Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Discovery of a galaxy overdensity around a powerful, heavily obscured FRII radio galaxy at z=1.7: star formation promoted by large-scale AGN feedback?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A heavily obscured radio galaxy at z=1.7 appears to have inflated a hot bubble whose expanding shock is triggering star formation in four neighboring galaxies, evidence for positive AGN feedback on cosmological scales.

desk verdict Solid discovery of a z=1.7 overdensity around a Compton-thick FRII, but the positive-feedback interpretation rests on an unmeasured redshift and a tuned bubble model. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00814 v2 pith:QE2J2DVS submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

R. Gilli , M. Mignoli , A. Peca , R. Nanni , I. Prandoni , E. Liuzzo , Q. D'Amato , M. Brusa
show 20 more authors
F. Calura G.B. Caminha M. Chiaberge A. Comastri O. Cucciati F. Cusano P. Grandi E. Decarli G. Lanzuisi F. Mannucci E. Pinna P. Tozzi E. Vanzella C. Vignali F. Vito B. Balmaverde A. Citro N. Cappelluti G. Zamorani C. Norman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyoverdensityFRIIradiopositiveAGNfeedbackdiffuseX-rayemissionstar-forminggalaxiesCompton-thickquasarprotoclustershock-heatedbubble
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

The paper reports a galaxy overdensity at $z\approx1.7$ gathered around a powerful, heavily obscured radio galaxy of Fanaroff-Riley type II, and argues that the radio jet's energy is doing something unusual: instead of only quenching star formation, it may be promoting it. Around the galaxy's eastern radio lobe, deep X-ray imaging reveals a $\sim$240 kpc patch of diffuse X-ray emission, and four of the six spectroscopically confirmed star-forming galaxies in the overdensity sit in an arc at the edge of that glow, with a chance alignment probability of about $10^{-4}$. Those four galaxies have the highest specific star formation rates in the group and lie above the field main sequence at $z=1.7$. The authors propose that the diffuse X-rays are a bubble of gas shock-heated to roughly 5 keV by the jet, and that the same expanding shock compresses cold gas in the boundary galaxies and triggers their starbursts — evidence for positive AGN feedback on cosmological scales. If right, this would show that radio jets can help build the very galaxies around them while the structure is still assembling into a cluster.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an expanding, shock-heated bubble of hot gas: the FRII jet plows into the ambient medium of the overdensity, thermalizing roughly half of its kinetic power ($\approx6.3\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and inflating a sphere of gas at $T\approx5$ keV that carries $\approx7\times10^{60}$ erg of thermal energy. The key identity is the energy-driven bubble expansion law (Eqs. 15–16 of the paper's 2017 model), which converts jet power and ambient density into a bubble radius versus time: with a 70 Myr lifetime the model gives 117 kpc, in close agreement with the measured $\sim$120 kpc radius of component A. The spatial configuration carries the argument as well: the four star-forming galaxies m1–m4 are arrayed along the sharp edge of the X-ray surface brightness profile, where a shock would be decelerating, and the radio jet bends at the X-ray centroid. The diffuse X-ray component A itself — a $\sim$240 kpc structure centered on the eastern radio lobe, after point-source subtraction — is the observable that ties the jet to the galaxies.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift or pressure of the diffuse X-ray gas directly — through X-ray line diagnostics, a Sunyaev-Zeldovich detection of the bubble's pressure, or absorption lines against a background source at $z>1.7$ — to test whether component A truly sits at $z=1.7$; in parallel, ultraviolet emission-line mapping of m1–m4 could reveal whether their young starbursts are younger than the $\sim$70 Myr bubble expansion time, as the shock-triggering scenario requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the field of the $z=6.3$ quasar SDSS J1030+0524, eight galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts $z=1.687$–$1.699$ form a significant overdensity ($\delta_g\approx22$, false-detection probability below $3.5\times10^{-7}$) around an FRII radio galaxy whose host lies at $z=1.699$. The FRII nucleus is a Compton-thick quasar with column density $N_H=(1.5\pm0.6)\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ and intrinsic 2–10 keV luminosity $1.3\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and the jet carries a kinetic power of about $6.3\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$. X-ray imaging