Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Little Red Dots show H-alpha variability of at most about 4 percent on monthly timescales—far below the ~6 percent red-noise flicker of normal quasars—suggesting their broad-line light is produced differently.

desk verdict First systematic NIRSpec multi-epoch H-alpha variability sample for LRDs gives a plausible 4% upper limit, but the local-continuum normalization can suppress exactly the variability it measures, so the white-noise conclusion is not yet solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01647 v1 pith:M4ERO5Y7 submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.GA

Zachary Stone , Yue Shen , Ming-Yang Zhuang , Junyao Li , Zhiwei Pan , Jenny E. Greene , Feige Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LittleRedDotsAGNvariabilityH-alphaemissionJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopyHigh-redshiftgalaxiesSupermassiveblackholesBroad-lineregionBalmerdecrement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that Little Red Dots—compact, red, high-redshift sources thought to harbor accreting supermassive black holes—show almost no H-alpha or rest-optical continuum variability on rest-frame timescales of about one to three months, and that the little variability they do show is consistent with white noise rather than the red-noise flicker of normal quasars. Using multi-epoch JWST spectroscopy of 17 LRDs and 14 blue broad-line AGNs, the authors measure an intrinsic H-alpha rms variability of at most about 4 percent for the LRD population, compared with about 6 percent for a luminosity-matched low-redshift AGN sample over the same timescales. They also find enhanced Balmer decrements (median H-alpha/H-beta around 7.6) in LRDs. If the claim holds, the broad-line emission in LRDs is probably not produced by the same reverberation-driven mechanism as in ordinary AGNs, which would reshape theoretical models of these objects and of early black-hole growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the maximum-likelihood intrinsic rms variability estimator sigma_0, applied to pairwise fractional H-alpha flux differences between epochs: the paper symmetrizes the difference distribution with negative duplicates and divides the resulting scatter by the square root of two to obtain a sample-wide light-curve rms, sigma_0,lc. This estimator separates true source variability from per-epoch measurement noise, allowing 12 LRDs to be compared statistically with 56 low-redshift SDSS-RM AGNs. The secondary machinery is the ensemble structure function built from SDSS-RM H-alpha light curves, which supplies the red-noise baseline, together with a local-continuum normalizatio

