Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Dwarf Galaxies with Radio-excess AGNs in the VLA Sky Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ten nearby dwarf galaxies host radio-excess AGNs picked out by a 2-sigma infrared-radio cutoff, and most are physically associated with their hosts.

desk verdict A careful, useful VLASS-based dwarf-galaxy AGN catalog whose main weakness is an unquantified transfer of the IR-radio cutoff to W4-faint, possibly extended dwarfs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14535 v1 pith:ZPUHZNQS submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.GA

John-Michael Eberhard , Amy E. Reines , Hansung B. Gim , Jeremy Darling , Jenny E. Greene This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesradio-excessAGNinfrared-radiocorrelationintermediate-massblackholesVLASSWISEradiovariabilityactivegalacticnuclei
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

The paper tries to establish that a simple radio-versus-infrared ratio can pick out accreting massive black holes in dwarf galaxies, where optical and X-ray surveys miss many sources. Using roughly 7,000 galaxies with radio detections from VLASS and infrared detections from WISE, the authors calibrate the infrared-radio correlation parameter $q$ and set a $2\sigma$ threshold of $q < 1.94$ to separate star-formation radio emission from radio-excess AGNs. Applying this threshold to dwarf galaxies with $M_\star \le 3\times 10^9\,M_\odot$ and $z \le 0.15$, after removing interlopers and checking supernova-remnant explanations, they find ten candidates, five of which are identified as AGNs for the first time. If the physical association with the hosts holds, these are new intermediate-mass black hole candidates in a mass range that is hard to populate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the infrared-radio correlation parameter $q$, defined by $q = \log(L_{\rm IR}/(3.75\times 10^{12}\,L_{1.4\,{\rm GHz}}))$, which captures the tight relation between radio and far-infrared emission in star-forming galaxies. The authors measure $q$ for a sample of about 7,000 galaxies drawn from the NASA-Sloan Atlas with VLASS 3 GHz detections, WISE W4 detections with $S/N \ge 5$, and point-like WISE profiles, excluding mid-IR-selected AGNs. The distribution peaks at $q_{\rm peak}=2.62$ with scatter $\sigma = 0.34$, giving the $2\sigma$ threshold $q<1.94$. This threshold is what separates star-formation-powered radio emission from radio-excess AGNs; applying it to dwarf galaxies, with a 2.5 arcsecond matching radius and visual and spectroscopic interloper removal, produces the ten candidates. The Chomiuk and Wilcots relation is used to rule out individual or collective supernova remnants as the radio source.

What would settle it

Measure the full $q$ distribution for a volume-limited sample of dwarf galaxies with no AGN signatures, using deep radio and infrared data; if more than about two percent of such dwarfs have $q<1.94$, the ten radio-excess AGN candidates could be ordinary low-$q$ star-forming galaxies rather than accreting black holes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ten dwarf galaxies, each with stellar mass below about three billion solar masses and redshift at most 0.15, contain radio sources whose 3 GHz luminosity is too high relative to their total infrared luminosity to be explained by star formation. The excess is measured by $q = \log(L_{\rm IR}/(3.75\times 10^{12}\,L_{1.4\,{\rm GHz}}))$; sources with $q < 1.94$, two standard deviations below the peak of the calibration distribution, are classified as radio-excess AGNs. Statistical matching arguments predict fewer than one background interloper among the ten, and optical emission-line diagnostics place some of the hosts in AGN or composite regions, supporting physical association. The paper therefore presents these ten as strong intermediate-mass black hole candidates, five newly recognized as AGNs, and separately reports eight variable radio sources in dwarf galaxies found by comparing VLASS epochs to FIRST.

