Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 14 cited by

Weakness of X-rays and Variability in High-redshift AGNs with Super-Eddington Accretion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Super-Eddington accretion onto lower-mass black holes, wrapped in optically thick, outflow-fed warm coronae, naturally produces the X-ray faintness and weak variability seen in JWST-selected AGNs, and predicts the two should anti-correlate.

desk verdict A promising framework for X-ray weak and variable-quiet JWST AGNs whose load-bearing mass-loading assumption Fp=0.2 is openly flagged by the authors; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03653 v2 pith:B6XW44CK submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Kohei Inayoshi , Shigeo S. Kimura , Hirofumi Noda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleisuper-EddingtonaccretionX-rayweakAGNswarmcoronaComptonizationphotontrappingAGNvariabilityhigh-redshiftJWST
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

JWST has found many high-redshift broad-line AGNs whose optical spectra clearly indicate black-hole accretion, yet deep X-ray stacking and multi-epoch photometry show almost no X-ray flux and almost no variability. This paper argues that both anomalies are the expected signature of super-Eddington accretion, not a sign that these objects are not AGNs. Radiation-driven outflows from the disk dump gas into the polar corona, making it optically thick and warm; inverse Comptonization then produces soft, faint X-rays, while photon trapping in the dense disk suppresses UV/optical flickering. If correct, the same model explains why low-redshift super-Eddington AGNs have large X-ray bolometric corrections, keeps the cosmic X-ray background consistent with JWST's high black-hole accretion rates, and predicts that X-ray variability should anti-correlate with UV/optical variability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-component spectral model: a slim accretion disk (a disk in which radiation is trapped and advected inward, so luminosity saturates logarithmically with accretion rate) plus a warm corona whose Thomson depth is set by outflow mass loading. Two identities close the system: disk--corona energy balance fixes the Compton $y$-parameter at $y = 2f_w/(2-f_w) \simeq 2/3$--$1$, and outflow continuity gives $\tau_{\rm es} \simeq 2\,\dot{m}_{\rm BH}\,(F_p/0.2)\,(\Omega/2\pi)^{-1}$, so super-Eddington rates automatically make $\tau_{\rm es}$ of order a few. The photon index comes from the Titarchuk--Lyubarskij Comptonization formula; once $\tau_{\rm es} \gtrsim 2$, the electron temperature falls roughly as $\theta_e \propto \tau_{\rm es}^{-2}$ and the spectrum becomes too soft to be seen by Chandra. For variability, the key object is the logarithmic response $R = d\log L/d\log \dot{m}_{\rm BH}$: photon trapping makes $R \lesssim 0.2$ in UV/optical, while the X-ray component has $R < 0$ at high accretion rate, producing the predicted anti-correlation.

