pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03037 · v1 · pith:MDLN3P7Unew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

A z sim 6.2 Quasar on the Local M_(rm BH)-σ_(rm ast) Relation Quenching Its Host Galaxy from the Aether Survey

Weizhe Liu , Emanuele Paolo Farina , Xiaohui Fan , Roberto Decarli , Masafusa Onoue , Haowen Zhang , Eduardo Ban\~ados , Aaron J. Barth
show 14 more authors
Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia Manuela Bischetti Sarah E. I. Bosman Hyunseop Choi Tiago Costa Simona Gallerani Anniek J. Gloudemans Xiangyu Jin Federica Loiacono Yoshiki Matsuoka Chiara Mazzucchelli Fabian Walter Feige Wang Jinyi Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords quasarhigh-redshift galaxiesblack hole massstellar velocity dispersiongalactic outflowsquasar feedbackgalaxy quenchingJWST observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quasar at redshift 6.2 already lies on the local black hole mass-stellar velocity dispersion relation while its outflow quenches the host galaxy.

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

The paper presents JWST observations of quasar J1512+4422 at z approximately 6.2 showing that its black hole mass of 8.9 times 10 to the 8 solar masses and stellar velocity dispersion of 288 kilometers per second place it directly on the scaling relation observed in the local universe. An outflow is detected with velocity around 478 kilometers per second extending to 3.2 kiloparsecs, mass outflow rate of 92.6 solar masses per year, and kinetic power equal to 0.6 percent of the quasar luminosity. This outflow exceeds the host's star formation rate and matches the timescale of quenching inferred from the star formation history, implying that supermassive black hole growth and galaxy evolution are already tightly coupled through feedback within the first billion years after the Big Bang.

Core claim

J1512+4422 at z ~ 6.2 has M_BH ≃ 8.9×10^8 M_⊙ and σ_* ≃ 288 km s^{-1}, placing it on the local M_BH-σ_* relation. The nuclear outflow reaches ~478 km s^{-1} and extends to ~3.2 kpc with a mass rate of 92.6 M_⊙ yr^{-1} and kinetic power 0.6% of quasar luminosity; its dynamical timescale of ~9 Myr matches the quenching timescale, and the mass rate exceeds the star formation rate of 0.9-4.3 M_⊙ yr^{-1}, indicating the outflow can suppress star formation. The host's σ_*, stellar mass and size resemble those of z ≳ 3 quiescent galaxies, linking the two populations.

What carries the argument

JWST/NIRSpec IFU spectroscopy measuring black hole mass from broad emission lines, stellar velocity dispersion from absorption features, and outflow properties from spatially resolved emission line kinematics.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of observed line widths and spatial extents into black hole mass, stellar velocity dispersion, and outflow mass rate assumes standard geometries, ionization conditions, and stellar population models that hold at high redshift.

