004} & 1 & 5 \\
NGC 4565 & 0.00409 & SA(s)b & 11.90 $^{+ 0.30 }_{- 0.20 }$ & TRGB & \cite{Radburn-Smith2011} & 2 & 3  \\
NGC 4639 & 0.00337 & SAB(rs)bc & 20.25 $^{+ 0.66 }_{- 0.66 }$ & PL & \cite{riess2016} & 1 & 7  \\
NGC 4939 & 0.01038 & SA(s)bc & 43.75 $^{+ 1.21 }_{- 1.21 }$ & SNII & \cite{jaeger2017,jaeger2017_2} & 2 & 2  \\
NGC 4945 & 0.00187 & SB(s)cd & 3.47 $^{+ 0.05 }_{- 0.05 }$ & TRGB & \cite{anand2021} & 2 & 2 \\
NGC 5055 & 0.00168 & SA(rs)bc & 8.87 $^{+ 0.31 }_{- 0.31 }$ & TRGB & \cite{McQuinn2017} & L & 8 \\
NGC 5643 & 0.00400 & SAB(rs)c & 12.42 $^{+ 0.63 }_{- 0.63 }$ & TRGB & \cite{anand2021} & 2 & 2 \\
NGC 5728 & 0.00930 & SAB(r)a & 42.27 $^{+ 1.75 }_{- 1.75 }$ & SNIa & \cite{Burns2018} & 1.9 & 2  \\
NGC 6814* & 0.00521 & SAB(rs)bc & 21.60 $^{+ 0.40 }_{- 0.40 }$ & PL & \cite{misty2019} & 1 & 4  \\
NGC 6951 & 0.00476 & SAB(rs)bc & 18.79 $^{+ 0.87 }_{- 0.87 }$ & SNIa & CF2 & L & 9 \\
M 58 & 0.00507 & SAB(rs)b & 21.00 $^{+ 2.00 }_{- 2.00 }$ & SNIa & \cite{Ruiz-Lapuente1996} & L & 3  \\
M 104 & 0.00364 & SA(s)a & 9.55 $^{+ 0.13 }_{- 0.31 }$ & TRGB & \cite{McQuinn2016} & L & 8 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227* & 0.00382 & SAB(s)a pec & 23.70 $^{+ 2.60 }_{- 2.60 }$ & SBF & \cite{tonry2001} & 1 & 4 \\
& & & & & \cite{Blakeslee2010} \\
NGC 3786 & 0.00908 & SAB(rs)a pec & 49.68 $^{+ 4.92 }_{- 4.92 }$ & SNIa &\cite{koshida2017} &  1.9 & 2\\
NGC 4438 & 0.00023 & SA0/a(s) pec & 16.50 $^{+ 1.30 }_{- 1.30 }$ & SBF & \cite{cantiello2018} & L & 5  \\
NGC 5194 & 0.00154 & SA(s)bc pec & 7.40 $^{+ 0.60 }_{- 0.60 }$ & TRGB & \cite{sabbi2018} & 2 & 8, 10  \\
NGC 7469* & 0.01644 & (R')SAB(rs)a & 61.90 $^{+ 3.30 }_{- 3.30 }$ & SNIa & \cite{koshida2017} & 1 & 1 \\
& & & & & \cite{Ganeshalingam2013} \\
NGC 7674 & 0.02928 & SA(r)bc pec & 117.00 $^{+ 3.77 }_{- 3.77 }$ & SNIa & \cite{Weyant2014} & 2 & 1  \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{The sample of active galaxies that have 1) optical, near-infrared, and/or infrared imaging, 2) \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectra, and 3) $z-$independent, non-TF-based distances. Galaxy names marked with asterisks indicate galaxies consistent with the sample of Paper I (see \S\ref{section:data}). Column 2 lists the spectroscopic redshift of the \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm line (adopted from Paper I for all consistent galaxies and from RC3 for all remaining targets). Column 3 lists the Hubble morphological classification (adopted from Paper I for all consistent galaxies and from NED for all remaining targets). Distances to each AGN host are listed in Column 4 with their respective measurement methods in Column 5; TRGB stands for Tip of the Red Giant Branch stars, SNIa for Supernova Type Ia, SBF for Surface Brightness Fluctuations, Geo.\ for geometric-based distance, PL for Cepheid Period-Luminosity relation, and SNII for Supernova Type II). Column 6 lists the references for each distance measurement. Column 7 lists the nuclear activity classification, the references for each classification listed in Column 8 and are as follows: 1) \cite{Osterbrock1993}, 2) \cite{koss2022}, 3) \cite{panessa2002}, 4) \cite{kw1974}, 5) \cite{vv2006}, 6) \cite{cecil2000}, 7) \cite{ho1997}, 8) \cite{ho1997}, 9) \cite{perez2000}, 10) \cite{ford1985}. The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}
\label{basics}
\end{deluxetable*}
%\vspace{-0.8cm}
\subsection{Photometry}\label{section:photometry}
\subsubsection{Optical and Near-Infrared Photometry}
For the majority of our sample, we adopt apparent $B$ and $V$ magnitudes from the Third Reference Catalog of Bright Galaxies (RC3; \citealt{dv1991}) as was done for previous TF calibrations (e.g., \citealt{tf1985,tp2000,cosmicflows1}). Apparent magnitudes in the $R$ and $I$ are adopted from the CF program's Homogenized Photometry, tabulated in the Extragalactic Distance Database (EDD; \citealt{edd}). These measurements were generally adopted from photometric campaigns carried out by members of the CF program using the University of Hawaii 2.2\,m telescope, the Canada–
France–Hawaii Telescope, the United Kingdom Infrared
Telescope, the 1\,m and 3.9\,m telescopes
at Siding Spring Observatory, the Kitt Peak National Observatory and CTIO 0.9\,m telescopes, and the MDM Observatory 1.3\,m
McGraw-Hill telescope. Finally, all infrared magnitudes in the $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ filters are adopted from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE; \citealt{wise}).

\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{Observed Photometric and Spectroscopic Galaxy Properties}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$V$} & \colhead{$R$} & \colhead{$I$} & \colhead{$W_{1}$} & \colhead{$W_{2}$} & \colhead{$q_{d}$}  & \colhead{$W_{20}$} & \colhead{$W_{\mathrm{m}50}$} & \colhead{Flux}
\\
& (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & & (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (Jy km s$^{-1}$) \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} & \colhead{(11)}
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & 9.61 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.87 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.46 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.80 $\pm$ 0.10 & 4.17 $\pm$ 0.20 & 3.04 $\pm$ 0.30 & 0.85 $\pm$ 0.04 & 299.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 300.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 31.2 \\
NGC 1566 & 10.33 $\pm$ 0.03 & 9.73 $\pm$ 0.03 & 9.18 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.64 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.91 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.62 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.04 & 229.0 $\pm$ 6.0 & 213.0 $\pm$ 13.0 & 141.6 \\
NGC 3147 & 11.43 $\pm$ 0.16 & 10.61 $\pm$ 0.16 & \nodata & \nodata & 8.99 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.88 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.06 & 418.0 $\pm$ 9.0 & 393.0 $\pm$ 15.0 & 24.1 \\
NGC 3783* & 12.89 $\pm$ 0.20 & 12.09 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.50 $\pm$ 0.20 & \nodata & 8.38 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.38 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.02 & 152.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 147.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 10.2 \\
NGC 3982 & 11.78 $\pm$ 0.16 & 11.59 $\pm$ 0.04 & 11.20 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.77 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.34 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.07 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.06 & 232.0 $\pm$ 7.0 & 226.0 $\pm$ 18.0 & 15.3 \\
NGC 4051* & 10.84 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.11 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.93 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.37 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.87 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.97 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.05 & 264.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 245.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 30.7 \\
NGC 4138 & 12.16 $\pm$ 0.15 & 11.32 $\pm$ 0.16 & 10.72 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.09 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.40 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.27 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.06 & 329.0 $\pm$ 10.0 & 322.0 $\pm$ 18.0 & 14.2 \\
NGC 4151* & 11.29 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.80 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.18 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.73 $\pm$ 0.20 & 6.74 $\pm$ 0.10 & 5.93 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.05 & 139.6 $\pm$ 0.4 & 131.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 36.3 \\
NGC 4258 & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.07 & 8.41 $\pm$ 0.04 & 7.88 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.32 $\pm$ 0.09 & 8.53 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.19 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.02 & 442.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 385.0 $\pm$ 20.0 & 162.0 \\
NGC 4303 & 10.18 $\pm$ 0.09 & 9.65 $\pm$ 0.09 & 9.17 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.81 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.02 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.99 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.05 & 178.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 163.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 84.9 \\
NGC 4395 & 10.55 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.06 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.72 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.17 $\pm$ 0.10 & 12.62 $\pm$ 0.10 & 11.84 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.04 & 134.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 120.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 284.3 \\
NGC 4565 & 10.42 $\pm$ 0.07 & 9.58 $\pm$ 0.09 & 9.02 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.25 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.96 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.20 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.00 & 528.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 514.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 161.0 \\
NGC 4639 & 12.24 $\pm$ 0.10 & 11.54 $\pm$ 0.10 & 11.09 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.37 $\pm$ 0.17 & 10.08 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.00 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.05 & 303.0 $\pm$ 7.0 & 299.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 16.4 \\
NGC 4939 & 11.90 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.26 $\pm$ 0.21 & 10.85 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.34 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.05 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.69 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.04 & 463.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 459.0 $\pm$ 18.0 & 45.1 \\
NGC 4945 & 9.30 $\pm$ 0.20 & \nodata & 7.27 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.32 $\pm$ 0.70 & 7.77 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.50 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.01 & 384.0 $\pm$ 9.0 & 374.0 $\pm$ 13.0 & 322.6 \\
NGC 5055 & 9.31 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.59 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.02 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.52 $\pm$ 0.14 & 8.37 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.33 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.03 & 400.0 $\pm$ 5.0 & 390.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & 483.8 \\
NGC 5643 & 10.74 $\pm$ 0.14 & 10.00 $\pm$ 0.14 & 9.75 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.12 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.41 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.76 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.04 & 209.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 202.0 $\pm$ 13.0 & 57.8 \\
NGC 5728 & 12.27 $\pm$ 0.14 & 11.35 $\pm$ 0.14 & \nodata & 10.20 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.36 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.03 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.04 & 413.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 410.0 $\pm$ 19.0 & 10.2 \\
NGC 6814* & 12.16 $\pm$ 0.30 & 11.18 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.62 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.91 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.35 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.81 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.98 $\pm$ 0.02 & 96.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 84.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 27.2 \\
NGC 6951 & 11.64 $\pm$ 0.15 & 10.65 $\pm$ 0.16 & \nodata & \nodata & 8.98 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.78 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.06 & 344.0 $\pm$ 10.0 & 328.0 $\pm$ 12.0 & 32.3 \\
M 58 & 10.48 $\pm$ 0.08 & 9.66 $\pm$ 0.08 & 9.04 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.41 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.49 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.28 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.04 & 373.0 $\pm$ 7.0 & 370.0 $\pm$ 11.0 & 8.3 \\
M 104 & 8.98 $\pm$ 0.06 & 8.00 $\pm$ 0.06 & 7.43 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.61 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.59 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.23 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.02 & 778.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 770.0 $\pm$ 17.0 & 8.6 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{11}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227* & 11.85 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.00 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.48 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.75 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.66 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.95 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.02 & 436.3 $\pm$ 3.8 & 428.0 $\pm$ 9.0 & 14.6 \\
NGC 3786 & 13.24 $\pm$ 0.18 & 12.94 $\pm$ 0.02 & \nodata & \nodata & 10.28 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.04 & 460.0 $\pm$ 29.0 & 466.0 $\pm$ 30.0 & 10.4 \\
NGC 4438 & 11.02 $\pm$ 0.07 & 10.17 $\pm$ 0.07 & \nodata & \nodata & 8.46 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.36 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.02 & 261.0 $\pm$ 15.0 & 244.0 $\pm$ 100.0 & 7.2 \\
NGC 5194 & 9.08 $\pm$ 0.15 & 8.48 $\pm$ 0.15 & 7.86 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.29 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.84 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.66 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.62 $\pm$ 0.03 & 195.0 $\pm$ 6.0 & \nodata & 250.0 \\
NGC 7469* & 13.05 $\pm$ 0.20 & 12.51 $\pm$ 0.20 & 12.10 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.12 $\pm$ 0.20 & 8.43 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.64 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.02 & 208.8 $\pm$ 16.9 & 215.0 $\pm$ 16.0 & 1.0 \\
NGC 7674 & 13.92 $\pm$ 0.10 & 13.23 $\pm$ 0.10 & \nodata & \nodata & 9.27 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.11 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.91 $\pm$ 0.08 & 344.0 $\pm$ 127.0 & 135.0 $\pm$ 50.0 & 2.2 \\
\enddata 
\tablecomments{Integrated galaxy apparent magnitudes, disk axis ratios, and 21\,cm spectral characteristics. Galaxy names marked with asterisks indicate galaxies consistent with the sample of Paper I (see \S\ref{section:data}), where the AGN contamination has been modeled and removed (See \S\ref{section:photometry}). Uncertainties on the optical and near-infrared magnitudes are either adopted from 1) Paper I, 2) RC3, or 3) EDD. Column 8 lists the observed minor ($b$) to major ($a$) disk axis ratio, where $q_{d}=b/a$. Columns 9 and 10 list the two definitions of the projected line width of the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line used in this work (See \S\ref{section:wmax}). Column 11 lists the integrated flux of \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission of each galaxy. The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}
\label{appmags_21cm}
\end{deluxetable*}

The brightness contribution from Type 1 AGNs has been measured to be upwards of 30\% of the total integrated galaxy light \citep{misty2013}, and as such can play a significant role in distance determinations that rely on galaxy apparent brightness. We assume the galaxies in our sample that are hosts to Type 2 (or Type 1.9) AGN contribute a negligible amount of light to the integrated galaxy magnitudes, where the dusty torus is expected to obscure the light from the accretion disk and broad line region clouds according to the unified model \citep{antonucci1993,up1995,netzer2015,padovani2017}. For the majority of the Type 1 hosts, we look to our previous TF distance measurements for a sample of Seyfert 1 galaxies (\citealt{me2}; hereafter Paper I), where we constrained and removed the light contamination from the unobscured nuclei via careful surface brightness decompositions. We adopt the photometric and spectroscopic data presented in Paper I for the following galaxies and label them with asterisks in all tables: NGC 3227, NGC 3783, NGC 4051, NGC 4151, NGC 6814, and NGC 7469.

The imaging for the six galaxies listed above was collected from multiple observatories between $2003-2016$. Each have medium $V$-band images from HST \citep{misty2009a,misty2013,misty2018}, in addition to subsamples observed with the 3.5\,m WIYN telescope\footnote{The WIYN Observatory is a joint facility of the University of Wisconsin–
Madison, Indiana University, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory and
the University of Missouri.} \citep{misty2018}, and the MDM
Observatory 1.3 m McGraw-Hill Telescope \citep{misty2009b}. New imaging presented in Paper I was obtained with the 3.5\,m Apache Point
Observatory (APO) Astrophysical Research Consortium
(ARC) telescope, the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory/Small and
Moderate Aperture Research Telescope System (CTIO/
SMARTS) 0.9\,m telescope, and the 0.5\,m ARC Small Aperture Telescope
(ARCSAT). All of the ground-based images were reduced in IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which
is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy under
a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}.

For the six Type 1 AGNs above, we removed the nuclear contamination from the observed magnitudes via two-dimensional surface brightness decompositions using the $\textsc{Galfit}$ \citep{peng2002,peng2010} software. A detailed description of the decompositions are available in \cite{misty2009a}, \cite{misty2013}, \cite{misty2018}, and Paper I, but in brief, the $\textsc{Galfit}$ software employs combinations of analytical surface brightness components to model a galaxy image. These components can correspond to physical morphological features such as bars, rings, bulges, etc. The light profile of an AGN, which is an unresolved point source in each image, is fit with the point spread function (PSF) model of each image. Example decompositions and residuals for HST images can be found in \cite{misty2013} and \cite{misty2018}, and Figure~1 of Paper I for ground-based images. 