What would settle it

Take the same or a larger LRD sample and normalize every NIRSpec epoch using independent difference-imaging photometry for all epochs rather than the spectral continuum. If the resulting H-alpha rms variability exceeds about 6 percent on rest-frame timescales below 100 days, or if the structure function rises with timescale instead of staying flat, the white-noise, weak-variability conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, as a population, LRDs have intrinsic H-alpha flux variability of about 4 percent rms or less on rest-frame timescales under roughly 100 days, with rest-optical continuum variability below about 3 percent, while luminosity-matched low-redshift AGNs show about 6 percent monthly H-alpha variability with a red-noise structure function that grows with timescale. Combining the present multi-epoch NIRSpec measurements with published LRD variability measurements on roughly six-month to decade timescales, the paper argues that LRD variability is flat—white-noise-like—across all sampled timescales, in both H-alpha and continuum. The authors present this as evidence that the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LRD continuum is steady over the observed months, so dividing each epoch spectrum by its local continuum only corrects slit losses—an assumption supported by difference-imaging photometry from the first three epochs, since if the continuum actually varies the normalization would cancel the associated line variability and could create the flat low-amplitude pattern the paper reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LRDs genuinely vary as white noise, standard reverberation-mapping campaigns will not detect correlated H-alpha responses on monthly cadences, and black-hole masses for LRDs cannot be derived the usual way.
  • The flat structure function means longer baselines do not accumulate variability signal the way they do for normal AGNs; detecting real LRD variability will require much larger samples or rare individual objects, not simply longer monitoring.
  • Models that predict normal AGN-like ionizing-flux flicker, and hence roughly 6 percent monthly broad-line variability, are disfavored for the bulk of the LRD population, while dense-envelope or super-Eddington models that damp short-term variability are favored.
  • The enhanced Balmer decrement combined with weak variability points to collisional excitation or radiative transfer in dense gas, rather than dust reddening, as the origin of LRD line ratios.
  • Rare variable LRDs such as NX7607 may be transitional objects or misclassified reddened AGNs, and identifying such objects is a path toward understanding diversity within the population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat variability pattern is real, the reported 4 percent H-alpha upper limit may itself be optimistic: normalizing each epoch to a constant local continuum would erase any line variability that tracks the continuum, so the true line variability could be even lower than measured.
  • The comparison sample is luminosity-matched but not matched in Eddington ratio or black-hole mass; if LRD variability follows the same anti-correlation with accretion rate seen in local AGNs, the observed suppression might reflect extreme super-Eddington accretion rather than a fundamentally different emission mechanism—an alternative the current data may not fully exclude.
  • A direct test would be to obtain difference-imaging photometry for every spectroscopic epoch and normalize each spectrum independently; if the LRD continuum does vary at the roughly 2 percent level, the white-noise conclusion would need revision.
  • The same multi-epoch NIRSpec data could be searched for correlated narrow-line variability, for example in [OIII], which would discriminate between scattered or reprocessed emission and collisionally excited line origins in the dense-gas picture.
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. The paper presents multi-epoch JWST/NIRSpec MSA spectroscopy from the first six NEXUS Deep epochs for 17 Little Red Dots and 14 blue broad-line AGNs at 2 ≲ z ≲ 6. After fitting the Hα complex and normalizing each epoch spectrum (local-continuum normalization for LRDs, aperture-photometric normalization for BLAGNs), the authors measure Balmer decrements, line ratios, and Hα and continuum variability. They report that LRDs have enhanced Balmer decrements, low continuum variability (σ0,lc ≈ 2–3%), and low Hα variability (σ0,lc = 4.02%) on rest-frame ~1–3 month timescales, compared with 6.29% for an Hα-luminosity-matched SDSS-RM sample, a difference they quote as 3.8σ. Combining this with literature results at longer timescales, they argue that LRD broad-line variability follows a white-noise pattern, in contrast to the red-noise behavior of normal AGNs, suggesting different broad-line production mechanisms in LRDs.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is valuable: it provides one of the first spectroscopic, ensemble constraints on high-redshift LRD broad-line variability and connects to a growing body of photometric non-detections. The use of an external SDSS-RM comparison sample, the explicit treatment of flux uncertainties via the σ0 maximum-likelihood estimator, and the authors' repeated caution that their estimates are upper limits are strengths. The sample is small (12 LRDs, 26 Hα flux pairs), however, and the headline 4% constraint is conditional on a local-continuum normalization that assumes a non-varying LRD continuum. That assumption, plus the exclusion of the most variable LRD (NX7607), means the population-level claim and the white-noise interpretation are not yet fully secured. With additional robustness tests and more careful reporting of the NX7607 exclusion, the paper would provide a solid upper-limit benchmark for LRD variability models.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, normalization scheme] The LRD normalization divides each epoch's Hα profile by the fitted local continuum and rescales to the epoch with the largest continuum. This removes any fractional flux change that is common to Hα and the adjacent continuum. In the standard AGN reverberation picture the paper contrasts with, a few-percent ionizing-continuum change over 1–3 months would induce a proportional Hα response, so the normalization would suppress exactly the signal the paper aims to measure. The only direct evidence that the LRD continuum is constant comes from difference-image photometry of the first three Deep imaging epochs (§4.3), whereas the spectroscopic variability uses up to six MSA epochs; raw F200W aperture photometry shows ~6% scatter, comparable to the quoted 4% Hα rms. Thus σ0,lc = 4.02% (Table 3) is an upper limit only under the assumption of a non-varying LRD rest-optical continuum. Please quant
  2. [§3.3 and Table 3] The text says 'We exclude NX7607 when obtaining σ0,lc, as its ∼30% variability significantly inflates the estimated intrinsic variability,' yet Table 3 lists 'All LRDs' with N_obj = 12, N_pair = 26, and σ0,lc = 4.02%, which appears to include NX7607 (which has 2 reliable epochs in Table 1). No row is given for the sample excluding NX7607, and §4.2 quotes 4.02% as the main LRD result. Please clarify which sample produced the headline value and report both with and without NX7607. Because NX7607 is the single most variable LRD, its inclusion/exclusion is pivotal to the claimed 3.8σ suppression; this must be transparent and not confined to a single sentence.
  3. [§3.3, σ0 estimator] The σ0 estimate is obtained by duplicating all |ΔF| values with negative signs, thereby doubling the number of data points without adding independent information. The quoted uncertainty (e.g., 4.02+0.59, Table 3) is therefore likely optimistic. With only 26 independent flux pairs from 12 LRDs, the 3.8σ excess over SDSS-RM is fragile. Please validate with bootstrap resampling of the 26 pairs and with one-object-out/jackknife tests, and state the number of independent (non-duplicated) pairs when quoting significances. The SDSS-RM uncertainty is tiny because of its large pair count; the comparison error is dominated by the LRD side, so a proper small-sample treatment is essential.
  4. [§4.2 and §5.1, white-noise claim] The conclusion of a 'white-noise pattern across all timescales' is derived by combining the NEXUS 4% upper limit with literature points on yearly-to-decade timescales, several of which are themselves upper limits or marginal detections (TWINKLE; Burke et al. 2026; Furtak et al. 2025). Upper limits cannot demonstrate a flat structure function; they only place an envelope. Moreover, the combined data are heterogeneous (different objects, different normalizations, some photometric, some spectroscopic). Please fit a power-law structure function to the upper limits or provide a statistical test that the ensemble is inconsistent with a red-noise model; otherwise soften the conclusion to 'consistent with low-level variability bounded by current upper limits.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The extinction coefficient κ(λ) is used in Eq. (1) before being defined; define R_V and κ in the text immediately before the equation.
  2. [§4.3/Table 3] The F200W 'Typical LRDs' row contains only 1 object and 15 pairs. This is too little to support an ensemble claim; the text should explicitly caution that the F200W typical-LRD constraint is dominated by a single source.
  3. [§6] Typo: 'inclde' should be 'include' in the final paragraph.
  4. [References] A few references are arXiv-only or lack full bibliographic details (e.g., Naidu et al. 2025, Chen et al. 2026, Sneppen et al. 2026). Please ensure all cited works have complete journal/volume/page information where available.
  5. [§3.1, cool LRDs] The cool LRDs are normalized with aperture photometry while typical LRDs use local continuum, yet both are combined in Table 3's 'All LRDs' row. The text should remind the reader of this methodological difference when interpreting the combined σ0,lc.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Hα variability constraint is an upper limit with a continuum-normalization caveat, and the SDSS-RM comparison is externally grounded.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Hα rms variability of LRDs vs SDSS-RM) is self-contained: the same σ0,lc maximum-likelihood estimator is applied to both NEXUS and SDSS-RM light curves, and the comparison sample is drawn from the public SDSS-RM program. The only quasi-circular element is the local-continuum normalization in Section 3.1, which divides each epoch's line profile by the fitted local continuum. This removes any common-mode line+continuum variability and would bias the measured Hα rms low if LRD continua vary at the few-percent level. However, the paper explicitly justifies this choice with difference-image photometry (Section 4.3, quoting Z. Stone et al. 2025) showing ≲2-3% continuum rms, and labels the derived estimates as upper limits due to systematics. That is an explicit assumption with external empirical support, not a mathematical reduction of the conclusion to the inputs. Self-citations to NEXUS survey papers and the σ0 estimator (Y. Shen et al. 2019) are standard method/data references, not circular premises. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The white-noise interpretation is a synthesis of several independent upper limits, not a derivation from a self-citation chain. The normalization caveat is a correctness risk, not circularity, so the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no free parameters fitted to data to force the central result; the two hand-chosen thresholds (5% flux cut, 60% LSF inflation) and the domain assumptions about compactness, non-variable continuum, and Gaussian variability underpin the variability measurement.

