Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 12 cited by

Episodic super-Eddington accretion as a clue to Overmassive Black Holes in the early Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Short, merger-driven super-Eddington bursts can explain the overmassive black holes JWST sees at high redshift.

desk verdict Solid consistency scenario connecting JWST overmassive BHs to episodic super-Eddington accretion, but the headline burst durations and duty cycles are built into the assumed stopping rule rather than independently derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14248 v1 pith:XE3HUROE submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.GA

Alessandro Trinca , Rosa Valiante , Raffaella Schneider , Ignas Juodžbalis , Roberto Maiolino , Luca Graziani , Alessandro Lupi , Priyamvada Natarajan
show 2 more authors
Marta Volonteri Tommaso Zana
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholessuper-Eddingtonaccretionovermassivegalaxymergershigh-redshiftgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiJWSTsemi-analyticalformationmodel
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

JWST has found supermassive black holes at redshifts 4 to 7 that are far heavier relative to their host galaxies than the local scaling relation predicts. This paper argues that these "overmassive" black holes arise naturally if early black hole seeds grow not by steady accretion but by short, repeated bursts of super-Eddington accretion, each triggered by a major galaxy merger. Using the Cosmic Archaeology Tool semi-analytical model, the authors show that such bursts last only about 0.5 to 3 million years, so these black holes are active only 1 to 4 percent of the time and most are dormant at any given moment. If correct, this resolves the apparent tension between JWST detections and local scaling relations, and it explains the abundance of faint active galactic nuclei and the puzzling "little red dots" as a transient, merger-triggered phase.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the super-Eddington accretion prescription of Section 2.4: during a major galaxy merger (halo mass ratio $\mu>1/10$), the black hole accretes at $\dot{M} = \epsilon_{\rm BH} M_{\rm gas}/\tau_{\rm accr}$ with $\epsilon_{\rm BH}=0.017$ and $\tau_{\rm accr}=10$ Myr, and the enhanced phase is terminated after $\Delta t = \tau_{\rm dyn}/100$ or when the gas-to-black-hole mass ratio falls below 10. This prescription is what converts each major merger into a short, intense growth episode; it is what lets light seeds catch up with heavy seeds, sets the burst durations and duty cycles, and ultimately determines where the model lands in the $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm star}$ plane.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be measuring the AGN duty cycle of overmassive black holes at $z\sim5$–$7$ (for example through variability or clustering): if a large fraction of these systems are found to be active more than a few percent of the time, or if actively accreting overmassive black holes are found in hosts that show no recent major-merger signatures, the merger-triggered super-Eddington scenario would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the population of overmassive black holes observed by JWST at $4<z<7$, with black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm star}$ as high as $\sim0.1$–$1$, is produced naturally when early black hole seeds grow through short, repeated episodes of super-Eddington accretion triggered by major galaxy mergers. In the CAT semi-analytical model, a major merger (halo mass ratio $\mu>1/10$) drives gas onto the nuclear black hole at a rate $\dot{M} = \epsilon_{\rm BH} M_{\rm gas}/\tau_{\rm accr}$ with $\epsilon_{\rm BH}=0.017$ and $\tau_{\rm accr}=10$ Myr, stopping after $\Delta t=\tau_{\rm dyn}/100$ or when $M_{\rm gas}/M_{\rm BH}<10$. With this prescription, the model reproduces the observed $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm star}$ locus, predicts that over $85\%$ of overmassive systems descend from light Population III remnant seeds rather than heavy direct-collapse seeds, and finds that black-hole–galaxy co-evolution begins only at $z<8$, after about $30\%$ of the final stellar mass has formed outside the black hole's host. The predicted bursts last $0.5$–$3$ Myr with a median around $1$ Myr, giving duty cycles of $1$–$4\%$; most overmassive black holes are therefore dormant ($\lambda_{\rm Edd}<0.05$), consistent with the observed dormant system GN-1001830, and the luminosity boost of the active fraction matches the JWST AGN luminosity function, including the little red dots.

