pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.08455 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A first look at quasar-galaxy clustering at zsimeq7.3

Jan-Torge Schindler , Joseph F. Hennawi , Frederick B. Davies , Sarah E. I. Bosman , Feige Wang , Jinyi Yang , Anna-Christina Eilers , Xiaohui Fan
show 3 more authors
Koki Kakiichi Elia Pizzati Riccardo Nanni
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords quasar-galaxy clusteringhigh-redshift quasarsdark matter halosJWST observationscross-correlation functionearly universe galaxieshalo mass function
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations of two z~7.3 quasars yield a quasar-galaxy correlation length of 7.6 h^{-1} cMpc, implying minimum host halo masses of 10^{11.6} solar masses.

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

The paper reports JWST imaging and spectroscopy around two quasars at redshifts 7.0 and 7.5, identifying 51 galaxies at z>5 and isolating those close in velocity to the quasars. From the combined sample the authors compute the quasar-galaxy cross-correlation function and fit it with a power-law model to obtain the correlation length. This length is converted, under the assumption that both populations trace the same dark-matter fluctuations, into a minimum halo mass via the halo model. The resulting mass is lower than values reported at z~6.25 and z~6.7, which the authors interpret as tentative evidence that quasar clustering does not increase monotonically with redshift. A duty cycle of roughly 0.05 percent is also derived and shown to be consistent with independent IGM probes.

Core claim

Combining galaxies found within 1500 km/s of the two quasars produces a measured correlation length r_0^{QG} of 7.6_{-1.6}^{+1.7} h^{-1} cMpc for a fixed slope gamma=2.0; converting this length through the halo model gives a minimum dark-matter halo mass log10(M_halo,min/Msun)=11.6_{-0.7}^{+0.6} at z~7.3.

What carries the argument

The quasar-galaxy cross-correlation function measured from spectroscopically confirmed galaxies and modeled as a power law whose amplitude is translated into halo mass using the standard halo-occupation framework.

If this is right

  • The inferred minimum halo mass lies below the values found at lower redshifts, supporting the possibility of non-monotonic redshift evolution in quasar clustering.
  • The derived quasar duty cycle of 0.05 percent matches independent estimates from proximity-zone and damping-wing analyses.
  • One galaxy lies only 7 pkpc and 360 km/s from its quasar, providing a candidate for an early quasar-galaxy merger.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the lower halo mass persists in larger samples, models of early black-hole growth would need to accommodate supermassive black holes forming inside comparatively modest dark-matter structures.
  • The close projected companion offers a direct laboratory for studying gas dynamics and star formation in the immediate vicinity of a z>7 quasar.
  • Repeating the measurement across many more quasar sight-lines at z>7 would test whether the apparent decline in clustering strength continues or reverses at still higher redshift.

Load-bearing premise

Quasars and galaxies are assumed to trace the same underlying dark-matter density field so that the observed clustering amplitude can be mapped directly to halo mass.

