Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Evaluating the Predictive Capacity of FLARES Simulations for High Redshift "Little Red Dots"

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 FLARES, filtered into mock observations, overproduces little-red-dot-like galaxies by orders of magnitude, leading the author to call the starburst hypothesis insufficient and point to AGN feedback.

desk verdict The headline tension is a selection-completeness artefact; the paper is a competent thesis whose central conclusion overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05946 v1 pith:FXKSPRMX submitted 2024-12-08 astro-ph.GA

Louis M. T. Arts This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords littlereddotsFLARESsimulationsstarbursthypothesisAGNfeedbackgalaxystellarmassfunctionstar-formingsequencehigh-redshiftJWSTgalaxiesmockobservations
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

Little red dots are compact, dust-reddened galaxies seen by JWST at redshifts 5–10 whose extreme luminosities could come either from intense star formation or from active galactic nuclei. This paper tests the starburst explanation by filtering the FLARES hydrodynamic simulation into mock observations with a UV magnitude cut and comparing the resulting galaxies with 434 little red dots from the COSMOS-Web survey. The comparison finds that FLARES predicts several orders of magnitude more galaxies at the observed stellar masses, and star formation rates about three orders of magnitude higher, than the observations show. A reader following the argument is left with the paper's conclusion that the starburst hypothesis is insufficient and that weaker-than-real AGN feedback in the simulation is the most plausible source of the mismatch.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three comparative tools applied at redshifts $z \approx 5, 6, 7$: galaxy stellar mass functions binned from comoving number densities; the star-forming sequence relating $M_\star$ to star formation rate with power-law fits; and baryon-to-star conversion efficiency limits $M_\star = \epsilon f_b M_{\rm halo}$ with $\epsilon = 0.2$ and $\epsilon = 1$. The bridge between simulation and observation is a mock-observation filter that converts simulated stellar masses to UV magnitudes through $\log M_\star = -0.4 M_{\rm UV} + 1.6$ and keeps only galaxies brighter than the COSMOS-Web detection limit of $M_{\rm UV} = -20.015$. FLARES is a zoom-in hydrodynamic simulation suite targeting the epoch of reionization, and its re-simulated overdense regions are weighted to represent a much larger parent volume; that weighting is what allows the paper to compute number densities.

