Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Further Evidence for a Direct-Collapse Origin of the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Infinity Galaxy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A supermassive black hole at the center of the ∞ galaxy sits at rest in a gas cloud, pointing to formation in place rather than ejection from either nucleus.

desk verdict New JWST kinematics give a plausible but not airtight case for in-situ SMBH formation in the ∞ galaxy; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15619 v2 pith:YTS2TBCW submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Pieter van Dokkum , Gabriel Brammer , Connor Jennings , Imad Pasha , Josephine F. W. Baggen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassiveblackholeformationdirectcollapsecollisionalringgalaxyJWSTNIRSpecIFUgravitationalrecoilactivegalacticnucleimergersheavyseeds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the supermassive black hole at the center of the ∞ galaxy—a pair of ringed galaxies that recently collided nearly face-on—formed in place from the direct collapse of shocked gas, rather than arriving from one of the two nuclei or from a faint companion galaxy. The key evidence is kinematic: the black hole's radial velocity, measured from a broad hydrogen line, is within about 50 km/s of the velocity of the gas cloud that surrounds it, far below the hundreds-of-km/s offsets expected for an ejected or passing black hole. The authors also find active black holes in both nuclei, which rules out gravitational recoil as an ejection mechanism. If the interpretation holds, it would be the first directly observed case of a supermassive black hole caught just after formation, and would show that heavy-seed direct collapse can happen in galaxy collisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing test is a velocity-offset comparison between the SMBH and the gas around it. The SMBH's systemic velocity is derived from a broad Hβ line component assumed to trace the black hole's rest frame; this is compared to a spaxel-by-spaxel velocity field of [O III] and Hα emission across the system. The discriminating power comes from the gap between predicted offsets for competing origins: ~350 km/s for a companion galaxy, ~1200–2700 km/s for escape from the nuclei, versus tens of km/s for a black hole embedded in its birth cloud. A second, independent constraint is the discovery of AGNs in both nuclei, which forbids gravitational recoil because a recoil would leave one nucleus without a black hole.

What would settle it

If spatially resolved spectroscopy or a higher-S/N spectrum shows the broad Hβ component is extended and follows the outflow's velocity gradient rather than being a compact broad-line region, or if a deep radio image resolves the central source into a jet lobe emanating from the NW nucleus, the in situ formation conclusion would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the SMBH in the ∞ galaxy is kinematically tied to a ~10 kpc cloud of ionized gas that sits between the two colliding galaxies. Using JWST NIRSpec IFU data, the authors measure the SMBH's velocity from a broad Hβ component with FWHM 970 ± 123 km/s and find that it differs from the mean velocity of the 25 spaxels within 1.2 kpc by only 31 ± 36 km/s, with an rms scatter of ~50 km/s. Escape velocities from the nuclei are ~1200–2700 km/s and the system's velocity dispersion is ~350 km/s, so the close match strongly disfavors ejection or a passing dwarf galaxy. The additional discovery of broad Hα emission (FWHM ~2500–2900 km/s) in both nuclei shows each nucleus hosts an active SMBH, eliminating gravitational recoil as a possible origin. The paper concludes that the object most likely formed in situ, via runaway gravitational collapse of the shocked gas, making it a candidate newly formed SMBH.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the broad Hβ line (FWHM 970 km/s) reveals the black hole's own motion; as the authors acknowledge, if that line is instead turbulent outflow gas, the velocity match with the surrounding cloud would not test the black hole's origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central SMBH formed in situ, it would be the first directly observed newly formed supermassive black hole, demonstrating that direct collapse of gas clouds occurs in the present-day universe, not only at high redshift.
  • The gravitational-recoil and dwarf-galaxy explanations for off-center SMBHs are effectively ruled out for this system, shifting the interpretation of similar objects toward in situ formation.
  • The collision of two gas-rich galaxies can trigger runaway collapse in the shocked gas between them, adding a concrete formation channel to heavy-seed models of SMBH seeds.
  • The presence of three active SMBHs in a single colliding system supports the view that mergers concentrate gas both in nuclei and at the collision site, and that such events can synchronously feed multiple black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the object is a genuinely newborn SMBH, the ∞ galaxy offers a rare chance to measure a seed mass directly—for example via reverberation mapping of the broad Hβ region—and to test whether direct-collapse seeds fall in the predicted ~10^4–10^5 solar mass range.
  • The same kinematic-coincidence test could be applied to other off-center SMBH candidates in merging and ring galaxies, turning isolated cases into a statistical sample that could establish in situ formation as a common pathway.
  • A decisive independent check would be a deep, high-resolution radio map: if the central radio source resolves into a jet lobe from the NW nucleus, as a parallel study proposes, the identification of the ionization source and the SMBH would need to be revisited.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST NIRSpec IFU observations of the z=1.14 'Infinity' galaxy, a binary collisional ring system with two nuclei and a cloud of ionized gas between them. The authors confirm that the cloud is photoionized by an AGN-like source, measure the radial velocity of the central SMBH from a broad Hβ component (FWHM 970 ± 123 km s−1), and compare it with the velocity of the surrounding gas. They find the SMBH is offset by 31 ± 36 km s−1 from the gas within 0.15 arcsec, and that both nuclei show very broad Hα emission attributed to active SMBHs. They argue that the small velocity offset rules out ejection or a dwarf-galaxy association and favors in-situ formation by direct collapse, strengthening their earlier hypothesis.