What would settle it

A larger sample of z~7.3 quasars whose measured correlation length falls outside the reported 1-sigma range of 6 to 9.3 h^{-1} cMpc would falsify the current halo-mass inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08455 by Anna-Christina Eilers, Elia Pizzati, Feige Wang, Frederick B. Davies, Jan-Torge Schindler, Jinyi Yang, Joseph F. Hennawi, Koki Kakiichi, Riccardo Nanni, Sarah E. I. Bosman, Xiaohui Fan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Discovery spectra of galaxies within ∥∆vLOS∥ = 1500 km s−1 to the quasar J1007+2115 (z = 7.5149). The spectrum is shown in black with vertical orange annotations highlighting possible emission line features as well as the position of the Lyα break. Uncertainties (1σ) on the spectral flux are shown in grey. [OIII] H β H γ Ly α H α 0 1 z = 6.987 MSA ID : J0252 11265 [OIII] H β H γ Ly α H α 0 2 z = 7.002 MSA … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Discovery spectra of galaxies within ∥∆vLOS∥ = 1500 km s−1 to the quasar J0252−0503 (z = 7.00). The spectrum is shown in black with vertical orange annotations highlighting possible emission line features as well as the position of the Lyα break. Uncertainties (1σ) on the spectral flux are shown in grey. slitlet nod pattern and are read out using the NRSIRS2RAPID pattern. We list the further observation in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panels: JWST NIRCam composite image (R: F444W, G: F277W, B: F115W) of the J1007+2115 (left) and J0252−0503 (right) quasar fields. The quasar position is indicated by the tip of the white arrow. The positions of galaxies within a line-of-sight velocity window of ∥∆vLOS∥ = 1500 km s−1 are indicated by white circles. Bottom panels: Angular separation of galaxies relative to quasar J1007+2115 (left) and J0… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: JWST NIRCam composite cutout (7′′ × 7 ′′; R: F444W, G: F277W, B: F115W) of the quasar J0252−0503 and its immediate en￾vironment. The quasar is the bright point source near the center. We highlight the companion galaxy, a diffuse source to the top right of the quasar, with a white circular border. The distance to the companion is 1 ′′ .26, equivalent to 6.58 pkpc or 36.87 ckpc h−1 at z = 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The background shows the F277W mosaic image of the J0252−0503 quasar field. We overplot the two MSA pointings in blue. The quasar position is depicted as an orange dot and we highlight the radial boundaries of the four annuli with solid orange lines. This im￾age underlines that within some annuli there are gaps not covered by the NIRSpec MSA pointing and/or the NIRCam imaging that are ac￾counted for in our… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The three panels highlight the redshift evolution of the auto-correlation length, the minimum dark matter halo mass and duty cycles of UV-luminous quasars from top to bottom. Results from quasar auto- or cross-correlation studies are highlighted in orange (Shen et al. 2007; White et al. 2012; Eftekharzadeh et al. 2015; Arita et al. 2023; Pizzati et al. 2024a; Eilers et al. 2024; Pizzati et al. 2024b, Wang … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present JWST observations of the environments surrounding two high-redshift quasars, J0252$-$0503 at $z = 7.0$ and J1007$+$2115 at $z = 7.5$, which enable the first constraints on quasar-galaxy clustering at $z \sim 7.3$. Galaxies in the vicinity of the quasars are selected through ground-based and JWST/NIRCam imaging and then spectroscopically confirmed with JWST/NIRSpec using the multi-shutter assembly (MSA). Over both fields, we identified 51 $z>5$ galaxies, of which eight are found within a $\Delta v_{\textrm{LOS}}=\pm1500 \rm{km} \rm{s}^{-1}$ line-of-sight velocity window from the quasars and another eight in the background. The galaxy J0252\_8713, located just $7\,\rm{pkpc}$ and $\Delta v_{\textrm{LOS}} \approx 360\,\rm{km}\,\rm{s}^{-1}$ from quasar J0252$-$0503, emerges as a compelling candidate for one of the most distant quasar-galaxy mergers. Combining the galaxy discoveries over the two fields, we measure the quasar-galaxy cross-correlation and obtain a correlation length of $r_0^{\rm{QG}}\approx7.6_{-1.6}^{+1.7}\,h^{-1}\,\rm{cMpc}$, based on a power-law model with a fixed slope of $\gamma_{\rm{QG}} = 2.0$. Under the assumption that quasars and galaxies trace the same underlying dark matter density fluctuations, we infer a minimum dark matter halo mass for $z\simeq7.3$ quasars of $\log_{10}(M_{\textrm{halo, min}}/\textrm{M}_{\odot})= 11.6_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ in a halo model framework. Compared to measurements from EIGER at $\langle z \rangle = 6.25$ and ASPIRE at $\langle z \rangle = 6.7$ (where $\log_{10}(M_{\textrm{halo, min}}/\textrm{M}_{\odot}) \gtrsim 12.3$), our clustering results provide tentative evidence for a non-monotonic redshift evolution of quasar clustering properties. We further estimate a quasar duty cycle of $f_{\rm{duty}}\approx0.05\%$, consistent with constraints from quasar proximity zones and IGM damping wings. (abridged)

