Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A UV-faint quasar at z=7.7 sits in the brightest [CII] host yet seen among its peers, so UV dimness does not mean a low-mass galaxy.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:31 UTC pith:T4JGFATT

load-bearing objection Solid single-object NOEMA paper: most distant [CII]/dust in a quasar host, and a UV-faint Euclid source that is the brightest [CII] emitter among the three known z≈7.5 systems. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03430 v1 pith:T4JGFATT submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Euclid: A UV-faint quasar in a highly luminous star-forming host galaxy at z approx 7.7

S. Belladitta , R. Decarli , E. Ba\~nados , F. Walter , D. Yang , F. Guarneri , K. Jahnke , S. Bisogni
show 175 more authors
S. E. I. Bosman X. Fan Y. Fu J. F. Hennawi Y. Matsuoka D. J. Mortlock M. Onoue J.-T. Schindler L. Spinoglio D. Stern F. Wang G. Vietri C. J. Willott J. Wolf J. Yang R. A. A. Bowler K. I. Caputi D. L. Clements C. M. Gutierrez H. J. A. Rottgering D. Scott F. Shankar G. Zamorani A.-C. Eilers B. Altieri S. Andreon N. Auricchio C. Baccigalupi M. Baldi A. Balestra S. Bardelli P. Battaglia A. Biviano M. Brescia S. Camera V. Capobianco C. Carbone J. Carretero S. Casas M. Castellano G. Castignani S. Cavuoti K. C. Chambers A. Cimatti C. Colodro-Conde G. Congedo C. J. Conselice L. Conversi Y. Copin A. Costille F. Courbin H. M. Courtois J.-G. Cuby A. Da Silva H. Degaudenzi G. De Lucia H. Dole M. Douspis F. Dubath X. Dupac S. Dusini S. Escoffier M. Farina R. Farinelli F. Faustini S. Ferriol F. Finelli P. Fosalba S. Fotopoulou M. Frailis E. Franceschi M. Fumana S. Galeotta K. George B. Gillis C. Giocoli J. Gracia-Carpio A. Grazian F. Grupp L. Guzzo S. V. H. Haugan H. Hoekstra W. Holmes I. M. Hook F. Hormuth A. Hornstrup M. Jhabvala B. Joachimi S. Kermiche A. Kiessling B. Kubik M. K\"ummel M. Kunz H. Kurki-Suonio R. Laureijs A. M. C. Le Brun S. Ligori P. B. Lilje V. Lindholm I. Lloro G. Mainetti D. Maino E. Maiorano O. Mansutti S. Marcin O. Marggraf M. Martinelli N. Martinet F. Marulli R. J. Massey E. Medinaceli S. Mei M. Melchior M. Meneghetti E. Merlin G. Meylan A. Mora M. Moresco L. Moscardini C. Neissner R. C. Nichol S.-M. Niemi C. Padilla S. Paltani F. Pasian K. Pedersen W. J. Percival V. Pettorino S. Pires G. Polenta M. Poncet L. A. Popa L. Pozzetti F. Raison A. Renzi J. Rhodes G. Riccio H.-W. Rix E. Romelli M. Roncarelli B. Rusholme R. Saglia Z. Sakr D. Sapone B. Sartoris M. Schirmer P. Schneider T. Schrabback A. Secroun G. Seidel E. Sihvola P. Simon C. Sirignano G. Sirri L. Stanco P. Tallada-Cresp\'i A. N. Taylor I. Tereno N. Tessore S. Toft R. Toledo-Moreo F. Torradeflot I. Tutusaus L. Valenziano J. Valiviita T. Vassallo Y. Wang J. Weller F. M. Zerbi E. Zucca J. Garc\'ia-Bellido J. Mart\'in-Fleitas P. Monaco V. Scottez M. Viel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords high-redshift quasars[CII] 158 µmstar-forming host galaxiessupermassive black hole co-evolutionEuclidNOEMAepoch of reionisationUV-faint quasars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reports the most distant [CII] 158 µm and cold-dust continuum detections yet obtained for a quasar host, fixing the systemic redshift of EUCL J1253+7054 at z=7.6980. Despite being nearly two magnitudes fainter in the rest-frame UV than the three previously known z≈7.5 quasars, the source is the brightest [CII] emitter among them and shows luminous far-infrared continuum, implying a vigorously star-forming host (SFR >250 M☉ yr⁻¹). The authors argue that the UV faintness is therefore more likely dust obscuration or sub-Eddington accretion than an intrinsically lower-mass galaxy, placing these systems at a different evolutionary stage from the UV-bright quasars that have dominated earlier samples. The result demonstrates that wide-area optical/near-IR surveys can now be paired with millimetre interferometry to characterise supermassive black holes and their hosts across a wider luminosity range in the first billion years.

