Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Multiwavelength Properties of Infrared-Faint Radio Sources Based on Spectral Energy Distribution Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bayesian SED fits show infrared-faint radio sources are AGN.

desk verdict A careful Bayesian SED comparison on six IFRSs, but the no-AGN baseline lacks warm dust and PAH emission, so the claim that IFRSs are AGN rests on an incomplete alternative model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18778 v1 pith:PHV5DDVP submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.GA

Yihang Zhang , Lulu Fan , Tao An , Jun Yang , Weibin Sun , Haoran Yu , Yunkun Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords infrared-faintradiosourcesactivegalacticnucleispectralenergydistributionBayesianmodelcomparisonAGNtorushigh-redshiftgalaxiesdust-obscuredstarformationrate
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 asks what infrared-faint radio sources (IFRSs) are: galaxies so bright at radio wavelengths and so faint in the infrared that their radio-to-infrared flux ratios reach thousands. The authors fit the ultraviolet-to-infrared spectral energy distributions of 20 IFRSs with spectroscopic redshifts and compare two physical models. For the six sources with far-infrared photometry, adding an AGN-heated dust torus to a stellar-plus-cold-dust model raises the Bayesian evidence by a logarithmic factor between 62 and 6831, far above the standard threshold for strong evidence. The paper concludes that IFRSs are most likely AGN-dominated systems and that their infrared luminosities place them as low-luminosity counterparts of high-redshift radio galaxies. If true, this identifies IFRSs as an early, dust-obscured phase of AGN and massive-galaxy growth rather than a purely starburst population.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Bayesian SED model comparison carried out with the BayeSED code. Each source is fit by a three-component model: a simple stellar population with an exponentially declining star-formation history, a graybody for cold dust that re-emits absorbed starlight under an energy-balance assumption, and a CLUMPY clumpy-torus AGN component. Against this, a two-component model omits the torus. Bayesian evidence, rather than a simple goodness-of-fit statistic, is used to decide whether the extra AGN component is required; this penalizes the three-component model for its extra parameters, so the large positive Bayes factors are the load-bearing result. The q24 mid-infrared-to-radio ratio and the $T_{\rm dust}$--$L_{\rm IR}$ relation are then used to place IFRSs against comparison populations.

What would settle it

Take the IFRSs that currently lack far-infrared detections and observe them with a deeper far-infrared camera, or stack their Herschel/SPIRE images, then repeat the Bayesian model comparison: if their evidence ratios no longer favor the AGN torus, the claim that IFRSs are generally AGN would be refuted for the class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that infrared-faint radio sources are active galactic nuclei. For the six IFRSs in the sample with Herschel far-infrared detections, the authors compare a two-component model (stellar population plus cold dust) with a three-component model that adds a CLUMPY AGN torus. The logarithmic Bayes factor in favor of the AGN component ranges from 62.4 to 6831.1, all far above the commonly used strong-evidence threshold of 5. The paper concludes that IFRSs are AGN-dominated, that their infrared luminosities ($L_{\rm IR}>10^{12}\,L_\odot$) make them low-luminosity counterparts of high-redshift radio galaxies, and that their median SED resembles an AGN-starburst composite in the infrared.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the six far-infrared-detected IFRSs represent the broader IFRS population, even though only 20 of 145 sources had enough infrared bands for SED fitting and the six with Herschel detections are the infrared-brightest cases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IFRSs are AGN-dominated rather than extreme starbursts, so their extreme radio-to-IR ratios are a signpost of obscured AGN activity.
  • The six far-infrared-detected IFRSs have total infrared luminosities above $10^{12}\,L_\odot$ and occupy the low-luminosity extension of high-redshift radio galaxies.
  • Their star formation rates lie in the range 100--900 $M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and AGN luminosity shows no correlation with star formation rate in this sample.
  • The median SED splits into a Type-1-QSO-like group and an AGN-starburst-composite-like group, implying IFRSs are not a single homogeneous population.
  • Cold dust temperatures of 26--50 K with small effective radii suggest that the growth in infrared luminosity is driven by dust temperature rather than dust mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if IFRSs are young obscured AGN, multi-epoch VLBI monitoring should reveal compact jets whose morphology or flux changes on decade timescales.
  • Beyond the paper, the lack of an AGN-luminosity/star-formation correlation could be tested by placing IFRSs and high-redshift radio galaxies on a common luminosity--SFR plane to see whether they trace a single evolutionary sequence.
  • Beyond the paper, deeper far-infrared observations of the IFRSs without Herschel detections would show whether the AGN-dominated conclusion extends to the infrared-fainter population or whether those sources form a separate, less dusty class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a UV-to-infrared SED analysis of 20 infrared-faint radio sources (IFRSs) with spectroscopic redshifts, using the Bayesian SED-fitting code BayeSED V3.0. The authors model each SED with a three-component model (stellar SSP, AGN torus via CLUMPY, and cold graybody dust) and, for the six sources with Herschel photometry, compare the Bayesian evidence of this model with a two-component model (SSP plus cold graybody). They report enormous log-Bayes factors in favor of the AGN-torus model (ln BF = 62 to 6831, Table 4), and from this conclude that IFRSs are most likely AGN. They further derive IR luminosities, disentangle AGN and star-formation contributions, estimate star formation rates, and compare dust temperatures and IR-radio ratios with high-redshift radio galaxies (HzRGs), hot DOGs, and QSO samples. The paper also identifies a dichotomy in the median SEDs of the sample, with one group resembling Type-1 QSOs and another resembling AGN-starburst composites.