Significance. If the central kinematic comparison is sound, this is a unique and important test of direct-collapse SMBH formation: rather than inferring seed masses from high-redshift scaling relations, it directly compares a candidate newly formed SMBH's velocity with its purported birth cloud. The prediction that a directly collapsed SMBH should share the gas velocity is physical and not fitted to the data, and the discovery of broad Hα in both nuclei is an interesting check on recoil scenarios. The data reduction and emission-line fitting are carefully presented, and the paper includes a frank comparison with the independent 'Cosmic Owl' analysis of Li et al. (2025). The main weakness is that the SMBH velocity relies on a broad Hβ component that the authors themselves acknowledge could be outflowing gas; this systematic ambiguity is not propagated into the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.3, §6] The inference that the SMBH is nearly at rest with respect to the surrounding gas depends entirely on identifying the broad Hβ component with the SMBH's rest frame. The authors explicitly note that this component could be turbulent dense gas in an outflow rather than the BLR. If it is an outflow, the measured z_BH is not the systemic velocity of the SMBH, and AGN outflows are commonly offset by hundreds of km s−1 from systemic; the blue wing of [O III] in Fig. 4 illustrates the presence of outflowing gas in the same aperture. The quoted ±35 km s−1 uncertainty in z_BH is statistical only and does not include this systematic ambiguity. Because the velocity comparison is the paper's central test, the conclusion 'effectively rules out' escape/recoil and the 1–3% probabilities in §6 are not supported unless this systematic is quantified and propagated.
  2. [§6] The probability estimates against an escaped SMBH (1–3%) are not derived from an explicitly specified distribution of three-dimensional ejection or recoil velocities. The line-of-sight component can be small even if the SMBH were ejected at high speed nearly in the plane of the sky, so the quoted probability implicitly assumes an isotropic prior on the ejection direction and a specific speed distribution. Please specify the model, including the treatment of the unknown in-plane motion, and state how the 1–3% numbers are computed; otherwise the 'rules out' language is stronger than the statistics warrant.
  3. [§5] The claim that both nuclei contain active SMBHs, which is used to rule out gravitational-recoil ejection, rests on broad Hα components with FWHM ~2500–2900 km s−1 together with LINER-like narrow-line ratios. The authors note that 'emission from the BLR could contribute as well', leaving open the possibility that these broad components are kpc-scale outflows rather than BLR emission. Since the nuclei are massive bulges they likely host SMBHs, but the activity in both nuclei is not established beyond doubt. Please quantify the robustness of the broad-line detection, for example by testing alternative continuum placements or narrow-line decompositions, or soften the recoil argument accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, §4.1, §3.1] There are several typographical errors: 'absense' should be 'absence' in §1, 'accellerated' should be 'accelerated' in §4.1, and 'the sensitive of Keck/LRIS' should be 'the sensitivity of Keck/LRIS' in §3.1.
  2. [§4.3, abstract] The text quotes two offsets, 3 ± 36 km s−1 for all spaxels and 31 ± 36 km s−1 for the 25 immediate spaxels, while the abstract and §6 use 'within ~50 km/s' without specifying which. Please state the near-SMBH mean and its scatter explicitly in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [Fig. 5] The velocity map would benefit from an explicit color bar with km s−1 units and a scale bar; currently the reader must rely on the text for the velocity range and the physical scale.
  4. [Fig. 4] Showing the residuals of the fits, or an error envelope, would help the reader assess whether the broad Hβ component is required by the data rather than being an artifact of the assumed decomposition with the scaled [O III] profile.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central velocity comparison is an independent new-data test, and the paper's acknowledged ambiguity about the broad H-beta component is a systematic uncertainty, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is tested with newly obtained JWST NIRSpec IFU data, not with values derived from the hypothesis itself. The key test compares the radial velocity of the SMBH, inferred from a broad H-beta component, to the velocity of the surrounding gas. This is a genuinely independent physical expectation: the direct-collapse scenario predicts approximate co-motion, whereas ejection or passage scenarios predict large offsets. The comparison is not fitted or reverse-engineered from the conclusion. The broad H-beta component's interpretation is explicitly acknowledged as uncertain ('This broad component could be the BLR, but it could also be turbulent dense gas in the outflow'), but this is a stated assumption and a potential systematic error, not a circular definition. Masses, escape velocities, and other inputs are taken from the authors' prior paper, but those are prior measurements and independent evidence, not the conclusion being derived. The photoionization model in Section 3.3 is an assumed model fit to the observed surface brightness profile, not a prediction derived from first principles; its success is suggestive but not circular. There is no equation in which the output equals an input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The main circularity-adjacent feature is that the direct-collapse hypothesis originates in the authors' own paper I, but this paper tests that hypothesis with new data, so the self-citation does not make the derivation circular. The appropriate finding is low circularity: score 2, reflecting the self-citation context while recognizing that the central claim has independent observational content.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on observational assumptions: the identification of the broad Hβ component as the BLR, the interpretation of the gas kinematics, the photoionization model, and the collisional ring scenario from the authors' prior paper. The free parameters in the cloud density model are not load-bearing for the velocity test.

