Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Tracing High-z Galaxies in X-rays with JWST and Chandra

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST-resolved galaxies explain the infrared-X-ray background coherence, with a first X-ray signal at z>6.

desk verdict First JWST-resolved CIB-CXB cross-power measurement is interesting, but the 5-7σ high-z signal hinges on unquantified photo-z leakage; a referee should demand a contamination test before that claim is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09705 v2 pith:MXPSVWSG submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.GA

A. Kaminsky , N. Cappelluti , G. Hasinger , A. Peca , C. M. Casey , N. E. Drakos , A. Faisst , G. Gozaliasl
show 9 more authors
O. Ilbert J. S. Kartaltepe A. Kashlinsky A. M. Koekemoer H. J. McCracken J. Rhodes B. E. Robertson M. Shuntov J. Sterling
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicinfraredbackgroundX-raycross-powerspectrumhigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTChandraactivegalacticnucleilarge-scalestructure
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 show that the long-studied coherence between the unresolved cosmic infrared background (CIB) and the soft cosmic X-ray background (CXB) comes from ordinary galaxies that JWST can now resolve, and that some of those galaxies live at redshifts above 6. Using JWST's COSMOS-Web survey, the authors build maps of infrared light from sources fainter than the old Spitzer limit and cross-correlate them with Chandra's unresolved [0.5-2] keV X-ray map. They report significant cross-power signals, including a 5-7 sigma signal in the 66 galaxies. If correct, the result would let the known CIB-CXB coherence be explained by resolved galaxy populations rather than exotic sources, while still leaving room for a high-redshift accreting black hole population that contributes to the soft X-ray background.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the angular cross-power spectrum $P_{\rm IR,X}(q)=\langle\Delta_{\rm IR}(q)\Delta_{\rm X}^{*}(q)\rangle$ between CIB fluctuation maps and CXB fluctuation maps, together with the coherence term $C=P^2_{\rm IR,X}/(P_{\rm X}P_{\rm IR})$. CIB maps are built by placing COSMOS-Web sources fainter than $m_{\rm AB}=25$ as unresolved point sources, with each source's flux split into redshift bins by its photometric redshift probability distribution from Le Phare and weighted by the survey completeness. The clustering component is modeled with Limber's equation using a single fitted bias parameter $\tilde{b}_{\rm IR}$, and the CXB flux production is estimated from the cross-power and auto-power via Monte Carlo sampling. This allows the paper to translate measured power into statements about the bias, halo masses, and X-ray flux production of the populations involved.

What would settle it

Recalculate the 6<z<13 cross-power using only sources with spectroscopic redshifts or with photo-z quality flags demanding single-peaked, narrow z-PDFs; if the high-z signal drops below significance, the result is a photo-z artifact. Alternatively, scramble source positions within the high-z bin while keeping their fluxes and z-PDFs: a persistent cross-power would indicate a masking or map-making systematic rather than real clustering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sources resolved by JWST emit soft X-rays and are clustered on large spatial scales, so the coherence previously seen between unresolved CIB and CXB fluctuations can be reproduced with ordinary star-forming galaxies and active galactic nuclei. Specifically, the paper reports cross-power spectrum signal-to-noise ratios of 4.80 (F277W) and 6.20 (F444W) over 1-1000 arcseconds in the full 0<z<13 range, and 7.32 and 5.39 in the 6<z<13 bin. This high-z signal is described as the first significant evidence of X-ray emission among the newly discovered JWST z>6 galaxy population. The same measurement pipeline yields CXB flux estimates implying roughly 94% of the [0.5-2] keV CXB is resolved, with an accreted black hole mass density at z=6 of $\rho_{\rm acc}\approx 10^{5.15}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ if that emission is entirely from accreting black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the photometric redshift probability distributions correctly assign faint COSMOS-Web sources to the 6<z<13 bin; if low-redshift sources leak into that bin through broad tails or catastrophic photo-z failures, the reported high-z X-ray signal could be produced without any true z>6 X-ray emission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the CIB-CXB coherence is explained by resolved galaxies, models invoking primordial black holes or direct-collapse black holes as the dominant source of the large-scale coherence lose a key observational motivation.
  • The z>6 cross-power signal implies an X-ray emitting galaxy population that Chandra cannot detect individually, which future X-ray missions like AXIS could resolve.
  • The fitted bias values $\tilde{b}_{\rm IR}\approx 1.03$, $3.21$, and $6.51$ for the $z=0$--$3$, $3$--$6$, and $6$--$13$ bins give a redshift evolution of large-scale structure that can be compared with halo occupation models.
  • The CXB flux estimate of roughly 94% resolved places a tight upper limit on the unresolved soft X-ray background that any remaining diffuse or exotic component must satisfy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension would be to repeat the analysis with the z>6 bin split into finer redshift slices or with SED-derived star-formation rates, which would show whether the X-ray signal tracks star formation or black hole accretion.
  • The paper's logic implies that if the high-z X-ray emission is indeed from accreting black holes, the Soltan argument gives a lower bound on the seed black hole mass density at z=6, linking JWST's overmassive black hole discoveries to the cosmic X-ray background.
  • The fact that the JWST auto-power spectrum lies well below the old Spitzer fluctuation excess suggests the mysterious clustering component may be even fainter or more diffuse than the $m_{\rm AB}>29$ population, a separation worth probing with deeper JWST mosaics.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs CIB fluctuation maps from COSMOS-Web NIRCam F277W and F444W catalogs at magnitudes fainter than the Spitzer limit, splits sources into photometric-redshift bins Δz = [0–3], [3–6], [6–13], and [0–13] using z-PDF flux weighting, and cross-correlates the maps with unresolved Chandra [0.5–2] keV CXB fluctuation maps from COSMOS-Legacy. The authors report significant CIB–CXB cross-power in both filters at 0 < z < 13 (S/N 4.80 and 6.20), and especially in the 6 < z < 13 bin (S/N 7.32 in F277W and 5.39 in F444W), which they interpret as evidence of X-ray emission from JWST-discovered z > 6 galaxies. They also fit the large-scale bias of the CIB sources, estimate the coherent CXB flux and derive lower limits on the bias of X-ray sources, and conclude that at least ~94% of the [0.5–2] keV CXB has been resolved.