Significance. If the central conclusion is correct, the paper would establish IFRSs as AGN-dominated, high-redshift sources that are low-luminosity analogs of HzRGs, using an appropriate Bayesian model-comparison framework. The compilation of multiwavelength photometry for a spectroscopically confirmed sample and the use of a public, tested SED code are strengths. However, the headline Bayesian claim is weakened by the specific model set used: the no-AGN comparison model omits warm dust and PAH emission from star formation, so the overwhelming evidence may reflect only the need for a mid-IR component, not uniquely an AGN torus. In addition, the generalization from six Herschel-detected sources to the whole IFRS class is not well supported by the sample-selection statistics. The paper's other diagnostics (q24, comparison with HzRGs, SED templates) provide supporting but not conclusive evidence for AGN activity. The manuscript is worth publishing after the model-comparison interpretation is substantially revised or the no-AGN baseline is extended.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 4] The two-component comparison model (SSP+GB) contains no warm-dust or PAH component, so the reported Bayes factors (ln BF = 62.4 to 6831.1) only demonstrate that a mid-IR component is required to fit the data, not specifically that the component is AGN-heated dust. The cold graybody temperatures inferred in Table 5 are 26-50 K, which emit negligibly at rest-frame 6-8 um, exactly where the observed 24 um points fall (rest ~7 um at z~2.4), and the SSP component supplies only stellar photospheric emission. High-redshift star-forming galaxies commonly exhibit strong 6.2/7.7 um PAH features that can reproduce such a mid-IR excess without a torus. The paper itself shows in Section 5.2 that starburst templates (Arp 220, I19254) are relevant to the IFRS population, but these were not allowed as the no-AGN model. I therefore do not regard the abstract's claim that the Bayesian evidence 'suggest[s] that IFRSs are most likely to be AGN' as uniquely supported. The authors should add a comparison model that includes warm dust and/or PAH templates (e.g., a starburst template or an additional warm-dust component) or temper the interpretation to 'require a mid-IR component', with the AGN identification supported by the ancillary q24 and HzRG comparisons rather than the Bayes factor alone.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.4] The conclusion is stated for IFRSs as a class, but only 20 of 145 spectroscopic-redshift IFRSs have the two or more IRAC/WISE bands required for SED fitting, and only six of those have Herschel detections. The K-S tests reported in Section 2.3 give p=0.066 (redshift) and p=0.105 (radio-to-IR ratio), which are only marginally above the usual 0.05 threshold, and Section 5.4 explicitly concedes that the analysis 'targets towards the brighter end of IFRSs'. The abstract and summary should therefore qualify the AGN claim to the FIR-detected subsample, and the discussion should state more prominently that the extension to the full IFRS population is an assumption rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [Abstract and Table 5 / Summary point 3] The abstract states that 'our sample is likely AGN-dominated', but the luminosities in Table 5 do not support that characterization for the majority of the six FIR-detected sources. For sources 122, 154, 160, and 161, L_SF_IR is equal to or greater than L_AGN_IR (e.g., source 122: log L_SF_IR = 12.71 vs log L_AGN_IR = 11.89; source 160: 12.39 vs 12.07); only sources 136 and 162 are clearly AGN-dominated. Summary point 3 says the contributions are 'approximately equal'. Please reconcile these statements with the tabulated values, or rephrase the conclusion to indicate that the sample spans a range from star-formation-dominated to AGN-dominated systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] In the paragraph after Table 4, the text says the SSP+Torus+GB model has higher evidence than the 'SSP+Torus model'; this should read 'SSP+GB model' (the model without the AGN component).
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states 'of 25 IFRS', but the text and the rest of the paper say the sample contains 20 IFRSs; the number should be 20.
  3. [Section 5.4 and Summary point 4] The text says the derived dust temperatures (26-50 K) are hotter on average than those of ULIRGs, SMGs, and DOGs (20-50 K), while Summary point 4 calls the temperatures 'relatively low'. Please clarify the comparison baseline so the description is consistent.
  4. [Section 5.3] The statement that the SFR of IFRSs shows no correlation with AGN luminosity is based on only six sources; this should be presented as a null result with limited statistical power, rather than a strong observational constraint.
  5. [Section 2.3] When reporting the K-S test results, the text should explicitly state the sample sizes of the two distributions being compared (20 selected versus 145 parent) so the reader can assess the sensitivity of the p-values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Bayesian 'AGN' evidence reduces to the model's labeling of hot dust as AGN, because the no-AGN baseline omits any warm-dust/PAH component.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (model components, Eq. 4) and Section 4.1 / Table 4]
    "The IR emission could come from hotter AGN-heated dust and/or colder star-formation-heated dust. The cold dust emission was modeled by a graybody (GB), which was defined as Sλ ∝ (1 − e−(λ0/λ)β)Bλ(λ, Tdust) ... The AGN component is independently modeled using the CLUMPY torus model ... We find that the SSP+Torus+GB model has significantly higher Bayesian evidence than the SSP+Torus model for all IFRSs in the subsample."