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents JWST/NIRCam imaging and NIRSpec spectroscopy of the environments around two quasars (J0252−0503 at z=7.0 and J1007+2115 at z=7.5). It identifies 51 z>5 galaxies across the two fields, of which eight lie within a Δv_LOS=±1500 km s^{-1} window of the quasars. Combining these, the authors measure the quasar-galaxy cross-correlation function, obtaining r_0^QG≈7.6_{-1.6}^{+1.7} h^{-1} cMpc under a fixed power-law slope γ_QG=2.0. Under the assumption that quasars and galaxies trace the same dark matter density fluctuations, they infer a minimum halo mass log_{10}(M_halo,min/M_⊙)=11.6_{-0.7}^{+0.6} via a halo model, compare to EIGER and ASPIRE results at lower redshift, and estimate a quasar duty cycle f_duty≈0.05%.

Significance. If the central measurement and inference hold, the work supplies the first direct quasar-galaxy clustering constraint at z≃7.3, extending the redshift baseline of EIGER and ASPIRE studies. The new JWST spectroscopic confirmations in these fields constitute a valuable addition to high-redshift environment data, and the reported duty cycle is noted as consistent with independent proximity-zone and IGM damping-wing constraints.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The minimum-halo-mass result log_{10}(M_halo,min/M_⊙)=11.6 is obtained only after imposing the assumption that quasars and galaxies share identical linear bias (b_Q=b_G) when mapping the measured r_0^QG through the halo model. The data themselves do not constrain this equality; if b_Q>b_G (as expected for rarer quasar peaks), the inferred mass is biased low. This step is load-bearing for the non-monotonic evolution claim relative to EIGER (⟨z⟩=6.25) and ASPIRE (⟨z⟩=6.7).
  2. [Clustering measurement] Clustering analysis: The cross-correlation length is derived from only eight associated galaxies (across two fields) inside the ±1500 km s^{-1} velocity window. The power-law index is fixed at γ_QG=2.0 without any variation or free fit shown; given the Poisson-limited sample, the quoted uncertainties do not yet incorporate the systematic effect of this choice on the central value or on the subsequent halo-mass conversion.
  3. [Halo model framework] Halo-model section: The conversion from r_0^QG to M_halo,min applies a standard external halo model at z≈7.3 without presenting robustness checks against the bias-equality assumption or against plausible variations in the model parameters (e.g., concentration-mass relation or scatter). This model dependence is not quantified within the presented data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract ends with '(abridged)'; the full concluding sentence should be restored or the parenthetical removed.
  2. [Observations and galaxy selection] The selection and completeness of the 51 z>5 galaxies (ground-based plus NIRCam, then NIRSpec MSA confirmation) should be described with explicit criteria and any applied weights or corrections before the clustering measurement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and describe the changes we will implement. The revisions will clarify assumptions, quantify limitations, and strengthen the presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The minimum-halo-mass result log_{10}(M_halo,min/M_⊙)=11.6 is obtained only after imposing the assumption that quasars and galaxies share identical linear bias (b_Q=b_G) when mapping the measured r_0^QG through the halo model. The data themselves do not constrain this equality; if b_Q>b_G (as expected for rarer quasar peaks), the inferred mass is biased low. This step is load-bearing for the non-monotonic evolution claim relative to EIGER (⟨z⟩=6.25) and ASPIRE (⟨z⟩=6.7).

    Authors: We agree that the halo-mass inference relies on the assumption b_Q = b_G, which is explicitly stated in the manuscript as 'under the assumption that quasars and galaxies trace the same underlying dark matter density fluctuations.' If quasars occupy rarer, higher-bias peaks, the inferred minimum halo mass would indeed be biased low. The non-monotonic evolution relative to EIGER and ASPIRE is already described as 'tentative evidence' in the text. In the revised manuscript we will (i) move this assumption into the abstract itself, (ii) add a short paragraph in the discussion quantifying how a higher b_Q would shift the mass and weaken the apparent non-monotonic trend, and (iii) retain the comparison to lower-redshift works while emphasizing the shared modeling assumptions across studies. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Clustering measurement] Clustering analysis: The cross-correlation length is derived from only eight associated galaxies (across two fields) inside the ±1500 km s^{-1} velocity window. The power-law index is fixed at γ_QG=2.0 without any variation or free fit shown; given the Poisson-limited sample, the quoted uncertainties do not yet incorporate the systematic effect of this choice on the central value or on the subsequent halo-mass conversion.

