Little Red Dots as Obscured Little Blue Dots: A Super-Eddington Unification Model

Piero Madau; Roberto Maiolino

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Little Red Dots as Obscured Little Blue Dots: A Super-Eddington Unification Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Little Red Dots are not a distinct class of black-hole engines but the dust-reddened, high-inclination view of the same super-Eddington accreting AGNs seen face-on as Little Blue Dots.

desk verdict A serious, testable unification of LRDs and LBDs, but the extreme-EW tail rests on an untested assumption that BLR line emission is isotropic. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.22386 v2 pith:U46WLUJX submitted 2026-02-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Piero Madau , Roberto Maiolino This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords LittleRedDotsBluesuper-Eddingtonaccretionbroad-lineAGNunificationdustextinctionJamesWebbSpaceTelescopethick-diskSED

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 Little Red Dots (LRDs) — the compact, red, V-shaped-spectrum AGNs found by JWST — are not a separate class of black-hole engines. They are the high-inclination, dust-reddened counterparts of the broader population of blue, compact broad-line AGNs (Little Blue Dots, LBDs), all powered by the same super-Eddington accretion flow. In this picture a geometrically thick, radiation-pressure-supported 'funnel' beams EUV and soft-X-ray photons toward the pole while the optical continuum is self-shadowed at high inclination; an equatorial observer sees a dimmed, reddened continuum next to nearly unchanged, isotropically emitted broad lines, inflating the H-alpha equivalent width without needing near-unity BLR covering. The same geometry suppresses high-ionization lines, produces V-shaped SEDs and Balmer decrements of about ten after A_V~2.8 dust attenuation, and keeps infrared dust masses tiny, tying the two populations together through viewing angle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radiation-pressure-supported, geometrically thick super-Eddington accretion flow whose photosphere forms a self-irradiating 'mirror funnel': EUV and soft-X-ray photons are collimated toward the pole, while the UV-optical continuum is far less angle-dependent. That inclination-dependent SED — computed here for a fiducial engine with black hole mass 10^7.5 solar masses accreting at ~32 times Eddington — is fed into photoionization calculations of an equatorial, clumpy broad-line region with a global covering factor of only ~15%. The BLR is assumed to emit isotropically while the direct continuum is attenuated by both the clumpy BLR (through an inclination-depende

What would settle it

Measure the joint distribution of H-alpha EW and Balmer decrement in a luminosity-matched sample of LBDs and LRDs. The model predicts a clean separation: LBDs should have low-to-moderate EWs with Halpha/Hbeta near the intrinsic BLR value (~4.6), while LRDs should sit at EW ≳ 500 Å with decrements near ~10. Finding LBDs with extreme Balmer EWs, or LRDs with near-Case-B decrements, at fixed luminosity would falsify the orientation-only picture; likewise, detecting BLR anisotropy that tracks the continuum anisotropy would remove the EW boost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LRDs are the obscured, high-inclination tail (i≳65–70°) of the same population of compact, super-Eddington broad-line AGNs whose less-reddened, more face-on analogues are LBDs. Using the inclination-dependent SED of a thick-disk accretion flow with a 'mirror-funnel' photosphere, the authors show that a modest global BLR covering factor of C_BLR≈0.15 reproduces the extreme H-alpha EWs of LRDs: at high inclination the direct optical continuum is foreshortened and self-shadowed while the BLR, illuminated by a hard EUV SED near the equator, emits isotropically, so line-to-continuum ratios soar. The same equatorial suppression of XUV photons weakens HeII/Hbeta be