free parameters (2)
  • 5% flux uncertainty cut = 5%
    Hand-chosen threshold on individual epoch H-alpha flux uncertainties before variability analysis; determines which objects enter the sigma0,lc estimates and directly shapes the reported LRD variability.
  • Line-spread-function resolution increase factor = 60%
    Hand-chosen inflation of the NIRSpec LSF to account for point-source morphology; affects line flux decomposition and uncertainties, though the paper primarily uses integrated fluxes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LRDs are compact, so slit losses affect continuum and emission lines identically
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to justify the local-continuum normalization scheme for LRD spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper The rest-optical continuum of LRDs is not intrinsically variable over ~1-3 month timescales
    Section 3.1: 'Our initial difference-image photometry shows minimal photometric variability... which allows us to use the local spectral continuum to normalize.' Load-bearing, as a varying continuum would cancel real line variability.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic population variability is Gaussian distributed around zero mean
    Section 3.3 footnote 7: 'we assume Gaussian distributions for all underlying population-wide intrinsic variability... necessary given the small sample statistics.'
  • domain assumption SMC extinction curve and Case B recombination intrinsic Balmer ratio for A_V estimates
    Section 3.2: A_V computed assuming SMC extinction (R_V=3.02) and Case B (H-alpha/H-beta)_int. The authors note this is 'probably not true for LRDs' and use A_V only for comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NEXUS: Spectral Variability of Little Red Dots and Blue Active Galactic Nuclei at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4ERO5Y7

