Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

The host galaxies of radio-loud quasars at z>5 with ALMA

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New ALMA observations of six radio-loud quasars at z>5 show that in at least four of them the 1 mm continuum is a mix of dust and jet synchrotron, with the jet supplying up to 100% of the flux.

desk verdict Useful new ALMA data on a rare sample, but the 'at least four' synchrotron-contamination claim is weaker than advertised once you account for spectral breaks. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11952 v1 pith:RRJZAMBX submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA

C. Mazzucchelli , R. Decarli , S. Belladitta , E. Bañados , R. A. Meyer , T. Connor , E. Momjian , S. Rojas-Ruiz
show 8 more authors
A.-C. Eilers Y. Khusanova E. P. Farina A. B. Drake F. Walter F. Wang M. Onoue B. P. Venemans
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radio-loudquasarshigh-redshifthostgalaxiessynchrotronemissiondustcontinuumALMAobservationsCII158micronsubmillimeterastronomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports ALMA observations of six radio-loud quasars at $z>5$ and asks whether the 1 mm light of their host galaxies can be trusted as a dust tracer. By building radio-to-submillimetre spectral energy distributions, it argues that in at least four of the six sources the 300 GHz continuum is not pure dust: synchrotron radiation from the jet contributes roughly 10% to nearly 100% of the measured flux. If that is right, infrared luminosities, dust masses and star-formation rates derived from single-band 1 mm data for such objects are upper limits rather than measurements. Even with this contamination bracketed, the hosts resemble ordinary high-redshift quasar hosts, with [C II]-based star-formation rates of $30$-$400\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and no merger morphologies at the observed resolution.

What carries the argument

The radio-to-submillimetre spectral energy distribution (SED) is the central object: each quasar's ALMA 300 GHz continuum measurement is joined to radio fluxes from 0.15 to 10 GHz, and the non-thermal jet component is modelled as a power law $S_\nu \propto \nu^{\alpha}$, with a broken power law for PSO352-15. The dust component is a modified blackbody at $T=47$ K with emissivity index $\beta=1.6$. Extrapolating the synchrotron power law to 300 GHz and comparing it with the observed ALMA flux gives the contamination fraction that anchors the paper's argument.

What would settle it

Observe the six quasars with ALMA at frequencies between 100 and 230 GHz and compare the 100-300 GHz slope with the extrapolation from lower-frequency radio data. A break or excess in that range would separate dust from jet emission; a single power law all the way to 300 GHz would overturn the contamination claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 1 mm continuum of high-redshift radio-loud quasars can be substantially contaminated by the same synchrotron emission that powers the radio jet. Extrapolating the radio power laws of J0131-0321, J1034+2033, PSO352-15, PSO055-00 and PSO135+16 to the ALMA Band 7 frequency, the paper estimates synchrotron fractions of roughly 100%, 40%, 9%, 9% and 2% respectively, and concludes that at least four of the six sources show a synchrotron-plus-dust mixture rather than dust alone. The authors therefore report dust-based quantities twice: taking all 1 mm flux as dust gives upper limits, while subtracting the extrapolated synchrotron gives lower limits. For the blazar J0131-0321, they treat the dust-only interpretation as a strict upper limit because the jet may account for essentially all of the 300 GHz flux.