What would settle it

A stacked 2--10 keV spectrum of JWST broad-line AGNs that shows a hard power law with photon index $\Gamma \lesssim 2$ and a high-energy cutoff above $\sim 100$ keV, instead of the soft warm-corona spectrum, would contradict the model. So would a long multiwavelength campaign on a super-Eddington AGN that finds UV/optical and X-ray variability rising together rather than anti-correlating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the X-ray weakness and weak variability of JWST-selected AGNs require no exotic dust or geometry: they follow from running a standard slim accretion disk at super-Eddington rates with a corona whose density is set by the disk's own outflow. Above roughly the Eddington rate, the polar corona becomes optically thick ($\tau_{\rm es} \simeq 2\,\dot{m}_{\rm BH}$ for the adopted mass loading), the electron temperature drops, and the Comptonized spectrum peaks below $\sim 1$ keV, putting the 2--10 keV flux below deep Chandra limits. Meanwhile the disk luminosity responds only logarithmically to accretion-rate changes, damping UV/optical variability, while the X-ray luminosity responds strongly and in the opposite direction. The model reproduces the observed X-ray bolometric corrections of JWST AGNs and of local super-Eddington accreting AGNs, and predicts these traits should be most common for lower-mass black holes ($M_{\rm BH} \lesssim 10^{7-8}\,M_\odot$) at high redshift, where Eddington ratios are naturally high.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that outflows from super-Eddington disks dump enough gas into the polar corona to make it optically thick while keeping its heating and cooling balanced, and that JWST's broad-line AGNs really are accreting at or above the Eddington rate; if either assumption fails, the predicted X-ray faintness and quiet variability no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the X-ray faintness of JWST AGNs is intrinsic, so stacking analyses should keep finding soft, weak X-rays rather than hard absorbed ones.
  • JWST's high black-hole accretion-rate density no longer conflicts with the cosmic X-ray background, because these AGNs are intrinsically faint in the 2--10 keV band.
  • Super-Eddington AGNs should show little UV/optical variability, with amplitude below roughly 0.1 mag for typical accretion-rate fluctuations, while their X-rays should vary strongly and in the opposite phase.
  • The same set of spectral models reproduces X-ray bolometric corrections ranging from typical type 1 AGNs through NLSy1 galaxies to luminous $z>6$ quasars, giving a single explanation across luminosity and redshift.
  • At high redshift, lower-mass black holes ($\lesssim 10^{7-8}\,M_\odot$) that grow along overmassive tracks should preferentially show the X-ray-weak, variability-quiet state, because their Eddington ratios are naturally higher.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors leave implicit: if the true coronal mass loading is as low as the alternative case considered in their Appendix 2, the model requires Eddington ratios above roughly ten to hide X-rays, so the observed fraction of X-ray-weak JWST AGNs can be turned around to constrain outflow mass loading.
  • The predicted UV/optical--X-ray anti-correlation should be visible not only in tidal disruption events but in ordinary super-Eddington NLSy1 galaxies with long multiwavelength monitoring, and archival light curves could be searched for this signature.
  • The model implies that X-ray weakness is a transient phase tied to accretion state; as a super-Eddington AGN's accretion rate decays below Eddington, its corona should thin and hard X-rays should reappear, making X-ray-weak to X-ray-loud transitions a diagnostic of how black holes leave the super-Eddington state.
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 constructs a two-component SED model in which a super-Eddington slim disk is enveloped by a warm, moderately optically thick corona fed by radiation-driven outflows. A Comptonization closure based on energy balance between the disk and corona sets the Compton y-parameter, and a density estimate for the outflow sets the electron-scattering optical depth proportional to the Eddington-scaled accretion rate. The authors show that for optical depths tau_es ~ 2-3 the Comptonized spectrum becomes very soft with a low electron temperature, suppressing the 2-10 keV flux below the sensitivity of deep Chandra observations while keeping the UV/optical luminosity high. They apply this model to JWST-identified broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots, argue that the X-ray weakness and weak UV/optical variability are natural consequences of super-Eddington accretion, and propose that such sources are preferentially found at high redshift because the Eddington ratio grows as (1+z)^5/2 and because overmassive BHs grow faster than their host galaxies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a unified, physically motivated explanation for two puzzling JWST findings -- X-ray non-detection and weak UV/optical variability -- without invoking heavy obscuration. The analytic transparency is a real strength: the optical-depth scaling, the Comptonization formulae, and the variability response R are all explicit and falsifiable. The model also connects the high-redshift sources to low-redshift NLSy1 galaxies and super-Eddington AGNs, and it predicts a testable anti-correlation between UV/optical and X-ray variability. The main weakness is that the quantitative comparison with the JWST data depends sensitively on the assumed mass-loading factor Fp and is presented without a statistical treatment, so the central claim is currently suggestive rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (11) and Appendix 2] The X-ray weakness threshold depends on the assumed constant mass-loading factor Fp = 0.2. Since tau_es ~ 2 mdot (Fp/0.2)(Omega/2pi)^-1, and Figure 2 indicates that tau_es >~ 2-3 is needed to suppress the 2-10 keV flux, the required Eddington ratio is only mdot >~ 1 for the fiducial choice. However, the paper itself notes that radiatively efficient sub-Eddington disks have p ~ 0.1-0.2, yielding Fp ~ (3-6)e-2, and Appendix 2 states that Fp = 0.05 better reproduces the Lbol/LEdd-Gamma relation for the super-Eddington NLSy1 sample. With Fp = 0.05, the threshold rises to mdot >~ 8-10, where the slim-disk luminosity saturates logarithmically (Eq. 15) and Lbol ~ 5 LEdd for MBH = 1e7 Msun, placing the model at the bright end of the JWST AGN luminosity distribution. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges this by adopting Fp = 0.2 'for simplicity,' but because the claimed consistency with JWST AGNs hinges on this choice, the result is not yet robust. Please test the model over the plausible range of Fp (and y, Omega) against the observed luminosities and X-ray upper limits, or give a physical argument that Fp = 0.2 is the relevant value for the JWST sources.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 4] The comparison with JWST AGNs and other samples is visual and does not include uncertainties, upper-limit treatment, or a statistical measure of consistency. The JWST points are X-ray upper limits (Maiolino et al. 2024b), while the model is plotted as deterministic curves in the Lbol-LX plane for fixed MBH, mdot, and y. No calculation shows what fraction of the observed JWST sample is predicted to fall below the stacked Chandra detection threshold, nor whether the assumed Eddington ratios are consistent with the virial BH-mass estimates for these objects. A censored-data analysis, or at least representative error bars and an explicit description of sample selection, is needed before the statement that the model is 'consistent with JWST AGNs' can be accepted.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (17) and Figure 5] The variability suppression argument is made through the logarithmic response R, but it is not quantitatively compared with the observed non-variability. The upper limit of <~ 0.1 mag from Kokubo & Harikane (2024) and the variability fraction from Zhang et al. (2024) are quoted, but the model requires an assumed fractional accretion-rate fluctuation Delta mdot/mdot in addition to a disk variability model to predict an amplitude distribution. The paper notes that a quantitative test is possible (citing Figure 15 of Zhang et al. 2024) but does not perform it. As written, the claim that super-Eddington accretion explains the weak UV/optical variability is suggestive but not yet demonstrated; a predicted variability-amplitude distribution as a function of mdot and MBH, compared with the observed distribution, would make the claim falsifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (15)] The sentence 'we set the monochromatic luminosity at 3000 A, representing the disk luminosity Ldisk' is ambiguous: the SED in Figure 2 includes both disk and corona components. Please clarify whether Ldisk denotes the total disk luminosity or the 3000 A monochromatic luminosity used for the bolometric correction.
  2. [Equation (10)] The numerical factor '10' in tau_es = 10 mdot ... should be derived or explicitly justified in a line of algebra, since it is not obvious from the preceding definitions of rsch, vesc, and kappa_es.
  3. [Section 4.2] There is a typo: 'The UV/optical variability would be arise not only from...' should read 'would arise not only from...'.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The dotted curves for Fp = 0.05 at sub-Eddington accretion rates are difficult to distinguish in the printed figure; please use a more distinct line style or add annotations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central X-ray-weakness threshold is set by the adopted Fp=0.2 normalization; the paper's own Fp=0.05 alternative would move the threshold to mdot~10, undercutting the quantitative match to JWST AGNs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (11), Figure 3 caption, and caveat paragraph after Eq. (11)]
    "τes ≃ 2 ˙mBH (Fp/0.2)(Ω/2π)−1 ... Assuming a constant mass-loading factor of Fp = 0.05 for all accretion rates in our SED model, accretion rates above ˙mBH >∼ 10(Fp/0.05)−1(Ω/2π) are required to remain consistent with the Chandra upper limit ... Despite these caveats, we adopt a fixed mass loading factor of Fp = 0.2 independent of accretion rate, for simplicity."