@misc{pith2026260801647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NEXUS: Spectral Variability of Little Red Dots and Blue Active Galactic Nuclei at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4ERO5Y7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01647}
}
abstract

We present spectral measurements for 17 Little Red Dots (LRDs) and 14 blue broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs) at $2\lesssim z \lesssim 6$ using multi-epoch JWST NIRSpec MSA spectra from the NEXUS program, sampling rest-frame timescales of $\sim 1-3$ months. Overall, the LRD population shows significantly enhanced Balmer decrement compared with both blue JWST AGNs at similar redshifts and 56 low-redshift broad-line AGNs matched in H$\rm\alpha$ luminosity. The rest-optical continua of LRDs show little ensemble variability (rms $\lesssim 3\%$), and the total H$\rm\alpha$ emission also shows weaker ensemble variability compared with low-redshift AGNs matched in H$\rm\alpha$ luminosity and rest-frame timescales. Based on the flux uncertainties, we constrain the intrinsic H$\rm\alpha$ rms variability to be $\lesssim 4\%$ for the LRD population over these timescales. Combining our results with recent broad-line variability measurements of LRDs over yearly to decade timescales reveals a low-level white-noise pattern across all timescales, in stark contrast to the variability amplitude ($\sim 6\%$ over monthly timescales) and red-noise pattern observed in normal AGNs. These results add to the growing observational studies that suggest population-wise, LRDs have weak variability both in optical continuum and broad-line emission. Furthermore, the distinct white-noise broad-line variability pattern suggests different production mechanisms of broad-line emission in LRDs as opposed to normal AGNs, and/or different properties of the driving ionizing flux from the central engine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The NEXUS BLAGNs (blue)/LRDs (red/purple) in Hα luminosity-redshift space The SDSS-RM low-z AGN comparison sample (gray points) and SDSS DR16Q compar￾ison sample (gray contours) are also shown. Objects rep￾resented by filled stars show the subsample considered for our Hα variability analysis. The purple stars represent the subset of LRDs that have “cooler” temperatures (see Sec￾tion 5.2) NIRSpec MSA spectroscopy fro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SEDs for our NEXUS BLAGNs (bottom)/LRDs (middle), and the SDSS-RM comparison sample (top). All spectra are shifted to the rest-frame of the source, normalized within the 5400 − 5700 ˚A continuum window, and smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of two pixels. The Balmer break, signifying the supposed location of the “V” within the LRD, is shown with a vertical dotted line. Paschen lines, as well as He iiλ4686, are modeled… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example line model fits for some objects in our sample. For each source (panel), an example emission line is shown for a particular Deep epoch spectrum. For each panel, the top sub-panel shows the emission line in black, with the 1σ uncertainty shaded in gray, the emission line fit in blue, broad components in cyan, narrow components in orange, and the continuum in red. Some line complexes (e.g., Hα) have multi-comp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized multi-epoch Hα line profiles for the broad-line variability sub-sample (Section 3.3), after imposing a < 5% integrated flux uncertainty cut on each epoch. Typical LRDs are labeled in red, and cool LRDs are labeled in purple. is due to dust reddening and the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-epoch offsets in the peak model Hα flux from our line fitting procedure for the sample of BLAGNs/LRDs (blue/red), as well as a sample of ELGs (gray). Offsets between two epochs are shown as a function of the LSF broadening at Hα. Large offsets can be caused by sy…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ratios between different Balmer and Paschen lines from our sample. The top row shows ratios from individual deep epoch spectra, while the bottom row shows the weighted mean over all epochs for each object. The colors and transparency of the sources match those in [PIT…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimates of dust extinction AV from the NEXUS BLAGN/LRD sample and SDSS-RM comparison sample. Estimates are obtained using the total integrated fluxes from each line. Faded red circles represent total Balmer decrement AV estimates for LRDs from the literature (Y. Hari…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pairwise Hα flux variations as a function of rest-frame timescale. Estimates from LRDs are shown in red/purple, and BLAGNs are shown in blue. Note that these individual flux variations are error-inflated. The MAD-scaled traditional structure function (Eqn. 2) for the S…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An overview of the cool LRD NX7607 (z = 3.2). Top: The processed MSA prism spectra for each observed epoch. Prominent emission lines are indicated with vertical lines, and the Balmer break is shown as a dashed line. Bottom: Normalized emission line profiles for severa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ripples in the OCEANS: Broad Line Variability of Little Red Dots

