Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

By separating AGN light from host starlight in JWST/NIRCam images of 17 faint AGN at z≈4–6, this paper finds hosts 10–100 times lighter than photometry-only fits imply, driving black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios up to 1.48 and far above the

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:42 UTC pith:4EMIDC67

load-bearing objection A solid, honest imaging-decomposition study of 17 faint z~4–6 AGN; the host-mass result is well supported, but the headline M_BH/M* offset inherits uncalibrated single-epoch BH masses that the authors themselves flag could erase the offset. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15962 v2 pith:4EMIDC67 submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.GA

Undermassive Hosts of z = 4-6 AGN from JWST/NIRCam Image Decomposition with CONGRESS, FRESCO, and JADES

Zheng Ma , Eichi Egami , Yongda Zhu , Fengwu Sun , Jianwei Lyu , Junyu Zhang , Christopher N. A. Willmer , Andrew J. Bunker
show 13 more authors
Stefano Carniani Emma Curtis-Lake Ryan Hausen Xihan Ji Zhiyuan Ji Ignas Juod\v{z}balis Roberto Maiolino George H. Rieke Pierluigi Rinaldi Yang Sun Sandro Tacchella Hannah \"Ubler Christina C. Williams
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords active galactic nucleisupermassive black holeshost galaxy stellar massblack hole–stellar mass relationhigh-redshift galaxiesimage decompositionbroad Hα AGNJWST/NIRCam
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 asks whether the tight local link between supermassive black hole mass and host galaxy stellar mass already exists at z≈4–6, or whether black holes assemble first. The authors decompose JWST/NIRCam images of 17 faint, broad-Hα-selected AGN into a point-source component (the AGN) and a Sérsic-profile component (the host), then fit the separated host fluxes to measure stellar masses. They robustly detect extended host light in 9 of 17 sources; for these, stellar masses come out 1–2 dex (10–100×) lower than masses from photometry-only SED fits that fail to identify the AGN. The resulting MBH/M* ratios span 0.01–1.48, well above the local relation, implying either genuinely under-massive hosts or hosts too compact to resolve. The result matters because it suggests black-hole growth can outpace host-galaxy assembly in the early universe, and it shows why spatial decomposition is necessary before quoting stellar masses of JWST-discovered AGN.

Core claim

The core claim is that for 17 broad-line AGN at z≈3.9–5.5, spatially decomposing AGN and host light with a PSF-plus-Sérsic model changes inferred stellar masses dramatically: when the photometry-only SED fit had not recognized the AGN, the host masses are ~0.9–1.8 dex lower. With those corrected masses, the black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios span 0.01–1.48, placing the sample above the local MBH–M* relation by roughly a factor of 100–1000. The paper argues the extended light is the host galaxy because its centroid lies within ~0.12 kpc of the AGN, its size–mass relation matches normal galaxies, and its detection rate (~53%) is consistent with other JWST findings; it leaves open that some host

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-component image decomposition: each AGN is modeled as a point spread function, and the host as a single Sérsic profile convolved with the same PSF. Structural parameters (effective radius, Sérsic index) are taken from the best short-wavelength band where the host is least outshone, then held fixed while Markov-chain Monte Carlo fitting scales the PSF and Sérsic fluxes in all seven NIRCam bands; AGN-subtracted images are used for aperture photometry, and the resulting host SED is fit to derive stellar mass. Host-detection significance is quantified by the Bayesian Information Criterion difference between a PS-only and a PS+Sérsic model, with ΔBIC<−500 treated as

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured width of the broad Hα line is entirely Doppler broadening from virial motion, so the single-epoch black-hole mass estimate is correct; the paper itself notes that no direct calibration exists beyond z≈2 and that electron scattering could lower the masses by up to ~2 dex, which would erase most of the apparent ratio excess.

What would settle it

A reverberation-mapping or direct dynamical measurement for one of the nine hosts with detected extended light—using time-resolved or spatially resolved spectroscopy of the broad Hα line—that yields a black-hole mass roughly 2 dex below the single-epoch virial estimate would falsify the elevated MBH/M* ratios; conversely, resolving a compact stellar component that accounts for the missing 1–2 dex in stellar mass would falsify the under-massive-host interpretation.

