Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Radio Signatures of a Massive Black Hole in GHZ9 at z $\sim$ 10

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GHZ9's candidate black hole should be detectable in about one hour with ngVLA and about 100 hours with SKA, making radio a fast, dust-penetrating way to confirm the most distant black hole candidate known.

desk verdict A useful, transparently-caveated feasibility forecast for radio detection of GHZ9, but the headline 1-hour ngVLA and 50-nJy 'smoking gun' claims rest on a fundamental-plane extrapolation that could easily erode them by an order of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05266 v1 pith:PWWEGJNS submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.GA

Muhammad A. Latif , Daniel J. Whalen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftAGNGHZ9radiocontinuumfundamentalplanengVLASKAblackholeseedsz=10galaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the candidate 8×$10^{7}$ M☉ black hole in GHZ9, at z=10.4, should be bright enough in radio to be confirmed by the next-generation Very Large Array in about one hour and by the Square Kilometer Array in about 100 hours. It derives this from the fundamental plane relation that ties black hole mass, X-ray luminosity, and radio luminosity, extrapolated from nearby active galaxies to a source more than 13 billion light-years away. It also shows that the black hole's radio emission should stand out above the host galaxy's own radio glow from H II regions and supernova remnants, especially above 2 GHz. If correct, radio observations give a fast, dust-penetrating way to verify the existence of the most distant black hole candidate known, and to decide between massive-seed and stellar-seed formation histories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fundamental plane of black hole accretion, an empirical correlation between black hole mass M_BH, X-ray luminosity L_X (2–10 keV), and radio luminosity L_R (5 GHz). The paper feeds GHZ9's bolometric luminosity through the Marconi bolometric correction to get L_X, then through six published fundamental-plane calibrations to get rest-frame L_R. To move to observer-frame bands, it assumes L_ν ∝ $ν^{{-α}}$ for α=0.3 and 0.7 and applies F_ν = L_{ν'}(1+z)/(4π $d_L^{2}$). Host-galaxy contamination is bounded with Condon's relations for H II free-free and supernova synchrotron emission at the two possible star formation rates. The fundamental plane carries the argument; the rest is spectral extrapolation and sensitivity comparison.

What would settle it

Point ngVLA at GHZ9 for 100 hours at 8 GHz. If no source appears above roughly 50 nJy, the paper's central claim is wrong. If a source appears but its flux is fully explained by star formation in the host galaxy, with no excess nuclear component, the black-hole detection claim also fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using GHZ9's measured bolometric luminosity (1.0×$10^{46}$ erg/s), black-hole mass (8×$10^{7}$ M☉), and lensing magnification (1.26), the paper computes rest-frame radio luminosity from six versions of the fundamental plane, then redshifts it into observer-frame frequencies assuming L_ν ∝ $ν^{{-α}}$ with α=0.3 or 0.7. Predicted fluxes range from about 500 nJy to 30 μJy at 0.1 GHz and 130 nJy to 4.5 μJy at 10 GHz for α=0.3. With α=0.7, the high-frequency fluxes are about three times lower. Comparing with SKA1 and ngVLA sensitivities, ngVLA can detect the source in about 1 hour at >1 GHz, SKA needs about 100 hours, and α=0.7 pushes ngVLA to at least 10 hours. The host's H II region emission stays below about 20 nJy and supernova remnant emission below about 900 nJy (peaking at 0.1 GHz), so above about 2 GHz the black hole dominates; the paper concludes that any radio flux above 50 nJy at ≥8 GHz is conclusive evidence of the black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The radio brightness of GHZ9's black hole is assumed to follow the same relationship between black hole mass, X-ray luminosity, and radio luminosity measured on nearby active galaxies; if that relationship does not hold at z≈10, the predicted flux and observing times shift by up to an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ngVLA should detect the black hole's radio emission in about 1 hour at frequencies above 1 GHz if the spectral index is 0.3.
  • SKA should detect it in about 100 hours; with a steeper spectral index of 0.7, ngVLA needs at least 10 hours and SKA still about 100 hours.
  • Above about 2 GHz, the black hole's radio flux dominates the host galaxy's H II region and supernova remnant emission, so the signal is not confused with star formation.
  • Any radio emission above 50 nJy at frequencies ≥8 GHz would be conclusive evidence of a black hole in GHZ9.
  • Existing VLA facilities could also detect GHZ9 with 24–100 hour integrations in the L, S, and C bands.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A radio detection at 8 GHz would settle GHZ9's black hole without waiting for deeper X-ray or infrared data, because radio penetrates dust that hides the other bands.
  • If confirmed, an 8×10^7 M☉ black hole only about 400 million years after the Big Bang would weigh against stellar-mass seed models and favor massive or direct-collapse seeds.
  • The same calculation can be applied to other JWST/Chandra AGN candidates at z>10 to rank which ones ngVLA and SKA should observe first.
  • A null detection would not mean the black hole is absent; it would instead show that the local fundamental-plane calibration does not extrapolate to z≈10, which is itself a valuable constraint.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the radio flux expected from the candidate 8e7 Msun black hole in GHZ9 at z~10.4, using the empirical fundamental plane between black hole mass, X-ray luminosity, and 5 GHz radio luminosity. The authors then add estimates of free-free emission from H II regions and synchrotron emission from supernova remnants in the host galaxy, redshift all components into the observer frame, and compare the predicted fluxes with SKA and ngVLA sensitivity limits. Their central claims are that ngVLA could detect the black hole radio emission in about 1 hour (for a flat spectral index alpha=0.3) while SKA would need roughly 100 hours, and that radio emission above 50 nJy at frequencies >=8 GHz cannot be produced by the host and would be a smoking gun for the black hole. The calculation is transparent and the host-flux arithmetic is reproducible: for SFR=14.4 Msun/yr at z=9.4, Eqs. (5) and (6) give maximum H II and SN fluxes of order 20 nJy and 900 nJy respectively, as stated.