    The headline prediction that X-ray emission becomes undetectable for ˙mBH ≳ 1 (MBH = 10^7) is numerically fixed by the assumed Fp = 0.2 in Eq. (11): with Fp = 0.2 and Ω = 2π, τes = 2 ˙mBH, and Figure 2 states the hiding condition as τes ≳ 2–3. Hence ˙mBH ~ 1 is the threshold by construction, not a derived outcome. The paper itself notes that the lower mass-loading factor Fp = 0.05 — which it says better reproduces the Eddington-ratio–photon-index relation for local super-Eddington NLSy1 galaxies — would require ˙mBH ≳ 10 to reach the same τes, shifting the predicted threshold by an order of magnitude relative to the inferred Eddington ratios of JWST AGNs. The model comparison to JWST therefore reduces to the adopted normalization of an unmeasured mass-loading parameter.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about the parameter dependence and does not hide the alternative Fp=0.05 case; the underlying microphysics of Comptonization (TL95) and the slim-disk luminosity saturation are standard, and the outflow p~0.5–0.7 values come from published radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, not from fitting the Chandra upper limits. However, the specific quantitative claim that super-Eddington accretion at ˙mBH ~ 1 hides X-rays is numerically equivalent to choosing Fp = 0.2 in Eq. (11) together with y ~ 2/3–1. Since the same paper's Appendix 2 reports that Fp = 0.05 better matches low-redshift super-Eddington AGNs, and since Fp = 0.2 is adopted 'for simplicity' rather than derived for these objects, the match to JWST AGNs is substantially built from the input normalization. The variability and CXB arguments are more independent, following from the adopted slim-disk model and the X-ray weakness respectively, so they do not add further circularity. Overall this is a partial, parameter-controlled circularity rather than a fully self-referential derivation.