Load-bearing premise

The results hinge on the assumption that major galaxy mergers actually drive brief, intense super-Eddington accretion episodes of roughly the assumed efficiency and duration; if real bursts are much weaker, shorter, or triggered by something other than major mergers, the predicted overmassive population, the ~1 Myr burst lengths, and the 1-4% duty cycles would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most overmassive black holes at $z=4$–$7$ should be dormant, so surveys should uncover many more inactive systems like GN-1001830 than bright AGNs.
  • The bright AGN phase and the little red dots are transient: each source shines for only about a million years per burst, so the same black hole can be observed in very different accretion states.
  • Light Population III remnant seeds can account for most overmassive black holes once super-Eddington bursts are allowed, erasing information about the seeding channel by $z\sim8$.
  • Black-hole–galaxy co-evolution begins late (at $z<8$), implying early black hole growth is largely decoupled from the assembly of the host's stellar mass.
  • Overmassive systems converge to the local $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm star}$ relation in roughly 0.5 Gyr once bursts stop, explaining why such extreme ratios are not seen locally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the duty cycle is truly $1$–$4\%$, the number of overmassive black holes in the JWST fields is several tens of times larger than the number caught in a bright phase; targeted variability or stacking searches for dormant nuclei could test this directly.
  • The same episodic growth mode may operate at later cosmic epochs, since overmassive black holes with similar properties have been reported at $z\sim1$–$3$; if so, the mechanism is a generic feature of black hole growth rather than a high-redshift special case.
  • If super-Eddington accretion changes the geometry of the accretion disk, single-epoch virial black hole mass estimates could be biased, so the inferred $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm star}$ ratios and the apparent agreement with the model may shift once such biases are included.
  • The model's merger-triggering assumption could be stress-tested with high-resolution simulations that follow gas clump dynamics; if minor mergers or disk instabilities also trigger bursts, the predicted duty cycles and mass-ratio distribution would change.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the semi-analytical Cosmic Archaeology Tool (CAT) to test whether the overmassive black holes (MBH/Mstar up to ~0.1-0.4) found by JWST at z=4-7 can be produced by episodic super-Eddington (SE) accretion. CAT, built on GALFORM merger trees with Pop III and direct-collapse seeding, is run in two accretion modes: an Eddington-limited (EL) Bondi prescription (Eq. 3) and an SE mode in which major mergers (mass ratio > 1/10) drive accretion at Mdot = eps_BH Mgas/tau_accr (Eq. 4) for Delta t = tau_dyn/100 or until Mgas/MBH < 10 (Sec. 2.4). The authors find that the SE model populates the MBH-Mstar region of the JWST sample whereas the EL model does not; that more than 85% of the matched overmassive systems descend from light Pop III seeds; that BH-galaxy co-evolution starts only at z<8; that SE bursts last 0.5-3 Myr with duty cycles of a few percent; and that the SE model partially reproduces the JWST/LRD bolometric luminosity function at 5<z<7. They also identify synthetic counterparts for the dormant BH in JADES GN-1001830 and argue that such systems converge to the local MBH-Mstar relation within ~0.5 Gyr. The paper presents this as a consistency scenario and explicitly acknowledges that the SE prescription is simplified and that the merger-trigger link is not yet tested by simulations.

