Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Radio emission from little red dots may reveal their true nature

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio emission can tell whether little red dots are powered by star formation or by an accreting black hole, and this paper predicts the exact flux thresholds that would settle the question.

desk verdict Useful LRD radio forecast with concrete nJy thresholds, but the 'smoking gun' condition is internally inconsistent with its own host-galaxy flux estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03742 v1 pith:4PN6KG27 submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Muhammad A. Latif , Ammara Aftab , Daniel J. Whalen , Mar Mezcua This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords littlereddotsactivegalacticnucleifundamentalplaneradioemissionhighredshiftsupermassiveblackholesngVLASKA
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 asks whether radio observations can tell apart two competing explanations for little red dots: extremely active star formation or a heavily obscured accreting black hole. It predicts that the black-hole radio emission should be 10–100 times brighter than host-galaxy star formation for typical parameters, and that a detection above roughly 500 nJy at $z\ge 5$ (or 2000 nJy at $z=3$–4) would be a smoking gun for an active black hole, provided the host galaxy forms stars at less than 30 solar masses per year. Current non-detections in radio surveys suggest little red dots are radio-quiet active galactic nuclei; the upcoming ngVLA and SKA arrays should detect them with 10–100 hour integrations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fundamental plane of black-hole accretion, an empirical relation $\log L_R = A\log L_X + B\log M_{\mathrm{BH}} + C$ linking a black hole's 5 GHz radio luminosity to its X-ray luminosity and mass, calibrated on nearby black holes and rescaled with separate coefficients for radio-quiet and radio-loud sources. Coupled with the Delhaize et al. (2017) radio–star-formation-rate relation for host-galaxy emission, it converts assumed values of black-hole mass, X-ray luminosity, and star formation rate into predicted observer-frame fluxes at 3 GHz and 8 GHz across $z=3$–7. The comparison of these two flux components is what yields the smoking-gun thresholds.

What would settle it

Measure the radio–X-ray correlation for a sample of little red dots with independently measured black-hole masses: if the slope or normalization differs from the low-redshift fundamental plane, the predicted 500–2000 nJy smoking-gun thresholds would shift by orders of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the radio band, which is not obscured by dust, can reveal the true nature of little red dots. Using the fundamental plane of black-hole accretion to estimate AGN radio flux and a radio–star-formation relation for the host galaxy, the authors find AGN fluxes 10–100 times larger than stellar fluxes across their parameter grid. They propose two smoking-gun thresholds: a flux above roughly 2000 nJy at $z=3$–4 and above roughly 500 nJy at $z\ge 5$ would unambiguously indicate an AGN, provided the host star formation rate is below $30\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. They further argue that, because current surveys have not detected such sources, little red dots are most likely radio-quiet AGN, and that ngVLA and SKA will detect them in 10–100 hours.

