Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 15 cited by

Exploring the Nature of Little Red Dots: Constraints on AGN and Stellar Contributions from PRIMER MIRI Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By fitting 95 Little Red Dots with JWST/MIRI photometry from 1 to 18 μm, this paper shows that pure stellar, pure AGN, and hybrid models each force extreme physical conditions, and argues the red continuum is likely a stellar-plus-AGN…

desk verdict Largest MIRI-based LRD SED sample to date; stellar mass sway of ~2 dex is robust, but the 'extreme density' flavor leans heavily on an unvalidated Calzetti law. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12005 v2 pith:BT4DN3F3 submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA

Gene C. K. Leung , Steven L. Finkelstein , Pablo G. Pérez-González , Alexa M. Morales , Anthony J. Taylor , Guillermo Barro , Dale D. Kocevski , Hollis B. Akins
show 15 more authors
Adam C. Carnall Óscar A. Chávez Ortiz Nikko J. Cleri Fergus Cullen Callum T. Donnan James S. Dunlop Richard S. Ellis Norman A. Grogin Michaela Hirschmann Anton M. Koekemoer Vasily Kokorev Ray A. Lucas Derek J. McLeod Casey Papovich L. Y. Aaron Yung
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords littlereddotsactivegalacticnucleisupermassiveblackholeshigh-redshiftgalaxiesspectralenergydistributionfittingMIRIphotometrystellarmassholescalingrelations
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

The paper asks what produces the red continua of Little Red Dots, the compact, red objects that JWST finds in abundance at $z>4$. It fits the 1–18 μm spectral energy distributions of 95 such objects with three idealized models — stars only, an active galactic nucleus only, and a hybrid — and asks what each scenario would force on the real universe. The galaxy-only model yields stellar masses near the cosmological limit but stellar surface densities up to two orders of magnitude above local elliptical galaxies, while the hybrid model yields black holes with $M_{\rm BH}/M_*$ in the range $0.1$–$1$, a dex above the already-elevated high-redshift relation. The paper's conclusion is that no pure scenario works, so the red continuum is likely a mixture of stellar and AGN light, or else requires a novel mechanism such as super-Eddington accretion. A sympathetic reader cares because Little Red Dots are the most numerous AGN-like systems at early cosmic times, so the answer bears directly on how the first black holes and their host galaxies grow together.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on three deliberately idealized SED models fit to the same photometry. The galaxy-only model is a two-component stellar population fit (the Bagpipes code) with separate dust attenuation, pairing a dusty rest-optical component with an unobscured rest-UV component. The AGN-only model uses type-1 quasar templates with a broken-power-law accretion disk, a 1240 K hot-dust blackbody whose strength is a free fraction $f_{\rm HD}$, and a scattered-light component with fraction $f_{\rm scat}$, all behind a variable dust screen. The hybrid model takes the red component from the AGN-only fit and fits the residual rest-UV photometry as a young, low-dust stellar population. The load-bearing element is the MIRI F770W and F1800W photometry (rest-frame roughly 1–3 μm), which separates a hot-dust bump from old stellar emission; it is what pulls the $z\gtrsim 7$ stellar masses down by about 0.4 dex and exposes the hot-dust deficit.

