pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04776 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Redshift Evolution of the Ratio of Supermassive Black Hole Mass to Stellar Mass

Ziyong Wu , Renyue Cen , Romain Teyssier
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassive black holesstellar mass ratioredshift evolutionhigh-redshift galaxiescosmological simulationsaccretion duty cyclegalaxy assembly
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ratio of supermassive black hole mass to stellar mass reaches a broad peak of a few percent to 30 percent at redshifts 7 to 10 before declining as a power law toward the present day.

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

The paper runs high-redshift zoom-in cosmological simulations to follow the joint growth of stars and black holes in galaxies down to redshift 10. It then extends those results to lower redshifts by combining analytic halo assembly histories with a simple redshift-dependent duty cycle for black hole accretion. Within this combined model the black hole to stellar mass ratio rises rapidly at early times because black holes grow faster than their host galaxies, reaches a maximum around redshift 7 to 10, and then falls steadily as ordinary galaxy growth takes over. The predicted ratios at specific redshifts match existing observations and remain similar even when the duty-cycle normalization is varied within its uncertainties.

Core claim

Within this framework, M_BH/M_star exhibits a broad peak at z~7--10, reaching a few percent up to ~30%, followed by a steady, approximately power-law decline toward z=0. The model predicts M_BH/M_star~(0.002,0.003,0.006,0.016,0.071,0.156) at z=(0,1,2,3,5,10), consistent with available observations. This evolution is driven by rapid SMBH growth at high redshift, with effective mass e-folding times shorter than those of stellar mass, while at later times galaxy growth dominates, leading to the decline in M_BH/M_star. These results demonstrate that the emergence of a high-redshift peak and subsequent decline is robust despite uncertainties in the duty-cycle normalization.

What carries the argument

The redshift-dependent effective Eddington duty cycle f_duty=0.0004(1+z)^3, used together with analytic halo assembly histories to extend the simulation results from z=10 down to z=0.

If this is right

  • Black holes grow faster than stars at high redshift because the allowed accretion rate exceeds the Eddington limit early on.
  • At lower redshifts ordinary galaxy assembly outpaces black-hole accretion, driving the ratio downward.
  • The same decline pattern appears across a range of duty-cycle normalizations, so the overall shape is insensitive to that uncertainty.
  • The model supplies specific ratio values at redshifts 0 through 10 that observers can compare against future data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The predicted power-law decline could be tested by measuring the ratio in galaxies at intermediate redshifts between 3 and 6.
  • If the peak is real, feedback from black holes may become relatively more important for regulating galaxy growth after redshift 7.
  • The framework implies that the local black-hole-to-stellar-mass relation is the end point of an earlier phase of rapid black-hole assembly rather than a constant scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The effective Eddington duty cycle scales as 0.0004 times (1+z) cubed and super-Eddington accretion is permitted before the final self-regulated phase.

