Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 114 references

The $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 May Never Reach a "Normal" Black Hole to Stellar Mass Ratio

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This early quasar's host is unlikely to ever become normal

desk verdict New JWST data flip the old underdense claim for J1120+0641, but the 'may never reach a normal ratio' conclusion needs a joint uncertainty estimate before 'unlikely' can carry the weight the abstract gives it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13489 v3 pith:PSLS4ZLF submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.GA

Meredith A. Stone , George H. Rieke , Jianwei Lyu , Michael K. Florian , Kevin N. Hainline , Yang Sun , Yongda Zhu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ULASJ1120+0641high-redshiftquasarsblackhole-galaxycoevolutionJWSTNIRCam[OIII]narrow-bandselectiongalaxyoverdensitiessupermassiveholesMagorrianrelation
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 the $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 can grow its host galaxy enough by today to land on the local relation between black hole mass and stellar mass. Using JWST narrow-band imaging to pick out $[{\rm O\,III}]$ emitters at the quasar's redshift, the authors find 22 companion galaxies and show that the quasar sits in a large overdensity. Even so, counting the host's stars and gas, the companions that could merge, and corrections for missed galaxies, they project a final stellar mass near $6\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$. With no further black hole growth, that gives a black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio near $2.5\%$, about 25 times the typical local value. The paper concludes that such a system may never become "normal" and might instead survive today as a quiet black hole in an unremarkable galaxy that surveys could miss.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on narrow-band selection of $[{\rm O\,III}]\,\lambda5007$ emitters with NIRCam F405N, where the line lands at $z=7.08$, together with F360M/F410M continuum coverage and broad-band SED fitting by two codes, Prospector and Bagpipes, to assign redshifts and stellar masses. The mass-budget projection then combines the host's known stellar mass, ULIRG-level star formation, gas mass and star-formation efficiency, the companion galaxies within the 350-kpc merging radius from simulation-calibrated pair separations, and statistical corrections for incompleteness and galaxies lacking bright $[{\rm O\,III}]$. The mechanism that carries the conclusion is bookkeeping: the summed future stellar mass falls short of the approximately $1.5\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ needed for the standard local ratio by roughly two orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

A wide-area $[{\rm C\,II}]$ 158 $\mu$m map around ULAS J1120+0641, or deep CO imaging, that reveals a massive gas-rich companion or a cold-gas reservoir of order $10^{11}$\,$-$\,$10^{12}\,M_\odot$ within the merger radius would overturn the budget claim. Conversely, identifying a local galaxy with $M_{\rm BH}/M_*\sim2.5\%$ that has not been tidally stripped would support the predicted descendant population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass reservoirs visible around ULAS J1120+0641 are insufficient to bring it onto the local $M_{\rm BH}$\,$-$\,$M_*$ relation by $z=0$. Combining JWST narrow- and medium-band photometry that isolates $[{\rm O\,III}]$ emitters near $z=7.08$ with two independent SED-fitting codes, the authors identify 22 galaxies at the quasar redshift and find the field overdense by a large factor relative to blank-field counts. Summing the host's stars ($\sim3.2\times10^{9}\,M_\odot$), the starburst component, the gas that could form stars, the merging companion, and the stellar mass of satellites within $\sim350$ kpc corrected for incompleteness and line-less galaxies, they project a plausible final host stellar mass of $\sim6\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$. With the black hole fixed at $M_{\rm BH}\sim1.5\times10^{9}\,M_\odot$, the final ratio is $M_{\rm BH}/M_*\sim2.5\%$, far above local galaxies of similar mass; only under the most optimistic assumptions does the ratio approach $\sim0.5\%$, still above local. The authors also argue that no known local galaxy with such a ratio exists except tidally stripped cases, so the descendant of this quasar may be a quiescent, overmassive black hole in a low-luminosity galaxy that could evade detection.