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

The model uses known disk and corona physics with a set of assumed parameters; no new particles or entities are introduced. The load-bearing burden is carried by the assumed values of Fp and y and by the Slim disk luminosity formula, rather than by new degrees of freedom.

free parameters (5)
  • Compton y-parameter = assumed 2/3 to 1
    Chosen near the upper limit allowed by the disk-corona energy balance; motivated by simulations but not derived for the specific AGN population.
  • Outflow mass-loading factor Fp = 0.2 fiducial; 0.05 for sub-Eddington cases
    Sets the coronal optical depth through tau ~ 2 mdot (Fp/0.2); based on a p=0.5 inflow power law, but the paper notes Fp=0.05 matches some super-Eddington samples better.
  • Outflow solid angle Omega = 2 pi (N=1)
    Assumes the outflow covers half the sky; stronger collimation would reduce Omega and increase the optical depth at fixed mdot.
  • Inflow power-law index p = 0.5
    Taken from radiation hydrodynamic simulations of super-Eddington accretion; quoted range is 0.5 to 0.7.
  • Corona outer radius r_cor = 10 r_sch
    Assumed outer boundary of the Comptonizing region; the integral Fp changes only mildly for 10 to 20 r_sch.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The corona is heated by a fraction f_w of accretion energy and cools only via Compton scattering of disk seed photons, giving the closure y = 2 f_w/(2 - f_w) (Equations 5-7).
    Neglects other cooling channels and geometry-dependent effects; the paper acknowledges the geometry enters only through the chosen y and f_w.
  • domain assumption The mass inflow rate follows Mdot_in(r) proportional to r^p with p about 0.5, and the outflow density is obtained from continuity with velocity equal to the escape velocity (Equations 8-11).
    This is the main bridge from accretion rate to optical depth; it assumes a quasi-steady, smooth, non-magnetized outflow.
  • standard math The Slim disk temperature and luminosity profiles of Watarai (2006) and Watarai et al. (2000) correctly describe super-Eddington disks, including the logarithmic luminosity saturation and inner-edge extension.
    The variability suppression result R << 1 at high mdot is an immediate consequence of this adopted luminosity formula.
  • standard math The Titarchuk and Lyubarskij (1995) formula gives the photon index as a function of y and tau_es for non-relativistic spherical coronae.
    The paper compares three Comptonization formulas and chooses TL95 as the fiducial; the choice affects the softness of the predicted X-ray spectra.
  • domain assumption The high-redshift gas supply sets BH growth, with halo mass growth M_h proportional to exp(-k_h z) and stellar growth proportional to halo growth (Equations 18-19).
    This supports the claim that super-Eddington accretion is common at z 4-7; it assumes constant star formation efficiency and a specified BH-to-stellar growth derivative.
  • domain assumption The funnel reflection correction of Madau and Haardt (2024) is negligible for the optically thick coronae considered here (Appendix 1).
    The paper argues G exp(-2 tau) is small when tau is about 20, but this relies on the same outflow density model being tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weakness of X-rays and Variability in High-redshift AGNs with Super-Eddington Accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6XW44CK

