pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.14246 · v2 · submitted 2024-12-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Hidden in Pixels I: Discovery of dual "little red dots" indicates excess clustering on kilo-parsec scales

Takumi S. Tanaka , John D. Silverman , Kazuhiro Shimasaku , Junya Arita , Hollis B. Akins , Feige Wang , Kohei Inayoshi , Xuheng Ding
show 51 more authors
Masafusa Onoue Zhaoxuan Liu Caitlin M. Casey Erini Lambrides Vasily Kokorev Shuowen Jin Andreas L. Faisst Jianwei Lyu Jan-Torge Schindler Yunjing Wu Nicole Drakos Yue Shen Junyao Li Mingyang Zhuang Qinyue Fei Kei Ito Wei Leong Tee Weizhe Liu Wenke Ren Tomokazu Kiyota Zi-Jian Li Suin Matsui Makoto Ando Shun Hatano Michiko S. Fujii Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Anton M. Koekemoer Daizhong Liu Henry Joy McCracken Jason Rhodes Brant E. Robertson Maximilien Franco Koki Kakiichi Jinyi Yang Romain A. Meyer Irham T. Andika Aidan P. Cloonan Xiaohui Fan Ghassem Gozaliasl Santosh Harish Christopher C. Hayward Marc Huertas-Company Darshan Kakkad Tomoya Kinugawa Mingyu Li Namrata Roy Marko Shuntov Margherita Talia Sune Toft Aswin P. Vijayan Yiyang Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords little red dotsdual systemsgalaxy clusteringhigh-redshift galaxiessupermassive black holesJWSTCOSMOS-Web
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dual little red dots at kilo-parsec separations indicate excess clustering on sub-arcsec scales compared to AGN extrapolations

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

The paper reports four dual little red dot candidates identified in JWST COSMOS-Web data through pixel-by-pixel color selection with relaxed compactness criteria, showing projected separations of 0.2 to 1.2 arcseconds. Mock data comparisons indicate these separations are unlikely to arise from unrelated objects at different redshifts. Two systems have COSMOS-3D slitless spectroscopy with matching single-line detections, supporting identical redshifts near 5.5-5.8 and physical separations of 1.64 and 7.36 kpc. This leads to the claim that the angular auto-correlation function of little red dots exceeds by a factor of 20-30 the extrapolation of the power-law ACF measured for JWST AGNs on 10-100 arcsec scales. The pairs are interpreted as possible merger precursors that could contribute to rapid supermassive black hole growth at high redshift.

Core claim

The central claim is that the angular auto-correlation function of little red dots exhibits an excess of approximately 20-30 times on sub-arcsec (kilo-parsec) separations relative to an extrapolation of a power-law ACF of JWST-found AGNs measured over 10-100 arcsec scales, based on the identification of dual candidates unlikely to be chance projections and spectroscopically confirmed at the same redshifts in two cases.

What carries the argument

Pixel-by-pixel color selection to find LRD pairs while relaxing compactness, validated by mock catalog comparisons to assess projection probability and by slitless spectroscopy for redshift coincidence.

If this is right

  • The dual LRD systems represent precursors of mergers between LRDs.
  • Such mergers may act as one mechanism driving rapid growth of supermassive black holes in their early stages.
  • The angular auto-correlation function of LRDs has a significantly enhanced small-scale component beyond the power-law behavior seen at larger scales in AGN samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Larger JWST surveys with extensive spectroscopic follow-up could directly quantify the small-scale clustering amplitude of LRDs.
  • The excess may imply that LRDs preferentially form or reside in dense environments favoring close pairs.
  • Confirmation would increase estimated merger rates in models of early black hole assembly.

Load-bearing premise

The observed pairs are physically associated at the same redshift rather than chance projections of objects at different redshifts, as shown by the mock data comparison.