Significance. If the scenario is correct, the main implications are: (i) the overmassive BH population at z=4-7 does not require abundant heavy seeds, since light seeds can reach comparable masses through repeated SE bursts; (ii) the model predicts a largely dormant overmassive population with an AGN duty cycle of a few percent, which is testable with JWST samples; and (iii) the Little Red Dot population may be the active, transient phase of this growth mode. A clear strength is that the SE parameters were calibrated to quasar number counts in earlier work (Trinca et al. 2022, 2024), not to the JWST overmassive targets, so the MBH-Mstar match is not a trivial re-fit of the target data. The paper is also unusually candid about its limitations (Sec. 6). The main caveat is that the headline quantitative results (burst durations, duty cycles) are largely inherited from the assumed stopping rule of Sec. 2.4, and the merger-trigger hypothesis lacks direct simulation support; the result is therefore best read as a proof-of-concept consistency model rather than a unique explanation of the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 3.3] The predicted burst durations and duty cycles are not independent outputs of the model. In Sec. 2.4 the SE phase is terminated by the condition Delta t = tau_dyn/100 (or Mgas/MBH < 10), and for the halos relevant at z ~ 5-6, tau_dyn/100 ~ 1-2 Myr, which directly produces the 0.5-3 Myr distribution reported in Sec. 3.3 (Fig. 4, median ~ 1 Myr). Over such a short interval the accretion of Eq. (4) removes only Delta MBH ~ 0.017 Mgas (Delta t/10 Myr) ~ 0.002 Mgas, so the gas-exhaustion condition is rarely the active stopper; the duration is essentially the assumed tau_dyn/100. Consequently, the abstract and conclusions present as model 'suggestions' (0.5-3 Myr bursts, 1-4% duty cycle) quantities that are largely prescribed. I recommend that the paper (i) state explicitly that these numbers are consequences of the adopted stopping rule, and (ii) add a robustness test varying Delta t (e.g., tau_dyn/30 and tau_dyn/300) and the product eps_BH/tau_accr, showing how the overmassive population, the duty cycle, and the LF normalization respond. This would convert a potential circularity into a quantitative sensitivity statement.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 6] The causal link between major mergers and SE accretion, which is the backbone of the central claim, is not directly supported by the simulations cited for the burst durations. As acknowledged in Sec. 6, the hydrodynamic simulations invoked (Sassano et al. 2023; Massonneau et al. 2023; Lupi et al. 2024a; Gordon et al. 2024; Shi et al. 2024) model isolated gas-rich galaxies hosting 10^3-10^4 Msun seeds, not merger-driven gas inflows around 10^6-10^8 Msun BHs. The statement in Sec. 6 that the role of major mergers 'is still poorly explored with simulations' is therefore in tension with the abstract's causal phrasing ('triggered by major galaxy mergers') and with the consistency claim made in Sec. 3.3. I ask the authors to separate explicitly in Sec. 3.3 what the simulations validate (the duration of SE accretion in dense, clumpy environments) from what remains a working assumption (that major mergers trigger such phases at the assumed rate and duration), and to soften the abstract and Sec. 7 wording accordingly unless a new test of the merger-trigger hypothesis is added.
  3. [Sec. 5 and Sec. 7 (last bullet)] The claim that the SE model 'closely reproduces the high number density of accreting BHs with Lbol = 10^45-10^47 erg/s' (last bullet of Sec. 7) is not supported by Fig. 6: the text of Sec. 5 states that both the EL and SE luminosity functions drop by more than two orders of magnitude below the Akins et al. (2024) number densities at Lbol > 10^46.5 erg/s, and the agreement in the SE panel is limited to roughly Lbol ~ 10^45-10^46 erg/s. The conclusion bullet should be moderated to a partial agreement, or the paper should explicitly compute the LF under the stellar-contamination correction it invokes to reconcile the bright end. As written, the bullet overstates the quantitative support that the LF comparison provides.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 3.3, Sec. 6, Sec. 7] Duty-cycle values are quoted inconsistently: the abstract and Sec. 7 say 1-4%, Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 4 give 0.5%-6% as a function of MBH, and Sec. 6 says 1-6%. Please harmonize the numbers and specify that the duty cycle is mass-dependent.
  2. [Sec. 2.5] There is a typo: 'the impact of jest remains debated' should read 'jets'. The author list also contains a formatting artifact ('Va liante'), presumably from the LaTeX source.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 6] The statement that 'less than 15% of the whole population of overmassive BHs at these epochs descends from heavy seeds' refers to the 78-system sample selected in Sec. 3.1 (10/78 ~ 13%); the text should clarify that this is a property of the JADES-Medium-matched selection, not of the full predicted population.
  4. [Sec. 2] The many free parameters (alpha, eps_SF, eps_BH, tau_accr, Jcrit, Zcrit, eps_w,SN, eps_w,AGN, and the assumed spin a=0.572) are introduced piecemeal; a summary table of parameters with adopted values and calibration targets would make the model setup and its calibration much more transparent.
  5. [Sec. 3 and Fig. 1] The comparison with the JWST sample in Fig. 1 is qualitative. A quantitative statistic (e.g., the fraction of observed objects falling within the predicted SE locus, or a two-dimensional two-sample test between the EL and SE distributions and the data) would strengthen the claim that the SE model 'better reproduces' the observed population than the EL model.
  6. [Sec. 2.5] The rationale for using a spin-dependent radiative efficiency (a=0.572) in the SE model but a fixed eps_r = 0.1 in the EL model is not given; since this asymmetry directly affects the luminosity boost used in Sec. 5, one justifying sentence is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The predicted 0.5-3 Myr burst durations and 1-4% duty cycles are direct outputs of the Sec. 2.4 stopping rule, while the overmassive-BH scenario retains independent, externally calibrated content.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4 (Eq. 4 and stopping rule) presented as findings in Section 3.3, Abstract, and Conclusions]
    "In the SE scenario, the enhanced accretion is sustained as long as one of the two following conditions is met: the elapsed time interval reaches a value ∆t = τdyn/100, or the gas-to-BH mass ratio drops below Mgas/MBH < 10. ... The distribution of the duration of single SE accretion bursts is presented in the upper panel, which shows that the typical values are very short, and range between 0.5 − 3 Myrs, with a median value of ∆tburst ≃ 1 Myr."

