Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 104 references

A MUltiwavelength Study of ELAN Environments (AMUSE$^2$): The Impact of Dense Environment on Massive Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at Cosmic Noon

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dense quasar halos deplete gas in dusty galaxies only inside the halo, at roughly 100–200 kpc scales at cosmic noon.

desk verdict Solid new CO data for 15 SMGs around quasars, but the headline claim that environment matters only inside the virial radius is carried by a pile of assumptions and sub-2sigma medians. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03027 v1 pith:UHFKNG75 submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.GA

Yu-Jan Wang , Chian-Chou Chen , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Roberto Decarli , Helmut Dannerbauer , Po-Feng Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords submillimetergalaxiesdustystar-formingquasarenvironmentsmoleculargasfractionCOlineemissionLyαnebulaeprotoclusterscosmicnoon
open problems Dark Matter
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 sets out to show that the dense environment around a quasar at cosmic noon (z≈2–3) alters the gas content of massive dusty star-forming galaxies only once they enter the quasar's halo, on scales of roughly 100–200 kpc. It confirms 15 submillimeter galaxies around nine quasars with Lyα nebulae, measures their CO line emission and far-infrared brightness, and finds that outside the virial radius these galaxies look just like field submillimeter galaxies: similar line widths, dust temperatures, depletion times, and gas-to-dust ratios. Inside the virial radius, however, combined literature data show median gas fractions of 26±13%, close to the quasars themselves (20±10%), while field-like values are 50±25% or higher. If correct, this locates the onset of environmental influence on massive galaxies at halo scales rather than megaparsec scales, which would help reconcile earlier contradictory results.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the gas-fraction estimator of Chen et al. (2021), Equation (2), which converts a measured CO line width and CO line luminosity into a gas fraction by assuming a rotation-dominated disk in dynamical equilibrium with a fixed half-light radius re=3 kpc, a CO-to-H2 conversion factor αCO=1.0, and a dark-matter fraction fDM=0.12. This estimator lets the authors compare gas fractions across samples that lack direct stellar masses. The virial radius split, which sets the boundary between 'inside halo' and 'outside halo,' assumes quasar halos of mass ~$10^{12}$.5 Msun and treats projected distances as physical separations. The comparison also relies on published field SMG samples to anchor the expected field values.

