pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05283 · v1 · pith:XYUTZI4Snew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Strong environmental AGN enhancement among DSFGs in z > 2 protoclusters

Monica Natalia Isla Llave , Fabio Vito , Alberto Traina , Cristian Vignali , Olga Cucciati , Benjamin Forrest , Gayathri Gururajan , Brian Lemaux
show 12 more authors
Sylvia Adscheid Sebastiano Cantalupo Kazuki Daikuhara Marta Galbiati Roberto Gilli Tadayuki Kodama Stefano Marchesi Maurillio Pannella Antonio Pensabene Maria del Carmen Polletta Rhythm Shimakawa Paolo Tozzi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords protoclustersactive galactic nucleidusty star-forming galaxiesenvironmental effectshigh-redshift galaxiessupermassive black holesX-ray AGN
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dense protocluster environments at z>2 boost X-ray AGN incidence in DSFGs by a factor of ~2.7 compared to field galaxies.

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

The paper measures the incidence of X-ray active galactic nuclei among dusty star-forming galaxies in seven protoclusters at redshifts 2 to 4.5 and compares it to a control sample from the COSMOS field. Both samples are selected via ALMA continuum detections and matched in stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass through uniform spectral energy distribution fitting. The AGN fraction is found to be enhanced by a factor of about 2.7 in the protoclusters, with similar factors in the z=2-3 and z=3-4.5 bins. A sympathetic reader would care because the result indicates that the crowded protocluster setting promotes supermassive black hole growth in these galaxies beyond what their individual properties predict, most likely through greater gas supply and interaction-driven fueling.

Core claim

The incidence of X-ray AGN among ALMA-detected DSFGs in seven protoclusters at 2 < z < 4.5 is enhanced by a factor of ~2.7 relative to a selection-matched field sample, with the protocluster and field samples well matched in stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass, providing evidence that the dense environment enhances AGN incidence and SMBH growth beyond host galaxy properties alone.

What carries the argument

Statistical comparison of X-ray AGN fractions in ALMA-detected DSFG samples from protoclusters versus a homogeneously selected COSMOS field control sample, using uniform SED-derived host properties.

If this is right

  • The AGN enhancement factor remains ~2.7 in separate redshift bins at z=2-3 and z=3-4.5.
  • Host galaxy stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass do not account for the difference in AGN incidence.
  • Increased gas availability and galaxy interactions in the dense environment are the likely drivers of the enhanced fueling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The result implies that protocluster environments accelerate early supermassive black hole growth in star-forming galaxies, which could leave observable signatures in the black hole mass distributions of present-day cluster members.
  • Similar environmental boosts may appear when using other AGN indicators such as infrared or radio emission, allowing tests of whether the effect is accretion-mode dependent.
  • Galaxy evolution models that include environmental effects on gas dynamics at high redshift should reproduce an AGN fraction increase of this magnitude in dense regions.

