Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

ALMA reveals bright circumgalactic emission and a biconical outflow in z~6.4 quasar PSOJ183+05

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining ALMA configurations reveals a biconical cold-gas outflow and a 6-kpc circumgalactic halo around a z~6.4 quasar, with an outflow rate near 930 solar masses per year.

desk verdict Solid multi-config ALMA analysis gives the first extended [CII] and high-velocity outflow picture in PSOJ183+05; outflow interpretation needs careful caveats, but the detections are secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15357 v2 pith:7EKY567D submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA

Manuela Bischetti , Chiara Feruglio , Stefano Carniani , Valentina D'Odorico , Francesco Salvestrini , Fabrizio Fiore This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftquasarscircumgalacticmedium[CII]158microngalacticoutflowsgalaxyevolutionALMAinterferometrybaryoncycledelayedfeedback
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 ALMA observations of the z~6.4 quasar PSOJ183+05 that combine three antenna configurations, recovering faint cold-gas emission that single-configuration data miss. The authors claim that [CII] 158 micron emission traces clumpy gas out to a ~6 kpc radius, placing it at the interface between the interstellar medium and the circumgalactic medium, and that the kinematics reveal a rotating disk plus a biconical outflow extending to ~5 kpc. They measure an atomic mass outflow rate of roughly 930 solar masses per year, comparable to the host galaxy's star-formation rate, and argue this shows quasar feedback can deliver energy to the CGM within a few million years without immediately quenching star formation. A methodological point runs through the paper: relying on high-resolution ALMA data alone would miss the outflow and most of the extended emission, offering an explanation for conflicting results in the literature.

What carries the argument

The central technical device is the combination of ALMA visibilities from three antenna configurations (0.12, 0.3, and 1.1 arcsec resolution) using CASA's visibility concatenation, which restores sensitivity to diffuse emission while keeping sub-arcsecond resolution for kinematics. On the science side, a pixel-by-pixel two-Gaussian decomposition separates the systemic disk (FWHM below 500 km/s) from a broad component (FWHM above 500 km/s) whose flux-weighted maximum velocities, $v_{\max}=|v_{\rm mom1}|+2\sigma_v$, exceed 750 km/s in 46% of the gas and reach 1000--1200 km/s; this broad component is identified as outflowing gas. The outflow rate uses the conical wind formula $\dot{M}_{\rm of} = \Omega\, M_{\rm of}\, v_{\max}/r_{\rm of}$, with $\Omega\sim1/2$ and a mass derived from [CII] luminosity under photodissociation-region excitation.