Load-bearing premise

The radio spectra measured below about 10 GHz are assumed to stay the same up to 300 GHz; if they fall off before reaching the ALMA band, the jet's contribution to the 1 mm light is smaller than estimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-band 1 mm continuum of a radio-loud quasar at $z>5$ cannot be converted directly into an infrared luminosity, gas mass or star-formation rate without radio data to remove or bracket the jet component.
  • Published host properties of such objects that assume pure dust should be read as upper limits, and for blazar-like sources like J0131-0321 the 1 mm band may trace the jet rather than the host ISM.
  • After subtracting the estimated synchrotron flux, the RL hosts in this sample move into the same $L_{\rm [CII]}/L_{\rm FIR}$ locus as radio-quiet quasar hosts, including the apparent outliers.
  • [C II] emission remains a usable ISM tracer for these hosts, giving star-formation rates of $30$-$400\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and gas reservoirs of order $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ even when the continuum is contaminated.
  • The absence of [C II]-emitting companion candidates around the five Band 7 fields is consistent with blank-field expectations and with RQ quasar fields at comparable depth, so no overdensity conclusion is drawn.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because roughly 10-20% of quasars at these redshifts are radio-loud, a small but non-negligible fraction of 1 mm-selected host-galaxy samples will carry this contamination, and population-wide star-formation censuses may be biased high unless radio information is included.
  • Inference: the quoted fractions are first estimates from low-frequency power laws, and those power laws are expected to steepen before 300 GHz, so the true synchrotron contributions are probably lower and the true dust properties lie between the paper's upper and lower bounds.
  • Inference: a decisive test would be ALMA continuum measurements at roughly 100 and 230 GHz for these six sources, since a changing spectral slope across 100-300 GHz would separate the bending jet component from the dust Rayleigh-Jeans tail.
  • Inference: the mild [C II] deficit seen in the RL sample hints that jets may suppress cool gas emission, but with only five detections it could also be selection noise, and repeating the comparison on a larger RL sample would settle it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new ALMA Band 7 observations of five z>5 radio-loud quasars and Band 3 observations of two additional quasars (one reclassified as radio-quiet), detecting [CII] 158 micron line and dust continuum in five sources and placing upper limits on CO(6-5) and continuum for the others. The authors build radio-to-submillimeter SEDs combining their ALMA fluxes with literature radio data, and find that in at least four of the six radio-loud quasars the 1 mm continuum likely contains a non-negligible synchrotron component, estimating contributions of roughly 9%, 9%, 40%, and 100% at about 300 GHz for PSO055-00, PSO352-15, J1034+2033, and J0131-0321. They then derive IR luminosities, star formation rates, dust masses, dynamical masses, and molecular gas masses under two assumptions: all continuum is dust (upper limits) and continuum is synchrotron-corrected (lower limits). They compare the host properties with literature radio-quiet and radio-loud quasar samples, report a marginal decrease in [CII] luminosity for radio-loud sources, and search for, but do not find, [CII]-emitting companion galaxies.