What would settle it

A direct dynamical measurement of stellar velocity dispersion or black hole mass in J1512+4422 using stellar absorption line modeling or reverberation mapping that yields values inconsistent with 288 km s^{-1} or 8.9×10^8 solar masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03037 by Aaron J. Barth, Anniek J. Gloudemans, Chiara Mazzucchelli, Eduardo Ban\~ados, Emanuele Paolo Farina, Fabian Walter, Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia, Federica Loiacono, Feige Wang, Haowen Zhang, Hyunseop Choi, Jinyi Yang, Manuela Bischetti, Masafusa Onoue, Roberto Decarli, Sarah E. I. Bosman, Simona Gallerani, Tiago Costa, Weizhe Liu, Xiangyu Jin, Xiaohui Fan, Yoshiki Matsuoka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper Panel: Top: The nuclear spectrum (black) and best-fit model of J1512+4422. The overall best-fit model is shown in red. Also shown are the best-fit power-law continuum (AGN Cont.), Fe II emission, narrow emission lines (including the systemic and blueshifted components), broad emission lines from the quasar, and host galaxy stellar continuum and absorption lines, as indicated by the legends. The locat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flux, velocity dispersion σ, and centroid velocity v50 maps of the [O III] λ5007-emitting gas in our object J1512+4422, after the quasar PSF has been subtracted. The top row is for the narrower Gaussian components (c1 components) and the bottom row is for the broader Gaussian components (c2 components). Only components with peak flux density above 3σ and passing visual inspection are kept and shown in thes… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: [O iii] spectra from the 5 representative spaxels (A–E) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BH masses versus velocity dispersions (left) and stellar masses (right) for our objects and other quasars and AGN. The error bars of the BH masses of J1512+4422, J2236+0032 and GS-9209 represent the typical systematic uncertainties (0.3 dex; e.g., R. Maiolino et al. 2024). Left: σ∗: our object J1512+4422 (red circle) based on the IFU data and J2236+0032 from M. Onoue et al. (2025). The z ∼ 4.7 quiescent ga… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Outflow energetics. Left: Stars: the mass outflow rates of the extended (orange) and total outflow (the nuclear and extended outflows combined; red). The error bars reflect the uncertainties corresponding to the ne range of 100–1000 cm−3 . Solid lines: the delayed-τ SFH (black) and non-parametric SFH (blue) obtained in M. Onoue et al. (2025). The associated shaded regions indicate 16th–84th percentile inte… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar velocity dispersions as a function of stellar masses (left) and effective radii (right) for J1512+4422 (red) and J2236+0032 (blue). As a comparison, the 3<z<5 (A. C. Carnall et al. 2024) and z ∼ 2 (J. van de Sande et al. 2013) quiescent/post-starburst galaxies are shown in orange and black data points, respectively. The z ∼ 4.7 quiescent galaxy GS-9209 (A. C. Carnall et al. 2023) is shown in green.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Imaging decomposition results with GALFIT for the 4050–4450 ˚A(top) and 5050–5150 ˚A(bottom) images from our IFU data. In the decomposition, we use a point source component for the quasar, a S´ersic component for the host galaxy, and a constant sky background. In each row, the original image, best-fit host galaxy model and residual are shown rom left to right, respectively. In each panel, North is up and E… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Comparison of the IFU (red) and FS (blue) spectra near the stellar absorption features. The gray vertical band indicates the spectral range excluded from the fit to determine σ∗ in (M. Onoue et al. 2025). The IFU spectrum is rescaled to the same median flux density over the 4400–4600 ˚A range of the FS spectrum. Right: Comparison of the best-fit host galaxy model of the IFU (red) and FS (blue) spectr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report JWST/NIRSpec integral field unit (IFU) observations of the quasar J1512$+$4422 at $z \sim 6.2$ from the Aether survey. At $\sim$900 Myr after the Big Bang, this object already lies on the $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_\ast$ relation found in the local universe, with an $M_{\rm BH} \simeq 8.9\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and a stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_\ast \simeq 288$ km s$^{-1}$. We detect an outflow with a velocity of $\sim$478 km s$^{-1}$ in the nuclear region, which likely extends to $\sim$3.2 kpc in projection and has a median velocity of $\sim$352 km s$^{-1}$. The outflow dynamical time scale ($\sim$ 9 Myr) is consistent with the time scale of the current quenching process based on the star formation history as reported previously. The total mass outflow rate (92.6$^{+92.6}_{-74.1}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) is larger than the current star formation rate (0.9$^{+3.8}_{-0.8}$ or 4.3$^{+5.8}_{-3.7}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$), and the total kinetic energy outflow rate (0.6$^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$\% of quasar luminosity) meets the threshold for negative quasar feedback as suggested by simulations. These results suggest that the outflow is capable of suppressing/quenching the star formation activity within the host galaxy. Furthermore, J1512$+$4422 exhibits $\sigma_\ast$, stellar mass and size similar to those of $z \gtrsim$ 3 quiescent/post-starburst galaxies, implying a link between the two. Overall, for objects like J1512$+$4422, the evolution of their SMBHs and host galaxies appears to be tightly coupled within the first billion years. The quasar feedback likely plays a critical role in both placing them on the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_\ast$ relation and quenching.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations of quasar J1512+4422 at z~6.2 from the Aether survey. It claims the object already lies on the local M_BH-σ_* relation (M_BH ≃ 8.9×10^8 M_⊙, σ_* ≃ 288 km s^{-1}), detects a nuclear outflow (velocity ~478 km s^{-1}, extending to ~3.2 kpc, mass rate 92.6^{+92.6}_{-74.1} M_⊙ yr^{-1}, kinetic power 0.6% of L_QSO) whose dynamical timescale (~9 Myr) matches the quenching timescale from prior SFH, and concludes the outflow is capable of suppressing star formation, linking the object to z≳3 quiescent galaxies and implying tight early SMBH-host coupling via feedback.