What would settle it

Measure an independent dynamical mass of PSOJ183+05, for example from CO kinematics or JWST stellar velocity dispersion, and recompute the escape velocity; if the escape velocity exceeds the observed maximum velocities of most broad-component gas (above about 1200 km/s), the outflow interpretation loses its basis. Alternatively, a merger or disk-instability simulation that reproduces the biconical high-dispersion [CII] structure without invoking an outflow would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PSOJ183+05, a z~6.4 quasar, hosts both a clumpy, extended [CII] halo reaching ~6 kpc radius at the ISM-CGM interface and a high-velocity biconical outflow extending to ~5 kpc, with an atomic outflow rate of ~930 solar masses per year comparable to its star-formation rate. The authors argue this shows quasar-driven outflows can transfer energy and momentum to the CGM within a few million years without immediately quenching star formation, supporting a delayed feedback scenario. They further claim that the high-resolution ALMA data alone recover neither the outflow nor the extended emission, so previous conflicting results on [CII] sizes and outflow detections at z>6 may stem from missing diffuse flux.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the broad [CII] component as an unbound outflow assumes the host galaxy's escape velocity is about 700 km/s, taken from a dynamical mass model; if the gravitational potential is actually deeper, the fast gas could still be bound to the galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-resolution-only ALMA data miss about 55% of the total [CII] flux and all emission beyond ~2 kpc in this source, so reported [CII] sizes and outflow non-detections at z>6 may partly reflect missing extended emission.
  • The measured outflow rate of ~930 solar masses per year is comparable to the star-formation rate of 650--890 solar masses per year, implying a starburst component cannot be excluded, while the kinetic power of ~0.5% of the bolometric luminosity is enough for quasar radiation to drive the wind.
  • The outflow can reach CGM scales on a timescale of a few million years, supporting delayed feedback: energy and momentum are deposited in the circumgalactic medium and regulate future gas accretion rather than instantly quenching star formation.
  • Combining these ALMA data with JWST and MUSE observations, including planned NIRSpec IFU and deep MUSE follow-up, should reveal whether the warm ionized CGM phase traces the same biconical structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adopted escape velocity of about 700 km/s is too low because the dynamical mass is underestimated, part of the broad [CII] component could be bound gas rather than an outflow; an independent dynamical-mass tracer such as CO kinematics or JWST stellar velocity dispersion would settle this.
  • The biconical geometry with redshifted emission in the north-east cone and blueshifted emission in the south-west cone suggests the outflow axis lies near the plane of the sky; under that geometry the deprojected outflow rate could be several times higher than 930 solar masses per year.
  • The multi-configuration combination strategy could be applied to other z>6 quasars with similar archival ALMA coverage, potentially recovering hidden CGM halos and outflows that single-configuration studies missed.
  • The delayed-feedback interpretation predicts that the CGM around PSOJ183+05 should be metal-enriched and clumpy on kiloparsec scales; deep JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations of [OIII] and Halpha should show warm gas at comparable radii with kinematics consistent with the same biconical outflow.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-configuration ALMA observations of [CII] 158 micron and millimeter continuum emission in the z~6.4 quasar PSOJ183+05. By merging low-, intermediate-, and high-resolution datasets, the authors detect extended [CII] emission out to a radius of about 6 kpc, which they interpret as tracing the interface between the interstellar medium and the circumgalactic medium. They also identify a broad (FWHM > 500 km/s) spectral component with a biconical spatial morphology extending to ~5 kpc, which they interpret as a high-velocity outflow. From this component they derive an atomic mass outflow rate of ~930 Msun/yr, among the highest reported at z>6, and argue that the outflow can transfer energy and momentum to the CGM on timescales of a few million years, supporting a delayed feedback scenario. A key methodological finding is that neither the extended [CII] emission nor the high-velocity wings are recovered when using the high-resolution dataset alone, which the authors propose as an explanation for conflicting results in the literature. The central detections are robust: the extended component is supported by ~15-sigma residuals in a single-Gaussian fit, and the broad component is detected at ~8-sigma significance.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, this paper provides one of the first spatially resolved detections of a cold-gas biconical outflow at z>6, together with evidence for extended [CII]-emitting gas in the CGM of a quasar host. The multi-configuration combination strategy is an important methodological contribution, quantitatively demonstrating that high-resolution-only ALMA observations miss a large fraction of diffuse flux. The comparison of the outflow rate with the star formation rate and the placement in the context of delayed feedback are valuable for current discussions of early galaxy evolution. The paper is clearly written and the data analysis is generally careful, with explicit discussion of several caveats. However, the strength of the conclusions in the abstract and the central 'outflow to CGM' and 'quasar-driven' attributions exceed what the current evidence supports, given the adopted escape-velocity assumption and the acknowledged degeneracy with star-formation-driven outflows.