Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Investigating the Star-Formation Characteristics of Radio Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The paper argues that radio AGNs appear star-formation-suppressed mainly because they live in massive, quiescent galaxies, and that on the star-forming main sequence they are suppressed only at low redshift and high stellar mass.

desk verdict A careful, large-sample study of radio AGN star-forming fractions to z~3; the mass-driven quenching claim holds up, but the selection bias in the headline figures means the suppression amplitude is not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15314 v1 pith:CFW3LM6N submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.GA

Bojun Zhang , Fan Zou , W. N. Brandt , Shifu Zhu , Nathan Cristello , Qingling Ni , Yongquan Xue , Zhibo Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radioactivegalacticnucleistarformationmainsequencestar-formingfractionmasscompletenessinfrared-radiocorrelationgalaxyevolutionAGNfeedback
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 investigates whether radio-emitting active galactic nuclei (radio AGNs) suppress or enhance star formation in their host galaxies, a central question for how supermassive black holes shape galaxy evolution. Using radio and multiwavelength data in three deep sky fields, the authors compare the star-forming fraction ($f_{\rm SF}$, the fraction of star-forming galaxies among all galaxies) of radio AGNs with that of normal galaxies, and then with control galaxies matched in stellar mass ($M_\star$) and redshift. Their central finding is that the low $f_{\rm SF}$ of radio AGNs at $z\lesssim 2$ is mostly a mass-selection effect: radio AGNs preferentially live in massive galaxies, which are quiescent anyway, and once $M_\star$ and $z$ are matched the $f_{\rm SF}$ deficit shrinks to roughly 10% or less. For the star-forming subset, they find that radio AGNs sit below the star-forming main sequence (MS) in massive, low-redshift hosts but on or above the MS at high redshift or low stellar mass, so the apparent influence of radio activity on star formation depends strongly on when and where the host galaxy sits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the matched-control comparison: for each radio AGN, one hundred reference galaxies are drawn with replacement from within $0.1$ dex in stellar mass and $0.075(1+z)$ in redshift, so the control population shares exactly the two properties that most strongly determine whether a galaxy is star-forming or quiescent. The comparison is built on mass-complete samples, with redshift-dependent mass limits computed from the VIDEO $K_s$-band depth using a standard mass-limit relation and applied separately to star-forming and quiescent galaxies, preventing the easier detectability of star-forming systems from masquerading as an AGN effect. The second mechanism is the star-forming main sequence itself, defined as the median SFR of $UVJ$-selected star-forming galaxies in bins of $M_\star$ and $z$, against which each AGN's $\Delta_{\rm MS}$ is measured. The paper checks the stability of this machinery by repeating the analysis with an nSFR-based star-forming definition and with a looser, more complete radio-AGN selection, finding the same qualitative behavior.