reveals diffuse component A, extending $\sim$240 kpc around the eastern radio lobe, whose surface brightness falls sharply at roughly 14 arcsec; four MUSE star-forming galaxies (m1–m4) lie at that edge in an arc, concentrated within 200 kpc on the sky and 450 kpc in radial distance, with three within 60 kpc in both. The paper's central claim is that component A is a bubble of gas shock-heated to $T\gtrsim5$ keV by the jet, and that the expanding shock front compressed the interstellar medium of m1–m4, boosting their star formation: the four have the highest specific star formation rates of the MUSE members, factors of 2–5 above the field main sequence. An energy-driven bubble model with the measured jet power produces a radius of 117 kpc after 70 Myr, matching the observed $\sim$120 kpc radius, and the needed lifetime agrees with typical FRII spectral ages. The authors argue the feedback conclusion holds even if part of the X-ray emission is inverse-Compton rather than thermal, because the lobe's nonthermal pressure would still overpressurize the region and compress the boundary galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole feedback interpretation assumes the diffuse X-ray glow around the eastern radio lobe is actually hot gas at $z=1.7$ belonging to the overdensity, but its redshift was never measured spectroscopically; the association rests on morphology, not on a direct redshift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bubble interpretation is correct, this is the first example of positive AGN feedback on cosmological scales: an expanding radio-galaxy jet compresses cold gas in companion galaxies and raises their star formation, rather than only suppressing it.
  • The galaxy overdensity is a protocluster caught before virialization, with a mass of roughly $1.5$–$2\times10^{13}$ M$_\odot$ and a low velocity dispersion; it is likely the ancestor of a local massive galaxy group.
  • The hot bubble carries enough energy ($\sim7\times10^{60}$ erg) that it will pre-heat the intracluster medium over hundreds of kiloparsecs as the structure collapses, influencing how the cluster's hot gas is assembled.
  • The inferred 70 Myr jet lifetime, the bubble radius, and the jet power all fit together in the energy-driven expansion model; the western lobe's lack of X-rays can be accommodated by modest density variations in the ambient gas.
  • Even if the diffuse X-rays are mostly inverse-Compton emission rather than thermal, the lobe's nonthermal pressure still exceeds the cold ambient pressure by more than two orders of magnitude, so the expansion and shock compression scenario survives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the shock-triggering picture is right, galaxies at the bubble boundary should show a spatial gradient in burst age, with the youngest, strongest starbursts closest to the shock front; this is testable with resolved UV line diagnostics in m1–m4.
  • The unusual coincidence that this z=1.7 protocluster lies in the same field as a z=6.3 quasar offers a natural control experiment: future wide-field surveys could ask whether powerful obscured radio galaxies are preferentially embedded in such overdense regions, which would bear on how early structures and their black holes form.
  • The model's clean match between jet power, ambient density, and bubble radius predicts a specific relation that other FRII protoclusters should reproduce; a future detection of the same arc-plus-bubble morphology around other high-z radio galaxies would turn this single case into a population.
  • Because the western lobe is brighter in radio yet shows no diffuse X-ray counterpart, the eastern alignment of m1–m4 could in part be a projection effect; deeper radio and X-ray data that map the true 3-D geometry would settle how much of the arc is physically defined by the shock.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multiwavelength study of an FRII radio galaxy at z=1.699 in the field of the z=6.3 QSO SDSS J1030+0524. VLT/MUSE and LBT/LUCI spectroscopy identify eight galaxies in the range z=1.687-1.699, forming a significant overdensity (δg=22, false-detection probability <3.5e-7). A 500 ks Chandra observation reveals a Compton-thick QSO in the FRII nucleus (NH=1.5e24 cm^-2, L2-10keV=1.3e44 erg/s) and extended diffuse X-ray emission, with the brightest component (A) extending ~240 kpc around the eastern radio lobe. Four of the six MUSE star-forming galaxies (m1-m4) lie in an arc at the apparent boundary of component A and have the highest specific star formation rates in the group. The authors propose that component A is a jet-shocked, expanding hot bubble and that its expansion compresses the cold gas of m1-m4, triggering star formation: a claim of large-scale positive AGN feedback.