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

If this is right

  • If the decomposition is correct, photometry-only SED fits that miss the AGN overestimate host stellar masses by 1–2 dex, so the faint-AGN host population at z≈4–6 is substantially lighter than previously inferred.
  • These systems sit a factor of ~100–1000 above the local black-hole–stellar-mass relation, with MBH/M* ratios from 0.01 to 1.48.
  • The detected hosts follow the normal galaxy size–mass relation, so the extreme ratios are not caused by unusually large or diffuse hosts.
  • Only 9 of 17 sources show securely detected extended emission; for the remaining sources the light is consistent with a pure point source, so their mass ratios are either lower limits or their hosts are too compact to be seen.
  • If some host starlight is unresolved in the central point source, the true stellar masses would be higher, but the systems would still point to inside-out growth: black holes assembling before or faster than their hosts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If electron scattering substantially broadens the Hα line, the black-hole masses would fall by up to ~2 dex and the apparent ratio excess would largely vanish; this is an inference beyond the paper, which only flags the possibility and notes the lack of direct calibration beyond z≈2.
  • The paper's two readings—under-massive hosts versus unresolved compact hosts—make opposite predictions for high-resolution follow-up: deeper or longer-wavelength imaging should reveal either a faint extended stellar disk or a compact stellar concentration hidden in the PSF.
  • The 53% host-detection fraction may reflect a selection effect: hosts that are fainter relative to the AGN are harder to detect, so the most extreme ratios could be preferentially missed or preferentially spurious.
  • If these ratios are real, they align with the most extreme high-redshift systems reported elsewhere, suggesting that a black-hole-first growth phase may be common in the early universe and that heavy-seed formation channels deserve closer scrutiny—though the virial-mass caveat makes this inference conditional.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs AGN-host image decomposition for 17 broad-Hα-selected AGN at z≈3.7–6.5 in the JADES GOODS-N field, using galfit+MCMC on up to seven NIRCam wide-band images. The central claims are: (1) extended host-galaxy emission is robustly detected in 9 of 17 sources; (2) when image decomposition is used before SED fitting, host stellar masses can be 1–2 dex lower than those from photometry-only SED fitting; (3) the resulting M_BH/M* ratios, 0.01–1.48, place these objects well above the local M_BH–M* relation; and (4) the hosts may be genuinely undermassive or too compact to be resolved. The paper also presents mock tests in Appendix A assessing host flux recovery and cross-checks against an independent measurement of GN53757.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides one of the first systematic imaging-decomposition constraints on host stellar masses for z≈4–6 broad-line AGN and highlights a real methodological issue: photometry-only SED fits can overestimate host masses by 1–2 dex. The mock experiments, cross-validation, and public data products are useful. However, the headline M_BH/M* offset is directly contingent on single-epoch virial BH masses adopted from the companion paper (J. Zhang et al. 2025), whose Doppler-broadening assumption is explicitly acknowledged as uncalibrated beyond z≈2 and as potentially overestimating M_BH by up to 2 dex under electron scattering. That factor of 100 on the numerator of the central ratio is load-bearing. In addition, the paper conflates the 9 secure host detections (ΔBIC<−500) with 15 sources listed in Table 3 as 'host detection,' mixing marginal and strong detections in the mass-ratio analysis. The work is therefore a valuable contribution to a rapidly moving field, but the central claim needs a quantitatively framed robustness analysis before it can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4, Eq. (2)] The central M_BH/M* ratios are computed from BH masses in Table 3 that rely entirely on single-epoch virial masses from J. Zhang et al. (2025) using Eq. (2). As the text itself states, this estimator assumes the broad Hα FWHM is purely Doppler and has no direct calibration at z≳2. Under the electron-scattering scenario of Rusakov et al. (2025), M_BH could be up to ~2 dex lower, which would erase the claimed offset from the local M_BH–M* relation for most of the sample. This is not a peripheral caveat; it is the numerator of every ratio in Figure 6. The paper should present a quantitative alternative: e.g., recompute the offset and the fraction of objects above local relations with M_BH shifted by −2 dex, or provide an additional BH-mass estimate with an explicit uncertainty budget that includes this systematic. Without this, the headline 'undermassive hosts' claim is conditional on an un
  2. [Table 3, §4.1, §5.4] Table 3 is titled 'AGN galaxies with host detection' and includes 15 sources, but the paper's own criterion in Table 1 flags only 9 as secure (ΔBIC<−500; flag 'Y'). The other six have −500<ΔBIC<0 (flag 'X') and are explicitly described as lacking clear visual confirmation in residual images. The abstract and conclusions correctly state 9 detections, yet the M_BH/M* analysis appears to use all 15 entries. This mixes secure and marginal detections in the central result. Please present the 9-source secure subset separately, and treat the six marginal cases as tentative/upper limits with a flag in Table 3 and Figure 6.
  3. [Appendix A, §3] The mock tests validating host-flux recovery are built on a single compact template galaxy (GN1034159) and assume that a wavelength-independent Sérsic profile (fixed n and R_e across F090W–F444W) describes all targets. The paper notes that GALFITM fits are unstable in F356W/F444W, but the representativeness of a one-template test is not demonstrated. More importantly, the mock conclusions are stated as 'reliable recovery' for F090W–F277W under AGN/host<1000 and SNR≳3, while F356W/F444W are unreliable at low SNR; the SED fits that yield stellar masses include these LW bands. The paper should either propagate the LW flux uncertainties into the final stellar-mass errors or demonstrate explicitly that the derived M* values are insensitive to the unreliable LW bands.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. §6] The abstract says 'z∼4–6' while Section 6 states 'z=3.7–6.5'. Please harmonize the redshift range.
  2. [§5.4] The stated M_BH/M* range is 0.01–1.48, but Table 3 gives log(M_BH/M*)=−2.04 for GN1090253 (ratio≈0.009) and −1.93 for GN1082263 (ratio≈0.012). The text's lower bound should be consistent with the table.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Filter' column is the band used for the representative Sérsic profile, but the table caption does not explicitly say so; adding '(representative SW band)' would improve clarity.
  4. [§5.1] The discussion of nebular emission as an alternative interpretation is balanced, but the sentence 'the non-detection of He ii λ1640 and Mg ii λλ2796,2803...' would benefit from a citation or a note that these are from the CONGRESS/FRESCO spectra presented in the companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No by-construction circularity; host masses are independently fitted and benchmarked, but the elevated M_BH/M* ratios rest on same-group BH masses whose high-z calibration is explicitly unresolved.