    Authors: The sample of eight galaxies within the velocity window is indeed small and Poisson-limited; this is an inherent limitation of the current JWST data. Fixing γ_QG = 2.0 follows the convention used in EIGER and ASPIRE to avoid strong degeneracies with r_0 when the number of pairs is low. We acknowledge that the reported uncertainties are purely statistical and do not yet fold in the systematic uncertainty arising from this choice. In the revision we will (i) explicitly state the rationale for fixing the slope, (ii) add a sensitivity test showing r_0 and M_halo,min for γ_QG = 1.8 and 2.2, and (iii) include the resulting range as an additional systematic uncertainty in the final quoted values. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Halo model framework] Halo-model section: The conversion from r_0^QG to M_halo,min applies a standard external halo model at z≈7.3 without presenting robustness checks against the bias-equality assumption or against plausible variations in the model parameters (e.g., concentration-mass relation or scatter). This model dependence is not quantified within the presented data.

    Authors: We adopted the same halo-model framework used by EIGER and ASPIRE to permit a direct comparison at different redshifts. We agree that additional robustness checks would be valuable. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) that (i) tests the effect of relaxing b_Q = b_G by adopting a range of b_Q/b_G ratios motivated by lower-redshift quasar bias measurements, (ii) varies the concentration-mass relation within published uncertainties at z ≈ 7, and (iii) reports the resulting spread in log M_halo,min. While a full MCMC marginalization over all parameters is not feasible with only eight galaxies, these targeted checks will quantify the model dependence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses direct measurement plus external halo model

full rationale

The correlation length r_0^QG is measured directly from the spatial and velocity distribution of the eight associated galaxies identified in the two fields. The minimum halo mass is then obtained by applying a standard external halo model under the explicitly stated assumption that quasars and galaxies share the same linear bias. This step does not reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction, nor does it rely on self-citation chains, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. The central results remain independently falsifiable with additional data or alternative bias assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small observational sample, a fixed power-law slope chosen by hand, and the standard assumption that quasars and galaxies share the same large-scale bias relative to dark matter. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • fixed power-law slope γ_QG = 2.0
    Set to 2.0 in the correlation-function fit; value is not derived from the data but imposed to reduce degrees of freedom.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption quasars and galaxies trace the same underlying dark matter density fluctuations
    Invoked explicitly to convert the measured correlation length into a minimum halo mass inside the halo-model framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6077 in / 1485 out tokens · 31802 ms · 2026-05-18T08:23:35.893561+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Impact of Cosmic Variance and Satellites on JWST Clustering Measurements at Redshift around 6

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Using 1000 mock realizations matched to the ASPIRE survey, the authors find cosmic variance increases clustering errors by ~3x over Poisson estimates and widens minimum halo mass uncertainties by 1.5-3x for z~6 quasar...

  2. Probing Dark Matter Halos of High-redshift Quasars via Wide-Field Clustering

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    High-redshift quasars at 5<z<6.2 reside in dark matter halos of log(M_h/M_sun) ~12.1-12.5 with duty cycles of 0.0002-0.002 indicating obscured black hole growth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 499

    Ajiki, M., Taniguchi, Y ., Murayama, T., et al. 2006, PASJ, 58, 499

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al

    Andika, I. T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 34

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 210

    Arita, J., Kashikawa, N., Matsuoka, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 210

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 3677 Bañados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al

    Arita, J., Kashikawa, N., Onoue, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3677 Bañados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 293 Bañados, E., Venemans, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 178 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4003

    Barai, P., Gallerani, S., Pallottini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4003

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Begelman, M. C. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C

    Bennett, J. S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1033

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV , ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 112

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    & Arnouts, S

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & T. H. Handley, 228

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    2023, A&A, 672, A40

    Bonaventura, N., Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Arribas, S., & Giardino, G. 2023, A&A, 672, A40

