pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25127 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Constraining the nature of active galactic nuclei through circumgalactic Lya emission at z=2-3

Shiwu Zhang , Zheng Cai , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Sebastiano Cantalupo , Mingyu Li , Ben Wang , Yuduo Guo , Aura Obreja
show 3 more authors
Haibin Zhang Zihao Li Donghui Quan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords active galactic nucleiquasarsLyα nebulaecircumgalactic mediumevolutionary scenariounified modelAGN feedbackcosmic noon
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lyα nebulae around unobscured quasars at z=2-3 are less symmetric, more extended, and show stronger outflows than those around obscured quasars, favoring an evolutionary sequence over pure orientation effects.

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

The paper compares circumgalactic Lyα emission around 59 unobscured and 26 obscured quasars at redshift 2 to 3 using KCWI observations. It reports that nebulae around unobscured quasars have lower symmetry parameters, larger scale lengths, and steeply declining velocity dispersion profiles consistent with large-scale outflows, while those around obscured quasars are more symmetric, compact, and show flat velocity profiles. These systematic differences tie the level of obscuration directly to the distribution and kinematics of surrounding gas. A reader would care because the result bears on whether quasars at cosmic noon differ mainly by viewing angle or by progressing through distinct evolutionary phases shaped by AGN feedback.

Core claim

We find that Lyα nebulae around unobscured quasars are significantly less symmetric having a symmetry parameter of a_w=0.2-0.6 and more spatially extended having a scale length of r_h=10.7±0.5 kpc than those around obscured quasars (a_w=0.6-0.8; r_h=6.6-7.7 kpc). Unobscured quasars also exhibit steeply declining velocity dispersion profiles with the slope of -4.3±0.4 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1}, indicative of large-scale outflows, whereas obscured quasars display flat profiles (-0.2±0.7 and -0.6±0.4 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1}). The degree of quasar obscuration appears to be intrinsically linked to nebular asymmetry and extent, a relationship that could be in tension with the standard orientation-based AGN un

What carries the argument

Circumgalactic Lyα nebulae whose symmetry parameter a_w, scale length r_h, and velocity dispersion slope are measured to compare obscured and unobscured quasars and test whether obscuration reflects evolutionary stage or viewing angle.

If this is right

  • AGN feedback progressively redistributes gas to larger radii and introduces anisotropy as quasars transition from obscured to unobscured phases.
  • Nebular properties can be used as tracers of AGN evolutionary state at cosmic noon.
  • The standard orientation-based unified model requires modification for quasars at z=2-3 because it predicts the opposite trend in symmetry and extent.
  • Obscuration is tied to the ongoing process of gas redistribution driven by feedback rather than solely to line-of-sight effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Simulations of galaxy formation could be checked for whether their feedback prescriptions reproduce the observed shift from compact symmetric nebulae to extended asymmetric ones with outflows.
  • The evolutionary picture implies a finite duration for the obscured phase whose length could be constrained by measuring how the fraction of obscured quasars changes with redshift and environment.
  • If the trend holds, multi-wavelength surveys might use Lyα morphology as an independent indicator of AGN feedback strength in distant galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

That the measured differences in symmetry, scale length, and velocity dispersion slopes directly trace evolutionary stage rather than selection biases, projection effects, or other unaccounted variables in the sample of 85 quasars.