Core claim

Despite M_1450 = −24.06 (nearly two magnitudes fainter than the prior z≈7.5 sample), EUCL J1253+7054 hosts the brightest [CII] emission yet measured at these redshifts (L_[CII] = 2.03^{+0.26}_{-0.23}×10^9 L_☉) together with L_FIR = 3.6×10^{12} L_☉, a dust mass ~1.4×10^8 M_☉ and SFR >250 M_☉ yr⁻¹, showing that UV-faint quasars at z>6 can reside in massive, actively star-forming galaxies.

What carries the argument

The [CII] 158 µm luminosity and single-band 1.3 mm continuum, converted via a modified black-body (T_dust=47 K, β=1.6) and standard SFR calibrations, which together quantify host star-formation rate, dust mass and dynamical mass and allow direct comparison with UV-brighter z≈7.5 quasars.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of the single 1.3 mm continuum point into FIR luminosity, dust mass and star-formation rate rests on fixed dust temperature and emissivity values that the paper itself shows can change the derived quantities by factors of two to five.

What would settle it

A multi-band submillimetre SED that measures a substantially different dust temperature or emissivity (or a high-resolution [CII] map that yields a much larger dynamical mass) would reverse the claim that the host is as massive and vigorously star-forming as the UV-bright comparison sample.

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

If this is right

  • UV luminosity is not a reliable proxy for host-galaxy mass or star-formation rate at z>7.
  • UV-faint quasars can still host luminous [CII] reservoirs and short gas-depletion times, consistent with an extreme starburst phase.
  • The MBH/Mdyn ratio for such systems may sit closer to the local relation once black-hole masses are measured, implying a different evolutionary stage from UV-bright quasars.
  • Combining wide-area optical surveys with millimetre interferometry can systematically map black-hole–galaxy co-evolution across a broader luminosity baseline.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If dust obscuration or sub-Eddington accretion is common among UV-faint systems, the true space density of massive black holes at z>7 is higher than UV-selected samples alone imply.
  • JWST spectroscopy of the same objects that measures Civ or MgII black-hole masses would immediately test whether these hosts already follow the local MBH–Mdyn relation.
  • The short gas-depletion times suggest that the starburst phase is brief; larger samples will show whether UV-faint and UV-bright quasars occupy sequential or parallel tracks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents IRAM/NOEMA observations of the Euclid-discovered quasar EUCL J1253+7054 at z_[CII]=7.6980±0.0004, reporting the most distant [CII] 158 µm and cold-dust continuum detections in a quasar host to date. The source has L_[CII]=2.03^{+0.26}_{-0.23}×10^9 L_⊙ (brightest among known z≈7.5 quasars), L_FIR=3.6×10^{12} L_⊙, M_dust≈1.4×10^8 M_⊙, and M_dyn in the range (0.33–1.3)×10^{10} M_⊙ from simplified dispersion- and rotation-dominated estimators. Despite being ~2 mag fainter in the rest-frame UV (M_1450=−24.06) than the previously known z≈7.5 quasars, the host is vigorously star-forming (SFR ≳250 M_⊙ yr^{−1} from both [CII] and IR estimators). The authors interpret the UV-faintness as likely due to dust obscuration or sub-Eddington accretion rather than lower host mass, and position the source as a bridge between UV-bright quasars and fainter JWST AGNs.