full rationale

The paper's novel derivation is the AGN-host image decomposition and the resulting host-galaxy stellar masses. These are obtained by galfit+MCMC fitting of NIRCam images, with the Sersic profile fixed from a short-wavelength band and flux scalings determined by MCMC, and the method is tested against mock injections (Appendix A) and cross-checked against an independent Forcepho measurement for GN53757 (§3). There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed a prediction: M_BH/M* is a quotient of the host stellar mass derived here and the BH mass taken from J. Zhang et al. (2025), not a quantity fit to the same data. The paper explicitly discloses that Eq. (2) is a locally calibrated single-epoch virial estimator with no direct calibration beyond z>2, and that the electron-scattering alternative of Rusakov et al. (2025) could lower inferred BH masses by ~2 dex (§5.4). That is a substantive calibration and correctness risk for the headline ratio, and the BH masses come from a companion paper with overlapping authorship, which contributes to the score of 2; but it is not a by-construction circularity, because the host masses and the decomposition results are independently derived and externally benchmarked, and the paper does not claim to validate the BH-mass estimator. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling citation, or definitional identification of the target result with its input is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are invented. The central result rests on standard image-decomposition and SED priors plus the uncalibrated single-epoch BH-mass assumption. The paper's own appendix bounds host-light recovery bias to ~0.2–0.5 dex under the assumed PSF/Sérsic model, while the BH-mass assumption remains the largest unquantified uncertainty.