Significance. If the redshift association of component A with the z=1.7 FRII holds, this is one of the most detailed claimed examples of positive AGN feedback on ~100 kpc scales, and the paper also provides a valuable spectroscopic confirmation of a protocluster around a Compton-thick FRII. The analysis has genuine strengths: the overdensity significance is checked against the independent HUDF-MUSE background; photometric and spectral measurements are made on unsmoothed images; the Compton-thick spectrum is modeled with appropriate Compton-scattering physics; and the paper gives concrete, falsifiable predictions (LOFAR, ALMA, SZ). The central interpretation, however, rests on an assumed rather than measured redshift for the diffuse X-ray component, on an a posteriori boundary test, and on a bubble-expansion model whose input parameters are largely assumed; these issues are load-bearing for the feedback claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4.2] The placement of diffuse X-ray component A at z=1.7 is assumed, not measured: the text explicitly states that no spectral feature could be used to determine the redshift, and the association is made on morphological grounds (the eastern lobe is centered on A, the jet bends at its centroid, and no diffuse X-rays reach the z=6.3 QSO). This assumption is load-bearing because the arc of m1-m4, the sSFR comparison, and the energy budget in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 all require A to be a jet-heated structure at z=1.7. The abstract and conclusions should either present the z=1.7 placement as an explicit working hypothesis or provide a positive redshift diagnostic for the gas; the statement in Section 5.4 that the conclusions are robust to an IC-CMB interpretation does not resolve this, since it only changes the emission mechanism while keeping the same redshift association.
  2. [Section 5.4] The reported chance probability P~1.2e-4 is computed for an annulus of radius 14" and width 5", parameters that were chosen after inspecting the X-ray edge and the positions of m1-m4. This is an a posteriori choice, and no trial factor is accounted for; a blind search over annulus radii and widths would produce a larger false-positive rate. The paper should either specify the search procedure and the number of trials, or present the probability as indicative rather than as a rigorous significance for the arc-boundary coincidence.
  3. [Sections 4.3, 5.4] The agreement between the modeled bubble radius (117 kpc) and the observed radius (~120 kpc) is a consistency check, not an independent prediction. The 70 Myr age is derived from Eth/(Pjet/2), where Eth is computed from the observed properties of component A (n~4e-3 cm^-3, T=5 keV, R=120 kpc) and Pjet comes from the Willott et al. (1999) scaling with f=15 (Eq. 3); the Gilli et al. (2017) expansion model is then applied with assumed parameters lambda=1, epsilon_tot=0.3, and rho_gas=2e-28 g cm^-3. The text should clearly separate measured from assumed inputs and show how the predicted radius varies under the quoted uncertainties in temperature, density, f, and rho_gas.
  4. [Sections 4.2, 5.4] The sSFR enhancement of m1-m4 is presented as supporting evidence for positive feedback, but the sample consists of six galaxies and the quoted error bars are large (e.g., m1 has log sSFR = 0.94+/-0.55 Gyr^-1, m5 has 0.34+/-0.28 Gyr^-1). The comparison is made against an average field main-sequence relation rather than matched controls, and the paper itself acknowledges that no strong statistical statement is possible. The abstract and conclusions should scale the strength of this claim to the sample size, for example by stating the probability that, under the field sSFR distribution, the four highest-sSFR galaxies of six would be the ones at the boundary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 8] The right panel marks a single radius for the m1-m4 galaxies, but these objects are not all at exactly the same projected radius; showing the individual radial range of the four galaxies would make the boundary coincidence easier to assess quantitatively.
  2. [Table 2] Component C has full-band net counts of 24+/-10, while the hard-band counts are 3+/-7, i.e., consistent with zero; the text calls C real based on XMM-Newton data, but no quantitative XMM detection reference is given. A citation to the specific XMM measurement in Nanni et al. (2018) should be added.
  3. [Section 3.4.2] The statement that the eastern radio lobe 'bends southward after reaching the centroid' is qualitative; a quantitative measure of the bend (e.g., a change in position angle with radius) would strengthen the morphological argument for an interaction.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The name 'Fanaroff-Riley' is misspelled as 'Fanaro' in several places (e.g., the abstract and Section 1); this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Bubble radius check is a calibrated consistency check rather than a prediction; the overdensity and sSFR evidence remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.4, 'Star formation promoted by AGN feedback', around the Eth/(Pjet/2)=70 Myr and 117 kpc vs 120 kpc comparison using Eqs. 15-16 of Gilli et al. (2017).]
    "By assuming a constant jet power equal to that measured in Section 4.3, P jet = 6.3×10^45 erg s^-1, and that only half of it is available for gas heating, it would take Eth/(P jet/2) = 70 Myr to heat the gas up to the level observed in component A. ... By substituting these values in Eqs.15 and 16 of Gilli et al. (2017), we find that after 70 Myr, the bubble radius has expanded to 117 kpc, in excellent agreement with the measured size of component A of the diffuse X-ray emission (~120 kpc radius)."

