Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 217 references

This paper argues that the z=7.54 quasar ULAS J1342+0928 is accreting well below the Eddington limit, with an accretion-disc fit placing its black hole at about two billion solar masses.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 22:51 UTC pith:77YIRIGR

load-bearing objection Solid JWST study with real firsts, but the 'sub-Eddington' title outruns the paper's own λ_Edd range of 0.3–2.8. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07064 v1 pith:77YIRIGR submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA

GA-NIFS: an extended [OIII] halo around the sub-Eddington quasar J1342+0928 at z=7.54

Bartolomeo Trefoloni , Stefano Carniani , Elena Bertola , Giacomo Venturi , Sandra Zamora , Eleonora Parlanti , Santiago Arribas , Andrew Bunker
show 13 more authors
St\'ephane Charlot Francesco D'Eugenio Peter Jakobsen Roberto Maiolino Michele Perna Bruno Rodr\'iguez Del Pino Hannah \"Ubler Chris J. Willott Torsten B\"oker Giovanni Cresci Isabella Lamperti Madeline Marshall Pablo G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasarshigh redshiftEddington ratioaccretion discblack hole massJWST NIRSpecgalactic outflowsreionisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports new JWST/NIRSpec integral-field observations of ULAS J1342+0928, a quasar seen only 700 million years after the Big Bang, and argues that its black hole is not in a super-Eddington growth phase. By fitting the rest-frame UV-to-optical continuum with three accretion-disc models, the authors derive a black hole mass of about 10^9.2 solar masses and a bolometric luminosity of about 10^46.8 erg/s, giving an Eddington ratio near 0.4. If correct, this is one of the first sub-Eddington quasars at z>7 and challenges the common assumption that the earliest supermassive black holes must accrete at super-Eddington rates to grow so quickly. The same data reveal a roughly 7 kpc [OIII] halo, a nuclear ionised outflow with a mass outflow rate of 50-300 solar masses per year that could quench star formation, and the most distant FeII/MgII and FeII/Hbeta ratios measured so far, which show no evolution with redshift.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the z=7.54 quasar ULAS J1342+0928 is accreting at a sub-Eddington rate: accretion-disc modelling of the JWST/NIRSpec prism continuum yields log(MBH/Msun)=9.2±0.2 and log(Lbol/(erg/s))=46.8±0.1, hence an Eddington ratio of about 0.4, with the authors stating that the disc is outside the geometrically thin regime but does not exceed the Eddington limit. This is the first black-hole mass derived from accretion-disc modelling on JWST data. The authors interpret this moderate accretion state as evidence that the rapid-growth phase of the black hole was already over by z~7.5, and they argue that reproducing the observed mass then favours heavy seeds of 10^4-10^6 solar

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is accretion-disc modelling of the nuclear prism spectrum: a fit to continuum windows roughly 20-30 Angstroms wide, chosen to avoid emission lines and the FeII/Balmer pseudo-continuum, using three complementary models - the standard Shakura-Sunyaev geometrically thin disc, KERRBB (a thin disc around a Kerr black hole), and SLIMBH (a slim disc that thickens at high accretion rates) - combined by Bayesian model averaging. The mechanism is that the peak of the disc spectral energy distribution maps directly onto black hole mass and disc luminosity, so MBH and Lbol emerge self-consistently from the continuum shape, with uncertainties of about 0.2 and 0.1 dex respectively, t

Load-bearing premise

The fitted continuum windows are assumed to be dominated by unobscured, standard thin- or slim-disc emission from the quasar; if host-galaxy light, non-disc continuum, or dust reddening contributes significantly, the derived mass, luminosity, and Eddington ratio change and the sub-Eddington conclusion weakens.