Load-bearing premise

The projection assumes that the observed mass budget, including host stars and gas, detected companions, and statistical corrections for missed galaxies, is complete; a single massive dark galaxy or a large inflow of cold gas could still bring the host onto the local relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quasar's host galaxy is projected to end up at $M_{\rm BH}/M_*\sim2.5\%$ at $z=0$ if black hole growth stops, about 25 times the typical local ratio.
  • Even the most optimistic mass budget yields a ratio near $0.5\%$, still above the local relation, so the conclusion does not depend on a single fragile assumption.
  • A dense environment is not enough by itself: the detected overdensity is real, but its total mass is too small to bring the black hole and galaxy into balance.
  • If such systems exist today, they should appear as quiescent supermassive black holes in faint, low-mass galaxies, which wide-area surveys could have missed.
  • The local $M_{\rm BH}$\,$-$\,$M_*$ relation may not be reached by every high-redshift quasar; for this object the path to normality would be stochastic, depending on rare mergers or gas accretion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the projection holds, searches for local galaxies with dormant supermassive black holes and unusually high $M_{\rm BH}/M_*$ offer a direct test; a single unambiguous local example near $2.5\%$ would match the predicted descendant population.
  • The same narrow-band $[{\rm O\,III}]$ census applied to other $z\sim7$ quasars with measured host masses would show whether ULAS J1120+0641 is the rule or the extreme; several similar budget shortfalls would imply that the local relation is built stochastically rather than by steady co-growth.
  • Wide-area submillimeter $[{\rm C\,II}]$ or CO mapping around the quasar could directly test the completeness assumption by revealing a massive gas-rich companion or a large cold-gas reservoir not visible in JWST bands.
  • The companion stellar masses come from rest-frame UV/optical SEDs without long-wavelength constraints; future mid-infrared or ALMA observations of individual companions could shift the summed satellite mass substantially and therefore the final ratio.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents new JWST/NIRCam narrow- and medium-band observations of the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641, identifying 22 [O III]-selected galaxies at z≈7.1 (19 high-confidence, 3 medium-confidence) across two 4.4 arcmin^2 fields. The authors argue that the environment is strongly overdense relative to field counts, and they project the z=0 stellar mass of the quasar host by summing the current host stars and gas, a starburst contribution, merging companions, and satellite galaxies within ~350 kpc, with completeness and [O III]-selection corrections. Under the assumption of no further black hole growth, the adopted projection gives M_BH/M* ≈ 2.5% at z=0, and even the maximum case in Table 4 gives ≈ 0.6%, still above the local M_BH-M* relation. The paper concludes that J1120+0641 may never reach a normal black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio, possibly explaining the absence of such systems locally if they are quiescent and faint.

