Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Clump-fed black hole growth in the first billion years of the universe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Migrating star clumps can grow a 30-million-solar-mass black hole in the first billion years.

desk verdict A coherent single-object feasibility study that gives observed clumps in GSz5BH inspiral timescales near 0.1 Gyr, but the black hole growth conclusion rests on treating stellar clump mass as gas fuel and picking a 1% feeding efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13664 v1 pith:MVJRAGA2 submitted 2025-04-18 astro-ph.GA

Manish Kataria , Kanak Saha , Bruce Elmegreen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholesdynamicalfrictionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesclumpyaccretionLyman-alphaspectralenergydistributiontadpole
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 argues that GSz5BH, a clumpy galaxy seen at z=5.48, grows its $3.09\times 10^7\,M_\odot$ central black hole by swallowing its own star-forming clumps. Dark-matter dynamical friction drags the three brightest clumps, C, K2 and K3, into the central region in $0.09$--$0.16$ Gyr, carrying roughly $14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ inward. With only about 1% of that inflowing matter actually reaching the black hole, the observed mass can be built from a plausible light seed within the first billion years. The authors present clump-fed accretion as a general answer to why JWST finds such massive black holes so early: young galaxies are clumpy, so fuel arrives in discrete, heavy packages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamical-friction inspiral timescale, Eq. 11, evaluated in a logarithmic dark-matter halo potential with core radius $R_c=6.85$ kpc and rotation velocity $V_0=62.8$ km s$^{-1}$. Clump stellar masses and positions come from PSF-matched, AGN-subtracted photometry and SED fitting of the resolved clumps, and the AGN-host clump K1 is treated as the fixed center. The equation assumes each clump is a bound, self-gravitating point mass that does not lose mass while spiraling in; for the observed clump masses and radii it yields the three inspiral timescales, and summing $M_{\rm clump}/T_{\rm inspiral}$ gives $\sim14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Equation 16 then converts this inflow into black hole growth through a constant feeding efficiency $\eta$, producing the hatched growth tracks shown against seed-mass constraints.

What would settle it

Track resolved clumps in a high-resolution hydrodynamical simulation of a $z\approx5.5$ galaxy with a $3\times10^7\,M_\odot$ central black hole, or measure clump mass loss across several orbital times in similar JWST-observed galaxies: if the clumps lose most of their mass before reaching the central kiloparsec, the claimed inflow rate and the 1%-efficiency growth curve are ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bright clumps in GSz5BH spiral inward under dynamical friction from the dark-matter halo alone, on timescales of $0.09$, $0.10$ and $0.16$ Gyr for clumps C, K2 and K3 respectively, so that the total clump inflow rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm clump}\approx 14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ (Eqs. 11 and 15). Inserting this rate into the linear growth law $M_{\rm BH}(t)=M_{\rm seed}+\eta\,\dot{M}_{\rm clump}\,t$ (Eq. 16), a feeding efficiency of $\eta=0.01$ is sufficient to grow the observed $3.09\times10^7\,M_\odot$ black hole. The paper argues this resolves a seed-mass problem for this galaxy: at its measured Eddington ratio $\lambda=0.14$, Eddington-limited growth from early epochs would require a seed above the direct-collapse ceiling, whereas clump-fed growth works from a much smaller seed and would also explain the galaxy's unusually high black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio ($\sim2.1\%$).