We adopt all AGN-free galaxy apparent magnitudes from Paper I in the Johnson-Cousins $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ bandpasses for the six Seyfert 1 galaxies above. Observed photometric properties for our sample are tabulated in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}. The Type 1 nuclei that remain are NGC 1566 and NGC 4639. While the nuclear activity of NGC 1566 has varied widely, its bolometric luminosity has remained low \citep{Woo2002}. Additionally, the AGN in NGC 1566 was in a low-luminosity state in the late 70s through the early 80s \citep{Baribaud1992}, which is most likely when the $B$ and $V-$band observations recorded in RC3 and adopted here were conducted. Thus, we do not expect the nuclear light of NGC 1566 to significantly contaminate its integrated galaxy luminosity. The nucleus in NGC 4639 was classified as a low-luminosity AGN (LLAGN; \citealt{ho1997}), with a nuclear $B-$band apparent magnitude of 20.27 measured by \cite{Ho2001} via HST images. As such, we do not expect the nuclear contribution of the AGN in NGC 4639 to significantly contaminate integrated apparent magnitudes.

For all galaxies with the AGN contamination modeled and removed, we adopt a typical uncertainty of 0.2\,mag, consistent with Paper I and \cite{misty2018} based on our experience with $\textsc{Galfit}$. For NGC 6814, poor seeing conditions and bright sky background in the resulted in a larger adopted uncertainty of 0.3\,mag on its $B-$band magnitude to account for the additional uncertainty in separating the disk light from the sky. For all other apparent magnitudes, we adopt the same uncertainties reported in each respective photometric database listed above. 

\subsubsection{Infrared Photometry}\label{section:ir_photometry}
For WISE apparent magnitudes, the angular resolution of its detector ($\sim$$6\arcsec$) is too low to separate the AGN from the bulge via surface brightness decompositions, and thus any nuclear contamination remains in the integrated $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ apparent magnitudes (see  \S\ref{discussion:IR}). To attempt to constrain and remove the light contribution of the nuclei, we look to the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of a sample of Seyfert 1 AGNs constructed by \cite{rachael}. These SEDs are the most accurate multi-wavelength SEDs constructed for these AGNs to-date, as they 1) consist of simultaneous optical/UV/X-ray observations supplemented by ground-based near-IR data and 2) have undergone surface brightness decompositions on high-resolution HST images to isolate and remove the host-galaxy light contribution from the SEDs. The near-infrared data employed by \cite{rachael} was observed with the WIYN Observatory and the Vista Hemisphere Survey \citep{mcmahon2013}.

With SEDs of a subsample of Seyfert 1 AGNs in-hand, we extrapolate the SED to the wavelengths observed by WISE and use the IRAF task $\textsc{synphot}$ to calculate the flux of the AGN SED through the WISE $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ throughputs. Finally, we subtract the light contribution of the AGN via its SED from the respective integrated WISE luminosity in each bandpass. We indicate the subtraction as downward-facing blue arrows in Figure~\ref{mainplot}, where a longer arrow represents a larger amount of light contributed by the AGN in that filter, and provide further discussion in \S\ref{discussion:IR}.

\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
%\tablewidth{18cm} 
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{Galaxy Disk Inclinations and Corrected Apparent Magnitudes}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{Inclination} & \colhead{$m_{B}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$m_{V}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$m_{R}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$m_{I}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$m_{W1}^{b,k,a}$} & \colhead{$m_{W2}^{b,k,a}$}  \\
& (deg) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)  \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)}
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & 32.40 $\pm$ 4.40 & 9.33 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.66 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.28 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.66 $\pm$ 0.10 & 4.12 $\pm$ 0.20 & 2.99 $\pm$ 0.30 \\
NGC 1566 & 38.32 $\pm$ 3.56 & 10.13 $\pm$ 0.04 & 9.60 $\pm$ 0.04 & 9.04 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.53 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.87 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.56 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 3147 & 27.57 $\pm$ 7.98 & 11.19 $\pm$ 0.18 & 10.42 $\pm$ 0.18 & \nodata & \nodata & 8.93 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.81 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 3783$^{\star}$ & 16.61 $\pm$ 4.18 & 12.39 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.71 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.75 $\pm$ 0.20 & \nodata & 8.30 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.29 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 3982 & 30.10 $\pm$ 7.21 & 11.61 $\pm$ 0.17 & 11.47 $\pm$ 0.06 & 11.09 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.68 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.29 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.01 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4051$^{\star}$ & 56.24 $\pm$ 3.75 & 10.46 $\pm$ 0.21 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.66 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.16 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.83 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.92 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4138 & 50.01 $\pm$ 4.87 & 11.77 $\pm$ 0.17 & 11.05 $\pm$ 0.16 & 10.45 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.36 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.22 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4151$^{\star}$ & 20.38 $\pm$ 8.59 & 11.14 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.69 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.09 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.66 $\pm$ 0.20 & 6.70 $\pm$ 0.10 & 5.87 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4258 & 70.09 $\pm$ 1.30 & 8.24 $\pm$ 0.08 & 7.79 $\pm$ 0.05 & 7.27 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.83 $\pm$ 0.09 & 8.49 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.14 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4303 & 27.57 $\pm$ 6.70 & 10.01 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.53 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.06 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.72 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.97 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.93 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4395 & 34.51 $\pm$ 4.07 & 10.41 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.99 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.62 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.10 & 12.58 $\pm$ 0.10 & 11.79 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4565 & 89.88 $\pm$ 18.16 & 8.89 $\pm$ 0.07 & 8.43 $\pm$ 0.09 & 7.92 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.36 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.91 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.15 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4639 & 48.77 $\pm$ 3.80 & 11.85 $\pm$ 0.11 & 11.27 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.82 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.16 $\pm$ 0.17 & 10.03 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.95 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4939 & 61.18 $\pm$ 2.57 & 11.13 $\pm$ 0.21 & 10.68 $\pm$ 0.21 & 10.32 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.90 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.98 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.62 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4945 & 89.88 $\pm$ 51.32 & 7.48 $\pm$ 0.20 & \nodata & 6.03 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.37 $\pm$ 0.70 & 7.70 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.43 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5055 & 56.59 $\pm$ 1.98 & 8.78 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.20 $\pm$ 0.11 & 7.64 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.22 $\pm$ 0.14 & 8.33 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.28 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5643 & 30.10 $\pm$ 4.81 & 10.02 $\pm$ 0.14 & 9.47 $\pm$ 0.15 & 9.30 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.80 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.33 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.68 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5728 & 56.59 $\pm$ 2.97 & 11.39 $\pm$ 0.15 & 10.70 $\pm$ 0.15 & \nodata & 9.75 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.28 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.95 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 6814$^{\star}$ & 11.72 $\pm$ 5.88 & 11.46 $\pm$ 0.30 & 10.65 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.20 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.62 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.27 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.73 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 6951 & 34.51 $\pm$ 6.11 & 10.10 $\pm$ 0.16 & 9.49 $\pm$ 0.17 &\nodata & \nodata & 8.87 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.68 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
M 58 & 38.32 $\pm$ 3.56 & 10.10 $\pm$ 0.09 & 9.37 $\pm$ 0.09 & 8.79 $\pm$ 0.11 & 8.21 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.44 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.22 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
M 104 & 68.76 $\pm$ 1.35 & 7.74 $\pm$ 0.08 & 7.00 $\pm$ 0.08 & 6.57 $\pm$ 0.11 & 5.92 $\pm$ 0.10 & 6.53 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.17 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227$^{\star}$ & 67.86 $\pm$ 1.44 & 11.03 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.40 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.90 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.28 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.61 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.90 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 3786 & 55.58 $\pm$ 3.07 & 12.63 $\pm$ 0.19 & 12.48 $\pm$ 0.06 & \nodata & \nodata & 10.22 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.82 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 4438 & 71.36 $\pm$ 1.25 & 10.40 $\pm$ 0.08 & 9.82 $\pm$ 0.08 & \nodata & \nodata & 8.42 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.31 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5194 & 53.47 $\pm$ 2.18 & 8.74 $\pm$ 0.15 & 8.29 $\pm$ 0.15 & 7.62 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.11 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.80 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.61 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 7469$^{\star}$ & 36.76 $\pm$ 2.02 & 12.61 $\pm$ 0.20 & 12.21 $\pm$ 0.20 & 11.80 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.88 $\pm$ 0.20 & 8.34 $\pm$ 0.10 & 7.55 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 7674 & 24.75 $\pm$ 12.03 & 13.60 $\pm$ 0.11 & 13.01 $\pm$ 0.10 & \nodata & \nodata & 9.16 $\pm$ 0.10 & 8.00 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Galaxy names marked with asterisks indicate galaxies consistent with the sample of Paper I (see \S\ref{section:data}). Column 2 lists the inclination angles of each galaxy disk derived from the observed disk axis ratios as described in \S\ref{section:wmax}. Columns 3-8 list the apparent magnitudes in each bandpass corrected for Galactic extinction, inclination-dependent extinction, redshift, and/or aperture (See \S\ref{section:corrected_mags}). The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}
%\vspace{-3em}
\label{corrected_mags}
\end{deluxetable*}

%\vspace{-0.8cm}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
%\tablewidth{18cm} 
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{Maximum Rotational Velocities and Derived Absolute Magnitudes}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{$W_{R}^{i}$} & \colhead{$W_{mx}^{i}$} & \colhead{$M_{B}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$M_{V}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$M_{R}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$M_{I}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{$M_{W1}^{b,k,a}$} & \colhead{$M_{W2}^{b,k,a}$}\\
& (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)  \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)}
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & 487.30 $\pm$ 60.84 & 536.18 $\pm$ 60.86 & -20.82 $\pm$ 0.15 & -21.49 $\pm$ 0.15 & -21.87 $\pm$ 0.15 & -22.50 $\pm$ 0.15 & -26.03 $\pm$ 0.22 & -27.17 $\pm$ 0.32 \\
NGC 1566 & 309.66 $\pm$ 26.12 & 316.81 $\pm$ 32.08 & -21.14 $\pm$ 0.25 & -21.68 $\pm$ 0.24 & -22.24 $\pm$ 0.26 & -22.75 $\pm$ 0.27 & -22.41 $\pm$ 0.26 & -22.71 $\pm$ 0.26 \\
NGC 3147 & 820.98 $\pm$ 219.89 & 809.61 $\pm$ 221.41 & -21.79 $\pm$ 0.20 & -22.55 $\pm$ 0.20 & \nodata & \nodata & -24.04 $\pm$ 0.13 & -24.16 $\pm$ 0.13 \\
NGC 3783* & 426.29 $\pm$ 104.49 & 480.52 $\pm$ 107.86 & -20.62 $\pm$ 0.81 & -21.29 $\pm$ 0.81 & -22.26 $\pm$ 0.81 & \nodata & -24.70 $\pm$ 0.80 & -25.71 $\pm$ 0.80 \\
NGC 3982 & 388.66 $\pm$ 85.44 & 412.88 $\pm$ 91.62 & -20.11 $\pm$ 0.18 & -20.26 $\pm$ 0.09 & -20.64 $\pm$ 0.13 & -21.05 $\pm$ 0.13 & -21.44 $\pm$ 0.12 & -21.72 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
NGC 4051* & 272.78 $\pm$ 11.92 & 282.83 $\pm$ 15.31 & -20.64 $\pm$ 0.21 & -21.22 $\pm$ 0.21 & -21.45 $\pm$ 0.21 & -21.95 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.27 $\pm$ 0.11 & -23.18 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4138 & 379.86 $\pm$ 30.08 & 395.38 $\pm$ 35.87 & -18.92 $\pm$ 0.31 & -19.65 $\pm$ 0.31 & -20.25 $\pm$ 0.28 & -20.83 $\pm$ 0.28 & -21.34 $\pm$ 0.28 & -21.48 $\pm$ 0.28 \\
NGC 4151* & 318.73 $\pm$ 128.70 & 352.96 $\pm$ 130.56 & -19.85 $\pm$ 0.21 & -20.30 $\pm$ 0.21 & -20.91 $\pm$ 0.21 & -21.33 $\pm$ 0.21 & -24.29 $\pm$ 0.11 & -25.12 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4258 & 429.69 $\pm$ 6.38 & 398.45 $\pm$ 21.56 & -21.14 $\pm$ 0.10 & -21.60 $\pm$ 0.07 & -22.12 $\pm$ 0.12 & -22.54 $\pm$ 0.11 & -20.91 $\pm$ 0.11 & -21.26 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4303 & 311.43 $\pm$ 70.40 & 326.78 $\pm$ 71.75 & -21.07 $\pm$ 0.11 & -21.55 $\pm$ 0.10 & -22.02 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.36 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.11 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.15 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4395 & 187.73 $\pm$ 20.72 & 197.67 $\pm$ 23.59 & -17.65 $\pm$ 0.29 & -18.08 $\pm$ 0.29 & -18.44 $\pm$ 0.23 & -18.97 $\pm$ 0.23 & -15.48 $\pm$ 0.23 & -16.27 $\pm$ 0.23 \\
NGC 4565 & 490.00 $\pm$ 5.01 & 500.31 $\pm$ 8.01 & -21.49 $\pm$ 0.09 & -21.94 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.45 $\pm$ 0.11 & -23.03 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.46 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.23 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4639 & 352.47 $\pm$ 22.50 & 383.23 $\pm$ 23.09 & -19.68 $\pm$ 0.13 & -20.26 $\pm$ 0.13 & -20.72 $\pm$ 0.13 & -21.38 $\pm$ 0.19 & -21.50 $\pm$ 0.12 & -21.58 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
NGC 4939 & 485.06 $\pm$ 13.25 & 505.82 $\pm$ 23.77 & -22.08 $\pm$ 0.22 & -22.52 $\pm$ 0.22 & -22.89 $\pm$ 0.13 & -23.31 $\pm$ 0.12 & -23.22 $\pm$ 0.13 & -23.58 $\pm$ 0.13 \\
NGC 4945 & 346.00 $\pm$ 9.02 & 357.65 $\pm$ 13.02 & -20.22 $\pm$ 0.21 & \nodata & -21.67 $\pm$ 0.11 & -21.35 $\pm$ 0.70 & -20.00 $\pm$ 0.10 & -21.27 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5055 & 433.68 $\pm$ 11.56 & 449.07 $\pm$ 9.96 & -20.96 $\pm$ 0.13 & -21.54 $\pm$ 0.13 & -22.10 $\pm$ 0.13 & -22.53 $\pm$ 0.16 & -21.41 $\pm$ 0.10 & -21.46 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5643 & 344.62 $\pm$ 52.11 & 370.40 $\pm$ 56.11 & -20.45 $\pm$ 0.18 & -21.00 $\pm$ 0.18 & -21.17 $\pm$ 0.15 & -21.67 $\pm$ 0.15 & -21.14 $\pm$ 0.15 & -21.79 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
NGC 5728 & 449.26 $\pm$ 18.11 & 473.37 $\pm$ 27.46 & -21.74 $\pm$ 0.18 & -22.43 $\pm$ 0.17 & \nodata & -23.39 $\pm$ 0.14 & -23.85 $\pm$ 0.13 & -24.18 $\pm$ 0.13 \\
NGC 6814* & 372.16 $\pm$ 184.20 & 388.09 $\pm$ 187.82 & -20.21 $\pm$ 0.30 & -21.02 $\pm$ 0.20 & -21.48 $\pm$ 0.20 & -22.06 $\pm$ 0.20 & -22.40 $\pm$ 0.11 & -22.95 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 6951 & 540.10 $\pm$ 85.60 & 558.44 $\pm$ 86.39 & -21.27 $\pm$ 0.19 & -21.88 $\pm$ 0.19 & \nodata & \nodata & -22.95 $\pm$ 0.35 & -23.14 $\pm$ 0.35 \\
M 58 & 540.31 $\pm$ 44.01 & 575.04 $\pm$ 46.09 & -21.51 $\pm$ 0.23 & -22.24 $\pm$ 0.22 & -22.83 $\pm$ 0.23 & -23.40 $\pm$ 0.23 & -23.18 $\pm$ 0.22 & -23.39 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
M 104 & 793.91 $\pm$ 11.25 & 812.59 $\pm$ 19.64 & -22.16 $\pm$ 0.09 & -22.90 $\pm$ 0.08 & -23.33 $\pm$ 0.11 & -23.99 $\pm$ 0.11 & -23.37 $\pm$ 0.10 & -22.73 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227* & 430.02 $\pm$ 6.01 & 448.88 $\pm$ 10.66 & -20.85 $\pm$ 0.31 & -21.47 $\pm$ 0.31 & -21.98 $\pm$ 0.31 & -22.60 $\pm$ 0.26 & -23.26 $\pm$ 0.26 & -23.97 $\pm$ 0.26 \\
NGC 3786 & 511.57 $\pm$ 39.85 & 543.76 $\pm$ 40.92 & -20.85 $\pm$ 0.29 & -21.00 $\pm$ 0.22 & \nodata & \nodata & -23.26 $\pm$ 0.24 & -23.66 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
NGC 4438 & 235.69 $\pm$ 15.73 & 245.23 $\pm$ 105.41 & -20.69 $\pm$ 0.19 & -21.27 $\pm$ 0.19 & \nodata & \nodata & -22.67 $\pm$ 0.20 & -22.78 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
NGC 5194 & 198.74 $\pm$ 8.92 & \nodata & -20.61 $\pm$ 0.23 & -21.05 $\pm$ 0.23 & -21.73 $\pm$ 0.20 & -22.24 $\pm$ 0.20 & -20.55 $\pm$ 0.20 & -20.74 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
NGC 7469* & 288.43 $\pm$ 30.00 & 202.16 $\pm$ 17.93 & -21.34 $\pm$ 0.23 & -21.75 $\pm$ 0.23 & -22.16 $\pm$ 0.23 & -23.05 $\pm$ 0.23 & -25.61 $\pm$ 0.15 & -26.41 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
NGC 7674 & 730.99 $\pm$ 450.27 & 290.60 $\pm$ 351.93 & -21.80 $\pm$ 0.16 & -22.40 $\pm$ 0.15 & \nodata & \nodata & -26.18 $\pm$ 0.12 & -27.35 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Galaxy names marked with asterisks indicate galaxies consistent with the sample of Paper I (see \S\ref{section:data}). Columns 2 and 3 list both definitions of the deprojected \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm line width, both of which are statistically equal to twice the maximum rotation rate (see \S\ref{section:wmax}). Columns 4-9 list corrected absolute magnitudes of each AGN host in each bandpass derived from their corrected apparent magnitudes (Table \ref{corrected_mags}) and primary distances (Table \ref{basics}). The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}
\label{table:absmags}
\end{deluxetable*}