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

    Two of six Little Red Dots show marginal broad Halpha variability between JWST epochs, weakly supporting an AGN origin for those sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H

    Ai, Y. L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y., et al. 2010, ApJL, 716, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/L31

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l31 2010

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  3. [3]

    T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    Asada, Y., Inayoshi, K., Fei, Q., Fujimoto, S., & Willott, C. 2026, Origins of the UV Continuum and Balmer Emission Lines in Little Red Dots: Observational Validation of Dense Gas Envelope Models Enshrouding the AGN, arXiv Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2026

  5. [5]

    G., Kocevski, D

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  6. [6]

    C., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae274a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae274a 2026

  7. [7]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  8. [8]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 255, 419, doi: 10.1086/159843

    1982 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    Brammer, G. 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22214

    Brazzini, M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22214

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Trump, J

    Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., Trump, J. R., et al. 2024, Here There Be (Dusty) Monsters: High Redshift AGN Are Dustier Than Their Hosts, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07340

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    R., Simons, R

    Brooks, M., Trump, J. R., Simons, R. C., et al. 2025, Beyond the Monsters: A More Complete Census of Black Hole Activity at Cosmic Dawn, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.19609

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2478

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Stone, Z., Shen, Y., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Burke, C. J., Stone, Z., Shen, Y., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b89

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    C., et al

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

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Perna, R., et al

    Cantiello, M., Hassan, J. B., Perna, R., et al. 2025, Pulsational Instability of Quasi-Stars: Interpreting the Variability of Little Red Dots, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17997

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Begley, R., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., Begley, R., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 518, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac136

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, L61, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa91

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    O., Hickox, R

    Casey, Q. O., Hickox, R. C., Cleri, N. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.26098, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26098 21

    2026 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    Chang, S.-J., Gronke, M., Matthee, J., & Mason, C. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

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

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93a

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    C., et al

    Chen, C.-H., Shangguan, J., Ho, L. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.04711

    2026 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chen, K., Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJL, 994, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1955 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics,...

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, A&A, 704, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557164 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A

    Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Magnelli, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557164 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 285, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E., Ji, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, ar...

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/126

    Du, P., Lu, K.-X., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/126

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Trump, J

    Fries, L. B., Trump, J. R., Davis, M. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb7

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Secunda, A

    Furtak, L. J., Secunda, A. R., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 698, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554110

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Benker, A

    Gaskell, C. M., & Benker, A. J. 2007, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0711.1013, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0711.1013

    2007 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gordon, K. D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Fitzpatrick, E

    Gordon, K. D., Fitzpatrick, E. L., Massa, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

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

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A

    Grier, C. J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa901b

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

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

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd774

    Hu, C., Li, S.-S., Yang, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd774

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d8

    Hu, H., Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., Quataert, E., & Kuiper, R. 2022, ApJ, 934, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d8

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

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

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Crenshaw, D

    Hutchings, J. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2543, doi: 10.1086/344080

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    Inayoshi, K., & Ichikawa, K. 2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Noda, H

    Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S. S., & Noda, H. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, 811, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf050

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2235

    Ji, X., D’Eugenio, F., Juodˇ zbalis, I., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2235

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag086 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of t...