What would settle it

Apply the actual little-red-dot selection criteria—compactness, red color, and SED shape—to the FLARES galaxies in the same volume instead of the single UV magnitude cut, and recount the mock number densities; if the overproduction collapses to the observed level, the paper's central conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FLARES cannot reproduce the properties of observed little red dots under the starburst assumption. Applying the mock-observation cut $M_{\rm UV} < -20.015$ leaves 3,542 simulated galaxies whose number density, at the stellar masses of the COSMOS-Web LRDs, exceeds the observed density by up to three orders of magnitude, with the largest excess at low stellar mass and at $z \approx 5$. The simulated star-forming sequence has a normalization about three orders of magnitude above the observed one, and its slope implies a specific star formation rate that falls with stellar mass, while the observed LRDs follow an almost constant specific star formation rate. The stellar mass distributions themselves are not statistically distinguishable (Mann-Whitney $p = 0.0546$), so the paper locates the tension in abundances and star formation rates rather than in mass scales. The conclusion is that the FLARES model underestimates feedback—most plausibly AGN feedback—and that the starburst hypothesis is insufficient, making the AGN interpretation the more promising one.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that cutting simulated galaxies at a single UV magnitude is equivalent to the color, compactness, and SED criteria that define observed little red dots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the overproduction is real, feedback that regulates star formation in the early Universe is weaker in FLARES than in reality, so strengthening AGN feedback in the simulation should lower both number densities and star formation rates toward the observed values.
  • The starburst picture would then have to explain why galaxies at these simulated abundances are not seen, while the paper notes the lack of strong X-ray emission from LRDs as the main hurdle the AGN scenario must still clear.
  • Because both simulated and observed mass functions stay below the $\epsilon = 1$ limit, LRDs do not by themselves break the $\Lambda$CDM baryon budget; the tension is with the $\epsilon \lesssim 0.2$ efficiencies expected from local galaxies.
  • Repeating the same pipeline with a simulation that models stronger AGN feedback is the paper's proposed test: if the interpretation is correct, the discrepancy should shrink.
  • The biases the paper identifies—overdense zoom-in selection, the sharp UV cut, and photometric redshift uncertainties—mean the exact size of the discrepancy is uncertain, but the mismatch is consistently in the same direction across redshift bins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a fairer test would run the full LRD selection—red color, compact size, and SED shape—on synthetic images from FLARES rather than a single UV magnitude cut; this would show how much of the reported overproduction is a selection artifact.
  • Beyond the paper: because the observed stellar masses and star formation rates come from starburst-template SED fits, the comparison is partly circular when testing the starburst hypothesis; redoing it with AGN-fitted properties could shrink or shift the tension.
  • Beyond the paper: the discrepancy grows toward lower redshift and lower stellar mass, which suggests the mismatch tracks galaxy growth or selection rather than a single missing feedback channel; a light-cone mock with detection noise could locate where the divergence begins.
  • Beyond the paper: if AGN feedback is truly the missing ingredient, the same FLARES output could predict what AGN fraction and black-hole accretion rates are needed to reconcile the counts, giving JWST a specific observable to test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether the FLARES hydrodynamic simulation can reproduce the stellar properties of JWST-observed "little red dots" (LRDs) under the starburst hypothesis. Using the COSMOS-Web LRD sample of Akins et al. (2024) and FLARES Data Release I, it constructs a mock FLARES sample by converting stellar masses to rest-frame UV magnitudes via a constant mass-to-light relation (Eq. 2) and applying a single magnitude cut M_UV < -20.015. The paper then compares galaxy stellar mass functions, star formation histories, and star-forming sequences between this mock sample and the observed LRDs. It reports that FLARES overproduces number densities by several orders of magnitude and predicts systematically higher star formation rates, concluding that the starburst hypothesis is insufficient and that AGN feedback is likely under-modeled in FLARES. However, the mock FLARES selection is not equivalent to the LRD selection: the observed sample is defined by red color, compactness, and SED criteria, while the simulated sample is only UV-magnitude limited. This selection mismatch, together with the unweighted use of overdense zoom-in regions, means that the reported tensions do not establish the paper's central conclusion.