Load-bearing premise

The protocluster and field DSFG samples are selected and characterized homogeneously enough that differences in X-ray AGN fraction arise from environment rather than residual biases in continuum detection, X-ray sensitivity, or SED properties.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis after stricter matching or correction for any remaining differences in X-ray flux limits, ALMA sensitivity, or SED fitting parameters between the two samples and finding the enhancement disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05283 by Alberto Traina, Antonio Pensabene, Benjamin Forrest, Brian Lemaux, Cristian Vignali, Fabio Vito, Gayathri Gururajan, Kazuki Daikuhara, Maria del Carmen Polletta, Marta Galbiati, Maurillio Pannella, Monica Natalia Isla Llave, Olga Cucciati, Paolo Tozzi, Rhythm Shimakawa, Roberto Gilli, Sebastiano Cantalupo, Stefano Marchesi, Sylvia Adscheid, Tadayuki Kodama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift distribution of field non-AGN (light grey) and AGN (hatched dark grey) DSFGs and the spectroscopic DSFG members of the six PCs considered in this work (shaded in red). Carlo (VMC) COSMOS overdensity maps by Lemaux et al. (2022), which are central to both the field selection and the iden￾tification of DSFG members in ZFIRE and Hyperion. 2.1. Field control sample To accomplish the goal of comparing … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparisons between the CDF of integrated FIR 850µm-3mm fluxes of the PC (PC, red) and field control galaxies (blue) to check for selection effects using the AD statistic, whose value is reported. Left: low-z PCs (i.e., ZFIRE, Spiderweb, Hyperion, USS1558) vs. the 2 < z < 3 field sample. Right: high-z PCs (i.e., MQN01, DRC, SPT2349– 56) vs. the 3 < z < 5 field sample. tem into a dense core and two satellit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Fraction of X-ray selected AGNs in a sample of PCs as a function of redshift. Colored markers represent the individual PCs. The red and blue lines correspond to the PC and control field sample fractions binned in the two redshift intervals considered in this work. The red shaded stripes are the 1σ uncertainties on the PC samples. Center: AGN enhancement with respect to the field for individual PCs (c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CDFs of stellar mass, SFR and dust mass for DSFGs and AGN in PCs at 2 < z < 3, including ZFIRE, Spiderweb, Hyperion and USS1558, and their A3C20 field control sample. The AD statistic p-values are reported in the figures. First row compares the CDFs of all (AGN hosts and non-AGN) field and PC galaxies, the second row compares the CDFs of PC AGN hosts vs non-AGN, and the third and fourth rows shows the comp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: IR-derived SFR versus stellar mass for the 2 < z < 3 PC and field samples, color-coded as the legend indicates. ZFIRE galaxies are shown as circles, Spiderweb members as crosses, Hyperion galaxies as diamonds, and USS1558 members as “x” symbols. The z = 2.5 star-forming main sequence of Popesso et al. (2023) is shown in black, with its 1σ scatter indicated by the shaded region. Right: Offset from the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Galaxy protoclusters (PCs) at z > 2 are dense regions in which cold gas availability and elevated galaxy interaction rates trigger intense, often dust-obscured, star formation. These mechanisms are also expected to promote super-massive black hole (SMBH) growth, but this effect remains unclear, largely due to heterogeneous galaxy selections and active galactic nuclei (AGN) identification methods in previous studies. We quantitatively assess the impact of PC environment on SMBH growth by measuring the incidence of X-ray AGN among dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) in PCs and in a homogeneously selected control field sample, and investigate the physical mechanisms driving any difference. We consider ALMA-detected DSFGs in sub-mm/mm continuum of seven PCs at 2 < z < 4.5, and construct a selection-matched control sample from the COSMOS survey. We statistically compare X-ray AGN incidence and host galaxy physical properties obtained through uniform spectral energy distribution fitting. We find a significant enhancement of X-ray AGN fraction in PCs by ~2.7x (Poisson significance p = 3e-4). Similar values are found in two redshift bins: ~2.7x at z = 2-3 (p = 0.003) and ~2.6x at z = 3-4.5 (p = 0.03). PC and field DSFG samples are well matched in stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass, ruling out selection effects or systematically higher host masses as the driver. Our results provide quantitative evidence that the dense PC environment enhances AGN incidence and SMBH growth in DSFGs beyond what host galaxy properties alone predict, likely through increased gas availability and interaction-driven fueling. This work is a first step toward a homogeneous assessment of environmental effects on SMBH growth across cosmic time.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a ~2.7x enhancement (p=3e-4) in the X-ray AGN fraction among ALMA-detected DSFGs in seven z>2 protoclusters relative to a selection-matched COSMOS field sample. The enhancement persists in two redshift bins (~2.7x at z=2-3, ~2.6x at z=3-4.5). PC and field samples are stated to be matched in stellar mass, SFR, and dust mass via uniform SED fitting, leading to the conclusion that dense environments enhance AGN incidence and SMBH growth beyond host properties alone, likely via gas availability and interactions.

Significance. If X-ray sensitivity and completeness are shown to be equivalent, the direct count-ratio approach would supply quantitative evidence for environmental effects on AGN activity at z>2, improving on prior heterogeneous studies. The redshift-binned consistency and property matching are strengths that would support the attribution to environment rather than selection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'PC and field DSFG samples are well matched in stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass, ruling out selection effects' does not address X-ray flux limits, exposure times, or completeness corrections between the seven heterogeneous PC fields and the COSMOS control. Because the AGN fraction is measured exclusively via X-ray detections, any uncorrected sensitivity mismatch directly affects the counted fraction and is load-bearing for the environmental attribution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and results section: Sample sizes for the PC and field DSFG populations, the raw number of X-ray AGN detections in each, and the full error budget (including any completeness corrections) are not provided. These quantities are required to verify the reported Poisson significances (p=3e-4 overall, p=0.003 and p=0.03 in the bins) and to confirm that the ~2.7x factor is robust.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The exact boundary between the z=2-3 and z=3-4.5 bins and the handling of sources at z=3 should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The two major comments highlight important aspects of transparency regarding X-ray observational properties and sample statistics that were not sufficiently detailed. We address each point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'PC and field DSFG samples are well matched in stellar mass, star-formation rate, and dust mass, ruling out selection effects' does not address X-ray flux limits, exposure times, or completeness corrections between the seven heterogeneous PC fields and the COSMOS control. Because the AGN fraction is measured exclusively via X-ray detections, any uncorrected sensitivity mismatch directly affects the counted fraction and is load-bearing for the environmental attribution.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's phrasing emphasizes host-galaxy property matching via SED fitting but does not explicitly discuss X-ray sensitivity. The seven protocluster fields were chosen in part because they possess deep Chandra or XMM-Newton coverage comparable to COSMOS, yet a quantitative comparison of flux limits, exposure times, and completeness is indeed required to rule out observational bias. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or expanded paragraph in Methods/Results) that tabulates the X-ray exposure times and 0.5-10 keV flux limits for each protocluster field versus the COSMOS reference, together with any completeness corrections applied to the AGN counts. This will directly address whether sensitivity differences could contribute to the observed factor of ~2.7 enhancement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results section: Sample sizes for the PC and field DSFG populations, the raw number of X-ray AGN detections in each, and the full error budget (including any completeness corrections) are not provided. These quantities are required to verify the reported Poisson significances (p=3e-4 overall, p=0.003 and p=0.03 in the bins) and to confirm that the ~2.7x factor is robust.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the abstract and the current results section do not present the raw counts or a complete error budget in a readily verifiable form. While the Poisson p-values are derived from the underlying counts, explicit tabulation is necessary for reproducibility. We will revise the manuscript to include (i) the total number of ALMA-detected DSFGs in the combined protocluster sample and in the COSMOS control, (ii) the number of X-ray AGN detections in each, and (iii) an expanded error analysis that incorporates Poisson uncertainties plus any completeness corrections. These numbers will be presented both in the text and in a new summary table so that readers can directly recompute the reported significances and the ~2.7 factor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational count ratio from matched samples