@misc{pith2026241203653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weakness of X-rays and Variability in High-redshift AGNs with Super-Eddington Accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6XW44CK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03653}
}
abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations enable the exploration of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with broad-line emission in the early universe. Despite their clear radiative and morphological signatures of AGNs in rest-frame optical bands, complementary evidence of AGN activity - such as X-ray emission and UV/optical variability - remains rarely detected. The weakness of X-rays and variability in these broad-line emitters challenges the conventional AGN paradigm, indicating that the accretion processes or environments around the central black holes (BHs) differ from those of low-redshift counterparts. In this work, we study the radiation spectra of super-Eddington accretion disks enveloped by high-density coronae. Radiation-driven outflows from the disk transport mass to the poles, resulting in moderately optically-thick, warm coronae formed through effective inverse Comptonization. This mechanism leads to softer X-ray spectra and larger bolometric correction factors for X-rays compared to typical AGNs, while being consistent with those of JWST AGNs and low-redshift super-Eddington accreting AGNs. In this scenario, UV/optical variability is suppressed due to photon trapping within super-Eddington disks, while X-ray emissions remain weak yet exhibit significant relative variability. These characteristics are particularly evident in high-redshift AGNs powered by lower-mass BHs with $\lesssim 10^{7-8}~M_\odot$, which undergo rapid mass accretion following overmassive evolutionary tracks relative to the BH-to-stellar mass correlation in the local universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray spectral index (Γ; Fν ∝ ν 1−Γ) as a function of Compton y-parameter, based on three different studies; Titarchuk & Lyubarskij (1995) (black, our fiducial model), Pozdniakov et al. (1979) (blue), and Beloborodov (1999) (red). Three values of electron temperature in the non-relativistic regime are considered; θe = 0.03 (dotted), 0.1 (solid), and 0.3 (dashed). Note that the fitting formula of Pozdniakov et al. (1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Broadband SEDs of a z = 4 AGN with a bolometric luminosity of Lbol = 1046 erg s−1 for different values of the optical depths (0.1 ≤ τes ≤ 10). The Compton parameter is set to y = 2/3. The gray curve shows the SED of disk seed photons. For reference, we overlay the upper bound of the stacked AGNs obtained by Chandra observations (black arrows; Maiolino et al. 2024b; Akins et al. 2024a), and single power-law spectra w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Broadband SEDs of a z = 4 AGN powered by a BH with MBH = 107 M⊙ (left) and 108 M⊙ (right) accreting at various rates of 0.1 ≤ m˙ BH ≤ 10. Here, Lbol , Tb, Tseed are calculated consistently for given MBH and m˙ BH values. The Compton parameter is set to y = 2/3, and optical depth is calculated by using Equation (10) with Fp = 0.2 (solid curves). For sub-Eddington cases (m˙ BH = 0.1 and 0.3), SEDs with a lower mass-lo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The normalized bolometric (blue) and X-ray (orange) luminosities as functions of accretion rate, relative to the Eddington value. The bolometric luminosity of the disk is presented by Watarai et al. (2000) (with a 10% radiative efficiency; our fiducial model). Th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Lbol/LEdd − Γ relationship based on the Comptonization model adopted in this work. Here, the Comptonization y-parameter and mass-loading factor are given as y = 1 with Fp = 0.2 (black solid) and Fp = 0.05 (black dashed). Observation data for various types of AGNs f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

  1. BlackTHUNDER: Evidence of three massive black holes in a z~5 galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Observations of the z=5.0167 galaxy J0148-4214 reveal three spatially distinct broad H-alpha regions, interpreted as three massive accreting black holes, including a close 190 pc pair.