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Becker, A

    Kelly, B. C., Becker, A. C., Sobolewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., & Uttley, P. 2014, ApJ, 788, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/33

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    Kido, D., Ioka, K., Hotokezaka, K., Inayoshi, K., & Irwin, C. M. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1898

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 386, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/386

    Kim, D., Im, M., & Kim, M. 2010, ApJ, 724, 386, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/386

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

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

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

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    I., Greene, J

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

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    P., et al

    Kokorev, V., Chisholm, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, The Deepest GLIMPSE of a Dense Gas Cocoon Enshrouding a Little Red Dot, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07515

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae515

    Kokubo, M. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae515

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae119e Koz lowski, S

    Kokubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae119e Koz lowski, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/118

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Kwan, J., & Krolik, J. H. 1981, ApJ, 250, 478, doi: 10.1086/159395 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    1981 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Matthee, J., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Matthee, J., et al. 2024, An Unambiguous AGN and a Balmer Break in an Ultraluminous Little Red Dot at Z=4.47 from Ultradeep UNCOVER and All the Little Things Spectroscopy, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04557

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

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

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LL VM ’15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 1–6, doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  60. [68]

    Lambrides, E., Garofali, K., Larson, R., et al. 2024, The Case for Super-Eddington Accretion: Connecting Weak X-ray and UV Line Emission in JWST Broad-Line AGN During the First Gyr of Cosmic Time, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    A., Larson, R

    Lambrides, E., Hutchison, T. A., Larson, R. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.25991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.25991

    2026 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx055

    Lamperti, I., Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx055

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Ward, M

    Landt, H., Bentz, M. C., Ward, M. J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 282, doi: 10.1086/522373

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    2026, ApJ, 1005, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae74c6

    Lin, R., Zheng, Z.-Y., Wang, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae74c6

    2026 doi

  66. [74]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1b9b

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Wang, F., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1b9b

    2026 doi

  67. [75]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.21574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.21574

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.21574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.21574

    2026 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    E., & Ma, Y

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c19

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    Liu, J.-R., Feng, H., & Ho, L. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.17448. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17448

    2026 arXiv

  70. [78]

    P., Secunda, A., et al

    Liu, Z., Naidu, R. P., Secunda, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.13000

    2026 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e8

    Lu, K.-X., Huang, Y.-K., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e8

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    E., Setton, D

    Ma, Y., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada613

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 976, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 976, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22386, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22386

    Madau, P., & Maiolino, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22386, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22386

    2026 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04216

    Madau, P., Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., & D’Eugenio, F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04216

    2026 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

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

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359 23

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359 23

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667 M´ erida, R

    Matthee, J., Torralba, A., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667 M´ erida, R. M., Sawicki, M., Willott, C. J., Gaspar, G., &

    2026 doi

  82. [90]

    Iyer, K. G. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.12355

    2026 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

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

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, A ”Black Hole Star” Reveals the Remarkable Gas-Enshrouded Hearts of the Little Red Dots, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    P., Matthee, J., de Graaff, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.30711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.30711

    2026 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16175987

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16175987

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    P., Watson, D., Sneppen, A., et al

    Nikopoulos, G. P., Watson, D., Sneppen, A., et al. 2025, Evidence of Violation of Case B Recombination in Little Red Dots, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06362

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., & Kocevski, D. D. 2026, The Little Red Dots Are Direct Collapse Black Holes, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.14368

    2026 doi

  89. [97]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.09721

    Pan, Z., Zhuang, M.-Y., Shen, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.09721. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09721

    2026 arXiv

  91. [99]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e3f

    Pang, Y., Wang, X., Cheng, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6e3f

    2026 doi

  92. [100]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.14233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.14233

    Park, K., Torralba, A., Matthee, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.14233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.14233

    2026 doi arXiv

  93. [101]

    Peterson, B. M. 2001, Variability of Active Galactic Nuclei (eprint: arXiv:astro-ph/0109495), 3, doi: 10.1142/9789812811318 0002

    2001 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Rakshit, S., & Stalin, C. S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f4

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    H., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Bonaventura, N., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 992, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa10

    2025 doi

  96. [104]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2387 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al

    Sadowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2387 S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Lira, P., Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7f9

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22277

    Scholtz, J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22277

    2026 doi

  98. [106]

    S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al

    Secunda, A., Somerville, R. S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f08

    2025 doi

  99. [107]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 991, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade78b

    2025 doi

  100. [108]

    J., Treu, T., Melo, A., et al

    Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., Melo, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556281

    2025 doi

  101. [109]

    N., Dawson, K

    Shen, Y., Brandt, W. N., Dawson, K. S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/4

    2015 doi

  102. [110]

    B., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Hall, P. B., Horne, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f

    2019 doi

  103. [111]

    J., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Grier, C. J., Horne, K., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3936