Load-bearing premise

The fundamental plane relation, measured on low-redshift black holes, continues to hold for the small, heavily obscured black holes inside little red dots at $z=3$–7.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A radio detection above the stated thresholds at $z\ge 5$ would identify an active black hole in a little red dot without X-ray or infrared follow-up.
  • If little red dots were radio-loud, current stacking limits would already have detected them, so the population must be mostly radio-quiet, constraining jet production in early black holes.
  • The predicted fluxes place little red dots within reach of ngVLA in about 10 hours and SKA in about 100 hours, making them prime targets for upcoming surveys.
  • A confident measurement of the radio–X-ray correlation at high redshift would test whether the fundamental plane extends to the small, obscured black holes powering little red dots.
  • Confirmation of AGN in little red dots would strengthen the case that overmassive black holes were common in the early universe and inform seeding models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same threshold logic could be applied to other JWST-selected compact sources whose AGN-versus-starburst nature is debated, as long as host star formation rates are independently constrained.
  • A stacking non-detection at ngVLA depth for a sample of little red dots would more directly challenge the extrapolation of the fundamental plane than the AGN interpretation itself.
  • If super-Eddington accretion is widespread in these objects, radio jets expected only below $z\sim 5$ would make radio-loudness an environment-dependent diagnostic rather than a fixed source property.
  • Combining the radio thresholds with X-ray stacking could separate the accretion-dominated and jet-dominated contributions to the total luminosity of little red dots.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript computes predicted radio fluxes for 'little red dots' (LRDs) at z = 3-7 from two channels: nuclear emission from an accreting black hole, estimated with the fundamental plane of BH accretion (Eq. 1) using fiducial masses M_BH = 10^6-10^7 M_sun and X-ray luminosities L_X = 10^43-10^44 erg/s, in standard and radio-loud/radio-quiet variants of the FP; and host-galaxy star formation, estimated with the Delhaize et al. (2017) radio-SFR relation (Eqs. 3-5) for SFR = 1, 10, and 30 M_sun/yr. The AGN fluxes are found to be 1-3000 nJy in the standard scenario and 90-4000 nJy for radio-quiet sources (20-2000 microJy for radio-loud), with stellar fluxes of 10-1000 nJy. The paper claims that a detection above ~500 nJy at z > 5 or above ~2000 nJy at z = 3-4 would be a smoking gun for an AGN provided SFR < 30 M_sun/yr, concludes that LRDs are most likely radio-quiet AGN because current radio limits would otherwise have detected radio-loud sources, and predicts detectability with ngVLA (~10 hr) and SKA (~100 hr).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper delivers a falsifiable observational discriminant for AGN-dominated versus star-formation-dominated LRDs with next-generation radio facilities, and its comparison with recent stacked upper limits (Mazzolari et al. 2024; Akins et al. 2024; Perger et al. 2025; Gloudemans et al. 2025) is a useful and current benchmark. Credit is due for the explicit bracketing of AGN fluxes via min/max propagation of the FP coefficient uncertainties, for the clear statement of survey integration times, and for the falsifiable nature of the smoking-gun thresholds. However, the headline threshold at z > 5 is not consistent with the paper's own host-galaxy flux model, and the 8 GHz stellar fluxes rest on a spectral extrapolation whose sign convention is internally inconsistent; both issues must be resolved before the criterion can be adopted. The fundamental-plane extrapolation to high-redshift, obscured, possibly super-Eddington accretors is an additional correctness risk that deserves quantitative treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Section 4, abstract] The z > 5 smoking-gun threshold of ~500 nJy is inconsistent with the paper's own host-galaxy model. In Section 3.1 and Fig. 2 the stellar fluxes for SFR = 30 M_sun/yr are quoted as 400-1000 nJy across z = 3-7, and the abstract and Section 4 state the AGN-smoking-gun condition as SFR < 30 M_sun/yr (strict). Within that allowed range, SFR ~ 20-29 M_sun/yr yields stellar fluxes up to several hundred nJy, so a ~500 nJy detection at z > 5 can be produced by star formation alone under the adopted Delhaize relation; the criterion as stated therefore does not follow from the model. Note also that Section 3.3 gives the condition as 'SFRs ... are 10 M_sun/yr', which is not the same condition as the abstract's '<30'. The threshold should be re-derived as a value safely above the maximum stellar flux over the entire allowed SFR range, including the intrinsic scatter of the radio-SFR relation (the paper propagates only the +/-0.03 fit uncertainty on q_TIR, not the ~0.3-0.4 dex scatter quoted by Delhaize et al. 2017), or the SFR condition should be restricted to a value for which the threshold is valid.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as printed, with the stated alpha = -0.7, produces stellar fluxes that increase with observed frequency, because (1.4/nu_obs)^alpha = (nu_obs/1.4)^0.7. This is the opposite of the synchrotron behavior L_nu ~ nu^(-0.7) that the text describes, and it is inconsistent with Section 4, where alpha = 0.7 and 0.3 are used as positive spectral indices. The ratio should be (nu_obs/1.4)^alpha, or the sign of alpha in the text should be reversed; with the formula as printed, the 8 GHz stellar fluxes are a factor (8/3)^0.7 ~ 1.9 higher than the 3 GHz values. Because the thresholds are quoted for bands 'above 2 GHz', the 8 GHz stellar fluxes and the statement that the 8 GHz assumption 'does not impact our results' need to be recomputed and rechecked.
  3. [Section 2.1, Section 4] The fundamental-plane predictions use observed (or upper-limit) 2-10 keV luminosities as input. For LRDs that are heavily obscured, the scenario the paper itself invokes in Section 4, the observed L_X can be far below the intrinsic value, which biases the FP radio luminosities low and hence biases the 'most likely radio quiet AGN' conclusion and the ngVLA/SKA detectability estimates in a one-sided way that the min/max treatment of the FP coefficients cannot capture. The claim in Section 4 that the estimates 'remain valid because radio is least affected' by obscuration and super-Eddington accretion is not demonstrated. A concrete check would be to recompute the predicted radio fluxes for the X-ray-detected LRDs (Maiolino et al. 2024a; Kocevski et al. 2024) using absorption-corrected L_X, and to include the intrinsic FP scatter in addition to the coefficient errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 4] The statement that AGN fluxes are '10-100 times higher' than stellar fluxes holds only for the maximum AGN fluxes at SFR <= 10 M_sun/yr; for the minimum AGN fluxes and for SFR = 30 M_sun/yr the AGN is subdominant for most of the parameter space (Section 3.1). The claim should be qualified accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.2, Fig. 2] The quoted stellar flux ranges (10-40, 100-400, and 400-1000 nJy) are not labeled by observing frequency, although Fig. 2 shows both 3 and 8 GHz panels and Eq. (5) predicts different values at the two frequencies; the ranges should be stated separately for 3 and 8 GHz.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 4] It would help the reader to overplot the smoking-gun thresholds (500 nJy at z > 5, 2000 nJy at z = 3-4) as horizontal guide lines, since the central claim of the paper is the relation between these thresholds and the computed SFR fluxes.
  4. [Section 3.3] The paper should state explicitly how the threshold values (500 and 2000 nJy) were derived, i.e., which SFR boundary, which frequency, and whether the Delhaize relation's scatter was included; currently the values appear without derivation although they are the central quantitative claims.
  5. [Typos] There are several small typographical issues: 'intriguingJWST discoveries' in the full-text abstract is missing a space; 'di fferent' appears in Section 4; and the sign convention for alpha in Eq. (5) should be harmonized with the usage in Section 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are forward-modeled from external FP and radio-SFR calibrations, not fitted to LRD data; only minor same-author citations appear.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (1) evaluates AGN radio luminosity from the empirical fundamental plane of Merloni et al. (2003) and Bariuan et al. (2022), which were calibrated on low-redshift samples, not on the target LRDs; Eqs. (3)-(5) use the Delhaize et al. (2017) radio-SFR relation. LX, MBH, and SFR enter as assumed bracketing ranges from LRD X-ray observations, not as fitted parameters, and the comparison with radio non-detections uses independent limits from Mazzolari, Akins, Perger, and Gloudemans. The same-author citations (Whalen et al. 2023; Latif et al. 2024a,b) supply telescope sensitivities, an FP coefficient table, and spectral-index checks; the coefficients themselves are externally sourced and the conclusions do not reduce to these citations, so this is at most a minor non-load-bearing self-citation. One non-circular correctness risk is flagged: the abstract and Section 4 say a ~500 nJy signal at z>5 is a smoking gun for AGN if SFR<30 Msun/yr, but Section 3.1/Fig. 2 give host fluxes of 400-1000 nJy for SFR=30, so SFR=20-29 hosts can exceed 500 nJy under the paper's own Eq. (5). This is an over-broad threshold, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two empirical scaling relations calibrated at low redshift, the fundamental plane and the Delhaize radio-SFR relation, plus a grid of assumed LRD properties (M_BH, L_X, SFR). No new physical entity or process is introduced. The free parameters are the fitted coefficients of those relations plus the chosen property grid; the large FP intercept uncertainties and the 8 GHz extrapolation are not propagated into the headline threshold values.