  2. The Cosmic Rush Hour: Rapid Formation of Bright, Massive, Disky, Star-Forming Galaxies as Signatures of Early-Universe Physics

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Early dark energy in large hydrodynamic simulations reproduces JWST's excess of bright, massive, high-redshift galaxies while preserving low-redshift Lambda-CDM behavior.

  3. The $z=7.08$ quasar ULAS J1120+0641 May Never Reach a "Normal" Black Hole to Stellar Mass Ratio

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The z=7.08 quasar J1120+0641 sits in an overdense environment, yet the available mass around it is probably insufficient for its host galaxy to reach the local black hole to stellar mass relation by z=0.

  4. Measurements of the z=4-10 X-ray Luminosity Function: the high space density of moderate-luminosity, obscured AGN

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A 32-source X-ray sample yields a z=4-10 AGN luminosity function that is up to two orders of magnitude above model extrapolations at z=7-10.

  5. Chandra Rules Out Super-Eddington Accretion Models For Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stacking 55 little red dots in Chandra Deep Field South for about 390 million seconds yields a non-detection that rules out current super-Eddington accretion models.

  6. An (in)complete NIRSpec census of Balmer absorption in Type 1 AGN -- radiation-driven outflows in little red dots, quasars and variable stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    About 44% of little red dots have hydrogen-alpha absorption from outflowing gas, implying radiatively driven outflows rather than static atmospheres.

  7. The WISSH quasar project. XII. X-ray view of the most luminous quasi-stellar objects at Cosmic Noon

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

    Complete X-ray coverage of 85 hyper-luminous quasars at z≈2-4 shows one-third are X-ray weak and X-ray luminosity is highly dispersed relative to UV and infrared luminosities.

  8. X-ray investigation of possible super-Eddington accretion in a radio-loud quasar at $z=6.13$

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

    A z=6.13 radio-loud quasar shows an unusually soft X-ray spectrum consistent with a black hole accreting above the Eddington limit, though the inferred luminosity depends on extrapolation.

  9. Do Little Red Dots Vary?

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

    Super-Eddington accretion models can explain why little red dots show almost no variability, whereas standard sub-Eddington AGN variability models predict changes that should already have been seen.

  10. 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.

  11. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-Luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). XXIV. 54 New Quasars and Candidate Obscured Quasars at $5.71 \le z \le 7.02$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spectroscopic follow-up of the completed HSC-SSP survey yields 43 new quasars, 11 candidate obscured quasars, and 29 galaxies at z 5.71 to 7.02.

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

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A JWST grism survey finds 23 broad-line AGNs at z~3-6, including 15 little red dots, with host-galaxy UV emission and a tentative small-scale clustering excess.

  13. Investigating photometric and spectroscopic variability in the multiply-imaged Little Red Dot A2744-QSO1

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Broad H-alpha and H-beta line strengths in the lensed z=7 Little Red Dot A2744-QSO1 vary by 18 to 22 percent over about 875 rest-frame days, favoring an AGN explanation.

  14. Another piece to the puzzle: radio detection of a JWST detected AGN candidate

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-field radio search of JWST AGN candidates yields one radio detection and stacking limits that are not yet deep enough to confirm or rule out radio-weakness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

    Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646,

    1988

  2. [2]

    A., Jaroszy´nski, M., Kato, S., et al

    Abramowicz, M. A., Jaroszy´nski, M., Kato, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A15,

    2010

  3. [3]

    L., Georgakakis, A., et al

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

    2015

  4. [4]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341,

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Berg, D. A., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00949,

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 767, 30,

    2013

  7. [7]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128,

    2024

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    1999

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    B., Ivezi´c, Ž., Jones, R

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´c, Ž., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1,

    2022

  2. [10]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31,

    2023

  3. [11]