Significance. If the central synchrotron-contamination claim is correct, the paper delivers an important cautionary result for high-redshift quasar host-galaxy studies: single-band 1 mm continuum measurements of radio-loud quasars cannot be taken as pure dust tracers, so SFRs, dust masses, and gas masses derived from those data may be substantially overestimated. The paper is also useful as one of the few ALMA studies of z>5 radio-loud quasar hosts, and the authors are commendably explicit in presenting their derived quantities as upper/lower limits rather than point estimates. The analysis uses only previously published conversion factors and does not tune parameters to produce the central claim, and the companion search is carried out with a standard fidelity-based method. The main caveat, acknowledged partly in the text, is that the synchrotron fractions are extrapolations of low-frequency radio power laws to 300 GHz; the robustness of the 'at least four' claim depends on assumptions about spectral curvature that are not quantitatively tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Section 6] The headline claim that 'at least four' sources show >~10% synchrotron contamination at 300 GHz is not robust to the spectral-curvature uncertainty that the paper itself raises. For PSO055-00 and PSO135+16, Section 4.3 states that radio data exist only between 0.8 and 1.7 GHz, so no power law can be fit; the adopted slope α=-0.67 is the median slope of z>5 quasars from Bañados et al. (2021). The PSO055-00 synchrotron fraction of about 9% is obtained by extrapolating this assumed slope from 1.4 GHz to 300 GHz, roughly a factor of 200 in frequency. The text also notes (citing Jaffe & Perola 1973) that such power laws are expected to bend downward at higher frequencies. A modest break of Δα=-0.5 at 10 GHz reduces the PSO055-00 extrapolated 300 GHz synchrotron flux from about 0.057 mJy to about 0.01 mJy, dropping its fraction to about 2% and excluding this source from the 'at least four' set. Because PSO352-15 is at about 9% (also near the threshold) and J0131-0321 is a blazar with variability that is not quantified, the secure cases are reduced to J1034+2033 and possibly J0131-0321. The authors should either quantify the effect of plausible spectral breaks on each fraction or soften the abstract and conclusions to state that 'up to four' or 'a few' sources may show substantial contamination, with the two secure cases identified explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.3, Tables 7 and Figure 6] The synchrotron fractions and the synchrotron-corrected IR luminosities in Table 7 are quoted without propagated uncertainties. Figure 6 shows 1-sigma uncertainty bands on the fitted power-law slopes, and the ALMA continuum fluxes have reported errors, but no error bars are given for the fractional contributions or for the corrected values such as LFIR,syn and SFRIR,syn. For borderline sources like PSO055-00 and PSO352-15, the difference between a 9% and a 3% contribution is comparable to or larger than the statistical uncertainties of the input fluxes, so the absence of error propagation makes it impossible to assess whether the 'at least four' claim is statistically supported. The authors should propagate the slope uncertainties and ALMA flux uncertainties through the extrapolation and report the resulting ranges on the synchrotron fractions.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Figure 6] The synchrotron contribution is estimated by independently extrapolating radio power laws to the ALMA frequency and comparing with the observed 300 GHz flux; there is no joint SED fit in which a dust modified blackbody plus a synchrotron power law (or broken power law) are simultaneously fitted to the available radio and ALMA points. As a result, the 'synchrotron fraction' is entirely controlled by the assumed power-law normalization and slope, and the dust component is not allowed to contribute to the lower-frequency radio data. This is acceptable for a first-order estimate, but it means the quoted fractions should be described as illustrative extrapolations rather than measured components. A joint fit, even with fixed dust temperature and beta, would provide a more defensible estimate and would allow the reported fractions to be accompanied by meaningful uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to 'J2052+0047', but the source in the text and Tables is J2053+0047; the caption should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 2] The [CII] line of PSO055-00 is repeatedly flagged as falling at the edge of the bandwidth, but the 2D Gaussian fit flux for this source is still used in Table 4 and in the derived quantities. The cautionary note is appropriate, but it would be helpful to state explicitly which derived quantities (e.g., L[CII], SFR[CII], Mdyn) are most affected and to consider giving these values as limits rather than detections.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text notes that the radio observations were taken at different epochs and that variability may alter the SED shape, but the J0131-0321 blazar is nevertheless assigned a ~100% synchrotron fraction at 300 GHz. Because J0131-0321 is a known blazar with documented radio variability (Section 2.1), the extrapolated flux should be treated with explicit caveats about epoch mismatch with the ALMA observation; otherwise the '100%' figure may be overinterpreted.
  4. [Section 4.4, Equation (2)] The modified blackbody equation is missing an explicit factor for the rest-frame frequency dependence of the Planck function in the observed frame; the notation could be confusing to readers who are not specialists. Please check the equation and clarify the frequency conventions (rest-frame vs observed) in the text.
  5. [Section 4.2] The paper reports a mean/median Ly-alpha/template-to-[CII] velocity shift of -1269/-770 km/s with a large standard deviation (2271 km/s), but the sample size is only five sources. This should be described as a tentative estimate, which is already implied but could be stated explicitly to avoid overinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synchrotron fractions are extrapolations from independent radio measurements, not fits to the ALMA points, and the paper transparently labels the estimates as initial.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no step in which a predicted quantity reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The ALMA continuum measurements (Table 4) are independent new data. The synchrotron fractions at roughly 300 GHz are obtained by extrapolating radio power laws measured at lower frequencies (Shao et al. 2020, 2022; Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2021; Bañados et al. 2021 for the median slope), not by fitting to the ALMA points, so the central claim is not statistically forced. For PSO055-00 and PSO135+16 the paper explicitly states that no radio power law can be fitted and therefore adopts an indicative median slope alpha = -0.67 from Bañados et al. (2021); this is an externally stated assumption rather than a parameter tuned to the ALMA data. The paper also flags the expected downward bend of radio spectra and labels the estimates as 'initial estimations', presenting IR-derived quantities as upper/lower limits. The cited prior works by the same group, including Rojas-Ruiz et al. (2021), are used as data sources and are themselves based on independent radio and sub-mm measurements; no uniqueness or existence theorem from the authors is invoked to force the adopted decomposition. The comparison samples and conversion factors (T_dust = 47 K, beta = 1.6, kappa, SFR calibrations) all come from the literature. Hence there is no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing circularity; the central claim is an extrapolation whose main vulnerability is spectral curvature between the radio and ALMA bands, which is an empirical robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on a modest set of adopted literature calibrations (Tdust, beta, kappa, radio spectral indices, inclinations, SFR relations). None are fit in this paper; the most fragile is the radio-to-mm synchrotron extrapolation, which the authors explicitly flag as liable to bend down at high frequencies.