\subsection{AGN Type}
We adopt consistent nuclear classifications for the six galaxies from Paper I, and label them with asterisks in each table. We adopt all other nuclear activity classifications from the second data release of the Swift BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey (BASS; \citealt{koss2022}), which consists of hard X-ray-selected AGNs from the Swift BAT 70-month sample \citep{Baumgartner2013}, and list them in Column 7 of Table~\ref{basics}. We denote AGNs with a LINER classification as type L.

%\begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
%\tablewidth{18cm} 
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
%\tablecaption{21cm Spectral Characteristics}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
%\tablehead{
%\colhead{Target} & \colhead{$W_{20}$} & %\colhead{$W_{\mathrm{m}50}$} & \colhead{Flux}
%\\
%& (km s$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (Jy km s$^{-1}$)  %\\
%\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & %\colhead{(4)}
%}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
%\startdata
%\enddata
%\tablecomments{Columns 2 and 3 list both definitions of the projected line width of the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line (See \S\ref{section:wmax}). Column 4 lists the integrated flux of neutral hydrogen gas of each galaxy.}
%\label{21cm}
%\vspace{-3em}
%\end{deluxetable}
%\begin{figure*}
%\end{figure*}
%\end{center}

\subsection{Spectroscopy}\label{section:spectroscopy}
For the six galaxies shared between the samples of this work and Paper I, we adopt all \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectroscopic measurements presented in Paper I from observations with the 100\,m Robert C.\ Byrd Green Bank Telescope\footnote{The Green Bank Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation
operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities,
Inc.} (GBT). For the remaining galaxies, we adopt the emission line measurements tabulated in EDD. Adopted emission line widths and integrated flux measurements are listed in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}.

\subsection{Distances}\label{section:distances}
To maintain consistency with previous TF relation calibrations, we only adopt distance measurements via Cepheids, TRGB stars, SBF, SN Ia, SN II, or geometric distances. For galaxies with more than one distance measurement technique available, we defaulted to the primary distance (i.e., Cepheids or TRGB stars). For galaxies where multiple SN Ia distance measurements are available, we employ the five-source SN Ia distance from CF2, which draws from the main SN compilation of UNION2 \citep{Amanullah2010} in combination with four additional compilations \citep{Prieto2006,Jha2007,Hicken2009,Folatelli2010}, calibrated to the CF2 zero-point (\citealt{cosmicflows2}; see Figures 1 and 5 of \citealt{Courtois2012}).

\section{Construction of TF Relations}\label{section:construction_tf}
With 21\,cm emission line widths, apparent magnitudes, and primary $z-$independent distances in hand, we construct here TF relations solely populated by AGN host galaxies that span optical to infrared passbands. 

\subsection{\ion{H}{1} 21cm Line Widths}\label{section:wmax}
Measurement of the width of the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line profile can be directly translated to a galaxy's maximum rotation rate \citep{epstein1964,roberts1969}. The TF relation has employed two definitions of the line width in the literature; the original definition measured the width of the profile at 20\% of the peak flux, denoted $W_{20}$ \citep{tf1985}. In later work, the definition was updated such that the width of the profile is measured at 50\% of the mean flux, denoted $W_{m50}$ \citep{courtois2009}. The $W_{20}$ definition was used for calibrations of the $B$, $V$, and $R$ bands, while the $W_{m50}$ definition was used for the calibrations of the $I$ and WISE passbands. We detail each width definition and translation to deprojected, maximum rotational velocity ($W_{\lambda}^{i}$) below.

For both definitions of the line width, the observed width must be corrected to statistically agree with twice the maximum rotational velocity, accounting for the inclusion of both redshifted and blueshifted gas motions in the unresolved emission line profile. For the $W_{20}$ definition, the prescription is described by \cite{tf1985} as

\begin{equation}
% \begin{split}
W_{R}^{2} = W_{20}^{2} + W_{t}^{2} - 2W_{20}W_{t}[1 - e^{-(W_{20}/W_{c})^{2}}]
- 2W_{t}^{2}e^{-(W_{20}/W_{c})^{2}}
% \end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $W_{\mathrm{t}} = 38$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ describes random gas motions and $W_{\mathrm{c}} = 120$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ characterizes the transition from dual-horned \ion{H}{1} profiles to Gaussian-shaped profiles. The updated definition of the width measurement given by \cite{courtois2009} first includes corrections for instrumental and redshift broadening, defined as

\begin{equation}
    W_{m50}^{c} = \frac{W_{m50}}{(1+z)} - 2\Delta v\lambda
\end{equation} 

\noindent where $z$ is the redshift of the \ion{H}{1} line (see Column 2 of Table~\ref{basics}), $\Delta v$ is the smoothed resolution of the spectrum, and $\lambda$ is an empirically determined constant equal to 0.25. The translation to maximum rotational velocity was also updated as

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
W_{mx}^{2} = (W_{m50}^{c})^{2} + (W_{t,m50})^{2}[1 - 2e^{-(W_{m50}^{c}/W_{c,m50})^{2}}]\\
& \hspace{-4cm} - 2W_{m50}^{c}W_{t,m50}[1 - e^{-(W_{m50}^{c}/W_{c,m50})^{2}}]
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $W_{c,m50}$ = 100 km s$^{-1}$ and $W_{t,m50}$ = 9 km s$^{-1}$. The translated width (either $W_{R}$ or $W_{mx}$) is then deprojected to edge-on orientation by
\begin{equation}
    W^{i}_{\lambda} = W_{\lambda} / \sin(i)
\end{equation}
where $i$ is the inclination of the galaxy disk. 

Galaxy disk inclinations are generally derived from the disk axis ratios. We adopt the axis ratios constrained from surface brightness decompositions for all Seyfert 1 host galaxies in the sample of Paper I and tabulate them in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}. In the case of NGC 4151, the spatially resolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm distribution observed by \cite{mundell1999} reveals a much more face-on disk inclined at 21$^\circ$ with respect to typical measurements of the disk axis ratio in the optical of $\sim$0.6 \citep{dv1976,dv1991,misty2018}. We adopt 21$^\circ$ as the inclination of NGC 4151, consistent with Paper I. For all other galaxies, we adopt the axis ratios reported by RC3, and tabulate all axis ratios in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}. To derive disk inclinations from axis ratios, we follow the same prescription outlined in Paper I and the main TF works in the literature \citep{tf1977,tp2000,cosmicflows1,cosmicflows2}:

\begin{equation}
    \cos(i) = [(q_{d}^{2} - q_{0,d}^{2})/(1 - q_{0,d}^{2})]^{1/2}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $q_{d}=b/a$ is the axis ratio of the galaxy disk and $q_{0,d}$ is the intrinsic axis ratio of an edge-on galaxy, given as a single, global flattening value of $q_{0,d} = 0.2$ by \cite{tp2000}.

\subsection{TF Calibrations}\label{section:calibrations}
Canonical TF relations have been published for the Johnson-Cousins $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ optical and near-infrared filters (\citealt{tp2000,cosmicflows1}; Paper I; \citealt{tc2012}), and the WISE $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ infrared passbands \citep{Kourkchi2020}. The universal fits for each bandpass are: 

\begin{equation}
    M_{B}^{b,i,k} = -19.99 - 7.27(\log W_{R}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    M_{V}^{b,i,k} = −20.39 - 7.62(\log W_{R}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    M_{R}^{b,i,k} = -21.00 - 7.65(\log W_{R}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    M_{I}^{b,i,k} = -21.39 - 8.81(\log W_{mx}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    M_{W1}^{b,k,a} = −20.36 − 9.47(\log  W_{mx}^{i} - 2.4)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    M_{W2}^{b,k,a} = −19.76 − 9.66(\log  W_{mx}^{i} - 2.4)
\end{equation}

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={2.2cm 2cm 0cm 2cm},clip,scale=0.55]{mainplot.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.5cm 0cm 2cm},clip,scale=0.55]{tf_wise.pdf}
\caption{Top row: TF relations in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ passbands for the sample of active galaxies (see Table~\ref{basics}). The superscripts on the absolute magnitude denote that Galactic extinction ($b$), inclination-dependent extinction ($i$), and redshift corrections ($k$) have been applied (see \S\ref{section:corrected_mags}). Blue circles indicate galaxies hosting a Seyfert 1 AGN, red triangles a Seyfert 1.9 or 2 AGN, purple squares a LINER, and the open green circle indicates the interacting AGN host NGC 3227. No interacting systems were included in any quoted statistics in this work. The dashed lines in each panel are the TF calibrations for inactive galaxies, not lines of best fit. The bottom panels display the residuals (TF-predicted absolute magnitude minus the corrected absolute magnitude) for each filter, where the black horizontal line indicates perfect agreement with the TF prediction, and the grey bar indicates the typical scatter of $\pm$0.4\,mag from inactive galaxies. The scatter ($\sigma$) of each residual distribution is indicated in each of the bottom panels. Bottom row; Same as top panel, but for the $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ passbands. The typical scatter, indicated by the gray bars in the bottom panels, for the $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ filters is $\pm$0.56\,mag and $\pm$0.61\,mag, respectively. The arrows quantify the amount of light removed from the integrated galaxy brightnesses by extrapolating the brightness contribution of the SED \citep{rachael} of each AGN through the WISE bandpasses via synthetic photometry with the IRAF task $\textsc{synphot}$ (See \S\ref{discussion:IR}).
}\label{mainplot}
\end{figure*}

\noindent where $b$ is the correction for Galactic extinction along the line of sight, $i$ is the attenuation of a galaxy's light due to a spiral disk's inclination relative to the observer's line of sight, and $k$ accounts for the $k-$correction, or the effect of the spectroscopic redshift on each galaxy's observed magnitude in each passband. We estimate the Galactic extinction along the line of sight in each bandpass using the \cite{schlafly2011} recalibration of the Milky Way dust map of \cite{schlegel1998}.

The attenuation due to an individual galaxy's inclination, or the inclination-dependent extinction, is given by ${A_{i}^{\lambda} = \gamma_{\lambda}\log(a/b)}$ (\citealt{tully1998}; \citealt{tp2000}; \citealt{cosmicflows1}; \citealt{tc2012}; Paper I), where $\lambda$ is the passband, $a/b$ is the ratio of major to minor axes of the galaxy disk, and $\gamma_{\lambda}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{b_inc}
    \gamma_{B} = 1.57 + 2.75(\log W_{R}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{v_inc}
    \gamma_{V} = 1.01 + 2.94(\log W_{\textsc{R}}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    \gamma_{R} = 1.15 + 1.88(\log W_{R}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    \gamma_{I} =0.92 + 1.63(\log W_{mx}^{i} - 2.5)
\end{equation}

\noindent A new methodology was constructed to constrain the inclination-dependent extinction with the advent of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and WISE TF calibrations \citep{Kourkchi2020}, where $A_{i} = \gamma_{\lambda}\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}(i)$. In this formulation, $\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}(i)$ is a function of galaxy inclination, and $\gamma_{\lambda}$ is a new third-degree polynomial term constructed as a linear combination of observables. However, as stated by \cite{Kourkchi2020_2}, the inclination-dependent extinction is prominent at optical wavelengths, but minimal ($\sim$0.05\,mag) at wavelengths observed at $W_{1}$ (3.4\,$\mu$m) and negligible ($\sim$0.02\,mag) at $W_{2}$ (4.6\,$\mu$m). Thus, we assume the inclination corrections on the WISE magnitudes investigated here are negligible.
%\vspace{-0.75cm}

The redshift corrections, $k$, for each passband (\citealt{tp2000}, \citealt{Chilingarian2010}; Paper I) are as follows:

\begin{equation}\label{b_k}
    A_{k}^{B} = (3.6 - 0.36T)z
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{v_k}
    A_{k}^{V} = (2.23 - 0.22T)z
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    A_{k}^{R} = [4.24(R - I) - 1.10]z
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
    A_{k}^{I} = 0.302z + 8.768z^{2} - 68.680z^{3} + 181.904z^{4}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the galaxy morphological type (1, 3, 5, and 7 corresponding to Sa, Sb, Sc, and Sd) and $z$ is the redshift. The $k-$corrections in this work utilize the morphological classifications listed in Table~\ref{basics}, which we adopt from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED). For the WISE passbands, the $k-$corrections are effectively the same for the two passbands \citep{kourkchi2019} and are calculated as $A_{k}^{W1,2} = -2.27z$ \citep{os1968,Huang2007}.

An aperture correction, $a$, is applied to WISE magnitudes where point sources were employed for photometric calibration within apertures of a much smaller ($\sim$8\farcs25) fixed radius compared to the galaxies. We follow the fixed corrections on $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ apparent magnitudes given by the WISE Explanatory Supplement\footnote{\url{http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allsky/expsup/sec4_4c.html}} and adopted by the TF calibrations of \cite{kourkchi2019}, \cite{Kourkchi2020}, and \cite{Kourkchi2020_2}, given as $A_{a}^{W1} = -0.034$\,mag and $A_{a}^{W2} = -0.041$\,mag.