    M., & Ostriker, J

    Chang, K. M., & Ostriker, J. P. 1985, ApJ, 288, 428,

    1985

  4. [12]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Coppi, P. S. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 657,

    1992

  6. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999,

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999,

    2013

  7. [15]

    K., Mizuno, Y ., Fromm, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Mizuno, Y ., Fromm, C. M., & Younsi, Z. 2023, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2305.09698,

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E., & Ho, L

    Dong, R., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2012, ApJ, 761, 73,

    2012

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 126,

    Du, P., Lu, K.-X., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 126,

    2016

  10. [18]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73,

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73,

    2020

  11. [19]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267,

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267,

    2010

  12. [20]

    J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57,

    2024

  13. [21]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39,

    2024

  14. [22]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, —

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, —. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507,

    1991

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39,

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

    2023

  16. [24]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 31,

    Ichikawa, K., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 31,

    2019

  17. [25]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L49,

    Inayoshi, K., & Ichikawa, K. 2024, ApJL, 973, L49,

    2024

  18. [26]

    P., & Kuiper, R

    Inayoshi, K., Ichikawa, K., Ostriker, J. P., & Kuiper, R. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5377,

    2019

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 164,

    Inayoshi, K., Kashiyama, K., Li, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 164,

    2024

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805,

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805,

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 237,

    Inayoshi, K., Nakatani, R., Toyouchi, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 237,

    2022

  22. [30]

    P., Haiman, Z., & Kuiper, R

    Inayoshi, K., Ostriker, J. P., Haiman, Z., & Kuiper, R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1412,

    2018

  23. [31]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27,

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

    2020

  24. [32]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Blaes, O., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 885, 144,

    2019

  25. [33]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106,

    2014

  26. [34]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.08643,

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    2008

  28. [36]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 630,

    Kawanaka, N., & Mineshige, S. 2021, PASJ, 73, 630,

    2021

  29. [37]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 306,

    Kawanaka, N., & Mineshige, S. 2024, PASJ, 76, 306,

    2024

  30. [38]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 769, —

    Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 769, —. 2012, ApJ, 752, 18,

    2009

  31. [39]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 92,

    Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2017, PASJ, 69, 92,

    2017

  32. [40]

    S., Gaskell, C

    Klimek, E. S., Gaskell, C. M., & Hedrick, C. H. 2004, ApJ, 609, 69, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (0000), Vol. 00, No. 0 11

    2004

  33. [41]

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

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4,

    2023

  34. [42]

    D., Finkelstein, S

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

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777,

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

    2024

  36. [44]

    A., Onken, C

    Kollmeier, J. A., Onken, C. A., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 128, Kozłowski, S. 2017, A&A, 597, A128,

    2006

  37. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, —

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, —. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 524,

    2018

  38. [46]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07320,

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047,

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

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06200,

    Lasota, J.-P., & Abramowicz, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06200,

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 657, A57,

    Laurenti, M., Piconcelli, E., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A57,

    2022

  42. [50]

    C., et al

    Li, R., Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.09264,

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., Ichikawa, K., & Ho, L. C. 2024d, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2407.10760,

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17570,

    Lin, X., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17570,

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    F., Yuan, W., Meyer, F., Meyer-Hofmeister, E., & Xie, G

    Liu, B. F., Yuan, W., Meyer, F., Meyer-Hofmeister, E., & Xie, G. Z. 1999, ApJL, 527, L17,

    1999

  46. [54]

    N., et al

    Liu, H., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 103,

    2021

  47. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 23,

    Lu, K.-X., Huang, Y .-K., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 23,

    2019

  48. [56]

    2020, A&A, 642, A150,

    Lusso, E., Risaliti, G., Nardini, E., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A150,

    2020

  49. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00417,

    Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00417,

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230,

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230,

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00504,

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00504,

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129,

    2024

  53. [61]

    F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E

    Meyer, F., Liu, B. F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2000, A&A, 361, 175,

    2000

  54. [62]

    1994, A&A, 288, 175

    Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1994, A&A, 288, 175

    1994

  55. [63]