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The claim that a significant fraction of the broad [CII] component is unbound and can escape to CGM scales relies on comparing v_max values to a single escape velocity of about 700 km/s, adopted from the Neeleman et al. (2021) dynamical mass of 1.3e11 Msun within 4 kpc. This is load-bearing for the 'reaching the CGM' part of the central claim. However, v_esc is not a single radius-independent number: it depends on the total mass profile, including the dark matter halo beyond 4 kpc, which is not strongly constrained by the dynamical model. In addition, the observed v_max is a projected line-of-sight quantity, and deprojection could change the inferred radial velocities and the fraction of gas exceeding v_esc. The paper should either (a) compute v_esc(r) under a plausible halo profile (e.g., NFW) and propagate the uncertainty, or (b) explicitly soften the conclusion to state that the gas kinematics are consistent with, but do not uniquely require, escape into the CGM. Currently the abstract states that outflows 'rapidly transfer energy and momentum to the CGM', which is stronger than the evidence presented.
  2. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract attributes the outflow to the quasar and frames the result as supporting a quasar-driven delayed feedback scenario, but the text in §4.1 acknowledges that 'a starburst contribution to the outflow acceleration in PSOJ183+05 cannot be a priori excluded', given SFR~650-890 Msun/yr comparable to the inferred outflow rate. The energetic argument (E_of ~0.5% L_bol) shows that quasar radiation could plausibly drive the outflow, but it does not demonstrate that the quasar is the dominant driver. Since the 'delayed feedback' conclusion rests on the quasar connection, the abstract and conclusions should be revised to say 'likely quasar-driven' or 'a quasar-driven origin is plausible', and the continued possibility of star-formation-driven winds should be stated in the abstract or, at minimum, the discrepancy between the abstract's causal language and the body's caveat should be resolved.
  3. [§4.1, mass outflow rate] The quoted mass outflow rate of 930 (+330/-290) Msun/yr carries only the uncertainty from the bicone opening angle, but the calculation depends on several additional assumptions that are not propagated: the [CII] gas temperature (T=200 K), the density being significantly above the critical density, the fractional solid angle Omega~1/2, the density-profile factor f~1, and the amplitude cap of 20% on the broad Gaussian component in the spectral decomposition. Each of these enters the rate in a multiplicative way, and plausible variations (e.g., constant-density profile with f=3, or different T) can change Mdot_of by a factor of several. The claim that this value is 'among the highest at z>6' should be qualified by this systematic uncertainty. The authors should either propagate these assumptions into the quoted error budget or provide a table showing how Mdot_of varies across the plausible range of these parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The text 'insterstellar medium' contains a typo; it should read 'interstellar medium'.
  2. [§3, Fig. 4 caption] The caption of Figure 4c lists '3 significance' but should presumably read '3σ significance' or similar, for consistency with the other sigma notations in the paper.
  3. [§2 and §4.1] The paper notes that the highest-velocity gas is not detected in the high-resolution dataset alone (Fig. 1c), but the reason—for example, the missing flux from extended structures in the high-resolution observations, as quantified in Fig. 4d—could be stated more explicitly in Section 2 when describing the data combination.
  4. [§3] The sentence 'The displayed region of 3×3 arcsec² corresponds to the field of view covered by JWST/NIRSpec IFU' appears without context; the authors may want to briefly justify why this field is relevant (e.g., to show the joint ALMA+JWST coverage).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extended [CII] emission and outflow are data-driven measurements with external inputs and explicit caveats, not self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The extended [CII] detection is a direct measurement from the moment-0 map and brightness profile (Sect. 3, Fig. 4c), independent of the outflow model. The outflow identification is an interpretation of a spectrally decomposed broad component combined with an externally adopted escape velocity from Neeleman et al. (2021); no equation in the paper reduces the outflow claim to its input assumptions, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the caveats (entrainment, starburst contribution, uncertainty in the potential). The mass outflow rate is computed with the standard conical-wind estimator from the same component, but this is a measurement convention, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (Bischetti et al. 2019a/b, 2024; Carniani et al. 2020; Fiore et al. 2017) are used for methodological priors and comparison, but the central derivations are reproduced from the data in this paper (e.g., the high-resolution-only flux loss is shown directly in Fig. 4d), so no load-bearing claim rests on an unverified self-citation. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors step is present. Model dependence and astrophysical ambiguity are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The main assumptions are the standard ISM/CGM excitation models, the adopted dynamical mass, the outflow geometry, and the technical validity of combining archival ALMA datasets. The free parameters listed are modeling choices that could shift the quantitative outflow rate by factors of a few, though the qualitative detection of extended and high-velocity [CII] does not depend on them.