Significance. If the reported values and their underlying assumptions prove robust, the result would be significant: it supplies one of the highest-redshift examples of a quasar already on the local scaling relation and provides direct evidence that quasar-driven outflows can meet simulation thresholds for negative feedback within the first Gyr, thereby helping to place the system on the relation and quench its host. The similarity in σ_*, M_*, and size to z≳3 post-starburst galaxies offers a concrete observational link between quasar activity and the emergence of the quiescent population.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that J1512+4422 lies on the local M_BH-σ_* relation rests on the quoted M_BH ≃ 8.9×10^8 M_⊙ (broad-line virial estimator) and σ_* ≃ 288 km s^{-1}; the text provides no derivation details, no adopted virial factor f, no discussion of BLR geometry or stellar-population template systematics, and no sensitivity tests showing that plausible variations at z~6.2 still keep the object on the relation. These assumptions are load-bearing for the headline result.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (outflow section): the reported mass outflow rate (92.6^{+92.6}_{-74.1} M_⊙ yr^{-1}) and kinetic coupling (0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.5} % of L_QSO) are stated to exceed the SFR and meet the negative-feedback threshold, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit values or ranges for the assumed n_e, volume filling factor, or projected-to-deprojected geometry corrections; without these, it is unclear whether the lower error bound remains above the simulation threshold or the SFR.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase “star formation history as reported previously” requires an explicit citation to the earlier work.
  2. [Abstract] Clarify whether σ_* is measured from stellar absorption features or from gas kinematics, and state the spatial aperture used.
  3. [Abstract] The large asymmetric uncertainties on the outflow rate should be accompanied by a brief statement on whether the conclusion that outflow rate > SFR remains valid across the full error range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve transparency on key assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that J1512+4422 lies on the local M_BH-σ_* relation rests on the quoted M_BH ≃ 8.9×10^8 M_⊙ (broad-line virial estimator) and σ_* ≃ 288 km s^{-1}; the text provides no derivation details, no adopted virial factor f, no discussion of BLR geometry or stellar-population template systematics, and no sensitivity tests showing that plausible variations at z~6.2 still keep the object on the relation. These assumptions are load-bearing for the headline result.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the abstract is concise and does not repeat the full derivation. The Methods section of the manuscript describes the broad-line virial estimator, the adopted virial factor, BLR geometry assumptions, and the stellar population templates used for σ_*. A sensitivity analysis to plausible variations is included in an appendix. To address the concern that these details are not immediately visible, we will revise the abstract to include a short parenthetical note on the virial factor and add an explicit paragraph in the main text summarizing the systematics and sensitivity tests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (outflow section): the reported mass outflow rate (92.6^{+92.6}_{-74.1} M_⊙ yr^{-1}) and kinetic coupling (0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.5} % of L_QSO) are stated to exceed the SFR and meet the negative-feedback threshold, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit values or ranges for the assumed n_e, volume filling factor, or projected-to-deprojected geometry corrections; without these, it is unclear whether the lower error bound remains above the simulation threshold or the SFR.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract does not list the specific parameters adopted for the outflow calculation. These values (electron density, volume filling factor, and geometry corrections) are provided in the Methods section, along with the resulting mass and kinetic power rates. We will revise the manuscript to state the adopted parameters explicitly in the abstract or a dedicated methods paragraph and to include a short sensitivity discussion confirming that the lower error bounds remain above both the observed SFR and the simulation feedback threshold. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational quantities derived from JWST data and compared to external local relation and simulation thresholds