Load-bearing premise

The ten candidates are selected with a $q<1.94$ cutoff calibrated on higher-mass galaxies with strong WISE detections, while several dwarf hosts have only upper limits on their infrared luminosity, so the selection assumes dwarf star-forming galaxies scatter around the infrared-radio relation no more than the calibration sample does.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ten dwarf galaxies become high-priority targets for X-ray, very long baseline interferometry, and optical follow-up; confirming any of them would add intermediate-mass black hole candidates near $10^5$-$10^6\,M_\odot$.
  • Five of the ten are identified as AGNs for the first time, showing that radio-excess selection catches dwarf AGNs that optical emission-line and mid-infrared color diagnostics miss.
  • The published catalogs of radio-excess AGNs and star-forming galaxies give the community a directly usable sample for measuring how the AGN fraction changes with galaxy mass and redshift.
  • Eight variable radio sources in dwarf galaxies, seen by comparing VLASS epochs with FIRST, imply that radio variability is common among these candidates and needs multi-band follow-up to distinguish AGN variability from transients such as tidal disruption events or radio-loud supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same $q<1.94$ threshold is applied to dwarfs with weak WISE detections, its validity rests on the infrared-radio scatter in dwarf galaxies being no larger than in the calibration sample; measuring the actual dwarf $q$ distribution would test whether any of the ten are ordinary low-$q$ star-forming outliers rather than AGNs.
  • Beyond the paper, the same selection on the completed three-epoch VLASS could multiply the dwarf AGN sample; the catalogs published here provide the selection function needed to estimate intermediate-mass black hole occupation fractions, which would bear directly on black hole seeding models.
  • The variable sources could also be followed up as tidal disruption event candidates, since the small black holes in dwarfs have strong tidal fields and the paper's luminosity arguments already exclude ordinary supernova remnants.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper searches for radio-excess AGN candidates in dwarf galaxies by defining an infrared-radio correlation (IRRC) parameter q from VLASS 3 GHz and WISE W4 22 micron measurements. A Gaussian fit to the q distribution of ~6,800 galaxies in the NASA-Sloan Atlas with good W4 detections gives q_peak = 2.62, sigma = 0.34, and a 2-sigma cutoff q < 1.94. This cutoff is applied to 63,656 NSA dwarfs (M* <= 3e9 Msun, z <= 0.15) cross-matched to VLASS, yielding 123 radio matches, then 50 bona fide dwarfs after visual and spectroscopic interloper removal (HII regions, quasars, an unreliable NSA mass, PTF11qcj, and the background quasar J1136+1252). Ten objects with q < 1.94 are presented as the final radio-excess AGN sample, with five claimed as newly identified AGNs in dwarfs and eight variable radio sources relative to FIRST or VLASS epoch 1. The authors provide public catalogs of radio-excess AGNs and SF-consistent galaxies, and they argue on statistical grounds and via emission-line diagnostics that most of the ten sources are physically associated with their dwarf hosts.