free parameters (4)
  • rcore = 0.29″ ± 0.02″
    Fitted to the [O III] surface brightness profile in §3.3. It describes the cloud density core, but is not load-bearing for the central velocity test.
  • α (outer density slope) = 0.75 ± 0.05
    Fitted to the surface brightness profile in §3.3. Not central to the main claim.
  • rmax (outer cloud edge) = 2.5″ ± 0.7″
    Fitted in §3.3, poorly constrained. Not central to the main claim.
  • σ∞ (system velocity dispersion) = ≈350 km/s
    Used in §6 to estimate the probability (7%) that a dwarf galaxy would have the observed velocity offset. Derived from M ~ 3×10^11 M_sun and R ~ 5 kpc, not measured directly. The probability argument depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The broad Hβ component traces the SMBH's rest frame (BLR).
    The velocity test in §4.3 assumes the broad Hβ redshift equals the SMBH's systemic velocity. If the broad component is instead turbulent gas in an outflow, as the authors acknowledge in §4.1, the measured 'SMBH' velocity could be biased.
  • domain assumption The gas velocity field is dominated by the dynamics of the collision remnant, and the local gas is a tracer of the cloud's rest frame.
    The comparison in §4.3 assumes the surrounding gas represents the birth cloud's rest frame. Outflows or tidal disturbances could decouple gas motions from the cloud's systemic velocity.
  • domain assumption The [O III] surface brightness profile is produced by photoionization by the central source, not by shocks.
    The density profile inference in §3.3 assumes a central photoionizing source. Shock with precursors can mimic AGN spectra, though the authors argue against this based on high surface brightness and monotonic falloff.
  • domain assumption The system is a binary collisional ring system, as established in paper I.
    The interpretation of the gas dynamics and the 'mini-bullet' collision scenario relies on the collisional ring model from van Dokkum et al. (2025). The escape velocity calculations also use masses and scale lengths from paper I.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Further Evidence for a Direct-Collapse Origin of the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Infinity Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTS2TBCW

@misc{pith2026250615619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Further Evidence for a Direct-Collapse Origin of the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Infinity Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTS2TBCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15619}
}
abstract