What would settle it

Measure the star-formation rates of the same radio-AGN hosts and the same mass-matched control galaxies with an independent, template-free tracer such as molecular-gas (CO) emission or deep dust-continuum stacking; if the SED-based pattern — below the MS at low $z$ and high $M_\star$, on or above it at high $z$ and low $M_\star$ — is not reproduced, the conclusions rest on SED-template systematics rather than real differences in star formation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the discovery is that the apparent quiescence of radio AGNs is primarily demographic. At $z\approx0-0.5$ only about 11% of radio AGNs are star-forming compared with 76% of galaxies, but when each AGN is compared with galaxies matched within $0.1$ dex in $M_\star$ and $0.075(1+z)$ in $z$, the gap is only a few to ten percent. The radio-AGN $f_{\rm SF}$ rises from roughly 10% at $z<0.5$ to about 65% at $z\approx2-2.5$, mirroring the general galaxy population, and the same trends hold for a second, three-times-larger radio-AGN sample selected through the infrared-radio correlation. For star-forming radio-AGN hosts, the offset from the MS, $\Delta_{\rm MS}=\log({\rm SFR}_{\rm AGN}/{\rm SFR}_{\rm MS})$, has a global median of $-0.03\pm0.03$ dex, with a weak positive correlation with redshift and a negative correlation with stellar mass; massive low-redshift hosts fall below the MS while low-mass or high-redshift hosts reach or exceed it. The authors also report that radio luminosity has little influence on $f_{\rm SF}$ or $\Delta_{\rm MS}$ once stellar mass is accounted for, and that radio AGNs identified in X-rays or the mid-infrared differ in SFR from other radio AGNs by only $\lesssim0.2$ dex.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the assumption that the $K_s$-band-derived mass-completeness limits and the SED-based stellar masses and star-formation rates are unbiased at every redshift, because a hidden selection or measurement bias would make the mass-matched control sample unrepresentative and the conclusion that stellar mass rather than AGN activity drives the low $f_{\rm SF}$ would be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $z\lesssim0.5$, roughly one in ten radio AGNs is star-forming while about three of four galaxies are, but this gap largely disappears after matching stellar mass, so future studies of AGN quenching must control for host mass before attributing low $f_{\rm SF}$ to feedback.
  • The radio-AGN $f_{\rm SF}$ rises steeply with redshift and falls with stellar mass, closely tracking the behavior of normal galaxies, reaching about 65% star-forming at $z\approx2-2.5$.
  • Star-forming radio-AGN hosts are not generally suppressed: the global median offset from the MS is $\Delta_{\rm MS}=-0.03\pm0.03$ dex, with suppression concentrated in massive, low-redshift systems.
  • At fixed stellar mass and redshift, the 1.4 GHz radio luminosity has only a minor influence on $f_{\rm SF}$ or $\Delta_{\rm MS}$, so the instantaneous power of the radio jet is not the main controller of the host galaxy's star-formation rate.
  • Radio AGNs with X-ray or mid-infrared signatures (likely radiative-mode sources) have SFRs within about $0.2$ dex of those without such signatures, implying similar host-galaxy star formation for the two excitation classes at high redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: weight the reference galaxy population by the observed $M_\star$-$z$ distribution of radio AGNs and compare population-average SFRs; if the mass-matched result is correct, the weighted galaxy average should match the AGN-host average at every epoch without any need for AGN feedback.
  • The looser infrared-radio-correlation-selected sample has a 5–20% higher $f_{\rm SF}$ than the strict radio-excess sample, suggesting that strict radio-excess cuts preferentially retain older, more luminous jets; deeper radio selection reaching fainter jets may therefore find even less evidence of AGN-driven suppression.
  • The paper's binned maps imply a testable prediction: in bins where AGN hosts and the general population share the same mass distribution, the incidence ratio of radio AGNs in star-forming versus quiescent galaxies should approach unity, and the few bins that already exceed unity at high $z$ and low $M_\star$ could be pushed to $z>3$ to see whether radio AGNs actually prefer star-forming hosts at t
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses multiwavelength data in the W-CDF-S, ELAIS-S1, and XMM-LSS fields to construct two radio-AGN samples (the Zhu et al. 2023 sample and a new qIRRC-based sample) and two star-forming galaxy definitions (UVJ and nSFR). It computes the star-forming fraction fSF and the offset ΔMS from the star-forming main sequence as functions of stellar mass and redshift up to z≈3. After mass-matching radio AGNs to control galaxies, the authors conclude that the low fSF of radio AGNs is primarily a stellar-mass effect, and that star-forming radio AGNs are suppressed relative to the main sequence only in low-z, high-M* hosts, while being on or above the main sequence at higher redshifts or lower M*. The paper includes multiple robustness checks using alternative AGN selections and star-forming galaxy definitions.