What would settle it

Measure the Balmer decrement Halpha/Hbeta from the same JWST aperture: if the narrow-line decrement implies E(B-V) significantly above about 0.1, the paper's own Appendix F reddening test shifts MBH to 10^9.0 solar masses, Lbol to 10^47.0 erg/s, and the Eddington ratio to 0.8, eroding the 'moderate, clearly sub-Eddington' claim. An independent check would be an X-ray-based bolometric luminosity: a 2-10 keV luminosity implying Lbol higher than about 10^47.2 erg/s with the same MBH would push the Eddington ratio above unity.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the accretion parameters are correct, ULAS J1342 assembled most of its 10^9.2 solar-mass black hole within the first 0.5 Gyr of cosmic time and is now in a moderate-accretion state, not an Eddington-supercritical growth phase at z=7.5.
  • The measured Eddington ratio of about 0.4 implies that heavy seeds of 10^4-10^6 solar masses are preferred over light stellar-remnant seeds that would require sustained Eddington-limited accretion to reach the observed mass.
  • The ionised outflow rate of 50-300 solar masses per year overlaps part of the host star-formation rate range of 85-545 solar masses per year, so the outflow could plausibly quench star formation during reionisation.
  • The detection of a 7 kpc [OIII] halo and a nuclear outflow on sub-kpc scales indicates outflow events acting on both galactic and nuclear scales, consistent with AGN feedback that can escape the ~1 kpc host.
  • Broad-line FeII/MgII and FeII/Hbeta ratios at z=7.54 matching lower-redshift values imply early chemical enrichment of the broad-line region, if these ratios are reliable metallicity proxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The sub-Eddington conclusion is method-dependent: the paper's own single-epoch calibrations span Eddington ratios from about 0.3 to 2.8, so if the community weights virial calibrations more heavily than the disc-model fit, the 'challenge' to widespread super-Eddington accretion weakens.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the same continuum-window accretion-disc fitting to the growing JWST sample of z>6 quasars; if most also land below Eddington, the super-Eddington paradigm fails broadly, while a mix of sub- and super-Eddington objects would suggest that accretion state correlates with X-ray weakness, outflow power, or host properties.
  • The paper's own Appendix F shows that allowing SMC-like reddening shifts MBH to 10^9.0 solar masses, Lbol to 10^47.0 erg/s, and the Eddington ratio to 0.8; a direct Balmer-decrement measurement could decide whether the quasar is truly in a moderate, geometrically thick but sub-Eddington state or closer to the Eddington boundary.
  • Because the measured outflow rate is an ionised-phase lower limit, the sub-Eddington accretion state is fully compatible with very strong feedback: neutral and molecular phases could push the total mass outflow rate above the star-formation rate even if the quasar is accreting at only 40 percent of Eddington.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents new JWST/NIRSpec IFS observations of the z=7.54 quasar ULAS J1342+0928, combining PRISM and G395H data to study the nuclear and extended emission. The authors detect a ~7 kpc [OIII] halo, a nuclear ionised outflow, and two companion [OIII] emitters. They measure broad-line FeII/MgII and FeII/Hβ ratios, and use accretion-disc SED fitting to derive log M_BH = 9.2 ± 0.2, log L_bol = 46.8 ± 0.1, and λ_Edd ~ 0.4, which they interpret as a sub-Eddington accretion state. The paper also estimates ionised outflow rates of 50–300 M_sun/yr and discusses implications for early black-hole growth, feedback, and BLR chemical enrichment.