    S., Aird, J

    Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., Aird, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 10,

    2015

  56. [64]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1792,

    Neistein, E., & Dekel, A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1792,

    2008

  57. [65]

    K., Nagao, T., Toba, Y ., & Misawa, T

    Noboriguchi, A., Inoue, A. K., Nagao, T., Toba, Y ., & Misawa, T. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.00955,

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 2,

    Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2011, ApJ, 736, 2,

    2011

  59. [67]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 368,

    Ohsuga, K., Mori, M., Nakamoto, T., & Mineshige, S. 2005, ApJ, 628, 368,

    2005

  60. [68]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L17,

    Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., Ding, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L17,

    2023

  61. [69]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915,

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915,

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L7, Pérez-González, P

    Padmanabhan, H., & Loeb, A. 2023, ApJL, 958, L7, Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08782,

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13515,

    Pouliasis, E., Ruiz, A., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13515,

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A., Sobol, I

    Pozdniakov, L. A., Sobol, I. M., & Siuniaev, R. A. 1979, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 5, 149

    1979

  65. [73]

    2000, ApJ, 539, 809,

    Quataert, E., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 809,

    2000

  66. [74]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 549, 488,

    2017

  67. [75]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L1,

    Ricci, C., Kara, E., Loewenstein, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L1,

    2020

  68. [76]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 27,

    Ricci, C., Ichikawa, K., Stalevski, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 27,

    2023

  69. [77]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766,

    2006

  70. [78]

    M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081,

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics Sa ¸dowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 49,

    1986

  72. [80]

    T., Haiman, Z., & Wise, J

    Scoggins, M. T., Haiman, Z., & Wise, J. H. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2155,

    2023

  73. [81]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  74. [82]

    L., Lightman, A

    Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187,

    1976

  75. [83]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713,

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

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A&A, 86, 121

    1980

  77. [85]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2009, ApJL, 691, L49,

    2009

  78. [86]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 302,

    Takeo, E., Inayoshi, K., & Mineshige, S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 302,

    2020

  79. [87]

    E., Lasota, J

    Tetarenko, B. E., Lasota, J. P., Heinke, C. O., Dubus, G., & Sivakoff, G. R. 2018, Nature, 554, 69,

    2018

  80. [88]

    1994, ApJ, 434, 570,

    Titarchuk, L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 570,

    1994

  81. [89]

    1995, ApJ, 450, 876,

    Titarchuk, L., & Lyubarskij, Y . 1995, ApJ, 450, 876,

    1995

  82. [90]

    C., et al

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6267,

    2023

  83. [91]

    J., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 800,

    2017

  84. [92]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 616,

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 616,

    2022

  85. [93]

    Ueda, Y ., Akiyama, M., Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., & Watson, M. G. 2014, ApJ, 786, 104, Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549,

    2014

  86. [94]

    N., Yang, G., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Yang, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2378, V olonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732,

    2018

  87. [95]

    Wang, J.-M., Qiu, J., Du, P., & Ho, L. C. 2014, ApJ, 797, 65,

    2014

  88. [96]

    2004, ApJL, 607, L107,

    Wang, J.-M., Watarai, K.-Y ., & Mineshige, S. 2004, ApJL, 607, L107,

    2004

  89. [97]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 523,

    Watarai, K.-y. 2006, ApJ, 648, 523,

    2006

  90. [98]

    2000, PASJ, 52, 133,

    Watarai, K.-y., Fukue, J., Takeuchi, M., & Mineshige, S. 2000, PASJ, 52, 133,

    2000

  91. [99]

    H., Bullock, J

    Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52,

    2002

  92. [100]

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

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.07483,

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    N., Anderson, S

    Wu, J., Brandt, W. N., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 10,

    2012

  94. [102]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529,

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529,

    2014

  95. [103]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L26,

    2024

  96. [104]

    2023, A&A, 678, A201,

    Zappacosta, L., Piconcelli, E., Fiore, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A201,

    2023

  97. [105]

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

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.