What would settle it

A direct test is deeper CO spectroscopy of dusty galaxies at projected distances just outside the virial radius, reaching the CO luminosities typical of the inside-halo sources: if those faint outer galaxies show gas fractions as low as the depleted inner ones, the boundary at the virial radius disappears. Alternatively, stellar-mass-based gas fractions or kinematic inclination measurements for a few galaxies near the boundary would reveal whether the fixed disk assumptions create the trend artificially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the molecular gas fraction of dusty star-forming galaxies depends on their distance from a quasar: galaxies inside the quasar's virial radius have depleted gas fractions comparable to the quasar hosts, while galaxies outside the virial radius are indistinguishable from field submillimeter galaxies. The evidence is a set of ALMA and NOEMA CO detections around nine quasars at z≈2–3, combined with published measurements of dusty galaxies and quasars at similar redshifts. The paper also reports that 73% of its confirmed CO emitters are better fit by double-Gaussian line profiles with a median peak separation of 350±25 km/s, consistent with rotating disks or interacting pairs, and that the spatial distribution of confirmed members traces a filament-like structure with a scale height of 2–5 comoving Mpc, though this structural detection is statistically tentative. Its cumulative star-formation rates are lower limits and agree with simulation predictions once the comparison volumes are matched.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on converting measured CO line widths and luminosities into gas fractions with a fixed set of assumptions—rotation-dominated disks, half-light radius of 3 kpc, CO conversion factor of 1.0, and a dark-matter fraction of 0.12—and on treating the quasars as $10^{12}$.5 Msun halos with projected distances equal to true separations. If those assumptions fail, the gas-depletion trend inside virial radii is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the dense quasar environment stops modifying the interstellar medium of massive dusty galaxies at roughly the halo boundary (~100–200 kpc), while galaxies beyond that distance remain essentially field-like.
  • Previously contradictory results would be reconciled: studies that measured galaxies at megaparsec separations would naturally see little environmental effect, while studies probing the core would see depleted gas fractions.
  • Dusty galaxies inside the virial radius are consistent with being gravitationally bound to the quasar halo, while those outside are consistent with the Hubble flow, so the measured gas fractions can be mapped onto infall through the halo periphery.
  • The filament-like arrangement of confirmed members, with similar widths in the sky and line-of-sight directions (λ ≈ 4.0 and 3.5 cMpc), supports a cylindrical or elongated pancake shape for the large-scale structure traced by these galaxies.
  • The measured star-formation rate densities are lower limits, and once comparison volumes are matched to simulations they agree with model predictions, so future deeper surveys are needed before claiming a tension between observations and simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial gas-fraction trend is real, it implies that gas loss begins at first infall through the virial radius, before cluster-core processes act; the natural mechanisms are ram-pressure stripping or strangulation by the hot halo, though the paper does not establish which one operates.
  • A testable extension is to measure gas fractions for individual dusty galaxies with inclination corrections and stellar-mass-based estimates on both sides of the virial radius; the median split seen in the paper should sharpen rather than wash out if the claim is correct.
  • The double-Gaussian line fraction matching field SMGs suggests that the internal kinematics of these galaxies are largely set before they enter the halo, since the environment does not yet dominate their dynamics at these separations.
  • A prediction implicit in this picture is that the brightest dusty galaxies inside the virial radius should show either an elevated star-formation efficiency or a suppressed star-formation rate relative to their gas mass; existing infrared and CO measurements could test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents ALMA and NOEMA CO(4-3)/CO(3-2) follow-up of 101 SCUBA-2 850 micron sources in nine z~2-3 quasar fields hosting Ly-a nebulae, confirming 15 physically associated SMGs. The authors derive CO line kinematics, far-infrared SEDs, gas fractions, depletion timescales, and gas-to-dust ratios, and compare these with field SMGs and literature DSFGs around quasars. They report that SMGs outside quasar virial radii resemble field SMGs, while DSFGs inside the virial radius show depleted gas fractions, and that the SMGs trace tentative filamentary structures with scale widths of a few cMpc. Cumulative star-formation rates and SFR densities are compared with simulations and other protocluster observations and are explicitly flagged as lower limits.