Significance. If the accretion-disc modelling is accepted, this is one of the first sub-Eddington quasars at z>7 and the first AD-based black-hole mass estimate on JWST data. The data itself are valuable: the extended [OIII] halo, spatial PSF subtraction, and nuclear outflow characterisation are careful pieces of work, with Monte Carlo uncertainties, Bayesian model averaging over three disc models, and an independent BADFit cross-check. The FeII/Hβ measurement at z>7 is also a useful first. The paper's broader significance, however, rests on the robustness of the λ_Edd~0.4 claim, and that claim is not as secure as the abstract and title suggest.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, Sect. 4.2, Table 2, Appendix F] The headline 'sub-Eddington' claim is not robust across the estimators the paper itself presents. Table 2 combines SE virial masses (VP06, S11, P25) with bolometric corrections (R06, R12, N19) to yield λ_Edd in the range ~0.3–2.8. Appendix F further shows that including an SMC-extinction prior in the AD fit shifts the result to log M_BH = 9.0, log L_bol = 47.0, and λ_Edd = 0.8. The abstract and title nevertheless assert a sub-Eddington state and use it to 'challenge the paradigm of widespread super-Eddington accretion'. The fiducial λ_Edd~0.4 should be presented as a model-dependent estimate, and the estimator spread and extinction-shifted value should be reflected in the abstract and conclusions, not only in the body.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 3] The AD-based M_BH and L_bol, and hence λ_Edd, rest on the assumption that the selected continuum windows are dominated by unobscured, non-host, standard/slim disc emission with a type-1 inclination prior. The paper argues against extinction using the steep continuum slopes and X-ray photon index, but this is circumstantial; Appendix F demonstrates that the fit has a genuine reddening degeneracy and that the reddening-prior choice moves λ_Edd by a factor of two. The quoted ±0.2/±0.1 dex uncertainties are internal to the assumed model and do not include this prior choice or possible host-galaxy contamination. The central claim would be considerably strengthened by a quantitative host-contamination test or by explicitly reporting the model-dependent range in all summary statements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §2.1] The abstract quotes R~2700 for the grating, while §2.1 gives R~1900–3600 for G395H/F290LP. Please harmonise.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption refers to 'R2770 spectra' in the inset panel description; this appears to be a typo for R2700.
  3. [Table 2] The table gives SE uncertainties as ±0.5 dex and bolometric-correction uncertainties as ±0.1–0.2 dex, but the text states these are representative systematics. It would help to label these explicitly as systematic uncertainties rather than statistical errors.
  4. [§4.1.3] Eq. (1) includes the clumping factor K in the normalisation, but the text defines K only in words. A brief explanation after the equation would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the black-hole mass, bolometric luminosity, and Eddington ratio are fitted outputs of accretion-disc SED modelling, cross-checked with an independent fitting routine; the paper's self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (i) the prism continuum is measured in line-free windows; (ii) three accretion-disc models (Shakura-Sunyaev, KERRBB, SLIMBH) are fitted, with MBH, Lbol, spin/inclination as free parameters; (iii) the joint posteriors are combined by Bayesian model averaging, giving log(MBH/Msun)=9.2±0.2 and log(Lbol/(erg/s))=46.8±0.1; (iv) lambda_Edd is then the ratio Lbol/L_Edd(MBH). No step in this chain defines a fitted parameter as a prediction, and no quoted equation is equivalent to its own input by construction. The wide spread of single-epoch estimates (lambda_Edd=0.3-2.8, Sect. 4.2) and the Appendix F reddening test (lambda_Edd=0.8 with SMC extinction priors) are acknowledged estimator-dependence and systematic-uncertainty caveats, not circularity: the AD value is one fitted choice, and the title may overstate robustness, but the result is not forced by construction. Self-citations to Carniani et al. (2015), Perna et al. (2023), D'Eugenio et al. (2024), and other GA-NIFS papers are data-reduction recipes and outflow-mass formalisms that are externally published and calibrated; they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness theorem. The accretion-disc fit is additionally checked with the independent BADFit routine (Lai et al. 2023), so the central sub-Eddington claim does not rest on a self-citation chain or on a fitted input being renamed a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central Eddington-ratio claim rests on unverified domain assumptions about the accretion disc SED and the absence of extinction, plus hand-chosen systematic parameters (density, metallicity, geometry) for the outflow. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Black hole mass MBH (AD fit) = log(MBH/Msun)=9.2±0.2
    Output of accretion-disc SED fit (Sect. 3.3, 4.2); central to lambda_Edd.
  • Bolometric luminosity Lbol (AD fit) = log(Lbol/(erg/s))=46.8±0.1
    Output of the same fit; with MBH gives lambda_Edd ~ 0.4.
  • Disc inclination = free, prior 0-70 deg
    Loosely constrained in AD fit; affects MBH for a given SED peak.
  • Disc spin / ISCO radius = free, loosely constrained
    Free in KERRBB/SLIMBH fits; degenerate with inclination.
  • Outflow electron density ne = 180-1000 cm^-3 (range)
    No direct density measurement; the 50-300 Msun/yr outflow-rate range is almost entirely set by this assumed range (Sect. 4.1.3).
  • Outflow metallicity Z = 1.3 Z_sun
    Adopted from Novak et al. 2019 for Eq. 1; changes outflow mass by 10^(Z-Zsun).
  • Outflow history factor C = 1 or 3
    Constant outflow history vs. constant volume density; raises Mdot up to 3x (Sect. 4.1.3).
  • E(B-V) extinction prior (Appendix F) = half-Gaussian from Krawczyk et al. (2015) sample
    When reddening is included, MBH shifts to 9.0, Lbol to 47.0, lambda_Edd to 0.8.
  • Clumping factor K = ~1
    Assumed in the Carniani et al. (2015) outflow mass formula.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The nuclear continuum of ULAS J1342 is dominated by emission from an optically thick accretion disc (Shakura-Sunyaev, KERRBB, or SLIMBH), with SED shape set by MBH and accretion rate.
    Central to AD modeling in Sect. 3.3; the fit returns MBH/Lbol as parameters. Violation (e.g., host contamination, non-disc continuum) would change the claim.
  • domain assumption Empirical R-L relation and single-epoch virial calibrations (VP06, S11, P25) hold at z=7.54.
    Used in Sect. 4.2 to cross-check AD mass; these carry 0.4-0.5 dex systematics and yield lambda_Edd up to 2.8.
  • domain assumption Carniani et al. (2015) outflow mass formula (Eq. 1) with K~1 and a factor-3 correction for [OIII]-vs-Hbeta applies.
    Sect. 4.1.3; governs Mdot estimates.
  • domain assumption The NLR systemic redshift z=7.535 (and [CII] z=7.540) defines the rest frame for outflow velocities.
    Sect. 3.1/4.1.3; offsets of ~40 km/s between NLR and CII are small vs. outflow widths.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight dust extinction toward the quasar is negligible (steep continuum, X-ray photon index).
    Sect. 3.3 baseline; Appendix F relaxes it and finds lambda_Edd=0.8.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34442 in / 17438 out tokens · 175238 ms · 2026-08-04T22:51:24.450145+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GA-NIFS: an extended [OIII] halo around the sub-Eddington quasar J1342+0928 at z=7.54." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77YIRIGR