Significance. If the ten candidates are genuine dwarf-galaxy AGNs, the paper provides a valuable, homogeneous VLASS-based sample of IMBH candidates, including several objects not previously recognized as AGNs and eight variables that merit follow-up. The publicly released catalogs (radio-excess AGNs and SF-consistent galaxies) are a useful community resource, and the careful interloper removal and quantitative checks against SNR luminosity relations are strengths. The novelty is incremental relative to Reines et al. (2020) and other radio searches, but the extension to the larger NSA volume with VLASS yields new candidates and demonstrates a reproducible selection recipe. The central risk is the transfer of the q < 1.94 threshold from a W4-bright, point-like calibration sample to W4-faint, potentially extended dwarfs, which is the main correctness concern for the headline claim; the paper itself acknowledges this uncertainty only qualitatively.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 5.1] The q < 1.94 cutoff is calibrated on galaxies with W4 S/N >= 5 and on point-like WISE sources (the 219 extended sources with w4chi2 > 3 are removed), but it is then applied to dwarf galaxies without either a W4 S/N cut or an extended-source correction. Seven of the ten candidates have upper-limit L_TIR (Table 1), so their q values are formally upper limits; if W4 profile-fit fluxes are underestimated for resolved dwarf hosts, the true q may exceed 1.94 and the radio-excess classification could fail. The authors discuss this selection-function issue qualitatively (including the Delvecchio et al. 2021 result that <q> rises at low stellar mass and their own statement that the dwarf cutoff is likely higher), but they do not quantify the dwarf q distribution, the expected false-positive rate from star-forming dwarfs, or the size of the W4 extended-source bias. Since the five newly identified dwarf-AGN claims rest entirely on this transfer, a quantitative treatment (or a conservative re-analysis with forced aperture photometry or W4 upper limits treated as full limits) is needed.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Table 1] The claim that candidate IDs 6 and 7 are 'extended' (Psi_maj of 3.2 and 2.6 arcsec, respectively) is presented as possible jet evidence, but extended structure is also a natural consequence of the star-forming disk emission that the q criterion is meant to exclude. Given that most of the ten sources have upper-limit L_TIR and hence uncertain q, the two extended sources are the least secure AGN identifications; a VLASS quick-look image cutout with a resolved SF disk or a stacking test would clarify whether the extended radio emission is compact-core plus jets or distributed disk emission.
  3. [Section 5.2] The background contamination estimate of 4.4 +/- 2 coincidental matches is derived from the full 123 dwarf-VLASS matches and then quoted as implying 'less than 1' background source among the 10 final candidates. Because the final sample is filtered by q < 1.94 and by WISE associations, the background fraction among q-selected objects is not necessarily the same as the geometric expectation for all 123 matches; a background AGN that is radio loud and infrared faint will preferentially pass the q cut. The statistical argument would be more convincing if it were recomputed for the q < 1.94 subpopulation or with a Monte Carlo that includes realistic radio flux distributions of background AGNs.
  4. [Section 5.6] The comparison to Reines et al. (2020) correctly explains why only 2 of the 13 Reines et al. objects survive into the new sample, but the discussion treats the five VLASS non-detections of FIRST sources above 4 mJy as 'likely variable sources' without ruling out catalog-level issues such as VLASS quality flags, sidelobe confusion, or source blending at 2.5 arcsec resolution. A simple check of the VLASS quick-look images at the Reines et al. positions would strengthen the variability claim; as written, the variability interpretation is plausible but not fully demonstrated.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'radio-excess AGNs' is used interchangeably for candidates and confirmed AGNs; the abstract should state explicitly that the ten are candidates requiring follow-up.
  2. [Section 2.1] The processing description says the CIRADA quality flag removes sources with peak brightness less than 5 times the local RMS, but the paper does not state how the integrated flux (S_3GHz) in Table 1 is measured (CIRADA catalog values vs. new aperture photometry); a sentence on the provenance of the tabulated flux densities would remove ambiguity.
  3. [Section 3.3, Equation 2] The spectral-index conversion is applied to sources without FIRST detections assuming alpha = -0.7, but the text does not report the uncertainty introduced by this assumption into q; a brief error-propagation statement would help the reader gauge the 2-sigma threshold's robustness.
  4. [Table 1] The units of L_TIR are listed as W, while L_3GHz and L_1.4GHz are in W Hz^-1; this is correct but should be stated in the table note for clarity.