Significance. If the main deduction holds, the paper provides one of the first environmental-gradient measurements for massive dusty galaxies at cosmic noon, with a separation scale set by the quasar halo virial radius. The strengths include the careful ALMA/NOEMA reduction, the Monte Carlo completeness and false-detection analyses, the AICc-based line-profile selection, and the explicit caveats about lower limits and the tentative filament detection. The main limitation is that the headline gas-fraction gradient rests on a heterogeneous comparison and on median differences whose statistical significance is not demonstrated; the conclusion is therefore plausible but not yet established at the strength claimed in the abstract and Section 4.1.6.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.2, Eq. (2), footnote 2] The gas-fraction comparison in Figure 9 is not apples-to-apples. The inside-halo literature points are restricted to single-Gaussian fits, as stated in footnote 2, while the outside-halo sample plotted in blue includes all primary sources, 73% of which are better described by double Gaussians (§3.1.1). Equation (2) assumes a single rotation-dominated disk in dynamical equilibrium; for the double-Gaussian sources the FWHM entered in Eq. (2) is a composite width defined in §3.1.1, not the width of a single dynamically relaxed component, so the outside fgas values are not on the same footing as the inside values. I ask the authors to recompute fgas for the full sample with a uniform single-Gaussian extraction, or to restrict both sides to kinematically simple sources, and to show that the inside/outside gradient survives that restriction.
  2. [§4.1.2, Figure 9] The central claim of gas depletion inside the virial radius is not supported by a reported statistical test. The medians are fgas = 26±13 inside, 92±40 outside, and 50±25 for field SMGs; the inside/outside contrast is only about 1.6σ and the outside/field contrast about 0.9σ, yet no two-sample test is given. Because the conclusion is built on these medians, the authors should report bootstrap or rank-sum p-values for each pairwise comparison and for a trend of fgas with projected distance, and state how many individual sources drive the gradient.
  3. [§4.1.2, Figures 9-10] The inside/outside classification depends on the assumed halo mass and on treating projected separation as a 3D distance. For Mhalo = 10^12.5 Msun at z~3 the virial radius is ~100-200 kpc, but changing Mhalo by a factor of a few moves Rvir by a comparable factor, and sources near the boundary can switch bins under a mild deprojection. The authors should test the sensitivity of the median fgas gradient to Mhalo in the range 10^12-10^13 Msun and to a simple statistical deprojection, and report how many sources change classification.
  4. [§4.1.2, Figure 8] The outside-halo sample comes from a survey that preferentially detects high-L'CO sources, and the text acknowledges that fainter CO sources outside the virial radius may be missed. This selection effect could bias the outside median fgas upward relative to the deeper literature samples used for the inside and field comparisons. The comparison should be strengthened by applying the same L'CO/FWHM sensitivity cut to all three samples, or by computing upper limits for the non-detected sources and recomputing the gradient with those limits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, conclusion item 5] The conclusion quotes filament widths of 4.9±2.3 cMpc (x-y) and 5.8±3.1 cMpc (x-z), whereas Section 4.2 reports λ = 4.0±2.6 cMpc (x-y) and λ = 3.5±2.2 cMpc (x-z); please reconcile the two sets of numbers.
  2. [§4.1.2] The text contains a typo: 'with a mdeian fgas of 26 ± 13' should read 'with a median fgas of 26 ± 13'.
  3. [References] The reference entry for Wang et al. (2024) reads 'arVix, 240616637W' and appears malformed; please correct it to the full arXiv identifier and journal information.
  4. [§3.1.2 and Figure 3] The curve-of-growth correction is applied as a single factor of 2.0 to all sources based on the median/mean convergence; please state explicitly how the scatter among individual curves is propagated into the line luminosities and the derived fgas values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline gas-fraction comparison is a meta-analysis of new and published measurements using an independent published estimator, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