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the finding that the apparent quiescence of radio-AGN hosts is mostly a mass-selection effect, with only a modest residual suppression that changes sign with z and M*, would sharpen current understanding of radio-mode feedback and host-galaxy evolution. The paper's strengths are its large multi-field samples, explicit mass-completeness treatment, M*-matched controls, and several internal cross-checks: two radio-AGN selections, two star-forming galaxy definitions, and an S1.4GHz flux-cut test. It also provides a radio-AGN catalog. The main open concern is that the headline fSF and ΔMS results are not yet shown to be free of the SFR-dependent selection effect that the paper itself identifies in Section 3.3.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.3; Figs. 7-8] The radio-AGN selection criteria in both samples are SFR-dependent: at fixed S1.4GHz, a host with higher SFR has higher S24µm (or LIR), hence a larger q24/qIR and is less likely to pass the radio-excess threshold. This biases the full-sample fSF low and ΔMS low, especially in the low-z/high-M* bins where the claimed suppression is largest. Section 3.3 identifies this effect and removes it with an (M*, z)-dependent S1.4GHz threshold, but that threshold is applied only to the L1.4GHz-split analysis in Figures 9-10, not to the headline fSF and ΔMS comparisons in Figures 7-8 and 11. Please recompute the main fSF and ΔMS results using only sources above the Section 3.3 threshold, or otherwise quantify the size of this selection bias; as written, the magnitude of the residual 'AGN suppression' component of the central claim is not yet secure.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The M*-matched control uses bins of ±0.1 dex in M* and ±0.075(1+z) in z. Because fSF declines steeply with M* and evolves rapidly with z, a systematic placement of AGNs at the high-M* or high-z edge of their matching bin would make the matched-galaxy fSF too high and hence mimic a small residual AGN effect. The paper checks narrower M* and z bin widths for the ΔMS analysis in the footnote to Section 3.2, but it does not report an equivalent test for the fSF control in Figure 7. Please report the median M* and z offsets of the matched pairs for the fSF analysis and verify that the conclusions are unchanged with narrower matching bins, for example ±0.05 dex or ±0.02 dex in M*.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The text says the new selection is missing only 11 of the 1718 Zhu et al. (2023) radio AGNs 'as we aim to select more AGNs while keeping the original ones'; please clarify why these 11 are not recovered by the looser criterion.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states the comparison with Leja et al. (2022) and Popesso et al. (2023) spans z=0-2, while the figure panels show z=0.5-3.0; please correct the redshift range.
  3. [Appendix A.1] The sentence 'Figure 6 shows the relationship between SFR and M* at six redshifts' appears to refer to the main-sequence plot in Figure 5; please fix the cross-reference.
  4. [References] Several cited works are given as arXiv preprints (e.g., Igo et al. 2024, Wang et al. 2024); please update to the published versions if they have appeared by the time of the revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central fSF and ΔMS results are observational comparisons using independently defined samples and external MS benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not derived from a fitted parameter or from a self-citation chain. The fSF comparison is a direct measurement on UVJ/nSFR-selected star-forming galaxies versus two radio-AGN samples; the Mstar-z matching is a control procedure, not a fit that guarantees the outcome, since the matched-galaxy fSF could in principle remain very different and the paper reports only a residual ≲10% difference. The MS is constructed from reference galaxies, not from the AGN sample, so ΔMS is an independent comparison; the MS is also checked against Leja et al. (2022) and Popesso et al. (2023). The only same-group inputs are the Zou et al. (2022) SED catalog and the Zhu et al. (2023) radio-AGN catalog; these are published data products used as inputs, not invoked as an authority to force the conclusions, and the trends are reproduced with a second, independently constructed qIRRC-selected sample and two star-forming definitions. The 0.3 dex normalization adjustment to the IRRC in Section 2.2 is a calibration of the selector, but no science result is a renaming of that fit: fSF and ΔMS are computed from UVJ/nSFR classifications and SED-derived SFRs, not from qIR. The SFR-dependent radio-excess selection effect discussed in Section 3.3 is a potential bias, but it is explicitly acknowledged and bounded, and it does not make the headline comparison equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are data-modeling choices inherited from the SED-fitting and IRRC literature, plus the symmetry assumption used to construct the enlarged AGN sample. Four free parameters are fitted or chosen by hand in this paper, all connected to sample definition rather than to a physical law.

