Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

NEXUS: A Spectroscopic Census of Broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots at $3\lesssim z\lesssim 6$

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Extended host-galaxy emission, hundreds of parsecs across, dominates the rest-frame UV of most little red dots, explaining their UV upturn; their small-scale clustering is too strong for their abundance.

desk verdict Careful new LRD census; the host-dominated UV result is solid, but the claimed clustering tension is an extrapolation the authors themselves flag, so read it as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20393 v1 pith:4GQMV6KD submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.GA

Ming-Yang Zhuang , Junyao Li , Yue Shen , Xiaojing Lin , Alice E. Shapley , Feige Wang , Qiaoya Wu , Qian Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleilittlereddotsbroad-lineAGNshigh-redshiftgalaxiessupermassiveblackholesAGNhostgalaxyclusteringJWSTNIRCamgrismspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a spectroscopic census of 23 broad-line active galactic nuclei (BLAGNs) at redshift 3 to 6, 15 of them classified as little red dots (LRDs), selected from NIRCam/WFSS grism spectroscopy in the NEXUS survey. Its central claim is that the peculiar rest-frame UV upturn in the spectral energy distributions of most LRDs is largely produced by extended, hundreds-of-parsec host-galaxy emission rather than by the AGN itself. The paper also measures small-scale clustering by cross-correlating these objects with a photometric galaxy sample: BLAGNs appear to occupy halos of a few times $10^{11}\,M_\odot$, while the LRD signal is formally too strong for the LRD space density, suggesting LRDs have excess clustering on sub-megaparsec scales. If right, the results reframe LRDs as AGN embedded in small, often interacting host galaxies and caution against interpreting their UV light as purely nuclear.

What carries the argument

The image-decomposition machinery is the PSF plus S\'ersic model: each LRD is fit in six NIRCam bands with an unresolved point source (nucleus) plus a S\'ersic profile (host), with wavelength-dependent size and index, so that extended host light can be separated from the AGN. The clustering machinery is the angular cross-correlation function between the sparse BLAGN/LRD samples and a photometric galaxy sample, converted to real space through Limber's equation and translated to halo masses with the Sheth-Tormen bias formula, assuming the small-scale power law with slope $\beta=0.8$ extrapolates to $5$--$20\,h^{-1}$ cMpc scales.

What would settle it

Spectrally resolve the extended rest-frame UV light of a handful of LRDs with an integral-field spectrograph: stellar absorption features would confirm the host-galaxy origin of the UV upturn, while a featureless or AGN-like scattered spectrum would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the rest-frame UV-optical light of most little red dots is not dominated by the accreting black hole: in ten of fifteen LRDs, multi-band image decomposition reveals extended, roughly 0.6 kpc, disk-like emission centered on the nucleus, contributing about half of the F200W flux and rising to about three-quarters of the bluest UV flux, and this extended light largely accounts for the UV upturn that defines the LRD SED shape. A second result is the clustering measurement: BLAGNs at median $z\approx4.5$ have linear bias $3.30^{+2.88}_{-2.04}$, corresponding to halo masses of a few $\times10^{11}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, while the LRD bias of $11.44^{+5.58}_{-5.04}$ is too large to match the LRD space density, leading the authors to argue that LRDs show excess small-scale clustering rather than occupying such massive halos.