Significance. If the conclusions were valid, the paper would offer an important falsification test of the starburst interpretation of LRDs and would highlight a specific deficiency in the FLARES feedback implementation. The authors are to be credited for using publicly available data, for providing reproducible code, and for making a careful attempt at computing comoving volumes in both the simulation and the survey. The potential significance of the question is high: LRDs are among the most debated JWST discoveries, and simulation comparisons are a valuable route to discriminating between starburst and AGN scenarios. However, the central quantitative claim—that FLARES overproduces LRD number densities by orders of magnitude—is not supported by the analysis because the simulated and observed samples are selected in fundamentally different ways. The paper therefore does not currently deliver a reliable test of the starburst hypothesis; it instead demonstrates that a UV-bright simulated galaxy population is more numerous than an LRD-selected observed population, which is expected even under perfect agreement between simulation and observation if LRDs are a rare subset of UV-bright galaxies.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 vs. §2.1] The mock FLARES sample is defined solely by the UV magnitude cut M_UV < -20.015 (Section 3.1), which, via Eq. (2), is equivalent to a stellar mass cut of log10(M*/M_sun) >~ 9.61. No color, compactness, or SED-based criteria are applied to the simulated galaxies, whereas the observed sample (Section 2.1) consists of 434 LRDs selected by Akins et al. (2024) using exactly such criteria. LRDs are a rare subset of UV-bright galaxies; if only a fraction f of UV-bright galaxies satisfy the LRD color/compactness selection, then the FLARES number densities would exceed the observed LRD number densities by roughly 1/f even if the simulation and the starburst model were both exactly correct. The paper never quantifies this incompleteness, and Section 5.5 does not list it among the sources of bias. The central claim that FLARES overestimates LRD number densities by several orders of magnitude is therefore not established by the reported comparison.
  2. [§4.3 and Eqs. (6)-(7)] The star-forming sequence comparison is similarly contaminated by the selection mismatch. The FLARES SFRs are computed for the entire UV-bright mock sample, while the COSMOS-Web SFRs are starburst SED fits to LRD-selected objects. The reported ~3 dex lower baseline in COSMOS-Web may reflect the fact that the two samples are drawn from different populations, not a failure of the FLARES model. Additionally, the mass-to-light conversion in Eq. (2) assumes a constant UV mass-to-light ratio with no dust attenuation, which is especially problematic for LRDs, a population defined by extreme dust reddening; the resulting mock 'observability' does not mimic the actual selection of the observed sample.
  3. [§3.2 and Table 1] The FLARES number densities are computed by simply counting galaxies in the 40 zoom-in regions and dividing by the sum of their spherical volumes, without applying the FLARES weighting scheme that is designed to re-weight these regions to represent the parent 3.2 cGpc volume (described in Section 1.3.2). Because the zoom-in regions are deliberately chosen to span the overdense tail (and the paper states they over-represent dense environments), this procedure introduces a systematic overestimate of the number density. Section 5.5 acknowledges the overdense sampling qualitatively but does not correct for it or assess its magnitude. This bias can be as large as order-unity or larger and must be quantified before any claim of 'several orders of magnitude' overproduction is made.
  4. [§5.4 and §6] The conclusion that 'the starburst hypothesis may be insufficient' and that AGN feedback is under-modeled is not supported by the analysis, because the observed SFRs themselves are derived under the starburst assumption (Section 2.1), and because the selection mismatch and unweighted volumes preclude a direct comparison of number densities. The paper's qualitative discussion of AGN feedback mechanisms does not provide a quantitative test, and the cited external SED studies (e.g., Refs. [28,15]) are not connected to the FLARES comparison presented here. The conclusion should be substantially weakened or the analysis must be revised to account for the selection incompleteness and the FLARES re-weighting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The text says galaxies are excluded with 'UV magnitudes higher than this threshold'; since magnitude increases with faintness this is correct, but the implied stellar mass threshold of log10(M*/M_sun) ~ 9.61 is never stated, which would help the reader understand the resulting sample.
  2. [§3.2] The volume calculation uses a single solid angle of 165e-6 sr for the combined MIRI and NIRCam samples, but MIRI covers a smaller area than NIRCam. The effective survey area for the combined sample and the treatment of overlapping coverage should be clarified.
  3. [§4.1 and Fig. 7] The y-axis in Figure 7 is labeled 'number density,' but the COSMOS-Web points are the number density of LRD-selected objects, not the number density of all galaxies. This distinction should be stated explicitly in the text and figure caption to avoid implying that the comparison is between stellar mass functions of the general population.