free parameters (7)
  • Sérsic index n and effective radius Re per source = n=0.70–8 (bound), Re≈0.01–1.6 kpc (Table 1)
    Best-fit structural parameters of the host Sérsic component, chosen per source in a representative SW band and then fixed across bands. They directly determine all host fluxes and masses.
  • Representative SW band for Sérsic profile = F090W–F200W, most often F115W or F150W (Table 1 col. 5)
    Chosen by visual inspection and reduced χ²; the selection is subjective and not formalized, and it affects the host SED shape and inferred mass.
  • AGN point-source position = Centroid from F444W PSF-only fit, per source
    Assumed identical across all bands; if the true AGN center changes with wavelength, the PS/Sérsic flux split changes.
  • Per-band PS and Sérsic scale factors from MCMC = Flux densities in Table 2
    The actual decomposition outputs; these determine the host SED and stellar mass.
  • Prospector SED parameters = log M* in Table 3; other parameters not tabulated
    Standard SED-fitting parameters (stellar mass, age, dust, star-formation history, AGN template) fitted per source; only stellar masses are reported.
  • BIC detection threshold = ΔBIC < −500 for 'Y' flag
    Ad hoc threshold separating confident from marginal detections; six 'X' sources are still used in the final Table 3 masses.
  • Aperture radius and sky annulus = 0.45″ aperture; 0.60–0.75″ annulus
    Fixed photometry apertures for total and host fluxes; different choices would shift host SEDs and masses.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The residual extended emission after PSF subtraction is dominated by host-galaxy starlight rather than nebular emission, scattered AGN light, or unresolved companions.
    §5.1: the paper argues from small PS/Sérsic centroid offsets and consistency with the size–mass relation, but explicitly states 'it is difficult to uniquely distinguish' the origin and that imaging alone can be misleading.
  • domain assumption The AGN is a single unresolved point source and the host galaxy is a single Sérsic profile.
    §3: targets appear compact with no obvious substructure; a common approximation, but compact central star clusters can mimic the point source.
  • ad hoc to paper The Sérsic parameters are wavelength-independent across F090W–F444W.
    §3–4: fixed from one SW band; the paper finds GALFITM unstable in LW bands and therefore imposes this assumption despite known wavelength dependence of galaxy sizes.
  • domain assumption The broad Hα FWHM is due to virial Doppler motion, and the Reines et al. (2013) single-epoch estimator is valid at z≈4–6.
    §5.4, Eq. 2; there is no direct calibration beyond z≈2, and electron scattering could make M_BH up to 2 dex lower, as acknowledged in the same section.
  • domain assumption JADES mosaic PSF models accurately represent the NIRCam PSF in all bands.
    §3: the PSF defines the AGN model; a wrong PSF changes the flux split, with the paper quoting ≲0.3 dex stellar-mass bias for a worst-case alternative PSF.
  • ad hoc to paper Mock recovery with one compact z=4.8 template galaxy (GN1034159) is representative of all targets.
    Appendix A: recovery bias and mass accuracy are calibrated using a single template galaxy; diversity in host structure, S/N, and flux ratio is not fully sampled.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm=0.3 and H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
    §1: assumed throughout for physical sizes, distances, and stellar-mass absolute scales.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25622 in / 15764 out tokens · 142890 ms · 2026-08-03T08:42:12.080657+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In the local Universe, supermassive black hole (SMBH) masses strongly correlate with their host-galaxies' stellar masses ($M_{*}$), but galaxies hosting faint AGN recently found by JWST may deviate from this relation. To constrain the M$_{\text{BH}}$-M$_{*}$ relation at high redshift, we performed AGN-host image decomposition for 17 low-luminosity AGN galaxies at $z$ $\sim$ 4-6 using NIRCam images in the JADES GOODS-N field. These sources are identified as AGNs from broad H$\alpha$ emission lines detected by the CONGRESS and FRESCO surveys. We used galfit+MCMC to fit spatial profiles in 7 wide-band images and detected extended emission in 9 sources out of 17. The close spatial alignment between the extended components and the AGN centers indicates that this emission likely originates from the host galaxies. These sources are extended at 0.9-2.0~$\mu$m, suggesting significant host-galaxy light in the rest-frame UV. For the sources with the host detection, the stellar mass inferred based on image decomposition result can be 1-2 dex lower than the results without image decomposition. The BH-to-stellar mass ratio spans $M_{\text{BH}}/M_\ast$ $\sim$ 0.01-1.48, placing them well above the local $M_{\text{BH}}$-$M_\ast$ relation. In contrast, the host-galaxy size-mass relation broadly agrees with previous measurements. Our results suggest that the host galaxies of these faint AGN are either genuinely under-massive compared to their black hole masses, or too compact to be spatially resolved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15962 by Andrew J. Bunker, Christina C. Williams, Christopher N. A. Willmer, Eichi Egami, Emma Curtis-Lake, Fengwu Sun, George H. Rieke, Hannah \"Ubler, Ignas Juod\v{z}balis, Jianwei Lyu, Junyu Zhang, Pierluigi Rinaldi, Roberto Maiolino, Ryan Hausen, Sandro Tacchella, Stefano Carniani, Xihan Ji, Yang Sun, Yongda Zhu, Zheng Ma, Zhiyuan Ji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: False-color postage (1.5 ′′ ×1.5 ′′) stamps of the AGN-hosting galaxy sample from JWST/NIRCam cutouts. The RGB images are constructed by combining F090W+F115W (blue), F150W+F200W (green), and F277W+F356W+F444W (red). For GN1089568, GN1085355, GN1090549, and GN1087388, F090W, F115W, and the average of F356W and F444W are used for the blue, green, and red channels, respectively. structures of the host galaxi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panel: AGN-Host Decompostion of GN1014406. Cutout size is 1.5 ′′ × 1.5 ′′. First column displays the orginal image in each band. Second column is the two component model (PSF + S´ersic). Third column shows the S´ersic model in each band. Fourth column show the AGN-subtracted image, where in SW bands we can find some extended emission left as a signal of host detection. Fifth column is the residue image… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SED fits for four selected targets. Green curves show the AGN component, orange curves the stellar compo￾nent, and blue curves the total model flux. Solid lines corre￾spond to results based on image decomposition. Model-pre￾dicted fluxes are shown as symbols: blue circles for the total flux, orange squares for the stellar component, and green diamonds for the AGN component. Dashed lines indicate photometry… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar mass–size relation for our sample. Effec￾tive radii obtained from imaging-based AGN–host decom￾position are shown as red circles for z ∼ 4–5 targets and red squares for z ∼ 5–6 targets. The solid line and dashed line with shaded regions represent the best-fit size–mass re￾lations and intrinsic scatter from N. Allen et al. (2025) in the corresponding redshift bins. The dotted line shows the size–mas… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BH mass versus host galaxy stellar mass. Targets for which we detect emission from the host galaxy are shown as red solid circles. Green triangles are measurements from Y. Harikane et al. (2023), where they decomposed the AGN/Host galaxy for faint type-1 AGN using JWST/NIRCam and HST data. Purple pentagons show measurements of broad-line AGN from C.-H. Chen et al. (2024) based on image decomposition. Light… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of recovered host fluxes to real host fluxes. Each color denotes a different injected AGN-to-host flux ratio (legend). Recovered host fluxes are consistent with the true values within ∼ 10 % across most bands. At higher AGN/host ratios the scatter increases, yet the decomposition remains stable even for AGN-dominated cases up to a ratio of 20. Error bars indicate 1σ uncertainties. The dashed line rep… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar mass estimates as a function of the AGN-to-host flux ratio for simulated images at different SNRs, with 1 σ error bars. From top left to bottom right, the panels show results for the original image (SNR ≳ 10), SNR ∼ 10, SNR ∼ 5, and SNR ∼ 3. The dashed line is the stellar mass estimate based on original input without AGN injection. Baldwin, J. O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024,, Astrophys… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: S´ersic parameter recovery as a function of AGN-to-host flux ratio in the F115W band. The left panel shows the recovered S´ersic index n, and the right panel shows the effective radius Re in pixels, both derived from the galfit decomposition of mock AGN–host images. The S´ersic parameters obtained from the original galaxy image (with no injected AGN component) are shown as dashed lines. The shaded regions … 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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. How to raise a supermassive black hole: interpreting early JWST AGN with the AESOPICA simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A systematic simulation suite with a mock JWST survey shows early overmassive black holes can arise from any seed mass under fast accretion, and broad-line selection explains much of the observed overmassiveness.