Significance. The result is significant: it extends [CII] and dust continuum detections of quasar hosts to the highest redshift yet, and demonstrates that a UV-faint Euclid quasar can host the brightest [CII] emission among z≈7.5 systems. The central observational claim (highest L_[CII] at lower M_1450) is model-independent and rests on consistent image-plane and uv-plane flux measurements plus a BIC-preferred single-Gaussian line fit. The work illustrates the scientific return of combining Euclid’s wide-area UV-faint quasar discoveries with submillimetre follow-up, and is consistent with emerging evidence that UV-faint z>6 quasars preferentially reside in [CII]-luminous hosts. Derived quantities that depend on assumed dust parameters are appropriately flagged.

major comments (2)
  1. Sect. 3.6 and Fig. 5: The M_BH/M_dyn discussion is load-bearing for the evolutionary interpretation (UV-faint systems possibly closer to the local relation). M_BH is only a lower limit under the Eddington assumption (Eq. 7) and M_dyn is a first estimate from unresolved data (Eqs. 5–6, with large R_[CII] and inclination uncertainties). The paper already notes that M_dyn >10^{10} M_⊙ and M_BH below a few 10^8 M_⊙ would be needed to sit on the local relation, but the abstract and concluding remarks still present the evolutionary-stage claim relatively strongly. Soften the language to match the data limitations, or explicitly state that the ratio remains consistent with UV-bright high-z quasars within the present uncertainties.
  2. Sect. 3.2 and Table 1: L_FIR, L_TIR, SFR_IR, M_dust and the [CII] deficit all depend on the fixed MBB parameters T_dust=47 K, β=1.6 and the optically thin assumption. The paper correctly reports that varying these within the Costa et al. (2026) range changes results by factors of ≈2–5 (and optical-depth tests by ≈2.6). Because the abstract quotes specific L_FIR and SFR values, a short quantitative range (or a note that the [CII]-based SFRs already give SFR>250 M_⊙ yr^{−1}) should appear in the abstract or Table 1 notes so that the headline numbers are not over-interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sect. 3.1: The aperture choice (r=1.5 arcsec) is well motivated by the plateau method, but a brief statement of the enclosed flux fraction relative to the synthesised beam would help readers assess possible missing extended emission.
  2. Fig. 3: The tentative southern extension at ~3σ in a single 84 km s^{−1} channel is noted; a short remark on whether it survives alternative continuum subtraction or uv-tapering would strengthen the claim that the source is not a merger.
  3. Eq. (2) vs. Table 1: Kennicutt & Evans (2012) is applied with L_IR integrated 3–1100 µm, while L_TIR is defined 8–1000 µm; a one-sentence clarification that the numerical difference is negligible for the adopted MBB would avoid confusion.
  4. Sect. 3.6: The molecular-to-total gas fraction of 0.75 and δ_GDR=100 (or 80±40) are standard but should be referenced more explicitly when quoting the M_gas range 0.41–1.24×10^{10} M_⊙.
  5. Typographical: Abstract and text use both L_FIR and L_TIR; ensure consistent subscripting. A few references appear as “submitted” or arXiv-only; update if possible before final acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: [CII] luminosity and UV comparison are direct measurements; dust/SFR parameters are literature assumptions with reported sensitivity, not fitted to force the claim.