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument leans on the assumed shape of the funnel's radiation field — that EUV/soft-X-ray light is strongly suppressed toward the equatorial plane while the optical continuum declines only mildly — and on the assumption that broad-line emission is isotropic; if the funnel is not that anisotropic, or the BLR shares that anisotropy, the high-EW tail and the LRD/LBD orientation mapping both disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LBDs should have systematically lower H-alpha equivalent widths than LRDs at fixed luminosity and redshift, with LRDs occupying the high-EW tail; splitting JWST BLAGN samples by UV-optical color will directly test this.
The Balmer decrement should be high in LRDs (Halpha/Hbeta ≈ 10) and near-intrinsic (≈4.6) in LBDs, with intermediate orientations populating the transition.
Strong Balmer breaks should appear only along the most obscured, near-equatorial sightlines, so only a minority of LRDs should show pronounced breaks.
The model predicts a modest near-IR hot-dust bump and far-IR/sub-mm emission consistent with current upper limits, with implied dust masses of 30–100 solar masses, resolving the 'dust budget crisis.'
X-ray weakness is both intrinsic (a Compton-cooled corona) and orientation-enhanced, so even unreddened LBDs should be X-ray faint without requiring a fully enclosing gas cocoon.

Reading between the lines

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

We would test the isotropy assumption directly: if spectropolarimetry or reverberation mapping shows the broad-line region is as anisotropic as the continuum, the high-EW tail that identifies LRDs would vanish, and the whole orientation map would need revision.
A consequence we draw beyond the paper: if LRDs are dust-selected at high inclination, flux-limited samples should be biased toward intrinsically more luminous objects along obscured sightlines; comparing the LRD luminosity function to the LBD luminosity function after correcting for A_V≈2.8 would quantify this bias.
The model implies that single-epoch virial black-hole masses for LRDs may be systematically underestimated because the flattened BLR breaks the isotropy assumed in the calibrations; we would test this by comparing single-epoch and reverberation masses in bright LBDs.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Keep this between us: this paper is the first serious unification of LRDs and LBDs, and it does real quantitative work. The V-shaped SED fit is good—mean model/data ratio 1.05, rms 10%—the Balmer decrement prediction lands at Hα/Hβ ~ 10, which matches current LRD measurements, and the dust model with 15% covering produces an IR bump and dust mass that dodge the budget crisis. That's the strength. But the headline result—modest covering factors explain extreme Hα EWs—is calibrated, not predicted. C_BLR is explicitly set so the model's median EW equals the observed 570 Å. So saying the model prefers C_BLR ~ 0.15 is partly a restatement of the input.

The deeper hole is the one the stress-test flags: the extreme-EW tail at high inclination assumes the BLR line flux is isotropic while the direct continuum foreshortens as ~cos i. The same clumpy BLR that produces the continuum extinction at high i should also attenuate or anisotropically reprocess the line emission. The paper doesn't model that. If line suppression is comparable to continuum suppression, the high-EW tail collapses and the i > 65–70 assignment for LRDs goes with it. This is the hinge of the whole unification, and it needs a real radiative-transfer treatment, not a one-sentence assumption.

Other soft spots are minor: one place says i_BLR = 85°, another says 80°, and the covering factor floats between the 0.15 in the abstract and the calibrated 0.12–0.19 in Fig. 3. The anisotropic SED is imported from Madau 2025 without re-derivation, which is fine but makes every quantitative output conditional on that prior. No Cloudy inputs are provided, which will slow anyone wanting to reproduce the line predictions.

What's genuinely good: the model is coherent, falsifiable, and makes demographic predictions—LRD fraction versus luminosity, EW distributions for LBD vs LRD subsamples, Balmer decrement trends—that go beyond post hoc fitting. The authors are also honest about the EW cap and about selectively retaining some HeII tracks.