free parameters (8)
  • Dust temperature T_dust = 47 K
    Adopted from the literature (Beelen et al. 2006, Decarli et al. 2018) in Section 4.4 to convert the 1900 GHz continuum flux into infrared luminosity and dust mass. Not fit to these data; changes LFIR and Mdust.
  • Dust emissivity index beta = 1.6
    Adopted in Section 4.4 from the same references; affects the shape of the modified black body and LIR.
  • Dust mass opacity normalization kappa_0 = 0.077 m2/kg at 352 GHz
    From Dunne et al. (2000), used in Eq. (4) to compute dust masses.
  • Synchrotron spectral index alpha for PSO055-00 and PSO135+16 = -0.67
    Assumed median radio slope for z>5 quasars (Banados et al. 2021), Section 4.3, because no radio SED fit is possible; directly sets the extrapolated synchrotron flux at 300 GHz (about 9% and 2%).
  • Radio spectral indices for J0131-0321, J1034+2033, PSO352-15, J2228+0110 = alpha = -0.70/-1.0, -1.0, -0.88/-1.26 (broken), -0.39 (approx.)
    Adopted from literature fits (Shao et al. 2020, 2022; Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2021) and used to extrapolate synchrotron to 300 GHz. Uncertainties on alpha are shown in Figure 6 but not propagated to the quoted fractions.
  • Disk inclination i = 46 deg
    Median inclination from Wang et al. (2024a), assumed for all sources in the dynamical mass estimate (Eq. 10).
  • Molecular gas conversion alpha_[CII] = 30 M_sun/L_sun
    Adopted from Zanella et al. (2018) in Eq. (11) to convert L[CII] to cold gas mass.
  • SFR-[CII] calibration = SFR = 3e-9 (L[CII]/Lsun)^1.18
    De Looze et al. (2014) relation used for SFR[CII]; external calibration with about 0.4 dex scatter.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Flat LCDM cosmology with H0=67.8, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Adopted throughout to convert fluxes to luminosities and distances; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption [CII] line luminosity conversion formula of Carilli and Walter (2013)
    Used in Eq. (1); assumes optically thin [CII] emission, standard for high-z galaxies.
  • domain assumption Modified black body dust emission with T_dust=47 K and beta=1.6
    Section 4.4; assumes single-temperature optically thin dust, standard but not verified for these sources.
  • ad hoc to paper Radio synchrotron power laws measured at GHz frequencies extrapolate to about 300 GHz without additional spectral curvature
    Section 4.3; this is the key assumption behind the synchrotron fractions. The paper itself cautions that a downward bend is expected, making the fractions upper limits.
  • domain assumption The [CII]-SFR and IR-SFR calibrations calibrated at lower redshift apply to z>5 RL quasar hosts
    Equations (7) and (8); external calibrations with significant scatter, applied to a new population.
  • domain assumption Dynamical masses assume dispersion or rotation-dominated disks with median inclination i=46 deg
    Eq. (10), Section 4.6; the sources are unresolved, so Mdyn is an order-of-magnitude estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The host galaxies of radio-loud quasars at z>5 with ALMA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRJZAMBX

@misc{pith2026241111952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The host galaxies of radio-loud quasars at z>5 with ALMA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRJZAMBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11952}
}
abstract