What would settle it

A larger sample of LRDs with complete spectroscopic redshifts where the fraction of close pairs matches the random expectation from the mock catalogs would falsify the excess clustering signal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14246 by Aidan P. Cloonan, Andreas L. Faisst, Anton M. Koekemoer, Aswin P. Vijayan, Brant E. Robertson, Caitlin M. Casey, Christopher C. Hayward, Daizhong Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Erini Lambrides, Feige Wang, Ghassem Gozaliasl, Henry Joy McCracken, Hollis B. Akins, Irham T. Andika, Jan-Torge Schindler, Jason Rhodes, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Jianwei Lyu, Jinyi Yang, John D. Silverman, Junya Arita, Junyao Li, Kazuhiro Shimasaku, Kei Ito, Kohei Inayoshi, Koki Kakiichi, Makoto Ando, Marc Huertas-Company, Margherita Talia, Marko Shuntov, Masafusa Onoue, Maximilien Franco, Michiko S. Fujii, Mingyang Zhuang, Mingyu Li, Namrata Roy, Nicole Drakos, Qinyue Fei, Romain A. Meyer, Santosh Harish, Shun Hatano, Shuowen Jin, Suin Matsui, Sune Toft, Takumi S. Tanaka, Tomokazu Kiyota, Tomoya Kinugawa, Vasily Kokorev, Wei Leong Tee, Weizhe Liu, Wenke Ren, Xiaohui Fan, Xuheng Ding, Yiyang Zhang, Yue Shen, Yunjing Wu, Zhaoxuan Liu, Zi-Jian Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Three-color (F444W, F277W, and F150W for RGB) image of each dual LRD candidate. We have not matched the PSF between each filter. For CW-B5-15958, we plot the images after subtracting the foreground type-1 AGN (CID-643; see section 3.1). (b) Individual HST (ACS: F814W) and JWST images (NIRCam: F115W, F150W, F277W, and F444W, MIRI: F770W). For CW-B5-15958, we also display the original three-color image b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SED fitting analysis of the LRD candidates with detection in shorter bands (F115W and F150W). The inverted triangle symbols indicate the 3σ upper limit due to the non-detection in each filter. Solid colored and dashed gray lines indicate the best-fit model SEDs with the QSO models and the BD templates. The χ 2 and the best-fit zphoto are shown in the upper left corner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The image-based modeling analysis on CW-B5-15958. (a) Modeling of CID-643 to remove the foreground contribution by its AGN and host galaxy. The left, middle, and right columns show the 6 ′′ × 6 ′′ original images, the best-fit model, and the residual (original - model) scaled by the noise map in each filter. Note that, here, the residual image is Original - CID-643 (AGN and host component), and we do not s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of projected separation (θ) for control and mock samples. (a) Blue histogram indicates the θ distribution for a random control LRD sample (mF444W < 25, N = 87). Additional histograms indicate the full mock LRD (orange; scaled to N = 87) and LRD+BD (gray; scaled to N = 174) samples generated with a random spatial distribution. The red rectangle corresponds to the detection of CW-B5-15958 at a s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Angular auto-correlation function of LRDs integrated at z = 5-8. The red star symbol indicates our ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

``Little Red Dots'' (LRDs) are an abundant high-redshift population newly discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and considered to be an early growth phase of supermassive black holes (SMBHs). Using a method of pixel-by-pixel color selection and relaxing the compactness criteria, we identify four dual LRD candidates in the COSMOS-Web survey with projected separations of $0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}2$-$1.\!\!^{\prime\prime}2$. A comparison between existing LRD samples and mock data reveals that the projected separations of these dual LRD candidates are unlikely to result from chance projections of objects at different redshifts. Furthermore, two of the four systems are covered by COSMOS-3D slitless spectroscopy, and a single-line detection at the same observed wavelength for each LRD in a pair strongly supports that they are at identical redshifts. Assuming that the detected lines are H$\alpha$ based on their high equivalent width and broad profile, the spectroscopic redshifts of $z=5.822$ and $5.464$ for the two pairs are consistent with their photometric redshifts, yielding projected separations of $1.64$ and $7.36\,{\rm kpc}$. These discoveries suggest that the angular auto-correlation function (ACF) of LRDs exhibits an excess ($\sim20$-$30$ times) on sub-arcsec (kilo-parsec) separations compared to an extrapolation of a power-law ACF of JWST-found AGNs measured over $10^{\prime\prime}$-$100^{\prime\prime}$. Our sample is likely to represent precursors of mergers between LRDs, and such mergers may be one of the mechanisms that can drive the rapid growth of SMBHs in their early evolutionary stages.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of four dual LRD candidates in COSMOS-Web with projected separations 0.2-1.2 arcsec, identified via pixel-by-pixel color selection. Two systems have COSMOS-3D slitless spectroscopy showing a single line at identical observed wavelength (assumed Hα), yielding spectroscopic redshifts z=5.822 and 5.464 consistent with photometric redshifts and physical separations of 1.64 and 7.36 kpc. A comparison of existing LRD samples to mock catalogs is used to argue that the observed separations are unlikely to be line-of-sight projections. The authors conclude that the LRD angular auto-correlation function shows a ~20-30 times excess on sub-arcsec (kpc) scales relative to an extrapolation of the power-law ACF measured for JWST AGNs on 10-100 arcsec scales, suggesting these systems are merger precursors that may drive early SMBH growth.