    In the no-AGN model the only dust component is Equation (4)'s cold graybody; the fitted temperatures in Table 5 (26-50 K) make its rest-frame 6-8 μm flux negligible. All six sources have 24 μm detections (Table 1), so the two-component model cannot fit the mid-IR points, and the three-component model wins with ln BF = 62-6831 merely by adding a mid-IR component. The only such component available is the CLUMPY torus, which the model labels 'AGN.' The huge Bayes factor therefore evidences warm/mid-IR dust, not that the dust is AGN-heated; the AGN attribution is fixed by construction because hot dust is defined as AGN and no warm-dust/PAH emission is allowed in the no-AGN baseline. Hence the headline inference reduces to the model's labeling.

full rationale

The Bayesian evidence calculation itself is internally consistent: MultiNest computes an Occam-razored likelihood ratio and both models are fit to the same photometry, so the mechanics of Table 4 are not circular. The circularity enters one step earlier, in the construction of the model family: the only non-stellar, non-cold-dust IR component is a CLUMPY torus labeled as AGN, so any mid-IR excess—including PAH/warm dust from star formation, as in the Arp 220 and I19254 templates the paper invokes in Section 5.2—is automatically attributed to AGN. The conclusion that IFRSs 'are most likely to be AGN' therefore reduces, within the chosen model set, to the fact that these six sources have 24 μm detections. This is a partial, construction-level circularity rather than a defect in the evidence integral. Independent evidence (q24, HzRG overlap, radio morphology) supports AGN activity, which keeps the paper from being wholly circular; conversely, the sample-completeness caveat (K-S p = 0.066/0.105; only six Herschel-detected sources; Section 5.4 concedes selection toward the brighter end) is a representativeness/statistical limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard astrophysical assumptions: stellar population synthesis (Bruzual & Charlot 2003), a Chabrier IMF, the Calzetti attenuation law, a graybody cold-dust model with lambda0=125 um, the CLUMPY clumpy-torus AGN model, energy balance between absorbed stellar light and cold-dust re-emission, and the Kennicutt (1998) SFR conversion. The 12 SED parameters are all fitted to the photometric data, so derived luminosities and dust temperatures are model-dependent. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • log(age/yr) = not tabulated (posterior median)
    Stellar population age, prior [5, 10.3], fitted to optical/NIR photometry.
  • log(tau/yr) = not tabulated (posterior median)
    Exponentially declining SFH timescale, prior [6, 12], fitted to optical/NIR photometry.
  • log(Z/Z_sun) = not tabulated (posterior median)
    Stellar metallicity, prior [-2.3, 0.7], fitted to optical/NIR photometry.
  • A_V/mag = not tabulated (posterior median)
    Dust attenuation, prior [0, 4], fitted to optical/NIR photometry.
  • T_dust/K = 26.06 to 50.59 K (Table 5)
    Cold dust temperature in graybody model, prior [10, 100], fitted to FIR photometry.
  • beta = not tabulated (posterior median)
    Graybody emissivity index, prior [1, 3], fitted to FIR photometry.