free parameters (13)
  • FP radio-quiet coefficient A = 0.48
    Slope of log L_R vs log L_X from Bariuan et al. (2022), fitted to local radio-quiet AGN; used in Eq. (1).
  • FP radio-quiet coefficient B = 0.50
    Slope on log M_BH for radio-quiet sources, from Bariuan et al. (2022).
  • FP radio-quiet coefficient C = 15.26
    Intercept for radio-quiet sources from Bariuan et al. (2022); uncertainty of 2.66 is large and propagates into flux estimates.
  • FP radio-loud coefficient A = 1.12
    Slope of log L_R vs log L_X for radio-loud sources, from Bariuan et al. (2022).
  • FP radio-loud coefficient B = 0.20
    Slope on log M_BH for radio-loud sources.
  • FP radio-loud coefficient C = -5.64
    Intercept for radio-loud sources; uncertainty of 2.99 is large.
  • Spectral index alpha = 0.3
    Chosen from the median for high-z quasars; used to shift the 5 GHz FP luminosity to observer-frame frequencies.
  • Delhaize q_TIR normalization = 2.88
    Normalization of the radio-SFR relation from Delhaize et al. (2017), with a redshift dependence (1+z)^-0.19.
  • Delhaize q_TIR redshift exponent = -0.19
    Fitted redshift slope in the q_TIR relation.
  • IMF correction factor f_IMF = 1.7
    Assumed factor for the Salpeter IMF in the radio-SFR relation.
  • Black hole mass grid = 1e6, 1e6.5, 1e7 M_sun
    Assumed values bracketing LRD BH masses from X-ray based inferences.
  • X-ray luminosity grid = 1e43, 1e43.5, 1e44 erg/s
    Assumed values bracketing LRD X-ray luminosities from observational upper limits.
  • Star formation rate grid = 1, 10, 30 M_sun/yr
    Assumed values bracketing uncertain LRD host SFRs; the smoking-gun thresholds depend on the upper end.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fundamental plane of BH accretion holds for LRDs at z = 3-7.
    The FP is calibrated on local, mostly low-redshift samples; the paper extends it to compact high-z objects with M_BH ~ 1e6-1e7 M_sun. Section 2.1, Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Radio luminosity scales as L_nu ∝ nu^-alpha with alpha = 0.3.
    Used to redshift the 5 GHz FP luminosity into observer-frame bands; alpha varies by source and the paper claims the conclusions are not sensitive to it. Section 2.1 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption The Delhaize radio-SFR relation is valid at z = 3-7 and at 8 GHz.
    Delhaize et al. (2017) calibrated the relation at 3 GHz; the paper explicitly assumes it applies at 8 GHz. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Stellar radio emission in LRD hosts is fully described by the Delhaize SFR relation.
    No separate treatment of free-free absorption, synchrotron aging, or AGN-driven outflows is included; this sets the host baseline against which AGN detection is claimed. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Current stacking non-detections from VLASS, FIRST, and COSMOS are deep enough to rule out radio-loud LRDs.
    The conclusion that LRDs are radio-quiet relies on these survey limits being correct and representative. Section 3.3 and references.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio emission from little red dots may reveal their true nature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PN6KG27