The interaction between radio-jets and quasar host galaxies plays a paramount role in quasar/galaxy co-evolution. However, very little has been known so far about this interaction at very high-z. Here, we present new Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations in Band 7 and Band 3 of six radio-loud quasars' host galaxies at $z > 5$. We recover [CII] 158 $\mu$m line and underlying dust continuum emission at $>2\sigma$ for five sources, while we obtain upper limits for the CO(6-5) emission line and continuum for the remaining source. At the spatial resolution of our observations ($\sim$1.0"-1.4"), we do not recover perturbed/extended morphologies or kinematics, signatures of potential mergers. These galaxies already host large quantities of gas, with [CII]-based star formation rates of $30-400 M_{\odot} $yr$^{-1}$. Building their radio/sub-mm spectral energy distributions (SEDs), we find that in at least four cases the 1mm continuum intensity arises from a combination of synchrotron and dust emission, with an initial estimation of synchrotron contribution at 300 GHz of $\gtrsim$10%. We compare the properties of the sources inspected here with a large collection of radio-quiet sources from the literature, as well as a sample of radio-loud quasars from previous studies, at comparable redshift. We recover a potential mild decrease in $L_{\rm [CII]}$ for the radio-loud sources, which might be due to a suppression of the cool gas emission due to the radio-jets. We do not find any [CII]-emitting companion galaxy candidate around the five radio-loud quasars observed in Band 7: given the depth of our dataset, this result is still consistent with that observed around radio-quiet quasars. Further higher-spatial resolution observations, over a larger frequency range, of high-z radio-loud quasars hosts will allow for a better understanding of the physics of such sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA [C II] emission line and underlying continuum of the quasars in our sample, re-sampled to 30 km s−1 velocity bin, considering extraction apertures of different radii (see Section 3.1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ALMA continuum-subtracted [C II] maps. The continuum black/dashed grey contours highlights the ±2σ,4σ,8σ..levels. The beam size is shown with a white ellipse, while the rest-frame UV/optical position of the quasar is reported with a black cross. The morphology of all the sources is broadly consistent with the beam size, hence we consider them as unresolved at the spatial resolution and SNR of this dataset [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ALMA spectra of J2228+0110 and J2052+0047 observed in Band 3. No continuum nor CO(6-5) emission line is detected. The ex￾pected locations of the CO(6-5) line at the redshifts of the quasars are shown with orange dashed lines. emission. For J1034+2033, the recovered intensity measured with ALMA (0.168 mJy; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ALMA continuum emission maps at rest-frame 1900 GHz (Band 7) and 690 GHz (Band 3). The black solid/dashed grey contours signal the ±2,4,8..σ levels. We show the synthesized beam in white in the left bottom of each panel. The rest-frame UV/optical position of the quasar…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ALMA continuum emission maps at rest-frame 1970 GHz (Band 7) and 620 GHz (Band 3). Symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio and (sub-)mm Spectral Energy Distributions (SED) of RL quasars reported in this work. We show the continuum emission at 1mm from our ALMA Band 7 observations (orange circles), and the relative best fit modified black body dust emission (black line). In the case o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of [C II] emission line and properties for RL (pink), and RQ (grey) quasars. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 log LFIR [L ] 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 lo g L CII/ L FIR SF Galaxies/LIRGs z<1 SF Galaxies 1<z<5 RQ QSOs z > 5 RL QSOs z>5 Literature RL QSOs z>5 This…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [C II]-to-FIR luminosity ratio as a function of FIR luminos￾ity. Observations of star-forming galaxies and LIRGs at z < 1 are shown with light blue crosses, while we report star-forming galaxies at 1 < z < 5 with orange arrows. RQ quasars from the literature are depict…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Far-infrared (42-122.5 µm) luminosity vs CO(6-5) luminosity for the two sources observed in Band 3 in our sample (J2053+0047, RQ, grey penthagon; J2228+0110, RL, pink square), compared to a sample of RQ z > 5 quasars in the literature (grey circles, see text for refer￾…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Far-infrared (top) and [C II] (bottom) luminosity vs absolute UV magnitude at rest-frame wavelength 1450 Å. RQ quasars from the literature (see Section 4.1 for references) and RL quasars are shown with the same symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 499, doi:

    Ajiki, M., Taniguchi, Y ., Murayama, T., et al. 2006, PASJ, 58, 499, doi:

    work page 2006

  2. [3]

    2023, A&A, 671, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345964 Bañados, E., Carilli, C., Walter, F., et al

    3847/1538-4357/aaed2a Audibert, A., Ramos Almeida, C., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345964 Bañados, E., Carilli, C., Walter, F., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 861, L14, doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8213/aac511 Bañados, E., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2015a, ApJ, 805, L8, doi: 10.1088/ 2041-8205/805/1/L8 Bañados, E., Venemans, B...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345964 2023

  3. [4]

    P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al

    3847/0067-0049/227/1/11 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018b, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180 Bañados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 80, doi:

    doi:10.1038/nature25180 2021

  4. [5]

    P., et al

    3847/1538-4357/abe239 Bañados, E., Schindler, J.-T., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acb3c7 Banados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07236 Banados, E., Khusanova, Y ., Decarli, R., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12299, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.24...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.07236 2023