  5. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'we find considerable uncertainty in the average value of q for galaxies with masses M* <= 10^9.5 Msun' is understated; the small-number caveat applies to the entire dwarf mass regime and should appear earlier in the selection discussion.
  6. [Figure 19] Several objects (IDs 3, 7, 9) have W3 upper limits and are plotted as triangles; the caption should note which points are upper limits in each band so the reader does not infer constraining WISE colors for those objects.
  7. [Section 5.7] The variable-source count of 8 is assembled from heterogeneous criteria (objects detected in VLASS but not FIRST, objects detected in FIRST but not VLASS, and one object missing only VLASS epoch 1); a table or list of the 8 objects with their detection history (FIRST, VLASS e1, VLASS e2) would make the claim more verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the q < 1.94 cutoff is calibrated on an independent full-mass NSA-VLASS-WISE sample and then applied to dwarf galaxies; the 10 candidates are outputs, not inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The radio-excess threshold q < 1.94 is obtained in Section 3.3 from a Gaussian fit to the q distribution of ~6,772 galaxies with W4 S/N >= 5 and point-like WISE profiles, after removing mid-IR AGNs. This calibration sample spans the full stellar-mass range and is not constructed from the dwarf sample; the dwarf sample (Section 5.1) is used only as the target to which the externally calibrated threshold is applied. Interloper removal is based on visual inspection, SDSS/NED spectra, and published identifications (e.g., PTF11qcj, the background quasar in J1136+1252), not on re-fitting q. The background contamination estimate in Section 5.2 is recomputed from the observed offset distribution, and the statement that <~1 of 10 sources may be background is an output of that calculation. Self-citations to Reines et al. (2020) provide comparison catalogs and methodological precedent, but the classification of the 10 dwarfs does not reduce to those citations; where prior work is used for individual sources (IDs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8), it is corroborated by independent VLASS, X-ray, WISE, or BPT data. The main caveats are selection-function related rather than circular: applying the point-source-calibrated, W4-bright cutoff to W4-faint, possibly extended dwarfs may bias q, and the SNR/SFR consistency check in Section 5.1 uses SFRs derived from the same W4-based L_TIR that enters q, so it is not a fully independent test. These affect robustness of the AGN interpretation but do not constitute a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Overall, the ten dwarf radio-excess AGN candidates are the output of an external benchmark, not a quantity fed back into the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on an empirically fitted q threshold transferred across a luminosity-selected sample, plus literature relations for LTIR from W4 and SNR radio luminosities. No ad hoc entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • qpeak = 2.62
    Fitted peak of the Gaussian to the IRRC q distribution of the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample; sets the zero point for the radio-excess cutoff in Section 3.3.
  • sigma_q = 0.34
    Fitted Gaussian scatter of the same q distribution; the cutoff is qpeak - 2*sigma_q = 1.94.
  • alpha = -0.7
    Assumed radio spectral index for the roughly 25% of sources without FIRST detections, used in the K-correction and 3 GHz to 1.4 GHz conversion in Section 3.3. It is a standard literature value but chosen by hand for these sources.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The q distribution for star-forming galaxies in the calibration sample is approximately Gaussian, so a 2 sigma cutoff cleanly separates SF from radio-excess AGNs.
    Section 3.3 fits a Gaussian to the distribution and defines q < 1.94 as the 2 sigma threshold; real IRRC scatter may be asymmetric or have tails that change the false-positive rate.
  • domain assumption After removing mid-IR AGNs, the IR emission of the remaining calibration galaxies is dominated by star formation.
    Section 3.2 states this assumption explicitly before calculating q for the sample.
  • domain assumption The trend that average q increases with decreasing stellar mass holds down to dwarf galaxy masses, making the higher-mass q cutoff conservative when applied to dwarfs.
    Section 5.1 invokes Delvecchio et al. (2021) and notes the sample size in the lowest mass bins is small, so the trend below 10^9.5 Msun is not directly verified.
  • domain assumption The Chomiuk and Wilcots (2009) relations between SFR and the luminosity of the brightest SNR, and the SNR luminosity function, apply to the dwarf galaxies in this sample.
    Section 5.1 uses these relations to argue that SNRs cannot explain the observed radio luminosities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dwarf Galaxies with Radio-excess AGNs in the VLA Sky Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPUHZNQS

@misc{pith2026241114535,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dwarf Galaxies with Radio-excess AGNs in the VLA Sky Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPUHZNQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14535}
}
abstract

We present a systematic search for radio active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in dwarf galaxies using recent observations taken by the Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS). To select these objects, we first establish a criterion to identify radio-excess AGNs using the infrared-radio correlation (IRRC) parameter, $q$, that describes the tight relation between radio and IR emission in star forming (SF) galaxies. We find a $2\sigma$ threshold of $q < 1.94$ to select radio-excess AGNs, which is derived from a sample of $\sim 7,000$ galaxies across the full mass range in the NASA-Sloan Atlas (NSA) that have radio and IR detections from VLASS and the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer, respectively. We create catalogs of radio-excess AGNs and SF galaxies and make these available to the community. Applying our criterion to dwarf galaxies with stellar masses $M_\star \lesssim 3 \times 10^9 M_\odot$ and redshifts $z \le 0.15$, and carefully removing interlopers, we find 10 radio-excess AGNs with radio-optical positional offsets between $\sim$ 0 and 2.3 arcseconds (0 - 2.7 kpc). Based on statistical arguments and emission line diagnostics, we expect the majority of these radio-excess AGNs to be associated with the dwarf host galaxies rather than background AGNs. Five of the objects have evidence for hosting AGNs at other wavelengths, and 5 objects are identified as AGNs in dwarf galaxies for the first time. We also identify 8 variable radio sources in dwarf galaxies by comparing the VLASS epoch 1 and epoch 2 observations to FIRST detections presented in arXiv:1909.04670.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14535 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. WISE color–color diagram for all galaxies in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample. The Jarrett et al. (2011) AGN selection box is shown in red and the Stern et al. (2012) AGN cutoff line is shown in black. We remove all galaxies found within the selection box or the cutoff line to limit the effect of mid-IR AGN emission on the IR luminosities used in the IRRC (§3.3). The mean error bars for the data are shown in the upper left… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of spectral indices for the galaxies in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample with corresponding FIRST observations. The distribution peaks at a similar value to the standard value of α = −0.7, which is commonly assumed to be the median value for SFGs. The distribution of α for galaxies in the NSA-VLASS￾WISE sample with FIRST detections is shown in Fig￾ure 2. The values of the spectral indices are largely found bet… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of q for the galaxies in the NSA￾VLASS-WISE sample that are not classified as mid-IR AGNs (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of q for the galaxies in the NSA￾VLASS-WISE sample (blue) and for galaxies with WISE W4 observations with S/N < 5 (green). The q values calculated for the galaxies with W4 S/N < 5 are upper limits, as indi￾cated by the arrows. The 2σ radio-excess cutoff de…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms comparing the radio-excess AGN host population (red) to the SF-consistent population (blue) of the galaxies in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample that are not mid-IR AGNs. Top left: Deconvolved major axis sizes, Ψmaj . Values closer to zero are indicative of more com…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the (inverse) concentration in￾dices, defined as r50/r90, for the radio-excess AGN and SF￾consistent populations in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample. The Shimasaku et al. (2001) divide between late and early￾type galaxies is shown as a dashed line. Notably, the r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: sSFRs for the radio-excess AGN and SF￾consistent populations in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample. The SF-consistent population predictably have higher sS￾FRs, while the radio-excess AGNs have a wider spread and a larger fraction of its population with lower values of sSFR. Th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: WISE color-color diagram for all galaxies in the NSA-VLASS-WISE sample identified as hosts for radio￾excess AGNs. Approximately 14% of the radio-excess AGNs are also classified as mid-IR AGNs, since they lie within the Jarrett et al. (2011) selection box (shown in red)…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: grz-band DECaLS images of the dwarf galaxies that are strong candidates for hosting radio-excess AGNs. The positions of the SDSS spectroscopic fibers with radii of 1.5′′are shown as a white circles and the locations of the radio sources are shown as red crosses [PITH…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: VLASS images of the dwarf galaxies that are strong candidates for hosting radio-excess AGNs. The images are the same angular size as the DECaLS images in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Observed 3 GHz luminosities versus the pre￾dicted cumulative radio luminosities from populations of SNRs/SNe for the 10 sources identified as radio-excess AGNs in dwarf galaxies. Each source is labeled with its respective ID number. The solid black line shows the one-…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Observed offset distribution from cross￾matching the NSA parent sample of dwarf galaxies with the VLASS radio sources, out to a matching radius of 60′′. The best linear fit of the histogram is shown in yellow, and the actual cross-matching radius used to find radio so…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: g − r color vs. total stellar mass for dwarf galaxies (M∗ < 3 × 109M⊙) in the NSA. The AGN hosts, with their associated ID numbers are shown. They mostly follow the trend of the full NSA population. The median color of all the dwarf galaxies in the NSA is shown as a g…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Offset of the radio sources in VLASS from the optical centers of their host galaxies versus the (inverse) con￾centration indices, defined as C = r50/r90 (Shimasaku et al. 2001). Each point is labeled with the ID number of the re￾spective galaxy. The dwarf galaxy AGN h…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: SFRIR vs. stellar mass for the dwarf galaxies with radio-excess AGNs. SFRs calculated using upper limits in WISE are shown as triangles. The median sSFRs of the radio-excess AGN and SF-consistent populations for the full NSA-VLASS-WISE sample are also shown. In genera…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Optical emission line diagnostic diagrams for the dwarf galaxies with radio-excess AGNs. ID numbers for each of the galaxies in our sample are shown, along with the error bars in the measurements. The narrow line emis￾sion measurements come from the SDSS spectral fits…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Candidate intermediate-mass black hole discovered in an extremely young low-metallicity cluster in the tadpole galaxy KUG 1138+327