Load-bearing premise

The clustering results stand on the assumption that the clustering measured on scales below about one megaparsec follows the same single power law all the way out to 5--20 $h^{-1}$ cMpc; if LRDs cluster extra strongly only on small scales, the inferred large-scale bias and halo masses would be overestimated and the apparent tension with their abundance would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LRD spectral energy distributions do not need exotic AGN-disk or scattered-light models to explain the UV upturn: ordinary host starlight can do it for most objects.
  • Most LRDs in this sample show signs of interaction, with 8 of 10 hosts having companions or asymmetric morphology, so LRDs may preferentially trace merger-driven fuelling.
  • Half of the LRDs show strong Balmer absorption, supporting a picture in which high-density gas surrounds the broad-line region and shapes the red rest-optical slope.
  • BLAGNs at $z\approx3$--$6$ occupy dark-matter halos of a few times $10^{11}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, consistent with other JWST-based samples at similar redshifts.
  • The LRD space density is about $10^{-5}$ cMpc$^{-3}$ with a tentative decline toward $z\approx3$, implying an evolving population or accretion mode across this redshift range.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If host starlight dominates the rest-frame UV, AGN bolometric luminosities and Eddington ratios derived from full-SED fits in other LRD studies may be systematically overestimated, since part of the UV continuum is not from the black hole.
  • The excess small-scale LRD clustering, if real, would imply that many LRDs are satellites or merger remnants in group-scale halos rather than central galaxies, weakening the case that their black holes are overmassive for their halos.
  • Time-domain follow-up offers a clean test: the extended host component should be non-variable, whereas the nuclear component should flicker, and NEXUS's multi-epoch design could separate the two.
  • Stellar-mass estimates for LRDs should be re-examined in light of the host-UV result: the authors' range $10^{7.5}$--$10^{9.8}\,M_\odot$ already brackets extreme mass ratios, and SED-fitting codes that treat all UV as AGN light would bias stellar masses low.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectroscopic sample of 23 broad-line AGNs (BLAGNs) at 3 ≲ z ≲ 6, of which 15 are classified as Little Red Dots (LRDs), drawn from NIRCam/WFSS spectroscopy in the NEXUS EDR field. The authors measure broad Hα/He I line properties, derive virial black hole masses and Eddington ratios, perform multi-band AGN-host image decomposition with GALFITM, estimate number densities, and measure angular cross-correlations against a photometric galaxy sample. The two headline results are: (1) extended rest-frame UV-optical host emission is detected in most LRDs and largely explains the LRD UV upturn, and (2) the small-scale clustering signal, when extrapolated to linear scales, implies a linear bias of about 3.3 for BLAGNs and about 11.4 for LRDs, with the LRD value apparently too high for their abundance, which the authors interpret as possible excess small-scale clustering. The paper is careful to flag the extrapolation caveat in Table 4 and Section 4.3, but the abstract still presents the abundance-vs-clustering tension as a central finding.

