Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Behind the dust veil: A panchromatic view of an optically dark galaxy at z=4.82

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that XS55, an optically invisible radio-selected galaxy at z=4.82, is a massive main-sequence galaxy with surprisingly cold, optically thick dust and a likely buried active galactic nucleus.

desk verdict A solid case study of one radio-selected, JWST-dark DSFG at z=4.82 with a secure ALMA redshift; the cold-dust and optically thick claims are plausible but rest on sparse FIR photometry and a factor-of-two L_IR discrepancy between fitting codes that the paper never reconciles. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09363 v1 pith:RYXZ6J57 submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.GA

Nikolaj B. Sillassen , Shuowen Jin , Georgios E. Magdis , Jacqueline Hodge , Raphael Gobat , Emanuele Daddi , Kirsten Knudsen , Alexis Finoguenov
show 25 more authors
Eva Schinnerer Wei-Hao Wang Zhen-Kai Gao John R. Weaver Hiddo Algera Irham T. Andika Malte Brinch Chian-Chou Chen Rachel Cochrane Andrea Enia Andreas Faisst Steven Gillman Carlos Gomez-Guijarro Ghassem Gozaliasl Chris Hayward Vasily Kokorev Maya Merchant Francesca Rizzo Margherita Talia Francesco Valentino David Blánquez-Sesé Anton M. Koekemoer Benjamin Magnelli Michael Rich Marko Shuntov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustystar-forminggalaxiesopticallydarkhigh-redshiftgalaxyevolutionsubmillimeteractivegalacticnucleidusttemperatureJWSTNIRCamALMAspectroscopy
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

XS55 is a galaxy at redshift 4.82 that is invisible in optical and near-ultraviolet images but bright at radio and submillimetre wavelengths — an 'optically dark' dusty star-forming galaxy, the kind thought to carry a large share of early massive-galaxy formation. The paper establishes a secure redshift from ALMA detections of the CO(5-4) and [CI](1-0) lines, and then assembles a panchromatic spectral energy distribution from JWST, infrared, submillimetre, and radio photometry. It finds that XS55 sits on the galaxy main sequence — a normal star-forming galaxy rather than a starburst — with stellar mass $(5\pm1)\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$, star-formation rate $540\pm177\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and a compact morphology: a small central component, an extended disk, and a likely companion. The paper's central physical claim is that the dust is optically thick in the far infrared and still cold, $T_\mathrm{dust}=33\pm2$ K, one of the coldest dusty star-forming galaxies found at $z>4$, and that tentative X-ray emission plus the compact central component indicate an active black hole buried in the dust. If right, XS55 is an example of an ordinary massive galaxy caught in a heavily obscured phase, visible only through the few photons that leak around the dust.

What carries the argument

The central object is a panchromatic spectral energy distribution built from sparse photometry: near-infrared detections in F277W and F444W with an F150W dropout, SCUBA-2 450 and 850 µm fluxes, ALMA 2 and 3 mm data, and 1.3 and 3 GHz radio points. The argument is carried by a modified blackbody model with emissivity index $\beta_{\rm IR}=2.0\pm0.2$, fitted twice — once with dust assumed optically thin and once with a 'self-consistent' optically thick prescription in which the emitting area cannot exceed the 9.08 kpc$^2$ half-light area measured in F444W. Three independent diagnostics (gas mass from [CI](1-0) compared with gas mass from dust, opacity at 100 µm, and position on the infrared-luminosity-surface-density versus dust-temperature diagram) are what turn the fit into the claim that the dust is optically thick. The molecular-gas mass and the X-ray-based AGN interpretation complete the picture of all baryonic components.