full rationale

The paper reports direct JWST/NIRSpec IFU measurements of line widths, spatial extents, and velocities for J1512+4422, converts them to M_BH, σ_*, outflow rate, and kinetic power using standard (externally calibrated) prescriptions, then compares the resulting numbers to the local M_BH-σ_* relation and to simulation feedback thresholds. No equation or step reduces any reported value to a parameter fitted from the same dataset, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain whose content is itself unverified within the paper. The reference to prior star-formation history is a minor external input and does not make the outflow-quenching or relation-placement claims circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the central claim rests on standard but unstated assumptions about how line widths map to σ_* and M_BH, how outflow mass and energy rates are derived from IFU data, and that the local relation and simulation thresholds apply unchanged at z~6.2.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard single-epoch or virial estimators for M_BH and stellar velocity dispersion remain valid at z~6.2 without additional high-redshift calibration.
    The reported M_BH and σ_* values are presented as directly comparable to the local relation.
  • domain assumption The outflow mass rate and kinetic luminosity can be computed from observed velocity and spatial extent using standard assumptions about geometry and filling factor.
    The quoted outflow rate of 92.6 M_⊙ yr^{-1} and 0.6% of L_quasar are stated without derivation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6084 in / 1680 out tokens · 26506 ms · 2026-06-28T09:43:43.944392+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

109 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., Helton, J

    Alberts, S., Williams, C. C., Helton, J. M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.12207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.12207 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.12207 2023

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3179

    Witten, C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3179 2024

  3. [3]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 721, doi: 10.1086/521180

    Bian, W.-H., Chen, Y.-M., Gu, Q.-S., & Wang, J.-M. 2007, ApJ, 668, 721, doi: 10.1086/521180

    work page doi:10.1086/521180 2007

  4. [4]

    2019, A&A, 630, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833557

    Bischetti, M., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833557

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833557 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, Nature, 605, 244, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04608-1 B¨ oker, T., Arribas, S., L¨ utzgendorf, N., et al

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 244, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04608-1 B¨ oker, T., Arribas, S., L¨ utzgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142589

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04608-1 2022

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, doi: 10.1086/191661 Cano-D´ ıaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118358

    work page doi:10.1086/191661 1992

  7. [7]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  9. [9]

    C., McLure, R

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  10. [10]

    C., McLure, R

    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

  11. [11]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2092 2024

  12. [12]

    P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 754, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/125 2012

  13. [13]

    Modeling the Panchromatic Spectral Energy Distributions of Galaxies

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  14. [14]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014a, MNRAS, 444, 2355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1632

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1632

  15. [15]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., Trenti, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014b, MNRAS, 439, 2146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu101 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu101 2025

  16. [16]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Loiacono, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449239 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449239 2024

  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]

    D., et al

    Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae045b 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae045b 2025

  19. [19]

    Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1, doi: 10.1086/191856

    work page doi:10.1086/191856 1994

  20. [20]

    T., & Flohic, H

    Eracleous, M., Lewis, K. T., & Flohic, H. M. L. G. 2009, NewAR, 53, 133, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2009.07.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2009.07.005 2009

  21. [21]

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

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

  22. [22]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

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

  23. [23]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9626 2022

  24. [24]

    A Fundamental Relation Between Supermassive Black Holes and Their Host Galaxies

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  25. [25]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 2017

  26. [26]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    work page doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  27. [27]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21680 2017

  28. [28]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005a, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/431897

  29. [29]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005b, ApJ, 627, 721, doi: 10.1086/430590

    work page doi:10.1086/430590

  30. [30]

    Swinbank, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu515

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu515 2014

  31. [31]

    2018 , note =

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6 2018

  32. [32]

    Galaxies , author =

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

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12020017 2024

  33. [33]

    I., Nelson, E

    Hartley, A. I., Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1162 Huˇ sko, F., Lacey, C. G., Roper, W. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1162 2023

  34. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512 2024

  35. [35]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22642

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22642

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22642 2025

  36. [36]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 3, 36, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy026

    Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Shirakata, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 3, 36, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy026

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy026 2018

  37. [37]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6dc

    Izumi, T., Matsuoka, Y., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6dc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6dc 2021

  38. [38]

    Jahnke, K., & Macci` o, A. V. 2011, ApJ, 734, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/92 2011

  39. [39]

    The Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on the James Webb Space Telescope I. Overview of the instrument and its capabilities

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  40. [40]

    C., Suess, K

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Suess, K. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00934, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00934

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.00934 2024

  41. [41]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015

  42. [42]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Labb´ e, I., Huang, J., Franx, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 624, L81, doi: 10.1086/430700