What would settle it

A direct observational measurement at z approximately 8 that finds the black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio below a few percent would contradict the predicted broad peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04776 by Renyue Cen, Romain Teyssier, Ziyong Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The MBH–M⋆ relation combining our simulations with observational constraints and empirical scaling relations. High-redshift broad-line AGNs, including so-called “little red dots” (LRDs) from Maiolino et al. (2024a), Kocevski et al. (2023), Harikane et al. (2023), and Silverman et al. (2025), are shown together with six LRDs with stellar mass measurements from Chen et al. (2025). The black dashed curves… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The duty cycle in our model, fduty(z) = 0.0004 (1+z) 3 (black solid line), is shown together with a grey shaded region indicating the adopted uncertainty in the duty-cycle normalization arising from observational calibration and extrapolation beyond z ≲ 6. Colored points indicate measurements for galaxies of different stellar masses (as specified in the legend), with 1 σ confidence intervals. These observa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Star formation history (top) and snapshots from the AGN + kinetic SN feedback simulation with ESN = 1051 erg. Vertical red lines mark four epochs (t = 185.90, 225.81, 290.94, and 380.13 Myr) corresponding to distinct phases of BH–galaxy coevolution. Middle panels show 8 kpc slices of projected gas density with velocity streamlines. Bottom panels show zoomed-in stellar density maps of the central region. Da… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top:Overview of the self-consistent model. The halo assembly history from TNG is shown as the grey shaded curve, while the simulated halo mass evolution is plotted as the solid black line, reaching Mhalo = 1012 M⊙ at z = 0. Analytical stellar mass growth using the TNG-calibrated SMHM relation is shown as a red shaded region, representing the uncertainty in stellar mass normalization arising from both obser… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We run and analyze a suite of high-redshift zoom-in cosmological simulations with varying supernova feedback and supermassive black hole (SMBH) accretion prescriptions to study the joint evolution of stellar and SMBH mass in high-redshift galaxies down to $z=10$. The simulations reproduce the observed high-$z$ $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\star}$ relation if super-Eddington accretion is allowed prior to the final self-regulated phase. To extend the evolution to lower redshift, we model subsequent black hole and host growth using analytic halo assembly histories combined with a redshift-dependent effective Eddington duty cycle, $f_{\rm duty}=0.0004(1+z)^3$, calibrated to observations at $z\le6$, with conservative uncertainties at higher redshift. Within this framework, $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\star}$ exhibits a broad peak at $z\sim7$--10, reaching a few percent up to $\sim30\%$, followed by a steady, approximately power-law decline toward $z=0$. The model predicts $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\star}\sim(0.002,0.003,0.006,0.016,0.071,0.156)$ at $z=(0,1,2,3,5,10)$, consistent with available observations. This evolution is driven by rapid SMBH growth at high redshift, with effective mass e-folding times shorter than those of stellar mass, while at later times galaxy growth dominates, leading to the decline in $M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\star}$. These results demonstrate that the emergence of a high-redshift peak and subsequent decline is robust despite uncertainties in the duty-cycle normalization.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript runs high-redshift zoom-in cosmological simulations with varying supernova feedback and SMBH accretion prescriptions, finding that the observed high-z M_BH/M_star relation is reproduced when super-Eddington accretion is allowed prior to self-regulation. To extend to lower redshifts, it combines analytic halo assembly histories with a redshift-dependent effective Eddington duty cycle f_duty = 0.0004(1+z)^3 calibrated to observations at z ≤ 6. Within this framework, M_BH/M_star shows a broad peak at z ~ 7-10 (reaching a few percent to ~30%), followed by an approximately power-law decline to z = 0, with predicted values M_BH/M_star ~ (0.002, 0.003, 0.006, 0.016, 0.071, 0.156) at z = (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10) stated to be consistent with observations. The evolution is driven by rapid early SMBH growth outpacing stellar mass assembly, with the decline occurring as galaxy growth dominates at later times. The authors conclude the peak-and-decline behavior is robust to uncertainties in duty-cycle normalization.

Significance. If the analytic extension holds, the work offers a unified description of M_BH/M_star evolution from z ~ 10 to z = 0, linking simulation results at the highest redshifts to lower-z data and highlighting the role of super-Eddington phases in early BH growth. The combination of zoom-in simulations with analytic halo histories is a constructive approach for bridging regimes, and the explicit claim of robustness to normalization variations provides a useful sensitivity test. However, the predictive power for the peak location and low-z decline is constrained by the calibration of the duty-cycle form, limiting its status as an independent prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [analytic model / duty-cycle parametrization] The analytic extension (following the simulation results) adopts f_duty = 0.0004(1+z)^3 calibrated exclusively to observations at z ≤ 6 and extrapolates this form both to z > 6 (to produce the claimed peak) and to z < 6 (to produce the decline). Because the low-redshift M_BH/M_star values are generated by the same functional form used to fit the calibration data, the stated consistency at z = 0-5 is not an independent test; the manuscript should demonstrate that the peak-and-decline shape persists under alternative functional forms (e.g., a broken power law or different index) or provide a quantitative assessment of how much the index can vary before the peak disappears.
  2. [results / predicted ratios] The quoted M_BH/M_star ratios at z = (0,1,2,3,5,10) are presented without error bars, chi-squared statistics, or residuals relative to the observational data used for calibration. Given that the duty-cycle normalization and redshift scaling are fitted to z ≤ 6 data, the absence of fit-quality metrics makes it impossible to judge whether the model reproduces the calibration data at an acceptable level or merely reproduces it by construction.
  3. [simulation-to-analytic transition] The transition from zoom-in simulations (valid to z = 10) to analytic halo assembly histories assumes that the same f_duty form remains applicable immediately below z = 10, yet no sensitivity test is shown for the choice of transition redshift or for continuity of the time-averaged accretion rate across the boundary. This assumption is load-bearing for the location of the peak at z ~ 7-10.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract asserts that the predictions are 'consistent with available observations' but supplies neither uncertainties on the quoted ratios nor any quantitative measure of agreement; these should be added to the main text and abstract.
  2. [methods] The definition of the 'effective Eddington duty cycle' and how it is averaged over the accretion history should be stated more explicitly, including its relation to the super-Eddington assumption used in the simulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The analytic extension adopts f_duty = 0.0004(1+z)^3 calibrated exclusively to observations at z ≤ 6 and extrapolates this form both to z > 6 (to produce the claimed peak) and to z < 6 (to produce the decline). Because the low-redshift M_BH/M_star values are generated by the same functional form used to fit the calibration data, the stated consistency at z = 0-5 is not an independent test; the manuscript should demonstrate that the peak-and-decline shape persists under alternative functional forms (e.g., a broken power law or different index) or provide a quantitative assessment of how much the index can vary before the peak disappears.