full rationale

This is a standard observational astronomy paper reporting NOEMA detections of [CII] and continuum for a newly discovered Euclid quasar. The central claim (brightest [CII] among z≈7.5 quasars despite ~2 mag fainter M_1450) rests on the Gaussian-fitted line flux converted via the standard Carilli & Walter (2013) formula (Eq. 1) and a literature UV magnitude; neither quantity is fitted to produce the other. SFR estimates use published calibrations (Kennicutt & Evans 2012; De Looze et al. 2014; Herrera-Camus et al. 2015) applied to the measured luminosities. Dust temperature, β, gas-to-dust ratio and inclination are taken from external literature (Beelen et al. 2006; Costa et al. 2026; Wang et al. 2024) rather than optimized against the target result; the paper itself quantifies that varying them changes derived L_FIR, M_dust and [CII] deficit by factors of ~2–5 while the [CII]-based SFR still exceeds 250 M_⊙ yr^{-1}. Dynamical-mass formulae (Eqs. 5–6) are standard order-of-magnitude estimators applied to unresolved data, with large stated uncertainties. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and self-citations (e.g. to Yang et al. 2026 for discovery/M_1450) supply independent observational inputs rather than load-bearing circular premises. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The observational fluxes and redshift are data-driven. All derived physical quantities (L_IR, M_dust, M_gas, M_dyn, SFR, M_BH lower limit) rest on standard but non-unique astrophysical calibrations and assumed parameters taken from the high-z quasar literature; the paper quantifies the resulting factor-of-few systematics.