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 10^40 erg/s X-ray source in KUG 1138+327 is best explained as an accreting intermediate-mass black hole, with a 200 pc radio jet-like counterpart.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  2. [3]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 57, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/57

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/57 2016

  3. [4]

    W., Murphy, T., Gaensler, B

    Bannister, K. W., Murphy, T., Gaensler, B. M., Hunstead, R. W., & Chatterjee, S. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 634, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17938.x

    arXiv 2011

  4. [5]

    Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794, doi: 10.1086/367829

    doi:10.1086/367829 2003

  5. [6]

    E., Huynh, M

    Bell, M. E., Huynh, M. T., Hancock, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv882

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv882 2015

  6. [7]

    C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

    Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad808

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 2018

  7. [8]

    R., Frail, D

    Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., & Soderberg, A. M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 408, doi: 10.1086/379214

    doi:10.1086/379214 2003

  8. [9]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005a, MNRAS, 362, 25, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09192.x

    arXiv 2005

Show all 111 references
  1. [10]

    E., Croft, S., Hovatta, T., et al

    Bignall, H. E., Croft, S., Hovatta, T., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 58, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0058

    2015 doi

  2. [11]

    R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D. W., Schlegel, D. J., & Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 143, doi: 10.1086/422897

    2005 doi

  3. [12]

    R., & Roweis, S

    Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734, doi: 10.1086/510127

    2007 doi

  4. [13]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1879

    Bonzini, M., Padovani, P., Mainieri, V., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1879

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

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

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

    2003

  6. [15]

    2022, A&A, 660, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142911 25

    Capetti, A., Brienza, M., Balmaverde, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142911 25

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    1986, A&A, 155, 297

    Caplan, J., & Deharveng, L. 1986, A&A, 155, 297

    1986

  8. [17]

    L., Ivison, R

    Carilli, C. L., Ivison, R. J., & Frail, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 590, 192, doi: 10.1086/375005

    2003 doi

  9. [18]

    Chandra, P., & Frail, D. A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156

    2012 doi

  10. [19]

    Chomiuk, L., & Wilcots, E. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 370, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/370

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    1992

  12. [21]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675, doi: 10.1086/341650

    2002 doi

  13. [22]

    J., Kellermann, K

    Condon, J. J., Kellermann, K. I., Kimball, A. E., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Perley, R. A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/37

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Fomalont, E. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/23

    2012 doi

  15. [24]

    O., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Corsi, A., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/42

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    R., et al

    Corsi, A., Gal-Yam, A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/42 de Jong, T., Klein, U., Wielebinski, R., & Wunderlich, E. 1985, A&A, 147, L6 Del Moro, A., Alexander, D. M., Mullaney, J. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/...

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    2017, A&A, 602, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629430

    Delhaize, J., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629430

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    T., et al

    Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039647

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/172

    Dicken, D., Tadhunter, C., Axon, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/172

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    C., Yuan, W., et al

    Dong, X.-B., Ho, L. C., Yuan, W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/167

    2012 doi

  21. [30]

    Williams, P. K. G. 2020, ApJ, 895, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9015

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    Alexander, K. D. 2018, ApJ, 854, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    D., & Ekers, J

    Ekers, R. D., & Ekers, J. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 247

    1973

  24. [33]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    1974 doi

  25. [34]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/70

    Nakar, E. 2012, ApJ, 747, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/70

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

    B., Yun, M

    Gim, H. B., Yun, M. S., Owen, F. N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1011

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  28. [38]