Significance. If the host-galaxy detection holds, the paper makes an important contribution to the debate over the origin of the LRD UV emission: showing that resolved, disk-like host light dominates the rest-UV in most of these objects is a concrete step beyond the unresolved photometric SED arguments in the literature. The clustering measurement, although very preliminary, is also one of the first for a spectroscopically confirmed LRD sample and will be a useful reference point for future NEXUS data. The paper's strengths include the detailed line-fitting and image-decomposition procedures, the explicit statement of caveats on black hole mass systematics, and the transparent acknowledgment that the linear bias inference rests on a power-law extrapolation from one-halo scales. The main limitation is that the headline LRD clustering claim cannot be independently supported without either a large-scale measurement or a demonstrated robustness to the extrapolation assumption; the current data only directly constrain angular scales below about 1 cMpc.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3)] The linear bias and host-halo mass estimates for both BLAGNs and LRDs are obtained by fitting a single power law with fixed slope β=0.8 to the angular correlation function over 1-100 arcsec, which at z~4.5 corresponds to comoving scales below roughly 1 cMpc, and then extrapolating this power law to r=[5,20] h^-1 cMpc to derive r0, ξ20, and the linear bias. This angular range is plausibly dominated by one-halo and satellite/companion contributions, and the paper's own Table 4 note states that the extrapolation 'may lead to significantly overestimated linear bias factors.' Because the claimed LRD abundance-vs-clustering tension (abstract, Section 4.3) depends entirely on this extrapolation, the authors should add robustness tests, for example by refitting with β varied over a plausible range, by excluding the smallest angular bins, or by fitting a two-halo-plus-one-halo model. If such tests are not feasible with the current data, the abstract and conclusions should be reframed so that the LRD bias of 11.4 and the 'excess small-scale clustering' interpretation are explicitly presented as conditional on an untested power-law extrapolation, rather than as a direct measurement.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3)] The Limber inversion for the cross-correlation assumes a known redshift distribution N2(z) for the photometric galaxy sample. The galaxy sample is selected with 22 < m_F444W < 26 and 3 < z_phot < 6, and the paper itself notes that 'some low-z interlopers still scatter into the high-z tail.' Photo-z scatter and interlopers directly change the kernel in Eq. (3) and therefore shift the derived r0 and bias; the jackknife uncertainties quoted in Table 4 do not include this systematic. The authors should either propagate photo-z PDFs into Eq. (3), test the sensitivity to the z_phot cut, or at least provide a quantitative bracket on how much the photo-z errors could change r0 and b. This is a second, independent systematic in the same load-bearing clustering analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The column header for θ0 gives no units; the text says θ is in units of radian, but the reported values (0.40, 1.77, 0.41) appear more consistent with arcsec or arcmin. Please specify the units explicitly in the table and in the text, and ensure the conversion into Eq. (2) uses consistent units.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2.3] The abstract states that 'Half of the LRDs show strong Balmer absorption'; the body of the paper correctly reports 6 of 12 LRDs with Hα coverage. Please add the denominator in the abstract or rephrase to 'half of the LRDs with Hα coverage.'
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 14] The text says the extended emission contribution increases from ~50% in F200W to ~75% in F090W, but the f_PSF medians displayed in Figure 14 (e.g., 0.15 for F090W and 0.27 for F200W) imply extended fractions of roughly 85% and 73%, respectively. Please verify the numbers in the text or clarify the definition of 'contribution' used.
  4. [Section 3.4] The statement that sample completeness does not affect the clustering measurements should be qualified: it holds only if the incompleteness is independent of environment. Since the selection includes criteria based on line detectability and visual inspection, this assumption should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 3.2] The GALFITM decomposition is central to the extended-host-emission claim, but the construction of the PSF model (e.g., empirical stars, model PSF, or a combination) is not described in this paper. Please state how the PSF was built and how correlated noise in the imaging was treated, or give a more specific reference to the procedure.