free parameters (4)
  • qIRRC normalization offset = +0.3 dex
    Added so the ΔqIRRC distribution peaks at zero; this is a data-driven calibration, not an external constant.
  • radio AGN selection threshold = ΔqIRRC < -0.70 (central -2 sigma)
    Chosen to balance estimated purity (95.2%) and completeness (81.3%) of the new sample; derived from the symmetrized distribution.
  • UVJ diagonal cut intercepts = 0.84, 0.83, 0.75, 0.72, 0.70 in five z bins
    Fine-tuned per redshift bin so the separation line falls between the quiescent and star-forming peaks; affects the star-forming classification.
  • IRRC scatter for MS galaxies = 0.20 dex
    Measured from the reflected ΔqIRRC distribution; sets the -2 sigma threshold and enters the quoted purity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Delvecchio et al. (2021) IRRC coefficients apply to these fields: qIRRC = 2.646 - 0.137 log10(1+z) + 0.148 (log10 Mstar - 10).
    Used without in-field recalibration to define ΔqIRRC and select the enlarged AGN sample.
  • ad hoc to paper The intrinsic ΔqIRRC distribution of star-forming galaxies is symmetric about its peak, so the right half can be reflected to isolate the AGN population.
    This reflection and subtraction, following Delvecchio et al. (2022), is what produces the AGN histogram and the purity and completeness estimates in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption CIGALE SED fits from Zou et al. (2022) give unbiased Mstar and SFR for radio AGN hosts and galaxies with minor AGN contamination.
    All fSF, MS, and ΔMS results rest on these quantities; the paper argues contamination is small but cannot fully verify it.
  • domain assumption UVJ color cuts separate quiescent from star-forming galaxies at z ~ 0 to 3.
    Adopted from Whitaker et al. (2015) and Williams et al. (2009); the nSFR method is presented as an independent check.
  • domain assumption Mass-completeness limits derived from VIDEO Ks-band and the Pozzetti et al. (2010) formula are valid for both populations.
    The mass-matched comparison in Section 3.1 depends on these limits; an error here would directly bias the central conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Star-Formation Characteristics of Radio Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFW3LM6N