No circularity found. The central environmental claim is a comparison: the new AMUSE^2 SMGs (located outside the expected virial radii) are compared with published field SMG samples and with published dusty galaxies around quasars, with fgas computed via Eq. (2) from Chen et al. (2021) using fixed, stated assumptions (re = 3 kpc, alpha_CO = 1.0, fDM = 0.12). Eq. (2) is an independent published dynamical-mass estimator, not derived from the present targets, and the paper explicitly says it focuses on average trends rather than individual values; it does not fit the inside/outside fgas values as free parameters. The inside-halo literature points come from other programs and were not generated by this paper's pipeline; some have overlapping authors (Chen et al. 2021; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2024), but those are externally published measurements and are used as data points, not as an authority that forbids alternatives. The outside/field comparison uses independent samples (Birkin et al. 2021; Liao et al. 2024; Dudzeviciute et al. 2020), so the claimed depletion gradient is not equivalent to the paper's own inputs. The spatial filament analysis uses rotation angles from Arrigoni Battaia et al. (2023) derived from 2D sky positions, but the new x-z alignment is a different, previously untested projection and is evaluated with Monte Carlo significance tests; no quantity in that section is defined in terms of the claimed conclusion. The possible statistical weaknesses noted by a skeptic (heterogeneous double- vs single-Gaussian line-profile selection, medians differing at below ~2-sigma, projected-distance assumptions) are robustness and evidence-strength concerns, not circular derivation. Because the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and its load-bearing comparisons rely on independent data and an external estimator, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on several externally assigned constants: the fixed MBB beta, the fixed CO excitation ratios, and the dynamical gas-fraction parameters (re, alpha_CO, fDM). It also assumes an NFW halo mass of 10^12.5 Msun to define the virial radius, and the inside-versus-outside conclusion inherits all those assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Dust emissivity index beta (fixed) = 2.0
    Adopted for modified blackbody SED fits of most primary sources; free-beta fits for the 8 sources with Herschel coverage yield a median of 2.0 +/- 0.2, but most sources have only 2-4 photometric points and cannot constrain beta independently.
  • Half-light radius re = 3 kpc
    Fixed assumption from Chen et al. (2021) used in Eq. 2 to convert CO line width and luminosity into gas fraction; it directly sets the fgas scale for every source.
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor alpha_CO = 1.0
    Assumed for gas mass and depletion time estimates; typical for SMGs but not measured per source.
  • Dark matter fraction fDM = 0.12
    Fixed in Eq. 2 following Chen et al. (2021); affects the inferred gas fractions for all sources.
  • Quasar halo mass Mhalo = 10^12.5 Msun
    Assumed for the virial radius Rvir (~100-200 kpc) and for the NFW escape velocity curve; defines the inside/outside halo boundary used in the gas fraction comparison.
  • CO excitation ratios r31 and r41 = 0.63 +/- 0.12 and 0.34 +/- 0.04
    Adopted from Birkin et al. (2021) to convert CO(3-2) and CO(4-3) luminosities to CO(1-0).
  • NFW concentration c = 3.5
    Assumed for the escape velocity curve in Figure 10, following Wardlow et al. (2018) and Dutton & Maccio (2014).
  • Filament scale width lambda = 4.0 +/- 2.6 cMpc (x-y) and 3.5 +/- 2.2 (x-z) in Sec 4.2; 4.9 +/- 2.3 and 5.8 +/- 3.1 in Sec 5
    Obtained from an exponential PDF fit to SMG distances from the assumed filament spine; the discrepancy between Section 4.2 and Section 5 values is unresolved in the manuscript.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Planck 2014 cosmology with H0=67.8, OmegaM=0.307 and OmegaLambda=0.69
    Used for luminosity distances, physical scales and comoving volumes throughout the analysis.
  • domain assumption Optically thin modified blackbody (tau << 1) for far-infrared SED fits
    Section 3.2.1; if optical depth is non-negligible, Tdust and LIR shift, though beta is less affected.
  • domain assumption Line identifications are CO(4-3) for ALMA detections and CO(3-2) for NOEMA detections
    Based on redshift-dependent probabilities of field SMGs; the authors estimate about 10% chance of misidentification, including roughly 8% for ALMA lines being CO(3-2).
  • domain assumption Relative velocity within +/- 7000 km/s of the quasar defines physical association with the same large-scale structure
    Section 3.1.1; derived from an assumed protocluster velocity dispersion of about 2500 km/s. The window is wide enough to include unrelated field galaxies.
  • domain assumption Dynamical equilibrium of rotation-dominated disks holds for the SMGs
    Used to justify Eq. 2 from Chen et al. (2021) for estimating gas fractions from CO line width and luminosity.
  • domain assumption Exponential distribution of perpendicular distances describes filament width
    PDF(|y|) = exp(-|y|/lambda)/lambda is inherited from Arrigoni Battaia et al. (2023) and assumes the structure is a cylinder or elongated pancake.
  • domain assumption Field comparison samples are representative and comparable to the target sample
    Birkin et al. (2021), Liao et al. (2024) and Dudzeviciute et al. (2020) have different brightness cuts and depths; the authors note a systematic offset of about 0.2 dex between some field samples.
  • domain assumption NFW halo profile with concentration c=3.5 describes the quasar halo potential
    Used for the escape velocity curve in Figure 10 and for interpreting whether galaxies near the quasar are bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A MUltiwavelength Study of ELAN Environments (AMUSE$^2$): The Impact of Dense Environment on Massive Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at Cosmic Noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHFKNG75