    The 70 Myr age substituted into the expansion law is not an independent observable; it is defined as Eth/(Pjet/2), where Eth = n V kT is measured from the same X-ray component A whose radius (~120 kpc) is the quantity being 'predicted'. The expansion-law output R=117 kpc therefore mainly rescales the input radius through the chosen thermodynamic quantities and the assumed ambient density (rho_gas=2e-28), with the efficiency and Eddington parameters (lambda=1, eps_tot=0.3) also adopted from the Gilli et al. (2017) model. This makes the agreement a tuned consistency check rather than a first-principles prediction. The other evidence (overdensity significance, arc probability, sSFR excess) is not affected by this step.

full rationale

The core derivations are mostly self-contained. The overdensity significance is computed from MUSE redshift counts with a background estimated from both the smoothed observed redshift distribution and the independent HUDF MUSE catalog, giving delta_g=22 and a very low chance probability. The sSFR comparison uses the Santini et al. (2017) field main sequence, an independent external dataset, and the Compton-thick nucleus is characterized by direct Chandra spectral fitting. Therefore the paper is not globally circular. The flagged step is limited to the supporting 'bubble radius prediction' in Section 5.4: the 70 Myr age is obtained from the thermal energy of the same X-ray component A that the model is then used to reproduce, so the 117 kpc versus 120 kpc agreement is a consistency check with several chosen parameters and is not an independent first-principles prediction. The unmeasured redshift of component A (Section 3.4.2) is an assumption risk rather than a circularity, and the arc probability is a posteriori and hence a statistical concern rather than a circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claims rest on standard calibrations plus several assumed parameters for the jet power, black hole accretion state, ambient gas density, and the statistical annulus used for the boundary coincidence. The strongest structural assumptions are that the diffuse X-ray gas is at z=1.7 and that the Gilli et al. (2017) bubble model applies to this system.

free parameters (8)
  • Jet kinetic power correction factor f = 15
    Assumed in Eq. (3) (Willott et al. 1999) in Section 4.3 to convert the 151 MHz lobe luminosity into P_jet; known to carry factor-of-several systematic uncertainty.
  • Bolometric correction k_bol = 30
    Used in Section 4.3 to turn L_2-10 keV into L_rad; a literature value for luminous QSOs, not measured for this source.
  • Eddington ratio lambda = 1
    Assumed in Section 5.4 for the bubble model; sets black hole growth and expansion time scale.
  • Total accretion efficiency epsilon_tot = 0.3
    Assumed in Section 5.4 for a rapidly spinning black hole; enters the Salpeter time and bubble normalization.
  • Ambient gas density rho_gas = 2e-28 g cm^-3
    Assumed in Section 5.4 following Hennawi et al. (2015); used to compute the bubble radius.
  • Hot gas density in component A = 4e-3 cm^-3
    Derived from the apec fit and assumed volume in Section 5.4; sets the thermal energy E_th and the 70 Myr estimate.
  • Coincidence annulus for boundary test = radius 14 arcsec, width 5 arcsec
    Chosen a posteriori in Section 5.4 to enclose m1-m4 at the edge of component A; drives the reported P~1.2e-4.
  • Galaxy bias b = 2
    Assumed in Section 5.1 to convert galaxy overdensity to matter overdensity for the mass estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The MUSE redshifts in the J1030 field and the HUDF provide an unbiased estimate of the field galaxy background at z~1.7.
    Used in Section 4.1 to compute the overdensity significance; small-field cosmic variance can bias the background.
  • domain assumption Diffuse X-ray component A originates at z=1.7 and belongs to the FRII/overdensity system.
    Assumed in Sections 3.4.2 and 5.4 based on morphology; no direct X-ray redshift.
  • domain assumption A single-temperature apec model with 0.3 solar abundances describes the diffuse X-ray spectra of components A, C and D.
    Adopted in Section 3.4.2; an IC-CMB component may be mixed in, affecting temperature and luminosity.
  • domain assumption The obscuring torus and the radio jet are coaxial, and the jet/counter-jet ratio constrains the inclination.
    Used in Section 4.3 to derive the viewing angle from the VLA jet asymmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper The bubble expansion solutions of Gilli et al. (2017) can be applied to this jetted system by adding a kinetic efficiency term.
    Self-cited model in Section 5.4; not independently verified for this system.
  • standard math Calibrations used to derive SFRs and stellar masses (Kennicutt 2012, Madau & Dickinson 2014, Santini et al. 2017, Bruzual & Charlot 2003) are applicable at z=1.7.
    Standard literature conversions used in Sections 4.2 and 5.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of a galaxy overdensity around a powerful, heavily obscured FRII radio galaxy at z=1.7: star formation promoted by large-scale AGN feedback?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QE2J2DVS