Significance. If the fundamental-plane extrapolation is valid at z=10.4 and near-Eddington accretion, the paper provides a concrete, dust-penetrating observational strategy for confirming the most distant black hole candidate known, with quantitative integration-time forecasts for SKA and ngVLA. The manuscript is a useful and timely estimate rather than a detection claim. Its strengths are that it uses only externally calibrated relations, no flux is fitted to GHZ9 itself, both spectral indices and both SED-derived star formation rates are considered, and the host contamination is estimated with standard relations. The authors also explicitly acknowledge several important limitations: bolometric-correction uncertainties, the possibility that fundamental-plane coefficient errors lower fluxes by up to an order of magnitude, and the fact that the supernova estimates are upper limits. The main risk is the extrapolation of the local fundamental plane to a radio-quiet, near-Eddington AGN at rest-frame frequencies of order 100 GHz; the paper would be strengthened by a more explicit propagation of that risk into the detection-time claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The X-ray luminosity LX used in the fundamental plane is not the directly measured 0.5-3 keV luminosity from K24 but is back-derived from the bolometric luminosity using the Marconi et al. (2004) relation, even though K24 obtained Lbol from the 0.5-3 keV X-ray luminosity using Lusso et al. (2012). This mixes two bolometric-correction conventions and does not explicitly convert from the 0.5-3 keV band to the 2-10 keV band used by the fundamental plane. Because LX enters Eq. (2) nonlinearly, the authors should recompute the fluxes using an explicit, self-consistent 2-10 keV LX (or test the sensitivity to the band conversion) and verify that the reported detection times are robust.
  2. [Section 3 and Fig. 1] The abstract and the concluding detection statements quote the optimistic end of a range that the text itself says can shift substantially: FP coefficient errors can lower fluxes by up to an order of magnitude, and the BH mass and bolometric luminosity uncertainties can lower them by another factor of about three. The authors should propagate these uncertainties through Eqs. (2)-(4) and present the resulting ranges for the ngVLA and SKA integration times, so the reader can see whether the 1-hour ngVLA claim and the 50 nJy threshold survive in the conservative parameter corner.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Section 3] GHZ9 is accreting at an Eddington ratio near unity (Lbol ~ 1e46 erg/s, MBH ~ 8e7 Msun), whereas several of the fundamental-plane calibrations used here, particularly the low-luminosity AGN samples, are dominated by radiatively inefficient, low-Eddington-ratio accretion states. If the radio-X-ray correlation changes in the near-Eddington regime, the predicted fluxes could differ by more than the quoted factor of a few. The authors should explicitly state whether the adopted FP samples include near-Eddington sources and, if not, estimate the impact of an Eddington-ratio-dependent suppression on the predicted fluxes and on the 50 nJy smoking-gun statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] In the sentence 'Although GH9 remains undetected in the current VLA surveys', 'GH9' should be 'GHZ9'.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The quantity SFR(M>5 Msun) is not explicitly defined or related to the total SFR. The text says the total SFRs for GHZ9 are used, which makes the SN fluxes an upper limit; this IMF assumption should be stated directly next to Eq. (6).
  3. [Section 2.1] The fundamental-plane coefficients are said to be listed in Table 2 of Latif et al. (2024a). Since the present paper's conclusions depend on the exact values, reproducing the coefficients in a small table or an appendix would make the calculation fully self-contained and easier to check.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that H II region fluxes for z=10.4 are below 1 nJy and are not shown; it would help to state in the text that this is because the corresponding SFR is 0.5 Msun/yr, so the reader does not have to infer it from the K24 ranges.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the radio flux predictions for GHZ9 are based on externally calibrated fundamental-plane relations and are not re-statements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the quantities it predicts. The black hole mass and bolometric luminosity are taken from the independent discovery paper (K24). The X-ray luminosity is obtained from the bolometric luminosity via the Marconi et al. (2004) bolometric correction, and the 5 GHz radio luminosity is obtained from fundamental plane relations with coefficients taken from Merloni et al. (2003), Kording et al. (2006), Gultekin et al. (2009, 2019), Plotkin et al. (2012), and Bonchi et al. (2013), as tabulated in Latif et al. (2024a). None of these coefficients are fitted to GHZ9 or to any radio measurement of GHZ9; the target object has no radio detection being reproduced. The observer-frame fluxes are derived by redshifting and scaling by luminosity distance and the lensing magnification, again with no free parameter adjusted to the target. The host-galaxy H II region and supernova remnant fluxes come from standard Condon (1992) and Kennicutt (1998) relations and are stated as upper limits. The self-citations (Whalen et al. 2023; Latif et al. 2024a,b) are prior applications of the same external calibrations to other objects, not the source of the calibration and not load-bearing evidence for the validity of the fundamental plane. The authors explicitly acknowledge that uncertainties in the fundamental plane coefficients and bolometric corrections can change the fluxes by up to an order of magnitude; that is a correctness and systematic-risk concern, not circularity. The smoking-gun statement about emission above 50 nJy at >= 8 GHz is a conditional conclusion comparing predicted AGN flux to predicted host contamination, not an input to the derivation. Overall, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction inherits the empirical fundamental plane relations and bolometric corrections from local AGN, the K24 AGN identification, and assumed power-law spectra. No new entity is introduced and no parameter is fitted to GHZ9 radio data.