\subsection{Corrected Galaxy Magnitudes}\label{section:corrected_mags}
With magnitude corrections defined, each apparent magnitude is adjusted by the following formalism:

\begin{equation}
    m_{\lambda}^{*} = m_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{(total)}} - A_{b}^{\lambda} - A_{i}^{\lambda} - A_{k}^{\lambda} - A_{a}^{\lambda} 
\end{equation}

\noindent where $m_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{(total)}}$ is the observed, uncorrected apparent magnitude, and $A_{b}^{\lambda}$, $A_{i}^{\lambda}$, $A_{k}^{\lambda}$, and $A_{a}^{\lambda}$ are the Galactic extinction, inclination, redshift, and aperture corrections respectively. The aperture corrections are only applied to the WISE magnitudes. All corrected apparent magnitudes are listed in Table~\ref{corrected_mags}. We then derive the corrected absolute magnitudes in each passband, $M_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{*}}$, using $m_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{*}}$ and the primary, $z-$independent distances detailed in \S\ref{section:distances} (see Table~\ref{basics}), and tabulate all absolute magnitudes in Table \ref{table:absmags}.

\section{Results}\label{section:results}
Employing the derived maximum rotational velocities and corrected absolute magnitudes for our sample, we construct here TF relations for AGN host galaxies in the $B$, $V$, $R$, $I$, $W_{1}$, and $W_{2}$ passbands, and compare each distribution to the predictions from each respective canonical TF relation. With integrated \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm fluxes and observed galaxy colors in-hand, we also examine active galaxies on the BTF relation.

Excluding interacting systems, we calculate the scatter ($\sigma$) about each calibration along the magnitude axis, consistent with the main CF works in the literature, as follows:

\begin{equation}\label{equation:vertscatter}
\sigma^{2} = \left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{y} \sigma_{y}^{2}\right) - \sigma_{u}^{2}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\sigma_{y}$ is the deviation of the derived absolute magnitude of each galaxy using its primary distance from the TF-predicted absolute magnitude, $\sigma_{u}$ is the mean of the uncertainties of $\sigma_{y}$, and $N$ is the total number of data points. 

\subsection{TF Relations}
We plot the absolute magnitudes listed in Table \ref{table:absmags}, derived from the corrected apparent magnitudes listed in Table~\ref{corrected_mags} and primary distances in Table~\ref{basics}, as a function of deprojected \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm line width in the $B$, $V$, $R$, $I$, $W_{1}$, and $W_{2}$ filters in Figure~\ref{mainplot}. The dashed lines in each panel are the canonical TF relations for each respective passband, they are not lines of best fit. The nuclear activity of each AGN, also tabulated in Table~\ref{basics}, is denoted in the legend, where blue circles indicate Type 1 AGNs, red triangles indicate Type 1.9 and Type 2 AGNs, purple squares indicate LINERs, and the interacting active galaxy NGC 3227 is labeled with an open green circle. The arrows on select Type 1 AGNs in the bottom row denote our attempts to constrain and remove the contribution of the nucleus from the integrated galaxy magnitudes (see \S\ref{discussion:IR}). 

We plot the residual (TF-predicted $M_{\lambda}^{b,i,k}$ minus the derived $M_{\lambda}^{b,i,k}$) under each panel, where the gray bars represent the typical scatter of 0.4\,mag for the canonical optical and near-infrared relations \citep{tp2000,cosmicflows1,tc2012}, 0.56\,mag at $W_{1}$, and 0.61\,mag at $W_{2}$ \citep{Kourkchi2020}. We calculate the scatter $\sigma$ about the TF relations exhibited by the sample of active galaxies as 0.70\,mag for the $B-$band (22 galaxies), 0.70\,mag for the $V-$band (21 galaxies), 0.66\,mag for the $R-$band (19 galaxies), 0.77\,mag for the $I-$band (18 galaxies), 1.54\,mag for the $W_{1}-$band (22 galaxies) and 1.87\,mag for the $W_{2}-$band (22 galaxies).

To explore the behavior of each type separately, we display histograms for our sample of active galaxies as a function of the percentage difference between primary and TF-predicted distance in each bandpass in Figure \ref{hist1}. The vertical dashed line indicates perfect agreement between a galaxy's primary distance and its TF-determined distance, the left side of the dashed line indicates TF distances that are overestimated relative to primary distances, and the right side underestimated. We also calculate the mean and standard deviations of each distribution in Figure \ref{hist1}, and display them in each panel.

\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccc}
%\tablewidth{18cm} 
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{Deviations from TF Predictions}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{B}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{V}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{R}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{I}^{b,i,k}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{W1}^{b,k,a}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{W2}^{b,k,a}$}\\
 & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)  \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} 
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & -0.54 $\pm$ 0.42 & -0.33 $\pm$ 0.44 & -0.56 $\pm$ 0.44 & -0.91 $\pm$ 0.46 & 2.55 $\pm$ 0.23 & 4.22 $\pm$ 0.33 \\
NGC 1566 & 1.22 $\pm$ 0.36 & 1.36 $\pm$ 0.37 & 1.31 $\pm$ 0.38 & 1.35 $\pm$ 0.47 & 1.09 $\pm$ 0.27 & 1.98 $\pm$ 0.27 \\
NGC 3147 & -1.22 $\pm$ 0.87 & -0.99 $\pm$ 0.91 & \nodata & \nodata & -1.13 $\pm$ 0.20 & -0.51 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
NGC 3783* & -0.31 $\pm$ 1.12 & -0.09 $\pm$ 1.15 & 0.26 $\pm$ 1.15 & \nodata & 1.68 $\pm$ 0.81 & 3.23 $\pm$ 0.81 \\
NGC 3982 & -0.53 $\pm$ 0.72 & -0.82 $\pm$ 0.73 & -1.05 $\pm$ 0.74 & -1.37 $\pm$ 0.86 & -0.96 $\pm$ 0.19 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.18 \\
NGC 4051* & 1.12 $\pm$ 0.25 & 1.32 $\pm$ 0.25 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.25 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.24 & 1.42 $\pm$ 0.11 & 2.93 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4138 & -1.64 $\pm$ 0.40 & -1.35 $\pm$ 0.40 & -1.36 $\pm$ 0.39 & -1.42 $\pm$ 0.45 & -0.88 $\pm$ 0.29 & -0.18 $\pm$ 0.28 \\
NGC 4151* & -0.16 $\pm$ 1.29 & -0.12 $\pm$ 1.35 & -0.12 $\pm$ 1.36 & -0.48 $\pm$ 1.43 & 2.54 $\pm$ 0.25 & 3.93 $\pm$ 0.25 \\
NGC 4258 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.26 $\pm$ 0.23 & -1.34 $\pm$ 0.12 & -0.44 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
NGC 4303 & 1.13 $\pm$ 0.72 & 1.21 $\pm$ 0.75 & 1.07 $\pm$ 0.76 & 0.85 $\pm$ 0.85 & 0.67 $\pm$ 0.18 & 1.29 $\pm$ 0.18 \\
NGC 4395 & -0.69 $\pm$ 0.45 & -0.59 $\pm$ 0.47 & -0.83 $\pm$ 0.44 & -0.62 $\pm$ 0.51 & -3.90 $\pm$ 0.25 & -2.48 $\pm$ 0.25 \\
NGC 4565 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.00 $\pm$ 0.12 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.13 & -0.73 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.42 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4639 & -0.65 $\pm$ 0.24 & -0.49 $\pm$ 0.25 & -0.65 $\pm$ 0.25 & -0.74 $\pm$ 0.30 & -0.60 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.13 \\
NGC 4939 & 0.74 $\pm$ 0.23 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.24 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.15 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.22 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.14 \\
NGC 4945 & -0.06 $\pm$ 0.22 & \nodata & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.14 & -0.51 $\pm$ 0.71 & -1.81 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5055 & -0.02 $\pm$ 0.16 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.16 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.16 & -0.20 $\pm$ 0.18 & -1.34 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.74 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5643 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.51 & 0.33 $\pm$ 0.53 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.52 & -0.32 $\pm$ 0.60 & -0.82 $\pm$ 0.18 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.18 \\
NGC 5728 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.22 & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.22 & \nodata & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.26 & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.14 & 1.76 $\pm$ 0.14 \\
NGC 6814* & -0.29 $\pm$ 1.59 & 0.09 $\pm$ 1.65 & -0.07 $\pm$ 1.66 & -0.12 $\pm$ 1.86 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.30 & 1.36 $\pm$ 0.29 \\
NGC 6951 & -0.41 $\pm$ 0.54 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.56 & \nodata & \nodata & -0.70 $\pm$ 0.36 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.36 \\
M 58 & -0.17 $\pm$ 0.34 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.35 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.36 & -0.28 $\pm$ 0.38 & -0.59 $\pm$ 0.23 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.23 \\
M 104 & -0.74 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.54 $\pm$ 0.09 & -0.73 $\pm$ 0.12 & -1.01 $\pm$ 0.14 & -1.82 $\pm$ 0.11 & -1.96 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227* & -0.11 $\pm$ 0.32 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.32 & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.32 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.28 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.26 & 1.78 $\pm$ 0.26 \\
NGC 3786 & -0.66 $\pm$ 0.38 & -0.98 $\pm$ 0.34 & \nodata & \nodata & -0.27 $\pm$ 0.24 & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
NGC 4438 & 1.63 $\pm$ 0.28 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.29 & \nodata & \nodata & 2.41 $\pm$ 0.34 & 3.12 $\pm$ 0.33 \\
NGC 5194 & 2.09 $\pm$ 0.27 & 2.20 $\pm$ 0.28 & 2.27 $\pm$ 0.25 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
NGC 7469* & 1.64 $\pm$ 0.40 & 1.67 $\pm$ 0.41 & 1.46 $\pm$ 0.42 & 3.37 $\pm$ 0.41 & 6.15 $\pm$ 0.17 & 7.56 $\pm$ 0.17 \\
NGC 7674 & -0.83 $\pm$ 1.95 & -0.77 $\pm$ 2.04 & \nodata & \nodata & 5.22 $\pm$ 0.60 & 6.97 $\pm$ 0.59 \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Columns 4-9 list the deviation (TF-predicted absolute magnitude minus the corrected absolute magnitude) of each AGN host in each bandpass. The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}

\label{table:deviations}
\end{deluxetable*}

%\begin{figure*}
%\includegraphics[trim={4.5cm 1.5cm 0cm 2cm},clip,scale=0.6]{dvc_sy1_sample.pdf}
%\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{mainplot}, but for the sample of Seyfert 1 host galaxies from Paper II. Galaxies with primary distances (Cepheids, TRGB, SBF, and/or SN) are indicated as cyan circles, estimates from the CF DVC are indicated as orange triangles, and interacting systems are labeled with open purple circles.\label{figure:dvc_sy1}}
%\end{figure*}

%\begin{figure*}
%\includegraphics[trim={1.7cm 1.5cm 0cm 2cm},clip,scale=0.54]{dvc_sy2_sample.pdf}
%sd\caption{Same as Figure \ref{figure:dvc_sy1}, but for all Seyfert 2 host galaxies with 1) broadband photometry, 2) \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectra. Galaxies with primary distances (Cepheids, TRGB, SBF, and/or SN) are indicated as cyan circles, estimates from the CF DVC are indicated as orange triangles.\label{figure:dvc_sy2}}
%\end{figure*}
%\vspace{-1cm}
\subsection{The Baryonic TF Relation}\label{section:btfr}
The TF relation is an empirical correlation of rotational velocity and intrinsic brightness, which is essentially a relationship between a late-type galaxy's angular momentum and mass. As more massive objects generally spin faster, the more fundamental form of the TF relation is arguably the baryonic TF relation, a tightly-correlated relationship between maximum rotational velocity and baryonic matter (the sum of stellar and gas contributions to luminous mass; \citealt{mcgaugh2000,mcgaugh2005,lelli2016,iorio2017}). The BTF relation, originally calibrated using the peak of the observed rotation curve, has also been calibrated for numerous measurement methods using the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line \citep{lelli2019}. 

Each calibration of \cite{lelli2019} follows the form $\log(y) = s\log(x) + I$, where $y$ is the baryonic mass ($M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$) in units of $M_{\odot}$, $x$ is a rotational velocity measurement in km\,s$^{-1}$, and $s$ and $I$ are the slopes and intercepts respectively. We select the $W_{20}$ line width calibration (as all galaxies in our sample have $W_{20}$ measurements; see Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}) from \cite{lelli2019}, with $s=3.75 \pm 0.08$ and $I=1.99 \pm 0.18$. 

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 10cm 0cm 10cm},clip,scale=0.26]{dist_comps.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 8.5cm 1cm 10.5cm},clip,scale=0.26]{dist_comps_wise.pdf}
\caption{Top column: Histograms of the percentage differences of active galaxies in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ passbands. Vertical dashed lines in each panel denote perfect agreement with predictions from TF in that bandpass. Galaxies that populate the area left of each vertical dashed line have TF distances larger than a primary distance for the same galaxy, and those that populate the right of the line have distances smaller than a primary distance. AGN activity type is labeled as blue for Type 1, red for Type 2, and purple for LINER. The mean and standard deviation of each distribution is labeled in each panel. Bottom row: same as above but for the $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ passbands.}\label{hist1}
\end{figure*}

$M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ is calculated as $1.33M_{\mathrm{HI}} + M_{\star}$, where $M_{\mathrm{HI}}$ and $M_{\star}$ are \ion{H}{1} and stellar masses of each galaxy, respectively. SMBH mass is not included as a parameter of $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ estimates in this work, as the typical $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ fraction for this sample is 0.0014. The factor of 1.33 accounts for the contribution of helium to a galaxy's total gas mass (see \citealt{mcgaugh2012} and references therein). We convert the \ion{H}{1} fluxes tabulated in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm} to \ion{H}{1} masses by:

\begin{equation}
    M_{\mathrm{H\,I}} = 2.36 \times 10^5 \cdot D^2 \int S_{\nu} \, dv
\end{equation}

\noindent \citep{roberts1962}, where $D$ is the primary distance in Mpc and $S_{v}\,dv$ is the integrated \ion{H}{1} flux in units of Jy\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Gas mass ($M_{\mathrm{GAS}}$) is calculated as 1.33$M_{\mathrm{HI}}$, and the $B - V$ colors of our sample were then employed along with the prescriptions of stellar mass-to-light (M/L) ratios as a function of galaxy color of \cite{schombert2018} to constrain $M_{\star}$.

We plot all active galaxies in our sample on the BTF relation in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:bary}. The dashed line is the BTF calibration for the $W_{20}$ definition of the \ion{H}{1} line width \citep{lelli2019}, and the shapes of the data points indicated in the legend are as follows: filled circles denote galaxies hosting a Type 1 nucleus, filled triangles indicate a Type 2 or 1.9 nucleus, filled squares indicate host of a LINER, and the open circle denotes the interacting galaxy NGC 3227. The fraction of gas mass to total baryonic mass for each galaxy is indicated by the color bar, where gas-dominated systems are represented by bluer colors and stellar-dominated systems by redder colors. 

The scatter quoted by BTF calibrations of \cite{lelli2019} is the intrinsic scatter calculated along the orthogonal direction with respect to the linear fit ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{i}}$). The total orthogonal scatter ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}$) includes both the intrinsic and observed scatter ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{o}}$), thus the intrinsic scatter is calculated as:

\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{i}}^{2} = \left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\perp} \sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}^{2}\right) - \sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{o}}^{2}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}$ is the deviation of the derived baryonic masses of each galaxy perpendicular to linear fit, $\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{o}}$ is the mean of the observational uncertainties projected onto the orthogonal direction, and $N$ is the total number of data points.

We plot $\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}$ in the bottom panel of  Figure~\ref{fig:bary}, with the gray bar indicating the intrinsic scatter of the $W_{20}$ BTF calibration of 0.035\,dex. We also provide calculations of $\sigma$ (scatter along the y-axis according to Equation~\ref{equation:vertscatter}), the total orthogonal scatter ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}$) and the intrinsic orthogonal scatter ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{i}}$). For active galaxies about the BTF relation, we find a vertical scatter of 0.35\,dex, total orthogonal scatter of 0.10\,dex, and intrinsic orthogonal scatter of 0.06\,dex (21 galaxies).

\section{Discussion}\label{section:discussion}
Among the drivers of outlying behavior about the TF relation, which include the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter \citep{Pizagno2007}, galaxy disc sizes \citep{reyes2011}, and environmental effects such as local cluster environments (\citealt{Ouellette2017} and references therein), the correlation of scatter about the TF relation and star formation has been of focus \citep{Barton2001,Buchalter2001,bd2001,Kannappan2002,Torres-Flores2013,Ristea2024}. However, the effect of the presence of an AGN on the TF relation is relatively unexplored.