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the three clumps stay bound, self-gravitating point masses that lose no mass while spiraling to the center; if tidal shear, stellar feedback, or gas removal strips them before they arrive, the $14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ inflow is too high and the clump-fed channel fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given the observed clump masses and positions, roughly $14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ will reach the central region of GSz5BH within about 0.1 Gyr, so the black hole's past growth does not require sustained super-Eddington accretion.
  • Adding gas dynamical friction and clump-clump interactions, which Eq. 11 omits, would only shorten the inspiral timescales, making clump-fed accretion more efficient than the paper's conservative estimate.
  • Because high-redshift galaxies are generally clumpy, the mechanism should operate broadly, not only in GSz5BH, and would deliver both black hole fuel and bulge-building material in the same events.
  • The inflowing matter first assembles a circumnuclear disk on roughly 100 pc scales; the final 1% feeding efficiency then depends on angular-momentum loss mechanisms such as nuclear bars or spirals.
  • The model predicts episodic, not steady, black-hole growth, with each clump arrival producing a temporary rise in the effective Eddington ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Across a sample of clumpy $z\approx5$--$7$ galaxies, this model predicts a positive correlation between total clump mass within a few kiloparsecs and central black hole mass at fixed stellar mass; measuring that correlation would test whether clump-fed growth dominates.
  • The 1% feeding efficiency is currently an input assumption; comparing independent accretion-rate estimates from AGN luminosities with measured clump inflow rates in a statistical sample would calibrate $\eta$ and turn Eq. 16 into a predictive relation.
  • If tidal disruption wins in most real clumps, the dynamical-friction channel would still build a central bulge and a circumnuclear disk, resulting in a galaxy with a massive bulge but a relatively underweight black hole, an observable discriminator between this model and smooth accretion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the z=5.48 galaxy GSz5BH grows its central supermassive black hole of 3.09e7 Msun through the inward migration of massive star-forming clumps. Using HST, JWST, and MUSE observations, the authors subtract AGN light from the images, perform resolved SED fitting, measure clump stellar masses, and derive Ly-alpha kinematics. They then compute dynamical-friction inspiral timescales for clumps C, K2, and K3 in a logarithmic dark-matter halo potential (Eq. 11), obtaining 0.09, 0.10, and 0.16 Gyr respectively. Summing stellar masses divided by these timescales gives an inflow rate of about 14 Msun/yr (Eq. 15). With a feeding efficiency of 0.1-1 percent (Eq. 16), the paper argues that this inflow can grow the black hole from a seed of about 10^6.8 Msun to the observed mass within roughly 600 Myr, concluding that clump-fed accretion is a viable channel for early SMBH growth.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides an observationally grounded mechanism for rapid SMBH growth in the first billion years, complementing Eddington-limited accretion and merger-driven scenarios. Its strengths are the use of high-resolution HST/JWST/MUSE data, explicit AGN PSF subtraction, resolved SED fitting, and an analytic dynamical-friction calculation whose assumptions are stated. The estimate is useful as an order-of-magnitude framework and is falsifiable in the sense that a low gas fraction or substantial stripping would break the proposed channel. On the other hand, the central claim is an existence argument rather than a prediction: the parameters alpha, eta, Av, and Mseed are free, and the derived inflow rate is not connected to a measured gas reservoir. The conclusion is therefore contingent on assumptions about gas content and clump survival that the current data do not directly constrain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. 15] The quantity entering Eq. 15 is the stellar mass of each clump, but the mass that can feed the black hole is gas, not stars. The text states that clumps do not lose mass while they inspiral and later concedes that the calculated rate is inflow into the inner region rather than direct accretion onto the black hole. This distinction is load-bearing: growing the black hole by about 2.5e7 Msun over 0.6 Gyr at eta=0.01 requires only about 4 Msun/yr of gas actually reaching the accretion region. If the clump gas fraction is about 50 percent, the 14 Msun/yr estimate has a factor of roughly two margin, and removing more than about 40 percent of the gas by tidal stripping or feedback before 0.1 kpc leaves less than the required rate. The authors should either justify the gas fraction of the clumps or reframe Eq. 15 as an upper limit on stellar inflow and discuss what gas-phase constraints, such as SFR, HI, or CO limits, imply for the available fuel.
  2. [Table 2 and Eq. 15] The stellar masses in Table 2 are internally inconsistent: C, K2, and K3 sum to about 1.37e9 Msun, while the full galaxy excluding K1 is listed as 1.22e9 Msun. Since the clumps are part of the galaxy, their sum cannot exceed the total stellar mass, indicating that the clump photometry or the SED fitting is double-counting or systematically overestimating the clump masses. Because Eq. 15 sums exactly these masses, the reported 14 Msun/yr inflow may be inflated. The authors should resolve this mass-budget discrepancy before the inflow rate can be trusted.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. 11] The inspiral timescales use projected distances as Rout and assume alpha=3, no mass loss, and the Chandrasekhar formula. For clump C, alpha*M*/Mc is about 4-5, so the Coulomb logarithm in Eq. 11 is only about 1.5-1.7, which is at the edge of the test-particle approximation. If the true three-dimensional radii are larger by 1/sin i, Tinsp grows as Rout^(3/2); for a typical inclination of 30 degrees, K3's timescale increases from 0.16 Gyr to about 0.45 Gyr, comparable to the assumed 0.6 Gyr growth time. The quoted uncertainties on clump masses, roughly 30 percent, are not propagated into Tinsp or Mdot. A sensitivity table varying alpha, inclination, and clump mass would establish whether the conclusion is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 3.4] There are typographical errors: 'Photultils' should be 'photutils' in Sec. 3.1, and 'Caleztti et al. (2000)' should be 'Calzetti et al. (2000)' in Sec. 3.4 and in the reference list.
  2. [Eq. 11] The symbols M*, Mc, and alpha are not all defined where Eq. 11 is introduced; the reader must infer from the surrounding text that M* is the galaxy stellar mass, Mc is the clump mass, and alpha is the dynamical-to-stellar mass ratio. Please define each symbol explicitly in the equation or immediately below it.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The rotation velocity is reported as about 63 km/s from the aperture extraction and about 44 km/s from the SAMI scaling relation; the two estimates should be reconciled or explicitly presented as different measures so that the reader can assess the kinematics used for the galaxy.
  4. [Sec. 3.5] The derivation of stellar mass for clump K1 quotes M/L = 0.139 from Eq. 1 with a_k = -1.16 and b_k = 0.44, but the V-K color of 0.687 and the resulting mass of 2.39e8 Msun are given without an uncertainty; adding an error estimate would make the comparison with the other clump masses more meaningful.
  5. [Code availability] The code availability statement lists standard tools but no custom scripts; making available the GALFIT configuration files and the SED-fitting parameter grids would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the clump inspiral and mass-inflow calculations are independent of the target black-hole mass, and the feeding efficiency is an explicit free parameter rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The inspiral timescales (Eqs. 11-14) are computed from observed clump positions and masses, an assumed logarithmic halo potential (Eqs. 8-10), and standard dynamical-friction theory; they do not use the target black-hole mass. The clump mass inflow (Eq. 15) is the sum of SED-derived clump masses divided by these timescales, again independent of M_BH. Eq. 16 introduces a free feeding efficiency eta, scanned over 0.001-0.01 and presented as a sufficiency band, not as a fitted prediction; the statement 'with only 1% of feeding efficiency' is an existence argument rather than a unique derivation. The paper explicitly notes that Eq. 15 represents inflow into the inner region rather than direct accretion onto the black hole, which weakens the physical claim but does not make it definitionally circular. The cited Borgohain et al. (2022) expression for the inspiral timescale rests on standard Chandrasekhar dynamical friction (Binney & Tremaine 2008; Elmegreen et al. 2012), so the overlapping-author citation is not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified premise. The main caveats, such as the assumed no-mass-loss clump inspiral and the free efficiency eta, are physical modeling limitations and not circular reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