free parameters (5)
  • Radio spectral index alpha = 0.3 and 0.7
    Chosen from local radio AGN (Condon et al. 2002) and z greater than 5 quasars (Gloudemans et al. 2021); the GHZ9 spectral index is unmeasured and the predicted flux varies by roughly a factor of 3 between the two values.
  • Fundamental plane coefficients (alpha, beta, gamma) = Six sets from MER03, KOR06, GUL09, PLT12, BON13, GUL19
    Empirical fits to local AGN samples; the spread among sets encodes systematic uncertainty, but no set is measured for GHZ9.
  • Bolometric correction polynomial = Marconi et al. 2004, Eq. 1
    Empirical Lbol to LX relation applied to K24's bolometric luminosity; validated only on local AGN.
  • Lensing magnification mu = 1.26
    Taken from Atek et al. 2023; linearly scales all predicted fluxes.
  • Star formation rates = 0.5 and 14.4 solar masses per year
    SED fits from K24; enter the H II and supernova radio estimates and therefore set the black-hole versus host separation threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The fundamental plane relation for black hole accretion (Eq. 2) holds at z around 10 for radio-quiet AGN with MBH around 8e7 solar masses.
    Section 2.1 uses FP coefficients calibrated on local AGN to convert LX to LR for GHZ9; no high-redshift validation of this scaling exists.
  • domain assumption The K24 identification of GHZ9 as an AGN, with MBH = 8e7 solar masses and Lbol = 1e46 erg per second, is correct.
    All black hole flux estimates use these values; if the X-rays are not AGN-powered, the predicted radio flux collapses. See Section 1 and Section 3.
  • domain assumption The Lbol to LX correction (Marconi et al. 2004 Eq. 1) and the Lusso et al. 2012 bolometric correction are redshift-independent.
    Section 3 notes that Duras et al. found no redshift dependence, but GHZ9 lies beyond the calibrated range of these corrections.
  • domain assumption The spectral luminosity follows a single power law, Lnu proportional to nu to the power of negative alpha, from rest-frame 5 GHz to the observer-frame 0.1-10 GHz bands.
    Section 2.1 assumes this for the K-correction and band mapping; no direct spectral measurement exists for GHZ9.
  • domain assumption The Condon 1992 and Kennicutt 1998 star-formation-to-radio relations apply to high-redshift galaxies.
    Sections 2.2 and 2.3 use them to bound H II and supernova contamination; the authors note the relations may overestimate supernova flux at high redshift.
  • standard math Planck 2016 flat Lambda-CDM cosmology is used to compute luminosity distance.
    Section 2.1 lists the adopted Planck parameters and Eq. 4 uses the distance to redshift the emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Signatures of a Massive Black Hole in GHZ9 at z $\sim$ 10." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWWEGJNS

@misc{pith2026250205266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Signatures of a Massive Black Hole in GHZ9 at z $\sim$ 10},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWWEGJNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05266}
}
abstract

Synergies between the {\em James Webb Space Telescope} ({\em JWST}) and the {\em Chandra} X-ray observatory have advanced the observational frontier by detecting a handful of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) beyond $z \sim$ 10. In particular, the recent discovery of a candidate $\rm 8 \times 10^7~M_{\odot}$ black hole (BH) in the galaxy GHZ9 at $z =$ 10.4 favors massive seed formation channels for these objects. Motivated by prospects for their detection in radio by recent studies, we estimate radio fluxes for GHZ9 and explore the possibility of their detection with the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) and next-generation Very Large Array (ngVLA). We find that ngVLA should be able to detect radio emission from GHZ9 for integration times as short as 1 hr while SKA will require integration times of up to 100 hr. We also find that radio emission from the BH can be distinguished from that due to H II regions and supernovae in its host galaxy. The detection of a few hundred nJy radio signal at frequencies $> 2$ GHz will be a smoking gun for the presence of a BH in GHZ9.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio fluxes for z = 10.4 (solid lines) and z = 9.4 (dotted lines) are shown here for α = 0.3 and α = 0.7. Each color represents a FP as shown in the legend. The horizontal lines show detection limits of ngVLA and SKA for integration times of 1 hr (solid), 10 hr (dashed) and 100 hr (dotted), respectively. The left column for the ngVLA and the right column for the SKA observational limits for different integration ti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radio emission from H II regions and SN remnants. H II region fluxes for z = 10.4 are below 1 nJy because of the low SFR and are not shown here.The left column for the ngVLA and the right column for the SKA show detection limits for different integration times of 1 hr (solid), 10 hr (dashed) and 100 hr (dotted), respectively. Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Plotkin R. M., Reines A. E., 2018, arXiv:1… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Atek H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5486A 524, 5486

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1998 2023

  3. [3]

    Bogd \'a n \'A ., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs.tmp..223B

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 2023

  4. [4]

    Bonchi A., La Franca F., Melini G., Bongiorno A., Fiore F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts456 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1970B 429, 1970

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts456 2013

  5. [5]

    arXiv:1912.12699

    Braun R., Bonaldi A., Bourke T., Keane E., Wagg J., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191212699B p. arXiv:1912.12699

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12699 2019

  6. [6]

    Castellano M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948L..14C 948, L14

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 2023

  7. [7]

    J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..575C 30, 575

    Condon J. J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..575C 30, 575

    work page arXiv 1992

  8. [8]

    J., Cotton W

    Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Broderick J. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341650 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..675C 124, 675

    doi:10.1086/341650 2002

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Connor T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911..120C 911, 120

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Duras F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..73D 636, A73

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Walker S

    Fabian A. C., Walker S. A., Celotti A., Ghisellini G., Mocz P., Blundell K. M., McMahon R. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu065 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442L..81F 442, L81

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..373F 61, 373

    Fan X., Ba \ n ados E., Simcoe R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..373F 61, 373

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.628...57F 628, 57

    Furtak L. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.628...57F 628, 57

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Ghisellini G., Celotti A., Tavecchio F., Haardt F., Sbarrato T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2694G 438, 2694

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.137G 656, A137

    Gloudemans A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.137G 656, A137

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..24G 955, L24

    Goulding A. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..24G 955, L24

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Miller J

    G \"u ltekin K., Cackett E. M., Miller J. M., Di Matteo T., Markoff S., Richstone D. O., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706..404G 706, 404