    2000, A&A, 353, 507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9910469

    Govoni, F., Falomo, R., Fasano, G., & Scarpa, R. 2000, A&A, 353, 507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9910469

    2000 doi arXiv

  29. [39]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2007, ApJ, 670, 92, doi: 10.1086/522082

    2007 doi

  30. [40]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    N., Reines, A

    Hainline, K. N., Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Stern, D. 2016, ApJ, 832, 119, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/119

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    2011 doi

  33. [43]

    Heeschen, D. S. 1970, AJ, 75, 523, doi: 10.1086/110987

    1970 doi

  34. [44]

    T., & Rowan-Robinson, M

    Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJL, 298, L7, doi: 10.1086/184556

    1985 doi

  35. [45]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

    1975 doi

  36. [46]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  37. [47]

    H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/112

    2011 doi

  38. [48]

    H., Masci, F., Tsai, C

    Jarrett, T. H., Masci, F., Tsai, C. W., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/6

    2013 doi

  39. [49]

    Jenkins, C. R. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.3.705

    1982 doi

  40. [50]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207

    1989 doi

  41. [51]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  42. [53]

    E., Kellermann, K

    Kimball, A. E., Kellermann, K. I., Condon, J. J., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Perley, R. A. 2011, ApJL, 739, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L29

    2011 doi

  43. [54]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    Geha, M. 2021, ApJ, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    2021 doi

  44. [55]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.006

    Komossa, S. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.006

    2015 doi

  45. [56]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  46. [58]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  47. [59]

    J., Reines, A

    Latimer, L. J., Reines, A. E., Hainline, K. N., Greene, J. E., & Stern, D. 2021, ApJ, 914, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe0c

    2021 doi

  48. [60]

    J., Reines, A

    Latimer, L. J., Reines, A. E., Plotkin, R. M., Russell, T. D., & Condon, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 884, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3289 26

    2019 doi

  49. [61]

    J., & Owen, F

    Ledlow, M. J., & Owen, F. N. 1995, AJ, 109, 853, doi: 10.1086/117328

    1995 doi

  50. [62]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  51. [63]

    Greene, J. E. 2015, ApJ, 805, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/12

    2015 doi

  52. [64]

    2022, A&A Rv, 30, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    Magliocchetti, M. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    2022 doi

  53. [65]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2645

    Magliocchetti, M., Lutz, D., Santini, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2645

    2016 doi

  54. [66]

    J., et al

    Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3271, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21843.x

    2012

  55. [67]

    A., Morgan, W

    Matthews, T. A., Morgan, W. W., & Schmidt, M. 1964, ApJ, 140, 35, doi: 10.1086/147890

    1964 doi

  56. [68]

    Mauch, T., & Sadler, E. M. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11353.x

    2007

  57. [69]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  58. [70]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    2018 doi

  59. [71]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1760

    Mezcua, M., Suh, H., & Civano, F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1760

    2019 doi

  60. [72]

    A., & Mead, A

    Miller, L., Peacock, J. A., & Mead, A. R. G. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 207

    1990

  61. [73]

    Condon, J. J. 2021, ApJ, 910, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe120

    2021 doi

  62. [74]

    P., Hallinan, G., Bourke, S., et al

    Mooley, K. P., Hallinan, G., Bourke, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 105, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/105

    2016 doi

  63. [75]

    C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H

    Moran, E. C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H. R., V´ elez, D. O., & Eracleous, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/136

    2014 doi

  64. [76]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  65. [77]

    A., Dunlop, J

    Nolan, L. A., Dunlop, J. S., Kukula, M. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 308, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04174.x

    2001

  66. [78]

    2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    Novak, M., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delhaize, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    2017 doi

  67. [79]

    Z., Patil, P., et al

    Nyland, K., Dong, D. Z., Patil, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc341

    2020 doi

  68. [80]

    Ofek, E. O. 2017, ApJ, 846, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8310

    2017 doi

  69. [81]

    T., Corsi, A., P´ erez-Torres, M., Varenius, E., & Van Eerten, H

    Palliyaguru, N. T., Corsi, A., P´ erez-Torres, M., Varenius, E., & Van Eerten, H. 2021, ApJ, 910, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1c9