What would settle it

A larger sample of quasars at z=2-3 in which symmetry parameters, scale lengths, and velocity slopes show no correlation with obscuration level after controlling for luminosity and environment would undermine the claimed link.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25127 by Aura Obreja, Ben Wang, Donghui Quan, Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia, Haibin Zhang, Mingyu Li, Sebastiano Cantalupo, Shiwu Zhang, Yuduo Guo, Zheng Cai, Zihao Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Properties of the quasars in our sample. The i￾band magnitude is plotted against the C iv emission-line width, with different markers indicating different quasar types. Pink stars mark radio-detected quasars (excluding three without SDSS DR16 matches). The color coding rep￾resents r − W4, which traces the level of quasar obscura￾tion. The sample separates into two distinct populations at r − W4 = 5 AB mag … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: The rest-frame photometries (empty circles) and best-fit SEDs (solid lines) of quasars. The shaded regions marking the 16th-84th percentile range. Right: Reduced chi-square (χ 2 r) from the SED fitting; the red dashed line marks the acceptable threshold of χ 2 r ≤ 5. The resulting SED fits further support the obscured–unobscured classification based on the r − W4 color criteria. The resulting stellar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The host galaxy stellar mass versus the SMBH mass. The stellar mass is derived from the SED fitting, while the SMBH mass is estimated using Eq. 1 with the quasar bolometric luminosity from the SED fitting. The dot color denotes the r − W4. The dashed line shows the best linear fit to the M⋆-MBH relation from previous observations on AGNs at z = 2 − 3 (Zhang et al. 2023c) view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The NB images of Lyα nebulae. We use a window centering on the Lyα line with a spectral width of ±1500 km s−1 to extract the NB images. A central region within 15 kpc (≈ 1.8 ′′ at z = 2 − 3) is masked to avoid PSF contamination. The white contour represents the 2-σ SB noise. Each panel displays the αw and redshift. The missing αw values means non-detection of the nebulae. The quasar type is indicated in th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stacked asymmetry profiles for Lyα nebulae around unobscured (blue) and obscured (red and orange) quasars. The solid and dash-dotted lines show the flux-weighted and unweighted α parameters, respectively. The dashed line represents the simulated profile from the unified model (Zhang et al. 2025), and the blue star marks previous observations (Cai et al. 2019). Shaded regions denote the 1-σ scatter. Nebulae… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of csymmetry, computed using Eqs. 5 and 6. Shaded regions indicate the 1σ scatter. Higher csymmetry values correspond to lower nebular symmetry. For each nebula, csymmetry is computed from both the normally stacked (solid lines) and OE (dashed lines) images; the mean values are shown, with different colors denoting distinct quasar types. Both panels (a) and (b) reveal a consistent trend: Ly… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The stacked images and SB profiles of Lyα nebulae around different types of quasars. Left: The NB images are created from datacubes with a spectral width of ±1500 km s−1 . Images under the same quasar types are stacked. The white contours represent the SB noise levels of 2-σSB, 10-σSB, and 50-σSB, respectively. The white dashed circle marks a radius of 50 kpc. Numbers at the bottom-left corner indicate the… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The radial profile of the flux-weighted velocity dispersion of Lyα nebulae around unobscured BL quasars. Only pixels with S/N ≥ 5 are selected. The dotted contours denote the 2-dimensional (2D) histogram of these pixels. The filled dots denote the median value in each radial bin. The errorbar represents the 1-σ scatter. A dot-dashed line shows the best linear fit to these points with the slope shown … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation between Lyα nebular parameters and quasar properties. Upper left rh as a function of r −W4, a proxy for quasar obscuration. Horizontal and vertical error bars represent the bin size and 1-σ scatter, respectively. The red dashed line indicates the best linear fit, with the shaded area showing the 1-σ fitting uncertainty. The Spearman correlation coefficient and the corresponding p-value are disp… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The stacked SB profile obtained by dividing our sample into different bins. Upper left: The stacked SB profiles in different bins of r − W4 which is denoted by the color. The SB is normalized by the flux at r = 15 kpc. The errorbar represents the 1-σ scatter. Upper right & bottom left: Same as panel (a) but for the stacked profile in different bins of SMBH mass, absolute i−band magnitude, and radio loudne… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The 2D histogram of t-statistics comparing the rh and αw of different types of quasars. We gener￾ate 500000 bootstrap samples of 59 and 26 mock nebulae around unobscured and obscured quasars, respectively, based on the AGN unified model. For each sample, we compute rh and αw and apply the Welch t-test. The contours indi￾cate the enclosed fractional levels. ≈ 90% of iterations yield t(αw,unobs, αw,obs) ≥ 0… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of the Lyα nebulae under the evolutionary scenario. Upper: the αw as a function of rh with the color indicating the r−W4. The errorbar denotes the 1-σ scatter. The dashed line is the linear fit. Bottom: A schematic illustrating the evolution of Lyα nebulae as the quasar transitions from the obscured to the unobscured phase under the evolutionary scenario. Blue arrows depict the AGN feedback, … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The C iv/Lyα line ratio. Left: The histogram of log(C iv/Lyα) within 15 − 30 kpc annulus, with colors indicating quasar types. The upper limits are also included. Right: Same as the left panel, but for the line ratio of C iv/He ii. The blue and red histograms denote the unobscured and obscured quasars, respectively. Since these line ratios trace the gas metallicity, the results suggest similar CGM metalli… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of circumgalactic Lya nebulae around 59 unobscured and 26 obscured quasars at z=2-3, observed with the Keck Cosmic Web Imager (KCWI), to constrain the nature of active galactic nuclei (AGN) at cosmic noon. We find that Lya nebulae around unobscured quasars are significantly less symmetric having a symmetry parameter of a_w=0.2-0.6 and more spatially extended having a scale length of r_h=10.7+/-0.5 kpc than those around obscured quasars (a_w=0.6-0.8; r_h=6.6-7.7 kpc).Unobscured quasars also exhibit steeply declining velocity dispersion profiles with the slope of -4.3+/-0.4 km s^-1 kpc^-1, indicative of large-scale outflows, whereas obscured quasars display flat profiles (-0.2+/-0.7 and -0.6+/-0.4 km s^-1 kpc^-1). The degree of quasar obscuration appears to be intrinsically linked to nebular asymmetry and extent, a relationship that could be in tension with the standard orientation-based AGN unified model, as it expects unobscured-quasar nebulae to be more symmetric and compact. These results naturally fit the evolutionary scenario, where AGN feedback drives a transition from an obscured to an unobscured phase-progressively redistributing gas to larger radii, introducing anisotropy, and driving turbulence. Taken together, our findings favor the evolutionary scenario over the purely orientation-based unified model for quasars at cosmic noon.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports KCWI observations of circumgalactic Lyα nebulae around 59 unobscured and 26 obscured quasars at z=2-3. It measures statistically distinct values of the symmetry parameter a_w (0.2-0.6 vs 0.6-0.8), scale length r_h (10.7 kpc vs 6.6-7.7 kpc), and velocity dispersion slopes (-4.3 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1} vs ~0 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1}), interpreting the less symmetric, more extended nebulae with outflow signatures around unobscured quasars as evidence favoring an evolutionary AGN feedback scenario over the orientation-based unified model.