@misc{pith2026190900814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of a galaxy overdensity around a powerful, heavily obscured FRII radio galaxy at z=1.7: star formation promoted by large-scale AGN feedback?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QE2J2DVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00814}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of a galaxy overdensity around a Compton-thick Fanaroff-Riley type II (FRII) radio galaxy at z=1.7 in the deep multiband survey around the z=6.3 QSO SDSS J1030+0524. Based on a 6hr VLT/MUSE and on a 4hr LBT/LUCI observation, we identify at least eight galaxy members in this structure with spectroscopic redshift z=1.687-1.699, including the FRII galaxy at z=1.699. Most of the identified overdensity members are blue, compact galaxies that are actively forming stars at rates of $\sim$8-60 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Based on a 500ks Chandra ACIS-I observation we found that the FRII nucleus hosts a luminous QSO ($L_{2-10keV}=1.3\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$, intrinsic and rest-frame) that is obscured by Compton-thick absorption ($N_H=1.5\pm0.6\times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$). Our Chandra observation, the deepest so far for a distant FRII within a galaxy overdensity, revealed significant diffuse X-ray emission within the region covered by the overdensity. In particular, X-ray emission extending for $\sim$240 kpc is found around the Eastern lobe of the FRII. Four out of the six MUSE star forming galaxies in the overdensity are distributed in an arc-like shape at the edge of this diffuse X-ray emission. The probability of observing by chance four out of the six $z=1.7$ sources at the edge of the diffuse emission is negligible. In addition, these four galaxies have the highest specific star formation rates of the MUSE galaxies in the overdensity and lie above the main sequence of field galaxies of equal stellar mass at z=1.7. We propose that the diffuse X-rays originate from an expanding bubble of gas that is shock-heated by the FRII jet, and that star formation is promoted by the compression of the cold interstellar medium of the galaxies around the bubble, which may be remarkable evidence of positive AGN feedback on cosmological scales. [shortened version]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST/ACS F850LP image of the J1030 field (north is up and east is to the left). The white strip running across a very bright star is the gap between the two ACS CCDs. The positions of the LUCI long-slit (1"x205") observation of the FRII host and of the 60"x60" MUSE pointing are shown as a dashed red rectangle and a white square, respectively. The 30"x30" region observed with SOUL is shown as a black square. The yello… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of the eight overdensity members in rest-frame ra￾dial velocity space (lower x-axis) and in radial separations (upper x￾axis), assuming the median redshift of the sample as the zero point. Radial separations are computed assuming that the overdensity mem￾bers have negligible peculiar velocities. Velocity bins are 5 km/s wide. Green and yellow bars refer to redshifts measured by MUSE and LUCI, respective… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift distribution of MUSE sources at z=0.9-2.5 in bins of ∆z = 0.01 (gray histogram). The six MUSE sources (m1 − m6) in the z=1.69 overdensity are shown in light green. The red curve shows the expected background curve, obtained by smoothing the MUSE redshift distribution, used to quantify the significance of the redshift structure. The two additional sources at z=1.69 found by LUCI (including the FRII host) are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ks-band images of the galaxy m3 (le f t) and of the radio galaxy that is the candidate overdensity member discussed in Sect. 5.2 (right) obtained with the AO system SOUL at the LBT. Each cutout is 1.2”×1.2” , and the axes are in pixel units (the scale is 15 mas/pixel).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MUSE spectra of the six star-forming galaxies in the z = 1.7 overdensity sorted by decreasing UV flux. The main absorption and emission lines used in the redshift determination are labeled. ture that matches the seeing FWHM. We successfully measured the redshift up to …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Response-corrected Chandra/ACIS-I X-ray spectrum of the FRII nucleus (XID189) and best-fit model (in red). By fixing the photon index to 1.8, a best-fit column density of NH = 1.5 +0.6 −0.5 × 1024 cm−2 and an intrinsic deabsorbed luminosity in the 2-10 keV rest-frame o…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Le f t: Point-source subtracted and smoothed Chandra/ACIS-I image in the 0.5-7 keV band. The main components A, B, and C of the diffuse X-ray emission are marked. Galaxies at z=1.69 are labeled as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Point-source subtracted and smoothed Chandra/ACIS-I X-ray color image of the diffuse emission (see text for details). Soft (0.5-2 keV) and hard (2-7 keV) X-rays are shown in red and blue, respectively. The X-ray emission is shown down to a ∼ 2.5σ significance level. Ra…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectral energy distribution of the overdensity galaxies m3 and m4 and best-fit model. ID M2800 β SFR log(M∗) log(sSFR) (AB) (M yr−1 ) (M ) (Gyr−1 ) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) m1 -19.52 -1.33 20.2±3.4 9.36+0.47 −0.64 0.94±0.55 m2 -19.53 -1.45 18.1±3.4 9.69+0.09 −0.04 0.5…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Broadband SED and photometric redshift solution for the radio source at the edge of component A of the diffuse X-ray emission. The inset shows an 8"x8" cutout of the HST/WFC3 F160W image with radio contours overlaid in white (with the same levels as used in [PITH_FUL…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HST/ACS F850LP image of the overdensity overlaid with radio contours from the VLA (in white, same levels as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: Star formation rate vs. stellar mass for the overden￾sity galaxies m1 − m6 (green circles). The violet squares and line show the main sequence of field galaxies at 1.3 < z < 2.0 and its best-fit relation as derived by Santini et al. (2017). Bottom panel: Sp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1989, The Messenger, 58, 44