  6. [Figure 12] The text refers to best-fit power-law models summarized in Table 4, but Figure 12 does not overplot the fitted models. Adding the best-fit curves would help the reader assess the quality of the power-law fits and the extrapolation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's measurement and inference chain is self-contained, and the one caveated extrapolation is transparently flagged rather than recycled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. Black hole masses and Eddington ratios come from external single-epoch virial calibrations (Reines & Volonteri 2015; Stern & Laor 2012), not from any quantity derived in this work. The rest-frame UV host-emission claim rests on GALFITM decomposition with explicit PSF-only versus PSF+Sersic model comparison, residual imaging, and radial surface-brightness profiles; the conclusion that extended emission explains the LRD UV upturn follows from the measured wavelength-dependent PSF flux fractions, not from the LRD selection criteria. The clustering analysis uses measured angular cross/auto-correlation functions with jackknife errors, then applies the independent Limber equation and Sheth-Tormen bias formalism; the inferred bias and halo masses are compared, rather than fitted, to the measured number densities. The paper explicitly warns in the Table 4 note and Section 4.3 that the power-law extrapolation from one-halo scales 'may lead to significantly overestimated linear bias factors' and frames the LRD excess-small-scale-clustering interpretation as one possible resolution, not as a pre-loaded conclusion. Self-citations to Shen et al. 2024 and Zhuang et al. 2024b are data-provenance references for the NEXUS EDR observations, not assumptions that contain the paper's target results. No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction, no equation is defined in terms of the result it supports, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Most numerical inputs are external calibrations (virial BH estimator, bolometric correction, Sheth-Tormen bias). The only chosen-by-hand parameter is the power-law slope beta=0.8 used for clustering. The main non-standard assumption is that small-scale clustering can be extrapolated to linear scales. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Power-law slope beta of the angular correlation function = 0.8 (fixed by hand)
    Section 3.4: 'we fix the best-fit power-law slope to beta=0.8 for all samples.' The derived correlation length r0 and linear bias depend on this choice; the paper notes large systematic uncertainties.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Broad-line emitters in the sample are active galactic nuclei (AGNs), i.e., accreting supermassive black holes.
    Section 2.3 states 'We further assume that these broad-line emitters are of AGN nature (i.e., BLAGNs), though this is still being debated, in particular for the LRD population.' This assumption underpins the interpretation of the entire census.
  • domain assumption The low-redshift H-alpha virial black hole mass estimator of Reines & Volonteri (2015) applies to z~3-6 broad-line AGNs and LRDs.
    Section 3.1, Eq. (1). The paper notes large systematic uncertainties but uses this single-epoch estimator for all MBH values.
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction L_bol = 130 x L_Halpha,broad (Stern & Laor 2012) is valid for these objects.
    Section 3.1 uses this to derive Eddington ratios; no extinction correction is applied to Halpha.
  • ad hoc to paper The angular correlation function measured at 1-100 arcsec follows a single power law with slope beta=0.8 that can be extrapolated to 5-20 h^-1 cMpc linear scales.
    Section 3.4 and Table 4. The authors set beta=0.8 by hand and caution that the extrapolation may overestimate linear bias.
  • domain assumption GALFITM PSF-plus-Sersic decomposition correctly separates the nuclear point source from extended host or companion emission in the NIRCam images.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix A; the paper notes PSF amplitude may be overestimated due to degeneracy with compact unresolved host substructure.
  • domain assumption The photometric galaxy sample's redshift distribution N(z) accurately represents the true overlap with the BLAGN/LRD samples for the cross-correlation.
    Section 3.4 restricts to 22< m_F444W <26 and 3< z_phot <6, but photo-z outliers can scatter in; the clustering signal is integrated over the assumed N(z).
  • standard math Limber equation, power-law correlation function conversion, and the Sheth-Tormen (2001) halo bias formula correctly map the measured angular clustering to linear bias and halo mass.
    Section 3.4, Eqs. (2)-(6); standard tools, but the halo-mass inference depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NEXUS: A Spectroscopic Census of Broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots at $3\lesssim z\lesssim 6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4GQMV6KD