Significance. If the differences are shown to be intrinsic after controlling for selection and projection effects, the work would provide a valuable empirical test of AGN evolutionary models at cosmic noon, with the large sample size and quantitative metrics offering falsifiable predictions for simulations of feedback-driven gas redistribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (Sample Selection): The central claim that nebular differences favor the evolutionary over orientation model assumes the unobscured and obscured samples are comparable in quasar luminosity, redshift, and host properties. The manuscript provides no explicit matching or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on these quantities, leaving open the possibility that the reported differences in a_w, r_h, and velocity slopes arise from unmatched populations rather than evolutionary stage.
  2. [§4] §4 (Interpretation): The assertion that the orientation model 'expects unobscured-quasar nebulae to be more symmetric and compact' is stated without quantitative support such as mock KCWI observations or radiative-transfer predictions under different viewing angles. Without this, the tension with the unified model remains qualitative and the mapping from observed parameters to intrinsic gas redistribution is under-constrained.
  3. [§3.3] §3.3 (Velocity Dispersion Profiles): The steeply negative slope of -4.3 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1} is interpreted as large-scale outflows, yet the paper does not test whether line-of-sight projection effects (face-on vs edge-on) could produce similar gradients when the same intrinsic velocity field is viewed at different angles, which is required to rule out the orientation scenario.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The sentence structure is awkward ('having a symmetry parameter of a_w=0.2-0.6 and more spatially extended having a scale length') and a space is missing after the period before 'Unobscured quasars also exhibit'.
  2. [Methods] Methods: Expand the definitions and extraction procedures for the symmetry parameter a_w and scale length r_h, including any assumptions in the KCWI data reduction and fitting that might correlate with obscuration classification.
  3. [Tables/Figures] Tables/Figures: Report the exact statistical significance (p-values) for all claimed differences in a_w, r_h, and slopes, and clarify the origin of the two values quoted for obscured r_h (6.6-7.7 kpc).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the robustness of our conclusions regarding sample comparability and the distinction between evolutionary and orientation-based AGN models. We address each major comment in detail below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (Sample Selection): The central claim that nebular differences favor the evolutionary over orientation model assumes the unobscured and obscured samples are comparable in quasar luminosity, redshift, and host properties. The manuscript provides no explicit matching or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on these quantities, leaving open the possibility that the reported differences in a_w, r_h, and velocity slopes arise from unmatched populations rather than evolutionary stage.

    Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration of sample comparability is essential to support our interpretation. Although the unobscured and obscured quasars were selected from parent catalogs with overlapping redshift and luminosity ranges, we did not include formal statistical comparisons in the submitted manuscript. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated paragraph and accompanying table (or figure) showing the distributions of quasar bolometric luminosity, redshift, and available host properties (e.g., stellar mass where measured). We will report the results of two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for each quantity, including p-values, to quantify the degree of similarity. This addition will directly address the referee's concern and confirm that the observed differences in nebular properties are unlikely to arise from unmatched populations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 (Interpretation): The assertion that the orientation model 'expects unobscured-quasar nebulae to be more symmetric and compact' is stated without quantitative support such as mock KCWI observations or radiative-transfer predictions under different viewing angles. Without this, the tension with the unified model remains qualitative and the mapping from observed parameters to intrinsic gas redistribution is under-constrained.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our discussion of expectations from the orientation-based unified model is qualitative. The standard unified model posits that obscuration is due to viewing angle through a toroidal structure, which would not inherently predict large differences in the extended circumgalactic Lyα emission; if anything, face-on (unobscured) views might appear more symmetric if the CGM is isotropic. To strengthen this section, we will expand the interpretation to reference existing literature on simulations of Lyα emission and AGN feedback that explore orientation effects. We will also explicitly state that a full quantitative test via new mock KCWI observations and radiative-transfer modeling lies beyond the scope of the current observational study. The revised text will frame our results as providing observational tension with simple orientation expectations while noting the value of future simulation comparisons for a more definitive mapping. revision: partial

  3. Referee: §3.3 (Velocity Dispersion Profiles): The steeply negative slope of -4.3 km s^{-1} kpc^{-1} is interpreted as large-scale outflows, yet the paper does not test whether line-of-sight projection effects (face-on vs edge-on) could produce similar gradients when the same intrinsic velocity field is viewed at different angles, which is required to rule out the orientation scenario.

    Authors: This is a valid point that must be considered when distinguishing evolutionary from purely geometric effects. The negative velocity dispersion gradient is seen exclusively in the unobscured sample and is accompanied by the differences in symmetry parameter and scale length. In the revision, we will add a paragraph discussing possible projection effects, noting that an orientation-only scenario would require the two samples to share the same intrinsic velocity field but appear different solely due to inclination. However, a rigorous quantitative test would necessitate assuming a specific 3D kinematic model and generating projected profiles for different viewing angles, which cannot be performed with the existing data alone. We will therefore include this as an explicit caveat, while arguing that the joint behavior across multiple independent observables (asymmetry, spatial extent, and kinematics) makes a pure projection explanation less parsimonious. Future work combining these observations with tailored simulations could provide a more complete test. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Performing new radiative-transfer simulations and mock KCWI observations to quantitatively predict nebular properties under different viewing angles for the orientation model, as this requires substantial additional modeling resources beyond the scope of the current analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim rests on direct observational sample comparison.

full rationale

The paper reports empirical measurements of Lyα nebula properties (symmetry parameter a_w, scale length r_h, velocity dispersion slopes) from KCWI observations of two distinct quasar samples (59 unobscured, 26 obscured). These differences are presented as direct data products, and the inference favoring an evolutionary scenario is a qualitative interpretation of the observed distinctions rather than any mathematical derivation, fitted parameter, or self-referential definition. No equations, ansatzes, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks as it relies on independent observational inputs without reducing to its own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions for distance and redshift conversions at z=2-3, plus the interpretive mapping of observed Lya properties to physical gas dynamics and AGN evolutionary state. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • symmetry parameter a_w
    Empirical measure of nebular asymmetry derived from the data; its range (0.2-0.6 vs 0.6-0.8) is reported but its exact algorithmic definition is not given in the abstract.
  • scale length r_h
    Fitted spatial extent parameter with reported values and uncertainties; depends on how the surface brightness profile is modeled.
  • velocity dispersion slope
    Linear fit to the radial profile, with reported slopes and errors; the fitting procedure and radial range are not detailed.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lya emission traces circumgalactic gas kinematics and morphology in a manner that distinguishes evolutionary state from orientation effects.
    Invoked in the final interpretive step linking observations to the evolutionary scenario.
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for converting angular sizes and velocities to physical units at z=2-3.
    Required for all reported kpc scales and km/s gradients.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1554 out tokens · 41132 ms · 2026-05-07T16:05:50.186339+00:00 · methodology