free parameters (6)
  • Broad component amplitude cap = 20% of systemic component
    In the two-Gaussian spectral decomposition (Section 2), the broad component amplitude is limited to a maximum of 20% of the systemic component, based on low-redshift AGN observations. This constraint shapes the fitted broad component and directly affects the outflow flux and mass rate.
  • [CII] gas temperature = 200 K
    Used in Eq. (1) of Hailey-Dunsheath et al. (2010) to convert [CII] luminosity to atomic gas mass (Section 4.1). This assumed temperature is a standard value for PDR gas, but the mass scales with temperature.
  • Density assumption = n >> n_crit
    The same mass conversion assumes that the [CII] emission is thermalized with density significantly higher than the critical density. If the gas is sub-thermally excited, the derived mass and outflow rate would change.
  • Outflow solid angle = Omega ~ 1/2 (opening angle ~120 deg)
    The conical wind formula Mdot = Omega * M_of * v_max / r_of uses a fractional solid angle estimated from the biconical morphology in Fig. 2d. The quoted uncertainty on Mdot is dominated by the opening angle uncertainty of about +/-20 deg.
  • Density profile index f = 1
    The outflow rate formula includes f ~ 1, corresponding to a density profile scaling as r^-2. A constant density profile would give f ~ 3, tripling the mass outflow rate. The choice follows common practice in the literature.
  • v_max definition coefficient = v_max = |v_mom1| + 2 sigma_v
    The maximum velocity is defined from the broad component's first and second moments. The factor 2 is standard but arbitrary; it sets the threshold for the escape velocity comparison and scales the outflow rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption [CII] emission traces neutral atomic gas in photodissociation regions (PDRs).
    Section 4.2: the extended [CII] is assumed to trace PDR gas, with the caveat that some may come from diffuse ionized gas. This assumption is needed for the luminosity-to-mass conversion and the physical interpretation.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy potential is described by the dynamical mass model of Neeleman et al. (2021), giving an escape velocity of about 700 km/s.
    Section 4.1: the paper adopts M_dyn ~ 1.3e11 M_sun in the inner 4 kpc and the derived escape velocity to argue that high-velocity gas can escape. If this model is incorrect, the outflow interpretation weakens.
  • domain assumption The extended [CII] emission is physically associated with the quasar host galaxy PSOJ183+05.
    Throughout the paper, the emission is assumed to be at the quasar redshift and centered on the host. The authors argue against a companion or merger based on morphology and previous studies, but this association is load-bearing for the CGM interpretation.
  • domain assumption Visibilities from different ALMA projects can be combined without significant residual phase or amplitude calibration offsets.
    Section 2: the three datasets are merged with CASA concat using standard calibrations. If relative astrometry or flux calibration is imperfect, the extended emission could be affected, although the smooth brightness profile suggests this is not severe.
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc and Omega_M = 0.315.
    Adopted at the end of Section 1 for converting angular scales to physical sizes. This is a standard background assumption in extragalactic astronomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA reveals bright circumgalactic emission and a biconical outflow in z~6.4 quasar PSOJ183+05." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EKY567D