@misc{pith2026250907064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GA-NIFS: an extended [OIII] halo around the sub-Eddington quasar J1342+0928 at z=7.54},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77YIRIGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07064}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (\textit{JWST}) opened a new observational window on the primordial Universe. Here we present new JWST NIRSpec integral field spectroscopy (IFS) observations of the $z=7.54$ quasar ULAS J1342+0928 obtained as part of the Galaxy Assembly with NIRSpec IFS (GA-NIFS) GTO programme. The new data-set obtained with both the prism ($R\sim100$) and the high-resolution grating ($R\sim2700$) allow for a complete description of the quasar emission from the rest-frame UV to optical bands. The low-resolution data reveal the presence of [\ion{O}{iii}] emission on $\sim$7 kpc scales, well above the typical galaxy size at this redshift, likely associated with a past outflow event. Additionally, the high-resolution observations show a more energetic ionised outflow on nuclear scales ($\lesssim 0.6$ kpc). The total ionised mass outflow rate ranges between 50 and 300 $\rm M_{\odot} \, yr^{-1}$ where the significant spread is mostly due to the lack of tight constraints on the electron density. This range overlaps in part with the star formation rate range (85--545 $\rm M_{\odot} \, yr^{-1}$), implying that the nuclear outflow could ultimately lead to an early star formation quenching. By employing an accretion disc modelling, for the first time on \textit{JWST} data, we manage to robustly estimate the black hole mass and the bolometric luminosity, $\rm \log(M_{BH}/(M_{\odot}))=9.2\pm 0.2$ and $\rm \log(L_{bol}/(erg \, s^{-1}))=46.8\pm 0.1$, respectively. We derive an Eddington ratio of $\rm \lambda_{Edd}\sim 0.4$, challenging the paradigm of widespread super-Eddington accretion in quasars at the epoch of reionisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07064 by Andrew Bunker, Bartolomeo Trefoloni, Bruno Rodr\'iguez Del Pino, Chris J. Willott, Elena Bertola, Eleonora Parlanti, Francesco D'Eugenio, Giacomo Venturi, Giovanni Cresci, Hannah \"Ubler, Isabella Lamperti, Madeline Marshall, Michele Perna, Pablo G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez, Peter Jakobsen, Roberto Maiolino, Sandra Zamora, Santiago Arribas, Stefano Carniani, St\'ephane Charlot, Torsten B\"oker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ULAS J1342 in the context of other QSOs surveys. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Spectral fit of the integrated R2700 spectrum extracted from a 6×6 spaxels (0′′ .3 radius) region centered at the QSO location. Vertical dotted lines mark the position of the main emission lines. Right: Same as in the left panel for the prism spectrum around the Mg ii emission line. In both images, the fit components are colour-coded according to the legend. Residuals are shown in the bottom panels. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Accretion disc modelling of the nuclear prism spectrum (black). We also show the Gemini/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [O iii] flux map from the prism BLR- and continuum-subtracted cube. North is up, East is left. The star marks the QSO location, while the white solid contours show the overlaid ALMA [C ii] emission. The dashed black contours mark the [O iii] emission at 3 and 7 σ, respectively. The circles show the extraction regions of the [O iii] spectra from the R2700 cube, which are labelled accordingly. The white dash… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface brightness profile of the extended [O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Moment maps as derived from the best fit models of the high resolution spectra on each spaxel. The cross shows the QSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass outflow rate against bolometric luminosity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Possible accretion histories of the SMBH hosted in ULAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