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observed ~2.7x ratio in X-ray AGN fraction between protocluster and COSMOS field DSFG samples, computed directly from detections after matching on M*, SFR, and dust mass. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce this ratio to an input quantity by construction; the enhancement is not a prediction derived from host properties but a residual difference after explicit matching. The analysis is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable via the raw counts and selection criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a purely observational comparison that relies on standard domain assumptions for AGN identification and sample selection rather than new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption X-ray sources above a standard luminosity threshold are classified as AGN
    Standard practice in X-ray studies of high-redshift galaxies; invoked when counting AGN incidence.
  • domain assumption ALMA sub-mm/mm continuum selection produces comparable DSFG samples across protocluster and field environments
    Required for the claim that the control sample is selection-matched.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5965 in / 1607 out tokens · 32185 ms · 2026-06-28T05:15:26.622252+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

148 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 685, A1

    Adscheid, S., Magnelli, B., Liu, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A1

    2024

  2. [2]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1225

    2018

  3. [3]

    L., Georgakakis, A., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1892

    2015

  4. [4]

    & Noble, A

    Alberts, S. & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554

    2022

  5. [5]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 437

    Alberts, S., Pope, A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 437

    2014

  6. [6]

    Anderson, T. W. & Darling, D. A. 1952, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 193

    1952

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Aoyama, K., Kodama, T., Suzuki, T. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 74 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2022

  8. [8]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  9. [9]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

    2005

  10. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 3103

    Bongiorno, A., Merloni, A., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3103

    2012

  11. [11]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  12. [12]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39

    2016

  13. [13]

    Brandt, W. N. & Alexander, D. M. 2015, A&A Rev., 23, 1

    2015

  14. [14]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    2004

  15. [15]

    D., Cai, T

    Brown, L. D., Cai, T. T., & DasGupta, A. 2001, Statistical Science, 16, 101

    2001

  16. [16]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  17. [17]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  18. [18]

    Casey, C. M. 2016, ApJ, 824, 36

    2016

  19. [19]

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

    Casey, C. M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, L33

    2015

  20. [20]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  21. [21]

    B., Casey, C

    Champagne, J. B., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 110

    2021

  22. [22]

    D., et al

    Chen, Z., Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8950 Article number, page 13 of 21 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

    2024

  23. [23]

    A., Gebhardt, K., et al

    Chiang, Y .-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 37

    2015

  24. [24]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y .-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJ, 844, L23

    2017

  25. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 62

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 62

    2016

  26. [26]

    Cruise, M. et al. 2025, Nature Astron., 9, 36

    2025

  27. [27]

    C., Zamorani, G., et al

    Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A49

    2018

  28. [28]

    C., et al

    Cucciati, O., Zamorani, G., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A16

    2014

  29. [29]

    M., et al

    Daikuhara, K., Kodama, T., Pérez-Martínez, J. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2335

    2024

  30. [30]

    D., De Breuck, C., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Kurk, J. D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A55

    2014

  31. [31]

    D., Emonts, B., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., Emonts, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A48

    2017

  32. [32]

    2017, A&A, 605, A70

    Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., Laigle, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A70

    2017

  33. [33]

    2017, A&A, 602, A3 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L

    Delvecchio, I., Smolˇci´c, V ., Zamorani, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A3 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