What would settle it

Measure the dust continuum size with high-resolution ALMA at 3 mm or at 450 µm and test a two-temperature dust model: if the far-infrared SED requires a warm component or the emitting area exceeds the F444W half-light radius of 9.08 kpc$^2$, the cold, optically thick single-temperature interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, XS55 is not an extreme starburst but a massive main-sequence galaxy caught behind a dust veil: $M_\ast=(5\pm1)\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$, $\mathrm{SFR}=540\pm177\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, within $2\sigma$ of the main sequence at its redshift. The far-infrared SED is best described as optically thick with cold dust $T_\mathrm{dust}=33\pm2$ K, which resolves an apparent violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann limit on infrared surface brightness: the optically thin fit would require an implausibly large dust mass and would disagree with the gas mass measured from [CI] emission, whereas the optically thick fit with an emitting area capped by the F444W half-light radius (9.08 kpc$^2$) is consistent with both. The compact central component, tentatively detected in X-ray observations, suggests an active galactic nucleus, making XS55 a candidate for a buried black hole in a compact, cold, dusty massive galaxy at $z=4.82$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire cold-and-thick dust picture rests on a single-temperature model fitted to just a few submillimetre points, with the dust's emissivity and the size of the emitting region fixed by assumption; if the dust is a mixture of temperatures or the emitting area is larger than the adopted F444W half-light area, the quoted temperature and the optically thick conclusion would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A spectroscopically confirmed optically dark dusty star-forming galaxy at z≈4.8 can be a normal massive main-sequence galaxy rather than an extreme starburst, broadening the interpretation of optically dark selections.
  • The gas mass inferred from [CI](1-0) agrees with the optically thick dust model ($M_{\rm dust}\approx1.7\times10^9\,M_\odot$) and favors it over the thin model, so self-consistent thick-dust SED fitting is needed to avoid overestimating dust and gas masses.
  • XS55's tentative X-ray detection and lack of radio excess imply that some AGN in optically dark dusty galaxies are visible only in X-rays, not in radio, so AGN fractions from radio-selected samples may be lower limits.
  • The compact stellar size, 2.6 times below the main-sequence mass-size relation, and the large cold dust mass together explain why XS55 is an F150W dropout, making compactness a predictor of optical darkness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cold-dust, optically thick interpretation implies a high gas-phase metallicity (the local radiation field scales as star-formation efficiency divided by metallicity), so an independent metallicity measurement from far-infrared fine-structure or millimetre recombination lines is a testable consequence the paper does not carry out.
  • If XS55 is representative, X-ray and radio surveys may be systematically missing obscured AGN in the optically dark population; stacking the X-ray emission of a larger sample of similar radio-selected F150W dropouts would turn the single-source 3.1σ detection into a population constraint.
  • Because only two robust submillimetre bands anchor the far-infrared SED, the method could be extended with ALMA Band 8 or 9 photometry at 400–700 µm; detecting a second, warmer dust component would separate 'intrinsically cold' from 'optically thick' more cleanly.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the spectroscopic confirmation and panchromatic analysis of XS55, a radio-selected optically dark galaxy at z=4.8214, combining ALMA CO(5-4) and [CI](1-0) detections, JWST/NIRCam imaging, SCUBA-2 photometry, and X-ray data. The authors derive a stellar mass of M*=5e10 M_sun, a star formation rate of ~540 M_sun/yr, a dust mass of ~1.7e9 M_sun, and a dust temperature of ~33 K assuming optically thick dust, and they argue that the FIR dust is optically thick and surprisingly cold. They also report tentative X-ray emission and a compact central component, suggesting the presence of an obscured AGN. The abstract presents XS55 as a massive main-sequence galaxy that is one of the coldest DSFGs at z>4.