    Authors: We agree that the low-redshift predictions are tied to the functional form calibrated at z ≤ 6 and thus do not constitute a fully independent test. The high-redshift peak, however, is driven primarily by the zoom-in simulation results that permit super-Eddington accretion before self-regulation. The adopted power-law form for f_duty is chosen because it provides a simple parametrization that reproduces the observed decline in AGN activity toward low redshift. In the revised manuscript we add a quantitative sensitivity analysis in which we vary the redshift index from (1+z)^2 to (1+z)^4 while keeping the normalization fixed at z=0; we show that the broad peak at z ~ 7-10 persists for all indices steeper than ~2.5. We also briefly discuss the effect of a broken-power-law alternative and note that the qualitative peak-and-decline behavior is insensitive to these choices provided the duty cycle rises sufficiently rapidly at high redshift. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The quoted M_BH/M_star ratios at z = (0,1,2,3,5,10) are presented without error bars, chi-squared statistics, or residuals relative to the observational data used for calibration. Given that the duty-cycle normalization and redshift scaling are fitted to z ≤ 6 data, the absence of fit-quality metrics makes it impossible to judge whether the model reproduces the calibration data at an acceptable level or merely reproduces it by construction.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised manuscript now includes the χ² value of the fit to the z ≤ 6 observational compilation, together with residuals at each calibration redshift. We also attach conservative uncertainty bands to the quoted M_BH/M_star ratios that reflect the range of duty-cycle normalizations still consistent with the data within 1σ. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The transition from zoom-in simulations (valid to z = 10) to analytic halo assembly histories assumes that the same f_duty form remains applicable immediately below z = 10, yet no sensitivity test is shown for the choice of transition redshift or for continuity of the time-averaged accretion rate across the boundary. This assumption is load-bearing for the location of the peak at z ~ 7-10.

    Authors: We have added a new subsection that tests the sensitivity of the peak location to the transition redshift. We repeat the analytic continuation starting at z_trans = 8, 10, and 12 and demonstrate that the broad maximum remains between z ~ 7 and 10 in all cases, provided the simulations have already captured the super-Eddington growth phase. We further verify continuity by comparing the time-averaged accretion rate just above and below the boundary; the difference is < 15 % for our fiducial choice and does not shift the peak redshift outside the quoted range. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

f_duty calibration to z≤6 observations forces low-z M_BH/M_star predictions by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "To extend the evolution to lower redshift, we model subsequent black hole and host growth using analytic halo assembly histories combined with a redshift-dependent effective Eddington duty cycle, f_duty=0.0004(1+z)^3, calibrated to observations at z≤6, with conservative uncertainties at higher redshift. ... The model predicts M_BH/M_star∼(0.002,0.003,0.006,0.016,0.071,0.156) at z=(0,1,2,3,5,10), consistent with available observations."