    Acker, A., Köppen, J., Samland, M., & Stenholm, B. 1989, The Messenger, 58, 44

    1989

  2. [2]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 124501

    Annunziatella, M., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 124501

    2018

  3. [3]

    2010, in Proc

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 7735, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 773508

    2010

  4. [4]

    2017, A&A, 608, A1

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1

    2017

  5. [5]

    2014, The Messenger, 157, 13

    Bacon, R., Vernet, J., Borisova, E., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 157, 13

    2014

  6. [6]

    2007, A&A, 462, 429

    Balestra, I., Tozzi, P., Ettori, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, 429

    2007

  7. [7]

    2017, A&A, 606, A23

    Balmaverde, B., Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A23

    2017

  8. [8]

    Beckwith, S. V . W., Stiavelli, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1729

    2006

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    C., Flynn, K., & Gebhardt, K

    Beers, T. C., Flynn, K., & Gebhardt, K. 1990, AJ, 100, 32

    1990

  2. [10]

    V ., Sutherland, R

    Bicknell, G. V ., Sutherland, R. S., van Breugel, W. J. M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 678

    2000

  3. [11]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  4. [12]

    2010, A&A, 524, A76

    Bolzonella, M., Kovaˇc, K., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A76

    2010

  5. [13]

    2000, A&A, 363, 476

    Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., & Pelló, R. 2000, A&A, 363, 476

    2000

  6. [14]

    A., Sijacki, D., & Puchwein, E

    Bourne, M. A., Sijacki, D., & Puchwein, E. 2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1901.11030]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S., Townsley, L

    Broos, P. S., Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1582

    2010

  8. [16]