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

The central migration-time calculation relies on a small set of analytic modeling choices: a logarithmic halo, alpha = 3, V0 = 62.8 km/s, and clumps that do not lose mass. The BH growth statement additionally depends on an adjustable feeding efficiency eta and a chosen seed mass/start time. No new physical entities are introduced; all ingredients are standard dark matter, stellar, and gas components. The free parameters are not independently measured, which is why the result is a feasibility demonstration rather than a quantitative prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (ratio of dynamical to stellar mass) = 3 (assumed, no uncertainty)
    Used in Eqs. 11 and 12 to set the halo mass normalization and inspiral timescales; no justification or error bar is given.
  • V0 (halo circular velocity) = 62.8 km/s
    Inferred from the MUSE velocity at r ~ 4.8 kpc and assumed to be the saturation velocity; an alternative SAMI-based estimate is 44 km/s.
  • eta (feeding efficiency) = 0.001 to 0.01 (scanned; 1% used for headline)
    Eq. 16 grows the BH as MBH = Mseed + eta * Mdot_clump * t. eta is not measured; the paper shows 1% is sufficient, making the growth statement a consistency check.
  • Av (AGN dust attenuation) = 4 mag
    Assumed for converting AGN broad-band fluxes to bolometric luminosity; a lower Av gives a lower Eddington ratio, strengthening the motivation but not affecting the clump migration calculation.
  • Mseed (initial seed mass) = not fixed; scenario-dependent (Pop III ~100-200 Msun; DCBH up to 1e6 Msun)
    Appears in Eq. 16; the hatched regions in Fig. 2 assume seeds at z=10 and z=20. The growth claim depends on the adopted seed mass and start time.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dark matter halo is described by a spherical logarithmic potential Phi(r) = V0^2 ln(Rc^2 + r^2) (Eq. 8).
    Adopted for analytic tractability; not tested against the galaxy's mass distribution. The core radius Rc is derived from Mdyn and M* via Eq. 10.
  • standard math Dynamical friction follows the Chandrasekhar formula with a Maxwellian velocity distribution (Eq. 11), applied to clumps in a finite halo.
    Standard approximation from Binney & Tremaine and used by Borgohain et al. 2022; but the formula assumes an infinite homogeneous medium and point-like perturbers.
  • ad hoc to paper The clumps are bound, self-gravitating structures that do not lose mass during inspiral.
    Stated explicitly in Sec. 5.1. This is needed for the mass delivery calculation; if clumps dissolve, the accretion rate is lower.
  • domain assumption The black-hole-hosting clump K1 is at the dynamical center of the galaxy.
    Assumed in Sec. 5.1. If the BH is off-center, the orbital radii and torques differ.
  • domain assumption Projected distances from K1 are used as orbital radii Rout.
    Table 3 lists projected distances without inclination correction; true 3D radii would be larger, increasing Tinsp.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clump-fed black hole growth in the first billion years of the universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MVJRAGA2