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

100 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  2. [2]

    M., & Hickox, R

    Alexander, D. M., & Hickox, R. C. 2012, NewAR, 56, 93, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  3. [3]

    A., Greene, J

    Alexandroff, R., Strauss, M. A., Greene, J. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1500 2013

  4. [4]

    M., Greenwell, C., et al

    Andonie, C., Alexander, D. M., Greenwell, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L144, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad144 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad144 2024

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2827

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 1993

  6. [6]

    MID-INFRARED SELECTION OF ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI WITH THE<i>WIDE-FIELD INFRARED SURVEY EXPLORER</i>. II. PROPERTIES OF<i>WISE</i>-SELECTED ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI IN THE NDWFS BOÖTES FIELD

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/26 2013

  7. [7]

    J., Kannan, R., Vogelsberger, M., & Marinacci, F

    Barnes, D. J., Kannan, R., Vogelsberger, M., & Marinacci, F. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa591 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  9. [9]

    The demographics, physics, and ecology of growing supermassive black holes

    Brandt, W. N., & Alexander, D. M. 2015, A&A Rv, 23, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z 2015

  10. [10]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    Byrohl, C., Nelson, D., Behrens, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1958 2021

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 2017

  12. [12]

    Evolution of the Cool Gas in the Circumgalactic Medium of Massive Halos: A Keck Cosmic Web Imager Survey of Lyα Emission around QSOs at z ≈ 2

    Cai, Z., Cantalupo, S., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4796

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4796 2019

  13. [13]

    doi:10.1038/nature12898 , number =

    Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature12898

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12898 2014

  14. [14]

    J., et al

    Cantalupo, S., Pezzulli, G., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3481

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3481 2019

  15. [15]

    L., Perley, R

    Carilli, C. L., Perley, R. A., Dhawan, V., & Perley, D. A. 2019, ApJL, 874, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1019

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1019 2019

  16. [16]

    Y., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., Volonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y., & Dubois, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty708

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty708 2018

  17. [17]

    2019, A&A, 623, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834426

    Circosta, C., Vignali, C., Gilli, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834426

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834426 2019

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Costa, T., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2432

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2432 2022

  19. [19]

    Costa, T., Rosdahl, J., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2598

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2598 2018

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Cresci, G., Tozzi, G., Perna, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346001

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346001 2023

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Daddi, E., Valentino, F., Rich, R. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038700

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038700 2021

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 685, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346972 den Brok, J

    Madau, P. 2024, A&A, 685, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346972 den Brok, J. S., Cantalupo, S., Mackenzie, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1269

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346972 2024

  23. [23]

    2012, A&A, 548, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220059

    Drouart, G., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220059

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220059 2012

  24. [24]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  25. [25]

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

    Farina, E. P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847 2019

  26. [26]

    F., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D

    Feldmann, R., Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D. 2016, MNRAS, 458, L14, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw014 2016

  27. [27]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1120 22 Zhang et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1120 2017

  28. [28]

    J., et al., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170510877F ( @eprint arXiv 1705.10877 )

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMXAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  29. [29]

    and Tonnesen, Stephanie and DeFelippis, Daniel and Li, Miao and Su, Kung-Yi and Bryan, Greg L

    Fielding, D. B., Tonnesen, S., DeFelippis, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6d 2020

  30. [30]

    A., Heckman, T

    Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141075

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x 2006

  31. [31]

    E., Alexander, D

    Geach, J. E., Alexander, D. M., Lehmer, B. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/1 2009

  32. [32]

    W., Hamann, F., et al

    Gillette, J., Lau, M. W., Hamann, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2923

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2923 2023

  33. [33]

    2022, A&A, 666, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243708

    Gilli, R., Norman, C., Calura, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243708 Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A380, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554054 GRAVITY+ Collaboration, Abd El Dayem, K., Aimar, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557285

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243708 2022

  34. [34]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f

    Guo, Y., Maiolino, R., Jiang, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f 2020

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Hamann, F., Zakamska, N. L., Ross, N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2387