  2. The quasi-star model for Little Red Dots: potential and challenges

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Quasi-star models using Cloudy radiative transfer reproduce the UV-NIR continuum shape, Balmer break, and hydrogen line luminosities in some LRDs when combined with host galaxy emission, but fail to account for broad ...

  3. Unveil the nature of JWST-AGN and Little Red Dots with SKAO continuum surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    SKAO continuum surveys will detect radio emission from JWST AGN and LRDs and distinguish between Compton-thick absorption, intrinsically weak accretion, and dense gas cocoon scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Berg, D. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adab76

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adab76 2025

  3. [3]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 2025

  4. [4]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 18 Figure 8.Stellar mass estimates as a function of the AGN-to-host flux ratio for simulated images at different SNRs, with 1σ error bars. From top left to bottom right, the panels show results for the original image (SNR≳10), SNR∼10, SNR∼5, and SNR∼3...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 2024

  5. [5]

    O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B

    Baldwin, J. O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2410.006 http://ascl.net/2410.006

    2024

  6. [6]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  7. [7]

    J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration

    Bunker, A. J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha, J. Hodge, J. Afonso, L. Pentericci, & D. Sobral, 342–346, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319009463

    doi:10.1017/s1743921319009463 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Li, R., & Inayoshi, K