While the samples used to calibrate the canonical TF relations did not explicitly flag AGNs for removal \citep{tp2000,cosmicflows1,tc2012,Kourkchi2020}, the selection criteria generally exclude active galaxies. Primarily, all works above select spirals with inclinations greater than $45\degree$. As Type 1 AGNs have been observed to be preferentially hosted by face-on ($<45\degree$) galaxies \citep{Keel1980,mr1995,McLeod1995,Simcoe1997,Gkini2021}, this criterion naturally excludes a significant amount of Seyfert 1 hosts. The nuclear flux from unobscured Type 1 AGNs represents the primary expected source of photometric scatter in TF relations, whereas the high levels of nuclear obscuration inherent in Type 2 systems are expected to largely mitigate such contamination.

While certain studies, such as \cite{Tiley2016}, employ explicit Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich (BPT; \citealt{Baldwin1981}) diagnostics to exclude likely Seyfert candidates, the primary optical and near-infrared TF calibrations do not. Studies that utilize SDSS photometry, such as \cite{Mocz2012} and, most importantly, the TF calibrations of \cite{Kourkchi2020}, exclude galaxies with photometric or spectroscopic flags. This methodology naturally removes systems characterized by either point-source-dominated cores or significantly disturbed emission-line profiles, effectively implicitly removing high-luminosity AGNs from the calibration samples in addition to a large fraction of low- to moderate-luminosity AGNs. Given the above, analyses of active galaxies on the TF relation relative to each calibration serves as a good comparison between active galaxies and an (approximately) inactive galaxy sample.

\subsection{Active Galaxies on the TF Relation}
In all filters, we find evidence that this sample of AGN hosts exhibits larger $\sigma$ than is exhibited by a largely inactive galaxy sample, where the scatter exhibited by active galaxies is $\sim$75$\%$ larger in the optical and near-infrared, and $\sim$180$\%$ larger in the infrared. Once more, interacting systems are not included in any quoted statistics or scatter. The larger scatter may suggest that while the TF relation can predict accurate distances to a large distribution of active galaxies, the predicted distance to any one active galaxy is subject to higher uncertainty.

We note here that this sample does not represent a statistically significant sample of active galaxies, and as such we are limited in our analysis of their universal behavior on the TF relation. The sample is also biased towards high-mass, stellar-dominated, high-surface brightness galaxies that span only $\sim$2 decades in absolute magnitude, whereas TF calibrations will typically span $\sim$5-6 decades in absolute magnitude. A statistically significant sample would require relatively equal subsamples of nuclear activity types and a variety of galaxy cluster memberships to mitigate contributions of $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$, which would reasonably dictate a sample of $\sim$50$-$100 active galaxies. As such, it remains to be seen how lower-mass, gas-rich AGN host galaxies align with the canonical TF relations. 

\subsubsection{Optical and Near-Infrared Passbands}
We compare here the scatter exhibited by active galaxies on the TF relations for the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands to the traditional scatter quoted by the canonical TF relations in addition to known sources of scatter/outlying behavior from the TF relations. According to \cite{tc2012}, if galaxies with Hubble type Sa are included in TF calibrations, the scatter about the relation has been observed to increase (most likely due to the decreased disk contributions and increased bulge size of more early-type galaxies). For the ground-based optical and near-infrared calibrations of the TF relation, the scatter has been shown to decrease towards redder optical and near-infrared wavelengths, reaching minimal scatter at $R$ and $I$ bands \citep{pt1988,tp2000}. The scatter increases towards blue wavelengths, presumably due to increased inclination-dependent obscuration and random star formation (CF2), and also increases towards infrared ($H$ and $K$) caused by significant sky contributions in the infrared \citep{tully1982}. We do see an increase in scatter exhibited by active galaxies in the reddest infrared wavelengths as displayed in Figure~\ref{mainplot} consistent with the canonical TF relations, but the scatter does not seem to decrease from blue to red optical/near-infrared wavelengths.

% TF-predicted M - actual M
% -23 - (-22) = -1 : if dev is negative, TF-predicted is brighter, galaxy is dimmer than expected for its observed rotational velocity
% -21 - (-22) = 1: if dev is positive, TF-predicted is dimmer, galaxy is brighter than expected for its observed rotational velocity
While the sample is currently small, the larger observed
scatter seems to persist regardless of the type of nuclear activity. AGNs of Seyfert Type 1, 1.9, 2 all represent significant outliers from the TF relation. We find that Type 2 AGNs represent the largest percentage differences from primary distance determinations, with some approaching discrepancies of $\sim$100\%, and Type 1 AGNs and LINERs exhibiting smaller percentage differences. The Type 1 systems seem to exhibit a smaller percentage difference compared to the Type 2 systems, and we suspect the primary factor is that the nuclear contamination was removed from the integrated galaxy magnitudes for the majority of Type 1 AGNs via surface brightness decompositions (see \S\ref{section:photometry}, \citealt{misty2018}, Paper I).

Given the means of the distributions in each panel of Figure \ref{hist1}, we find that TF-based distances overestimate the primary distances for this sample by anywhere from 4\% ($V$ band) to 10\% ($B$ band), and the predicted distances overall exhibit a percentage difference of $\sim$35\%. The active galaxies in the sample with deviations from TF predictions larger than the typical quoted scatter (within the uncertainties) are: NGC 1068, NGC 1566, NGC 4051, NGC 4138, NGC 4438, NGC 4939, NGC 5194, NGC 5728, NGC 7469, and M 104. Of those, the interacting systems are NGC 4438, NGC 5194, and NGC 7469, and thus are not included in any statistics.

Though its nucleus carries a Type 2 classification, NGC 1068 was among the original sample of \cite{seyfert1943} due to its bright nucleus and high-excitation, significantly broadened emission lines. NGC 1068 was not included amongst our sample of Type 1 hosts where we modeled and removed the light contribution of the AGN, therefore the light from its nucleus remains in the corrected apparent magnitudes investigated here. We do not expect the Cepheids-based distance to NGC 1068 \citep{markham2026} to contribute to its outlying behavior, nor do we expect the light contamination from its AGN-driven outflows to significantly contribute. The ionized mass outflow in NGC 1068 has been measured to be confined to within only $\sim$200\,pc at a moderate outflow rate ($\sim8\,M_{\odot}$\,yr$^{-1}$ at a peak location of $\sim$100\,pc from the nucleus) than what has been found for similar nearby Type 2 AGN \citep{Revalski2021}. The unresolved \ion{H}{1} emission line of NGC 1068, however, exhibits broadened wings as opposed to the usual steep flanks expected from typical circular rotation \citep{ft1981,hr1989}. The high-resolution Very Large Array study by \cite{Brinks1997} revealed an atypical \ion{H}{1} rotation curve, with a slight increase in radial velocity corresponding to an \ion{H}{1} ring at $\sim$3\,kpc, and a gradual drop off in velocity at large radii as opposed to a flat outer curve. The irregularities in the rotation traced by \ion{H}{1} emission may explain the offset in absolute magnitude relative to the expected absolute magnitude at that rotation rate.

\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
%\begin{center}
%\begin{longtable*}{lrrrrrccccc}
\tablecaption{Galaxy Masses and Deviations from BTF Predictions}
%\caption{\\Galaxy Surface Brightness Decompositions}\\
%\toprule
%\tablewidth{16cm} 
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} & \colhead{$M_{\mathrm{GAS}}$} & \colhead{$M_{\star}$} & \colhead{$M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$} & \colhead{Dev.\ $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$}
\\
& ($M/M_{\odot}$) & ($M/M_{\odot}$) & ($M/M_{\odot}$) & (dex)  \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} &\colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)}
}
%\midrule
%\endhead\hline
%\endfoot 
%\bottomrule 
%\endlastfoot
\startdata
NGC 1068 & 9.07 $\pm$ 0.04 & 10.81 $\pm$ 0.16 & 10.82 $\pm$ 0.16 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
NGC 1566 & 10.18 $\pm$ 0.09 & 10.71 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.82 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.62 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
NGC 3147 & 10.09 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.34 $\pm$ 0.21 & 11.36 $\pm$ 0.20 & -0.43 $\pm$ 0.28 \\
NGC 3783 & 9.73 $\pm$ 0.24 & 10.88 $\pm$ 0.31 & 10.91 $\pm$ 0.30 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.42 \\
NGC 3982 & 9.39 $\pm$ 0.03 & 9.26 $\pm$ 0.30 & 9.63 $\pm$ 0.16 & -0.94 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
NGC 4051 & 9.45 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.69 $\pm$ 0.28 & 10.72 $\pm$ 0.26 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.37 \\
NGC 4138 & 8.95 $\pm$ 0.09 & 10.17 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.19 $\pm$ 0.11 & -0.34 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
NGC 4151 & 9.48 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.00 $\pm$ 0.36 & 10.11 $\pm$ 0.30 & -0.13 $\pm$ 0.42 \\
NGC 4258 & 9.48 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.62 $\pm$ 0.10 & 10.65 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.09 $\pm$ 0.14 \\
NGC 4303 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & 10.54 $\pm$ 0.19 & 10.63 $\pm$ 0.16 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.23 \\
NGC 4395 & 9.20 $\pm$ 0.08 & 9.09 $\pm$ 0.36 & 9.45 $\pm$ 0.20 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.28 \\
NGC 4565 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.73 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.79 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.16 $\pm$ 0.14 \\
NGC 4639 & 9.35 $\pm$ 0.03 & 10.24 $\pm$ 0.17 & 10.29 $\pm$ 0.15 & -0.12 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
NGC 4939 & 10.46 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.93 $\pm$ 0.10 & 11.06 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
NGC 4945 & 9.11 $\pm$ 0.01 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
NGC 5055 & 10.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 10.73 $\pm$ 0.17 & 10.82 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
NGC 5643 & 9.47 $\pm$ 0.04 & 10.48 $\pm$ 0.08 & 10.52 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
NGC 5728 & 9.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.20 $\pm$ 0.15 & 11.22 $\pm$ 0.15 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
NGC 6814 & 9.62 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.94 $\pm$ 0.18 & 10.96 $\pm$ 0.17 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
NGC 6951 & 9.58 $\pm$ 0.04 & 10.83 $\pm$ 0.14 & 10.86 $\pm$ 0.14 & -0.25 $\pm$ 0.19 \\
M 58 & 9.08 $\pm$ 0.08 & 11.17 $\pm$ 0.13 & 11.18 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.19 \\
M 104 & 8.41 $\pm$ 0.01 & 11.30 $\pm$ 0.06 & 11.30 $\pm$ 0.06 & -0.44 $\pm$ 0.09 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\text{Interacting Galaxies}} \\
\tableline
NGC 3227* & 9.43 $\pm$ 0.09 & 10.80 $\pm$ 0.24 & 10.82 $\pm$ 0.23 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.33 \\
NGC 3786 & 9.93 $\pm$ 0.08 & 9.70 $\pm$ 0.30 & 10.13 $\pm$ 0.15 & -0.89 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
NGC 4438 & 8.81 $\pm$ 0.06 & 10.79 $\pm$ 0.11 & 10.80 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.16 \\
NGC 5194 & 9.66 $\pm$ 0.07 & 10.43 $\pm$ 0.26 & 10.50 $\pm$ 0.23 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.33 \\
NGC 7469* & 9.09 $\pm$ 0.04 & 10.65 $\pm$ 0.34 & 10.66 $\pm$ 0.33 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.47 \\
NGC 7674 & 10.00 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.07 $\pm$ 0.17 & 11.11 $\pm$ 0.16 & -0.49 $\pm$ 0.23 \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Galaxy mass estimates and deviations from the BTF relation (derived $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ minus the predicted $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$) for the sample of active galaxies. Galaxy names marked with asterisks indicate galaxies consistent with the sample of Paper I (see \S\ref{section:data}). $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ is calculated as $M_{\mathrm{GAS}}$ + $M_{\mathrm{\star}}$, where gas and stellar mass derivations are described in \S\ref{section:btfr}. The bottom panel denotes interacting systems, which are not included in any quoted statistics in this work.}
\label{table:btfr}
%\vspace{-3em}
\end{deluxetable}

NGC 3227 is tidally interacting with its dwarf elliptical companion NGC 3226, and studies have revealed a richly intertwined dynamical history between the two galaxies \citep{rf1968,mundell1995,Appleton2014}. However, \cite{Schinnerer2000} and \cite{falcone2024}, who studied the kinematics of NGC 3227’s disk in cold molecular and ionized gas, respectively, did not detect unusual kinematic signatures indicative of tidal influences. Rather, \cite{falcone2024} find the ionized gas kinematics to be dominated by typical rotational motions out to $\sim$80$\arcsec$ from the SMBH, which is the approximate extent of the galactic disk. This may explain why NGC 3227, even though it is interacting, is not a significant outlier from the optical and near-infrared TF relations.

NGC 4138 carries an SA0(r) morphological classification, a much earlier type of galaxy than is used for TF calibration samples in the literature, which is the most likely reason for its outlying behavior. We do not expect distance to contribute to the large observed scatter, as the distance was determined from SBF (\citealt{tonry2001,cantiello2018}). We do not expect the disk kinematics to contribute to the scatter either, as the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum has been shown to be symmetric about the line center \citep{hr1989,edd2005}.

For NGC 4939, we again do not treat the derived rotational properties as suspect given the 21\,cm spectra are typically symmetric \citep{dr1978,shostak1978,koribalski2004,edd2005,ct2015}. The distance method used for NGC 4939, SN type II, usually shows significantly larger scatter than Type Ia SN distances, however \cite{jaeger2017} derived an intrinsic scatter of 0.35\,mag based on 73 type II SN in a redshift range of $z=0.01-0.5$, comparable (and slightly smaller) to the observed intrinsic scatter of most TF relations. NGC 4939 lies below the TF relation outside the typical scatter at $B$ and $V$, but rises to within the typical scatter at $R$ and $I$ bands, thus NGC 4939 is fainter than expected at $B$ and $V$ wavelengths.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={1cm 1cm 0cm 3.7cm},clip,scale=0.44]{btfr_orth.pdf}
\\
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={3cm 0cm 0cm 0cm},clip,scale=0.22]{dist_comps_btf.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: the BTF relation for active galaxies. $M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$ is calculated as 1.33$M_{\mathrm{HI}}+M_{\mathrm{\star}}$ (see Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}, \S\ref{section:spectroscopy}, \S\ref{section:btfr}). Each galaxy is labeled by their fraction of gas mass to total baryonic mass ($M_{\mathrm{GAS}}/M_{\mathrm{BARY}}$) indicated by the color bar. The orthogonal distance of each data point from the linear calibration ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{t}}$) is plotted beneath, with several calculations of scatter indicated in the top left corner. Type 1 AGN hosts are plotted as circles, Type 1.9 and 2 hosts as triangles, LINER hosts as squares, and the interacting AGN host NGC 3227 is labeled with an open circle. Bottom panel: Histograms of the percentage deviations of distances predicted from inverting the BTF relation from each active galaxy's primary distance measurement, in the same format as Figure \ref{hist1}.} \label{fig:bary}
\end{figure}

Interestingly, the LINER host M 1042, `The Sombrero Galaxy', is included among the largest outliers, even though its distance is TRGB-based \citep{McQuinn2016} and its \ion{H}{1} spectrum has been observed to be typically symmetric \citep{Gallagher1975,Courtois2011}. M 104 is an AGN-driven LINER, as Very Long Baseline Array observations at linear scales under 0.01\,pc yielded direct evidence of a nuclear radio jet \citep{Hada2013}, thus its outlying behavior may suggest that present nuclear activity may not be a reliable indicator of the AGN's recent impact on the large-scale galaxy surface brightness, and the history of the individual AGN's feedback may need to be factored in. We do note that the adopted morphological classification for M 104 is SA(s)a, which falls under the earliest galaxy type included in TF calibrations and thus may be too early a type to reliably align with a universal TF relation.