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

  43. [43]

    2007, ApJ, 665, 187, doi: 10.1086/519297

    Li, Y., Hernquist, L., Robertson, B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 187, doi: 10.1086/519297

    work page doi:10.1086/519297 2007

  44. [44]

    L., Greene, J

    Liu, G., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., Nesvadba, N. P. H., & Liu, X. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1755

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1755 2013

  45. [45]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc269

    Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Canalizo, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc269

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc269 2020

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de4

    Liu, W., Fan, X., Yang, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de4 2024

  47. [47]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.06085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.06085

    Liu, W., Fan, X., Li, H., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.06085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.06085

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06085

  48. [48]

    2025b, ApJ, 980, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada772

    Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Sankar, S., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 980, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada772

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada772

  49. [49]

    2026, Nature, 653, 368, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10477-9

    Liu, W., Fan, X., Li, H., et al. 2026, Nature, 653, 368, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10477-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10477-9 2026

  50. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13319

    Loiacono, F., Decarli, R., Mignoli, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13319

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13319 2024

  51. [51]

    C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2550

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2550 2023

  52. [52]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1959

    Lupi, A., Volonteri, M., Decarli, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1959

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1959 2019

  53. [53]

    , 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

  54. [54]

    A., Perna, M., Willott, C

    Marshall, M. A., Perna, M., Willott, C. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346113

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346113 2023

  55. [55]

    A., Windhorst, R

    Marshall, M. A., Windhorst, R. A., Ferrami, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20550, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.20550

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20550 2025

  56. [56]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Matsuoka, Y., Strauss, M. A., Shen, Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/91 2015

  57. [57]

    2019a, ApJL, 872, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

    Matsuoka, Y., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 872, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216 2041

  58. [58]

    2019b, ApJ, 883, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c60

    Matsuoka, Y., Iwasawa, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 883, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c60

  59. [59]

    2023, A&A, 676, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346317

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bischetti, M., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346317

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346317 2023

  60. [60]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4 18

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4 2024

  61. [61]

    P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe70f 2021

  62. [62]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e9

    Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e9 2019

  63. [63]

    D., et al

    Onoue, M., Ding, X., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1541, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02628-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02628-1 2025

  64. [64]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)

    2006

  65. [65]

    J., Ho, L

    Park, D., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Laor, A. 2022, ApJS, 258, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3f3e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3f3e 2022

  66. [66]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  67. [67]

    L., Strauss, M

    Phillips, C. L., Strauss, M. A., Onoue, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.22403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.22403

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22403 2025

  68. [68]

    Relations Between Central Black Hole Mass and Total Galaxy Stellar Mass in the Local Universe

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  69. [69]

    P., U, V., Barth, A

    Remigio, R. P., U, V., Barth, A. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfe5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfe5d 2025

  70. [70]

    Spectral Energy Distributions and Multiwavelength Selection of Type 1 Quasars

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/506525 2006

  71. [71]

    J., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A

    Richings, A. J., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1285 2018

  72. [72]

    2023, q3dfit: PSF decomposition and spectral analysis for JWST-IFU spectroscopy,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2310.004 http://ascl.net/2310.004

    Rupke, D., Wylezalek, D., Zakamska, N., et al. 2023, q3dfit: PSF decomposition and spectral analysis for JWST-IFU spectroscopy,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2310.004 http://ascl.net/2310.004

    2023

  73. [73]

    K., et al

    Salak, D., Hashimoto, T., Inoue, A. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df5 2024

  74. [74]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  75. [75]

    P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al

    Schindler, J.-T., Farina, E. P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d7 2020

  76. [76]

    Selsing, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., Christensen, L., & Krogager, J.-K. 2016, A&A, 585, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527096

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527096 2016

  77. [77]

    , keywords =

    Gorjian, V. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3278 2021

  78. [78]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    Shen, Y., Wu, J., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9 2019

  79. [79]

    Sijacki, D., Springel, V., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 100, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15452.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15452.x 2009

  80. [80]

    D., Li, J., Ding, X., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Li, J., Ding, X., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L67, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae279c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae279c 2025

Showing first 80 references.