What would settle it

Take a spectroscopically complete sample of Little Red Dots and measure the Balmer break strength in high signal-to-noise rest-optical spectra: the galaxy-only model predicts a strong break from an old, dusty stellar population, while the hybrid model predicts none, so a population-level census of break strengths would settle how much starlight actually contributes to the red continuum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that MIRI photometry out to 18 μm breaks the degeneracy that plagued earlier LRD SED fits and forces every single-source interpretation to an extreme. The galaxy-only interpretation requires a dust-enshrouded $\sim 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ stellar population with inferred surface densities of order $10^5\,M_\odot\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ and baryon conversion efficiencies above 20% in about a sixth of the sample. The AGN-only interpretation requires bolometric luminosities of $10^{45}$–$10^{46.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$ but hot-dust fractions of $\lesssim 0.2$ relative to normal quasars, with no correlation between the extinction and the hot-dust strength. The hybrid interpretation, which assigns the red continuum fully to the AGN, implies black hole masses of $\sim 10^{7}$–$10^{8}\,M_\odot$ hosted by only $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ of stars, i.e., $M_{\rm BH}/M_* \sim 0.1$–$1$. The paper therefore concludes that the LRD red continuum is probably produced by both stars and an AGN, or by a scenario outside these templates, such as widespread super-Eddington accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the adopted templates — a quasar template with a broken-power-law disk and a fixed 1240 K hot-dust component, a standard dust attenuation law, and ordinary stellar population models — describe what Little Red Dots actually emit; if the intrinsic SED shapes of LRDs differ from these, every derived quantity, and hence the inferred extreme conditions, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar masses of Little Red Dots are uncertain by roughly 2 dex depending on the assumed model, so photometry alone cannot pin down their masses and any claim based on LRD stellar masses must specify the model adopted.
  • With MIRI photometry included, LRDs at $z\gtrsim 7$ fall below the cosmological stellar-mass limit, but roughly one in six still requires baryon conversion efficiencies above 20% and a few require above 50% if the red light is entirely stellar.
  • The galaxy-only scenario demands stellar surface densities near $10^5\,M_\odot\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$, 1–2 dex above local ellipticals, implying that such objects cannot evolve into normal present-day galaxies without dramatic size growth.
  • The hybrid scenario implies $M_{\rm BH}/M_*$ ratios near $0.1$–$1$, about a dex above even the elevated high-redshift relation, so either the AGN contributes only part of the red light or super-Eddington accretion is common.
  • Reducing the inferred AGN luminosity by the 0.6 dex excess relative to H$\alpha$-based values implies that the AGN contributes only about a quarter of the rest-optical light and would bring the black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios into the range seen in other high-redshift AGN.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate testable extension is time-domain monitoring: if the rest-optical continua of Little Red Dots vary on timescales of weeks to months, that variation would directly confirm the AGN component and let observers measure the stellar fraction from the non-varying part, something the paper does not attempt.
  • The hot-dust deficit implies that the obscuring material around these early black holes is more extended and cooler than a classical torus; if so, observations at 20–30 μm with JWST/MIRI or at submillimeter wavelengths with ALMA should reveal the warm-dust continuum that the 18 μm data only begin to probe.
  • The same MIRI-anchored modeling could be applied to other compact red populations selected by JWST, such as extremely red objects, to test whether the mixed-contribution conclusion is specific to the LRD selection or generalizes to all red, compact sources at high redshift.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses PRIMER NIRCam and MIRI photometry covering 1–18 μm to fit the SEDs of 95 Little Red Dots with three idealized models: a two-component galaxy-only model, an AGN-only model with hot dust and scattered light, and a hybrid model with AGN-dominated rest-optical and stellar rest-UV emission. The authors report that including MIRI photometry lowers the high-redshift galaxy-only stellar masses, but the galaxy-only scenario still implies high baryon conversion efficiencies and extreme stellar mass surface densities, while the hybrid scenario implies highly overmassive black holes. They conclude that a mixed AGN and stellar contribution, or novel scenarios, is needed to explain the LRD population.