I'd send this to a serious referee. The referee should demand that the BLR line anisotropy be addressed, and that the demographic predictions be spelled out as a priori forecasts. If that hinge holds, this is an important paper. If it doesn't, the covering-factor result is probably wrong. Either way, it deserves the full treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a unification model in which JWST Little Red Dots (LRDs) are the dust-obscured, high-inclination counterparts of compact, blue broad-line AGNs (Little Blue Dots, LBDs), both powered by super-Eddington accretion. The authors combine the anisotropic, radiation-pressure-supported thick-disk SEDs of Madau (2025) with Cloudy photoionization calculations of an equatorial, clumpy BLR and a flared dusty torus. They show that, after calibrating the global BLR covering factor so that the median broad H-alpha EW matches the observed 570 Å, covering factors C_BLR ~ 0.12-0.19 suffice; that high-inclination views produce a high-EW tail and weak high-ionization lines; that A_V ~ 2.8 along dust-intersecting sightlines reproduces the stacked V-shaped LRD SED (mean model/data ratio 1.05, rms 10%); and that an energy-conserving dust model yields H-alpha/H-beta ~ 10 and a small dust mass, avoiding an IR budget crisis. The paper argues that LRDs are not a distinct engine class but the obscured tail of the LBD population.

Significance. If correct, the model provides a single orientation-based framework connecting the defining LRD properties—extreme Balmer EWs, weak high-ionization lines, V-shaped continua, large Balmer decrements, and faint IR emission—without invoking a nearly 4pi 'cocoon.' The quantitative SED comparison to the Delvecchio et al. stack is genuinely good, and the energy-conserving dust treatment directly addresses the dust-budget crisis. The paper also makes falsifiable demographic predictions (e.g., LBD/LRD EW distributions and Balmer-decrement correlations). However, the main covering-factor result is calibrated rather than predicted, and the high-inclination EW tail relies on an untested assumption of isotropic BLR line emission. These issues must be resolved before the central unification claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(6), Fig. 3] The claim that 'large H-alpha EWs can be reproduced with C_BLR ~ 0.15' is partly a restatement of the calibration. The text explicitly normalizes C_BLR so that the probability-weighted median EW equals the observed 570 Å, then reports the resulting C_BLR as the 'required covering factor.' Because F_line is proportional to C_BLR and, when the nebular continuum is subdominant, the median EW is approximately linear in C_BLR, the quoted 0.12-0.19 is not an independent prediction. Please either derive C_BLR from an independent observable (e.g., L_H-alpha and the ionizing photon budget) or reframe this as a consistency check; ideally compare with the C_BLR required by a standard quasar SED under the same calibration.
[Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(6), Fig. 4] The high-EW tail is generated by holding F_line independent of the observer's inclination while the direct continuum is attenuated by P_esc(i). But the same clumpy, equatorial BLR that produces P_esc(i) should also affect line radiation: line photons from BLR clouds along high-inclination sightlines can be absorbed by foreground clouds, and optically thick clouds emit preferentially from their illuminated faces. The paper does not model line transfer through the BLR; it simply scales one Cloudy run at i_BLR=80 by C_BLR. If line flux is suppressed toward high inclination as strongly as the continuum, the extreme-EW tail and the i>65-70 deg LRD assignment weaken or disappear, and matching LRD EWs would require larger covering. Please quantify this with an extended-emitter or anisotropic-line model, or justify why P_esc(i) applies only to the continuum.
[Section 2.1 and Section 3] All quantitative results inherit the specific Madau (2025) Model A SED (M_BH=10^7.5 Msun, mdot=32) without a sensitivity study. The required C_BLR, the high-EW tail, and the HeII suppression all depend on the EUV hardness and anisotropy of this SED. A softer or less anisotropic SED would shift C_BLR upward and reduce the contrast with the near-unity covering cocoon scenario. Please vary mdot/M_BH in the H-alpha-EW calculation, or at least show how C_BLR and the inclination boost scale with SED parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, text below Eq. (1)] The BLR illumination angle is quoted as i_BLR = 85 deg in the text below Eq. (1), but later as i_BLR = 80 deg ('motivating our adoption of i_BLR = 80 deg'). Please harmonize.
[Fig. 6 caption and Section 3.2] The Fig. 6 caption uses A_V = 2.9, while the text and Section 3.2 use A_V = 2.8. Unify the notation.
[Fig. 4] The model curves are for broad-line EWs, while the Sun et al. stack values are total (broad+narrow) EWs. The caveat in the text is important and should also appear in the figure caption to avoid overinterpretation.
[Section 3.3] The value r_in ~ 0.15 pc appears in the dust-mass estimate without derivation. State how it follows from T_sub = 1200 K and the assumed bolometric luminosity.
[Eq. (5)] C_BLR is defined as a solid-angle average of the covering probability. The text notes this, but the distinction between angle-averaged covering and line-of-sight covering should be made explicit near Eq. (5) to avoid confusion with the 'modest covering factor' claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