Significance. If the duals are confirmed as physical pairs at the same redshift, the result would provide direct evidence for enhanced small-scale clustering of LRDs and a possible merger channel for rapid high-z SMBH assembly. The work is observationally driven and uses external mocks for the projection test, but the small sample (four candidates, two with spectroscopy) and dependence on the fidelity of the mock redshift distribution limit the robustness of the quantitative ACF excess claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / mock comparison section] Abstract and methods section on mock comparison: the claim that projected separations are 'unlikely to result from chance projections' is load-bearing for interpreting the four systems as physical duals and for the subsequent ~20-30x ACF excess. The manuscript must provide explicit details on the mock catalog construction, including how photo-z error tails, surface-density variations across the COSMOS-Web field, and the exact LRD selection function are modeled; without these, the probability calculation cannot be reproduced or stress-tested.
  2. [Spectroscopy results] Spectroscopy section for the two pairs: the assumption that the single detected line is Hα (based on high EW and broad profile) is central to assigning identical redshifts and kpc-scale physical separations. The paper should quantify the line identification confidence, discuss possible alternative identifications (e.g., [O III] or other lines at different z), and show the line profiles and equivalent widths explicitly.
  3. [Discussion / ACF analysis] ACF excess claim: the factor of ~20-30 excess on sub-arcsec scales is derived from the same four systems whose physical association rests on the mock test. The manuscript should show the explicit calculation of the small-scale ACF bin, the extrapolation of the AGN power-law, and the Poisson or bootstrap uncertainties given the sample size of four.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Sample selection] Clarify the exact criteria used in the pixel-by-pixel color selection and how the compactness criteria were relaxed relative to prior LRD samples.
  2. [Results] Add a table listing the four candidates with coordinates, photometric redshifts, separations, and (where available) spectroscopic redshifts and line properties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight areas where additional clarity and explicit documentation will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / mock comparison section] Abstract and methods section on mock comparison: the claim that projected separations are 'unlikely to result from chance projections' is load-bearing for interpreting the four systems as physical duals and for the subsequent ~20-30x ACF excess. The manuscript must provide explicit details on the mock catalog construction, including how photo-z error tails, surface-density variations across the COSMOS-Web field, and the exact LRD selection function are modeled; without these, the probability calculation cannot be reproduced or stress-tested.

    Authors: We agree that the mock comparison requires fuller documentation for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant Methods subsection to describe the mock construction in detail: the photo-z posterior sampling (including tails), incorporation of COSMOS-Web surface-density variations across the field, and the precise LRD selection function applied to the mocks. We will also report the numerical probability values and any sensitivity tests performed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Spectroscopy results] Spectroscopy section for the two pairs: the assumption that the single detected line is Hα (based on high EW and broad profile) is central to assigning identical redshifts and kpc-scale physical separations. The paper should quantify the line identification confidence, discuss possible alternative identifications (e.g., [O III] or other lines at different z), and show the line profiles and equivalent widths explicitly.

    Authors: We will revise the spectroscopy section to include measured equivalent widths and line widths, add figures of the extracted line profiles, and provide a quantitative discussion of alternative identifications (e.g., [O III] at lower redshift). We will state the assumptions and the supporting evidence from photometric-redshift consistency while noting that the identification is not definitive without additional lines. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion / ACF analysis] ACF excess claim: the factor of ~20-30 excess on sub-arcsec scales is derived from the same four systems whose physical association rests on the mock test. The manuscript should show the explicit calculation of the small-scale ACF bin, the extrapolation of the AGN power-law, and the Poisson or bootstrap uncertainties given the sample size of four.

    Authors: We will add an explicit calculation subsection in the revised Discussion. This will detail the pair counts in the sub-arcsec bin, the estimator used for the small-scale ACF amplitude, the power-law extrapolation from the 10–100 arcsec AGN measurements, and the Poisson uncertainties appropriate to a sample of four systems. We will also emphasize the statistical limitations arising from the small number of objects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in observational discovery and mock-supported claims

full rationale

The paper's core claims rest on direct pixel-by-pixel selection of four dual LRD candidates in COSMOS-Web, slitless spectroscopy showing single lines at matching wavelengths for two pairs, and a comparison of existing LRD samples against mock data to assess chance projections. The suggested ~20-30x excess in small-scale ACF is then inferred by contrasting the observed sub-arcsec pairs against an extrapolation of an independent AGN power-law ACF measured on 10''-100'' scales. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce any load-bearing step to its own inputs by construction; the mock comparison and spectroscopic redshifts are external to the target result, rendering the derivation self-contained against benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about spectroscopic line identification and the fidelity of mock catalogs for ruling out projections; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Detected single lines are H-alpha based on high equivalent width and broad profile
    Invoked to assign spectroscopic redshifts consistent with photometric redshifts.
  • domain assumption Single-line detection at identical observed wavelength confirms the two LRDs in each pair are at the same redshift
    Used to establish physical association rather than line-of-sight projection.
  • domain assumption Mock data comparison rules out chance projections at different redshifts
    Central to interpreting the pairs as physically associated systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6176 in / 1553 out tokens · 52545 ms · 2026-05-23T06:33:20.873300+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Connecting the Dots: UV-Bright Companions of Little Red Dots as Lyman-Werner Sources Enabling Direct Collapse Black Hole Formation

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    UV-bright companions to Little Red Dots provide Lyman-Werner fluxes of J21 ~ 10^2.5-10^5 that can suppress H2 cooling and enable direct collapse to massive black holes.