@misc{pith2026250203742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio emission from little red dots may reveal their true nature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PN6KG27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03742}
}
abstract

The unprecedented sensitivity of the \textit{James Webb Space Telescope} (\textit{JWST}) has revolutionized our understanding of the early universe. Among the most intriguing \textit{JWST} discoveries are red, very compact objects showing broad line emission features nicknamed as little red dots (LRDs). The discovery of LRDs has triggered great interest about their origin as either extremely starbursting galaxies or highly-obscured active galactic nuclei (AGN). Their exact nature still remains unknown. The goal of this work is to estimate the radio emission from LRDs and predict which radio surveys would detect them. To achieve these objectives, we employ the fundamental plane of black hole (BH) accretion to estimate radio emission from AGN and the stellar radio fluxes from their host galaxies. We assume a range of BH mass, X-ray luminosity ($\rm L_{X}$) and star formation rate (SFR) to bracket the likely properties of LRDs. Our findings suggest that BH radio fluxes from LRDs are 10-100 times higher than the stellar fluxes from their host galaxies, depending on BH mass, $\rm L_X$ and SFR. The detection of a $\sim$ 500 nJy signal above 2 GHz at $z \geq$ 5 or a $\sim$ 2000 nJy flux at $z =$ 3-4 would be a smoking gun for the presence of AGN provided that SFRs in the host galaxies are $\rm < 30~ M_{\odot} ~yr^{-1}$. We find that LRDs are most likely radio quiet AGN otherwise would have been already detected in the current radio surveys. Our findings suggest that LRDs can be detected with the upcoming radio observatories such as ngVLA and SKA with integration times of 10-100 hrs, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AGN to SFR flux ratios are shown vs BH mass at z = 7. The empty and solid symbols are for the minimum and the maximum fluxes from FP, respectively. Circles, triangles and squares are for log(LX) = 43 erg s−1 , log(LX) = 43.5 erg s−1 and log(LX) = 44 erg s−1 , respectively. Horizontal dashed lines are for AGN/SFR flux ratio = 1. Article number, page 5 of 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fluxes vs redshift. Empty shapes are for the minimum fluxes and filled shapes for the maximum fluxes from FP. Colors indicate BH mass and black crosses show SFR fluxes. Circles, triangles and squares are for log(LX) = 43 erg s−1 , log(LX) = 43.5 erg s−1 and log(LX) = 44 erg s −1 , respectively. The orange and black lines are sensitivity limits for SKA and ngVLA, respectively, for integration times of 1 hr (solid), 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AGN to SFR flux ratios are shown vs BH mass at z = 7. The empty and solid symbols are for the radio-quiet and radio-loud sources, respectively. Circles, triangles and squares are for log(LX) = 43 erg s−1 , log(LX) = 43.5 erg s−1 and log(LX) = 44 erg s−1 , respectively. Horizontal dashed lines are for AGN/SFR flux ratio = 1. Article number, page 7 of 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fluxes vs redshift. The empty symbols are for radio-quiet sources and the solid symbols for radio-loud sources. Colors indicate BH mass and black crosses show SFR fluxes. Circles, triangles and squares are for log(LX) = 43 erg s−1 , log(LX) = 43.5 erg s−1 and log(LX) =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How similar are narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and high-z type 1 AGN?