@misc{pith2026250903027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A MUltiwavelength Study of ELAN Environments (AMUSE$^2$): The Impact of Dense Environment on Massive Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at Cosmic Noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHFKNG75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03027}
}
abstract

To understand how massive galaxies are influenced by their surroundings, we present new ALMA and NOEMA observations as part of A MUltiwavelength Study of ELAN Environments (AMUSE$^2$). These observations target submillimeter sources discovered in single-dish surveys around nine quasars hosting Ly$\alpha$ nebulae at $z=2\sim3$, including two Enormous Ly$\alpha$ nebulae (ELANe). Through detection of mid-$J$ CO lines, we confirm physical associations of 15 SMGs, which are located outside the expected virial radii of the central dark-matter halos hosting the quasars. We find $73^{+29}_{-21}\%$ of SMGs have line profiles better described by double Gaussian models, with a median peak-to-peak separation of 350 $\pm$ 25 km/s, suggesting rotating disks or interacting pairs. Modified blackbody fits of the far-infrared photometry yield a median $\beta$ of 2.0 $\pm$ 0.2 and $T_{dust}$ of 34 $\pm$ 3 K. Overall, SMGs outside quasar halos share similar physical properties with those in the field, but combining data from other studies reveals depleted gas fractions within quasar halos. This suggests that dense environments significantly impact massive star-forming galaxies only within halo scales at cosmic noon. Additionally, spatial analyses of 15 SMGs indicate they trace large-scale structures, possibly filamentary or elongated pancake-like, with a scale height of 2-5\,cMpc. Our measured distributions and densities of star-formation rates align with models, though likely represent lower limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of targeted quasar field SDSSJ0819 and its ALMA detections. Upper panel: SCUBA-2 850 µm map where white circles indicate the ≥ 4 σ detections at 850 µm reported by Arrigoni Battaia et al. (2023). Magenta squares represent the ALMA targets presented in this work. Targets with CO detections are labeled in red with their corresponding names. Lower panels: Integrated CO emission maps integrated over channels … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectra of the detected sources and their fitting results of SDSSJ0819. The gray region depicts the noise for each channel. Fitting results for both the single-Gaussian (SG) and double-Gaussian (DG) models are shown on the figure: the black dotted lines represent the best-fit SG models, while the black solid line represents those for DG, with the two components displayed separately as blue and red solid lines. Figur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of the curve-of-growth analyses. Gray lines represent CO intensity of each sample SMG extracted using various beam sizes, normalized to that of original beam size. The orange and red line represent the mean and median normalized CO intensity value, respectively. Both the mean and median converge to 2.0 at sufficiently large aperture sizes (≳2 beams). 3.1.3. Survey Depth Analyses To determine the SNR thre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Completeness (COM) and false detection rate (FDR) based on our Monte Carlo simulations using ALMA USB cubes. Upper panels: COM with different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The corresponding SNRs from the right to left panels are 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 8.7 (the minimum SNR a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SED for SDSSJ0819 SMG1.1: One example of the MBB fitting results for the primary sample. Black points represent the flux density for ALMA and JCMT/SCUBA￾2 (from left to right: 450 µm, 850 µm (SCUBA-2), 3 mm (ALMA)), while green points represent those for Herschel (from…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: Expected detection rates (blue circles) and observed detection rates (orange triangles) for each quasar field, while the hollow one show the observed rates included low-SNR sources. Lower panel: Ratios be￾tween the observed and expected detection rates, wh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: L ′ CO-FWHM relation. The blue points represent our primary sample at z ∼ 2 − 3 from SMGs around quasars. Orange triangles show typical field SMGs from the survey program by Birkin et al. (2021) and Liao et al. (2024). Additionally, the gray shadow region s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A diagram that visualizes gas fractions using a dynamical mass method. The diagonal lines represent the gas mass fraction fgas = 1%, 10%, and 100%, from left to right. The QSO samples (Carilli & Walter 2013; Bis￾chetti et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2021; Li et al. 2023) and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas fraction as a function of projected distance from the central quasars. Red points represent literature DS￾FGs/SMGs that are located around QSOs at z ∼ 2−3 (Chen et al. 2021; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2022; Garcia-Vergara et al. 2022; Li et al. 2023; Pensabene et al. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative velocity to the host quasars vs the projected distance. Red points represent the DSFGs/SMGs around QSO (Chen et al. 2022; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2022; Garcia-Vergara et al. 2022; Li et al. 2023; Pensabene et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2024). Blue points show our …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Depletion timescales at different redshifts. The blue points show our primary samples from ALMA and NOEMA observation at z ∼ 2 − 3, with the black point and error bar representing the median value and the boot￾strapped uncertainty (0.20 ± 0.03 [Gyr]). Additionally, th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left panel: Dust temperature versus total infrared luminosity. The blue points show individual samples from this work. The purple points show AS2COSPEC SMGs presented in Liao et al. (2024), and the orange triangles represent typical field SMGs samples from Dudzeviˇci¯…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Gas-to-dust mass distribution. The blue points represent our z ∼ 2−3 SMGs around quasars, with a median value of gas-to-dust mass ratio of 57 ± 14 (black point). The orange triangles represent the field SMGs from Birkin et al. 2021, with a median of 59 ± 12 (red trian…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: An example for axis rotation based on the field SDSSJ0819. The green crosses represent the relative locations for primary samples to the central quasar. The red line shows the direction of filament reported by Arrigoni Bat￾taia et al. (2023). The left panel show the r…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The left two panels show the stacked spatial distribution (x-y, x-z) in the original situation (before rotation), while the right two panels show the stacked distribution (x-y, x-z) after rotation for each quasar field (using the angles from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Probability distributions of projected distances (|dis|) between the SMGs and the probable large-scale spine structures, in both the projected sky plane (x-y; upper panel) and the projected line-of-sight plane (x-z; lower panel). The error bars are calculated from Poi…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Left panel: Cumulative star-formation rate. Our measurements for SDSSJ0819 and for all of our quasar fields are shown as orange and blue squares, respectively. Since only bright sources are targeted by our observations these measurements are likely lower limits. The g…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: JCMT/SCUBA-2 850 µm SNR maps of quasar field hosting Lyα nebulae. The plotting style follows that of the upper panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CO emission maps for all the 28 primary and supplementary detections. The plotting style follows that of the lower panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: CO spectra of all the 28 primary and supplementary detections. The plotting style follows that of the lower panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: CO luminosity functions in various transitions. Black curves show the fitting results of Schechter functions reported by Boogaard et al. 2023, while the blue and green blocks show the results from the ASPECS (Decarli et al. 2020) and HDFN (Boogaard et al. 2023) survey…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Modified black body (MBB) fitting results for primary sources. The blue line shows the best fitting result. Black points represent the flux density for ALMA and JCMT/SCUBA-2 (from left to right: 450 µm, 850 µm (SCUBA-2), 3 mm (ALMA)), while green points represent thos…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    """"""""