free parameters (5)
  • T_dust = 47 K
    Fixed at 47 K for the modified black-body conversion of 1.3 mm continuum to L_FIR/L_TIR/M_dust (Sect. 3.2); literature range 34–65 K changes results by factors ≈2–5.
  • beta (emissivity index) = 1.6
    Fixed at 1.6 following Beelen et al. (2006) and high-z quasar convention; alternative values 2.0–2.2 alter IR luminosities and deficit.
  • delta_GDR (gas-to-dust ratio) = 100
    Assumed 100 (with exploratory range 80±40) to convert M_dust to M_gas (Sect. 3.6).
  • inclination angle i = 46 deg
    Median i=46° from Wang et al. (2024) sample used in the rotating-disk M_dyn formula (Eq. 6).
  • molecular-to-total gas fraction = 0.75
    Fixed at 0.75 following Neeleman/Decarli practice to obtain molecular gas mass.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Modified black-body dust emission with CMB correction of da Cunha et al. (2013) and opacity law of Dunne et al. (2000) correctly converts single-band continuum to IR luminosity and dust mass.
    Invoked throughout Sect. 3.2; paper notes optical-depth and temperature systematics.
  • domain assumption SFR calibrations of Kennicutt & Evans (2012), De Looze et al. (2014) and Herrera-Camus et al. (2015) apply to this z=7.7 quasar host.
    Used in Sect. 3.5 to convert L_IR and L_[CII] into SFR estimates.
  • domain assumption Dynamical mass can be estimated from unresolved [CII] size and line width via either dispersion-dominated (Eq. 5) or inclined rotating-disk (Eq. 6) formulae.
    Sect. 3.6; paper acknowledges inability to distinguish kinematics with current resolution.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity from M_1450 via Runnoe et al. (2012) and Eddington-limited accretion give a valid lower bound on M_BH.
    Sect. 3.6; assumes negligible obscuration for the UV-to-bolometric step.
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7.
    Stated in Sect. 1; used for all luminosity and physical-size conversions.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29752 in / 3256 out tokens · 28324 ms · 2026-07-12T02:31:36.895177+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Constraining the co-evolution of supermassive black holes and their host galaxies in the first billion years after the Big Bang is essential for understanding the formation of the earliest cosmic structures. Here, we present IRAM/NOrthern Extended Millimeter Array (NOEMA) observations of the $z \approx 7.7$ quasar EUCL\,J125308.55+705432.3, recently discovered in the first data release of the Euclid Wide Survey. We report the most distant detections of [CII] 158$\mu\mathrm{m}$ and cold dust emission in a quasar host to date. The [CII] emission line sets the systemic redshift at $z=7.6980\pm0.0004$. The source exhibits luminosities of $L_{\rm FIR}=3.6\times10^{12}\,L_{\odot}$ and $L_{[CII]}=2\times10^9\,L_{\odot}$, respectively, a dust mass of 1.4$\times 10^{8}\,M_{\odot}$, and a dynamical mass in the range 0.33-1.3$\times10^{10}\,M_{\odot}$. Remarkably, despite being nearly two magnitudes fainter in the rest-frame UV ($M_{1450}=-24.06$) than previously known $z\approx7.5$ quasars (<M$_{1450}$> $\sim-$26.5), EUCL\,J125308.55+705432.3 exhibits the brightest [CII] emission among them. This indicates that the host galaxy is actively star-forming, with a star-formation rate $>250\,M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, consistent with recent findings that UV-faint quasars at $z>6$ preferentially reside in [CII]-luminous galaxies. The UV-faintness likely reflects dust obscuration or sub-Eddington accretion, rather than lower host mass, suggesting these systems are at a different stage in their evolution compared to UV-bright quasars. These IRAM/NOEMA observations highlight the power of combining Euclid's wide-area quasar discovery potential with submillimetre follow-up observations to characterise the host galaxies of early supermassive black holes across a broader redshift and luminosity range than previously accessible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03430 by A. Balestra, A. Biviano, A.-C. Eilers, A. Cimatti, A. Costille, A. Da Silva, A. Grazian, A. Hornstrup, A. Kiessling, A. M. C. Le Brun, A. Mora, A. N. Taylor, A. Renzi, A. Secroun, B. Altieri, B. Gillis, B. Joachimi, B. Kubik, B. Rusholme, B. Sartoris, C. Baccigalupi, C. Carbone, C. Colodro-Conde, C. Giocoli, C. J. Conselice, C. J. Willott, C. M. Gutierrez, C. Neissner, C. Padilla, C. Sirignano, D. J. Mortlock, D. L. Clements, D. Maino, D. Sapone, D. Scott, D. Stern, D. Yang, E. Ba\~nados, E. Franceschi, E. Maiorano, E. Medinaceli, E. Merlin, E. Romelli, E. Sihvola, E. Zucca, F. Courbin, F. Dubath, F. Faustini, F. Finelli, F. Grupp, F. Guarneri, F. Hormuth, F. Marulli, F. M. Zerbi, F. Pasian, F. Raison, F. Shankar, F. Torradeflot, F. Walter, F. Wang, G. Castignani, G. Congedo, G. De Lucia, G. Mainetti, G. Meylan, G. Polenta, G. Riccio, G. Seidel, G. Sirri, G. Vietri, G. Zamorani, H. Degaudenzi, H. Dole, H. Hoekstra, H. J. A. Rottgering, H. Kurki-Suonio, H. M. Courtois, H.