    The reported burst durations are not an emergent prediction: the model terminates every SE burst after an elapsed time Δt = τdyn/100 (or earlier if Mgas/MBH < 10). At z ~ 5-7 the halo dynamical time is around 100 Myr, so τdyn/100 ≈ 1 Myr, matching the reported median. The 0.5-3 Myr distribution is therefore the assumed stopping rule converted into cosmic time, not derived from independent accretion physics. The duty cycle is the fraction of cosmic time spent inside these input-duration bursts; with burst lengths fixed by the same prescription, the quoted 1-4% duty cycles largely mirror the assumed burst length and merger frequency. Presenting these quantities as model 'suggestions' or predictions restates the Section 2.4 assumption.

full rationale

The central claim that episodic super-Eddington accretion can explain overmassive BHs is not circular in the strongest sense: the SE parameters (ϵBH = 0.017, τaccr = 10 Myr) were carried from earlier quasar-oriented calibration rather than fitted to the JWST overmassive sample, so the resulting MBH/Mstar values and AGN luminosity function are genuine conditional predictions with external benchmarks. The clearest circular element is the burst-duration and duty-cycle 'prediction,' which reduces to the Section 2.4 stopping rule Δt = τdyn/100. The paper itself notes in Section 6 that the role of major mergers in directly triggering or enhancing BH growth 'is still poorly explored with simulations,' an honest external-validity limitation rather than an internal circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; citations to prior CAT papers for model calibration are normal and do not raise the circularity score. Because one prominent set of predictions (burst duration, duty cycle) is built into the model by construction while the central overmassive-BH explanation retains independent content, a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of calibrated parameters and physical assumptions, most inherited from earlier CAT papers. In the super-Eddington scenario, the key choices are the burst accretion efficiency ϵBH=0.017, the timescale τaccr=10 Myr, and the stopping rule Δt=τdyn/100 (or Mgas/MBH<10). These are not derived from first principles in this paper, so the quantitative predictions carry these assumptions.

free parameters (10)
  • Bondi accretion boost factor α = 90
    Enhances BHL accretion rate (Eq. 3); calibrated so CAT reproduces z~6-7 quasar properties (Trinca et al. 2022).
  • SE BH accretion efficiency ϵBH = 0.017
    Sets super-Eddington accretion rate during merger-driven bursts (Eq. 4); adopted from Pezzulli et al. 2016 and Trinca et al. 2022.
  • SE accretion timescale τaccr = 10 Myr
    Together with ϵBH sets how rapidly gas is consumed during SE bursts (Eq. 4).
  • SE burst stopping timescale Δt = τdyn/100 = varies with halo dynamical time; median ~1 Myr
    Chosen stopping rule in Sec 2.4; largely sets the predicted burst duration of 0.5-3 Myr.
  • Star formation efficiency ϵSF (PopII) = 0.05
    Used in both EL and SE star formation prescriptions (Eq. 1 and Sec 2.4); calibrated to high-z galaxy observables.
  • Star formation efficiency ϵSF (PopIII) = 0.15
    Sets PopIII star formation in minihalos (Sec 2.2); adopted from Trinca et al. 2024.
  • SN wind efficiency ϵw,SN = 1.6e-3
    Controls gas ejection via supernovae (Eq. 5); free parameter from Trinca et al. 2022.
  • AGN wind efficiency ϵw,AGN = 2.5e-3
    Controls AGN-driven outflows (Eq. 6), important for limiting BH growth in low-mass galaxies.
  • Critical LW flux Jcrit = 300 x 1e-21 erg/s/cm2/Hz/sr
    Threshold for direct collapse BH formation (Sec 2.3); uncertain.
  • Metallicity threshold Zcrit = 1e-3.8 Zsun
    Separates PopIII from PopII star formation (Sec 2.2).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption GALFORM merger trees accurately represent the hierarchical assembly of dark matter halos from z=24 to z=4.
    All galaxy and BH evolution is built on these trees (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion with α=90 approximates the unresolved gas supply near the BH in the EL model.
    Eq. 3; verified only indirectly through quasar number counts.
  • ad hoc to paper Major mergers with mass ratio μ>1/10 trigger large gas inflows that enable super-Eddington accretion.
    Central physical assumption of the SE model (Sec 2.4); supported by qualitative arguments but not modeled hydrodynamically here.
  • ad hoc to paper During SE bursts, the accretion rate is Mdot = ϵBH Mgas/τaccr with ϵBH=0.017 and τaccr=10 Myr.
    Phenomenological prescription (Eq. 4) whose parameters are not derived from disk physics.
  • ad hoc to paper SE bursts last until Δt=τdyn/100 or Mgas/MBH<10.
    Stopping rule in Sec 2.4; determines the predicted burst durations and duty cycles.
  • domain assumption Gas outflows are described by Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 with fixed wind efficiencies.
    Feedback prescription inherited from Trinca et al. 2022; no AGN feedback specifically during SE phases (Sec 2.5).
  • ad hoc to paper Nuclear BHs merge instantaneously upon galaxy merger.
    Acknowledged optimistic in Sec 2.4; affects BH mass assembly.
  • domain assumption sSFR evolves as (1+z)^1.6 for the local scaling convergence estimate.
    Used in Sec 4 to estimate ~0.5 Gyr timescale to reach local MBH-Mstar relation; from Di Cesare et al. 2023.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Episodic super-Eddington accretion as a clue to Overmassive Black Holes in the early Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XE3HUROE