\subsubsection{Infrared Passbands}\label{discussion:IR}
Active galaxies on the WISE TF relations in the infrared display the largest scatter with respect to all other passbands investigated in this study. As shown in Figure~\ref{mainplot}, galaxies hosting a Type 1 AGN generally lie above the relations, while Type 2 AGN generally lie closer. This is most likely because the AGN contamination for the Type 1 hosts was not modeled or removed at infrared wavelengths (see \S\ref{section:ir_photometry}). Given the means of the distributions in each panel of the top row Figure \ref{hist1}, we find that at $W_{1}$, TF-based distances are overestimated with respect to the primary distances by $\sim$40\% (the largest outlier in both filters is NGC 4395, a dwarf Type 1 AGN host), whereas at $W_{2}$ they have a small tendency to be underestimated (mean of 0.05). Both, however, exhibit significantly larger ranges of percentage differences in distance than the optical/near-infrared filters (116\% at $W_{1}$ and 70\% in $W_{2}$).

As discussed in \S\ref{section:ir_photometry}, the resolution of the WISE instrument is insufficient to separate the nuclear light from the host galaxy, thus we turned to the SEDs of \cite{rachael} to attempt to constrain the AGN light contribution through the $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ passbands. We represent each removal as downward facing arrows in Figure \ref{mainplot}. We note here, however, that the infrared light constrained in these filters is contributed largely by the torus \citep{lr2017}. The light emitted by a torus depends both on the AGN luminosity and physical properties of the torus itself, which are more influenced by the host galaxy rather than the central engine (e.g., \citealt{Schartmann2009}, see review by \citealt{lr2022}). Therefore, these attempts simply represent first-order estimates and should be taken with additional scrutiny.

The AGN in NGC 3227 represents the largest estimated luminosity contribution with respect to the total galaxy in the infrared ($\sim$70\% compared to $\lesssim$10\% for the remaining Type 1 hosts). We note once more that the contribution of luminosity from the AGN is estimated via extrapolation of the SED to the WISE wavelengths, and that the radiation at these wavelengths is expected to originate largely from the dusty torus. The infrared data used to construct the SEDs were largely observed at the same time with the same instrument \citep{misty2018}. NGC 3227, 4051, and 4151 were observed in April 2013, while NGC 6814 and 7469 were observed in September 2011, all with the WIYN instrument. In contrast, the operating years of the WISE telescope were 2009-2011, lending to the possibility that the AGN activity in a number of these Seyfert hosts may have been stronger during the observation period of WISE. For example, the historical light curve of NGC 4151 presented by \cite{4151_continuum1} shows that the optical nuclear continuum of NGC 4151 was approximately 0.5\,mag brighter in 2010-2011 than it was in 2013 when the infrared imaging used to construct the SED was conducted. However, even if broadband imaging happens to be timed to a pronounced period of AGN activity and luminosity output, it still may not enable sufficient removal of the effect of an AGN on integrated galaxy luminosity for use in TF distance determinations as we have shown here. 

\subsection{Active Galaxies on the BTF Relation}
As we noted in \S\ref{section:btfr}, the intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{i}}$ calculated by \cite{lelli2019} for the calibration for the $W_{20}$ line width definition is 0.035\,dex. The sample of (non-interacting) active galaxies exhibit an intrinsic perpendicular scatter of 0.06\,dex, a percentage difference of $\sim$55\%. The vertical scatter we find for this sample, $\sigma = 0.35$\,dex, is also slightly larger than that observed for the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curve (SPARC) sample of $\sigma \simeq 0.22$\,dex \citep{mcgaugh2012,lelli2016,Dutton2017}. However, the relative increase in scatter can likely be attributed to any or all of the following factors: 1) this sample is much smaller than the $W_{20}$ calibration sample of Lelli et al.\ (21 galaxies compared to 148) and only probes the high-mass end of the BTF relation at the fastest maximum rotational velocities, significantly limiting any conclusions of the universal behavior of AGN hosts on the BTF relation, 2) the line width deprojections from the $W_{20}$ calibration of \cite{lelli2019} are informed from \ion{H}{1} velocity fields as opposed to photometric axis ratios we have employed in this study, adding a source of scatter relative to the calibrating sample, and/or 3) approximately half of the axis ratios of this sample are above 0.72 (which corresponds to an inclination of 45\degree, the usual cutoff inclination for TF calibrations), and the uncertainty on $W_{\mathrm{R}}^{i}$ increases as $q_{\mathrm{d}}$ increases. 

As galaxy distance is used to calculate both $M_{\mathrm{GAS}}$ and $M_{\star}$, the BTF relation can be inverted to predict distance, and we display the percentage difference between BTF-based distances and primary distances in Figure \ref{fig:bary}. We again see Type 2 AGNs exhibit larger percentage deviations compared to Type 1 AGNs and LINERs, and find that BTF-predicted distances tend to overestimate primary distances by nearly 15\% with an overall percentage difference of nearly 60\%. However, we note once more that the method used to constrain these rotational velocities may not precisely align with the baryonic content, which is estimated independently of rotation. Therefore, these results serve as a preliminary, limited analysis of BTF-predicted distances to active galaxies.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={1cm 1.8cm 0cm 1.8cm},clip,scale=0.545]{hub1.pdf}
\\
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={1cm 0cm 0cm 2.1cm},clip,scale=0.545]{hub2.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: Hubble diagram for the sample of active galaxies with $z-$independent distances (see Table~\ref{basics}) vs.\ their cosmologically-adjusted velocity $V_{\mathrm{MOD}}$. Blue circles denote hosts of Type 1 AGNs, red triangles of Type 1.9 or 2 AGNs, purple squares of LINERs, and open green circles indicate interacting systems. We compare these to the Hubble-Lema\^itre Law, with $H_{0}$ values based on the most recent distance ladder measurements (73.17\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$; \citealt{Riess2022_2,Murakami2023,Breuval2024}) and $\Lambda$CDM predictions from models to the cosmic microwave background radiation (67.4 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$; \citealt{planck2018}). Bottom panel: same as the top panel, but with $I-$band TF distances employed.} 
\label{figure:hubble}
\end{figure}

There may also be an impact on galaxy-scale kinematics via AGN-driven NLR outflows, which have been observed to span up to $\sim$4\,kpc
from the central SMBH \citep{of2006,revalski2018,Revalski2018_2,Revalski2021,Revalski2022,Revalski2025}. Even nearby, low/intermediate-luminosity systems such as this sample have the capability of introducing non-gravitational gas motions at kiloparsec scales, as has been observed by \cite{Wylezalek2020}. Wylezalek et al.\ identify AGN kinematic signatures in galaxies that no longer align with photoionization from an active nucleus, termed `relic AGN' \citep{if2015}. For hosts of relic AGN, outflow and mechanical feedback signatures would be longer lived than the AGN itself. Therefore, even the hosts of nearby, low-luminosity AGNs may still carry kinematic signatures of higher-luminosity systems, and thus may be subject to galaxy-scale disturbances by AGN-driven outflows. However, resolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm studies such as The \ion{H}{1} Nearby Galaxy Survey \citep{walter2008} have measured flat rotation curves out to $\sim$10 $-$ 15\,kpc on average, appreciably larger than that found for NLR outflow extents and thus the bulk of the neutral gas likely remains undisturbed.

%\subsection{Supplemental Samples}
%The primary limiting factor for investigating active galaxies on the TF relation is the availability of $z-$independent distances, where the only AGN hosts with distances (excluding TF-based distances) are those listed in Table \ref{basics}. To attempt to expand our exploration, we supplement our sample by estimating the distances to additional AGN hosts via the CF Distance-Velocity calculator (DVC; \citealt{Kourkchi2020}). The CF DVC predicts a distance to a galaxy based on their model of local mass distribution and resulting velocity field in a region of the sky. The model is based on the Cosmicflows compendium of galaxy and galaxy group distances, which boasts $\sim$56,000 distances within $z\leq0.1$ in its fourth iteration \citep{cosmicflows4}. The calculator is segmented into three distance bins, where galaxies within 38\,Mpc are based on the Numerical Action Methods model of \cite{shaya2017}, galaxies within 200\,Mpc  are based on the linear density field model of \cite{graziani2019}, and galaxies with 500\,Mpc are based on the linear density field model of \cite{Valade2024}.

%\subsubsection{Supplemental Sample 1: Seyfert 1 Hosts}
%We first explore the TF relation for all Seyfert 1 galaxies in the sample of Paper II, as the AGN contamination for every galaxy in that study was carefully modeled and removed from each image via surface brightness decompositions (see \S\ref{section:photometry} for a brief description and Paper II for a full discussion). Thus, we adopt all AGN-free galaxy apparent magnitudes and disk axis ratios presented in Table~2 of Paper II, and apply consistent corrections as detailed in Sections \ref{section:calibrations} and \ref{section:corrected_mags}. We also adopt all $W_{20}$ line width measurements tabulated in Table 3 of Paper I, and deproject each width using the $W_{R}$ definition of the rotational velocity (see Section \ref{section:wmax}). Lastly, we adopt all $z-$independent distances listed Table 7 of Paper II, excluding any TF-based distances. For the remainder of the sample, we estimate each galaxy's distance by adopting the respective predictions from the CF DVC. We assign quality flags on each predicted distance based on the mass distribution present in the CF catalog at a galaxy's location on the sky, and adopt corresponding uncertainties (either 20\%, 25\%, or 30\%) based on each quality flag. We label this sample as Supplemental Sample 1, with the original sample outlined in Section \ref{section:data} hereafter referred to as the Primary Sample, and tabulate the adopted galaxy properties and estimated distances, along with their quality flags and associated uncertainties, in Table \textbf{BLANK} of \textbf{THE APPENDIX}.

%The TF relations for Supplemental Sample 1 in the $B$, $V$, and $R-$bands are displayed from left to right in the three panels Figure \ref{figure:dvc_sy1}. Galaxies with $z-$independent distances are indicated as Primary Distances in cyan circles, while CF DVC-estimated distances are labeled with orange triangles. The interacting galaxies of the sample of Paper II, NGC 3227 and NGC 7469, are labeled with open purple circles. The dashed lines in each panel, consistent with Figure \ref{mainplot}, are the TF calibrations for reach respective filter and not lines of best fit. The residuals are also plotted beneath each panel and represent the same quantities as in Figure \ref{mainplot}. Once more excluding interacting systems, the scatter exhibited by Supplemental Sample 1 is 0.64\,mag in the $B-$band (12 galaxies), 0.79\,mag in the $V-$band (22 galaxies), and 0.49\,mag in the $R-$band (6 galaxies).

%\subsubsection{Supplemental Sample 2: Seyfert 2 Hosts}
%We next explore the TF relation solely for hosts of Seyfert 2 nuclei. To construct our second supplemental sample, Supplemental Sample 2, we first collected all AGNs with Type 2 classifications from BASS. We then cross-referenced this sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies with EDD to filter out any galaxies without 1) \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectral observations and/or 2) optical or near-infrared photometry. The resulting Supplemental Sample 2 consisted of 27 galaxies each in the $B$, $V$, and $R-$bands and 23 galaxies in the $I-$band, where the photometric data are adopted from the same sources detailed in Section \ref{section:photometry} and corrected with the same methodology discussed in Sections \ref{section:calibrations} and \ref{section:corrected_mags}. We also adopt all $W_{20}$ \ion{H}{1} line width measurements tabulated in EDD for each Type II host, and deproject them to edge-on orientation using the axis ratios reported in RC3 according to the $W_{R}$ definition in Section \ref{section:wmax}. Finally, we adopt any available $z-$independent distance measurement for Supplemental Sample 2 recorded in EDD (15 galaxies), and follow the prescription for CF DVC-estimated distances and assignment of uncertainties above for the remaining galaxies (12 galaxies). Finally, we collect the adopted galaxy properties, estimated distances, quality flags, and associated uncertainties in Table \textbf{BLANK} of \textbf{THE APPENDIX}.

%The optical and near-infrared TF relations for Supplemental Sample 2 are plotted from left to right in the four panels Figure \ref{figure:dvc_sy2}. The labels, dashed lines, and residuals are the same as in Figures \ref{mainplot} and \ref{figure:dvc_sy1}. The scatter exhibited by the Seyfert 2 hosts is 0.81\,mag in the $B-$band (27 galaxies), 0.85\,mag in the $V-$band (27 galaxies), 0.74\,mag in the $R-$band (27 galaxies), and 0.58\,mag in the $I-$band (23 galaxies).

%\subsection{Notes on Individual Objects}
%galaxies in star formation plot where SF explains outlying behavior: NGC 4051, 4939, 5728. NGC 4138, interestingly, is lying far beneath the expected star formation rate, and also lies beneath every single canonical TF relation

%\subsubsection{NGC 1566}
%detailed look at nucleus: \cite{dasilva2017}, where there's a nuclear ring and outflow connected to an H II region

%\subsection{NGC 3227}
%\textit{julia}

%\subsection{NGC 4051}
%seems to have been outlying from the beginning, even though its a pretty normal galaxy with not very high nuclear activity. enhanced star formation is the most likely answer

%\subsection{NGC 4138}
%4138 and 4151 are the lowest on the SF plot, but only 4138 outlying is explained by that. 4138 is an SA0(r) galaxy, while 4151 is (R')SAB(rs)ab, more disk or something, able to form more stars

%\subsection{NGC 4258}
%large outlier in the WISE passbands

%\cite{cecil2000} active jet, shock fronts roughly aligned with the disk of the galaxy, jet shows signs of precessing out of the plane of the galaxy

%\subsection{NGC 4939}
%Spectra are great \citep{dr1978,shostak1978,koribalski2004,edd2005,ct2015}
%SN II distance, which usually show significantly larger scatter than Type Ia SN distances, however \cite{jaeger2017} derived an intrinsic scatter of 0.35\,mag based on 73 type II SN in a redshift range of $z=0.01–0.5$, comparable (and slightly smaller) to the observed instrinsic scatter of most TF relations.

%Shows slightly higher scatter within the uncertainties in B and V, but it falls back within the typical scatter at $R$ and $I-$bands, which suggests that NGC 4939 might just exhibit larger obscuration and scatter at bluer wavelengths compared to other AGN hosts in this study.
 
%\subsection{M 104}

\subsection{AGN Hubble Diagram}\label{section:hubble_results}
Finally, we place active galaxies on a Hubble diagram in Figure \ref{figure:hubble}, and compare the primary distances (top panel) to distances predicted by the $I-$band TF relation (bottom panel). We correct each recessional velocity measured from the redshift of the \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line (see Table~\ref{basics}) for relativistic effects assuming $\Lambda$CDM cosmology (which are small for galaxies with $z<0.1$ such as this sample). The modified, cosmologically-adjusted galaxy velocity ($V_{\textsc{MOD}}$) described by the CF program is given as
\begin{equation}
    V_{MOD} = cz[1 + 0.5(1-q_{0})z - (1/6)\left(1 - q_{0} - 3q_{0}^{2} + 1\right)z^{2}]
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the redshift with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background rest frame, $q_{0}$ = 0.5($\Omega_{\textsc{M}}$ - 2$\Omega_{\Lambda}$), $\Omega_{\textsc{M}}$ = 0.27, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.73. In each panel of Figure \ref{figure:hubble}, we display the most recent three-rung distance ladder measurement of $H_{0} = 73.17 \pm 0.86$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{Riess2022_2,Murakami2023,Breuval2024} and the predicted $H_{0}$ constrained from $\Lambda$CDM models to the cosmic microwave background radiation of $H_{0} = 67.4 \pm 0.5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{planck2018}. 

Both panels share a large scatter of $V_{\mathrm{MOD}}$ as a function of distance for nearby galaxies as expected, considering the contribution of $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ increases as redshift decreases. For primary distances, active galaxies seem well-characterized by an $H_{0}$ as measured from the cosmic distance ladder. The $I-$band TF distances for the same galaxies, however, exhibit significant deviations from the Hubble flow, even at distances closer than 50\,Mpc. The $I-$band is preferred in both the CF catalog and in observational $H_{0}$ constraints (e.g., \citealt{Sakai2000,Boubel2024,Scolnic2024}), as galaxies generally exhibit slightly less scatter at $I$ than other passbands due to the avoidance of larger internal obscuration at bluer wavelengths and a better trace of older stellar populations that contribute the majority of mass. $I-$band distances are also heavily utilized for the CF model of the local $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ field \citep{shaya2017,graziani2019}. Yet, the scatter from active galaxies persists even in the $I$ band, and so we suggest that AGN hosts be removed from future samples used by CF $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ field models.