217 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Abramowicz, M. A. & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1

    2013

  4. [4]

    A., Jaroszy \'n ski, M., Kato, S., et al

    Abramowicz, M. A., Jaroszy \'n ski, M., Kato, S., et al. 2010, , 521, A15

    2010

  5. [5]

    2024, Nature, 627, 281

    Abuter, R., Allouche, F., Amorim, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 281

    2024

  6. [6]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, , 178, 20

    2008

  7. [7]

    2020, , 643, A154

    Amorim, A., Baub \"o ck, M., Brandner, W., et al. 2020, , 643, A154

    2020

  8. [8]

    1996, in ASP Conf., Vol

    Arnaud, K. 1996, in ASP Conf., Vol. 17

    1996

  9. [9]

    P., Mazzucchelli , C., et al

    Ba \ n ados , E., Venemans , B. P., Mazzucchelli , C., et al. 2018, , 553, 473

    2018

  10. [10]

    2017, , 606, A23

    Balmaverde, B., Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., et al. 2017, , 606, A23

    2017

  11. [11]

    2018, , 856, L25

    Ba \ n ados, E., Connor, T., Stern, D., et al. 2018, , 856, L25

    2018

  12. [12]

    2019, , 881, L23

    Ba \ n ados, E., Novak, M., Neeleman, M., et al. 2019, , 881, L23

    2019

  13. [13]

    & Netzer, H

    Baron, D. & Netzer, H. 2019, , 486, 4290

    2019

  14. [14]

    & Magueijo, J

    Bean, R. & Magueijo, J. 2002, Physical Review D, 66, 063505

    2002

  15. [15]

    S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C

    Bennett, J. S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C. 2024, , 527, 1033