Significance. If the high-redshift detection is robust, this is a timely and important result: it connects the long-studied CIB–CXB coherence to individually resolved JWST galaxy populations, provides a population-level probe of X-ray emission from z > 6 galaxies, and constrains models of early SMBH seeding and accretion. The paper has real strengths: the shot-noise estimates computed from source counts largely reproduce the directly measured map shot noise, the F444W cross-power is consistent with earlier measurements by Li et al. (2018), the map-making includes a careful flat-fielding treatment of the varying COSMOS-Web exposure depth, and the bias fits are carried out with MCMC and reported with reduced-χ² values. The derived CXB flux and bias estimates are explicitly labeled as estimates, and the authors do not overstate their independence. The central caveat is that the headline high-z signal depends on the unquantified reliability of the Le Phare z-PDF tails, a concern that must be addressed before the population-level interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.1 and §5, point 1] The map construction assigns to every redshift bin a flux F(Δz)=∫p(z)dz·F for every source, so low-z sources with broad or catastrophic z-PDF tails contribute to the Δz=[6–13] map. The manuscript states that sources with contaminated photo-z measurements are removed, but it does not quantify the residual contamination from the remaining z-PDF wings in the 6–13 bin. This matters quantitatively: in F277W the shot-noise power is 4.86×10^-11 nW² m^-4 sr^-1 in [0–3] versus 4.32×10^-13 nW² m^-4 sr^-1 in [6–13] (§3.1), so even ~1% leakage of [0–3] flux into the high-z map contributes an amount comparable to the entire genuine high-z shot-noise term. A similar leakage into the cross-power can correlate misallocated low-z IR flux with low-z CXB fluctuations and produce an apparent 6<z<13 CIB–CXB coherence without any z>6 X-ray emission. Because the claim in §5 point 1 rests on this signal, I request a quantitative leakage analysis: for example, stack the z-PDFs of all sources, compare the high-z maps with and without sources whose best-fit redshift is below 6, use empirical outlier rates from spectroscopic samples, or otherwise demonstrate that the high-z auto- and cross-power are insensitive to z-PDF tails. Without such a test, the reported S/N values of 7.32 and 5.39 cannot yet be interpreted as evidence of X-ray emission from z>6 galaxies.
  2. [§3.1] The F277W Δz=[3–6] shot noise estimated from the map, (7.992±0.007)×10^-12 nW² m^-4 sr^-1, differs from the value computed directly from the source counts, 7.964×10^-12 nW² m^-4 sr^-1, at the ~4σ level. This inconsistency is reported without discussion, even though the same maps enter the cross-power spectra and the MCMC bias fits. It indicates an unmodeled systematic in the map-making, source-count weighting, or z-PDF assignment that should be identified and propagated into the derived quantities, since a similar but smaller effect could bias the other redshift bins as well.
  3. [§4.2 and §5, point 3] The statement that 'approximately 94% of the CXB is resolved' is derived from the coherent CXB flux estimate of 2.64+0.52−0.67 ×10^-13 erg/s/cm²/deg², which is computed from the same auto- and cross-power spectra that are affected by the photo-z leakage concern. If part of the high-z cross-power is actually low-z leakage, the cumulative flux estimate would be biased high, and the 94% conclusion would weaken correspondingly. The 27+13−10% resolution fraction quoted in §5 point 3 is also presented without the caveat that the high-z contribution is the least secure part of this estimate; the discussion should explicitly state how the CXB flux and its uncertainty change under plausible leakage scenarios.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The displayed formulas for the broadband averages ⟨P_IR⟩ and ⟨P_IR,X⟩ are missing the division by the summed inverse variances; as typeset, the expressions appear to be products rather than inverse-variance-weighted averages. Please correct the notation.
  2. [§2.2, first paragraph] The code name 'SourcExtractor++' should be 'SourceExtractor++' (or 'SE++' as used elsewhere).
  3. [§5, point 4] The text says the 4.5 μm CIB auto-power spectrum computed in 'Kashlinsky et al. (2012) and Li et al. (2018)' is significantly higher than the JWST-based measurement, but Li et al. (2018) is a cross-power study, not an auto-power measurement. Please correct the citation.
  4. [Table 1] The units of the cross-power are given as 'erg/s/cm2 nW/m2/sr'; this should be clearly written as (erg s^-1 cm^-2)(nW m^-2 sr^-1) to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§2.2] The text says 'we focus our analysis on the latter' (F444W), but the paper then reports results for both F277W and F444W throughout; please clarify the intended statement.
  6. [§4.4, Eq. (13)] The Soltan-argument equation has garbled exponents and parentheses in the rendered text; please check the typeset equation and define all symbols at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CIB-CXB cross-power is a direct measurement of independently constructed maps, and the derived CXB flux and bias values are explicitly labeled estimates rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central detection (Sections 3.2 and 5) is a direct cross-power measurement between JWST-based CIB maps (Section 2.2) and Chandra CXB fluctuation maps taken from Li et al. (2018) (Section 2.1); no fitted parameter enters P_IR,X = <Delta_IR Delta_X*>. The only MCMC fit, b_IR in Section 4.1, uses the CIB auto-power spectrum and Limber's equation, not the cross-power, and the subsequent b_X and F_CXB values in Section 4.2 are explicitly called estimates ('we can first estimate', 'a rough estimate', 'lower limits'), so they do not masquerade as independent predictions forced by construction. The shot-noise comparison in Section 3.1 is a sanity check, not a fit. The photo-z z-PDF weighting F(Delta z) = integral p(z) dz * F is an input assumption; residual low-z leakage into the 6<z<13 bin is a legitimate systematic concern that could bias the high-z S/N, but that is a calibration/contamination issue, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Self-citations to Cappelluti et al. (2013), Li et al. (2018), and Kashlinsky et al. (2012, 2025) supply maps, methods, and comparison measurements; the headline claim does not reduce to those citations. The paper also defers photo-z and contamination details to Shuntov et al. (in prep), which is a completeness concern but not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central measurement (cross-power) is direct, but the astrophysical interpretation (high-z X-ray emission, bias, CXB flux) relies on the photo-z z-PDFs, the linear bias model, and the adopted CXB maps.