Significance. The paper is a substantial observational contribution: it presents the largest LRD sample with long-wavelength MIRI coverage, handles non-detections carefully with 5σ upper limits, visually screens spurious F1800W detections, and makes machine-readable tables and a full figure set available. The explicit framing of the models as stress tests is appropriate and the comparison against spectroscopic bolometric luminosities and black hole masses provides useful external anchors. However, the central quantitative conclusions—extreme stellar mass densities and overmassive black holes—depend on template and attenuation-law choices that are not varied, and the hybrid model uses a two-step subtraction rather than a joint fit. The result is a defensible but currently over-stated set of conclusions that would be strengthened by targeted sensitivity tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1, §6.1, Figure 8] The galaxy-only stellar masses that drive the 'extreme stellar mass density' and baryon-efficiency conclusions are derived using the Calzetti et al. (2000) attenuation law for both stellar components. Because the observed red continuum is the principal constraint, a steeper (e.g., SMC-like) attenuation law would require lower AV and yield lower dust-corrected rest-optical luminosities and lower M*, potentially moving the inferred densities closer to the size-mass scatter and reducing the number of sources above epsilon=0.2. Please add a sensitivity test with an alternative attenuation law and report how the Figure 8 densities and Section 6.1 efficiency fractions change; this is load-bearing for the abstract's 'extremely high stellar mass densities' claim.
  2. [§4.1.1, Table 1] The two-component galaxy-only fit sets the mass boundaries using a preliminary fit to the rest-optical photometry of the same objects: the high-mass component is forced to lie within roughly one dex of the preliminary mass and the low-mass component below that. This data-informed prior means the reported M* distribution is not an independent measurement and could create or exaggerate the two-component structure. Please test the sensitivity of the galaxy-only masses, the baryon-efficiency fractions, and the density offsets to alternative mass boundaries, or use a prior that is not derived from the target photometry.
  3. [§4.1.3, Figure 10] In the hybrid model, the stellar component is fit to residuals after subtracting the median AGN-only model fluxes, with the AGN model uncertainties convolved only as independent 68% errors. This two-step procedure does not sample the AGN-galaxy degeneracy or parameter covariances, so the quoted stellar masses and the resulting MBH/M* ratios in Figure 10 are likely over-precise. A joint fit (at least for a subset) that simultaneously varies AGN and stellar parameters is needed to determine whether the 'highly overmassive black holes' conclusion survives.
  4. [§4.1.2, §5.2–5.3] The AGN-only and hybrid results assume the low-redshift quasar SED shapes of Temple et al. (2021): fixed broken-power-law disk slopes, a fixed 1240 K hot-dust temperature, and an SMC-like quasar attenuation law. These choices directly set Lbol, fHD, and the derived MBH; if LRD dust or disk SEDs differ, the reported low hot-dust fractions and overmassive black holes could shift substantially. Because no LRD-specific validation of these templates exists, please include a sensitivity test varying T_dust and/or the disk slopes, and quantify how Lbol and fHD respond.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2 and §6.2.3] Section 5.2 states that the SED-derived bolometric luminosities are systematically higher than the spectroscopic values by ~0.6 dex, but Section 6.2.3 says they are '~0.6 dex lower than ... those derived from spectroscopy' and '~1/4 times' the spectroscopic values; the sign and factor should be corrected consistently.
  2. [§4.2] The galfit constraint '0.25 ≤ b/a ≤ 20' for the axis ratio appears unphysical for a quantity defined as b/a, which should lie between 0 and 1; this is likely a typo for a different parameter range and should be clarified.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 contains a typo ('Matellicity' should be 'Metallicity') and the symbol M0 used in the mass priors is not defined in the table; a footnote defining M0 as the preliminary mass from the rest-optical fit would improve readability.
  4. [§3.2, Figure 1] The statement that F1800W-detected LRDs are 'generally bright, with F444W magnitude < 25 AB mag' is true for the six robust detections, but the upper-limit symbols in the right panel are not individually labeled; a brief note on how to interpret the arrows would help readers.
  5. [§6.1] The paper reports 14 LRDs with epsilon > 0.2 and four with epsilon > 0.5, but it would be useful to state explicitly which redshift bin and which stellar mass estimate (median or 16th/84th percentile) are used for these counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the extreme-condition claims are conditional implications of explicitly idealized SED models, checked against external spectroscopic and size-mass benchmarks.

full rationale

The central claims are conditional implications of three explicitly idealized SED models, and the key quantitative comparisons are made against external datasets (Greene et al. 2024 H-alpha virial masses; Matthee et al. 2024; van der Wel et al. 2014; Allen et al. 2024; Pacucci et al. 2023), not against the paper's own fitted values. The galaxy-only stellar masses, AGN bolometric luminosities, hot dust fractions, and hybrid stellar masses are fitted parameters; the paper never presents them as independently predicted, and it repeatedly flags the model-dependence ('all models are wrong, but some are useful'; 'subject to a ~2 dex uncertainty'; 'apparent agreement can be a result of coincidence'). The two-component galaxy-only fit does use a preliminary rest-optical fit to set mass-boundary priors, but the final component masses are free within the stated bounds and the reported low-mass/high-mass dichotomy is tested against a significance criterion; this is a modeling prior, not an identity between input and output. The parent sample is taken from Kocevski et al. (2024) with overlapping authorship, and the photometry pipeline cites Finkelstein et al. (in prep.) and Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2024) with overlapping authorship, but these citations supply data and reduction methods, not the physical conclusions; the conclusions are anchored to external comparisons. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circularity is found.