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    2024, NEXUS: The North Ecliptic Pole EXtragalactic Unified Survey, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    Shen, Y., Zhuang, M.-Y., Li, J., et al. 2024, NEXUS: The North Ecliptic Pole EXtragalactic Unified Survey, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    2024 doi arXiv

  105. [113]

    2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    Simm, T., Salvato, M., Saglia, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527353

    2016 doi

  106. [114]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts508

    Smith, N. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts508

    2013 doi

  107. [115]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol

    Smith, N. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol. 2, 508–532, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4

    2026 doi

  108. [116]

    H., & Nikopoulos, G

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Matthews, J. H., & Nikopoulos, G. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12509. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12509

    2026 arXiv

  109. [117]

    H., et al

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2026, Inside the Cocoon: A Comprehensive Explanation of the Spectra of Little Red Dots, arXiv

    2026

  110. [118]

    Hewett, P. C. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag191

    2026 doi

  111. [119]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 2703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21772.x

    Stern, J., & Laor, A. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21772.x

    2012

  112. [120]

    J., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Burke, C. J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1259

    2022 doi

  113. [121]

    2025, NEXUS: A Search for Nuclear Variability with the First Two JWST NIRCam Epochs, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19585

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al. 2025, NEXUS: A Search for Nuclear Variability with the First Two JWST NIRCam Epochs, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19585

    2025 doi arXiv

  114. [122]

    F., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfd4c 24

    2025 doi

  115. [123]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 989, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade789

    doi

  116. [124]

    J., Finkelstein, S

    Taylor, A. J., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add15b

    doi

  117. [125]

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

    Tee, W. L., Fan, X., Wang, F., & Yang, J. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 983, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc5e3

    2025 doi

  118. [126]

    2025, The Warm Outer Layer of a Little Red Dot as the Source of [Fe II] and Collisional Balmer Lines with Scattering Wings, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00103

    Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2025, The Warm Outer Layer of a Little Red Dot as the Source of [Fe II] and Collisional Balmer Lines with Scattering Wings, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00103

    2025 doi

  119. [127]

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, Episodic Super-Eddington Accretion as a Clue to Overmassive Black Holes in the Early Universe, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A...

    2024 doi arXiv

  120. [128]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  121. [129]

    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

  122. [130]

    L., et al

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

    2025 doi

  123. [131]

    Wang, J., & Xu, D. W. 2015, A&A, 573, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424848

    2015 doi

  124. [132]

    D., et al

    Wang, W., Wylezalek, D., Breuck, C. D., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531

    2024 doi

  125. [133]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  126. [134]

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

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    2024 doi

  127. [135]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    Wu, Q., & Shen, Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    2022 doi

  128. [136]

    A., Bing, L., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Bing, L., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 700, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554361

    2025 doi

  129. [137]

    T., Ruan, J

    Yu, W., Richards, G. T., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd2

    2025 doi

  130. [138]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    2024 doi

  131. [139]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.05281, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.05281

    Zhang, Z., Inayoshi, K., Oguri, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.05281, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.05281

    2026 doi arXiv

  132. [140]

    Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., Liu, W., & Ho, L. C. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb3e

    doi

  133. [141]

    C., & Inayoshi, K

    Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., Liu, W., Ho, L. C., & Inayoshi, K. 2025b, JWST Insights into Narrow-line Little Red Dots, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04350

    doi

  134. [142]

    2025c, Little Red Dot Variability over a Century Reveals Black Hole Envelope via a Giant Einstein Cross, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05180

    Zhang, Z., Li, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2025c, Little Red Dot Variability over a Century Reveals Black Hole Envelope via a Giant Einstein Cross, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05180

    doi

  135. [143]

    Zhou, S., Sun, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, J., & Ho, L. C. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfd5f

    2025 doi

  136. [144]

    2025, NEXUS: A Spectroscopic Census of Broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots at$3\lesssim Z\lesssim 6$, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20393

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Li, J., Shen, Y., et al. 2025, NEXUS: A Spectroscopic Census of Broad-line AGNs and Little Red Dots at$3\lesssim Z\lesssim 6$, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20393

    2025 doi arXiv

  137. [145]

    2026a, ApJS, 282, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2d05

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Wang, F., Sun, F., et al. 2026a, ApJS, 282, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2d05

    doi

  138. [146]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04586, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.04586

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Shen, Y., Pan, Z., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04586, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.04586

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.