@misc{pith2026241115314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Star-Formation Characteristics of Radio Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFW3LM6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15314}
}
abstract

The coevolution of supermassive black holes and their host galaxies represents a fundamental question in astrophysics. One approach to investigating this question involves comparing the star-formation rates (SFRs) of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with those of typical star-forming galaxies. At relatively low redshifts ($z\lesssim 1$), radio AGNs manifest diminished SFRs, indicating suppressed star formation, but their behavior at higher redshifts is unclear. To examine this, we leveraged galaxy and radio AGN data from the well-characterized W-CDF-S, ELAIS-S1, and XMM-LSS fields. We established two mass-complete reference star-forming galaxy samples and two radio AGN samples, consisting of 1,763 and 6,766 radio AGNs, the former being higher in purity and the latter more complete. We subsequently computed star-forming fractions ($f_{\text{SF}}$; the fraction of star-forming galaxies to all galaxies) for galaxies and radio-AGN-host galaxies and conducted a robust comparison between them up to $z\approx3$. We found that the tendency for radio AGNs to reside in massive galaxies primarily accounts for their low $f_{\text{SF}}$, which also shows a strong negative dependence upon $M_{\star}$ and a strong positive evolution with $z$. To investigate further the star-formation characteristics of those star-forming radio AGNs, we constructed the star-forming main sequence (MS) and investigated the behavior of the position of AGNs relative to the MS at $z\approx0-3$. Our results reveal that radio AGNs display lower SFRs than star-forming galaxies in the low-$z$ and high-$M_{\star}$ regime and, conversely, exhibit comparable or higher SFRs than MS star-forming galaxies at higher redshifts or lower $M_{\star}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15314 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ∆qIRRC distribution of all objects in the XMM-LSS field. The dark blue dashed line shows ∆qIRRC = −0.30, which corresponds to the peak of the distribution. The light blue dashed line shows the central − 2σ cut level (∆qIRRC = −0.70). not reject the radio AGNs. For both radio-AGN defini￾tions adopted in this work, these objects constitute less than 0.3% of our sample and do not have an observable influence on our… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. These plots show the ∆qIRRC distribution of all objects in each field in orange: W-CDF-S (left), ELAIS-S1 (middle), XMM-LSS (right). We mirror the right part of the distribution to the left and assume that it is the distribution of SF-dominated radio objects, which is plotted in blue. We then subtract the two distributions to obtain the radio AGN distribution, which is plotted in red. The blue dashed lines correspon… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift distributions of the two radio-AGN sam￾ples. The redshift distributions of the Zhu et al. (2023) sam￾ple and the new sample are displayed in orange and blue, respectively. Additionally, the ratio of the number of sources in the Zhu et al. (2023) sample to that in the new sample is displayed in pink. sary to test different definitions of star-forming galaxies in this work to ensure the robustness of our resu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Distribution of galaxies in the UV J color-color space. Darker areas denote regions with a higher galaxy density. The blue lines represent boundaries between the quiescent and star-forming regions (labeled as “Q” and “SF” in the figure, respectively) defined in S…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The star-forming MS at different redshifts. The MS determined by UV J- and nSFR-selected star-forming galaxies are shown as blue and violet lines, respectively. The MS in the mass-complete and incomplete domains are shown as solid and dotted lines, respectively. We als…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of radio AGNs and star-forming galaxies in the log M⋆ − z space. The blue dots show radio AGNs selected by Zhu et al. (2023). Darker areas denote regions with a higher galaxy density. The blue and orange lines show the mass-completeness curves for star…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio AGNs selected by Zhu et al. (2023) are used in this figure. Top left: fSF of all the galaxies above the mass completeness curves, M⋆-matched galaxies, and radio AGNs in different bins of z, where we plot fSF of galaxies in royal blue, M⋆-matched galaxies in deep …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radio AGNs selected by Zhu et al. (2023) are used in this figure. Left: The relationship between ∆MS and z for radio AGNs. Most of the data points are within 0.5 < z < 2.3. We have chosen a z bin of 0.4 and plotted the median ∆MS in each bin using orange dots. The erro…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The top-left, top-middle, top-right, and bottom-left panels show the fSF of galaxies, M⋆-matched galaxies, and radio AGNs in different L1.4GHz bins. Radio AGNs selected by Zhu et al. (2023) are used in this figure. The format of these panels is similar to that of the t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This plot shows the ∆MS of radio AGNs brighter than the limiting L1.4GHz in bins of L1.4GHz and z. These radio AGNs are selected by Zhu et al. (2023), mass￾complete, and above the (M⋆, z)-dependent S1.4GHz thresh￾old. The grey region signifies insufficient sample stat…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results for the newly selected radio AGN sample, where the MS is determined with the UV J method. Top left: fSF of AGNs and galaxies in bins of z. Top right: fSF of AGNs in bins of z and M⋆. Bottom left: Ratio of the measured incidence of radio AGNs in star-forming an…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top left: The relation between ∆MS and z for different classes of radio AGNs from the Zhu et al. (2023) sample. Silver, blue-violet, red, and green dots represent radio AGNs not identified in other bands, identified in X-rays but not MIR, identified in MIR but not X-r…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results for the Zhu et al. (2023) radio AGN sample, where the MS is determined with the nSFR method. The format of the panels is identical to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results for the newly selected radio AGN sample, where the MS is determined with the nSFR method. The format of the panels is identical to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1<< biik

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Adam \'o w , M., Aguena , M., et al. 2021, , 255, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  3. [3]

    L., & Georgakakis , A

    Aird , J., Coil , A. L., & Georgakakis , A. 2019, , 484, 4360, 10.1093/mnras/stz125

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz125 2019

  4. [4]

    2015, , 798, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/31

    Alatalo , K., Lacy , M., Lanz , L., et al. 2015, , 798, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/31 2015

  5. [5]

    W., Dunn , R

    Allen , S. W., Dunn , R. J. H., Fabian , A. C., Taylor , G. B., & Reynolds , C. S. 2006, , 372, 21, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10778.x

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    2021, , 507, 2643, 10.1093/mnras/stab2290

    An , F., Vaccari , M., Smail , I., et al. 2021, , 507, 2643, 10.1093/mnras/stab2290

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2290 2021

  7. [7]

    N., Fadda , D

    Appleton , P. N., Fadda , D. T., Marleau , F. R., et al. 2004, , 154, 147, 10.1086/422425

    doi:10.1086/422425 2004

  8. [8]

    N., Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T

    Best , P. N., Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., et al. 2005, , 362, 25, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09192.x

    arXiv 2005

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W

    Best , P. N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W. L., et al. 2023, , 523, 1729, 10.1093/mnras/stad1308

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Gaibler , V

    Bieri , R., Dubois , Y., Silk , J., Mamon , G. A., & Gaibler , V. 2016, , 455, 4166, 10.1093/mnras/stv2551