  4. [§4.2 and §5.2] The Mann-Whitney U test result p = 0.0546 is described in Section 5.2 as 'a significant result of this investigation' and as suggesting 'significant overall agreement.' A p-value slightly above 0.05 is more accurately described as failing to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% level; the language should be corrected.
  5. [§5.5] The list of biases omits the most important one: the incompatibility between the UV-selected mock sample and the color/compactness-selected LRD sample. It also does not mention the non-application of FLARES re-weighting. Both should be added and, ideally, quantified.
  6. [General] There are several minor typos and infelicities, e.g., 'COMOS-Web' in Section 4.2, 'large redshifts (LRDs)' in Section 6, and inconsistent use of 'co-moving' vs. 'comoving.' A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the FLARES-vs-COSMOS-Web comparison is an external data-simulation benchmark; the UV-cut and mass-to-light conversions are imported from independent sources.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward comparison: FLARES simulation outputs (stellar mass, SFR, redshift) are converted to mock observables using an externally derived mass-to-light relation (Eq. 2, from Grazian et al. 2015) and a UV magnitude threshold taken from the faintest COSMOS-Web LRD, then compared to observed LRD number densities and SFRs from Akins et al. (2024). No quantity that is claimed as a prediction is constructed from the same data used to fit it; the M/L conversion and the FLARES SFRs are independent of the COSMOS-Web sample. The mild concern is that the mock sample is only UV-magnitude limited while the observed sample is selected by LRD color/compactness/SED criteria, so the reported overproduction could partly reflect selection incompleteness; the paper itself acknowledges related biases in Section 5.5 (UV-cut mass bias, FLARES overdense sampling, constant M/L assumption, photometric redshift uncertainties). These are validity threats, not circular reasoning: the simulation number density is not defined as, nor fitted to, the observed LRD number density. There is no load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled via citation; the cited FLARES and Akins et al. data products are external benchmarks with public code and data availability. Therefore the central comparison is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on three imported assumptions: the Grazian mass-to-light conversion, the FLARES overdensity weighting scheme, and, most importantly, the equivalence between a UV-bright simulated galaxy and an observed LRD. The last assumption is unstated and is the main threat to the result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • UV magnitude selection threshold = -20.015
    Chosen as the faintest galaxy in the COSMOS-Web LRD catalog (Section 3.1). Filtering FLARES galaxies above this threshold defines the mock sample and controls the resulting number densities, so it directly shapes the central comparison.
  • COSMOS-Web SFR-M* power-law normalization = 4.68e-8
    Fitted to COSMOS-Web data in Section 4.3 (Eq. 6). Describes the observed star-forming sequence but is not used to derive the main claim.
  • COSMOS-Web SFR-M* power-law slope = 0.91
    Fitted in Eq. 6, Section 4.3.
  • FLARES SFR-M* power-law normalization = 5.01e-5
    Fitted to FLARES data in Section 4.3 (Eq. 7). The three-order-of-magnitude offset from the COSMOS-Web normalization is quoted as evidence of tension, though the comparison samples are not matched.
  • FLARES SFR-M* power-law slope = 0.59
    Fitted in Eq. 7, Section 4.3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Grazian et al. mass-to-light relation log M* = -0.4 M_UV + 1.6 (Eq. 2) holds for FLARES galaxies at z=5 to 10.
    Used in Section 3.1 to convert simulated stellar masses into UV magnitudes for the mock observation filter. The relation is calibrated at 3.5<z<4.5 and assumed to extrapolate.
  • domain assumption FLARES overdense zoom-in regions with the weighting scheme recover the cosmic-average galaxy population.
    FLARES re-simulates overdense regions; composite distributions are built with a weighting scheme (Section 1.3.2). The paper acknowledges in Section 5.5 that this adds sampling bias, so the assumption is fragile.
  • ad hoc to paper All UV-bright simulated FLARES galaxies are directly comparable to observed little red dots selected by color and compactness.
    Section 3.1 applies only a UV magnitude cut to FLARES data; no LRD color, size, or SED criteria are imposed. This unstated equivalence equates the mock sample with the LRD sample and is load-bearing for the number-density and SFR comparisons.
  • domain assumption The Behroozi halo mass function from HMFcalc is accurate at z up to and beyond 8.
    Used in Section 3.2 to convert halo mass functions into stellar-mass upper limits (epsilon > 0.2 and > 1). The Behroozi fit is stated to be predictive for 0<z<8; the paper applies it at z=9 and z=10 as well.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating the Predictive Capacity of FLARES Simulations for High Redshift "Little Red Dots"." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXKSPRMX

@misc{pith2026241205946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating the Predictive Capacity of FLARES Simulations for High Redshift "Little Red Dots"},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXKSPRMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05946}
}
read the original abstract

The recent discovery of little red dots - a population of extremely compact and highly dust-reddened high redshift galaxies - by the James Webb Space Telescope presents a new challenge to the fields of astrophysics and cosmology. Their remarkably high luminosities at redshifts 5 < z < 10, appear to challenge LambdaCDM cosmology and galaxy formation models, as they imply stellar masses and star formation rates that exceed the upper limits set by these models. LRDs are currently subjects of debate as the mechanisms behind their high luminosities are not yet fully understood. LRD energy outputs are thought to be either dominated by star formation or their energy output results from the hosting of active galactic nuclei. We investigate the starburst hypothesis by attempting to replicate the stellar properties of LRDs using output data from the FLARES simulation suite. Comparative analysis of galactic properties such as galactic number density, stellar mass and star formation rate yield significant tension between simulated and observed galaxies. The FLARES simulation overestimates the number densities of galaxies with stellar masses similar to observed LRDs by several orders of magnitude. Additionally, the simulation shows an overestimation of star formation rates. These tensions suggest a potential underestimation by the FLARES model of stellar feedback mechanisms such as active galactic nuclei feedback. These results suggest that the starburst hypothesis may be insufficient to explain the observed properties of these galaxies. Instead, the AGN scenario should be further investigated by repeating the methods in this study with a hydrodynamic galaxy simulation suite that models a higher influence of AGN feedback mechanisms on stellar activity in high redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. False colour stamps of 20 little red dots at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualisation of 9 FLARES resimulations of overdense regions of the larger 3.2 cGpc side length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Declination vs. right ascension of COSMOS-Web [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions and correlations of galaxy properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar mass functions at z ≈ 5, z ≈ 6, and z ≈ 7 compare galaxy populations derived from the FLARES simulations with those observed in the COSMOS-Web survey. Solid lines represent FLARES data for each redshift in purple, blue, and cyan, respectively, while the corresp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar mass distribution of galaxies as a function of redshift and age of the Universe (Gyr). Data points and box-and-whisker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar mass distributions across various redshift bins for observed galaxies from the COSMOS-Web survey and simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between stellar mass and star formation rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation between stellar mass and star formation rate (SFR) for galaxies is displayed using a hexbin method. Colour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Discovery and properties of ultra-high redshift galaxies (9 < z <12) in the jwst ero smacs 0723 field

    Adams et al. Discovery and properties of ultra-high redshift galaxies (9 < z <12) in the jwst ero smacs 0723 field. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 518(3):4755–4766, November

    work page

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results: Vi

    Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results: Vi. cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641: A6, September 2020. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  3. [3]

    Cosmos-web: The over-abundance and physical nature of little red dots –implications for early galaxy and smbh assembly, 2024

    Akins et al. Cosmos-web: The over-abundance and physical nature of little red dots –implications for early galaxy and smbh assembly, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10341

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, et al. The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package. The Astrophysical Journal , 935(2), 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Revealing galaxy candidates out to z ∼ 16 with jwst observations of the lensing clus- ter smacs0723

    Atek et al. Revealing galaxy candidates out to z ∼ 16 with jwst observations of the lensing clus- ter smacs0723. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 519(1):1201–1220, December

    work page

  6. [6]

    Behroozi and Joseph Silk

    Peter S. Behroozi and Joseph Silk. A simple technique for predicting high-redshift galaxy evolution. The Astrophysical Journal, 799(1):32, January 2015. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/799/ 1/32. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/ 2015

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3144

    ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3144. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stac3144

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3144

  8. [8]

    C. M. Booth and Joop Schaye. The interaction between feedback from active galactic nuclei and supernovae, 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3802