  • N0 = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus parameter, number of clouds along radial equatorial path, prior [1, 15].
  • Y = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus outer-to-inner radius ratio, prior [5, 100].
  • i/deg = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus inclination angle, prior [0, 90].
  • q = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus radial density profile index, prior [0, 3].
  • sigma = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus angular distribution width parameter, prior [15, 70].
  • tau_V = not tabulated (posterior median)
    CLUMPY torus clump optical depth, prior [10, 300].
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Energy balance: stellar emission absorbed by cold dust is completely re-emitted in the IR.
    Section 3, used to tie cold-dust luminosity to stellar attenuation; if cold dust is also heated by AGN or other sources, the star-formation-dominated luminosity is overestimated.
  • domain assumption The graybody form (Eq. 4) with lambda0=125 um describes cold-dust emission.
    Section 3; the fixed lambda0 and the fitted T_dust, beta determine the FIR SED; alternative dust models would change derived temperatures and luminosities.
  • domain assumption CLUMPY torus model represents AGN emission from UV to mm, including part of the accretion disk.
    Section 3; the torus SED library is taken from Nenkova et al. (2008a,b); if real AGN SEDs differ, the decomposition changes.
  • domain assumption Bruzual & Charlot (2003) SSP library with Chabrier IMF and Calzetti attenuation describe stellar emission.
    Section 3; standard SED modeling choices, not independently tested for IFRSs.
  • domain assumption Kennicutt (1998) relation converts star-formation IR luminosity to SFR.
    Section 5.3, Eq. 5; assumes local calibration applies at z=2-3, and that L_IR^SF is dominated by recent star formation.
  • domain assumption The six FIR-detected IFRSs are representative enough to support conclusions about the IFRS class.
    Section 2.3 and Section 4.1; the model comparison is only possible for sources with Herschel detections, and the authors acknowledge this subsample is biased toward the IR-bright end.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshifts are accurate.
    Table 2; redshifts taken from Orenstein et al. (2019), Singh et al. (2017), Herzog et al. (2016), SDSS DR17, and DESI; any catastrophic redshift errors would propagate into luminosities.
  • domain assumption Photometric cross-matching and flux calibrations are correct.
    Section 2.2 and 2.3; cross-matching with 5 arcsec radius and SNR cuts; systematic offsets between WISE and IRAC color corrections could bias the SED.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiwavelength Properties of Infrared-Faint Radio Sources Based on Spectral Energy Distribution Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHV5DDVP

@misc{pith2026241118778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiwavelength Properties of Infrared-Faint Radio Sources Based on Spectral Energy Distribution Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHV5DDVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18778}
}
read the original abstract