C_BLR is calibrated to the observed median Hα EW and then quoted as the main result; the high-EW tail is built on the isotropic-BLR assumption.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Eqs. 1–6 and Fig. 3), repeated in Section 4]
"To translate Cloudy outputs into observables, we normalized the global BLR covering factor, CBLR, by scaling our fiducial model to match the median EW of 570Å reported by Maiolino et al. (2025). ... Matching the probability-weighted median of the models to the observed median implies global covering factors of CBLR ≃0.12–0.19."

The paper's headline 'extreme Hα EWs can be reproduced with global BLR covering factors of only CBLR ≃0.15' is the value of the parameter that was varied to force the model median to equal the observed 570 Å. The modest covering factor is therefore a restatement of the calibration, not an independent prediction. The value being below unity is not a mathematical tautology, but reporting it as a 'first key result' presents a fitted normalization as a derived conclusion.
self definitional [Section 3, after Eq. (6), before Fig. 3; used again in Fig. 4]
"In the most edge-on tail of the orientation distribution, the model predicts very large EWs because the observed optical continuum decreases approximately geometrically, ∝cos i, while the broad-line luminosity is assumed to be isotropic."

Equation (1) defines EW(i) = Fline(i_BLR) / Fcont(i) with Fline independent of i by construction. The extreme high-EW tail is therefore a direct consequence of the definition plus the isotropy assumption, not a result derived from the physics of line emission. The later inference that LRDs require i ≳ 65–70° (Fig. 4) inherits this construction; if the BLR line flux were as inclination-dependent as the direct continuum, the tail would disappear and the LRD inclination assignment would not follow.

full rationale

The paper is partially circular in its headline numbers. Section 3 explicitly normalizes C_BLR so that the probability-weighted median Hα EW matches the observed 570 Å (Eq. 6, Fig. 3), and Section 4 then presents 'C_BLR ≃0.15' as the key result; that is a fitted value presented as a prediction. In addition, the extreme high-EW tail and the resulting assignment of LRDs to high inclinations are generated by the assumed isotropy of BLR line emission while the continuum is foreshortened (Eqs. 1–2), so that part of the LRD/LBD orientation story is built into the model's definitions. These two construction-level reductions justify a substantial circularity score. However, the paper does contain genuinely independent checks that prevent a fully circular score: the HeII/Hβ ratio is compared to the Abell 2744–QSO1 upper limit; the V-shaped SED is matched to the Delvecchio et al. stack with a mean model-to-data flux ratio of 1.05; the Balmer decrement of ~10 is obtained by applying the independently fitted A_V to a Cloudy intrinsic ratio; and the dust-reprocessed SED is checked against IR/sub-mm upper limits. The SED itself is inherited from same-author prior work (Madau 2025), which is a robustness caveat but not, by itself, a circular reduction because the mirror-funnel assumptions are stated and external GRMHD simulations are cited. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fundamentally new entity (particle, force, dimension) is introduced; the ingredients are standard AGN structures (thick disk, funnel, equatorial BLR, dusty torus). The burden is instead in the free parameters: the BLR covering factor is calibrated to the median H-alpha EW, the dust attenuation is tuned to the stacked SED, and several geometrical parameters (sigma_c, sigma_d, torus profile) are hand-set. The self-cited anisotropic SED from Madau 2025 is a major imported input rather than a derived result.

free parameters (10)