-W. Rix, I. Lloro, I. M. Hook, I. Tereno, I. Tutusaus, J. Carretero, J. F. Hennawi, J. Garc\'ia-Bellido, J.-G. Cuby, J. Gracia-Carpio, J. Mart\'in-Fleitas, J. Rhodes, J.-T. Schindler, J. Valiviita, J. Weller, J. Wolf, J. Yang, K. C. Chambers, K. George, K. I. Caputi, K. Jahnke, K. Pedersen, L. A. Popa, L. Conversi, L. Guzzo, L. Moscardini, L. Pozzetti, L. Spinoglio, L. Stanco, L. Valenziano, M. Baldi, M. Brescia, M. Castellano, M. Douspis, M. Farina, M. Frailis, M. Fumana, M. Jhabvala, M. K\"ummel, M. Kunz, M. Martinelli, M. Melchior, M. Meneghetti, M. Moresco, M. Onoue, M. Poncet, M. Roncarelli, M. Schirmer, M. Viel, N. Auricchio, N. Martinet, N. Tessore, O. Mansutti, O. Marggraf, P. Battaglia, P. B. Lilje, P. Fosalba, P. Monaco, P. Schneider, P. Simon, P. Tallada-Cresp\'i, R. A. A. Bowler, R. C. Nichol, R. Decarli, R. Farinelli, R. J. Massey, R. Laureijs, R. Saglia, R. Toledo-Moreo, S. Andreon, S. Bardelli, S. Belladitta, S. Bisogni, S. Camera, S. Casas, S. Cavuoti, S. Dusini, S. E. I. Bosman, S. Escoffier, S. Ferriol, S. Fotopoulou, S. Galeotta, S. Kermiche, S. Ligori, S. Marcin, S. Mei, S.-M. Niemi, S. Paltani, S. Pires, S. Toft, S. V. H. Haugan, T. Schrabback, T. Vassallo, V. Capobianco, V. Lindholm, V. Pettorino, V. Scottez, W. Holmes, W. J. Percival, X. Dupac, X. Fan, Y. Copin, Y. Fu, Y. Matsuoka, Y. Wang, Z. Sakr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 0. ′08 × 0. ′08 NOEMA 1.3 mm continuum map (left) and continuum-subtracted [C ii] map (right) of the quasar EUCL J1253+7054. The blue cross shows the NIR position of the source from the Euclid JE-band image, consistent with the submm position. Contour levels correspond to 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 × rms (0.05 and 0.2 mJy beam−1 for the continuum and the [Cii] map, respectively). The synthesised beam is plotted i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: NOEMA spectrum of the [C ii] emission line in EUCL J1253+7054 (observed frame) obtained from the 30 km s−1 data cube. The red solid curve is the fit to the data consisting of a single Gaussian component plus continuum. A few channels close to the border of the sub-bands, near 218.25 GHz have been masked (vertical grey lines). The bottom panel displays the residuals (data − model), with the dashed line mark… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 30 km s−1 [C ii] channel maps of the continuum-subtracted data of EUCL J1253+7054. Each channel is labelled with its central velocity. The central black cross indicates the NIR position (same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [C ii]-to-IR luminosity ratio as a function of IR luminosity for EUCL J1253+7054, compared with measurements from the literature: high-redshift quasars are from Wang et al. (2024) and Bouwens et al. (2025), while the compilation of galaxies is from Decarli & Díaz￾Santos (2025) and include ULRIGs, Submillimeter galaxies, optically selected galaxies (primarily Lyman-break galaxies and Ly−α emitters) starburs… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MBH versus Mdyn of EUCL J1253+7054 compared to measure￾ments from other high-z quasars (data from Wang et al. 2024). For our source, we plot two points at the two estimated Mdyn values (see Sect. 3.6) and at the lower limit of the black hole mass (assuming Eddington-limited accretion). The black line represents the local rela￾tion of Kormendy & Ho (2013). 4. Concluding remarks In this paper we report NOEMA… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: L[C ii] vs M1450 for EUCL J1253+7054 and for z ≥ 6.5 quasars reported in the literature (Wang et al. 2024; Bouwens et al. 2025; Decarli & Díaz-Santos 2025). Despite its lower UV brightness, EUCL J1253+7054 is the brightest [C ii] emitter at z > 7.5, suggesting that the quasar UV luminosity is not a good proxy of the host-galaxy [C ii] emission. the brightest [C ii] emitter among the z > 7.5 quasars targete… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The eROSITA X-ray luminosity function of active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The eROSITA DR2 sample yields a new soft-band AGN X-ray luminosity function spanning eight decades in luminosity to z≈6, with lower low-redshift bright-end densities and higher high-redshift abundances than previous models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 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 Bañados, E., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, L8 Bañados, E., Khusanova, Y ., Decarli, ...