Infrared-faint radio sources (IFRSs) are believed to be a rare class of radio-loud active galactic nuclei (RL AGN) characterized by their high radio-to-infrared flux density ratios of up to several thousands. Previous studies have shown that a fraction of IFRSs are likely to be hosted in dust-obscured galaxies (DOGs). In this paper, our aim was to probe the dust properties, star formation rate (SFR), and AGN activity of IFRSs by modeling the UV-to-infrared spectral energy distribution (SED) of 20 IFRSs with spectroscopic redshifts ranging from 1.2 to 3.7. We compare the Bayesian evidence of a three-component model (stellar, AGN and cold dust) with that of a two-component model (stellar and cold dust) for six IFRSs in our sample with far-infrared (FIR) photometry and find that the three-component model has significantly higher Bayesian evidence, suggesting that IFRSs are most likely to be AGN. The median SED of our IFRS sample shows similarities to AGN-starburst composite in the IR regime. The derived IR luminosities of IFRSs indicate that they are low-luminosity counterparts of high-redshift radio galaxies. We disentangle the contributions of AGN-heated and star-formation-heated dust to the IR luminosity of IFRSs and find that our sample is likely AGN-dominated. However, despite the evidence for significant impact of AGN on the host galaxy, the AGN luminosity of our sample does not show correlation with the SFR of the sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of our sample selection process. The number in parentheses indicate the number of sources remaining after each step of selection. After applying the selection criteria mentioned above, our final sample consisted of 145 IFRSs with spectroscopic redshifts. To construct the UV-to-IR SEDs for IFRSs, we retrieved multiwavelength photometry from various catalogs, which will be discussed in the next section. 2.2.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radio-IR-ratio versus redshift distribution of original sample and selected sample. The black dots represent the original IFRS sample. The red dots represent our selected sample of 20 IFRSs for SED modelling. The blue dashed line indicates the selection criteria for IFRS. We assumed an energy balance between stellar emission and cold dust emission, where the stellar emission absorbed by cold dust was completely … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: the three-component (SSP+Torus+GB) model fit of IFRS 161. Right: the two-component (SSP+GB) model fit of IFRS 161. The red points with error bars represent the observed SED and the black solid lines represent the total model fit. The blue, green, and orange dashed lines represent the emissions from stars, AGN and dust, respectively. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit three-component model SEDs for 6 IFRS in our sample. The source ID and redshift are shown in each panel. The red points with error bars represent the observed photometric data. The blue, green, and orange solid lines represent the emissions from stars, AGN and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized rest-frame SEDs (gray lines) and the median SED (red solid lines) of 25 IFRS. The SEDs are based on the best-fitting SSP+Torus+GB model and normalized to the luminosity at λ = 1 µm. Individual SEDs and the median SED are compared to templates from Polletta e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The median SEDs of two distinct groups. Left: median SED of IFRS shows a flat spectrum at 0.1 µm < λ < 10 µm. Right: median SED of IFRS shows a steep spectrum at 0.1 µm < λ < 10 µm. actively accreting material, contributing to the composite SED. This scenario suggests …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The flux density ratio between 24µm and 1.4GHz as a function of redshift. The black filled circles represent our IFRS sample and the green crosses represent HzRGs from Seymour et al. (2007). The blue solid line and yellow solid line indicate the expected loci of I19254…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: IR luminosity due to star forming activities L SF IR as a function of AGN IR luminosity for our IFRS sample and other populations: Hot DOGs at z > 2 (Fan et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2024), QSOs at z ∼ 2 (Ma & Yan 2015), HzRGs at 1 < z < 4 (Drouart et al. 2014). where L SF …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cold dust temperature as a function of IR luminosity for our IFRS sample and other populations: Hot DOGs at z > 2 (Fan et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2024), QSOs at z ∼ 2 (Ma & Yan 2015), and SMGs at z < 4 (Roseboom et al. 2012). The grey dashed lines represent Tdust − LIR re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  3. [3]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    N., Fadda, D

    Appleton, P. N., Fadda, D. T., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 147, doi: 10.1086/422425 25

    doi:10.1086/422425 2004

  5. [5]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  6. [6]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692 Capak; Peter. 2019, Spitzer Enhanced Imaging Products (SEIP) Source List, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA3

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  8. [8]

    N., van Dokkum, P

    Cardamone, C. N., van Dokkum, P. G., Urry, C. M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 270, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270 2010

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Banfield, J

    Collier, J. D., Banfield, J. K., Norris, R. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2485

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013) De Breuck, C., Seymour, N., Stern, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 36, doi: 10.108...

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, A&A, 566, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323310

    Drouart, G., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323310

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Knudsen, K. K. 2016, ApJ, 823, 107, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/107

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10, doi: 10.1086/422843

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 1000, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13980.x

    Garn, T., & Alexander, P. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1000, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13980.x

    2008

  9. [17]

    Condon, J. J. 1996, ApJS, 103, 427, doi: 10.1086/192282

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al

    Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Z., Bai, J.-M., & Han, Z

    Han, Y., Fan, L., Zheng, X. Z., Bai, J.-M., & Han, Z. 2023, ApJS, 269, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfc3a

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, ApJS, 215, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/2 —

    Han, Y., & Han, Z. 2014, ApJS, 215, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/2 —. 2019, ApJS, 240, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    P., et al