C_BLR (global BLR covering factor) = 0.12-0.19 (fiducial 0.15)
Solved via Eq. 5 after setting angle-averaged intercept probability, then scaled so the model's probability-weighted median H-alpha EW equals the observed 570 A (Fig. 3).
A_V (dust attenuation along obscured sightlines) = 2.8-2.9 mag
Chosen so the dust-reddened model matches the Delvecchio et al. (2025) LRD stack (Fig. 6); also used to obtain H-alpha/H-beta ~ 10.
BLR angular thickness sigma_c = 0.26
Hand-set so the equatorial cloud distribution has a median inclination near 80 deg (Eqs. 3-5).
Dust angular thickness sigma_d = 0.5
Chosen so dust-intersecting sightlines have conditional median inclination ~70 deg (Eqs. 7-10).
Ionization parameter logU = -1.5 (fiducial; grid explored)
Adopted for the fiducial Cloudy BLR run; varied in grids but not fit to a specific observable.
BLR gas density n_H and column N_H = 10^10 cm^-3, 10^23 cm^-2
Fixed as typical BLR conditions for all Cloudy computations.
Metallicity Z = 0.1 Z_sun
Assumed representative for z~4-6 galaxies; directly affects predicted line ratios.
Accretion parameters (M_BH, mdot) = 10^7.5 M_sun, mdot=32
Taken as Model A of Madau 2025 without re-derivation; defines the entire anisotropic SED.
Dust torus parameters (T_sub, q, r_out/r_in, R_V, B) = 1200 K, q=0.5, r_out/r_in=100, R_V=4, B=0.15
Hand-set to reproduce the near-IR bump and flat extinction curve; jointly adjusted to match the Delvecchio stack and IR upper limits.
EW cap for H-alpha PDF = 2000 A
Imposed to truncate the edge-on high-EW tail; stated but not derived from physical floor emission.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Radiation-pressure-supported thick disk with perfect-reflection 'mirror' funnel (Paczynski-Wiita, Sikora 1981, Madau 1988) gives the correct angle-dependent photosphere and SED.
Section 2, Section 2.1; this is the foundation of the anisotropic-SED claim and is not re-derived here.
domain assumption Broad-line luminosity is isotropic while the direct continuum is foreshortened by cos(i).
Section 3 states 'the broad-line luminosity is assumed to be isotropic'; this drives the high-inclination EW inflation.
domain assumption BLR clouds form a clumpy, equatorially concentrated distribution with escape probability exp(-N_los) and sigma_c=0.26 (Nenkova formalism).
Eqs. 3-5, Section 2.2; the cloud-count parameterization is taken from prior AGN torus literature.
domain assumption Dust is a foreground screen outside the BLR, so lines and continuum are attenuated by the same factor.
Section 3.2; if dust were mixed with the line-emitting gas, broad H-alpha would be quenched rather than preserved.
domain assumption Random observer orientations p(i)=sin(i), and LRD-selected sightlines are those intersecting at least one dusty cloud with C_dust=C_BLR.
Eqs. 7-10, Section 3.2; the demographic link between LBD and LRD follows from this distribution.
domain assumption Dust-to-gas ratio scales as Z with Z~0.1 Z_sun, and gray dust emissivity kappa proportional to nu^0.
Section 3.3; needed to convert A_V to gas/dust mass and to justify the flat IR emissivity.
ad hoc to paper The 2000 A cap on H-alpha EW does not materially affect the calibrated median.
Section 3, Fig. 3; an explicit ad hoc truncation of the model's edge-on tail.
domain assumption Super-Eddington accretion is prevalent in z>6 nuclei.
Section 4 argues from cited simulations; motivates why this engine dominates the BLAGN population.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Little Red Dots as Obscured Little Blue Dots: A Super-Eddington Unification Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U46WLUJX