@misc{pith2026241214248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Episodic super-Eddington accretion as a clue to Overmassive Black Holes in the early Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XE3HUROE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14248}
}
abstract

Early JWST observations are providing growing evidence for a ubiquitous population of accreting supermassive black holes (BHs) at high redshift, many of which appear overmassive compared to the empirically-derived local scaling relation between black hole mass and host galaxy stellar mass. In this study, we leverage predictions from the semi-analytical Cosmic Archaeology Tool (CAT) to reconstruct the evolutionary pathways for this overmassive BH population, investigating how they assemble over cosmic time and interact with their host galaxies. We find that the large $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm star}$ ratios can be explained if light and heavy BH seeds grow by short, repeated episodes of super-Eddington accretion, triggered by major galaxy mergers. On average, we find that BH-galaxy co-evolution starts in earnest only at $z < 8$, when $\simeq 30\%$ of the final galaxy stellar mass has formed outside the massive black hole host. Our model suggests that super-Eddington bursts of accretion last between $0.5-3$ Myr, resulting in a duty cycle of $1-4 \%$ for the target BH sample. The boost in luminosity of BHs undergoing super-Eddington accretion helps explaining the luminosity function of Active Galactic Nuclei observed by JWST. At the same time, a large population of these overmassive BHs are predicted to be inactive, with Eddington ratio $\lambda_{\rm Edd} < 0.05$, in agreement with recent observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scaling relation between the black hole and the host galaxy stellar mass. grey and red dots represent the BH population predicted between 4 < z < 7 by CAT Eddington￾limited (EL) and super-Eddington (SE) accretion models, respectively. Model predictions are compared with a sam￾ple of overmassive BHs detected in early JWST observations at high redshift 4 < z < 7 (yellow stars). The dormant black hole at z = 6.67 ident… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panels: the CAT synthetic candidates at z ∼ 5 and z ∼ 6 in the MBH −Mstar and MBH −Mdyn planes. Diagonal lines show constant ratio values of 10−1 , 10−2 and 10−3 . Bottom panel: the initial seed masses and the subse￾quent BH evolutionary tracks for the selected systems. BHs originated from light and heavy seeds are represented, re￾spectively, as blue dots and red squares. the host galaxy’s stellar mass (log(MBH/… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of the average fraction of the galaxy stellar mass hosting MBHs that descend from light (upper panel) and heavy (lower panel) BH seeds. The solid and dashed lines represent the stellar mass fractions which form in situ (i.e. within the same galaxy hosting the final BH) and ex situ (i.e. in other galactic progenitors). Shaded regions show the 1 σ standard deviation from the average evolutionary history… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: distribution of the time duration of super-Eddington accretion bursts for the selected SMBH population shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Star formation history of the best synthetic counterparts of JADES GN-1001830 at z ∼ 7 (see text). Evolutionary tracks are compared to the SFH predicted by Prospector (grey shaded area) and Bagpipes (pink shaded area) from the host galaxy SED fitting (Juodˇ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AGN bolometric luminosity function at 5 < z < 7. CAT predictions for the Eddington-limited (upper panel) and super-Eddington (lower panel) scenarios are show as black squares, and are compared with the recent estimate of the bolometric luminosity function derived for t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rapid growth in a dual AGN during a gas-rich merger at z~4.5

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LID-1166 is the first confirmed close-separation (<3 kpc) dual AGN beyond the local Universe, hosting two accreting supermassive black holes in a gas-rich merger at z~4.5.