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Watson , M

    Birchall , K. L., Watson , M. G., Aird , J., & Starling , R. L. C. 2022, , 510, 4556, 10.1093/mnras/stab3573

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, , 453, 1079, 10.1093/mnras/stv1675

    Bonzini , M., Mainieri , V., Padovani , P., et al. 2015, , 453, 1079, 10.1093/mnras/stv1675

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Boquien , M. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235, 228.01

    2020

  6. [14]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    N., & Alexander , D

    Brandt , W. N., & Alexander , D. M. 2015, , 23, 1, 10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Ni , Q., Yang , G., et al

    Brandt , W. N., Ni , Q., Yang , G., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.06542, 10.48550/arXiv.1811.06542

    2018 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Chen , C. T. J., Brandt , W. N., Luo , B., et al. 2018, , 478, 2132, 10.1093/mnras/sty1036

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    N., et al

    Cristello , N., Zou , F., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2024, , 962, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2177

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Davies , L. J. M., Robotham , A. S. G., Driver , S. P., et al. 2018, , 480, 768, 10.1093/mnras/sty1553

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04825, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04825

    De Zotti , G., Bonato , M., Giulietti , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04825, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04825

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    M., Mullaney , J

    Del Moro , A., Alexander , D. M., Mullaney , J. R., et al. 2013, , 549, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219880

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, , 602, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629367

    Delvecchio , I., Smol c i \'c , V., Zamorani , G., et al. 2017, , 602, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629367

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    T., et al

    Delvecchio , I., Daddi , E., Sargent , M. T., et al. 2021, , 647, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039647

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, , 668, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244639

    ---. 2022, , 668, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244639

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  19. [27]

    L., Rieke , G

    Donley , J. L., Rieke , G. H., Rigby , J. R., & P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G. 2005, , 634, 169, 10.1086/491668

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Koekemoer , A

    Donley , J. L., Koekemoer , A. M., Brusa , M., et al. 2012, , 748, 142, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/142

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, , 485, 4817, 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari , M., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2019, , 485, 4817, 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Drevet Mulard , M., Nesvadba , N. P. H., Meenakshi , M., et al. 2023, , 676, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245173

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Liske , J., Davies , L

    Driver , S. P., Liske , J., Davies , L. J. M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 46, 10.18727/0722-6691/5126

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    D., et al

    Falkendal , T., De Breuck , C., Lehnert , M. D., et al. 2019, , 621, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732485

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

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

    Fragile , P. C., Anninos , P., Croft , S., Lacy , M., & Witry , J. W. L. 2017, , 850, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c6

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Franzen , T. M. O., Banfield , J. K., Hales , C. A., et al. 2015, , 453, 4020, 10.1093/mnras/stv1866

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, , 632, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936121

    Gilli , R., Mignoli , M., Peca , A., et al. 2019, , 632, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936121

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Jarvis , M

    G \"u rkan , G., Hardcastle , M. J., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2015, , 452, 3776, 10.1093/mnras/stv1502

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Smith , D

    G \"u rkan , G., Hardcastle , M. J., Smith , D. J. B., et al. 2018, , 475, 3010, 10.1093/mnras/sty016

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, , 512, 6104, 10.1093/mnras/stac880

    G \"u rkan , G., Prandoni , I., O'Brien , A., et al. 2022, , 512, 6104, 10.1093/mnras/stac880

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Norris , R

    Hales , C. A., Norris , R. P., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2014, , 441, 2555, 10.1093/mnras/stu576

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Williams , W

    Hardcastle , M. J., Williams , W. L., Best , P. N., et al. 2019, , 622, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833893

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Alexander , D

    Harrison , C. M., Alexander , D. M., Rosario , D. J., Scholtz , J., & Stanley , F. 2021, in Nuclear Activity in Galaxies Across Cosmic Time, ed. M. Povi \'c , P. Marziani , J. Masegosa , H. Netzer , S. H. Negu , & S. B. Tessema , Vol. 356, 199--203, 10.1017/S1743921320002902

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., & Best , P

    Heckman , T. M., & Best , P. N. 2014, , 52, 589, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, VIII/106