@misc{pith2026250520393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NEXUS: A Spectroscopic Census of Broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots at $3\lesssim z\lesssim 6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4GQMV6KD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20393}
}
abstract

We present a spectroscopic sample of 23 broad-line AGNs (BLAGNs) at $3\lesssim z\lesssim 6$ selected using F322W2+F444W NIRCam/WFSS grism spectroscopy of the central 100 ${\rm arcmin^2}$ area of the NEXUS survey. Among these BLAGNs, 15 are classified as Little Red Dots (LRDs) based on their rest-frame UV-optical spectral slopes and compact morphology. The number density of LRDs is $\sim 10^{-5}\,{\rm cMpc^{-3}}$, with a hint of declining towards the lower end of the probed redshift range. These BLAGNs and LRDs span broad H$\alpha$ luminosities of $\sim 10^{42.2}-10^{43.7}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$, black hole masses of $\sim 10^{6.3}-10^{8.4}\,M_\odot$, and Eddington ratios of $\sim 0.1-1$ (median value 0.4), though the black hole mass and Eddington ratio estimates carry large systematic uncertainties. Half of the LRDs show strong Balmer absorption, suggesting high-density gas surrounding the line-emitting region. We detect extended (hundreds of parsec) rest-frame UV-optical emission from the host galaxy in the majority of these LRDs, which contributes significantly or even dominantly to their total UV emission. This host emission largely accounts for the peculiar UV upturn of the LRD spectral energy distribution. We also measure the small-scale ($\lesssim 1\,{\rm cMpc}$) clustering of these BLAGNs and LRDs by cross-correlating with a photometric galaxy sample. Extrapolating the power-law two-point correlation function model to large linear scales, we infer a linear bias of $3.30_{-2.04}^{+2.88}$ and typical halo masses of a few $\times 10^{11}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ for BLAGNs at the sample median redshift of $z\sim 4.5$. However, the inferred linear bias and halo masses of LRDs, while formally consistent with those for BLAGNs at $\sim 1.5\sigma$, appear too large to be compatible with their space density, suggesting LRDs may have strong excess clustering on small scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite color (F090W+F200W+F444W) stamps of broad-line emitters identified in NEXUS field using NIR￾Cam/WFSS spectra in the central 100 arcmin2 area. Each stamp has a size of 101 by 101 pixels (3. ′′03 by 3. ′′03), with source ID and redshift labeled at the top-left and bottom-right corners, respectively. A 1-arcsec scalebar is shown at the lower-left corner. Classified LRDs are labeled in the top-right corner. te… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2D and 1D NIRCam/WFSS grism spectra of broad-line emitters with background and continuum removed. Spectra are zoomed in around Hα, except for NX34911, which is centered on He i. Errorbars indicate the 1σ uncertainty of the data. Gray and black dashed curves represent best-fit narrow and broad components, respectively, while red solid curve represents the total emission lines (narrow + broad). Source ID and the FWHM … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Additional emission lines detected in NIR￾Cam/WFSS grism spectra of the three BLAGNs with FWHM< 900 km s−1 . Symbols are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Half-light radius in the F444W filter (rh,F444W) versus F444W magnitude and (b) rest-UV slope (βUV) versus rest-optical slope (βopt) at z ≥ 2 for bright objects (F444WSNR >12) in NEXUS EDR. Each pixel has a scale of 0. ′′03. Blue and red stars and gray dots represe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of NEXUS BLAGN sample. Object name and redshift are labeled at the top-left corner, with LRDs marked in red fonts. Best-fit spectral slopes and their 1σ uncertainties are shown at the lower-right corner and illustrated as blue (red)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Luminosity of the broad component of Hα (LHα, broad) versus redshift. Open black circles, orange down triangles, blue up triangles, green squares, and red pluses represent BLAGNs from NEXUS survey, ASPIRE survey (Lin et al. 2024), EIGER and FRESCO surveys (Matthee et a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric luminosity (Lbol) versus black hole mass (MBH). Symbols are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AGN-host image decomposition results of LRDs with significant host emission detections. Columns from left to right show composite color (F090W+F200W+F444W) stamp, F200W data, F200W data minus the best-fit PSF model from the PSF-only model set, F200W data − best-fit PSF…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Continued. 3.3. Abundance Given the relatively small number of objects, we will present a crude estimate of number density of BLAGNs in this paper, and defer a more comprehensive lumi￾nosity function measurement to a future paper with all BLAGNs in the complete NEXUS-W…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The number density as a function of redshift for BLAGNs and LRDs. The blue and red circles represent the values of BLAGNs and LRDs in this paper. Green squares, orange triangles, and purple triangles represent the measure￾ments from JWST LRDs in Kocevski et al. (2024)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The NEXUS EDR area divided into 16 jackknife regions for clustering analysis. The underlying dots are the full NEXUS photometric galaxy sample, and the red and blue points are the spectroscopic LRDs and remaining BLAGNs. JWST data, and z < 3.7 LRDs selected from groun…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Angular correlation functions for different sam￾ples, measured over 1 ≲ θ ≲ 100′′. Albeit with large er￾ror bars, the LRD sample appears to have stronger cluster￾ing than the underlying photometric galaxy sample. Best-fit power-law models are summarized in [PITH_FULL…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Test on our LRD clustering measurements. The gray points represent the cross-correlation between galaxies and the subset of 10 high-fidelity LRDs in our sample. The results are similar to our fiducial clustering measurements with the full clustering sample of 14 LRDs.…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The fractional contribution of the PSF com￾ponent to the total (PSF+S´ersic) flux from the PSF+S´ersic model set (fPSF) versus redshift (left column) and LHα, broad (right column). Rows from top to the bottom show the re￾sults in the F090W, F115W, F150W, and F200W fil…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Star formation history (a), galaxy spectra (b), and mass-to-light ratio (M/L) in the observed F200W filter (c) of mock galaxies generated using CIGALE. Colors represent different combinations of stellar age and e-folding time τ in unit of Myr. Star formation histories…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Stellar mass versus redshift (a) and BH mass versus stellar mass (b) for the LRDs with extended emission detection in this paper. Blue triangle pairs indicate the stellar mass range of NEXUS LRDs. Red dashed line represent the local MBH −M∗ relation for classical bulg…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Where did all the Little Red Dots go? The abundance of LRD analogues among objects with broad lines at $z < 0.35$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Only 0.08% of low-redshift broad-line objects have SEDs resembling high-redshift Little Red Dots, yielding nine candidates, one of which is the known analogue 'The Egg'.