    2017

  34. [34]

    J., Knobel, C., et al

    Diener, C., Lilly, S. J., Knobel, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 109

    2013

  35. [35]

    J., Ledoux, C., et al

    Diener, C., Lilly, S. J., Ledoux, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 31

    2015

  36. [36]

    L., Koekemoer, A

    Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 142

    2012

  37. [37]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172

    2014

  38. [38]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    Dubois, Y ., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    2016

  39. [39]

    2010, PASP, 122, 499

    Eales, S., Dunne, L., Clements, D., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 499

    2010

  40. [40]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  41. [41]

    C., et al

    Forrest, B., Shen, L., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 61

    2025

  42. [42]

    2025, A&A, 696, A95

    Galbiati, M., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A95

    2025

  43. [43]

    C., Forrest, B., et al

    Giddings, F., Lemaux, B. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04913 Gómez-Guijarro, C., Riechers, D. A., Pavesi, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 117

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    C., et al

    Gururajan, G., Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A312

    2025

  45. [45]

    J., Blain, A

    Hainline, L. J., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 96 Häring, N. & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89

    2011

  46. [46]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 77

    Hasinger, G., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 77

    2018

  47. [47]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 15

    Hayashi, M., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., Koyama, Y ., & Tanaka, I. 2012, ApJ, 757, 15

    2012

  48. [48]

    2016, ApJ, 826, L28

    Hayashi, M., Kodama, T., Tanaka, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L28

    2016

  49. [49]

    A., et al

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4352

    2022

  50. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Scott, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124

    2020

  51. [51]

    Hodge, J. A. & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556

    2020

  52. [52]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1

    2006

  53. [53]

    F., Kereš, D., Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Hernquist, L

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Hernquist, L. 2012, MN- RAS, 427, 968

    2012

  54. [54]

    2025, A&A, 699, A324

    Huang, S., Umehata, H., Smail, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A324

    2025

  55. [55]

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

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

    2016

  56. [56]

    J., Biggs, A

    Ivison, R. J., Biggs, A. D., Bremer, M., Arumugam, V ., & Dunne, L. 2020, MN- RAS, 496, 4358

    2020

  57. [57]

    J., Lewis, A

    Ivison, R. J., Lewis, A. J. R., Weiss, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 78

    2016

  58. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 56

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

    2018

  59. [59]

    2021, A&A, 652, A11

    Jin, S., Dannerbauer, H., Emonts, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A11

    2021

  60. [60]

    W., Brandt, W

    Just, D. W., Brandt, W. N., Shemmer, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1004

    2007

  61. [61]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 577

    Kajisawa, M., Kodama, T., Tanaka, I., Yamada, T., & Bower, R. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 577

    2006

  62. [62]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  63. [63]

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

    2012

  64. [64]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  65. [65]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.00120

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    2021, A&A, 649, A152

    Khusanova, Y ., Bethermin, M., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A152

    2021

  67. [67]

    A., Miley, G

    Kuiper, E., Hatch, N. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2245

    2011

  68. [68]

    2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Kurk, J., Venemans, B., Röttgering, H., Miley, G., & Pentericci, L. 2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 301, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. M. Plionis, 141

    2004

  69. [69]

    D., Röttgering, H

    Kurk, J. D., Röttgering, H. J. A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, L1

    2000

  70. [70]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24

    2016

  71. [71]

    S., Nandra, K., Hobbs, A., & Steidel, C

    Laird, E. S., Nandra, K., Hobbs, A., & Steidel, C. C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 217

    2006

  72. [72]

    2015, A&A, 573, A137 Le Fèvre, O., Tasca, L

    Lanzuisi, G., Ranalli, P., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A137 Le Fèvre, O., Tasca, L. A. M., Cassata, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A79

    2015

  73. [73]

    D., Alexander, D

    Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Geach, J. E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 687

    2009

  74. [74]

    D., Eufrasio, R

    Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Tzanavaris, P., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 3

    2019

  75. [75]

    C., Cucciati, O., Le Fèvre, O., et al

    Lemaux, B. C., Cucciati, O., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A33

    2022

  76. [76]

    J., Le Brun, V ., Maier, C., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le Brun, V ., Maier, C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 218

    2009

  77. [77]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., Renzini, A., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le Fèvre, O., Renzini, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70

    2007

  78. [78]

    Z., Shi, D

    Liu, S., Zheng, X. Z., Shi, D. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2422

    2023

  79. [79]

    S., Cooray, A., Ma, J., et al

    Long, A. S., Cooray, A., Ma, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 133

    2020

  80. [80]

    D., et al

    Macuga, M., Martini, P., Miller, E. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 54

    2019

Showing first 80 references.