    Herschel Point Source Catalogue Working Group , Marton , G., Calzoletti , L., et al. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, VIII/106

    2020

  36. [44]

    L., Jarvis , M

    Heywood , I., Hale , C. L., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2020, , 496, 3469, 10.1093/mnras/staa1770

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Hale , C

    Heywood , I., Jarvis , M. J., Hale , C. L., et al. 2022, , 509, 2150, 10.1093/mnras/stab3021

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Jones , C., Forman , W

    Hickox , R. C., Jones , C., Forman , W. R., et al. 2009, , 696, 891, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/891

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16943, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16943

    Igo , Z., Merloni , A., Hoang , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16943, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16943

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Harrison , C

    Jarvis , M. E., Harrison , C. M., Mainieri , V., et al. 2021, , 503, 1780, 10.1093/mnras/stab549

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Bonfield , D

    Jarvis , M. J., Bonfield , D. G., Bruce , V. A., et al. 2013, , 428, 1281, 10.1093/mnras/sts118

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Filipovi \'c , M

    Joseph , T. D., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Crawford , E. J., et al. 2019, , 490, 1202, 10.1093/mnras/stz2650

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Jarvis , M

    Kalfountzou , E., Stevens , J. A., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2017, , 471, 28, 10.1093/mnras/stx1333

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    1998, , 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Kirkpatrick , A., Pope , A., Alexander , D. M., et al. 2012, , 759, 139, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/139

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    N., Cochrane , R

    Kondapally , R., Best , P. N., Cochrane , R. K., et al. 2022, , 513, 3742, 10.1093/mnras/stac1128

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Kormendy , J., & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, , 838, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65d7

    Lacy , M., Croft , S., Fragile , C., Wood , S., & Nyland , K. 2017, , 838, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65d7

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Farrah , D., et al

    Lacy , M., Surace , J. A., Farrah , D., et al. 2021, , 501, 892, 10.1093/mnras/staa3714

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, , 853, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa40f

    Lee , B., Giavalisco , M., Whitaker , K., et al. 2018, , 853, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa40f

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Ting , Y.-S., et al

    Leja , J., Speagle , J. S., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2022, , 936, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2014, , 52, 373, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035953

    Lutz , D. 2014, , 52, 373, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035953

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, , 30, 6, 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    Magliocchetti , M. 2022, , 30, 6, 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2012, , 425, L66, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x

    Maiolino , R., Gallerani , S., Neri , R., et al. 2012, , 425, L66, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x

    2012

  56. [64]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 24, 10.18727/0722-6691/5197

    Maiolino , R., Cirasuolo , M., Afonso , J., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 24, 10.18727/0722-6691/5197

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, , 641, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038673

    Markov , V., Mei , S., Salom \'e , P., et al. 2020, , 641, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038673

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G

    Martis , N. S., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2016, , 827, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L25

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 83, 10.22323/1.215.0083

    McAlpine , K., Prandoni , I., Jarvis , M., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 83, 10.22323/1.215.0083

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2004, , 354, L37, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08382.x

    Merloni , A., Rudnick , G., & Di Matteo , T. 2004, , 354, L37, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08382.x

    2004

  61. [69]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02959, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02959

    Mountrichas , G., Siudek , M., & Cucciati , O. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02959, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02959

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2022, , 667, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244495

    Mountrichas , G., Buat , V., Yang , G., et al. 2022, , 667, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244495

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    V., Wagner , A

    Mukherjee , D., Bicknell , G. V., Wagner , A. Y., Sutherland , R. S., & Silk , J. 2018, , 479, 5544, 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Alexander , D

    Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., Aird , J., et al. 2015, , 453, L83, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv110

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Afonso , J., Appleton , P

    Norris , R. P., Afonso , J., Appleton , P. N., et al. 2006, , 132, 2409, 10.1086/508275

    2006 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Afonso , J., Bacon , D., et al

    Norris , R. P., Afonso , J., Bacon , D., et al. 2013, , 30, e020, 10.1017/pas.2012.020

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    2016, , 818, 65, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/65

    Pace , C., & Salim , S. 2016, , 818, 65, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/65