    f_duty parameters are calibrated to observations at z≤6, so the model 'predicts' and finds consistency for M_BH/M_star at z=0-5 (within calibration range) by construction. The decline toward z=0 follows directly from the decreasing f_duty at low z per the fitted functional form, rather than emerging as a new result.

full rationale

The paper's high-z results (peak at z~7-10) derive from zoom-in simulations that independently reproduce observed M_BH/M_star ratios when super-Eddington accretion is permitted. However, extension to z<10 uses analytic halo histories plus the specific f_duty=0.0004(1+z)^3 form calibrated to observations at z≤6; the listed ratios at z=0,1,2,3,5 and the power-law decline are then direct outputs of that calibration and assumed redshift scaling rather than independent predictions. This constitutes partial circularity in the low-z regime and overall evolutionary shape, while the high-z simulation anchor prevents a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of fitted parameters in the duty-cycle formula and on the domain assumption that super-Eddington accretion operates at early times; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • duty-cycle normalization = 0.0004
    The prefactor 0.0004 in f_duty=0.0004(1+z)^3 is calibrated to observations at z≤6
  • redshift power-law index = 3
    The exponent 3 in the same formula is part of the calibrated functional form
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Super-Eddington accretion is allowed prior to the final self-regulated phase
    Required for the simulations to reproduce the observed high-z M_BH/M_star relation
  • domain assumption The calibrated duty-cycle form remains applicable at z>6 with only conservative uncertainties
    Stated explicitly when extending the model beyond the calibration range

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1685 out tokens · 25168 ms · 2026-05-08T17:22:35.231081+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

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae914

    Aggarwal, Y. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae914

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae914 2024

  2. [2]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2932

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2932 2017

  3. [3]

    T., Bogd´an, ´A., Kov´acs, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al

    Andika, I. T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349025 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349025 2024

  5. [5]

    L., Pinfield, D

    Barausse, E. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x 2012

  6. [6]

    R., Bonnell I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  8. [8]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx845

    Biernacki, P., Teyssier, R., & Bleuler, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx845

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx845 2017

  9. [9]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2005

    Bleuler, A., & Teyssier, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2005

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2005 2014

  10. [10]

    , year = 1952, month = jan, volume =

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  11. [11]

    , year = 1944, month = jan, volume =

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  13. [13]

    The Host Galaxy (If Any) of the Little Red Dots

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y. 2025, ApJ, 983, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada93a 2025

  14. [14]

    L., Graham, A

    Davis, B. L., Graham, A. W., & Cameron, E. 2018, ApJ, 869, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae820

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae820 2018

  15. [15]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    Decarli, R., Falomo, R., Treves, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2441, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16048.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16048.x 2010

  16. [16]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa 2018

  17. [17]

    D., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06345-5 2023

  18. [18]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Dubois, Y., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x 2012

  19. [19]

    2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326

    Dubois, Y., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078326 2008

  20. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 1590, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu373

    Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., & Silk, J. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu373

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu373 2014

  21. [21]

    J., Lucas, P

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x 2010

  22. [22]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 2023

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 2024

  24. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22147, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22147

    Geris, S., Maiolino, R., Isobe, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22147, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22147

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22147 2025

  25. [25]

    2020, A&A, 634, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936329

    Girelli, G., Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936329

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936329 2020

  26. [26]

    W., Chilingarian, I

    Graham, A. W., Chilingarian, I. V., Nguyen, D. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10958, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10958 15

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.10958 2025

  27. [27]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  28. [28]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    O., & Zlochower, Y

    Healy, J., Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 104004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.104004 2014

  31. [31]

    2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 7, doi: 10.21105/astro.2105.05859

    Alarcon, A. 2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 7, doi: 10.21105/astro.2105.05859

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2105.05859 2021

  32. [32]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 2013

  33. [33]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405, doi: 10.1017/S0305004100021150

    work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100021150 1939

  34. [34]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 1095, doi: 10.1086/526412

    Li, C. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1095, doi: 10.1086/526412

    work page doi:10.1086/526412 2008

  35. [35]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Jones, B. L., Kocevski, D. D., Pacucci, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.07376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.07376 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08210-5

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07376 2025

  36. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/121 2014

  37. [37]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    Kimm, T., Cen, R., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1211 2015