@misc{pith2026260222386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Little Red Dots as Obscured Little Blue Dots: A Super-Eddington Unification Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U46WLUJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22386}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate whether Little Red Dots (LRDs) are the dust-reddened, high-inclination counterparts of compact, blue broad-line AGNs (Little Blue Dots, LBDs) powered by super-Eddington accretion. We model the central engine as a geometrically thick, radiation-pressure supported accretion flow whose funnel produces strongly anisotropic, intrinsically blue ionizing continua, coupled to an equatorially concentrated BLR and dusty reprocessing clouds with modest covering factor. Using inclination-dependent spectral energy distributions (SEDs) as input to Cloudy, we show that the extreme broad Halpha EWs of JWST LRDs can be reproduced with global BLR covering factors of only 10%, fully consistent with standard Type~1 AGNs and far below unity. Large Balmer EWs arise because self-shadowing suppresses the high-inclination optical continuum while the BLR is illuminated by an ionizing-rich EUV SED. Weak high-ionization lines (e.g. HeII4686) follow from the orientation-dependent suppression of the XUV/soft X-ray continuum toward equatorial directions, without requiring a fully enclosing gaseous cocoon. Applying a gray dust attenuation law with AV~3 along high-inclination (LRD-selected) sightlines, our fiducial model reproduces the V-shaped UV-optical continua of LRDs and the large Balmer decrements; strong Balmer breaks arise only along the most obscured sightlines. A compact equatorial dust structure with modest global covering factor intercepts and reradiates only a small fraction of the bolometric luminosity, yielding a modest hot-dust bump and far-IR/sub-mm output consistent with current measurements and limits and implying small dust masses. This single-framework model links LRD and LBD observables through orientation, predicting correlated trends in Halpha EW, Balmer decrement, Balmer break, high-ionization line strengths, and IR emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22386 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Angle-dependent ionizing photon production rates, Q(> Eth), for a super-Eddington accretion flow with MBH = 107.5 M⊙ and m˙ = 32 (Model A of Madau 2025). The curves show the integrated photon rate (s−1 ) above five ionization thresholds: Hi (13.6 eV), Hei (24.6 eV), Heii (54.4 eV), Niv (77.5 eV), and Neiv (97.2 eV). The rates are strongly anisotropic, remaining near their peak values for i ≲ 25◦ but declining steep… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Three-dimensional toroidal geometry of a superEddington BLAGN accreting at m˙ = 32, viewed at an inclination angle of i = 60◦ . The spatial coordinates x, y, and z are expressed in units of Schwarzschild radii rS. The thick torus extends out to ≃ 1000 rS, where it is matched to an outer geometrically thin disk (only shown to r = 1500 rS to illustrate the geometric transition). Brighter (yellow) colors indicate … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Probability density functions (PDFs) of the broad Hα EW predicted by our fiducial super-Eddington accretor with MBH = 107.5 M⊙ and m˙ = 32. The distributions are derived by weighting the inclination-dependent EWs by the geometric probability p(i) = sin i (0 ≤ i ≤ π/2), assuming random observer orientations. Different curves correspond to different ionization parameters log U, as indicated in the legend. For each m… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Predicted inclination dependence of the Balmer EWs. The top and bottom panels show EW(Hα) and EW(Hβ), respectively, as functions of observer inclination for our fiducial super-Eddington model with MBH = 107.5 M⊙ and m˙ = 32. Curves correspond to different ionization p…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: compares our Cloudy predictions for Heii λ4686/Hβ to the observational upper limit for the LRD Abell 2744–QSO1. The model curves show the predicted ratio as a function of ionization parameter for superEddington SEDs with different black hole masses and accretion rat…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: compares the predicted SED of our fiducial super-Eddington models, attenuated by a dust screen with AV = 2.9, to the composite UV-near-IR SED of a large, homogeneously selected sample of LRDs from multiple JWST Legacy fields with median redshift ⟨z⟩ ≃ 6.2 (Delvecchio …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Rest-frame Hα EW versus Balmer decrement. The red star marks the value from our super-Eddington model matched to the stacked LRD spectrum (broad Hα component). Filled symbols show literature measurements for JWST LRDs: the median of the de Graaff et al. (2025) LRD sam…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Rest-frame νLν SED illustrating the dust-reprocessed emission in our LRD model. The cyan curve shows the reddened super-Eddington AGN continuum for AV = 2.5, normalized to the Delvecchio et al. composite at λrest ≃ 7800 Å. The red dashed curve is the dust re-emission…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Misaligned or chaotic? A strong break of axial symmetry in the local LRD J1025 revealed with VLT/FORS2 spectropolarimetry
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The local Little Red Dot J1025 shows a 48° polarisation-angle offset between continuum and broad H-alpha, requiring broken axial symmetry.
Where did all the Little Red Dots go? The abundance of LRD analogues among objects with broad lines at $z < 0.35$
astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Only 0.08% of low-redshift broad-line objects have SEDs resembling high-redshift Little Red Dots, yielding nine candidates, one of which is the known analogue 'The Egg'.
NEXUS: Spectral Variability of Little Red Dots and Blue Active Galactic Nuclei at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 6$
astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Little Red Dots at z=2-6 show less than 4% intrinsic H-alpha variability on 1-3 month rest-frame timescales, a flat white-noise pattern unlike normal AGNs, implying different broad-line production.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O