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R. S., Oesch, P., & Stefanon, M. 2022, ApJ, 940, 55

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Labbé, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 67

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    B., Decarli, R., Casey, C

    Champagne, J. B., Decarli, R., Casey, C. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 153

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Chen, H., Eilers, A.-C., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 29

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    2019, A&A, 623, A172

    Circosta, C., Vignali, C., Gilli, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A172

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 930

    Costa, T. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 930

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., Trenti, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2146

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    M., Boyle, B

    Croom, S. M., Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 415

    work page 2005

  23. [23]

    M., Smith, R

    Croom, S. M., Smith, R. J., Boyle, B. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 322, L29

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    2024b, MNRAS, 528, 898 D’Amato, Q., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., et al

    Dalmasso, N., Trenti, M., & Leethochawalit, N. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, 898 D’Amato, Q., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A37

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., & Eilers, A.-C. 2019, ApJ, 884, L19

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    & V olonteri, M

    Devecchi, B. & V olonteri, M. 2009, ApJ, 694, 302 Di Matteo, T., Khandai, N., DeGraf, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, L29 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    D., White, M., et al

    Eftekharzadeh, S., Myers, A. D., White, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2779

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 24

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 275

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 275

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05417

    Eilers, A.-C., Yue, M., Matthee, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05417

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    P., Lyu, J., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Lyu, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4609 Euclid Collaboration, Barnett, R., Warren, S. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A85 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    A., et al

    Feng, Y ., Di-Matteo, T., Croft, R. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2778 García-Vergara, C., Hennawi, J. F., Barrientos, L. F., & Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 848, 7

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    work page 1986

  36. [36]

    2008, A&A, 482, 349

    Giallongo, E., Ragazzoni, R., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 349

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    2022, A&A, 666, A17

    Gilli, R., Norman, C., Calura, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A17

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 37

    Glikman, E., Lacy, M., LaMassa, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 37

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, L117

    Goto, T., Utsumi, Y ., Kikuta, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, L117

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

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

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    E., Setton, D

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05434

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    & Hui, L

    Haiman, Z. & Hui, L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 27

    work page 2001

  43. [43]

    & Loeb, A

    Haiman, Z. & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 459

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S33

    He, W., Akiyama, M., Bosch, J., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S33

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    F., Strauss, M

    Hennawi, J. F., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    L., et al

    Ishikawa, Y ., Wang, B., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 350

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349

    Khandai, N., Di Matteo, T., Croft, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 809

    Kim, S., Stiavelli, M., Trenti, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 809

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    D., Finkelstein, S

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

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

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

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L4

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V ., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305

    work page 1980

  58. [58]

    & Sajina, A

    Lacy, M. & Sajina, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 352

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Laurent, P., Eftekharzadeh, S., Le Goff, J.-M., et al. 2017, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys., 2017, 017

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02896

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Sun, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 5760

    Lupi, A., V olonteri, M., Decarli, R., Bovino, S., & Silk, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5760

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 784, L38

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

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145

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

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed

    Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 169

    work page 2004

  65. [65]

    & Weinberg, D

    Martini, P. & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 547, 12

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 18

    Matsuoka, Y ., Iwasawa, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 18

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21229

    Matsuoka, Y ., Iwasawa, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21229

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04825

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Iwasawa, K., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04825

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 949, L42

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Iwasawa, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L42

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    A., Kashikawa, N., et al

    Matsuoka, Y ., Strauss, M. A., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 150

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 67

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 83

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 83

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    K., Cohen, J

    McCarthy, J. K., Cohen, J. G., Butcher, B., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 3355, Op- tical Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. S. D’Odorico, 81–92

    work page 1998

  76. [76]

    A., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al

    Meyer, R. A., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 141

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    2020, A&A, 642, L1

    Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., Decarli, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, L1

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    B., Chapman, S

    Miller, T. B., Chapman, S. C., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 98

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    A., Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F

    Morey, K. A., Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., & Simcoe, R. A. 2021, ApJ, 921, 88

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    2014, A&A, 568, A1

    Morselli, L., Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A1

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.