  5. [6]

    J., et al

    1086/176166 Beelen, A., Cox, P., Benford, D. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 694, doi: 10.1086/ 500636 Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A134, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202243855 —. 2019, A&A, 629, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935965 —. 2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395 Bischetti, M., Maiolino, R., Carniani, ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935965 2006

  6. [7]

    A., & Novak, M

    1051/0004-6361/201833557 Boogaard, L., Meyer, R. A., & Novak, M. 2021, Interferopy: analysing dat- acubes from radio-to-submm observations, v1.0.0-beta, Zenodo, doi:

    work page 2021

  7. [8]

    5281/zenodo.5775603 Bosman, S. E. I., Kakiichi, K., Meyer, R. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 49, doi:

    work page 2020

  8. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 91, doi:

    3847/1538-4357/ab85cd Breiding, P., Chiaberge, M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 91, doi:

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    R., Sadler, E

    1093/pasj/58.3.499 Allison, J. R., Sadler, E. M., Amaral, A. D., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e010, doi:10. 1017/pasa.2022.3 Appleton, P. N., Diaz-Santos, T., Fadda, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 61, doi:

    2022

  2. [11]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 13, doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637X/799/1/13 Carilli, C

    3847/1538-4357/ad19db Brisbin, D., Ferkinhoff, C., Nikola, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 13, doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637X/799/1/13 Carilli, C. L., & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105, doi: 10.1146/ annurev-astro-082812-140953 Champagne, J. B., Decarli, R., Casey, C. M., et al. 2018, ApJ...

    2015

  3. [12]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa Decarli, R., Aravena, M., Boogaard, L., et al

    1038/nature22358 —. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa Decarli, R., Aravena, M., Boogaard, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 110, doi:

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    2022, A&A, 662, A60, doi:10

    3847/1538-4357/abaa3b Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Venemans, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A60, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202142871 Díaz-Santos, T., Armus, L., Charmandaris, V ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 68, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/774/1/68 —. 2017, ApJ, 846, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/...

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    B., Farina, E

    1038/s41586-023-06345-5 Drake, A. B., Farina, E. P., Neeleman, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 131, doi:

    2019

  6. [15]

    2000, MNRAS, 315, 115, doi:

    3847/1538-4357/ab2984 Dunne, L., Eales, S., Edmunds, M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 115, doi:

    2000

  7. [16]

    F., Decarli, R., et al

    1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03386.x Eilers, A.-C., Hennawi, J. F., Decarli, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 37, doi:

    2000

  8. [17]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c3 Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R

    3847/1538-4357/aba52e —. 2021, ApJ, 914, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c3 Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/ annurev-astro-052920-102455 Fan, X., Narayanan, V . K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833, doi:

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Becker, R

    1086/324111 Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117, doi: 10.1086/ 504836 Farina, E. P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 196, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ab5847 Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106, doi:

    2006

  10. [19]

    3847/1538-4357/ac9626 Farrah, D., Lebouteiller, V ., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 38, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/776/1/38 Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 Feruglio, C., Fiore...

    2013 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, L34, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv042 Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., Peca, A., et al

    1093/mnrasl/slv046 Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., Sbarrato, T., & Gehrels, N. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L34, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv042 Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., Peca, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A26, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201936121 Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Saxena, A., et al...

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    D., Wolfire, M

    1086/191285 Herrera-Camus, R., Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/1 Ighina, L., Belladitta, S., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, L11, doi:

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    2024, A&A, 687, A242, doi:

    1051/0004-6361/202140362 Article number, page 16 of 19 Mazzucchelli et al.: The host galaxies of radio–loud quasars at z>5 with ALMA Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A242, doi:

    2024

  14. [23]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    1051/0004-6361/202449369 Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536 Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Shirakata, H., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 36, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy026 Iz...

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    A., et al

    1051/0004-6361/202451025 Lai, S., Bian, F., Onken, C. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1801, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stac1001 Langer, W. D., & Pineda, J. L. 2015, A&A, 580, A5, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201525950 Li, J., Wang, R., Pensabene, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 119, doi: 10.3847/ ...