Ananna, T. T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJ, 969, L18

2024
[2]

Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702

arXiv 2026
[3]

Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, L13

2024
[4]

G., Kocevski, D., et al

Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15853

arXiv 2025
[5]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214

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

arXiv 2026
[6]

C., Trump, J

Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., Trump, J. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 177

2025
[7]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

1989
[8]

M., Akins, H

Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L61

2025

Show all 69 references

[9]

2023, Rev

Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59, 327

2023
[10]

Chen, K., Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 994, L42

2025
[11]

Conroy, C., Schiminovich, D., & Blanton, M. R. 2010, ApJ, 718, 184 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 677, A56

2010
[12]

2025, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:2509.07100] D’Eugenio, F., Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., et al

Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Magnelli, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:2509.07100] D’Eugenio, F., Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2117 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Perna, M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11752 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E., Ji...

2025
[13]

C., Ding, Y., & Li, R

Du, R., Ho, L. C., Ding, Y., & Li, R. 2025, ApJ, 988, 3

2025
[14]

2008, New A Rev., 52, 274

Elitzur, M. 2008, New A Rev., 52, 274

2008
[15]

& Shlosman, I

Elitzur, M. & Shlosman, I. 2006, ApJ, 648, L101

2006
[16]

2006, MN- RAS, 366, 767

Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MN- RAS, 366, 767

2006
[17]

J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al

Furtak, L. J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57 García-Bernete, I., Pereira-Santaella, M., González-

2024
[18]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.04967

Alfonso, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.04967

2026
[19]

Gaskell, C. M. 2009, New A Rev., 53, 140

2009
[20]

Whysong, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 616, 147 González-Alfonso, E., Fischer, J., Isaak, K., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L43

2004
[21]

E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39

2024
[22]

N., Maiolino, R., Juodžbalis, I., et al

Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 138

2025
[23]

2023, ApJ, 959, 39 Hutsemékers, D., Sluse, D., Savić, D

Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39 Hutsemékers, D., Sluse, D., Savić, D. V., & Richards, G. T. 2023, A&A, 672, A45 Huško, F., Lacey, C. G., Roper, W. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2559

2023
[24]

E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T

Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57

2025
[25]

& Maiolino, R

Inayoshi, K. & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L27

2025
[26]

2025a, MN- RAS[arXiv:2507.23774]

Ji, X., D’Eugenio, F., Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2025a, MN- RAS[arXiv:2507.23774]
[27]

M., & Davis, S

Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106 Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 853 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03551 Juodžbalis, I., Marconcini, C., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 20...