    2022

  2. [2]

    J., Banerji, M., et al

    Barnett, R., Warren, S. J., Banerji, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A31

    2015

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Beelen, A., Cox, P., Benford, D. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 694

    2006

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 699, A335

    Belladitta, S., Bañados, E., Xie, Z.-L., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A335

    2025

  5. [5]

    A., & Novak, M

    Boogaard, L., Meyer, R. A., & Novak, M. 2021, pypi.org, doi: 10.5281/ZEN- ODO.5775603

    doi:10.5281/zen- 2021

  6. [6]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Álvarez-Márquez, J., Davies, F. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02902

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Banados, E., Decarli, R., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Banados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.24128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 160

    2022

  9. [9]

    Carilli, C. L. & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105

    2013

  10. [10]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, Phys. Rep., 541, 45

    2014

  11. [11]

    2026, A&A, 706, A285 da Cunha, E., Groves, B., Walter, F., et al

    Costa, M., Decarli, R., Pozzi, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A285 da Cunha, E., Groves, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 13 de Blok, W. J. G. & Walter, F. 2014, AJ, 147, 96 De Looze, I., Cormier, D., Lebouteiller, V ., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A62

    2026

  12. [12]

    & Díaz-Santos, T

    Decarli, R. & Díaz-Santos, T. 2025, A&A Rev., 33, 4

    2025

  13. [13]

    2023, A&A, 673, A157

    Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Diaz-Santos, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A157

    2023

  14. [14]

    2022, A&A, 662, A60

    Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Venemans, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A60

    2022

  15. [15]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, Nature, 545, 457

    2017

  16. [16]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604 Díaz-Santos, T., Armus, L., Charmandaris, V ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 32 Díaz-Santos, T., Armus, L., Charmandaris, V ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 68 Díaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, L6

    2018

  17. [17]

    D., et al

    Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 91

    2025

  18. [18]

    2000, MNRAS, 315, 115 Euclid Collaboration: Barnett, R., Warren, S

    Dunne, L., Eales, S., Edmunds, M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 115 Euclid Collaboration: Barnett, R., Warren, S. J., Mortlock, D. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A85 Euclid Collaboration: Jahnke, K., Gillard, W., Schirmer, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A3 Euclid Collaboration: Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, Acevedo Barroso, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1

    2000

  19. [19]

    Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    2023

  20. [20]

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

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

    2022

  21. [21]

    Farrah, D., Lebouteiller, V ., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 38

    2013

  22. [22]

    2023, ApJ, 954, L10

    Feruglio, C., Maio, U., Tripodi, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L10

    2023

  23. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 107 Gildas Team

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Ferrara, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 107 Gildas Team. 2013, GILDAS: Grenoble Image and Line Data Analysis Software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1305.010 Graciá-Carpio, J., Sturm, E., Hailey-Dunsheath, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, L7

    2019

  24. [24]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    2023

  25. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  26. [26]

    R., Malek, L., & Boehmer, L

    Helou, G., Khan, I. R., Malek, L., & Boehmer, L. 1988, ApJS, 68, 151

    1988

  27. [27]

    D., Wolfire, M

    Herrera-Camus, R., Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 1

    2015

  28. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 94

    Herrera-Camus, R., Sturm, E., Graciá-Carpio, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 94

    2018

  29. [29]

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

    2020

  30. [30]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  31. [31]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    2020

  32. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 116

    Izumi, T., Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 116

    2024

  33. [33]

    C., et al

    Kaasinen, M., Venemans, B., Harrington, K. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A33

    2024

  34. [34]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 84

    Kato, N., Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 84

    2020

  35. [35]

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

    2012

  36. [36]

    2022, A&A, 664, A39

    Khusanova, Y ., Bañados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A39

    2022

  37. [37]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  38. [38]

    Langer, W. D. & Pineda, J. L. 2015, A&A, 580, A5

    2015

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 103

    Leipski, C., Meisenheimer, K., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 103

    2013

  40. [40]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 154

    Leipski, C., Meisenheimer, K., Walter, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 154