@misc{pith2026250413664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clump-fed black hole growth in the first billion years of the universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MVJRAGA2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13664}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how supermassive black holes (SMBHs) form in the early universe is one of the most challenging problems in astrophysics. Their high abundance in the first billion years, as observed by the James Webb Space Telescope, hints towards black hole seeds that accrete mass rapidly. The origin of this accreted mass is not known. Here, we consider a billion solar mass clumpy galaxy at z=5.48 with a 30 million solar mass black hole in the center. We show that the clumps should migrate to the central region because of torques from dynamical friction with the halo, funneling in at least 14 solar masses per year. This is fast enough to grow the observed SMBH, with only 1% of the accreted mass getting in and the rest going to a bulge. Clump-fed accretion could explain most young SMBHs because young galaxies are highly irregular with massive star-forming clumps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Morphology of GSz5BH: A false-color image of the tadpole/chain galaxy at redshift 5.48 in JWST/NIRCam filters with RGB probing rest-frame Hal￾pha 6563˚A (F444W), [OIII]5007˚A (F356W) and MgII]2799˚A (F182M) emission respectively. The galaxy has three green clumps, C, K2, and K3, marked in this image, and a central point-like clump (K1) with the characteristic JWST PSF in yellow. The blue clumps on the N-W direction … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BH growth: Growth possibilities for the SMBH in GSz5BH, which is shown as a cyan star. The cyan-shaded region shows the black hole growth path following Eq. 6 with Eddington (λ = 1) to sub-Eddington accretion to produce the observed SMBH mass in GSz5BH. The colored rectangles on the bottom right show the range of proposed seed masses at high-z. The hatched regions between the black lines follow Eq. 16 and show the a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PSF-matched resolved SED modeling: Model SED of GSz5BH after AGN light removal shown black the horizontal errorbar on the black square markers is the FWHM of the filters shown in color at the bottom of the plot. The red, green, and blue SEDs belong to the clumps C, K2, and K3, respectively, with data points only covering the JWST/NIRCam filters. All the models are similar in the fitted wavelength range, showing a Ba… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lyα halo: Left: The image shows the restframe UV continuum of GSz5BH with the clump C being the brightest, the overplotted contours belong to Lyα emission starting outermost being 1, 3, 5, ..., 13σ, The contours are concentrated at the position of clump K1 (AGN) but al…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kinematics from Lyα: (a) red peak velocity map of the Lyα emission shows the gradient in velocity along the length, (b) Blue peak velocity map, (c) blue to red peak flux ratio. (d) plot showing the placement of rectangular apertures to extract spectra and the color of …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of inspiral timescale vs distance (Rout) from the centre for different clump masses. The color bar indicates the range of clump masses used in this plot. The symbols - square, diamond, and cross represent test clumps, with the highest mass of the test clumps…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Postage stamp band images of GSz5BH: HST (UV) and JWST (UV, Optical) restframe band images. PSF-like feature (AGN) starts appearing from the JWST F277W band, probing the restframe optical. HST_F606W HST_F775W HST_F814W HST_F850LP HST_F105W HST_F125W HST_F140W HST_F160W…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GSz5BH images after AGN subtraction: HST (UV) and JWST (UV, Optical) restframe band images after removal of AGN light via PSF modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: AGN fraction as a function of wavelength: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