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    2023, A&A, 676, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346317 McConnell, D., Hale, C

    3847/1538-4357/ab2f75 Mazzucchelli, C., Bischetti, M., D’Odorico, V ., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346317 McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048, doi:

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    A., Ryan, R

    1017/pasa.2020.41 Mechtley, M., Windhorst, R. A., Ryan, R. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, L38, doi:10. 1088/2041-8205/756/2/L38 Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2251 Meyer, R. A., Bosman, S. E. I., & Ellis, R. S. 20...

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 63, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab2beb Novak, M., Venemans, B

    3847/1538-4357/ab8bd3 Novak, M., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 63, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab2beb Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 131, doi:

    2019

  19. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 105, doi:

    3847/1538-4357/abc33f Onoue, M., Bañados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 105, doi:

    2020

  20. [29]

    D., et al

    3847/1538-4357/aba193 Onoue, M., Ding, X., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07113, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07113 Overzier, R. A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac448c Pacucci, F., & Loeb, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ad...

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    2021, A&A, 652, A66, doi:

    1051/0004-6361/201936634 Pensabene, A., Decarli, R., Bañados, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A66, doi:

    2021

  22. [31]

    L., Banerji, M., Becker, G

    1051/0004-6361/202039696 Reed, S. L., Banerji, M., Becker, G. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1874, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stz1341 Roche, N., Humphrey, A., & Binette, L. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3795, doi:

    2019

  23. [32]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 150, doi:

    1093/mnras/stu1430 Rojas-Ruiz, S., Bañados, E., Neeleman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 150, doi:

    2021

  24. [33]

    A., et al

    3847/1538-4357/ac1a13 Rybak, M., Calistro Rivera, G., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 112, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ab0e0f Salomé, Q., Salomé, P., & Combes, F. 2015, A&A, 574, A34, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201424932 Sargsyan, L., Samsonyan, A., Lebouteiller, V ., et al. 2014...

    2019

  25. [34]

    P., Richards, G

    3847/1538-4357/abc2d7 Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2360, doi:10. 1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360 Shao, Y ., Wagg, J., Wang, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A85, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/202038469 —. 2022, A&A, 659, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/2021...

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    3847/1538-4357/acebe0 Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., & Hainline, K. N. 2024, ApJ, 964, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a57 Sutter, J., Dale, D. A., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 911, doi:

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 8, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/836/1/8 Uzgil, B

    1093/mnras/stab490 Trakhtenbrot, B., Lira, P., Netzer, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 8, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/836/1/8 Uzgil, B. D., Oesch, P. A., Walter, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 67, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/abe86b Vayner, A., Zakamska, N. L., Ishikawa, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, ...

    2017

  28. [37]

    P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al

    3847/1538-4357/ace784 Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37, doi:10. 3847/0004-637X/816/1/37 Venemans, B. P., Röttgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941 Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Decarli,...

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    2017b, ApJ, 845, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81cb Venemans, B

    3847/2041-8213/aa943a —. 2017b, ApJ, 845, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81cb Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 159, doi:

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al

    3847/1538-4357/aadf35 Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 130, doi:

    2020

  31. [40]

    2023, A&A, 678, A127, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202347375 Villar Martín, M., Emonts, B., Humphrey, A., Cabrera Lavers, A., & Binette, L

    3847/1538-4357/abc563 Venturi, G., Treister, E., Finlez, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A127, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202347375 Villar Martín, M., Emonts, B., Humphrey, A., Cabrera Lavers, A., & Binette, L. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu448 Walter, F., Riechers, D.,...

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 345, doi:10.1093/mnras/ sty1763 Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al

    3847/2041-8213/ac98c3 Xu, F., Bian, F., Shen, Y ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 345, doi:10.1093/mnras/ sty1763 Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2019a, AJ, 157, 236, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-3881/ab1be1 Yang, J., Venemans, B., Wang, F., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 880, 153, doi: 10.3847/ 1538...

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    R., White, R

    1093/mnras/sty2394 Zeimann, G. R., White, R. L., Becker, R. H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 57, doi:

    2011

  34. [43]

    A., Bouwens, R

    1088/0004-637X/736/1/57 Zheng, W., Overzier, R. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 574, doi:

    2006

  35. [44]

    K., Sugahara, Y ., et al

    1086/500167 Zhong, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Sugahara, Y ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4531, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stae798 Article number, page 18 of 19 Mazzucchelli et al.: The host galaxies of radio–loud quasars at z>5 with ALMA Appendix A: Velocity maps We report here the continuum-sub...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.