Significance. If the projection holds, this is an important empirical anchor for the coevolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies at the end of reionization: it suggests that at least one extreme high-z quasar cannot plausibly acquire enough stellar mass by z=0 to satisfy the local relation, and that such systems may exist locally as quiescent black holes in low-mass galaxies. The paper's strengths are its transparent mass budget (Table 4), dual SED fitting with Prospector and Bagpipes, explicit completeness and selection corrections, and independent checks on the black hole mass (beaming, Eddington ratio, X-ray slope). The central projection is a sum of observed quantities and adopted efficiencies rather than a fit, so the main burden falls on the uncertainty of those efficiencies. The headline claim is scientifically valuable but needs to be stated with a quantitative uncertainty treatment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.3, Table 4, and Abstract] The statement that J1120+0641 is 'unlikely' to reach M_BH/M* below ~2.5% at z=0 is not supported by a quantitative probability statement. Table 4 brackets the projected host mass with minimum, adopted, and maximum columns (1.53, 5.99, and 25.8 ×10^10 Msun), and the maximum column already yields M_BH/M* ≈ 0.6% for the adopted M_BH = 1.5×10^9 Msun, i.e., below the 2.5% threshold quoted in the abstract. The table samples a joint extreme corner rather than a distribution, but no probability is assigned to any of its columns, and the inputs (SFE, gas-to-stars ratio, satellite stellar masses, merger fraction, host mass) are plausibly correlated because a dense environment can simultaneously raise gas fractions and star formation efficiency. As written, 'unlikely' in the abstract is an interpretation rather than a computed result. Please add a Monte Carlo or analytic propagation over the Table 4 ranges and report the estimated probability that M_BH/M* < 2.5%, or replace the probabilistic headline with a bounded statement such as 'even under the most favorable combination of the adopted ranges, the final ratio remains above the local relation.'
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure 4] The paper reports that the environment of J1120+0641 is 'strongly overdense' in z≈7.1 galaxies, but it does not provide a formal statistical test of this claim. The comparison in Figure 4 is visual: JWST counts are plotted against Bouwens et al. (2015) field counts scaled to the narrow-band redshift window, and Simpson et al. (2014) counts scaled by 1/12, but no p-value or confidence interval is computed for the excess in the quasar field or the adjacent field. Since the overdensity is one of the paper's primary results and motivates the future merger scenario, please add a quantitative significance estimate (e.g., Poisson probability of the observed counts given the field luminosity function with cosmic variance, or a bootstrap test), or qualify the wording to 'appears overdense within the current field.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 5.4] '750 Gyr after the Big Bang' should read '750 Myr'; the same quantity is stated correctly in the Introduction.
  2. [Section 1] The phrase 'local local M_BH/M* relation' contains a duplicated word.
  3. [Section 5.4] 'super-Eddington acretion' should be 'accretion'.
  4. [Section 2.1] The sentence beginning 'provide additional photometric redshift constraints...' appears to be a duplicate of the preceding Lyman-break discussion and should be removed.
  5. [Table 1] The entry '7.89pm0.18' should be rendered as '7.89±0.18' (LaTeX slip).
  6. [Section 5.3] 'see 4. Between the detected galaxies...' should read 'see Table 4.'
  7. [Section 4.2] The 1/12 scaling for Simpson et al. (2014) assumes a uniform redshift selection between z=6.5 and 7.7; this assumption should be stated explicitly and its sensitivity checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the z=0 mass projection is a forward sum of independent observed masses and adopted efficiencies, not a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central projection (MBH/M* ~2.5% at z=0) is built as a forward accounting sum: current host stellar mass (adopted from Stone et al. 2024 and Marshall et al. 2024), the ULIRG starburst contribution, gas mass multiplied by an assumed star formation efficiency (from Andalman et al. 2025 and others), satellite stellar masses from two independent SED codes, and incompleteness corrections using Bouwens et al. (2015) counts and JADES colors. Each input is measured or adopted from external references, and none is defined in terms of the target MBH/M* ratio. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input: the final ratio is a computed output, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Stone et al. (2024), Sun et al. (2025b), and Lyu et al. (2024) provide independent host-galaxy measurements and SED templates; they do not establish the target result by citation. The paper explicitly acknowledges that a single NIRCam-dark massive galaxy or substantial IGM gas accretion could invalidate the projection, demonstrating that the conclusion is not forced by construction. The only notable concern is statistical (one-at-a-time uncertainty propagation rather than a joint posterior), which is a robustness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central projection depends on several adopted efficiencies and mass ratios (SFE, gas-to-stars ratio, missing fraction, merger radius, host mass, black hole mass) that are not measured in this paper but taken from prior work or assumed. Each is listed above with its adopted value and role. The paper is transparent about these in Table 4.