The z=1.14 $\infty$ galaxy consists of two ringed nuclei with an active supermassive black hole (SMBH) in between them. The system is likely the result of a nearly face-on collision between two disk galaxies with massive bulges. In van Dokkum et al. (2025) we suggested that the SMBH may have formed from shocked and compressed gas at the collision site, in a runaway gravitational collapse. Here we test this hypothesis using newly obtained JWST NIRSpec IFU observations. We first confirm that the system has a cloud of gas in between the nuclei that is photo-ionized by an AGN-like object near its center. Next, we constrain the origin of the SMBH from its radial velocity. If it formed in the cloud its velocity should be similar to the surrounding gas, whereas it would be offset if the SMBH had escaped from one of the nuclei or were associated with a faint galaxy. We find that the radial velocity of the SMBH is within $\sim 50$ km/s of that of the surrounding gas, as expected if the SMBH formed within the cloud. Unexpectedly, we find that both nuclei have active SMBHs as well, as inferred from very broad H$\alpha$ emission with FWHM $\sim 3000$ km/s. This rules out scenarios where the central SMBH was ejected from one of the nuclei in a gravitational recoil. Taken together, these results strengthen the hypothesis that the object at the center of the $\infty$ galaxy is a newly formed SMBH.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NIRSpec IFU observations of the ∞ galaxy. Top left: Broad band image of the galaxy created from the NIRCAM F090W (blue), F115W + F150W (green), and F200W (red) data, sampled at 0. ′′02 resolution with North up and East to the left. Top right: Example spectra from three different regions, highlighting the diversity of spectra in the data cube. Bottom: Maps of [O III], Hα, and [N II] emission, sampled with 0. ′′05 pix… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Line ratios. Left: Map of the [O III]/Hα ratio, multiplied by a factor of 4 so values can be more easily compared to [O III]/Hβ measurements. Middle: Map of the [N II]/Hα ratio. Right: Individual 0. ′′05×0. ′′05 spaxels in the BPT diagram. The cloud shows very high 4× [O III]/Hα ratios of ∼ 10, and is in the Seyfert regime. The nuclei are in the LINER part of the BPT diagram, and the ring is consistent with star for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial average surface brightness profile of the [O III] emission in the cloud. The profile has a clear peak and falls off monotonically. The red line shows the expectation for photoion￾ization, with the gas having a constant density core with a radius of rcore = 2.5 kpc and a powerlaw distribution with n ∝ r −0.75 at r > rcore. Under the assumption of photoionization by a central ob￾ject, we can use the surface bri… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emission line fits in the central pixel. Left: The [O III] λ5007 line. The line profile has a blue wing, and is modeled as a combination of two Gaussians (red line). The average [O III] line profile of Type 1 SDSS AGN is also shown (blue). Middle: The Hβ line is modele…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Velocities in the ∞ galaxy, with respect to the redshift of the SMBH. Spaxels are 0. ′′05×0. ′′05 near the SMBH and 0. ′′1×0. ′′1 elsewhere. Right: Line widths. The kinematics of the galaxy are complex, with strong local velocity gradients and several regions wit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Velocity distribution in the ∞ system. The open his￾togram shows all spaxels in the 0. ′′1 cube; the blue histogram shows spaxels in the 0. ′′05 cube that are within a distance of 0. ′′15 of the SMBH. The grey band indicates the uncertainty in the redshift of the SMBH …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectra of 0. ′′2 × 0. ′′2 regions centered on the two nuclei. Both nuclei show very broad Hα emission, in addition to a narrow Hα + [N II] component. The line widths of the broad components are FWHM = 2850 km s−1 and FWHM = 2480 km s−1 for ∞SE and ∞NW, respectively. T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    602C `\.=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    G., Groves , B

    Allen , M. G., Groves , B. A., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., & Kewley , L. J. 2008, , 178, 20, 10.1086/589652

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  3. [3]

    N., & Struck-Marcell , C

    Appleton , P. N., & Struck-Marcell , C. 1996, , 16, 111

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    N., Emonts , B., Lisenfeld , U., et al

    Appleton , P. N., Emonts , B., Lisenfeld , U., et al. 2022, , 931, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b2 2022

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  6. [6]

    Bekenstein , J. D. 1973, , 183, 657, 10.1086/152255

    doi:10.1086/152255 1973

  7. [7]

    Brinchmann , J., Charlot , S., White , S. D. M., et al. 2004, , 351, 1151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    2003, , 596, 34, 10.1086/377529

    Bromm , V., & Loeb , A. 2003, , 596, 34, 10.1086/377529

    doi:10.1086/377529 2003

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.15178003

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.15178003

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000ApJ...533..682C&db_key=AST

    2000

  3. [11]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, L5, 10.1086/516712

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, L5, 10.1086/516712

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, , 717, 209, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/209

    Civano , F., Elvis , M., Lanzuisi , G., et al. 2010, , 717, 209, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/209

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    H., et al

    Clowe , D., Brada c , M., Gonzalez , A. H., et al. 2006, , 648, L109, 10.1086/508162

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Ilha , G

    Deconto-Machado , A., Riffel , R. A., Ilha , G. S., et al. 2022, , 659, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140613

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Sutherland , R

    Dopita , M. A., & Sutherland , R. S. 1995, , 455, 468

    1995

  8. [16]

    G., et al

    Ebisuzaki , T., Makino , J., Tsuru , T. G., et al. 2001, , 562, L19, 10.1086/338118

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison , S. L., Patton , D. R., Mendel , J. T., & Scudder , J. M. 2011, , 418, 2043, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    2011