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Benson, R.G

    A.J. Benson, R.G. Bower, C.S. Frenk, C.G. Lacey, C.M. Baugh, and S. Cole. What shapes the luminosity function of galaxies? The Astrophysical Journal , 599(1):38–49, December 2003. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.1086/379160. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/379160

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Stress testing λcdm with high-redshift galaxy candidates

    Michael Boylan-Kolchin. Stress testing λcdm with high-redshift galaxy candidates. Nature As- tronomy, 7(6):731–735, April 2023. ISSN 2397-3366. doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    The jwst resolved stellar populations early release science program i.: Nircam flux calibration, 2022

    Boyer et al. The jwst resolved stellar populations early release science program i.: Nircam flux calibration, 2022. Page 27 EV ALUA TING THE PREDICTIVE CAP ACITY OF FLARES SIMULA TIONS FOR HIGH REDSHIFT ”LITTLE RED DOTS”

    2022

  4. [12]

    The jwst excels survey: Too much, too young, too fast? ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at 3 < z <5, 2024

    Carnall et al. The jwst excels survey: Too much, too young, too fast? ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at 3 < z <5, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02242

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. N. Brandt and D. M. Alexander. Cosmic x-ray surveys of distant active galaxies: The de- mographics, physics, and ecology of growing supermassive black holes. The Astronomy and As- trophysics Review, 23(1), January 2015. ISSN 1432-0754. doi: 10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z. URL ht...

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    The God Delusion

    Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion . Black Swan, London, England, 2024. ISBN 9781784161927

    2024

  7. [15]

    The eagle simulations of galaxy formation: calibration of subgrid physics and model variations

    Crain et al. The eagle simulations of galaxy formation: calibration of subgrid physics and model variations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 450(2):1937–1961, April 2015. ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv725

    1937 doi

  8. [16]

    Eisenstein and Wayne Hu

    Daniel J. Eisenstein and Wayne Hu. Power spectra for cold dark matter and its variants. The Astrophysical Journal , 511(1):5–15, January 1999. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.1086/306640. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/306640

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    Emmanuel Durodola, Fabio Pacucci, and Ryan C. Hickox. Exploring the agn fraction of a sample of jwst’s little red dots at 5 < z <8: Overmassive black holes are strongly favored, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10329

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Evolution of galaxy stellar masses and star formation rates in the eagle simulations

    Furlong et al. Evolution of galaxy stellar masses and star formation rates in the eagle simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 450(4):4486–4504, May 2015. ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv852. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv852

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Exploring agn and star formation activity of massive galaxies at cosmic noon

    Florez et al. Exploring agn and star formation activity of massive galaxies at cosmic noon. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 497(3):3273–3296, July 2020. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2200. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2200

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    The galaxy stellar mass function at 3.5 ≤z≤ 7.5 in the candels/uds, goods-south, and hudf fields

    Grazian et al. The galaxy stellar mass function at 3.5 ≤z≤ 7.5 in the candels/uds, goods-south, and hudf fields. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 575:A96, March 2015. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201424750. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424750. Page 28 EV ALU...

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    The thesan project: public data release of radiation-hydrodynamic simulations match- ing reionization-era jwst observations, 2023

    Garaldi et al. The thesan project: public data release of radiation-hydrodynamic simulations match- ing reionization-era jwst observations, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Array programming with NumPy

    Harris et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585:357–362, 2020. doi: 10.1038/ s41586-020-2649-2

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kocevski

    Carl Audric Guia, Fabio Pacucci, and Dale D. Kocevski. Sizes and stellar masses of the little red dots imply immense stellar densities. Research Notes of the AAS, 8(8):207, August 2024. ISSN 2515-5172. doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7262. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/ad7262

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    The millenniumtng project: the galaxy population at z ≥ 8

    Kannan et al. The millenniumtng project: the galaxy population at z ≥ 8. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 524(2):2594–2605, July 2023. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stac3743. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3743