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

The central claims are derived from SED model fits whose parameters (fHD, fscat, AV, L3000, stellar masses) are fitted to photometry. No new physical entities are introduced. The key assumption is that standard AGN and galaxy templates are applicable to LRDs. The paper itself explicitly acknowledges that all models are simplified and that systematic uncertainties exist.

free parameters (5)
  • Hot dust fraction fHD = 0.001 to 1.3, median ~0.04 for bright sources
    Controls the strength of the 1240 K blackbody in the AGN-only model. The low fHD is a central result, but it is a fitted parameter, not a prediction.
  • Scattered light fraction fscat = ~0.001 to 0.01
    Controls the unobscured accretion disk component that produces the rest-UV in the AGN-only model.
  • AGN dust attenuation Av = ~2 to 4.5 mag
    Reddening of the accretion disk in the AGN-only model; drives the inferred bolometric luminosities.
  • Intrinsic 3000 A luminosity L3000 = log L3000 ~ 44 to 46 (implied)
    Normalization of the AGN template, converted to bolometric luminosity. It is fitted to the F444W and MIRI fluxes.
  • Stellar masses (galaxy-only and hybrid models) = log M*/M_sun ~ 6 to 11.7 depending on model
    Primary derived quantities; the ~2 dex model dependence is a central result, but the masses are fitted parameters within the assumed templates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Temple et al. (2021) quasar templates represent AGN SEDs
    The AGN-only model uses these templates with fixed accretion disk slopes and emission line template. Section 4.1.2.
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2000) dust attenuation law applies to high-z LRDs
    All galaxy fits assume a Calzetti extinction curve. Section 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption Bagpipes stellar population synthesis models are accurate
    The galaxy-only and hybrid fits rely on Bagpipes stellar templates and delayed-tau SFHs. Section 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption Eddington ratio of unity for black hole mass estimates
    Section 6.2.1 states black hole masses are derived assuming Eddington accretion. The paper notes this is a lower limit under sub-Eddington scenarios.
  • domain assumption Halo mass function and baryon fraction used for cosmological stellar mass limits
    Section 6.1 uses hmf and Behroozi et al. (2013) to estimate the maximum stellar mass in the survey volume.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from EAZY are accurate for the 86 of 95 sources without spectroscopic redshifts
    Section 2.1 and 3.1; 9 sources have spectroscopic redshifts, the rest use EAZY photometric redshifts. Errors are propagated but systematic template errors are not fully quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Nature of Little Red Dots: Constraints on AGN and Stellar Contributions from PRIMER MIRI Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BT4DN3F3

@misc{pith2026241112005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Nature of Little Red Dots: Constraints on AGN and Stellar Contributions from PRIMER MIRI Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BT4DN3F3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12005}
}
abstract