    2024

  16. [16]

    C., Peterson, B

    Bentz, M. C., Peterson, B. M., Netzer, H., Pogge, R. W., & Vestergaard, M. 2009, , 697, 160

    2009

  17. [17]

    L., Raccanelli, A., Verde, L., & Silk, J

    Bernal, J. L., Raccanelli, A., Verde, L., & Silk, J. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 017

    2018

  18. [18]

    S., et al

    Bertemes, C., Wylezalek, D., Rupke, D. S., et al. 2025, , 693, A176

    2025

  19. [19]

    2024, , 691, A178

    Bertola , E., Circosta , C., Ginolfi , M., et al. 2024, , 691, A178

    2024

  20. [20]

    GA-NIFS: Mapping $z\simeq3.5$ AGN-driven ionized outflows in the COSMOS field

    Bertola, E., Cresci, G., Venturi, G., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08867

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    2022, Nature, 605, 244

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 244

    2022

  22. [22]

    2023, , 952, 44

    Bischetti, M., Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., et al. 2023, , 952, 44

    2023

  23. [23]

    2019 a , , 630, A59

    Bischetti, M., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019 a , , 630, A59

    2019

  24. [24]

    2019 b , , 628, A118

    Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., Feruglio, C., et al. 2019 b , , 628, A118

    2019

  25. [25]

    & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. & McKee, C. F. 1982, ApJ, Part 1, vol. 255, Apr. 15, 1982, p. 419-439. Research supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 255, 419

    1982

  26. [26]

    D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al

    Blum, R. D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al. 2016, in American astronomical society meeting abstracts\# 228, Vol. 228, 317--01

    2016

  27. [27]

    o ker, T., Arribas, S., L \

    B \"o ker, T., Arribas, S., L \"u tzgendorf, N., et al. 2022, , 661, A82

    2022

  28. [28]

    2023, PASP, 135, 038001

    B \"o ker, T., Beck, T., Birkmann, S., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 038001

    2023

  29. [29]

    2019, , 625, A23

    Campitiello, S., Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Sbarrato, T. 2019, , 625, A23

    2019

  30. [30]

    2020, , 640, A39

    Campitiello, S., Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Sbarrato, T. 2020, , 640, A39

    2020

  31. [31]

    2012, , 537, L8

    Cano-D \' az, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, , 537, L8

    2012

  32. [32]

    X., Hennawi , J

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

    2014

  33. [33]

    M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mej \' a-Restrepo, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mej \' a-Restrepo, J. 2015, , 446, 3427

    2015

  34. [34]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716

    2023

  35. [35]

    2015, , 580, A102

    Carniani, S., Marconi, A., Maiolino, R., et al. 2015, , 580, A102

    2015

  36. [36]

    Carr, B. J. & Hawking, S. W. 1974, , 168, 399

    1974

  37. [37]

    2023, , 680, A82

    Christensen, L., Jakobsen, P., Willott, C., et al. 2023, , 680, A82

    2023

  38. [38]

    2021, , 646, A96

    Circosta, C., Mainieri, V., Lamperti, I., et al. 2021, , 646, A96

    2021

  39. [39]

    P., et al

    Costa, T., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2022, , 517, 1767

    2022

  40. [40]

    Costa, T., Rosdahl, J., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2018, , 473, 4197

    2018

  41. [41]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., Trenti, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, , 439, 2146

    2014

  42. [42]

    2023, , 672, A128

    Cresci, G., Tozzi, G., Perna, M., et al. 2023, , 672, A128

    2023

  43. [43]

    2002, , 337, 275

    Croom, S., Rhook, K., Corbett, E., et al. 2002, , 337, 275

    2002

  44. [44]

    2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, 1

    Cutri, R., Wright, E., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, 1

    2013

  45. [45]

    M., Bentz , M

    Dalla Bont \`a , E., Peterson , B. M., Bentz , M. C., et al. 2020, , 903, 112

    2020

  46. [46]