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    John D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering , 9 (3):90–95, 2007. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    Powerful outflows and feedback from active galactic nu- clei

    Andrew King and Ken Pounds. Powerful outflows and feedback from active galactic nu- clei. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 53(1):115–154, August 2015. ISSN 1545-4282. doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    The alpine-alma [cii] survey: Obscured star formation rate density and main sequence of star-forming galaxies at z >4

    Khusanova et al. The alpine-alma [cii] survey: Obscured star formation rate density and main sequence of star-forming galaxies at z >4. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 649:A152, May 2021. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038944. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202038944

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Caputi, Jenny E

    Vasily Kokorev, Karina I. Caputi, Jenny E. Greene, Pratika Dayal, Maxime Trebitsch, Sam E. Cut- ler, Seiji Fujimoto, Ivo Labb´ e, Tim B. Miller, Edoardo Iani, Rafael Navarro-Carrera, and Pierluigi Rinaldi. A census of photometrically selected little red dots at 4 ¡ z ¡ 9 in jw...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The rise of faint, red agn at z >4: A sample of little red dots in the jwst extragalactic legacy fields, 2024

    Kocevski et al. The rise of faint, red agn at z >4: A sample of little red dots in the jwst extragalactic legacy fields, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03576

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A population of red candidate massive galaxies 600 myr after the big bang

    Labb´ e et al. A population of red candidate massive galaxies 600 myr after the big bang. Nature, 616(7956):266–269, February 2023. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Interpretation

    Komatsu et al. Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Interpretation. apjs, 192(2):18, February 2011. doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    The alhambra survey: tight dependence of the optical mass-to-light ratio on galaxy colour up to z = 1.5

    L´ opez-Sanjuan et al. The alhambra survey: tight dependence of the optical mass-to-light ratio on galaxy colour up to z = 1.5. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 622:A51, January 2019. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833402. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833402

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    First light and reionization epoch simulations (flares) – i

    Lovell et al. First light and reionization epoch simulations (flares) – i. environmental depen- dence of high-redshift galaxy evolution. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , Page 29 EV ALUA TING THE PREDICTIVE CAP ACITY OF FLARES SIMULA TIONS FOR HIGH REDSHIFT ”...

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    No tension: Jwst galaxies at z >10 consistent with cosmological simulations

    McCaffrey et al. No tension: Jwst galaxies at z >10 consistent with cosmological simulations. The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, September 2023. ISSN 2565-6120. doi: 10.21105/astro.2304.13755. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/astro.2304.13755

    2023

  27. [35]

    Little red dots: an abundant population of faint agn at z 5 revealed by the eiger and fresco jwst surveys, 2024

    Matthee et al. Little red dots: an abundant population of faint agn at z 5 revealed by the eiger and fresco jwst surveys, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05448

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hmfcalc: An online tool for calculating dark matter halo mass functions, 2013

    Steven Murray, Chris Power, and Aaron Robotham. Hmfcalc: An online tool for calculating dark matter halo mass functions, 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6721

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    H. J. Mo, S. Mao, and S. D. M. White. The formation of galactic discs. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 295(2):319–336, April 1998. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711. 1998.01227.x. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    1998

  30. [38]

    Star formation in aegis field galaxies since z=1.1: The dominance of gradually declining star formation, and the main sequence of star-forming galaxies

    Noeske et al. Star formation in aegis field galaxies since z=1.1: The dominance of gradually declining star formation, and the main sequence of star-forming galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal, 660(1): L43–L46, April 2007. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.1086/517926. URL http://dx.doi...