JWST has revealed a large population of compact, red galaxies at $z>4$ known as Little Red Dots (LRDs). We analyze the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of 95 LRDs from the JWST PRIMER survey with complete photometric coverage from $1-18\ \mu$m using NIRCam and MIRI imaging, representing the most extensive SED analysis on a large LRD sample with long-wavelength MIRI data. We examine SED models in which either galaxy or active galactic nucleus (AGN) emission dominates the rest-frame UV or optical continuum, extracting physical properties to explore each scenario's implications. In the galaxy-only model, we find massive, dusty stellar populations alongside unobscured, low-mass components, hinting at inhomogeneous obscuration. The AGN-only model indicates dusty, luminous AGNs with low hot dust fractions compared to typical quasars. A hybrid AGN and galaxy model suggests low-mass, unobscured galaxies in the UV, with stellar mass estimates spanning $\sim$2 dex across the different models, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting LRD stellar masses. With MIRI photometry, the galaxy-only model produces stellar masses within cosmological limits, but extremely high stellar mass densities are inferred. The hybrid model infers highly overmassive black holes exceeding those in recently reported high-redshift AGNs, hinting at a partial AGN contribution to the rest-optical continuum or widespread super-Eddington accretion. Our findings highlight the extreme conditions required for both AGN or galaxy dominated scenarios in LRDs, supporting a mixed contribution to the red continuum, or novel scenarios to explain the observed emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The F444W magnitude versus photometric redshift for the LRD sample in this paper. The six LRDs with a significant detection in F1800W at S/N> 5 are shown in the orange points. The horizontal error bars shows the 68% confidence intervals of the photometric redshift. The LRDs detected in F1800W are generally bright, with F444W magnitude of < 25 AB mag. Right: The F277W−F444W versus F444W−F1800W color-color diagr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the components in our AGN-only SED model based on the quasar templates in Temple et al. (2021). The red solid lines show the accretion disk emission subject to a varying degree of dust reddening. The violet dashed lines show the emission from the hot dust at 1240 K with variable hot dust fractions (fHD). The green dotted lines show the scattered light represented by a fraction of the unobscured accr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Image cutout and SED of the six LRDs detected in F1800W in our sample. The top panel shows 2” stamp images. The bottom panel shows the observed photometry in the black points, and 2σ upper limits for non-detections, except for F1800W, where 5σ upper limits are shown for non-detections. The median (colored lines) and 68% posterior (shaded regions) of the galaxy-only, AGN-only and hybrid models are shown from left to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Galaxy properties from the two-component galaxy-only fit. For LRDs where two components are significantly detected, the rest-UV component is shown in blue, and the rest-optical component is shown in orange. The two components of the same LRD are connected by grey dotte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AGN bolometric luminosity in the AGN-only fit versus F444W magnitude (left) and photometric redshift (right). The LRDs detected in F1800W are shown in the orange points. AGN bolometric luminosity of the LRDs measured by the Hα emission line in Greene et al. (2024) are …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AGN properties derived from the AGN-only SED fits. Left: The hot dust fraction versus F444W magnitude. Middle: AV vs F444W magnitude. Right: Hot dust fraction versus AV . The hot dust fraction is low (≲ 0.2) in the majority of the LRDs, with the exception of UDS 9235. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar mass versus redshift for the LRDs in this study. The stellar masses derived from the galaxy-only fit without MIRI photometry are shown in green, galaxy-only fit with MIRI photometry in red, and hybrid fit (where the rest-optical emission is attributed to an AGN…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effective radius in the F444W filter versus stellar mass. The red symbols show the stellar mass estimates from the galaxy-only fit, while the violet symbols show those from the hybrid fit. Upper limits using the HWHM of the F444W filter are shown with triangles for the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mass of the central black hole assuming Eddington accretion versus F444W magnitude. We also show the results from spectroscopic observations of LRDs in Greene et al. (2024) and broad-line AGN in Matthee et al. (2024). The best-fit linear relation between MBH and F4…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Black hole mass versus stellar mass. The LRDs in this study assuming the hybrid (minimal M∗) model are shown in the blue circles, while those detected in F1800W are shown in the orange circles. We also show the sample median for the minimal M∗ values in the light blue…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 15 Pith papers

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

  1. Misaligned or chaotic? A strong break of axial symmetry in the local LRD J1025 revealed with VLT/FORS2 spectropolarimetry

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The local Little Red Dot J1025 shows a 48° polarisation-angle offset between continuum and broad H-alpha, requiring broken axial symmetry.

  2. A Novel Formation Channel for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe via Primordial Black Holes

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Massive primordial black holes with strong gas-dark matter streaming can trigger direct-collapse black hole formation in their wake, producing early supermassive black hole binaries.

  3. Environmental Evidence for Overly Massive Black Holes in Low Mass Galaxies and a Black Hole - Halo Mass Relation at $z \sim 5$

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Faint broad-line AGN at redshift 4 to 5 appear to live in low-mass galaxies of about 50 million solar masses, implying black holes that are an order of magnitude heavier than their host stellar mass.

  4. 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'.

  5. Discovery of Multiply Ionized Iron Emission Powered by an Active Galactic Nucleus in a z~7 Little Red Dot

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

    The z=6.68 Little Red Dot THRILS 46403 shows a 4.5 sigma [FeVII] line, the first robust coronal-line detection among z>5 LRDs, plus narrow Balmer absorption, supporting an AGN with direct sightlines to gas at or beyon...

  6. 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.

  7. Investigating Little Red Dots with UV Excess: Are They the High-Redshift Siblings of Blue Hot DOGs?

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

    Little Red Dots are not the high-redshift relatives of Blue-excess Hot DOGs; they have less dust obscuration, little hot dust, and likely a different power source.

  8. MEGA: Spectrophotometric SED Fitting of Little Red Dots Detected in JWST MIRI

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

    Standard AGN and star-forming templates cannot fully reproduce the SEDs of eight MIRI-detected little red dots; dense-gas models plus extra hot dust partly work but fail on UV and narrow emission lines.

  9. Lonely Little Red Dots: Challenges to the AGN-nature of little red dots through their clustering and spectral energy distributions

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

    Little red dots sit in lower-density environments than typical galaxies, and Bayesian model comparison favors non-AGN interpretations for most of them.

  10. 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.