free parameters (7)
  • Star formation efficiency (SFE) to z=0 = 0.2 (fiducial), range 0.1-0.4
    Adopted from Polzin et al. (2024), Kim et al. (2021), Andalman et al. (2025); multiplies gas masses of host and satellites to predict future stellar mass and dominates the z=0 mass uncertainty (Table 4).
  • Gas-to-stars mass ratio of satellite galaxies = 10 (fiducial), range 5-20
    Based on higher-mass galaxies at similar redshift (Algera et al. 2025; Heintz et al. 2022; de Graaff et al. 2024); used to estimate gas mass available to form stars in merging satellites.
  • Fraction of z~7 galaxies missed by [O III] selection = 0.328
    Estimated from the JADES F200W-F410M color distribution for z~7 galaxies; applied to boost detected satellite stellar masses by about 33%.
  • Completeness extrapolation for faint galaxies (m_F150W ~ 28-30) = ~5 and ~15 galaxies in two magnitude bins
    Assumes the true number counts follow the Bouwens et al. (2015) luminosity function shape scaled to the observed counts at m=26-28; used to estimate mass missed due to incompleteness.
  • Merger distance threshold = 300 kpc (from Illustris TNG100)
    Chamberlain et al. (2024) find that galaxy pairs merging by z=0 have separations <=300 kpc; paper assumes only the 13 sources in the quasar field (projected <350 kpc) can merge with the host.
  • Adopted host galaxy stellar mass at z=7.08 = 3.2e9 Msun
    Average of Sun et al. (2025b) and Marshall et al. (2024) estimates; input to the current M_BH/M* and the z=0 projection.
  • Fiducial black hole mass = 1.5e9 Msun
    Adopted from multiple single-epoch line measurements, accretion disk modeling, and Eddington ratio constraints (Table 2); used to compute the M_BH/M* ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=69.6 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.286, Omega_Lambda=0.714
    Section 1; used to convert angular separations to physical distances and to define the z=0 lookback time.
  • domain assumption The F405N narrow-band excess is dominated by [O III] emission at z~7.1 and H-alpha emitters at z~5.1 are successfully removed
    Section 3.1; the sample selection relies on this, with F150W/F200W Balmer break colors used to reject H-alpha contaminants, but no spectroscopy confirms the redshifts.
  • domain assumption Prospector and Bagpipes stellar masses bracket the true masses of the satellite galaxies
    Section 3.3; masses from the two codes differ by roughly 10x; the adopted median is used as the mass estimate, with the range treated as the uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Galaxies without bright [O III] follow the same mass distribution as the detected [O III] emitters
    Section 5.3; needed to apply the 32.8% missing fraction to the total mass; the authors note the populations may differ in mass and age.
  • domain assumption Only quasar-field sources (projected distance <350 kpc) will merge with the host by z=0
    Section 5.3; based on the Illustris TNG100 merger threshold of 300 kpc, applied to projected distances, which can differ from true 3D separations.
  • domain assumption A local Chabrier/Kroupa IMF is appropriate; a top-heavy IMF would reduce masses
    Section 5.2.3; the paper adopts the local IMF as the conservative choice giving the highest stellar masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 May Never Reach a "Normal" Black Hole to Stellar Mass Ratio." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSLS4ZLF

@misc{pith2026250713489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 May Never Reach a "Normal" Black Hole to Stellar Mass Ratio},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSLS4ZLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13489}
}
abstract

JWST observations of quasars in the Epoch of Reionization have revealed that many lie in host galaxies that are severely undermassive relative to the supermassive black holes. It is unclear how these systems will evolve to the tight local relation between stellar mass and black hole mass. We search for companions around the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641 using JWST/NIRCam narrow, medium, and wide-band photometry to identify [O III] emitters at the quasar redshift, and explore the potential for growth of the host galaxy through future mergers. We find 22 sources near the quasar's redshift across our two 4.4 arcmin$^2$ fields, indicating that environment of ULAS J1120+0641 is strongly overdense in z~7.1 galaxies relative to the field. We estimate the potential future mass budget of the quasar host galaxy by summing the current stellar and gas masses of the quasar host and surrounding galaxies, correcting for incompleteness and selection effects. With no further black hole growth, ULAS J1120+0641 is unlikely to reach a $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_*$ ratio less than ~2.5% at z=0, still much higher than typical for local galaxies. However, such systems -- a quiescent black hole in a low-luminosity galaxy -- may have escaped detection locally if they are sufficiently distant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of galaxies with elevated F405N or F410M that were removed from our sample in the visual inspection process. Candidate 048 (top) is classified as a spurious source: the underlying galaxy certainly exists, but its elevated narrow￾band flux is likely due to the bright detector artifact visible in the F405N image. Candidate 163 (bottom) is classified as a low-redshift source based on its angular size, brightne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The field around J1120+0641, and the narrow-band candidates identified. The surveyed JWST field in F410M is shown in black and white, with z ∼ 7 candidates marked with green circles. The footprint of the archival HST F814W observations is also shown, centered on the quasar position, which is marked with a white star. Some sources in the quasar field overlap one another, and are indicated (“two sources”). The three c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The SEDs and thumbnail images of the two Simpson et al. (2014) LBG candidates that overlap with our JWST data. LBG 1 (left SED, upper row of thumbnails) is not picked up in our sample due to its nondetection in F405N. Its SED shape and flux place it at z ∼ 7, but it is likely not associated with the quasar directly. LBG 2 (right SED, lower row of thumbnails) is exceedingly bright in the longer NIRCam bands, in agree… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: z ∼ 7.05 − 7.15 JWST galaxy number counts around J1120+0641 (navy squares) and in the adjacent field (teal diamonds). For the adjacent field, show counts incor￾porating the three medium-confidence candidates as open di￾amonds. For comparison, we plot very deep z ∼ 7 HS…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three-line fit to the profile of the Hα line. The two broad components and flat continuum are as in Bosman et al. (2024), where we also obtained the data; we have added a faint unresolved line contributed by the star formation, which reduces the χ 2 of the fit. The res…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The flux of J1120+0641’s host galaxy in the rest UV/optical compared with a set of stellar SED models to illustrate the low levels of extinction require to fit the data. The models include measurements from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , are mostly misclassified stars. The popula￾tion of galaxies without bright [O III] may not follow the same spatial distribution or mass distribution as the [O III] emitters: Champagne et al. (2025b) exam￾ined the environment of the z = 6.61 quasar J0305- 3150 and fou…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The future of J1120+0641’s host galaxy. J1120+0641’s black hole and stellar mass at z = 7.08 is marked with a teal square. The lighter teal polygon marks the region where the host could land at z = 0, up to the maximum possible galaxy mass we derive, 2.5 × 1011 M⊙ (see…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Martini, P., Croxall, K