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    Two remarkably luminous galaxy candidates at z ≈ 10–12 revealed by jwst

    Naidu et al. Two remarkably luminous galaxy candidates at z ≈ 10–12 revealed by jwst. The As- trophysical Journal Letters, 940(1):L14, November 2022. ISSN 2041-8213. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ ac9b22. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Performance of nircam on jwst in flight

    Rieke et al. Performance of nircam on jwst in flight. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135(1044):028001, February 2023. ISSN 1538-3873. doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Peak star formation efficiency and no missing baryons in massive spirals

    Posti et al. Peak star formation efficiency and no missing baryons in massive spirals. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 626:A56, June 2019. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935553. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935553

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    The eagle project: simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environ- ments

    Schaye et al. The eagle project: simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environ- ments. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 446(1):521–554, November 2014. ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Early results from glass-jwst

    Santini et al. Early results from glass-jwst. xi. stellar masses and mass-to-light ratio of z > 7 galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , 942(2):L27, January 2023. ISSN 2041-8213. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9586. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac9586. Page 30 EV A...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    main sequence

    Speagle et al. A highly consistent framework for the evolution of the star-forming “main sequence” from z ∼ 0-6. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 214(2):15, September 2014. ISSN 1538-

    2014

  37. [45]

    Early galaxies and early dark energy: A unified solution to the hubble tension and puzzles of massive bright galaxies revealed by jwst, 2024

    Shen et al. Early galaxies and early dark energy: A unified solution to the hubble tension and puzzles of massive bright galaxies revealed by jwst, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15548

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X-ray view of little red dots: Do they host supermassive black holes?, 2024

    Tasnim et al. X-ray view of little red dots: Do they host supermassive black holes?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19010

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    First light and reionization epoch simulations (FLARES) X: environmental galaxy bias and survey variance at high redshift

    Thomas et al. First light and reionization epoch simulations (FLARES) X: environmental galaxy bias and survey variance at high redshift. mnras, 524(1):43–59, September 2023. doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stad1819

    2023

  40. [48]

    Steinborn et al. Cosmological simulations of black hole growth ii: how (in)significant are merger events for fuelling nuclear activity? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 481(1): 341–360, August 2018. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2288. URL http://dx.d...

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

    Virtanen et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17:261–272, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation

    Vogelsberger et al. Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation. Nature, 509 (7499):177–182, May 2014. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature13316. URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nature13316

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    First light and reionisation epoch simulations (flares) ii: The photometric properties of high-redshift galaxies

    Vijayan et al. First light and reionisation epoch simulations (flares) ii: The photometric properties of high-redshift galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , November 2020. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3715. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3715

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Rubies: Evolved stellar populations with extended formation histories at z ∼ 7 − 8 in candidate massive galaxies identified with jwst/nirspec, 2024

    Wang et al. Rubies: Evolved stellar populations with extended formation histories at z ∼ 7 − 8 in candidate massive galaxies identified with jwst/nirspec, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.01473

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Wasleske and Vivienne F

    Erik J. Wasleske and Vivienne F. Baldassare. Active dwarf galaxy database i: Overlap between active galactic nuclei selected by different techniques, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20312

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cosmological simu- lations of galaxy formation

    Mark Vogelsberger, Federico Marinacci, Paul Torrey, and Ewald Puchwein. Cosmological simu- lations of galaxy formation. Nature Reviews Physics , 2(1):42–66, January 2020. doi: 10.1038/ s42254-019-0127-2. Page 31 EV ALUA TING THE PREDICTIVE CAP ACITY OF FLARES SIMULA TIONS FOR ...

    2020

  47. [57]

    Wilkins et al

    Stephen M. Wilkins et al. First light and reionisation epoch simulations (flares), 2023. URL https://flaresimulations.github.io/. Accessed: 2024-09-05. Page 32 EV ALUA TING THE PREDICTIVE CAP ACITY OF FLARES SIMULA TIONS FOR HIGH REDSHIFT ”LITTLE RED DOTS” Appendix A RedshiftS...

    2023

  48. [2022]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3347

    ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3347. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stac3347

    doi

  49. [4365]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/ 15

    doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/ 15

    doi

Pith tools

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