  2. Supermassive Black Hole Growth in Massive Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a simulated ~1e11 Msun halo at z 15-9, stellar feedback starves the central black hole about 50% of the time, and AGN feedback never quenches star formation.

  3. What you see is what you get: empirically measured bolometric luminosities of Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Directly integrating the observed spectra of two Little Red Dots shows the bolometric luminosity is dominated by rest-frame optical light, lowering implied black hole masses to about 10^5 to 10^7 solar masses.

  4. The $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 May Never Reach a "Normal" Black Hole to Stellar Mass Ratio

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The z=7.08 quasar J1120+0641 sits in an overdense environment, yet the available mass around it is probably insufficient for its host galaxy to reach the local black hole to stellar mass relation by z=0.

  5. NEXUS: Spectral Variability of Little Red Dots and Blue Active Galactic Nuclei at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Little Red Dots at z=2-6 show less than 4% intrinsic H-alpha variability on 1-3 month rest-frame timescales, a flat white-noise pattern unlike normal AGNs, implying different broad-line production.

  6. How to raise a supermassive black hole: interpreting early JWST AGN with the AESOPICA simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic simulation suite with a mock JWST survey shows early overmassive black holes can arise from any seed mass under fast accretion, and broad-line selection explains much of the observed overmassiveness.

  7. Outflows in super-Eddington quasars drive clumpy circumgalactic medium and extended H$\alpha$ nebulae at $z \gtrsim 6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In z≈6 quasar simulations, super-Eddington black-hole growth clears escape channels, ejects cold clumps that raise neutral-hydrogen covering, and powers extended Hα nebulae that shrink when the quasar is obscured.

  8. An (in)complete NIRSpec census of Balmer absorption in Type 1 AGN -- radiation-driven outflows in little red dots, quasars and variable stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    About 44% of little red dots have hydrogen-alpha absorption from outflowing gas, implying radiatively driven outflows rather than static atmospheres.

  9. The importance of super-Eddington black hole accretion for the emergence of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Super-Eddington black hole accretion is the COLIBRE ingredient that reproduces JWST's high-redshift massive quiescent galaxy abundance.

  10. Dating N loud AGNs at high redshift: GS3073 as a snapshot of wCen like evolution of a nuclear star cluster

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GS3073's extreme nitrogen abundance is attributed to undiluted winds from 3 to 4 solar mass AGB stars, giving an age of 270 to 440 million years and requiring intermittent super-Eddington black hole growth.

  11. You can't see me: Super-Eddington growth hindering X-ray detection in high-z broad-line active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    High-redshift JWST broad-line AGNs may be low-mass black holes accreting far above Eddington, whose steep, over-cooled coronal spectra explain their X-ray non-detections and make them appear overmassive.

  12. The $M_{\rm BH}-M_\star$ Relation of the hyperluminous Dust-obscured Quasars up to $z \sim 4$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Hyperluminous Hot DOGs at z=1.5-3.7 show high Eddington ratios (median 1.05) and black hole to stellar mass ratios consistent with the local relation, suggesting they are progenitors of massive early-type galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith · cited by 12 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature, 627, 281, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4

    Abuter, R., Allouche, F., Amorim, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 281, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07053-4 2024

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  3. [3]

    T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 2024

  5. [5]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.14418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.14418

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14418 2023

  6. [6]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  7. [7]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  8. [8]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Endsley, R., et al

    Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2199 de Bennassuti, M., Salvadori, S., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., & Omukai, K. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2687 de Bennassuti, M., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., & Sa...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Duncan, K., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Duncan, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9b

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Watson, D., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 604, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04454-1

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18543

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18543

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, A&A, 578, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425334 —

    Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., Fiore, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425334 —. 2019, ApJ, 884, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e1

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Smith, B

    Gordon, S. T., Smith, B. D., Khochfar, S., & Beckmann, R. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06888

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D

    Guia, C. A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D. D. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 207, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7262