free parameters (1)
  • b_IR (large-scale bias of CIB sources) = 1.03+0.10-0.10 (0-3), 3.21+0.24-0.25 (3-6), 6.51+0.77-0.84 (6-13)
    Fitted via MCMC to the CIB auto-power clustering component in each redshift bin (Eqs. 6-10, Section 4.1). This is the sole fitted parameter in the model.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Limber equation with linear galaxy bias b^2 P_LambdaCDM(k,z) applies at angular scales >300 arcsec
    Section 4.1 restricts the fit to >300 arcsec to stay in the linear regime (following Helgason et al. 2012).
  • domain assumption The JWST COSMOS-Web source counts, after selection-function weighting and flat-fielding, faithfully represent the unresolved Spitzer CIB population below m_AB=25
    Section 2.2.1 constructs artificial CIB maps by placing sources as point sources; correctness of the clustering signal depends on this representation.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift z-PDFs from Le Phare correctly partition source flux into the 6-13 bin
    Section 2.2.1 weights each source's flux by its z-PDF; the high-z cross-power S/N (Table 1) depends on this partitioning.
  • domain assumption The Chandra CXB fluctuation maps from Li et al. 2018, with A-B subtraction and source masking, contain negligible residual resolved-source or instrumental contamination
    Section 2.1 adopts the Li et al. maps directly; masking claims >90% source brightness removal.
  • domain assumption X-ray source counts in the high-z bin follow a Euclidean dN/dS proportional to S^-2.5 for the number-density estimate
    Section 4.4 assumes Euclidean counts 'for simplicity' to derive 500-700 deg^-2 source density.
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology and the COLOSSUS linear matter power spectrum
    Section 4.1 uses COLOSSUS default cosmology for P_LambdaCDM.
  • domain assumption Bolometric correction at z=6 from Ricarte et al. 2019, epsilon=0.1, and (alpha+gamma+3/2)/(gamma+3/2)=1 for the rho_acc estimate
    Section 4.4, Soltan argument application; these are literature values, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing High-z Galaxies in X-rays with JWST and Chandra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXPSVWSG

@misc{pith2026250209705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing High-z Galaxies in X-rays with JWST and Chandra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXPSVWSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09705}
}
abstract

We leverage JWST data from the COSMOS-Web Survey in order to provide updated measurements on the auto-power spectrum of the now resolved Cosmic Infrared Background (CIB) and its coherence with the unresolved soft Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB) observed by Chandra at z > 6. Maps of the CIB in the F277W and F444W NIRCam filters are constructed with sources fainter than AB mag = 25 and cross-correlated with the CXB in the [0.5-2] keV band. We find that on scales between 1 and 1000'' the CIB-CXB cross-power in both NIRCam filters is statistically significant with signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) of 4.80 and 6.20 respectively from redshifts 0 < z < 13. In our high-z (6 < z < 13) interval we find coherence in both filters with a S/N of 7.32 and 5.39 respectively. These results suggest that there are X-ray emitting galaxies resolved by JWST, including star-forming galaxies (SFGs) and active galactic nuclei (AGNs). We fit the large-scale biasing of the IR sources producing the CIB as a function of z with results consistent with prior measurements and place constraints on the CXB flux and biasing at low- and high-z. The CXB flux measurements presented in this study suggest that approximately 94% of the [0.5-2] keV CXB is resolved, and this value is consistent within 2$\sigma$ with the complete resolution of the [0.5-2] keV CXB.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: The selection function obtained with the deeper PRIMER survey in the COSMOS field. The different colors signify the completeness for regions of COSMOS-Web with either 2 (blue) or 4 (red) exposures. The circles cor￾respond to the completeness and the triangles to the con￾tamination. Bottom: Best-fit redshift distribution of sources in the COSMOS-Web catalog (blue) and overplotted is the summed z-PDF for all sour… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper Left: Auto-Power spectra of the CIB fluctuations for F277W and F444W CIB fluctuation maps, denoted with the red circles and blue triangles respectively. The dashed lines indicate the shot noise levels computed directly from the COSMOS-Web source counts. The auto-power spectra and the associated shot noise lines are convolved with the Spitzer beam. The orange and purple triangles correspond to the same computat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Modeled F444W CIB auto-power spectra for each ∆z bin. The circles, triangles, and diamonds correspond to the ∆z = [0 − 3], [3 − 6], [6 − 13] bins respectively. Right: Best-fit bias ˜bIR as a function of z. The dashed blue and dash-dotted red lines correspond to the biasing of dark matter halos with masses of 1010 M⊙h −1 and 1011 M⊙h −1 respectively (Sheth et al. 2001). The green dotted lines correspond to the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimated Cumulative flux contribution of the CXB as a function of redshift. The cyan bar at 0.97 × 10−12 erg/s/cm2 /deg2 is the upper limit placed on the unresolved CXB in Cappelluti et al. (2017a). The flux contribution of the CXB gets progressively fainter as a func…

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. Primordial black holes as dark matter candidates: Multi-frequency constraints from cosmic radiation backgrounds

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

    Accreting primordial black holes with masses of 1 to 100 solar masses are constrained to less than about 0.1 to 0.7 percent of dark matter by the unresolved cosmic X-ray background, with consistent limits from the Lym...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/70

    Allevato, V., Civano, F., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/70

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/70 2016

  2. [2]

    1999, MNRAS, 310, 540, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02978.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arnouts, S., Cristiani, S., Moscardini, L., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 540, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02978.x 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 12

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  4. [4]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 461 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 2020

  5. [5]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  6. [6]