  2. NEXUS: Spectral Variability of Little Red Dots and Blue Active Galactic Nuclei at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Little Red Dots at z=2-6 show less than 4% intrinsic H-alpha variability on 1-3 month rest-frame timescales, a flat white-noise pattern unlike normal AGNs, implying different broad-line production.

  3. NEXUS: A Search for Nuclear Variability with the First Two JWST NIRCam Epochs

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using two JWST NIRCam epochs, difference imaging finds 465 nuclear variable sources and sets tight F444W variability upper limits of 3 to 10 percent for ten Little Red Dots.

  4. No Luminous Little Red Dots: A Sharp Cutoff in Their Luminosity Function

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Little red dots have a sharp cutoff in their optical luminosity function at about lambda L5100 = 2.5e44 erg/s, roughly 20 times fainter than the quasar turnover, so they are not hidden quasars.

  5. Cosmic Outliers: Low-Spin Halos Explain the Abundance, Compactness, and Redshift Evolution of the Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Little Red Dots are explained as galaxies formed in the lowest roughly 1% of dark matter halo spin, which reproduces their abundance, compactness, and redshift distribution.

  6. Little Red reionization factories

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    LRDs may drive cosmic reionization: tidal fields are said to funnel intergalactic hydrogen into colliding streams at LRD sites, igniting starbursts that ionize the gas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Ͱ = 24=RkB:- V6jN :;hغ Pooȳ(6j_TO<

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Steidel , C

    Adelberger , K. L., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., et al. 2005, , 619, 697, 10.1086/426580

    doi:10.1086/426580 2005

  5. [5]

    T., Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Kov \'a cs , O

    Ananna , T. T., Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Kov \'a cs , O. E., Natarajan , P., & Hickox , R. C. 2024, , 969, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  6. [6]

    2025, , 536, 3677, 10.1093/mnras/stae2765

    Arita , J., Kashikawa , N., Onoue , M., et al. 2025, , 536, 3677, 10.1093/mnras/stae2765

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2765 2025

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    Baggen , J. F. W., van Dokkum , P., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 977, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Kocevski , D

    Barro , G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Kocevski , D. D., et al. 2024, , 963, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, , 984, L55, 10.3847/2041-8213/adce6c

    Bellovary , J. 2025, , 984, L55, 10.3847/2041-8213/adce6c

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Bertemes , C., Wylezalek , D., Rupke , D. S. N., et al. 2025, , 693, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450451

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Blecha , L., Torrey , P., et al

    Bhowmick , A. K., Blecha , L., Torrey , P., et al. 2024, , 533, 1907, 10.1093/mnras/stae1819

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Natarajan , P., et al

    Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Goulding , A. D., Natarajan , P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  12. [20]

    M., Akins , H

    Casey , C. M., Akins , H. B., Kokorev , V., et al. 2024, , 975, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba7

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

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

    Chen , C.-H., Ho , L. C., Li , R., & Inayoshi , K. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03183, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03183

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

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

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

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Shanks , T

    Croom , S. M., & Shanks , T. 1999, , 303, 411, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02232.x

    1999

  17. [25]