    Adams, S. M., Martini, P., Croxall, K. V., Overzier, R. A., & Silverman, J. D. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv065

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv065 2015

  2. [2]

    Dunlop, J. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt696

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt696 2013

  3. [3]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10508, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10508

    Algera, H., Rowland, L., Stefanon, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10508, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10508

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.10508 2025

  4. [4]

    L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A

    Andalman, Z. L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf930 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, ...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf930 2025

  5. [5]

    Bate, M. R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf059

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf059 2025

  6. [6]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 805, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10713.x

    Bekki, K., Shioya, Y., & Whiting, M. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 805, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10713.x

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/135 2014

  8. [8]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 510, 177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3439

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3439

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

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

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Ni, Y., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2238

    doi

  2. [10]

    Brodie, J. P. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu095 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Bosman, S. E. I., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Colina, L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1054, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02273-0

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0, 1.6.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7419741 22

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0, 1.6.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7419741 22

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.6, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7714020

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.6, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7714020

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt157

    Calderone, G., Ghisellini, G., Colpi, M., & Dotti, M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt157

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, A&A, 625, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834167

    Campitiello, S., Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Sbarrato, T. 2019, A&A, 625, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834167

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bad

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V. 2024, ApJ, 975, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bad

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 981, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bd

    doi

  13. [21]

    B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 981, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bc

    doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a34

    Chanchaiworawit, K., Guzm´ an, R., Salvador-Sol´ e, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a34

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad689

    Chiaki, G., Chon, S., Omukai, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad689

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1549

    Chon, S., Ono, H., Omukai, K., & Schneider, R. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1549

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Cretton, N., & van den Bosch, F. C. 1999, ApJ, 514, 704, doi: 10.1086/306971

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 De Rosa, G., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 145, d...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaebf8

    Lyu, J. 2018, ApJ, 869, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaebf8

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    D., et al

    Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06345-5

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2

    Christensen, C., & Quinn, T. 2018, ApJ, 861, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt840

    Emsellem, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt840

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Lupton, R

    Fan, X., Narayanan, V. K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833, doi: 10.1086/324111

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9626

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Durr´ e, M., Savorgnan, G

    Graham, A. W., Durr´ e, M., Savorgnan, G. A. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 43, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/43

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd5

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd5

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Oesch, P

    Heintz, K. E., Oesch, P. A., Aravena, M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8057

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5397

    Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5397

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7daa

    Hu, H., Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7daa

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    N., Stanway, E

    Husband, K., Bremer, M. N., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt642 Huˇ sko, F., Lacey, C. G., Roper, W. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf146

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03653, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653

    Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S., & Noda, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03653, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08210-5

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 765, doi: 10.1086/518410

    Kashikawa, N., Kitayama, T., Doi, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 765, doi: 10.1086/518410

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655a

    Kawaguchi, T., Yutani, N., & Wada, K. 2020, ApJ, 890, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655a

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    C., & Filippova, N

    Kim, J.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Filippova, N. 2021, ApJ, 911, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171 23

    King, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171 23

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

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

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  53. [61]

    R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J

    Li, L.-X., Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2005, ApJS, 157, 335, doi: 10.1086/428089

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    Lupi, A., Quadri, G., Volonteri, M., Colpi, M., & Regan, J. A. 2024a, A&A, 686, A256, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788

    doi

  55. [63]