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    M., King A

    G \"u ltekin K., Cackett E. M., King A. L., Miller J. M., Pinkney J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788L..22G 788, L22

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Cackett E

    G \"u ltekin K., King A. L., Cackett E. M., Nyland K., Miller J. M., Di Matteo T., Markoff S., Rupen M. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...80G 871, 80

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Klessen R

    Haemmerl \'e L., Woods T. E., Klessen R. S., Heger A., Whalen D. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2919 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2757H 474, 2757

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Inayoshi K., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..178H 778, 178

    Hosokawa T., Yorke H. W., Inayoshi K., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..178H 778, 178

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    Kitayama T., Yoshida N., Susa H., Umemura M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423313 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..631K 613, 631

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L...4K 954, L4

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L...4K 954, L4

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L...7K 957, L7

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    K \"o rding E., Falcke H., Corbel S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...456..439K 456, 439

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L..21K 965, L21

    Kov \'a cs O. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L..21K 965, L21

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Lambrides E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad11ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L..25L 961, L25

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..29L 953, L29

    Larson R. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..29L 953, L29

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Schleicher D

    Latif M. A., Schleicher D. R. G., Schmidt W., Niemeyer J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1607L 433, 1607

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Whalen D

    Latif M. A., Whalen D. J., Khochfar S., Herrington N. P., Woods T. E., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.607...48L 607, 48

    doi

  24. [32]

    A., Whalen D., Khochfar S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...28L 925, 28

    Latif M. A., Whalen D., Khochfar S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...28L 925, 28

    doi

  25. [33]

    A., Aftab A., Whalen D

    Latif M. A., Aftab A., Whalen D. J., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3b97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..251L 167, 251

    doi

  26. [34]

    A., Whalen D

    Latif M. A., Whalen D. J., Mezcua M., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527L..37L 527, L37

    doi

  27. [35]

    Li Z.-Y., Wu X.-B., Wang R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..826L 688, 826

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    Lusso E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21513.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425..623L 425, 623

    2012

  29. [37]

    arXiv:2308.01230

    Maiolino R., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230801230M p. arXiv:2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.627...59M 627, 59

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Maiolino R., Salvati M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..169M 351, 169

    Marconi A., Risaliti G., Gilli R., Hunt L. K., Maiolino R., Salvati M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..169M 351, 169

    2004

  32. [40]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2854M 430, 2854

    Meiksin A., Whalen D. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2854M 430, 2854

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Merloni A., Heinz S., di Matteo T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1057M 345, 1057

    2003

  34. [42]

    L., Ba \ n ados E., Walter F., Venemans B

    Momjian E., Carilli C. L., Ba \ n ados E., Walter F., Venemans B. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac76f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...86M 861, 86

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Napolitano L., et al., 2024, The dual nature of GHZ9: coexisting AGN and star formation activity in a remote X-ray source at z=10.145 ( @eprint arXiv 2410.18763 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18763

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., Whalen D

    Patrick S. J., Whalen D. J., Latif M. A., Elford J. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3795P 522, 3795

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Reines A

    Plotkin R. M., Reines A. E., 2018, arXiv:1810.06814, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181006814P p. arXiv:1810.06814

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M., Markoff S., Kelly B

    Plotkin R. M., Markoff S., Kelly B. C., K \"o rding E., Anderson S. F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19689.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..267P 419, 267

    2012

  40. [48]

    Schleicher D. R. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.6192S 512, 6192

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Smol c i \'c V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A...1S 602, A1

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Volonteri M., Habouzit M., Colpi M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..241V 521, 241

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Wang F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L...1W 907, L1

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Fryer C

    Whalen D. J., Fryer C. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756L..19W 756, L19

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421548 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610...14W 610, 14

    Whalen D., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421548 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610...14W 610, 14

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    W., Norman M

    Whalen D., van Veelen B., O'Shea B. W., Norman M. L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589643 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682...49W 682, 49

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Latif M

    Whalen D. J., Latif M. A., Mezcua M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..133W 956, 133

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Heger A., Whalen D

    Woods T. E., Heger A., Whalen D. J., Haemmerl \'e L., Klessen R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7412 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842L...6W 842, L6

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Yang J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897L..14Y 897, L14

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.