@misc{pith2026250415357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA reveals bright circumgalactic emission and a biconical outflow in z~6.4 quasar PSOJ183+05},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EKY567D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15357}
}
abstract

Understanding gas flows between galaxies and their surrounding circum-galactic medium (CGM) is crucial to unveil the mechanisms regulating galaxy evolution, especially in the early Universe. However, observations of the CGM around massive galaxies at $z>6$ remain limited, particularly in the cold gas phase. In this work, we present multi-configuration ALMA observations of [CII]$\lambda158\mu$m and millimetre continuum emission in the $z\sim6.4$ quasar PSOJ183+05. We find clumpy [CII] emission, tracing gas up to a $\sim6$ kpc radius, consistent with the interface region between the interstellar medium (ISM) and CGM. The [CII] kinematics shows a rotating disk and a high-velocity, biconical outflow extending up to 5 kpc. The inferred mass outflow rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm of}\sim930$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, among the highest at $z>6$, and comparable to the star-formation rate. These findings suggest that quasar-driven outflows can rapidly transfer energy and momentum to the CGM, without immediately quenching star formation in the host galaxy ISM. This supports a delayed feedback scenario, in which outflows reshape CGM conditions and regulate future gas accretion over longer timescales. We find that neither the high-velocity component nor the extended CGM emission in PSOJ183+05 are recovered when using the high-resolution dataset alone, which may explain the conflicting results reported regarding [CII] sizes and the detection of outflows at $z\gtrsim6$. Combining multi-configuration ALMA data with observations from JWST and MUSE will be crucial to map the CGM across its different phases and build a comprehensive picture of the baryon cycle in the first massive galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): [CII] spectrum extracted from a circular 1 arcsec aperture (blue histogram), similar to the spatial ex￾tent of the broad [CII] emission component mapped in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): Map of continuum emission detected at > 3σcont in the host galaxy of PSOJ183+05. Quasar location, identified as the peak of the ALMA continuum, is shown by the cross. (b): Velocity-integrated intensity map of [CII] emission detected > 3σ[CII]. (c): [CII] Velocity map. (d) [CII] velocity dispersion map, showing a biconical region oriented along the NE-SW direction with high σvel ∼ 150 km s−1 , highlighted by the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a): Velocity-integrated intensity map associated with the broad [CII] emission (calculated as in Sect. 2). Con￾tours correspond to [2,3,4,5,6,8]σ of [CII]. (b): Velocity map. (c) Maximum velocity of the [CII] outflow. The cross refers to the quasar location, corresponding to the peak of the ALMA continuum emission (Fig. 2a). The white ellipse shows the ALMA beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residual map obtained by fitting a single (a) or a double (b) 2D Gaussian profile to the [CII] moment 0th map (Sect. 3). (c): Brightness profile of the [CII] emission in PSOJ183+05 (blue solid curve), normalised to the central peak value, and associated 68% confidence …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Fine-structure Line Atlas for Multi-wavelength Extragalactic Study (FLAMES) III: [C II] as Tracer, Crisis of SFR, [O III]/[C II] at High-z, New Answers and New Questions

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A universal gas-line deficit relative to infrared luminosity, seen in [C II], [O I], [N II], and extinction-corrected H-alpha, breaks standard SFR calibrations in the brightest dusty galaxies and implies a metallicity...

  2. Fine-structure Line Atlas for Multi-wavelength Extragalactic Study (FLAMES) I: Comprehensive Low and High Redshift Catalogs and Empirical Relations for Probing Gas Conditions

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 1800-galaxy atlas of infrared fine-structure lines shows line ratios chiefly trace abundances and radiation hardness, quantifies AGN contamination in [O III]88 and [O I]63, and finds most density tracers biased.

  3. On the rapid growth of SMBHs in high-z galaxies: the aftermath of Population III.1 stars

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cosmological zoom-in simulations find that 10^5 solar mass Pop III.1 black hole seeds reach ~10^7 solar masses by z=8, with AGN feedback, especially radiation, regulating growth and launching fast outflows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., Steidel, C

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

    doi:10.1086/426580 2005

  2. [2]

    B., Fujimoto, S., Finlator, K., et al

    Akins, H. B., Fujimoto, S., Finlator, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac795b 2022

  3. [3]

    N., Guillard, P., Boulanger, F., et al

    Appleton, P. N., Guillard, P., Boulanger, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/66 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/66 2013

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2563

    Barai, P., Gallerani, S., Pallottini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2563

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2563 2018

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833557

  6. [6]

    2017, A&A, 598, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629301

    Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., Vietri, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629301

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629301 2017

  7. [7]

    2018, A&A, 617, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833249 —

    Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., Feruglio, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833249 —. 2019b, A&A, 628, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935524

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833249 2018

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 645, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039057

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039057

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039057 2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a77

    Bischetti, M., Choi, H., Fiore, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a77

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., van der Werf, P

    Butler, K. M., van der Werf, P. P., Topkaras, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd453

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3178

    Carniani, S., Ferrara, A., Maiolino, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3178

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, A&A, 689, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450332

    Casavecchia, B., Maio, U., P´ eroux, C., & Ciardi, B. 2024, A&A, 689, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450332

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, A&A, 574, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Gallerani, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, A&A, 654, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    Cicone, C., Mainieri, V., Circosta, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.12987, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12987

    Costa, T. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.12987, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12987

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    P., et al

    Costa, T., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2432

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2471

    Costa, T., Rosdahl, J., & Kimm, T. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2471

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., Trenti, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu101

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab297f

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab297f

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, A&A, 673, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245674

    Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Diaz-Santos, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245674

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Loiacono, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449239