2014
[28]

Kido, D., Ioka, K., Hotokezaka, K., Inayoshi, K., & Irwin, C. M. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3407

2025
[29]

2024, A&A, 691, A52

Killi, M., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A52

2024
[30]

D., Finkelstein, S

Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126

2025
[31]

E., Bezanson, R., et al

Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92

2025
[32]

E., Matthee, J., et al

Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Matthee, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04557

2024 arXiv
[33]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047

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

2024 arXiv
[34]

Leung, G. C. K., Finkelstein, S. L., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 26 Article number, page 12 of 13 Piero Madau and Roberto Maiolino: LRDs as obscured LBDs

2025
[35]

Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., Ichikawa, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 980, 36

2025
[36]

2026, ApJ, 997, 364

Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 364

2026
[37]

2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

Lupi, A., Haardt, F., Dotti, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

2016
[38]

2024, A&A, 689, A128

Lupi, A., Trinca, A., Volonteri, M., Dotti, M., & Mazzuc- chelli, C. 2024, A&A, 689, A128

2024
[39]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09854

Madau, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09854

2025
[40]

& Haardt, F

Madau, P. & Haardt, F. 2024, ApJ, 976, L24

2024
[41]

2014, ApJ, 784, L38

Madau, P., Haardt, F., & Dotti, M. 2014, ApJ, 784, L38

2014
[42]

2025, MN- RAS, 538, 1921

Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MN- RAS, 538, 1921

2025
[43]

2024, A&A, 691, A145

Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145

2024
[44]

P., Brammer, G., et al

Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

2024
[45]

A., et al

Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Mason, C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.01372

2025
[46]

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

Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2503.16596

2025 arXiv
[47]

M., Ivezić, Ž., & Elitzur, M

Nenkova, M., Sirocky, M. M., Ivezić, Ž., & Elitzur, M. 2008, ApJ, 685, 147

2008
[48]

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

Nikopoulos, G. P., Watson, D., Sneppen, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06362

2025 arXiv
[49]

& Narayan, R

Pacucci, F. & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96 Paczyńsky, B. & Wiita, P. J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23

2024
[50]

2023, A&A, 680, A102 Pérez-González, P

Pandey, A., Czerny, B., Panda, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A102 Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4

2023
[51]

Peterson, B. M. 2006, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, ed. D. Alloin, Vol. 693, 77 Pozo Nuñez, F., Haas, M., Ramolla, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A36 Savić, D. V., Hutsemékers, D., & Sluse, D. 2024, A&A, 687, A114

2006
[52]

F., Davies, F

Schindler, J.-T., Hennawi, J. F., Davies, F. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1732

2025
[53]

J., Greene, J

Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, L10

2025
[54]

1981, MNRAS, 196, 257

Sikora, M. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 257

1981
[55]

Stalevski, M., Fritz, J., Baes, M., Nakos, T., & Popović, L. Č. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2756

2012
[56]

Q., Naidu, R

Sun, W. Q., Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.20929

2026 arXiv
[57]

P., Plat, A., et al

Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Plat, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:2505.06359]

2025 arXiv
[58]

J., Finkelstein, S

Taylor, A. J., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 165

2025
[59]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00103

Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00103

2025
[60]

2026, A&A, 705, A147

Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A147

2026
[61]

2026, ApJ, 998, 60

Wada, K., Nagao, T., Shimizu, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 60

2026
[62]

L., et al

Wang, B., de Graaff, A., Davies, R. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 121

2025
[63]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06024

Wang, B., Leja, J., Labbe, I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06024

2026
[64]

Wang, J.-M., Qiu, J., Du, P., & Ho, L. C. 2014, ApJ, 797, 65

2014
[65]

& Shen, Y

Wu, Q. & Shen, Y. 2022, ApJS, 263, 42

2022
[66]

2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2512.11050

Yan, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., & Guo, J. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2512.11050

2025
[67]

T., et al

Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, L26

2024
[68]

M., Mullen, P

Zhang, L., Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 26

2025
[69]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10772 Article number, page 13 of 13

Zucchi, G., Ji, X., Madau, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10772 Article number, page 13 of 13

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O

Ananna, T. T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJ, 969, L18

2024

[2] [2]

Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702

arXiv 2026

[3] [3]

Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, L13

2024

[4] [4]

G., Kocevski, D., et al

Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15853

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214

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

arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

C., Trump, J

Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., Trump, J. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 177

2025

[7] [7]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

1989

[8] [8]

M., Akins, H

Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L61

2025