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    NLS1s and high-z JWST AGN share low black hole mass, high Eddington ratio, and narrow broad lines, so NLS1s are useful analogs, though host-to-BH ratios and line profiles differ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, Submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2406.10341

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJ, 969, L18

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Bariuan, L. G. C., Snios, B., Sobolewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., & Schwartz, D. A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4673 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 1970

    Bonchi, A., La Franca, F., Melini, G., Bongiorno, A., & Fiore, F. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1970

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675

    2002

  7. [7]

    2017, A&A, 602, A4

    Delhaize, J., Smolˇci´c, V ., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A4

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    C., Walker, S

    Fabian, A. C., Walker, S. A., Celotti, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L81

    work page 2014

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57

    2024

  2. [10]

    2014, MN- RAS, 438, 2694

    Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Tavecchio, F., Haardt, F., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, MN- RAS, 438, 2694

    2014

  3. [11]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Eilers, A.-C., et al. 2025, Submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2501.04912

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Röttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A137

    2021

  5. [13]

    J., Sweijen, F., Morabito, L

    Gloudemans, A. J., Sweijen, F., Morabito, L. K., et al. 2024, Accepted in ApJL, arXiv:2411.16838

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L24

    2023

  7. [15]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39 Gültekin, K., Cackett, E. M., King, A. L., Miller, J. M., & Pinkney, J. 2014, ApJ, 788, L22 Gültekin, K., Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 404

    2024

  8. [16]

    & Maiolino, R

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, accepted in ApJ, arXiv:2404.03576

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V ., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38

    2024

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJ, 957, L7 Körding, E., Falcke, H., & Corbel, S

    Kokorev, V ., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, L7 Körding, E., Falcke, H., & Corbel, S. 2006, A&A, 456, 439

    2023

  12. [20]

    S., et al

    Lambrides, E., Chiaberge, M., Long, A. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, L25

    2024

  13. [21]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, L29

    2023

  14. [22]

    2024a, Submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2405.00504

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2024a, Submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2405.00504

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

    2024

  16. [24]

    2024, Submitted to A&A, arXiv:2412.04224

    Mazzolari, G., Gilli, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Submitted to A&A, arXiv:2412.04224

    2024

  17. [25]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057

    2003

  18. [26]

    & Narayan, R

    Pacucci, F. & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96 Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4

    2024

  19. [27]

    Perger, K., Fogasy, J., Frey, S., & Gabányi, K. É. 2025, A&A, 693, L2 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2025

  20. [28]

    M., Markoff, S., Kelly, B

    Plotkin, R. M., Markoff, S., Kelly, B. C., Körding, E., & Anderson, S. F. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 267

    2012

  21. [29]

    Plotkin, R. M. & Reines, A. E. 2018, arXiv:1810.06814, arXiv:1810.06814

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J., Latif, M

    Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., & Mezcua, M. 2023, ApJ, 956, 133

    2023

  23. [31]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, L26Article number, page 4 of 8 Latif et al.: Radio Emission from LRDs 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 Log MBH (M ) 100 101 Flux Ratio (AGN / SFR) = 3 GHz SFR = 1 M yr 1 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 Log MBH (M ) 100 101 Flux Rati...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.