    2016, The Euclid/WFIRST Spitzer Legacy Survey, Spitzer Proposal ID #13058

    Capak, P., Arendt, R., Arnouts, S., et al. 2016, The Euclid/WFIRST Spitzer Legacy Survey, Spitzer Proposal ID #13058

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d

    Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G., & Natarajan, P. 2022, ApJ, 926, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d 2022

  8. [8]

    2012a, MNRAS, 427, 651, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21867.x —

    Cappelluti, N., Ranalli, P., Roncarelli, M., et al. 2012a, MNRAS, 427, 651, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21867.x —. 2012b, MNRAS, 427, 651, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21867.x

    work page arXiv 2012

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    G., et al

    Cappelluti, N., Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/68

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 95, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/95

    Cappelluti, N., Comastri, A., Fontana, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 95, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/95

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2017a, ApJ, 837, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ea4

    Cappelluti, N., Li, Y., Ricarte, A., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 837, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ea4

    doi

  4. [12]

    2017b, ApJL, 847, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8acd

    Cappelluti, N., Arendt, R., Kashlinsky, A., et al. 2017b, ApJL, 847, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8acd

    doi

  5. [13]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Mendez, A

    Coil, A. L., Mendez, A. J., Eisenstein, D. J., & Moustakas, J. 2017, ApJ, 838, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63ec

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, Nature, 490, 514, doi: 10.1038/nature11474

    Cooray, A., Smidt, J., de Bernardis, F., et al. 2012, Nature, 490, 514, doi: 10.1038/nature11474

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002

    Desjacques, V., Jeong, D., & Schmidt, F. 2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Abraham, R

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

    2021

  12. [20]

    G., & Seds Team

    Fazio, G. G., & Seds Team. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 446, Galaxy Evolution: Infrared to Millimeter Wavelength Perspective, ed. W. Wang, J. Lu, Z. Luo, Z. Yang, H. Hua, & Z. Chen, 347

    2011

  13. [21]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    Finoguenov, A., Guzzo, L., Hasinger, G., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    R., & Rossi, B

    Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Paolini, F. R., & Rossi, B. B. 1962, PhRvL, 9, 439, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.9.439

    1962 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Jarvis, M

    Hale, C. L., Jarvis, M. J., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2954

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 022, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/022

    Hasinger, G. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 022, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/022

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/38

    Helgason, K., Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G., Kashlinsky, A., & Ricotti, M. 2014, ApJ, 785, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/38

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/113

    Helgason, K., Ricotti, M., & Kashlinsky, A. 2012, ApJ, 752, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/113

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Markevitch, M

    Hickox, R. C., & Markevitch, M. 2007, ApJL, 661, L117, doi: 10.1086/519003

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, ApJL, 823, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25

    Kashlinsky, A. 2016, ApJL, 823, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Ashby, M

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/63

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 980, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adad5e

    Odegard, N. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 980, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adad5e

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Atrio-Barandela, F., et al

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., Atrio-Barandela, F., et al. 2018, Rev. Mod. Phys., 90, 025006, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025006

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S. H. 2005, Nature, 438, 45, doi: 10.1038/nature04143

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    G., et al

    Li, Y., Cappelluti, N., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55a

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Limber, D. N. 1953, ApJ, 117, 134, doi: 10.1086/145672

    1953 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Jeong, W

    Matsumoto, T., Seo, H. J., Jeong, W. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/124

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 104, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/104

    Mitchell-Wynne, K., Cooray, A., Xue, Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 104, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/104

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2012, A&A, 548, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219921 13

    Moretti, A., Vattakunnel, S., Tozzi, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219921 13

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7

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

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    J., et al

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11674. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11674

    2025

  40. [48]

    C., Urry, C

    Powell, M. C., Urry, C. M., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e65

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Kara, E

    Reynolds, C. S., Kara, E. A., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley, 126781E, doi: 10.1117/1...

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2851

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2851

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1006, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1891

    Ricarte, A., Pacucci, F., Cappelluti, N., & Natarajan, P. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1006, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1891

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2012, A&A, 545, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219965

    Salvaterra, R., Haardt, F., Volonteri, M., & Moretti, A. 2012, A&A, 545, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219965

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  46. [54]

    H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J

    Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/20

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Mo, H

    Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x

    2001

  48. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08290, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08290

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08290, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08290

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    1982, MNRAS, 200, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115

    Soltan, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115

    1982 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt174

    Yue, B., Ferrara, A., Salvaterra, R., & Chen, X. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt174

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.