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    C., Swinbank, A

    Alaghband-Zadeh, S., Chapman, S. C., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2013, mnras, 435, 1493

    2013

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 235

    Alberts, S., Adams, J., Gregg, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 235

    2022

  4. [4]

    2022, Universe, 8, 554, 10.3390/universe8110554

    Alberts , S., & Noble , A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, 10.3390/universe8110554

    doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  5. [5]

    L., Birkin , J

    Amvrosiadis , A., Wardlow , J. L., Birkin , J. E., et al. 2025, , 536, 3757, 10.1093/mnras/stae2760

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2760 2025

  6. [6]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 136

    Aravena, M., Decarli, R., Gónzalez-López, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 136

    2019

  7. [7]

    K., Hayward , C

    Araya-Araya , P., Cochrane , R. K., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00062, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00062

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00062 2024

  8. [8]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2019 a , , 482, 3162, 10.1093/mnras/sty2827

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2827 2019

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2018, , 473, 3907, 10.1093/mnras/stx2465

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    X., et al

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Obreja , A., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2019 b , , 631, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936211

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    B., et al

    Arrigoni Battaia, F., Chen, C.-C., Liu, H.-Y. B., et al. 2022, , 930, 72

    2022

  4. [12]

    2023, A&A, 676, A51

    Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., Chen, C.-C., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A51

    2023

  5. [13]

    M., Nelson , D., & White , S

    Ayromlou , M., Kauffmann , G., Yates , R. M., Nelson , D., & White , S. D. M. 2021, , 505, 492, 10.1093/mnras/stab1245

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 642, 19

    Bassini, L., Rasia, E., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, 19

    2020

  7. [15]

    2020, , 642, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038396

    Bassini , L., Rasia , E., Borgani , S., et al. 2020, , 642, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038396

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, , 696, A193, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452894

    Berta , S., Lagache , G., Beelen , A., et al. 2025, , 696, A193, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452894

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J

    Birkin, J. E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3926

    2021

  10. [18]

    2013, A&A, 645, 338

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 645, 338

    2013

  11. [19]

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

    Boogaard, L. A., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2023, , 945, 111

    2023

  12. [20]

    S., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Bothwell, M. S., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, mnras, 429, 3047

    2013

  13. [21]

    2017, , 837, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    Cai , Z., Fan , X., Yang , Y., et al. 2017, , 837, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Cantalupo , S., Arrigoni-Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., & Madau , P. 2014, , 506, 63, 10.1038/nature12898

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, nature, 506, 63

    2014

  16. [24]

    L., & Walter, F

    Carilli, C. L., & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105

    2013

  17. [25]

    Casey, C. M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3094

    2012

  18. [26]

    M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al

    Casey, C. M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al. 2015, , 808, 33

    2015

  19. [27]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 215

    2021

  20. [28]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923

    2014

  21. [29]

    C., Blain , A

    Chapman , S. C., Blain , A. W., Smail , I., & Ivison , R. J. 2005, , 622, 772, 10.1086/428082