    2021 doi

  70. [82]

    T., Corsi, A., Frail, D

    Palliyaguru, N. T., Corsi, A., Frail, D. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64d

    2019 doi

  71. [83]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    2019 doi

  72. [84]

    P., & Keane, E

    Pietka, M., Fender, R. P., & Keane, E. F. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2335

    2015 doi

  73. [85]

    M., & Reines, A

    Plotkin, R. M., & Reines, A. E. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 719

    2018

  74. [86]

    E., Hester, J

    Reed, J. E., Hester, J. J., Fabian, A. C., & Winkler, P. F. 1995, ApJ, 440, 706, doi: 10.1086/175308

    1995 doi

  75. [87]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26–34, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01556-0

    2022 doi

  76. [88]

    E., & Comastri, A

    Reines, A. E., & Comastri, A. 2016, PASA, 33, e054, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.46

    2016 doi

  77. [89]

    E., Condon, J

    Reines, A. E., Condon, J. J., Darling, J., & Greene, J. E. 2020, ApJ, 888, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4999

    2020 doi

  78. [90]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    2013 doi

  79. [91]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  80. [92]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    2018 doi

  81. [93]

    C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I

    Rose, S. C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I. 2022, ApJL, 929, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6426

    2022 doi

  82. [94]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833883

    2019 doi

  83. [95]

    E., & Molina, M

    Salehirad, S., Reines, A. E., & Molina, M. 2022, ApJ, 937, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8876

    2022 doi

  84. [96]

    J., Johnson, M

    Sargent, A. J., Johnson, M. C., Reines, A. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74be

    2022 doi

  85. [97]

    P., & Secrest, N

    Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., & Secrest, N. J. 2018, ApJ, 858, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7f8

    2018 doi

  86. [98]

    Schutte, Z., & Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature, 601, 329, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04215-6

    2022 doi

  87. [99]

    E., & Greene, J

    Schutte, Z., Reines, A. E., & Greene, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 887, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35dd

    2019 doi

  88. [100]

    2001, AJ, 122, 1238, doi: 10.1086/322094

    Shimasaku, K., Fukugita, M., Doi, M., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1238, doi: 10.1086/322094

    2001 doi

  89. [101]

    2004, A&A, 421, 129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035908

    Siebenmorgen, R., Freudling, W., Kr¨ ugel, E., & Haas, M. 2004, A&A, 421, 129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035908

    2004 doi

  90. [102]

    L., Shields, G

    Smith, K. L., Shields, G. A., Bonning, E. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 866, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/866 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Zamorani, G., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/24 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A1...

    2010 doi

  91. [103]

    M., Nakar, E., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Nakar, E., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2006, ApJ, 638, 930, doi: 10.1086/499121 27

    2006 doi

  92. [104]

    G., Perley, R

    Stern, D., Djorgovski, S. G., Perley, R. A., de Carvalho, R. R., & Wall, J. V. 2000, AJ, 119, 1526, doi: 10.1086/301316

    2000 doi

  93. [105]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    2012 doi

  94. [106]

    J., White, R

    Thyagarajan, N., Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2011, ApJ, 742, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/49

    2011 doi

  95. [107]

    E., & Darling, J

    Truebenbach, A. E., & Darling, J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx456

    2017 doi

  96. [108]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 van Velzen, S., Bower, G. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 737, doi: 10.48550/arX...

    1995 doi arXiv

  97. [109]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    2008

  98. [110]

    2009, MNRAS, 400, 1911, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15577.x

    Volonteri, M., & Natarajan, P. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1911, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15577.x

    2009

  99. [111]

    L., Becker, R

    White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Gregg, M. D. 1997, ApJ, 475, 479, doi: 10.1086/303564

    1997 doi

  100. [112]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 —. 2019, AllWISE Source Catalog, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA1

    2010 doi

  101. [113]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  102. [114]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803, doi: 10.1086/323145

    2001 doi

  103. [115]

    L., Lampayan, K., Petric, A., et al

    Zakamska, N. L., Lampayan, K., Petric, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2571

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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