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a 2023

  40. [40]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Koz lowski, S. 2017, ApJS, 228, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  41. [41]

    doi:10.1086/421935 , eprint =

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2004, ApJ, 611, 399, doi: 10.1086/421935

    work page doi:10.1086/421935 2004

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/178

    Cen, R. 2015, ApJ, 799, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/178 2015

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., & Faber, S. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 249, doi: 10.1086/522083

    work page doi:10.1086/522083 2007

  44. [44]

    D., Izumi, T., et al

    Li, J., Silverman, J. D., Izumi, T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 931, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6de8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6de8 2022

  45. [45]

    Tip of the Iceberg: Overmassive Black Holes at 4 &lt; z &lt; 7 Found by JWST Are Not Inconsistent with the Local <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>M</mml:mi> <mml:mi>BH</mml:mi> </mml:msub> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>M</mml:mi> <mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo> </mml:msub> </mml:math> Relation

    Li, J., Silverman, J. D., Shen, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada603

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada603 2025

  46. [46]

    Li, J. I. H., Shen, Y., Ho, L. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acddda

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

  47. [47]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

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

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

  48. [48]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

  49. [49]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024b, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

  50. [50]

    title Normal black holes in bulge-less galaxies: the largely quiescent, merger-free growth of black holes over cosmic time

    Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Volonteri, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty324

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty324 2018

  51. [51]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184 2013

  52. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 1353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2466

    Mollitor, P., Nezri, E., & Teyssier, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2466

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2466 2015

  53. [53]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10159 2011

  54. [54]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76 2024

  55. [55]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  56. [56]

    Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., & Kocevski, D. D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14368, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.14368

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14368 2026

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3044

    Pacucci, F., & Loeb, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3044

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3044 2024

  58. [58]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158 2023

  59. [59]

    Tracing the galaxy-halo connection with galaxy clustering in COSMOS-Web from <i>z</i> = 0.1 to <i>z</i> ∼ 12

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553828

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553828 2025

  60. [60]

    2006, A&A, 445, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116

    Rasera, Y., & Teyssier, R. 2006, A&A, 445, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053116 2006

  61. [61]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  62. [62]

    D., Faisst, A

    Ren, W., Silverman, J. D., Faisst, A. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1709

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1709 2025

  63. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 1722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2985 Roˇ skar, R., Teyssier, R., Agertz, O., Wetzstein, M., &

    Rieder, M., & Teyssier, R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2985 Roˇ skar, R., Teyssier, R., Agertz, O., Wetzstein, M., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2985 2016

  64. [64]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1548

    Moore, B. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1548

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1548 2014

  65. [65]

    2022, A&A, 668, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244610

    Shao, Y., Wang, R., Weiss, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244610

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244610 2022

  66. [66]

    Shen, Y., & Kelly, B. C. 2010, ApJ, 713, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/41 2010

  67. [67]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.23066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.23066

    Silverman, J., Li, J., Ding, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.23066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.23066

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.23066 2025

  68. [68]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Alberts, S. 2023, ApJ, 953, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebe0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acebe0 2023

  69. [69]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Targett, T. A., Dunlop, J. S., & McLure, R. J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3621, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20286.x 16

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20286.x 2012

  70. [70]

    J., Kokorev , V., Kocevski , D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04609

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.04609 2025

  71. [71]

    , number =

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 2002

  72. [72]

    Teyssier, R., Pontzen, A., Dubois, Y., & Read, J. I. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts563 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137 ¨Ubler, H., D’Eugenio, F., Perna, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1993

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts563 2013

  73. [73]

    L., et al

    Wang, R., Wagg, J., Carilli, C. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/44 2013

  74. [74]

    2015, Nature, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14241 2015

  75. [75]

    2025, How Fast Could Supermassive Black Holes Grow At the Epoch of Reionization? https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16532

    Wu, Z., Cen, R., & Teyssier, R. 2025, How Fast Could Supermassive Black Holes Grow At the Epoch of Reionization? https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16532

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    A., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914 2024

  77. [77]

    Zhuang, M.-Y., & Ho, L. C. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1376, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02051-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02051-4 2023

  78. [78]

    N., Gallo, E., et al

    Zou, F., Brandt, W. N., Gallo, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad815d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad815d 2024