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. The Physical Nature of the Off-centered Extended Emission Associated with the Little Red Dots

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

    The off-centered extended emission near three little red dots is physically associated with the dots, and for two sources it is best explained as low-density, metal-poor nebular gas photoionized by the dot's ultraviol...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dunlop, J. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt696 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt696 2013

  2. [2]

    2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003

    Shepherd, M. 2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003

    2016

  3. [3]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 2017

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 670, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187

    Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., Conseil, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 2023

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1439

    Barat, D., D’Eugenio, F., Colless, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1439

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1439 2019

  6. [6]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  7. [7]

    Beckwith, S. V. W., Stiavelli, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1729, doi: 10.1086/507302

    doi:10.1086/507302 2006

  8. [8]

    C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x

    arXiv 2006

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    F., & de Jong, R

    Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212, doi: 10.1086/319728

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

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

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

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press) Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press) Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, Nature, 607, 459, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04905-9

    Borgohain, A., Saha, K., Elmegreen, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 607, 459, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04905-9

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, A&A, 596, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629080

    Boucaud, A., Bocchio, M., Abergel, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629080

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L33

    Bournaud, F., Dekel, A., Teyssier, R., et al. 2011, ApJL, 741, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L33

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237, doi: 10.1086/522077

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.9.0, 1.9.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.9.0, 1.9.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Bromm, V., Yoshida, N., Hernquist, L., & McKee, C. F. 2009, Nature, 459, 49, doi: 10.1038/nature07990

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    2005

  12. [21]

    C., et al

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

    2000 doi

  13. [22]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    2003

  14. [23]

    Ciambur, B. C. 2016, PASA, 33, e062, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.60

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L11

    Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Bongiorno, A., et al. 2011, ApJL, 741, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L11

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Combes, F. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 290, Active Galactic Nuclei: From Central Engine to Host Galaxy, ed. S. Collin, F. Combes, & I. Shlosman, 411, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0210232

    2003 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    J., Grogin, N

    Conselice, C. J., Grogin, N. A., Jogee, S., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L139, doi: 10.1086/378556

    2004 doi

  18. [27]

    L., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., & Songaila, A. 1995, AJ, 110, 1576, doi: 10.1086/117631

    1995 doi

  19. [28]

    B., Miller, M

    Davies, M. B., Miller, M. C., & Bellovary, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 740, L42, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L42

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    DeForest, C. E. 2004, SoPh, 219, 3, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021743.24248.b0

    2004

  21. [30]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2777

    DeGraf, C., Dekel, A., Gabor, J., & Bournaud, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2777

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 302, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/302

    Devecchi, B., & Volonteri, M. 2009, ApJ, 694, 302, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/302

    2009 doi

  24. [34]

    B., Guiderdoni, B., Blaizot, J., et al

    Drake, A. B., Guiderdoni, B., Blaizot, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1515

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2008, ApJ, 684, 829, doi: 10.1086/590361

    2008 doi

  26. [36]

    G., Zhang, H.-X., & Hunter, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., Zhang, H.-X., & Hunter, D. A. 2012, ApJ, 747, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/105

    2012 doi

  27. [37]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Marcus, M. T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/306

    2009 doi

  28. [38]

    Schaffer, M. A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 85, doi: 10.1086/432502

    2005 doi

  29. [39]

    L., & Kalogera, V

    Fryer, C. L., & Kalogera, V. 2001, ApJ, 554, 548, doi: 10.1086/321359

    2001 doi

  30. [40]

    J., Eisenhauer, F., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 786, doi: 10.1038/nature05052 16

    2006 doi

  31. [41]

    M., Salim, S., Hornstein, S

    Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Hornstein, S. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 744, doi: 10.1086/427175

    2005 doi

  32. [42]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  33. [43]

    F., et al

    Guo, Y., Rafelski, M., Bell, E. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

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

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

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    2017, A&A, 608, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731579

    Hashimoto, T., Garel, T., Guiderdoni, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731579

    2017 doi

  36. [46]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  37. [47]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  38. [49]