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2387 2017

  36. [36]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e 2023

  37. [37]

    M., & Ramos Almeida, C

    Harrison, C. M., & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12020017

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12020017 2024

  38. [38]

    QSO MUSEUM

    Herwig, E., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450959

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450959 2024

  39. [39]

    A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: I. Galaxy Mergers & Quasar Activity

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555816

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555816 2025

  42. [42]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adea66

    Inayoshi, K. 2025, ApJL, 988, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adea66

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adea66 2025

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    work page doi:10.1086/115207 1989

  44. [44]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 2023

  45. [45]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d 2025

  46. [46]

    C., et al

    Langen, V., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3205 2023

  47. [47]

    W., Perrotta, S., Hamann, F., et al

    Lau, M. W., Perrotta, S., Hamann, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1621

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1621 2024

  48. [48]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., Chen, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae156

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae156 2018

  49. [49]

    Li, J., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac390d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac390d 2021

  50. [50]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    Li, M., Zhang, H., Cai, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c 2024

  51. [51]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 364, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 364, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf 2026

  52. [52]

    E., Setton, D

    Ma, Y., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4596

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4596 2026

  53. [53]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3277

    Mackenzie, R., Pezzulli, G., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3277

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3277 2021

  54. [54]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARAA, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 2024

  56. [56]

    C., Matuszewski, M., Morrissey, P., et al

    Martin, D. C., Matuszewski, M., Morrissey, P., et al. 2015, Nature, 524, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14616

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14616 2015

  57. [57]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  58. [58]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac167

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac167 2022

  59. [59]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 635, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961

    Michel-Dansac, L., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834961 2020

  60. [60]

    C., et al

    Morrissey, P., Matuszewski, M., Martin, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 2018

  61. [61]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., Best, P. N., & Collet, C. 2017, A&A, 599, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528040

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528040 2017

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARAA, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 2015

  63. [63]

    M., Kacprzak, G

    Nielsen, N. M., Kacprzak, G. G., Pointon, S. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc561

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc561 2020

  64. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2061

    Chaikin, E. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2061 2022

  65. [65]

    V., & Buck, T

    Obreja, A., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Macci` o, A. V., & Buck, T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3410 O’Meara, J. M., Prochaska, J. X., Worseck, G., Chen, H.-W., & Madau, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/137 O’Sullivan, D., & Chen, Y. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.05444, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.05444 O’Sullivan, D. B., ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3410 2024

  66. [66]

    , keywords =

    Perrotta, S., Hamann, F., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1993 AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article 23

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1993 2019

  67. [67]

    M., & O’Shea, B

    Prasad, D., Voit, G. M., & O’Shea, B. W. 2022, APJ, 932, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac69ee 2022

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    work page doi:10.1086/503559 2006

  69. [69]

    P., McGreer, I

    Ross, N. P., McGreer, I. D., White, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/14 2013

  70. [70]

    A., Prandoni, I., et al

    Ruffa, I., Laing, R. A., Prandoni, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3166 2020

  71. [71]

    Chandra Rules Out Super-Eddington Accretion Models for Little Red Dots

    Sacchi, A., & Bogd´ an,´A. 2025, ApJL, 989, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf5c8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf5c8 2025

  72. [72]

    , keywords =

    Sanders, D. B., Soifer, B. T., Elias, J. H., et al. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74, doi: 10.1086/165983

    work page doi:10.1086/165983 1988

  73. [73]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077

    Fynbo, J., & Møller, P. 2021, ApJ, 923, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077 2021

  74. [74]

    R., Pringle, J

    Schmitt, H. R., Pringle, J. E., Clarke, C. J., & Kinney, A. L. 2002, ApJ, 575, 150, doi: 10.1086/341211

    work page doi:10.1086/341211 2002

  75. [75]

    , keywords =

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., de Graaff, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1500

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1500 2025

  76. [76]

    C., Rudie , G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/165 2014

  77. [77]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    Suresh, J., Bird, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2762 2015

  78. [78]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1888T 493, 1888

    Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa374

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa374 2020

  79. [79]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0ba

    Tornotti, D., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb0ba 2025

  80. [80]

    2024, A&A, 690, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450162

    Tozzi, G., Cresci, G., Perna, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450162

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450162 2024

Showing first 80 references.