    P., et al

    de Graaff , A., Rix , H.-W., Naidu , R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16600, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16600

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11752, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11752

    D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., Perna , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11752, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11752

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Secunda , A

    Furtak , L. J., Secunda , A. R., Greene , J. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.07875, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07875

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    E., & Ho , L

    Greene , J. E., & Ho , L. C. 2005, , 630, 122, 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Labbe , I., Goulding , A

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

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Kelly , D

    Greene , T. P., Kelly , D. M., Stansberry , J., et al. 2017, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 3, 035001, 10.1117/1.JATIS.3.3.035001

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    N., Maiolino , R., Juod z balis , I., et al

    Hainline , K. N., Maiolino , R., Juod z balis , I., et al. 2025, , 979, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Hall , P. B. 2007, , 133, 1271, 10.1086/511272

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, , 959, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

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

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Vika , M., et al

    H \"a u ler , B., Bamford , S. P., Vika , M., et al. 2013, , 430, 330, 10.1093/mnras/sts633

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, , 70, S33, 10.1093/pasj/psx129

    He , W., Akiyama , M., Bosch , J., et al. 2018, , 70, S33, 10.1093/pasj/psx129

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05537, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05537

    Inayoshi , K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05537, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05537

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03653, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653

    Inayoshi , K., Kimura , S., & Noda , H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03653, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2025, , 980, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

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

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Haiman , Z

    Inayoshi , K., Shangguan , J., Chen , X., Ho , L. C., & Haiman , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05322, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05322

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Jeon , J., Bromm , V., Liu , B., & Finkelstein , S. L. 2025, , 979, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f3a

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    Ji , X., Maiolino , R., \"U bler , H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    M., & Davis , S

    Jiang , Y.-F., Stone , J. M., & Davis , S. W. 2019, , 880, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, , 535, 853, 10.1093/mnras/stae2367

    Juod z balis , I., Ji , X., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, , 535, 853, 10.1093/mnras/stae2367

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al

    Juod z balis , I., Maiolino , R., Baker , W. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03551, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03551

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 691, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    Killi , M., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 691, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Finkelstein , S

    Kocevski , D. D., Finkelstein , S. L., Barro , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2024, , 975, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d03

    Kokorev , V., Chisholm , J., Endsley , R., et al. 2024, , 975, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d03

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    Kokubo , M., & Harikane , Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

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

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Matthee , J., et al

    Labbe , I., Greene , J. E., Matthee , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04557, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04557

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    E., Bezanson , R., et al

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

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    Lambrides , E., Garofali , K., Larson , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    D., & Szalay , A

    Landy , S. D., & Szalay , A. S. 1993, , 412, 64, 10.1086/172900

    1993 doi

  48. [56]

    2006, , 643, 112, 10.1086/502798

    Laor , A. 2006, , 643, 112, 10.1086/502798

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Tremaine , S., Richstone , D., & Faber , S

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

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    Leung , G. C. K., Finkelstein , S. L., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12005, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12005

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.05048, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.05048

    Li , J., Shen , Y., & Zhuang , M.-Y. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.05048, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.05048

    2025 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    D., Shen , Y., et al

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

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Chen , C.-H

    Li , R., Ho , L. C., & Chen , C.-H. 2025 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12867, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12867

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    Li , Z., Inayoshi , K., Chen , K., Ichikawa , K., & Ho , L. C. 2025 d , , 980, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada5fb

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    Liddle , A. R. 2007, , 377, L74, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  56. [64]

    Limber , D. N. 1953, , 117, 134, 10.1086/145672

    1953 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, , 974, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    Lin , X., Wang , F., Fan , X., et al. 2024, , 974, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08039, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08039

    Lin , X., Fan , X., Wang , F., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08039, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08039

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02896

    Lin , X., Fan , X., Sun , F., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02896

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    E., Setton , D

    Ma , Y., Greene , J. E., Setton , D. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08032, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08032

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    2024, , 976, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    Madau , P., & Haardt , F. 2024, , 976, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, , 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