    Davies , R. I. 2007, , 375, 1099

    2007

  47. [47]

    L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al

    Davies, R. L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2024, , 528, 4976

    2024

  48. [48]

    2011, , 739, 56

    De Rosa, G., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2011, , 739, 56

    2011

  49. [49]

    2023, , 669, A83

    Deconto-Machado, A., del Olmo Orozco, A., Marziani, P., Perea, J., & Stirpe, G. 2023, , 669, A83

    2023

  50. [50]

    & Volonteri, M

    Devecchi, B. & Volonteri, M. 2009, , 694, 302

    2009

  51. [51]

    2008, , 676, 33

    Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., & Sijacki, D. 2008, , 676, 33

    2008

  52. [52]

    2003 a , , 596, 817

    Dietrich, M., Hamann, F., Appenzeller, I., & Vestergaard, M. 2003 a , , 596, 817

    2003

  53. [53]

    2003 b , , 589, 722

    Dietrich, M., Hamann, F., Shields, J., et al. 2003 b , , 589, 722

    2003

  54. [54]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 33, 1844029

    Dolgov, A. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 33, 1844029

    2018

  55. [55]

    & Wang, J.-M

    Du, P. & Wang, J.-M. 2019, , 886, 42

    2019

  56. [56]

    J., Scholtz, J., et al

    D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, , 277, 4

    2025

  57. [57]

    G., Maiolino, R., et al

    D’Eugenio, F., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1443

    2024

  58. [58]

    Eisenstein, D. J. & Loeb, A. 1994, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9401016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  59. [59]

    Fan, X., Ba \ n ados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    2023

  60. [60]

    P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al

    Farina, E. P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al. 2019, , 887, 196

    2019

  61. [61]

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

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, , 941, 106

    2022

  62. [62]

    P., Venemans, B

    Farina, E. P., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, , 848, 78

    2017

  63. [63]

    D., Barth, A

    Fausnaugh, M., Denney, K. D., Barth, A. J., et al. 2016, , 821, 56

    2016

  64. [64]

    J., Porter, R., Van Hoof, P., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R., Van Hoof, P., et al. 2013, Revista mexicana de astronom \' a y astrof \' sica, 49, 137

    2013

  65. [65]

    2014, , 443, 2410

    Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014, , 443, 2410

    2014

  66. [66]

    2017, , 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, , 601, A143

    2017

  67. [67]

    2021, , 505, 5753

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2021, , 505, 5753

    2021

  68. [68]

    2019, , 483, 4586

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, , 483, 4586

    2019

  69. [69]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  70. [70]

    B., Trump, J

    Fries, L. B., Trump, J. R., Horne, K., et al. 2024, , 975, 239

    2024

  71. [71]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V

    2006

  72. [72]

    2017, , 470, 2578

    Garc \' a-Gonz \'a lez, J., Alonso-Herrero, A., H \"o nig, S., et al. 2017, , 470, 2578

    2017

  73. [73]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  74. [74]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485

    2006

  75. [75]

    2018, Technical Report JWST-STScI-001007, 1007

    Gordon, K., Boyer, M., Sloan, G., Muzerolle, J., & Volk, K. 2018, Technical Report JWST-STScI-001007, 1007

    2018

  76. [76]

    Gordon, K. D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023

    2024

  77. [77]

    D., Fitzpatrick, E., Massa, D., et al

    Gordon, K. D., Fitzpatrick, E., Massa, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 51

    2024

  78. [78]

    Grandi, S. A. 1982, ApJ, Part 1, vol. 255, Apr. 1, 1982, p. 25-38., 255, 25

    1982

  79. [79]

    2018, Nature, 563, 657

    Gravity Collaboration . 2018, Nature, 563, 657

    2018

  80. [80]

    & Ferland, G

    Hamann, F. & Ferland, G. 1993, ApJ v. 418, p. 11, 418, 11

    1993

Showing first 80 references.