    2014

  41. [41]

    D., Shen, Y ., et al

    Li, J., Silverman, J. D., Shen, Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 19

    2025

  42. [42]

    P., Walter, F., et al

    Li, J., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 27

    2022

  43. [43]

    E., Rigopoulou, D., Hopwood, R., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Rigopoulou, D., Hopwood, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 63

    2014

  44. [44]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145

    2024

  45. [45]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 68

    Matsuoka, Y ., Iwasawa, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 68

    2025

  46. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 949, L42

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Iwasawa, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L42

    2023

  47. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    2019

  48. [48]

    2023, A&A, 676, A71

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bischetti, M., D’Odorico, V ., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A71

    2023

  49. [49]

    2025, A&A, 694, A171

    Mazzucchelli, C., Decarli, R., Belladitta, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A171

    2025

  50. [50]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  51. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 10

    Neeleman, M., Bañados, E., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 10

    2019

  52. [52]

    P., et al

    Neeleman, M., Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 141

    2021

  53. [53]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 63

    Novak, M., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 63

    2019

  54. [54]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 77

    Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., Matsuoka, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 77

    2019

  55. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 18

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Bagley, M., Rojas-Ruiz, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 18

    2025

  56. [56]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 193

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 193

    2024

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 150

    Rojas-Ruiz, S., Bañados, E., Neeleman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 150

    2021

  58. [58]

    C., Brotherton, M

    Runnoe, J. C., Brotherton, M. S., & Shang, Z. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 478

    2012

  59. [59]

    A., et al

    Rybak, M., Calistro Rivera, G., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 112

    2019

  60. [60]

    2025, A&A, 695, A23

    Salvestrini, F., Feruglio, C., Tripodi, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A23

    2025

  61. [61]

    B., Mazzarella, J

    Sanders, D. B., Mazzarella, J. M., Kim, D. C., Surace, J. A., & Soifer, B. T. 2003, AJ, 126, 1607

    2003

  62. [62]

    F., Davies, F

    Schindler, J.-T., Hennawi, J. F., Davies, F. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1732–1744

    2025

  63. [63]

    2015, A&A, 579, A60

    Schneider, R., Bianchi, S., Valiante, R., Risaliti, G., & Salvadori, S. 2015, A&A, 579, A60

    2015

  64. [64]

    K., et al

    Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3119

    2016

  65. [65]

    C., et al

    Shao, Y ., Wang, R., Jones, G. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 138

    2017

  66. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.23066

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

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    2024, A&A, 689, A220

    Tripodi, R., Feruglio, C., Fiore, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A220

    2024

  68. [68]

    2023, ApJ, 946, L45

    Tripodi, R., Feruglio, C., Kemper, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L45

    2023

  69. [69]

    P., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 159

    2018

  70. [70]

    P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 130

    2020

  71. [71]

    P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Zschaechner, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 37

    2016

  72. [72]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 V olonteri, M. & Reines, A. E. 2016, ApJ, 820, L6

    2020

  73. [73]

    2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    2021

  74. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 9

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 9

    2024

  75. [75]

    J., Albert, L., Arzoumanian, D., et al

    Willott, C. J., Albert, L., Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 546

    2010

  76. [76]

    J., Bergeron, J., & Omont, A

    Willott, C. J., Bergeron, J., & Omont, A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 123

    2015

  77. [77]

    C., Maiolino, R., Smit, R., & Schneider, R

    Witstok, J., Jones, G. C., Maiolino, R., Smit, R., & Schneider, R. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3119

    2023

  78. [78]

    F., Guarneri, F., Wolf, J., & Belladitta, S

    Yang, D., Hennawi, J. F., Guarneri, F., Wolf, J., & Belladitta, S. 2026, A&A submitted

    2026

  79. [79]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    2021

  80. [80]

    2020, ApJ, 897, L14

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L14

    2020

Showing first 80 references.