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Inayoshi, K. 2025, ApJL, 989, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adee0a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adee0a 2025

  9. [9]

    C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04446 2024

  10. [10]

    J., Bunker, A

    Curtis-Lake, E., Cameron, A. J., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01033 2025

  11. [11]

    L., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al

    Danhaive, A. L., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06315, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06315 19 Figure 9.S´ ersic parameter recovery as a function of AGN-to-host flux ratio in the F115W band. The left panel shows the recovered S´ ersic index n, and the right panel shows the effective radiusRe in pixels, both derived from th...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06315 2025

  12. [12]

    D., et al

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

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

  13. [13]

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  14. [14]

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

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

  15. [15]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  16. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18543

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.18543 2024

  17. [17]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

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

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

  18. [18]

    J., Secunda, A

    Furtak, L. J., Secunda, A. R., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554110

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554110 2025

  19. [19]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  20. [20]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1979

    Geris, S., Maiolino, R., Isobe, Y., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1979

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1979 2026

  21. [21]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5 2023

  22. [22]

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

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

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

  23. [23]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f 2024

  24. [24]

    N., Maiolino, R., Juodˇ zbalis, I., et al

    Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodˇ zbalis, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920 2025

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e 2023

  26. [26]

    Hausen, R., & Robertson, B. E. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 39, 100586, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100586

    arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    G., Angeloudi, E., et al

    Huertas-Company, M., Iyer, K. G., Angeloudi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346800

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 2024

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd 2025

  29. [29]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1867 2025

  30. [30]

    C., Tacchella, S., et al

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7f 2024

  31. [31]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  32. [32]

    L., Kocevski, D

    Jones, B. L., Kocevski, D. D., Pacucci, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.07376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.07376 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08210-5 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03551 2...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07376 2025

  33. [33]

    P., Baldry, I., et al

    Kennedy, R., Bamford, S. P., Baldry, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2032

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2032 2015

  34. [34]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 2023

  35. [35]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 2024

  36. [36]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  37. [37]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551 2025

  38. [38]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 2023

  39. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10659

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10659

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10659 2025

  40. [40]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643 2024

  41. [41]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    doi:10.1086/300353 1998

  42. [42]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 2024

  43. [43]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf359 2025

  44. [44]

    A., Windhorst, R

    Marshall, M. A., Windhorst, R. A., Ferrami, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554307

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554307 2025

  45. [45]

    P., Leja, J., Speagle, J

    Mathews, E. P., Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace720

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace720 2023

  46. [46]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  47. [47]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16596 2025

  48. [48]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76 2024

  49. [49]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  50. [50]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  51. [51]

    Peng, C. Y. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1098, doi: 10.1086/522774

    doi:10.1086/522774 2007

  52. [52]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  53. [53]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  54. [54]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  55. [55]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/116 2013

  56. [56]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

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

  57. [57]

    H., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Bonaventura, N., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 992, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa10

  58. [58]

    H., Wu, Z., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Rieke, G. H., Wu, Z., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17738

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17738

  59. [59]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16595, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16595

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16595 2025

  60. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01034

    Scholtz, J., Carniani, S., Parlanti, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01034

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01034 2025

  61. [61]

    S., Choi, E., Somerville, R

    Sharma, R. S., Choi, E., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3836

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3836 2024

  62. [62]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x

    arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acebe0 2023

  64. [64]

    H., Lyu, J., et al

    Sun, Y., Rieke, G. H., Lyu, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc250

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc250 2025

  65. [65]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/7 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Netzer, H., Lira, P., & Shemmer, O. 2011, ApJ, 730, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/7 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/7 2011

  66. [66]

    P., H¨ außler, B., et al

    Vulcani, B., Bamford, S. P., H¨ außler, B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu632

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu632 2014

  67. [67]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    Wang, T., Sun, H., Zhou, L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7 2025

  68. [68]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17 2024

  69. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9aa3

    Yu, H., Fan, L., Han, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9aa3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9aa3 2025

  70. [70]

    A., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914 2024

  71. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02895 21

    Zhang, J., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02895 21

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02895 2025

  72. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14804

    Zhu, Y., Alberts, S., Lyu, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14804

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14804 2024

  73. [73]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1517

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Li, J., & Shen, Y. 2024, ApJ, 962, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1517

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1517 2024