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Chen, C.-C., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., & Prochaska, J. X. 2021, , 923, 200

    2021

  23. [31]

    M., et al

    Chen , C.-C., Smail , I., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2016, , 831, 91, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/91

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    J., et al

    Chen, C.-C., Smail, I., Ivison, R. J., et al. 2016, , 820, 82

    2016

  25. [33]

    2022, , 929, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61df

    Chen , C.-C., Liao , C.-L., Smail , I., et al. 2022, , 929, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61df

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 22

    Chen, C.-C., Liao, C.-L., Smail, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 22

    2022

  27. [35]

    2013, , 779, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R., & Gebhardt , K. 2013, , 779, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Braglia, F

    Clements, D. L., Braglia, F. G., Hyde, A. K., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1193

    2014

  29. [37]

    R., Casey , C

    Cooper , O. R., Casey , C. M., Zavala , J. A., et al. 2022, , 930, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac616d

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, , 678, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346801

    Cox , P., Neri , R., Berta , S., et al. 2023, , 678, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346801

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Casey, C

    da Cunha, E., Hodge, J. A., Casey, C. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 30

    2021

  32. [40]

    D., De Breuck, C., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Kurk, J. D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2014, , 570, 55

    2014

  33. [41]

    D., Emonts, B., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., Emonts, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, 48

    2017

  34. [42]

    2020, , 902, 110

    Decarli, R., Aravena, M., Boogaard, L., et al. 2020, , 902, 110

    2020

  35. [43]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  36. [44]

    e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3828

    2020

  37. [45]

    A., & Macci \`o , A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359

    2014

  38. [46]

    Emonts , B. H. C., Lehnert , M. D., Yoon , I., et al. 2023, Science, 379, 1323, 10.1126/science.abh2150

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., & Steidel , C

    Erb , D. K., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., & Steidel , C. C. 2011, , 740, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L31

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    K., et al

    Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Lofthouse, E. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3044

    2021

  41. [49]

    2024, , 684, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347982

    Gal \'a rraga-Espinosa , D., Cadiou , C., Gouin , C., et al. 2024, , 684, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347982

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 684, 17

    Galárraga-Espinosa, D., Cadiou, C., Gouin, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, 17

    2024

  43. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 117

    Gao, Z.-K., Lim, C.-F., Wang, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 117

    2024

  44. [52]

    2022, , 927, 65

    Garcia-Vergara, C., Rybak, M., Hodge, J., et al. 2022, , 927, 65

    2022

  45. [53]

    E., Dunlop, J

    Geach, J. E., Dunlop, J. S., Halpern, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1789

    2017

  46. [54]

    E., Romero-Cañizales, C., et al

    Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Bauer, F. E., Romero-Cañizales, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, 41

    2017

  47. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 139

    Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Decarli, R., Pavesi, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 139

    2019

  48. [57]

    I., Baker, A

    Harris, A. I., Baker, A. J., Frayer, D. T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 152

    2012

  49. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 13

    Hayashi, M., Tadaki, K.-i., Kodama, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 13

    2018

  50. [59]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., Cantalupo , S., & Arrigoni-Battaia , F. 2015, Science, 348, 779, 10.1126/science.aaa5397

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    2024, , 691, A210, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450959

    Herwig , E., Arrigoni Battaia , F., Gonz \'a lez Lobos , J., et al. 2024, , 691, A210, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450959

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Wardlow , J

    Hickox , R. C., Wardlow , J. L., Smail , I., et al. 2012, , 421, 284, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20303.x

    2012

  53. [62]

    2022, , 263, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac982d

    Horowitz , B., Lee , K.-G., Ata , M., et al. 2022, , 263, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac982d

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    C., et al

    Hughes , C., Hill , R., Chapman , S. C., et al. 2025, , 983, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c9

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    M., Chiang, Y.-K., et al

    Hung, C.-L., Casey, C. M., Chiang, Y.-K., et al. 2016, , 826, 130

    2016

  56. [65]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 56

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 56

    2018

  57. [66]

    2021, A&A, 652, 11

    Jin, S., Dannerbauer, H., Emonts, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, 11

    2021

  58. [67]

    D., Schaye , J., Walth , G

    Johnson , S. D., Schaye , J., Walth , G. L., et al. 2022, , 940, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca28e

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3861

    Kato, Y., Matsuda, Y., Smail, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3861