  11. CAPERS-LRD-z9: A Gas Enshrouded Little Red Dot Hosting a Broad-line AGN at z=9.288

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

    CAPERS-LRD-z9 is a spectroscopically confirmed broad-line AGN at z=9.288 with a black hole of about 10^7.6 solar masses, making it the highest-redshift little red dot and broad-line AGN known.

  12. A Comprehensive Photometric Selection of `Little Red Dots' in MIRI Fields: An IR-Bright LRD at $z=3.1386$ with Warm Dust Emission

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new photometric selection recovers 248 Little Red Dots across JWST fields, increasing the known sample by about 1.7x, and reveals warm dust emission in one low-redshift LRD.

  13. Evidence of violation of Case B recombination in Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In one of seven Little Red Dots, the broad Hδ/Hα ratio is more than 5σ below the Case B prediction, signalling a breakdown of standard recombination in very dense gas.

  14. Evolution of Size, Mass, and Density of Galaxies Since Cosmic Dawn

    physics.gen-ph 2025-10 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Under the author's CCC+TL cosmology, galaxy effective radii are larger by roughly (1+z)^0.93, reducing the inferred density and mass of early galaxies.

  15. Black hole mimickers as relativistic stars calculated from the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations

    gr-qc 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A horizonless gravastar with a mock horizon emerges from the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations if matter at high pressure transitions to a negative energy-density state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 15 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  3. [3]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16354, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16354

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16354 2024

  4. [4]

    T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 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: 10.3847/1538-38...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  5. [5]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07745

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07745 2024

  6. [6]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  7. [7]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  8. [8]

    1987, ApJ, 320, 537, doi: 10.1086/165571

    Barvainis, R. 1987, ApJ, 320, 537, doi: 10.1086/165571

    doi:10.1086/165571 1987

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Box, G. E. P. 1976, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949

    1976

  4. [12]

    B., van Dokkum, P

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

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Buchner, J., & Bauer, F. E. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2955

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et...

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic

    2021

  11. [19]

    J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Alexander, D

    Goulding, A. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/5

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

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

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Maiolino, R., Juodzbalis, I., et al

    Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodzbalis, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00100

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2010, ApJL, 724, L59, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L59

    Hao, H., Elvis, M., Civano, F., et al. 2010, ApJL, 724, L59, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L59

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Alexander, D

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    N., et al

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 380, doi: 10.1038/nature08877

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03065

    Killi, M., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03065

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Finkelstein, S

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    I., Greene, J

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

    doi

  25. [33]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20320, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20320 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kokorev, V., Chisholm, J., Endsley, R., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20320, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20320 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023a, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 Labb´ e, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023...

    doi arXiv

  26. [34]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    L., Hutchison, T

    Larson, R. L., Hutchison, T. A., Bagley, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365 22 Leung et al

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Shen, Y., et al

    Li, J., Silverman, J. D., Shen, Y., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.00074, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.00074

    doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., Ichikawa, K., & Ho, L. C. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10760, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10760

    doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2022, Universe, 8, 304, doi: 10.3390/universe8060304

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. 2022, Universe, 8, 304, doi: 10.3390/universe8060304

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae075

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    H., & Shi, Y

    Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Shi, Y. 2017, ApJ, 835, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/257

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Setton, D

    Ma, Y., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06257, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06257

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, HMF: Halo Mass Function calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1412.006

    Murray, S. 2014, HMF: Halo Mass Function calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1412.006

    2014

  38. [46]

    G., Power, C., & Robotham, A

    Murray, S. G., Power, C., & Robotham, A. S. G. 2013, Astronomy and Computing, 3, 23, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2013.11.001

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

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

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    W., Yang, G., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Yang, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc948

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Villar, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 234, doi: 10.1086/523690 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Costantin, L., Langeroodi, D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L1,...

    2002 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Brotherton, M

    Runnoe, J. C., Brotherton, M. S., & Shang, Z. 2012a, MNRAS, 422, 478, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20620.x —. 2012b, MNRAS, 427, 1800, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21878.x

    2012

  44. [52]

    C., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al

    Sun, W., Ho, L. C., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1f6

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Finkelstein, S

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    J., Hewett, P

    Temple, M. J., Hewett, P. C., & Banerji, M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2586 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    Wang, B., Leja, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

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

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.07483, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.07483

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13290, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13290

    doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    A., et al

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

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.