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    N., Maiolino, R., Juodzbalis, I., et al

    Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodzbalis, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00100

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1941, MNRAS, 101, 227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/101.4.227 14 Trinca et al

    1941 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14706, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14706

    Inayoshi, K., & Ichikawa, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14706, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14706

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03872, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03872

    2021 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171

    King, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.00012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00012

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Kov´ acs, O. E., Bogd´ an,´A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07320, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.07320

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Larson, R. B. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 301, 569

    1998

  28. [36]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08918, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08918

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., & Faber, S

    Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., & Faber, S. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 249, doi: 10.1086/522083

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., Ichikawa, K., & Ho, L. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10760, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10760

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00304.x

    Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00304.x

    2007

  33. [41]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2877

    Lupi, A., Haardt, F., Dotti, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2877

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Lupi, A., Quadri, G., Volonteri, M., Colpi, M., & Regan, J. A. 2024a, A&A, 686, A256, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788

    doi

  35. [43]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17847

    Mazzucchelli, C. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17847

    doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00417

    Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00417

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2014, ApJL, 784, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L38

    Madau, P., Haardt, F., & Dotti, M. 2014, ApJL, 784, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L38

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2024a, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024a, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    doi

  39. [47]

    2024b, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024b, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    doi

  40. [48]

    2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00504, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.00504

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00504, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.00504

    doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Massonneau, W., Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., & Beckmann, R. S. 2023, A&A, 669, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244874

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15615, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15615

    Mazzolari, G., Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15615, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15615

    doi

  44. [52]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04224

    Mazzolari, G., Gilli, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04224

    doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c2a

    Mezcua, M., Pacucci, F., Suh, H., Siudek, M., & Natarajan, P. 2024, ApJL, 966, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c2a

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 117

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 117

    2017

  47. [55]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe11

    Niida, M., Nagao, T., Ikeda, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe11

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.02026

    2023 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3

    Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., Ding, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3044

    Pacucci, F., & Loeb, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3044

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15915

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15915

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12517.x P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P

    Parkinson, H., Cole, S., & Helly, J. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12517.x P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb

    2008

  55. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw505

    Pezzulli, E., Valiante, R., & Schneider, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw505

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    F., Schaye, J., et al

    Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.12140, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12140 Episodic super-Eddington accretion and overmassive black holes 15

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    A., Downes, T

    Regan, J. A., Downes, T. P., Volonteri, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1045

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3608

    Valiante, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3608

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1737

    Sassano, F., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1737

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2503

    Schneider, R., Valiante, R., Trinca, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2503

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.18731

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.18731

    2023 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  64. [72]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Shi, Y., Kremer, K., & Hopkins, P. F. 2024, ApJL, 969, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a95

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    D., Regan, J

    Smith, B. D., Regan, J. A., Downes, T. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2103

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Stern, J., & Laor, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    2012

  68. [76]

    P., et al

    Suh, H., Scharw¨ achter, J., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05333

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 1798, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1798

    Tanaka, T., & Haiman, Z. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1798, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1798

    2009 doi

  70. [78]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz134

    Tang, J.-J., Goto, T., Ohyama, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz134

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Finkelstein, S

    Taylor, A. J., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06772, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06772

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    C., et al

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3590

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3768

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3768

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae651 —

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae651 —. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac062 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.06647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.06647

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    2018a, MNRAS, 474, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3028

    Valiante, R., Schneider, R., Graziani, L., & Zappacosta, L. 2018a, MNRAS, 474, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3028

    doi

  76. [84]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 3356

    Valiante, R., Schneider, R., Volonteri, M., & Omukai, K. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 3356

    2016

  77. [85]

    2018b, MNRAS, 476, 407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty213

    Valiante, R., Schneider, R., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 476, 407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty213

    doi

  78. [86]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad499

    Volonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad499

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12854, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12854

    Volonteri, M., Trebitsch, M., Dubois, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12854, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12854

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    I., Papovich, C., et al

    Yang, G., Caputi, K. I., Papovich, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd639

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    doi

  83. [91]

    A., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 966, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914

    doi

  84. [92]

    2020, A&A, 635, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937292

    Zappacosta, L., Piconcelli, E., Giustini, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937292

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    2023, A&A, 678, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346795

    Zappacosta, L., Piconcelli, E., Fiore, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346795

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c2

    Zhang, Y., Ouchi, M., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c2

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.