    Herzog, A., Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323160 —. 2015a, A&A, 578, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525997

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Middelberg, E., et al

    Herzog, A., Norris, R. P., Middelberg, E., et al. 2015b, A&A, 580, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425405 —. 2016, A&A, 593, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527000 26

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Mullaney, J

    Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/9

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Withington, K., et al

    Hudelot, P., Cuillandre, J. C., Withington, K., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The CFHTLS Survey (T0007 release) (Hudelot+ 2012), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/317. Originally published in: SPIE Conf. 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/698

    Middelberg, E. 2010, ApJ, 710, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/698

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2012, in Science from the Next Generation Imaging and Spectroscopic Surveys, 13

    Jarvis, M. 2012, in Science from the Next Generation Imaging and Spectroscopic Surveys, 13

    2012

  19. [27]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    E., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ

    Kimball, A. E., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ. 2008, AJ, 136, 684, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/684

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ

    Kimball, A. E., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ. 2014, in Multiwavelength AGN Surveys and Studies, ed. A. M. Mickaelian & D. B. Sanders, Vol. 304, 238–239, doi: 10.1017/S1743921314003901

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: UKIDSS-DR8 LAS, GCS and DXS Surveys (Lawrence+ 2012), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/314. Originally published in: 2007MNRAS.379.1599L; 2012yCat.2314....0U

    2012

  23. [31]

    Diamond, P. J. 2003, ApJ, 592, 804, doi: 10.1086/375778

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/58

    Ma, Z., & Yan, H. 2015, ApJ, 811, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/58

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Elbaz, D., Hwang, H

    Magdis, G. E., Elbaz, D., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 22, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17551.x

    2010

  26. [34]

    T., Desai, V., et al

    Melbourne, J., Soifer, B. T., Desai, V., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/125

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Hales, C

    Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., Hales, C. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014926

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Tingay, S., et al

    Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., Tingay, S., et al. 2008a, A&A, 491, 435, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810454

    doi

  29. [37]

    P., Cornwell, T

    Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., Cornwell, T. J., et al. 2008b, AJ, 135, 1276, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1276

    doi

  30. [38]

    M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M

    Nenkova, M., Sirocky, M. M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2008a, ApJ, 685, 147, doi: 10.1086/590482

    doi

  31. [39]

    M., Nikutta, R., Ivezi´ c, ˇZ., & Elitzur, M

    Nenkova, M., Sirocky, M. M., Nikutta, R., Ivezi´ c, ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2008b, ApJ, 685, 160, doi: 10.1086/590483

    doi

  32. [40]

    P., Tingay, S., Phillips, C., et al

    Norris, R. P., Tingay, S., Phillips, C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1434, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11883.x

    2007

  33. [41]

    P., Afonso, J., Appleton, P

    Norris, R. P., Afonso, J., Appleton, P. N., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2409, doi: 10.1086/508275

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Afonso, J., Cava, A., et al

    Norris, R. P., Afonso, J., Cava, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/55

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al

    Oliver, S. J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20912.x 27

    2012

  36. [44]

    J., Collier, J

    Orenstein, B. J., Collier, J. D., & Norris, R. P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3259

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 81, doi: 10.1086/518113

    Polletta, M., Tajer, M., Maraschi, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 81, doi: 10.1086/518113

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    B., Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A

    Rengelink, R. B., Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 259, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997358

    1997 doi

  40. [49]

    H., Young, E

    Rieke, G. H., Young, E. T., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 25, doi: 10.1086/422717

    2004 doi

  41. [50]

    P., Chopin, N., & Rousseau, J

    Robert, C. P., Chopin, N., & Rousseau, J. 2008, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0804.3173, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0804.3173

    2008 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    Seymour, N., Stern, D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    2007 doi

  43. [53]

    H., et al

    Singh, V., Wadadekar, Y., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1536

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad22e3

    Sun, W., Fan, L., Han, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad22e3

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    M., Simpson, J

    Swinbank, A. M., Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2273

    2014 doi

  46. [56]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  47. [57]

    L., Smail, I., Coppin, K

    Wardlow, J. L., Smail, I., Coppin, K. E. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1479, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18795.x

    2011

  48. [58]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  49. [59]

    C., Middelberg, E., & Ibar, E

    Zinn, P. C., Middelberg, E., & Ibar, E. 2011, A&A, 531, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016264

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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