\section{Conclusions}
We have investigated a sample of 22 active galaxies with primary distances on the TF and BTF relations. In all photometric filters explored here, we find that active galaxies exhibit $\sim$75\% larger scatter in the optical and near-infrared filters and $\sim$180\% larger scatter in the infrared compared to the (largely inactive) calibrating samples. Hosts of Type 2 AGNs represent the largest scatter at $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$, and hosts of Type 1 AGNs contribute more to the scatter at $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$. About the BTF relation, active galaxies once more exhibit increased scatter ($\sigma_{\perp,\mathrm{i}}=0.06$\,dex) relative to its calibration, however this may be explained by the small sample size of this study and the bias towards the highest-mass systems. This outlying behavior persists despite our efforts to constrain and remove the AGN contamination from the integrated galaxy surface brightnesses by either 1) surface brightness decompositions for the optical/near-infrared magnitudes or 2) AGN SEDs to estimate the nuclear light contribution in the WISE magnitudes, which suggests that the effect of an AGN on large-scale galaxy surface brightness may not be confined to the nucleus. 

We also calculate the percentage differences between primary and TF-based distances for this sample, and find that TF distances are biased towards overestimation of the true distances to active galaxies in every filter targeted here except for $W_{2}$. If distance to active galaxies is instead provided by inverting the BTF relation, we find a slightly larger bias towards overestimation (mean of $\sim$15\%) relative to the true distances. Even in the $I-$band, the most heavily-utilized calibration in the CF catalog, TF-predicted distances are shown to be biased further by a factor of $\sim$10\%, with an overall percentage difference of $\sim$35\%. The disk kinematics of this sample that determine the TF and BTF-predicted distances may also be suspect given the capability of AGN-driven outflows and high-velocity gas to span to kiloparsec scales (even for nearby, low-luminosity systems like this sample) introducing non-gravitational motion and even additional broadening of unresolved emission lines.

This sample is limited, however, to the closest, brightest systems of the highest stellar mass, hindering our ability to investigate the behavior of active galaxies on the TF and BTF relations for dimmer, gas-rich systems with slower rotational velocities. Systematic targeting of AGNs for $z-$independent distance measurements would provide a more statistically-significant sample to 1) enable a more robust re-analysis of this work and 2) calibrate new AGN-based rungs of the Cosmic Distance Ladder (e.g., \citealt{Watson2011}). As near-infrared and infrared TF relations are more frequently employed for large-scale $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ modeling of our local supercluster, we also argue for complete removal of active galaxies from future TF-based $V_{\mathrm{PEC}}$ modeling samples. 

\begin{acknowledgements}
M.C. Bentz gratefully acknowledges support from the NSF through grant AST-2407802. H.M.C. acknowledges support from the Institut Universitaire de France. This work is based on observations obtained at the MDM Observatory, operated by Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Ohio State University, Ohio University, and the
University of Michigan. This work is based on observations obtained with the Apache Point Observatory 3.5 m telescope, which is owned and operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium, and with Apache Point Observatory’s 0.5 m Astrophysical
Research Consortium Small Aperture Telescope. This research has been supported by RECONS (www.recons.org) members Michele Silverstein, Todd Henry, and Wei-Chun Jao, who provided data as part of the long-term astrometry/photometry program at the CTIO/SMARTS 0.9 m, which is operated as part of the SMARTS Consortium. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. This publication makes use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
\end{acknowledgements}

\begin{contribution}
J.\ H.\ Robinson oversaw the project and wrote the manuscript. M.\ Revalski provided extensive scientific consultation for the project on the whole, with specific attention given to resolved AGN outflow dynamics and the majority of Seyfert 2 hosts. M.\ C.\ Bentz, D.\ M.\ Crenshaw, H.\ M.\ Courtois, R.\ L.\ Merritt, and J.\ Falcone provided scientific expertise. V.\ Lahue assisted with all calculations and analyses of the optical and near-IR TF relations. I.\ Chintala assisted in the preliminary analysis of the IR TF relations. All authors contributed to the presentation of the results
\end{contribution}

\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}
%\appendix
%We provide here notes for data adopted for each individual object in our sample.

%\phantomsection
%\label{Appendix}

%\section{NGC 1566}
%The \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum NGC 1566 exhibits a classic dual-horned profile as reported by several observations with the 64\,m Parkes telescope \citep{Reif1982,hr1989,Mathewson1992,koribalski2004}. \cite{hr1989} provide a $W_{20}$ measurement of $229.0 \pm 6.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, with \cite{koribalski2004} providing the most recent observation for inclusion in EDD with a measurement of $W_{m50} = 213.0 \pm 13.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The AGN has been classified as a Type 1 nucleus \citep{koss2022}, a Seyfert 1.5 \citep{vv2006}, and as a recurrent changing-look AGN (\citealt{tomas2022} and references therein). While the nuclear activity has varied widely, its contribution to the galaxy's luminosity has remained low, with an Eddington ratio of just $\sim$0.1 \citep{combes2014}, thus we do not expect the nuclear light of NGC 1566 to contaminate the integrated galaxy luminosities to any significant degree. \cite{sabbi2018} attempted to measure the distance using TRGB stars, however they noted difficulty in detecting the tip of the red giant branch for NGC 1566 in their photometry and assume a distance of $18 \pm 2$\,Mpc via private communication.

%\section{NGC 3147}
%NGC 3147 has been observed several times with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) 91\,m telescope \citep{hr1989,rh1991,edd2005}, each producing a well-defined, symmetric dual-horned profile. \cite{hr1989} and \cite{edd2005} measure the line widths of the \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm profile of NGC 3147 to be $W_{20} = 418.0 \pm 9.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 393.0 \pm 15.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. The AGN carries a Type 2 classification \citep{panessa2002}, and we employ the five-source SNIa distance of CF2 of $39.3 \pm 1.6$\,Mpc.

%\section{NGC 3227}
%NGC 3227 is a well-known Type 1 \citep{kw1974} AGN host galaxy, and was included in our sample from Paper II. As such, the contamination from the nucleus in the $B$, $V$, and $R-$bands has been carefully modeled and removed from the apparent magnitudes used in this study (see \S\ref{section:photometry}). We reported the most recent \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum of NGC 3227 in Paper I via observations with the 100\,m GBT, including line width measurements of $W_{20} = 436.3 \pm 3.8 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from Paper I and $W_{m50} = 428.0 \pm 9.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from Paper II. As noted by previously published \ion{H}{1} observations of NGC 3227 \citep{dr1978,bf1979,peterson1979,ds1983,vandriel2001,ho2008_data}, its \ion{H}{1} spectrum is asymmetric, with the blue side of the profile exhibiting significantly weaker flux than the red side. NGC 3227 is interacting with its neighbor, NGC 3226, which could be the cause of the asymmetry. However, NGC 3226 is an elliptical galaxy, and the resolved \ion{H}{1} study by \cite{mundell1995} reported no detection in HI. Thus, it is likely that there is minimal to no contribution of \ion{H}{1} flux in NGC 3227`s spectrum from NGC 3226. NGC 3226 also has an SBF-based distance of $23.7 \pm 2.6$\,Mpc \citep{tonry2001,Blakeslee2010}, which we assume is the same distance to NGC 3227.

%\section{NGC 3783}
%NGC 3783, a Type 1 \citep{kw1974} AGN host galaxy was included in our sample of Paper II. As such, we use the AGN-free galaxy magnitudes in the $B$, $V$, and $R-$bands constrained via careful surface brightness modeling (see \S\ref{section:photometry}). NGC 3783 displays a symmetric dual-horned profile in its \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum reported by Paper I via observations with the 100\,m GBT, and our $W_{20}$ and $W_{m50}$ measurements of $152.5 \pm 1.5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $147.0 \pm 8.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively, are consistent with previously reported line width measurements \citep{theureau2007}. The distance is provided by combining the linear BLR sized as measured through RM \citep{misty2021} with the spatially-resolved BLR angular size as measured by the Very Large Telescope Interferometer \citep{gravity2021}, yielding a geometric-based constraint of $39.9^{+14.5}_{−11.9}$ Mpc.

%\section{NGC 3786}
%The majority of \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm profiles of NGC 3786 are asymmetric in flux about the line center \citep{mw1984,Lewis1985,edd2005}. These studies corroborate the most likely cause is NGC 3788 with which it is interacting, with the beam size of the 305\,m Arecibo telescope partially encompassing NGC 3788 along with NGC 3786. The spatially-resolved \ion{H}{1} study of irregular spirals by \cite{noordermeer2005} confirms a clear interaction, complete with a tidal tail of \ion{H}{1} from NGC 3788 extending $\sim$50\,kpc toward NGC 3786, effectively overlapping the gas distributions of both galaxies. \cite{vandriel2001} employed the Nan\c cay 94\,m telescope with a larger beam size that encompassed both galaxies, resulting in a 21\,cm spectrum with symmetric horns and subsequent line width measurements of $W_{50} = 436 \pm 14$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{20} = 535 \pm 21$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, both of which are larger compared to other measurements most likely caused by the full inclusion of NGC 3788 in the beam. While the \ion{H}{1} line width-based rotational velocity remains uncertain due to the interaction, we adopt the line widths as reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 460 \pm 29$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 466 \pm 30$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, both of which are measured from spectra taken by the Arecibo telescope, to avoid as much of the contribution of NGC 3788 as possible. The nuclear activity in NGC 3786 has been classified as Type 1.9 \citep{koss2022}, and the galaxy was host to the type Ia supernova SN 2004bd. Analysis of the SN light curve by \cite{koshida2017} provides the distance measurement of $49.68 \pm 4.92$\,Mpc.

%\section{NGC 3982}
%NGC 3982 boasts a classic, symmetric dual-horned \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm profile from multiple observations \citep{hr1989,ft1981,vanDriel2016}. We adopt the line width measurements as cataloged in EDD of $W_{20} = 232.0 \pm 7.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 226.0 \pm 18.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The nuclear activity in NGC 3982 has been classified as Type 1.9 \citep{cetty2006}, and the distance as measured by Cepheid variable stars is reported to be $22.12 \pm 0.73$\,Mpc \citep{riess2022}.

%\section{NGC 4051}
%NGC 4051 was among the Seyfert 1 \citep{kw1974} galaxies in our samples of Papers I and II, which included analysis of its newest \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm observation observed with the 100\,m GBT. We adopt our previously reported $W_{20}$ and $W_{m50}$ measurements of $264.5 \pm 0.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $245 \pm 8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. In Paper II, we also performed surface brightness decompositions to remove the nuclear contamination from the galaxy apparent magnitude, and adopt the AGN-free galaxy magnitudes in the $B$, $V$, and $R-$bands. Finally, NGC 4051 has had its distance measured by \cite{yuan4051} via Cepheids of $16.6 \pm 0.3$\,Mpc.

%\section{NGC 4138}
%The Type 2 \citep{koss2022} AGN host galaxy NGC 4138 has been observed at 21\,cm by both \cite{hr1989} and \cite{edd2005}, with its emission spectrum exhibiting symmetric broadening about the line center. We adopt the line widths tabulated in EDD of $W_{20} = 329.0 \pm 10.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 322.0 \pm 18.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. An SBF-based distance has been measured by \cite{tonry2001} to be $13.80 \pm 1.65$\,Mpc. We have applied the correction prescription by \cite{Blakeslee2010} to this distance, though the distance modulus was shifted by just 0.009\,mag. 

%\section{NGC 4151}
%NGC 4151 is one of the most well-studied Type 1 \citep{kw1974} AGN hosts, and was included in our samples of Papers I and II. As such, we adopt our line width measurements from the newest \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line observation with the 100\,m GBT presented in Paper I of $W_{20} = 139.6 \pm 0.4 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 131.0 \pm 8.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Additionally, in Paper II we modeled and removed the AGN contamination from the galaxy light via surface brightness decomposition, and adopt the AGN-free galaxy apparent magnitudes in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I-$bands. Finally, NGC 4151 has had a recent Cepheids-based distance measurement of $15.8 \pm 0.4$\,Mpc \citep{yuan2020}.

%\section{NGC 4258}
%NGC 4258 has served as one of the most important anchor galaxies for distance ladder-based measurements of the Hubble Constant $H_{0}$. Its geometric distance via water masers \citep{Humphreys2013} provided a new anchor galaxy whose Cepheids could be observed with the same instrument and filters as galaxies hosting type Ia supernovae, nullifying any zeropoint uncertainties between filters or telescopes \citep{riess2016}. The distance measurement using megamasers orbiting the central SMBH of NGC 4258 originally provided by \cite{Humphreys2013} was improved upon by \cite{riess2016} by increasing the number of Monte Carlo Markov Chain trials for the fits to the very long baseline interferometric data by a factor of 100, reducing the systematic error from 1.5\% to 0.3\% and decreasing the distance measurement by 0.8\%. We adopt this new, improved distance to NGC 4258 of $7.54 \pm 0.20$\,Mpc. The nuclear activity in NGC 4258 has been classified as Type 1.9 \citep{koss2022}, with emission consistent with a low-ionization nuclear emission line region (LINER; \citealt{cecil2000}). Finally, the \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum of NGC 4258 boasts a symmetric, dual-horned profile as observed by several different telescopes \citep{Rots1980,ft1981,sd1987,hr1989,Courtois2011}. We adopt the more recent line width measurements reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 442 \pm 5 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 385 \pm 20$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.

%\section{NGC 4303}
%NGC 4303 has been observed at 21\,cm several times with both the 91\,m NRAO and the 305\,m Arecibo telescopes, revealing a symmetrically broadened, dual-horned emission line profile \citep{dr1978,shostak1978,ms1988}. It is also included amongst the most luminous far-infrared (FIR) galaxies in the nearby Universe as detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS; see \citealt{ms1988} and references therein). We adopt the line widths as reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 178 \pm 5 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 163 \pm 8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, and the nuclear classification as Type 2 \citep{cetty2006}. NGC 4303 was also host to SN 2008in, a type IIP supernova. The distance via the expanding photosphere method is provided by \cite{bose2014} to be $14.51 \pm 1.38$ Mpc.

%\section{NGC 4395}
%The nearby dwarf Seyfert 1 \citep{cetty2006} host NGC 4395 has been observed by the 140 foot GBT, which boasts a beam size of 21\arcmin, large enough to encompass the large angular extent of the galaxy. The observed \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line profile \citep{edd2005} exhibits typical rotational broadening, except for an asymmetry in the horns, with the blueshifted wing flux greater than the redshifted wing. We adopt the $W_{20}$ and $W_{m50}$ line width measurements available in EDD based on the aforementioned observation of $134 \pm 5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $120 \pm 8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. Finally, the distance to NGC 4395 has been measured by \cite{thim2004} via Cepheid variable stars of $4.1 \pm 0.4$ Mpc.\\

%{NGC 4438}
%NGC 4438 has been observed to be interacting with both its close companion (NGC 4435), as indicated by tidal tails and its warped disk, and M 86 via connecting H$\alpha$ filaments and a smooth velocity gradient between the two galaxies, supporting a collision between the two \citep{Kenney2008}. The interactions do not seem to have triggered any significant star formation \citep{Wiegert2015,Vargas2019}, though NGC 4438 has been observed to be significantly brighter in X-ray relative to other galaxies of both younger and older stellar populations \citep{lw2012a,lw2012b,wang2016_2}. Additionally, observations of soft X-Ray emission have revealed a nuclear bubble \citep{Machacek2004} $\sim3\arcsec \times 5\arcsec$ in size, most likely produced by AGN activity as opposed to a starburst \citep{li2022}. The integrated \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectrum observed with the 305\,m Arecibo telescope \citep{Giovanelli2007,Haynes2018} exhibits a strongly asymmetric profile, with far more flux contributed by the blueshifted wing, and a perturbed continuum. We adopt the line width measurements reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 261 \pm 15 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 244 \pm 100$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Finally, the nucleus of NGC 4438 is classified as a LINER \citep{cetty2006}, and the distance is provided via SBF to be $16.5 \pm 1.3$\,Mpc \citep{cantiello2018}.