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

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2025, , 538, 1921, 10.1093/mnras/staf359

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

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    P., Brammer , G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Kotiwale , G., et al

    Matthee , J., Naidu , R. P., Kotiwale , G., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02846, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02846

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

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

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    2024, , 961, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    Narayanan , D., Lower , S., Torrey , P., et al. 2024, , 961, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, , 960, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

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

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, , 957, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

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

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    Papovich , C., Dickinson , M., & Ferguson , H. C. 2001, , 559, 620, 10.1086/322412

    2001 doi

  71. [79]

    Y., Ho , L

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

    2002 doi

  72. [80]

    2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    ---. 2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    G., Barro , G., Rieke , G

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Barro , G., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2024, , 968, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    Perger , K., Fogasy , J., Frey , S., & Gab \'a nyi , K. \'E . 2025, , 693, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452422

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    F., Schaye , J., et al

    Pizzati , E., Hennawi , J. F., Schaye , J., et al. 2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf660

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    E., & Volonteri , M

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

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    H., et al

    Rinaldi , P., Bonaventura , N., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14383, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14383

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    P., et al

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

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    J., Greene , J

    Setton , D. J., Greene , J. E., de Graaff , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03424, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03424

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    Shen , Y. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61, 10.48550/arXiv.1302.2643

    2013 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    A., Oguri , M., et al

    Shen , Y., Strauss , M. A., Oguri , M., et al. 2007, , 133, 2222, 10.1086/513517

    2007 doi

  82. [90]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    Shen , Y., Zhuang , M.-Y., Li , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    K., Mo , H

    Sheth , R. K., Mo , H. J., & Tormen , G. 2001, , 323, 1, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x

    2001

  84. [92]

    2012, , 423, 600, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Stern , J., & Laor , A. 2012, , 423, 600, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    2012

  85. [93]

    H., Lyu , J., et al

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

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    S., Silverman , J

    Tanaka , T. S., Silverman , J. D., Shimasaku , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14246, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14246

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    J., Barger , A

    Taylor , A. J., Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., et al. 2023, , 266, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/accd70

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Finkelstein , S

    Taylor , A. J., Finkelstein , S. L., Kocevski , D. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06772, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06772

    2024 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    J., Kokorev , V., Kocevski , D

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  90. [98]

    L., Fan , X., Wang , F., & Yang , J

    Tee , W. L., Fan , X., Wang , F., & Yang , J. 2025, , 983, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/adc5e3

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    E., et al

    Volonteri , M., Trebitsch , M., Greene , J. E., et al. 2025, , 695, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451963

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, , 963, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187c

    Wang , B., Leja , J., Atek , H., et al. 2024, , 963, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187c

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    L., et al

    Wang , B., de Graaff , A., Davies , R. L., et al. 2025, , 984, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1ca

    2025 doi

  95. [103]

    F., et al

    Wang , F., Yang , J., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2023, , 951, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6f

    2023 doi

  96. [104]

    2022, , 263, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    Wu , Q., & Shen , Y. 2022, , 263, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    T., et al

    Yue , M., Eilers , A.-C., Ananna , T. T., et al. 2024, , 974, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12719

    Zhang , C., Wu , Q., Fan , X., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12719. 2505.12719

    2025

  99. [107]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02895, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02895

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

    2025 doi

  100. [108]

    Zhang , Z., Jiang , L., Liu , W., & Ho , L. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02729, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02729

    2024 doi arXiv

  101. [109]

    Zhuang , M.-Y., & Ho , L. C. 2022, , 934, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7aaf

    2022 doi

  102. [110]

    2023, NatAs, 10.1038/s41550-023-02051-4

    ---. 2023, NatAs, 10.1038/s41550-023-02051-4

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    2024 a , , 962, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1517

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

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    2024, , 962, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1183

    Zhuang , M.-Y., & Shen , Y. 2024, , 962, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1183

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06372, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06372

    Zhuang , M.-Y., Wang , F., Sun , F., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06372, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06372

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.