    2016

  60. [69]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  61. [70]

    C., & Evans , N

    Kennicutt , R. C., & Evans , N. J. 2012, ARAA, 50, 531

    2012

  62. [71]

    F., Stark , C., et al

    Lee , K.-G., Hennawi , J. F., Stark , C., et al. 2014, , 795, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L12

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    M., Tanaka, I., Kawabe, R., et al

    Lee, M. M., Tanaka, I., Kawabe, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 23

    2017

  64. [73]

    Li, J., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, , 950, 180

    2023

  65. [74]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dave, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425

    2019

  66. [75]

    2024, ApJ, 494, 25

    Liao, C.-L., Chen, C.-C., Wang, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 494, 25

    2024

  67. [76]

    2021, , 501, 1803, 10.1093/mnras/staa3693

    Lim , S., Scott , D., Babul , A., et al. 2021, , 501, 1803, 10.1093/mnras/staa3693

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    S., Casey , C

    Long , A. S., Casey , C. M., McKinney , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14546, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14546

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [78]

    2014, ARAA, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARAA, 52, 415

    2014

  70. [79]

    B., Chapman, S

    Miller, T. B., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 469

    2018

  71. [80]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

    1996

  72. [81]

    B., Rudie , G

    Newman , A. B., Rudie , G. C., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2020, , 891, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ee

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    P., Walter, F., et al

    Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 131

    2020

  74. [83]

    A., et al

    Nowotka , M., Chen , C.-C., Battaia , F. A., et al. 2022, , 658, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040133

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Dunne, L., et al

    Oteo, I., Ivison, R. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2018, , 856, 720

    2018

  76. [85]

    Overzier , R. A. 2016, , 24, 14, 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Kovac, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovac, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    2010

  78. [87]

    2024, A&A, 684, 119

    Pensabene, A., Cantalupo, S., Cicone, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, 119

    2024

  79. [88]

    Planck\;Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, 66

    2014

  80. [89]

    2022, ApJ, 950, 17

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Dannerbauer, H. 2022, ApJ, 950, 17

    2022

  81. [90]

    2023, , 950, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    Remus , R.-S., Dolag , K., & Dannerbauer , H. 2023, , 950, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    2023, , 679, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346444

    Rizzo , F., Roman-Oliveira , F., Fraternali , F., et al. 2023, , 679, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346444

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    A., Comparat, J., Prada, F., et al

    Rodríguez-Torres, S. A., Comparat, J., Prada, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 728

    2017

  84. [93]

    M., Swinbank , A

    Simpson , J. M., Swinbank , A. M., Smail , I., et al. 2014, , 788, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/125

    2014 doi

  85. [94]

    M., & Vanden Bout , P

    Solomon , P. M., & Vanden Bout , P. A. 2005, , 43, 677, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    2005 arXiv

  86. [95]

    M., Smail, I., Amvrosiadis, A., et al

    Stach, S. M., Smail, I., Amvrosiadis, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 172

    2021

  87. [96]

    M., Egami , E., et al

    Sun , F., Helton , J. M., Egami , E., et al. 2024, , 961, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, A&A, 58, 157

    2020

  89. [98]

    2019, , 71, 40, 10.1093/pasj/psz005

    Tadaki , K.-i., Kodama , T., Hayashi , M., et al. 2019, , 71, 40, 10.1093/pasj/psz005

    2019 doi

  90. [99]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17035, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17035

    Tornotti , D., Fumagalli , M., Fossati , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17035, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17035

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata , H., Fumagalli , M., Smail , I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    Wang, G. C. P., Chapman, S. C., Sulzenauer, N., et al. 2024, arVix, 240616637W

    2024

  93. [102]

    A., Eales , S

    Ward , B. A., Eales , S. A., Ivison , R. J., & Arumugam , V. 2024, , 530, 4887, 10.1093/mnras/stae405

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    L., Simpson, J

    Wardlow, J. L., Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 51, 105

    2018

  95. [104]

    2017, , 464, 1380, 10.1093/mnras/stw2405

    Wilkinson , A., Almaini , O., Chen , C.-C., et al. 2017, , 464, 1380, 10.1093/mnras/stw2405

    2017 doi

  96. [105]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4037

    Yajima, H., Abe, M., Khochfar, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4037

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.