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    D., et al

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

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, A&A, 604, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731052

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731052

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al

    Farina, E. P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

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

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05113. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05113

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2017, A&A, 608, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731387

    Feruglio, C., Ferrara, A., Bischetti, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731387

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, A&A, 619, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833174

    Feruglio, C., Fiore, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833174

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3449 F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3449 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., Mancini, C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadd49

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Fudamoto, Y., Smit, R., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a47

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab480f

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Ferrara, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab480f

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Bethermin, M., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Silverman, J. D., Bethermin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b3

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2087 Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Ramos Almeida, C., et al

    Galbiati, M., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2087 Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141075

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    C., B´ ethermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2020a, A&A, 643, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038284 —. 2020b, A&A, 643, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038284

    doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Hailey-Dunsheath, S., Nikola, T., Stacey, G. J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L162, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L162

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, A&A, 649, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039704 CGM emission and a biconical outflow in az∼6.4quasar11

    Herrera-Camus, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039704 CGM emission and a biconical outflow in az∼6.4quasar11

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2052, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2793

    Inoue, S., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2052, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2793

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    2021a, ApJ, 908, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ef —

    Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 908, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ef —. 2021b, ApJ, 908, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ef

    doi

  34. [42]

    W., Christopher, N., Sturm, E., et al

    Janssen, A. W., Christopher, N., Sturm, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 43, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/43

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al

    Jones, G. C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad985

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 609, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732019

    Lagache, G., Cousin, M., & Chatzikos, M. 2018, A&A, 609, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732019

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    S., Posses, A., Aravena, M., et al

    Lambert, T. S., Posses, A., Aravena, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3016

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Mainieri, V., et al

    Lamperti, I., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141363

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

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

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

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, L66, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x

    Maiolino, R., Gallerani, S., Neri, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, L66, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x

    2012

  42. [50]

    A., Perna, M., Willott, C

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

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  45. [53]

    A., Walter, F., Cicone, C., et al

    Meyer, R. A., Walter, F., Cicone, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e94

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05d2

    Neeleman, M., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05d2

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    P., et al

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

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    P., Walter, F., et al

    Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc33f

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    V., & Buck, T

    Obreja, A., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Macci` o, A. V., & Buck, T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3410

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3816 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pizzati, E., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3816 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    X., Lau, M

    Prochaska, J. X., Lau, M. W., & Hennawi, J. F. 2014, ApJ, 796, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/140 Ramos Almeida, C., Bischetti, M., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141906

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

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

    Richings, A. J., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3014

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, A&A, 695, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453226

    Salvestrini, F., Feruglio, C., Tripodi, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453226

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    C., & Carniani, S

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., Jones, G. C., & Carniani, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3787

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    T., Davies, R

    Shimizu, T. T., Davies, R. I., Lutz, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2802

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    M., & Vanden Bout, P

    Solomon, P. M., & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  58. [66]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2240

    Stern, J., Sternberg, A., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2240

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    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

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., & Hainline, K. N. 2024, ApJ, 964, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a57

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.03314

    Tripodi, R., Feruglio, C., Fiore, F., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.03314. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.03314

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2024a, A&A, 682, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347081

    Tripodi, R., Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024a, A&A, 682, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347081

    doi

  63. [71]

    2024b, A&A, 689, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349054

    Tripodi, R., Feruglio, C., Fiore, F., et al. 2024b, A&A, 689, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349054

    doi

  64. [72]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Strom, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1801

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1992

    Valentini, M., Gallerani, S., & Ferrara, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1992

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Vayner, A., D´ ıaz-Santos, T., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02862, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02862

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa767d

    Veilleux, S., Bolatto, A., Tombesi, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa767d

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

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

    Venemans, B. P., Neeleman, M., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab11cc

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

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

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc563

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1422

    Vito, F., Di Mascia, F., Gallerani, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1422

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3fb4

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3fb4

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    A., et al

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

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    V., Feruglio, C., Massardi, M., et al

    Zanchettin, M. V., Feruglio, C., Massardi, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245729 12Bischetti et al

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, A&A, 685, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349074

    Zanella, A., Iani, E., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349074

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.