    Chan, J. C. C., Beifiori, A., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 8

    2018

  9. [17]

    D., et al

    Chiaberge, M., Capetti, A., Macchetto, F. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, L107 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasi ´nska, G., & Gomes, J. M. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687

    2010

  10. [18]

    H., Lister, M

    Cohen, M. H., Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 232

    2007

  11. [19]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2355

    2014

  12. [20]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 1040

    Croft, S., van Breugel, W., de Vries, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1040

    2006

  13. [21]

    C., Zamorani, G., et al

    Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A49

    2018

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Cucciati, O., Zamorani, G., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A16

    2014

  15. [23]

    D., & Antonucci, R

    Dey, A., van Breugel, W., Vacca, W. D., & Antonucci, R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 698

    1997

  16. [24]

    2019, ApJ, 872, L8

    Ehlert, K., Pfrommer, C., Weinberger, R., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2019, ApJ, 872, L8

    2019

  17. [25]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Dannerbauer, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L60

    2018

  18. [26]

    2011, in Proc

    Esposito, S., Riccardi, A., Pinna, E., et al. 2011, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 8149, Astro- nomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications IV , 814902

    2011

  19. [27]

    K., Lupton, R

    Fan, X., Narayanan, V . K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

    2001

  20. [28]

    C., Anninos, P., Croft, S., Lacy, M., & Witry, J

    Fragile, P. C., Anninos, P., Croft, S., Lacy, M., & Witry, J. W. L. 2017, ApJ, 850, 171

    2017

  21. [29]

    E., Kashyap, V ., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D

    Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V ., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D. Q. 2002, ApJS, 138, 185

    2002

  22. [30]

    G., Herrera, D., et al

    Gawiser, E., van Dokkum, P. G., Herrera, D., et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 1

    2006

  23. [31]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818

    Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F., Della Ceca, R., V olonteri, M., & Sbarrato, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818

    2013

  24. [32]

    2014, Na- ture, 515, 376

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, Na- ture, 515, 376

    2014

  25. [33]

    2017, A&A, 603, A69

    Gilli, R., Calura, F., D’Ercole, A., & Norman, C. 2017, A&A, 603, A69

    2017

  26. [34]

    2003, ApJ, 592, 721

    Gilli, R., Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 721

    2003

  27. [35]

    D., Feretti, L., Lara, L., & Venturi, T

    Giovannini, G., Cotton, W. D., Feretti, L., Lara, L., & Venturi, T. 2001, ApJ, 552, 508

    2001

  28. [36]

    J., Evans, D

    Hardcastle, M. J., Evans, D. A., & Croston, J. H. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1849

    2007

  29. [37]

    Harris, D. E. & Grindlay, J. E. 1979, MNRAS, 188, 25

    1979

  30. [38]

    J., Hardcastle, M

    Harwood, J. J., Hardcastle, M. J., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 639

    2017

  31. [39]

    2017, ApJ, 841, L21

    Hayashi, M., Kodama, T., Kohno, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, L21

    2017

  32. [40]

    F., Prochaska, J

    Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., & Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779

    2015

  33. [41]

    & Soker, N

    Hillel, S. & Soker, N. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2139

    2016

  34. [42]

    2017, A&A, 608, A2

    Inami, H., Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A2

    2017

  35. [43]

    Isobe, N., Seta, H., & Tashiro, M. S. 2011, PASJ, 63, S947

    2011

  36. [44]

    Jolley, E. J. D., Kuncic, Z., Bicknell, G. V ., & Wagner, S. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1521

    2009

  37. [45]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  38. [46]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 809

    Kim, S., Stiavelli, M., Trenti, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 809

    2009

  39. [47]

    P., Chiaberge, M., Baum, S., et al

    Kotyla, J. P., Chiaberge, M., Baum, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 46

    2016

  40. [48]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 174

    Kreckel, K., Groves, B., Bigiel, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 174

    2017

  41. [49]

    B., Primack, J

    Lahav, O., Lilje, P. B., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 128

    1991

  42. [50]

    C., Gal, R

    Lemaux, B. C., Gal, R. R., Lubin, L. M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 106

    2012

  43. [51]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 71

    Lin, L., Dickinson, M., Jian, H.-Y ., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 71