  2. On the quenching of LRD X-ray emission by both Compton-thick gas and high accretion rates

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LRDs require Compton-thick gas at moderate metallicity plus high accretion rates producing weak X-rays to explain their non-detection, implying they are not chemically pristine.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    ApJ, 956, 61 Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Berg, D. A., et al. 2024a. arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.00949 Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024b. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341 Alexander, T., & Natarajan, P

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 Ananna, T. T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.19010 Arita, J., Kashikawa, N., Matsuoka, Y ., et al

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.08707 Barausse, E., Dvorkin, I., Tremmel, M., V olonteri, M., & Bonetti, M

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    In Evans, I

    MNRAS, 419, 2497–2528 Bertin, E. In Evans, I. N., Accomazzi, A., Mink, D. J., & Rots, A. H., editors, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX , volume 442 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series , page 435, 2011 Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    K., Blecha, L., Ni, Y ., et al

    MNRAS, 485, 2026–2040 Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Ni, Y ., et al

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    R., Ellison, S

    ApJ, 596, 34–46 Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al., 2023 Byrne-Mamahit, S., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., et al

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.04446 Chen, N., Di Matteo, T., Ni, Y ., et al

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al

    MNRAS, 522, 1895–1913 Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al

    work page 1913

  10. [10]

    M., Boyle, B

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24020 Croom, S. M., Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., et al

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    MNRAS, 418, 2043–2053 Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al

    work page 2043

  12. [12]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.02804 Fabian, A. C

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    MNRAS, 263, 168–178 12 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2024), Vol. 00, No. 0 Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.18352 Häring, N., & Rix, H.-W

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805 Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S., & Noda, H

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    L., Shen, Y ., et al

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.03653 Ishikawa, Y ., Zakamska, N. L., Shen, Y ., et al

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

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

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.08098 Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576 Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    2024.arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777 Kormendy, J., & Ho, L

    ApJ, 968, 38 Kokubo, M., & Harikane, Y . 2024.arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777 Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2306.07320 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    The case for super-Eddington accretion in JWST broad-line AGN during the first billion years

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.13047 Landy, S. D., & Szalay, A. S

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    2024 Limber, D

    ApJ, 412, 64 Li, J., Zhuang, M.-Y ., Shen, Y ., et al. 2024 Limber, D. N

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18194 Loeb, A., & Rasio, F. A

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    AJ, 115, 2285–2305 Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023a. arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2308.01230 Maiolino, R., Uebler, H., Perna, M., et al. 2023b. arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2306.00953 Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.00504 Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    ApJL, 965, L4 Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024a. ApJ, 963, 129 Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Kotiwale, G., et al. 2024b. arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.02846 Mazzolari, G., Gilli, R., Maiolino, R., et al

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    M., Schneider, A

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.04224 Meisner, A. M., Schneider, A. C., Burgasser, A. J., et al

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    V ., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04211 Morley, C. V ., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08782 Perger, K., Fogasy, J., Frey, S., & Gabányi, K. É

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19518 Perna, M., Arribas, S., Lamperti, I., et al. 2023a. arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.03067 Perna, M., Arribas, S., Marshall, M., et al. 2023b. A&A, 679, A89 Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    E., & V olonteri, M

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.18208 Reines, A. E., & V olonteri, M

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11534 Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.18731 Sérsic, J. L

    work page arXiv

  34. [34]

    2024.arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713 Shimasaku, K., & Izumi, T

    ApJ, 943, 38 Shen, Y ., Zhuang, M.-Y ., Li, J., et al. 2024.arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713 Shimasaku, K., & Izumi, T

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    ApJ, 942, 107 Sérsic, J. L. Atlas de Galaxias Australes. 1968 Tanaka, T. S., Silverman, J. D., Nakazato, Y ., et al

    work page 1968

  36. [36]

    L., Fan, X., Wang, F., & Yang, J

    arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00104 Tee, W. L., Fan, X., Wang, F., & Yang, J

    work page arXiv

  37. [37]

    J., Hewett, P

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.05242 Temple, M. J., Hewett, P. C., & Banerji, M

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    G., et al

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.04983 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Pérez-González, P. G., et al

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.09737 V olonteri, M., Pfister, H., Beckmann, R., et al

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.13290 Zamora, S., Venturi, G., Carniani, S., et al

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.02751 Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., Liu, W., & Ho, L. C

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.02729 Zhu, Q., Li, Y ., Li, Y ., et al

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.06372

    work page arXiv