  10. [18]

    2009, , 184, 158, 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/158

    Elvis , M., Civano , F., Vignali , C., et al. 2009, , 184, 158, 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/158

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Ferland , G

    Gaskell , C. M., & Ferland , G. J. 1984, , 96, 393, 10.1086/131352

    1984 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Labbe , I., Goulding , A

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

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Rees , M

    Haehnelt , M. G., & Rees , M. J. 1993, , 263, 168, 10.1093/mnras/263.1.168

    1993 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Alexander , D

    Harrison , C. M., Alexander , D. M., Mullaney , J. R., & Swinbank , A. M. 2014, , 441, 3306, 10.1093/mnras/stu515

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    1990, , 356, 359, 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist , L. 1990, , 356, 359, 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  16. [24]

    2007, , 377, 957, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x

    Hoffman , L., & Loeb , A. 2007, , 377, 957, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x

    2007

  17. [25]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    2003

  18. [26]

    J., Dopita , M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Leitherer , C., et al. 2013, , 774, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/100

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, , 917, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16e0

    Lee , J., Shin , E.-j., & Kim , J.-h. 2021, , 917, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16e0

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Li , M., Emonts , B. H. C., Cai , Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10058, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10058

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2006, , 371, 1813, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    Lodato , G., & Natarajan , P. 2006, , 371, 1813, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    2006

  22. [30]

    O., & Zlochower , Y

    Lousto , C. O., & Zlochower , Y. 2011, , 83, 024003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.024003

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    1976, , 209, 382, 10.1086/154730

    Lynds , R., & Toomre , A. 1976, , 209, 382, 10.1086/154730

    1976 doi

  24. [32]

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

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    1998, , 115, 2285

    Magorrian , J., Tremaine , S., Richstone , D., et al. 1998, , 115, 2285

    1998

  26. [34]

    P., Brammer , G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, , 810, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/51

    Mayer , L., Fiacconi , D., Bonoli , S., et al. 2015, , 810, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/51

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2010, , 466, 1082, 10.1038/nature09294

    Mayer , L., Kazantzidis , S., Escala , A., & Callegari , S. 2010, , 466, 1082, 10.1038/nature09294

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Alexander , D

    Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., Fine , S., et al. 2013, , 433, 622, 10.1093/mnras/stt751

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, , 838, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6330

    Natarajan , P., Pacucci , F., Ferrara , A., et al. 2017, , 838, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6330

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, , 960, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

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

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Liu , Q., et al

    Pasha , I., van Dokkum , P. G., Liu , Q., et al. 2025, , 980, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f5c

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    C., O'Dea , C

    Privon , G. C., O'Dea , C. P., Baum , S. A., et al. 2008, , 175, 423, 10.1086/525024

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    Rauscher , B. J. 2024, , 136, 015001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 72, 10.33232/001c.123239

    Regan , J., & Volonteri , M. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 72, 10.33232/001c.123239

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Vieira, J

    Rigby, J. R., Vieira, J. D., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2023, JWST Early Release Science Program TEMPLATES: Targeting Extremely Magnified Panchromatic Lensed Arcs and their Extended Star formation. 2312.10465

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C., Valtonen , M

    Saslaw , W. C., Valtonen , M. J., & Aarseth , S. J. 1974, , 190, 253, 10.1086/152870

    1974 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, , 488, L24, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    Silk , J. 2019, , 488, L24, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2005, , 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel , V., Di Matteo , T., & Hernquist , L. 2005, , 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  40. [48]

    P., Tadhunter , C., et al

    Tilak , A., O'Dea , C. P., Tadhunter , C., et al. 2005, , 130, 2513, 10.1086/497265

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Tremmel , M., Governato , F., Volonteri , M., Pontzen , A., & Quinn , T. R. 2018, , 857, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/aabc0a

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, , 975, 286, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ff0

    Uppal , A., Ward , C., Gezari , S., et al. 2024, , 975, 286, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ff0

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    van Dokkum , P., Brammer , G., Baggen , J. F. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15618, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15618

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    L., et al

    van Dokkum , P., Pasha , I., Buzzo , M. L., et al. 2023, , 946, L50, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba86

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Askar , A., Kamlah , A

    Vergara , M. C., Askar , A., Kamlah , A. W. H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07491, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07491

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    Volonteri , M. 2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Regan , J

    Wise , J. H., Regan , J. A., O'Shea , B. W., et al. 2019, , 566, 85, 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    R., & Struck , C

    Yeager , T. R., & Struck , C. 2019, , 486, 2660, 10.1093/mnras/stz916

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.