%\section{NGC 4565}
%The edge-on galaxy NGC 4565 has been observed at 21\,cm by the Jodrell Bank 76\,m MklA, NRAO 91\,m, Effelsberg 100\,m, and Arecibo 305\,m radio telescopes \citep{sd1987,Rots1980,Huchtmeier2005,edd2005,haynes2011,Haynes2018}, all of which detect a typical dual-horn profile shape, with modest asymmetry in the flux of the two horns. We adopt the line widths reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 528 \pm 5 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 514 \pm 8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The nucleus has been classified as an unobscured Seyfert 2 \citep{panessa2002}, and the distance has been measured via TRGB stars to be $11.9^{+0.3}_{−0.2}$\,Mpc \citep{Radburn-Smith2011}.

%\section{NGC 4639}
%The nucleus in NGC 4639 was classified as a Seyfert Type 1 by \cite{ho1997} according to the formal criteria of \cite{Osterbrock1981}. \cite{ho1997} also classify the AGN as a low-luminosity AGN (LLAGN), as they measure its H$\alpha$ luminosity to be $\sim 2 \times 10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ compared to that of a typical Seyfert nucleus in the Markarian catalog of $10^{41}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ \citep{mb1986,whittle1992}. As such, we do not expect the nuclear contribution of the AGN in NGC 4639 to significantly contaminate the integrated luminosity of the host galaxy for use in TF distance determinations. NGC 4639 has been observed at 21\,cm by both the 305\,m Arecibo telescope \citep{Giovanelli2007,haynes2011,Haynes2018} and the 100\,m GBT \citep{courtois2009}, revealing a typical, symmetrical dual-horned profile. We adopt the \ion{H}{1} line width measurements as reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 303.0 \pm 7.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 299.0 \pm 8.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Lastly, the distance to NGC 4639 has been measured via Cepheid variable stars to be $20.25 \pm 0.66$ Mpc \citep{riess2016}\\

%\section{NGC 4939}
%NGC 4939, host to a Type 2 nucleus \citep{koss2022}, was also host to the type II supernova SN 2008aw. Several distances were derived to this supernova using two common methods \citep{jaeger2017,jaeger2017_2}, all of which are statistically equivalent within the uncertainties. We adopt the weighted average of these distances: $43.75 \pm 1.21$\,Mpc. \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectral observations of NGC 4939 have been conducted by the 91\,m NRAO, 64\,m Parkes, and the 42\,m Green Bank telescopes \citep{dr1978,shostak1978,koribalski2004,edd2005,ct2015}, each revealing a typical symmetric, rotationally-broadened dual-horned emission line profile. We adopt here the $W_{20}$ and $W_{m50}$ line width measurements as reported in EDD of $463.0 \pm 5.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $459.0 \pm 18.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively.

%\section{NGC 4945}
%The \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectra of NGC 4945, as observed by the 64\,m Parkes telecope \citep{Whiteoak1977,koribalski2004}, exhibit a moderately asymmetric dual-horned profile, with a broader and brighter blueshifted wing relative to the redshifted wing. Measurements of the width between the flanks of the emission line, however, are not affected by the asymmetry. We adopt the line width measurements as reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 384.0 \pm 9.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 374.0 \pm 13.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The nuclear activity in NGC 4945 has been classified as Type 2 \citep{koss2022}, and the distance has been curated in The Color-Magnitude Diagrams/Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance Catalog of EDD \citep{anand2021} of $3.47 \pm 0.05$\,Mpc.

%\section{NGC 5055}
%NGC 5055, the `Sunflower Galaxy', has been reported to exhibit mildly active nuclear activity \citep{pismis1994}, with its nucleus formally classified as a UV-bright LINER \citep{Afanasiev2002}. However, analysis of the nucleus from $HST$ imaging and spectroscopy revealed weak LINER characteristics and strong absorption in H$\alpha$, suggesting the possibility of a resolved star cluster superimposed on an unresolved LINER \citep{maoz1995}. The distance to NGC 5055 has been measured via TRGB stars to be $8.87 \pm 0.31$\,Mpc \citep{McQuinn2017}, and its \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission has been observed by the NRAO 91\,m, Green Bank 91\,m, Jodrell Bank 76\,m MklA, and Green Bank 42\,m telescopes \citep{dr1978,Rots1980,sd1987,edd2005}, revealing a typical dual-horned profile. We adopt here the line width measurements tabulated in EDD of $W_{20} = 400 \pm 5.0 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 390.0 \pm 1.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.

%\section{NGC 5194}
%NGC 5194, the `Whirlpool Galaxy', is famously interacting with its companion NGC 5195. The integrated \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm profile appears perturbed, lacking the signature blue and redshifted horns, with more flux contributed by the redshifted gas \citep{ft1981,Appleton1986,hr1989,Rots1990,Tilanus1991}. Resolved \ion{H}{1} studies reveal the velocity field of NGC 5194 to be generally symmetric, however large deviations from circular motion are observed near the spiral arm structure \citep{ta1989,Tilanus1991}. While any rotational velocity derived from the integrated \ion{H}{1} profile remains uncertain due to the interaction, and while we do not expect NGC 5194 to lie on the canonical TF relation, we nonetheless adopt the $W_{20}$ reported in EDD of $195 \pm 6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (there is no $W_{m50}$ measurement listed in EDD for NGC 5194). \cite{sabbi2018} conducted two independent TRGB distances for two pointing fields away from the center NGC 5194, statistically equivalent within uncertainties and thus we adopt the average value of $7.4 \pm 0.6$\,Mpc. Finally, the low-level nuclear activity of NGC 5194 has been classified as Type 2 \citep{ford1985,ho1997}.

%\section{NGC 5643}
%The Seyfert Type 2 \citep{koss2022} nucleus host NGC 5643 has been observed in \ion{H}{1} at 21\,cm by \cite{Reif1982}, \cite{Whiteoak1977}, and \cite{koribalski2004}, revealing a classic dual-horned emission line profile. We adopt the line width measurements reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 209 \pm 8 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 202 \pm 13$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Lastly, the distance to NGC 5643 has been curated in the Color-Magnitude Diagrams/Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance Catalog of EDD \citep{anand2021} to be $12.42 \pm 0.63$\,Mpc \\

%\section{NGC 5728}
%NGC 5728 was host to the type Ia supernova SN 2009Y, with its distance provided by \cite{Burns2018} to be $42.27 \pm 1.75$\,Mpc. The nuclear activity has been classified as a Seyfert 1.9 \citep{koss2022}, and the galaxy's integrated 21\,cm emission has been observed to be symmetric about its recessional velocity \citep{bottinelli1980,edd2005,courtois2015}. We adopt the \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm emission line width measurements reported in EDD of $W_{20} = 413 \pm 8 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 410 \pm 19$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.

%\section{NGC 6814}
%NGC 6814, host to a Type 1 nucleus \citep{kw1974}, was included in our samples of Papers I and II, and as such we adopt our line width measurements from the newest \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm observations using the 100\,m GBT of $W_{20} = 96.2 \pm 0.1 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 84 \pm 8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. As with NGC 3227, NGC 3783, NGC 4051, NGC 4151, and NGC 7469, we constrained the contamination from the nucleus via surface brightness decompositions reported in Paper II, and adopt the galaxy-only apparent magnitudes in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I-$bands. The distance to NGC 6814 has been measured by \cite{misty2019} via Cepheid variable stars to be $21.6 \pm 0.4$\,Mpc.

%\section{NGC 6951}
%The nucleus of NGC 6951 has been investigated by \cite{perez2000}, who report Seyfert 2 and high-excitation LINER characteristics. We adopt the distance to the type Ia supernova hosted by NGC 6951, SN 2000E, curated in the five-source SNIa distance of CF2 of $18.80 \pm 0.87$\,Mpc. Finally, observations at 21\,cm by the Nan\c cay 94\,m, Green Bank 42\,m, NRAO 91\,m, and Green Bank 140\,m telescopes consistently reveal a typical rotationally-broadened dual-horn emission line profile \citep{shostak1978,tc1988,theureau1998,edd2005,theureau2006}.

%\section{NGC 7469}
%NGC 7469 was included in our samples of Papers I and II. As such, we also adopt the galaxy apparent magnitudes free from contamination of the Type 1 \citep{Osterbrock1993} AGN reported in Paper II in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$-bands. We also adopt our line with measurements from observations with the 100\,m GBT of $W_{20} = 208.8 \pm 16.9 $\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $W_{m50} = 215 \pm 16$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. However, as we noted in Papers I and II, the unresolved \ion{H}{1} emission line of NGC 7469 is superimposed on the flux contribution of its companion, IC 5283. Higher S/N profiles exhibit this additional flux on the blueshifted flank of the profile (e.g., \citealt{mw1984,ms1988,ho2008_data}) while ours did not. The rotation curve analysis of \cite{Marquez1994} revealed an asymmetric pattern, clearly indicating the interaction between NGC 7469 and IC 5283. Consequently, distance methods that rely on the \ion{H}{1} line width or disk kinematics for NGC 7469 are highly uncertain. Finally, NGC 7469 was host to the type Ia supernova SN 2008ec, the light curve of which was analyzed by \cite{koshida2017} and \cite{Ganeshalingam2013}. Consistent with Paper II, we adopt the weighted average of these distances of $61.9 \pm 3.3$\,Mpc 

%\section{NGC 7674}
%All of the unresolved \ion{H}{1} 21\,cm spectral observations of NGC 7674 \citep{mirabel1982,rh1982,mw1984,ms1988,edd2005,Haynes2018} exhibit significant absorption in the blueshifted wing of the emission line, most likely caused by the compact, possibly variable, nuclear emission source in the radio \citep{ms1988}. \cite{Mendes2003} analyzed the rotation curve of NGC 7674, citing strong asymmetries in the spiral arms as evidence for recent perturbation. While we do not expect NGC 7674 to lie on the canonical TF relation due to the interaction and disruption of its disk kinematics, we remain consistent with the rest of our sample and adopt the $W_{m50}$ line width measurement from EDD of $135 \pm 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. EDD does not list a $W_{20}$ measurement, and so we adopt the value from \cite{mw1984} of $344$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. \cite{mw1984} does not quote an uncertainty in their line width, thus we adopt the same fractional uncertainty as the more recent, updated $W_{m50}$ measurement and tabulate each width measurement with its associated uncertainty in Table~\ref{appmags_21cm}. Lastly, NGC 7674 hosts a Seyfert 2 nucleus \citep{Osterbrock1993} and was host to SN 2011hb, a type Ia supernova, the distance to which was measured by \cite{Weyant2014} to be $117.0 \pm 3.8$\,Mpc.

%\section{M 58}
%Messier 58 (NGC 4579), host to an unobscured Type 2 LINER \citep{ho1997,panessa2002}, has been observed by the 305\,m Arecibo telescope, revealing a symmetric rotationally-broadened emission line profile \citep{Kent2008,haynes2011,Haynes2018}. M58 also boasts several distance determinations, an SBF-based measurement of $20.2 \pm 1.4$\,Mpc \citep{cantiello2018} and a light curve-based measurement to the typa Ia supernova SN 1989M of $21 \pm 2$\,Mpc \citep{Ruiz-Lapuente1996}. Both distances are statistically equivalent within the uncertainties, and we conservatively adopt the latter distance with slightly larger uncertainties.

%\section{M 104}
%Messier 104 (NGC 4594; `The Sombrero Galaxy') has been observed at 21\,cm with both the NRAO 43\,m and GBT 100\,m telescopes \citep{Gallagher1975,Courtois2011}, yielding a typical dual-horned emission line profile. Its nuclear activity has been classified as a LINER \citep{ho1997}, and its distance has been provided via TRGB stars to be $9.55^{+0.13}_{-0.31}$\,Mpc \citep{McQuinn2016}.

%\subsection{NGC 4303}
%- amoung the most luminous in the FIR ($2 \times 10^{10} L_{\odot} \leq L_{\mathrm{FIR}} \leq 2 \times 10^{12} L_{\odot}$) 
%- \cite{ms1988} reported its FIR luminosity to be $log L_{\mathrm{FIR}} = 10.42\,L_{\odot}$, or $2.6 \times 10^{10}\,L_{\odot}$, plaxing it on the low end of the brightest FIR galaxies.

%\subsection{NGC 6814}
%has enhanced star formation like NGC 4151, but is dead-on agreement with Cepheids. Chalk this up to extremely uncertain rotational velocity constraint due to the near-face-on orientation of the galaxy

%\subsection{Investigation of Probable Causes of Deviation}
%\subsubsection{AGN properties}
%black hole mass\\
%AGN inclination\\
%stellar/gas mass \\
%AGN bolometric luminosity\\
%star formation rate\\

%\cite{Xue2010} \\
%quote from 2021 paper, rephrase: The analysis of color-magnitude diagrams for mass-matched samples of AGN and non-AGN hosts from the Chandra Deep Field North and South surveys by \cite{Xue2010} found that the star formation rates in active galaxies are typically a factor of $\sim2-3$ higher than quiescent galaxies for $0 < z < 1$. \\

%from intro:  (2) most AGNs reside in massive hosts and the AGN fraction rises strongly toward
%higher stellar mass, up to z $\sim $ 2-3.\\

%Might want to point out that, while this sample is stellar-dominated so unable to explore the behavior for TF, and especially baryonic TF for lower mass systems, we just might not be able to. \\

%\cite{Mountrichas2023} have this result: AGNs with Mbh less than $10^{8}$ have equal to lower SFR compared to inactive galaxies, while black holes with masses higher than $10^{8.5}$ in AGN have midly enhanced relative star formation. \cite{Santini2012} found enhanced far-IR luminosity for AGNs compared to inactive for higher redshifts, and that for the lowest z sample (0.5-0.8, figure 5), galaxies less than or equal to $\sim 10^{10}$ solar masses lied above both inactive galaxies and the SF main sequence in IR luminosity. From them: ``The level of SF enhancement is modest ($\sim$0.26 dex at $\sim$3sigma confidence level) at low X-ray luminosities (LX leq 1043.5 erg s-1) and more pronounced (0.56 dex at > 10sigma confidence level) in the hosts of luminous AGNs''

%Same thing found for Type 1s and 2s \cite{Mountrichas2024}, in agreement with previous studies \cite{koss2011,Shimizu2015,Shimizu2017} (shimizu 2017 is for local AGNs with z<0.05). Important note from shimizu 2017 about shimizu 2015 results to reword later: 

%``These results may seem contradictory with our previous work in Shimizu et al. (2015) where, using the SFRs calculated here, we showed that AGN host galaxies are experiencing decreased levels of star formation given their stellar mass. However, the discrepancy lies in the comparison being done. In Shimizu et al. (2015), we compare the Herschel-BAT AGN to the so-called star-forming ‘main sequence,’ a tight nearly linear correlation between SFR and Mstar(Brinchmann et al. 2004; Noeske et al. 2007; Salim et al. 2007), finding that the AGN are falling off and transitioning towards quiescence. In this work, as well as in Koss et al. (2011), simple
%mass-matching is used to form comparison samples, which leads to selecting only high stellar mass non-AGN galaxies due to the high stellar masses of the BAT AGN. \textbf{Based on previous studies of the colour–magnitude relation, however, selection of high-mass galaxies will result in a large quiescence fraction especially at low redshifts (Kauffmann et al. 2003; Wuyts et al. 2011; Bell et al. 2012)}. Therefore, since the Herschel-BAT AGN show both intermediate optical colours and SFRs, it makes sense that a mass-selected non-AGN sample will indicate bluer colours and higher SFRs for AGN host galaxies given quiescent galaxies are largely red with low SFRs.''

%SFR calculations \\
%Star formation main sequence \cite{Popesso2023}\\

%\subsubsection{Star Formation}
%\begin{figure}
%\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0cm 0cm 1.5cm},clip,scale=0.5]{sfr.pdf}
%\caption{} \label{sfr}
%\end{figure}