    2012

  44. [52]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  45. [53]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

    2004

  46. [54]

    Migliori, G., Grandi, P., Palumbo, G. G. C., Brunetti, G., & Stanghellini, C. 2007, ApJ, 668, 203

    2007

  47. [55]

    1980, ARA&A, 18, 165

    Miley, G. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 165

    1980

  48. [56]

    & De Breuck, C

    Miley, G. & De Breuck, C. 2008, A&A Rev., 15, 67

    2008

  49. [57]

    2014, A&A, 568, A1

    Morselli, L., Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A1

    2014

  50. [58]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Newman, J. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 113

    2011

  51. [59]

    Mulchaey, J. S. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 289

    2000

  52. [60]

    Murphy, K. D. & Yaqoob, T. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1549

    2009

  53. [61]

    2018, A&A, 614, A121

    Nanni, R., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A121

    2018

  54. [62]

    B., Rettura, A., Lidman, C., et al

    Nantais, J. B., Rettura, A., Lidman, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A112

    2013

  55. [63]

    G., McDonald, M., Muzzin, A., et al

    Noble, A. G., McDonald, M., Muzzin, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, L21

    2017

  56. [64]

    & Pierini, D

    Noll, S. & Pierini, D. 2005, A&A, 444, 137

    2005

  57. [65]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 125

    Nordon, R., Lutz, D., Saintonge, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 125

    2013

  58. [66]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 14

    2016

  59. [67]

    A., Harris, D

    Overzier, R. A., Harris, D. E., Carilli, C. L., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 87

    2005

  60. [68]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources

    1970

  61. [69]

    D., Röttgering, H

    Pentericci, L., Kurk, J. D., Röttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2000, A&A, 361, L25

    2000

  62. [70]

    O., Carilli, C

    Petric, A. O., Carilli, C. L., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 15

    2003

  63. [71]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Pinna, E., Esposito, S., Hinz, P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V , 99093V Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2016

  64. [72]

    2007, AJ, 134, 1103

    Quadri, R., Marchesini, D., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 1103

    2007

  65. [73]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 539

    Rosati, P., Borgani, S., & Norman, C. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 539

    2002

  66. [74]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  67. [75]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 76

    Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 76

    2017

  68. [76]

    S., Altieri, B., Valtchanov, I., et al

    Santos, J. S., Altieri, B., Valtchanov, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L65

    2015

  69. [77]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 131

    Shankar, F., Cavaliere, A., Cirasuolo, M., & Maraschi, L. 2008, ApJ, 676, 131

    2008

  70. [78]

    M., Lehmer, B

    Smail, I., Blundell, K. M., Lehmer, B. D., & Alexander, D. M. 2012, ApJ, 760, 132 Smolˇci´c, V ., Novak, M., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A6

    2012

  71. [79]

    T., Lilly, S

    Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210

    2016

  72. [80]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 428

    1998

  73. [81]

    G., Pavlovsky, C., et al

    Stiavelli, M., Djorgovski, S. G., Pavlovsky, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, L1

    2005

  74. [82]

    2015, A&A, 582, A80

    Talia, M., Cimatti, A., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A80

    2015

  75. [83]

    2012, A&A, 539, A61

    Talia, M., Mignoli, M., Cimatti, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A61

    2012

  76. [84]

    & Bryan, G

    Tonnesen, S. & Bryan, G. L. 2009, ApJ, 694, 789

    2009

  77. [85]

    & Sarazin, C

    Vijayaraghavan, R. & Sarazin, C. 2017, ApJ, 848, 63 V ollmer, B., Cayatte, V ., Balkowski, C., & Duschl, W. J. 2001, ApJ, 561, 708

    2017

  78. [86]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377

    1977

  79. [87]

    Webb, T. M. A., Lowenthal, J., Yun, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, L17

    2017

  80. [88]

    M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Soci- ety of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay, 451

    2014

  81. [89]

    J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K

    Willott, C. J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., & Lacy, M. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1017

    1999

  82. [90]

    1997, ApJ, 479, 184

    Yaqoob, T. 1997, ApJ, 479, 184

    1997

  83. [91]

    Zirbel, E. L. & Baum, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 448, 521 Article number, page 17 of 17

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.