    2024b, A&A, 689, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451249

    Mazzucchelli, C. 2024b, A&A, 689, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451249

    doi

  56. [64]

    H., & Alberts, S

    Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Alberts, S. 2016, ApJ, 816, 85, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/85

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    H., & Shi, Y

    Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Shi, Y. 2017, ApJ, 835, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/257

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., et al

    Marshall, M. A., Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11035, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11035

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2696, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt627

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2014, A&A, 563, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323051

    Moretti, A., Ballo, L., Braito, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323051

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, A&A, 568, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423853

    Morselli, L., Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423853

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616, doi: 10.1038/nature10159

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6330

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6330

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    P., et al

    Neeleman, M., Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe70f

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    D., et al

    Onoue, M., Ding, X., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07113, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07113

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    P., Taniguchi, Y., et al

    Ota, K., Venemans, B. P., Taniguchi, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35b

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Guo, Q., Kauffmann, G., et al

    Overzier, R. A., Guo, Q., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2009a, MNRAS, 394, 577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14264.x

    2008

  71. [79]

    A., Shu, X., Zheng, W., et al

    Overzier, R. A., Shu, X., Zheng, W., et al. 2009b, ApJ, 704, 548, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/548

    doi

  72. [80]

    G., Mobasher, B., et al

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

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    Pacucci, F., Nguyen, B., Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., & Fan, X. 2023, ApJL, 957, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Simpson, C., Mortlock, D

    Page, M. J., Simpson, C., Mortlock, D. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L91, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu022

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    V., Semenov, V

    Polzin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Semenov, V. A., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 114, doi: 10.33232/001c.127042

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad488a —

    Pudoka, M., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad488a —. 2025, ApJ, 987, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add88f

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Tsymbal, V

    Raikov, A. A., Tsymbal, V. V., & Lovyagin, N. Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.19651, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.19651

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    L., et al

    Rojas-Ruiz, S., Mazzucchelli, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bab

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Bursa, M., et al

    Sadowski, A., Abramowicz, M. A., Bursa, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911846

    2009 doi

  82. [90]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    F., Davies, F

    Schindler, J.-T., Hennawi, J. F., Davies, F. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11534, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11534

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    1963 doi

  85. [93]

    D., et al

    Schramm, M., Rujopakarn, W., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd3

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    T., & Haiman, Z

    Scoggins, M. T., & Haiman, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1449

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    T., Haiman, Z., & Wise, J

    Scoggins, M. T., Haiman, Z., & Wise, J. H. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3715

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 3454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1116

    Simpson, C., Mortlock, D., Warren, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1116

    2014 doi

  89. [97]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1993

    Smith, A., Becerra, F., Bromm, V., & Hernquist, L. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1993

    2017 doi

  90. [98]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6

    Sneppen, A. 2023, ApJL, 951, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    G., Pavlovsky, C., et al

    Stiavelli, M., Djorgovski, S. G., Pavlovsky, C., et al. 2005, ApJL, 622, L1, doi: 10.1086/429406

    2005 doi

  92. [100]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., & Hainline, K. N. 2024, ApJ, 964, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a57

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06418

    Sun, F., Yang, J., Wang, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06418. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06418 24

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    H., Lyu, J., et al

    Sun, Y., Rieke, G. H., Lyu, J., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc250

    doi

  95. [103]

    M., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 64, doi: 10.1086/425171

    2004 doi

  96. [104]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 713, doi: 10.1086/507985

    Takata, T., Sekiguchi, K., Smail, I., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 713, doi: 10.1086/507985

    2006 doi

  97. [105]

    D., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Thornley, M. D., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Lutz, D., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 641, doi: 10.1086/309261

    2000 doi

  98. [106]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137 van den Bosch, R. C. E., Gebhardt, K., G¨ ultekin, K....

    2024 doi arXiv

  99. [107]

    P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62ac

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc563

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    2006 doi

  102. [110]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    Volonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    2021 doi

  103. [111]

    F., et al

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6f

    2023 doi

  104. [112]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32

    2021 doi

  105. [113]

    A., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914

    2024 doi

  106. [114]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Zheng, W., Overzier, R. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 574, doi: 10.1086/500167

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.