    M., Cowie, L

    Hu, E. M., Cowie, L. L., & McMahon, R. G. 1998, ApJL, 502, L99, doi: 10.1086/311506

    1998 doi

  39. [50]

    2015, Hubble Legacy Fields (”HLF”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T91019

    Illingworth, G. 2015, Hubble Legacy Fields (”HLF”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T91019

    2015 doi

  40. [52]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  41. [53]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf031

    doi

  42. [54]

    S., Suzuki, T

    Kalita, B. S., Suzuki, T. L., Kashino, D., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 536, 3090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2781

    doi

  43. [55]

    D., Faber, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., Mozena, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/148

    2012 doi

  44. [56]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Kov´ acs, O. E., Bogd´ an,´A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f

    2013 doi

  45. [57]

    H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C., Li, I. H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 303, doi: 10.1086/342486

    2002 doi

  46. [58]

    D., Shen, Y., et al

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [59]

    2014, ApJL, 784, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L38

    Madau, P., Haardt, F., & Dotti, M. 2014, ApJL, 784, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L38

    2014 doi

  48. [60]

    Madau, P., & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJL, 551, L27, doi: 10.1086/319848

    2001 doi

  49. [61]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi

  50. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1340

    Mandelker, N., Dekel, A., Ceverino, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1340

    2014 doi

  51. [63]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  52. [64]

    2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 249, The Central Kiloparsec of Starbursts and AGN: The La Palma Connection, ed. J. H. Knapen, J. E. Beckman, I. Shlosman, & T. J. Mahoney, 335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0107134

    2001 doi arXiv

  53. [65]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 1533, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12162.x Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D

    Micic, M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Sigurdsson, S., & Abel, T. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1533, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12162.x Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D. 2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 686, The Astrophysics of Gravitational Wave Sources, ed....

    2007

  54. [66]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, A&A, 3, 455

    1969

  55. [67]

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

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

    2019 doi

  56. [68]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    2009 doi

  57. [69]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  58. [70]

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

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

    2023 doi

  59. [71]

    Pei, Y. C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 130, doi: 10.1086/171637

    1992 doi

  60. [72]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  61. [73]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Piqueras, L., Conseil, S., Shepherd, M., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 521, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVI, ed. M. Molinaro, K. Shortridge, & F. Pasian, 545

    2019

  62. [75]

    E., Panagia, N., Windhorst, R

    Rhoads, J. E., Panagia, N., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 582, doi: 10.1086/427622

    2005 doi

  63. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    2018 doi

  64. [77]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  65. [78]

    2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    Rieke, Marcia, Robertson, Brant, Tacchella, Sandro, et al. 2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    2023 doi

  66. [79]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    2018 doi

  67. [80]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  68. [81]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 17

    2011 doi

  69. [82]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Shang, C., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1249, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15960.x

    2010

  70. [83]

    C., Kassin, S

    Simons, R. C., Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa740c

    2017 doi

  71. [84]

    J., Beckmann, R

    Smethurst, R. J., Beckmann, R. S., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.13677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.13677 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment, Astrophysics ...

    2022 doi arXiv

  72. [85]

    2019, A&A, 623, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833075

    Sobral, D., & Matthee, J. 2019, A&A, 623, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833075

    2019 doi

  73. [86]

    N., Cohen, S

    Straughn, A. N., Cohen, S. H., Ryan, R. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 724, doi: 10.1086/499576

    2006 doi

  74. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 vandenbergh, S., Abraham, R

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 vandenbergh, S., Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 359, doi: 10.1086/118020

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [88]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadf3a

    Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2018, ApJL, 865, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadf3a

    2018 doi

  76. [89]

    Volonteri, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1022, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17359.x

    2010

  77. [90]

    Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 624, doi: 10.1086/466521

    2005 doi

  78. [91]

    2018, Royal Statistical Society

    Wiener, N. 2018, Royal Statistical Society. Journal. Series A: General, 113, 413, doi: 10.2307/2981007

    2018 doi

  79. [92]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., & Abel, T. 2008, ApJ, 682, 745, doi: 10.1086/588209 Wolfram Research, I. 2024, Mathematica, Version 14.0, Wolfram Research, Inc. https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica

    2008 doi

  80. [93]

    Wright, E. L. 2006, PASP, 118, 1711, doi: 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  81. [94]

    N., Alexander, D

    Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz611

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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