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Weiner , B

    Pacifici , C., Kassin , S. A., Weiner , B. J., et al. 2016, , 832, 79, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/79

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    G., Mobasher , B., et al

    Pacifici , C., Iyer , K. G., Mobasher , B., et al. 2023, , 944, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/acacff

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    2019, , 483, 3213, 10.1093/mnras/sty3210

    Popesso , P., Concas , A., Morselli , L., et al. 2019, , 483, 3213, 10.1093/mnras/sty3210

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    2023, , 519, 1526, 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso , P., Concas , A., Cresci , G., et al. 2023, , 519, 1526, 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2010, , 523, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    Pozzetti , L., Bolzonella , M., Zucca , E., et al. 2010, , 523, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    2015, , 574, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424932

    Salom \'e , Q., Salom \'e , P., & Combes , F. 2015, , 574, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424932

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    2016, , 586, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526409

    Salom \'e , Q., Salom \'e , P., Combes , F., Hamer , S., & Heywood , I. 2016, , 586, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526409

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  76. [84]

    C., et al

    Shirley , R., Duncan , K., Campos Varillas , M. C., et al. 2021, , 507, 129, 10.1093/mnras/stab1526

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    2013, , 772, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

    Silk , J. 2013, , 772, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

    2013 doi

  78. [86]

    2017, , 602, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628704

    Smol c i \'c , V., Novak , M., Bondi , M., et al. 2017, , 602, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628704

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    S., Steinhardt , C

    Speagle , J. S., Steinhardt , C. L., Capak , P. L., & Silverman , J. D. 2014, , 214, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    A., Shupe , D

    Surace , J. A., Shupe , D. L., Fang , F., et al. 2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 207, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 63.01

    2005

  81. [89]

    S., Chiba , M., et al

    Takada , M., Ellis , R. S., Chiba , M., et al. 2014, , 66, R1, 10.1093/pasj/pst019

    2014 doi

  82. [90]

    2015, in The Many Facets of Extragalactic Radio Surveys: Towards New Scientific Challenges, 27, 10.22323/1.267.0027

    Vaccari , M. 2015, in The Many Facets of Extragalactic Radio Surveys: Towards New Scientific Challenges, 27, 10.22323/1.267.0027

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.04924, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.04924

    Wang , Y., Wang , T., Liu , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.04924, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.04924

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2018, , 479, 4056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 479, 4056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    E., Kriek , M., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., Kriek , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2012, , 745, 179, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/179

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    E., Pope , A., Cybulski , R., et al

    Whitaker , K. E., Pope , A., Cybulski , R., et al. 2017, , 850, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94ce

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    E., Franx , M., Bezanson , R., et al

    Whitaker , K. E., Franx , M., Bezanson , R., et al. 2015, , 811, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L12

    2015 doi

  89. [97]

    H., Jarvis , M

    Whittam , I. H., Jarvis , M. J., Hale , C. L., et al. 2022, , 516, 245, 10.1093/mnras/stac2140

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    J., Quadri , R

    Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879

    2009 doi

  91. [99]

    2020, , 491, 740, 10.1093/mnras/stz3001

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Buat , V., et al. 2020, , 491, 740, 10.1093/mnras/stz3001

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    N., et al

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2022, , 927, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4971

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    S., Reddy , N

    Yun , M. S., Reddy , N. A., & Condon , J. J. 2001, , 554, 803, 10.1086/323145

    2001 doi

  94. [102]

    N., Zou , F., et al

    Zhu , S., Brandt , W. N., Zou , F., et al. 2023, , 522, 3506, 10.1093/mnras/stad1178

    2023 doi

  95. [103]

    N., et al

    Zou , F., Yu , Z., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2024, , 964, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cc

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    N., Lacy , M., et al

    Zou , F., Brandt , W. N., Lacy , M., et al. 2021 a , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/abe769

    2021 doi

  97. [105]

    N., et al

    Zou , F., Yang , G., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2021 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 56, 10.3847/2515-5172/abf050

    2021 doi

  98. [106]

    N., Chen , C.-T., et al

    Zou , F., Brandt , W. N., Chen , C.-T., et al. 2022, , 262, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7bdf

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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