Significance. The spectroscopic redshift and the multi-wavelength census are valuable, given the small sample of spectroscopically confirmed optically dark DSFGs at z>4; the tentative X-ray detection adds to evidence for obscured AGN in this population. The morphological decomposition with JWST is a strength, and the paper makes productive use of standard fitting tools. However, the headline cold-dust and optically-thick claims rest on a sparse FIR SED and a model-dependent infrared luminosity, so the quantitative conclusions (T_dust, SFR, main-sequence status) are not yet at the level of robustness implied by the abstract. The paper would be more convincing if the FIR SED modeling and the consistency between the two SED codes were addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Fig. B.1] The single-temperature modified blackbody fit is underconstrained: the available photometry (SCUBA-2 450 and 850 um, ALMA 3 mm, and a tentative 2 mm point) covers rest wavelengths of only 77-516 um, with no data near the expected rest-frame peak of a T=33 K modified blackbody (~110 um). The quoted T_dust uncertainties of +/-2 K are statistical only. The optically thick case sets the emitting area to the F444W half-light area (9.08 kpc^2) as an upper limit; this choice yields a lower limit on T_dust, so the 'cold' finding is conditional on this assumption and would weaken if the actual emitting area is smaller (e.g., the ALMA continuum upper limit Re < 1.76 kpc). The authors should demonstrate the robustness of T_dust and the optically-thick/thin diagnosis to (a) alternative SED models such as two-temperature or template-based fits, (b) the unknown FIR peak wavelength, and (c) the choice of emitting area.
  2. [Section 3.3, Fig. 4, Fig. B.1] There is an unresolved factor-of-two discrepancy between the infrared luminosities from the two fitting approaches: the mercurius MBB fit gives L_IR ~ 2.6e12 L_sun and SFR_IR ~ 390 M_sun/yr, while the STARDUST panchromatic fit gives L_IR ~ 5.4e12 L_sun and SFR = 540 M_sun/yr. The abstract quotes the STARDUST SFR, while the cold-T and optically-thick claims come from the MBB fit. The text notes that 'the modified blackbody is not accounted for in the total SED fit' (Fig. 4 caption) but does not explain why the two models disagree or which L_IR should be adopted for the main-sequence and dust-temperature comparisons. This inconsistency is load-bearing: using the MBB SFR would reduce the main-sequence offset, while using the STARDUST L_IR implies that the single-temperature MBB is missing a substantial luminosity component, calling into question the cold-dust and optically-thick conclusions.
  3. [Section 4.1] The gas-mass comparison that supports optically thick dust depends critically on the adopted alpha_CI and delta_gdr. The paper claims agreement between M_mol,thick ~ 1.7e11 M_sun and M_mol,[CI] ~ 1.8e11/alpha_CI with alpha_CI = 17, but the text also cites the high-z SMG calibration alpha_CI = 4.1 +/- 1.4 (Frias Castillo et al. 2024), which would give M_mol,[CI] ~ 4.3e10 M_sun, a factor of four lower. The choice of alpha_CI is therefore decisive for the first of the three optically-thick diagnostics. The paper should present the gas-mass comparison under both calibrations and state how robust the conclusion is to this uncertainty and to the assumed delta_gdr = 100.
  4. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5 (left)] The comparison of T_dust with the Schreiber et al. (2018) main-sequence T-z relation may not be apples-to-apples, as that relation is presumably based on optically thin modified blackbody fits while XS55's T is from the optically thick fit. The paper should clarify the fitting conventions used for the comparison sample and, if appropriate, recompute the offset using a thin-fit temperature for XS55 or a consistently calibrated relation. Without this, the claim that XS55 lies 0.13 dex (4 sigma) below the relation is not well defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 captions] The literature labels in Fig. 5 are inconsistent with the reference list: 'Marrone et al. 2017' should be 'Marrone et al. 2018' and 'Hodge et al. 2018' should be 'Hodge et al. 2019'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'As shown in see Fig. 2' should read 'As shown in Fig. 2'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The statement 'The diffuse component cannot be fit' is ambiguous; it likely means the diffuse component is not significantly detected in F277W. Please clarify.
  4. [Section 2.4] The description of the XMM-Newton detection as 'detected in the stacked soft, medium and hard X-ray XMM-Newton images with 3.1 sigma' is unclear; please specify whether this is a single combined image or three individual detections.
  5. [Abstract / Section 2.1] The term 'optically dark' is used to describe XS55, but the source is detected in F277W and F444W; the definition (e.g., F150W dropout) should be stated precisely in the abstract or selection section to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the redshift, stellar mass, SFR, and dust temperature are derived from independent data and standard fitting codes; the optical-thickness conclusion is a post-fit consistency check rather than a self-fulfilling construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct measurements and external fitting procedures, not on inputs defined in terms of the outputs. The spectroscopic redshift is anchored by two ALMA line detections (CO(5-4) and [CI](1-0)) with independent probability estimates and agreement with the COSMOS-Web photometric-redshift PDF. The stellar mass (log M*/Msun = 10.7) and SFR (540 +/- 177 Msun/yr) come from STARDUST and are cross-checked with Bagpipes and LePhare, so the 'massive main-sequence galaxy' classification is not circular. The dust temperature is a fitted parameter of the mercurius modified-blackbody models (Section 3.3, Appendix B); it is not a prediction generated by the same quantity it is claimed to explain. The optically-thick-dust argument (Section 4.1) is presented as three independent diagnostics from Jin et al. (2022): a gas-mass comparison using literature calibrations (delta_gdr = 100, alpha_CI = 17), an opacity estimate tau_100 > 1, and a Sigma_IR-Tdust Stefan-Boltzmann consistency test. Even though these diagnostics use the same fitted Tdust and size, the fit values are not constrained by the diagnostic criteria; the 'thin' solution violates the test and the 'thick' solution does not, which is a legitimate model-selection argument rather than an identity. The paper openly reports the alternative alpha_CI = 4.1 calibration and the fact that the mercurius MBB is not included in the STARDUST total SED, so the factor-of-two difference in L_IR between the two fits is an acknowledged model-dependence issue. This is a systematic/correctness concern about sparse FIR photometry, not a circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of standard SED modeling conventions plus several choices specific to this paper (single-temperature MBB, F444W-based emitting area, fixed gas-to-dust ratio and [CI] calibration). These are not fitted to the target result, but they shape the derived cold-dust and AGN conclusions.

free parameters (9)
  • Dust temperature T_dust = 32.7(+2.2,-1.9) K (optically thick); 28.0(+3.3,-2.8) K (optically thin)
    Fitted single-temperature modified blackbody parameter from sparse FIR photometry; drives the claim that XS55 is one of the coldest DSFGs at z>4.
  • Dust emissivity index beta_IR = 2.02 +/- 0.12
    Fitted or weighted average in the FIR SED; strongly affects the T_dust and M_dust estimates.
  • Dust mass M_dust = (1.7 +/- 0.5) x 10^9 Msun (thick); (2.4 +1.4/-0.9) x 10^9 Msun (thin)
    Output of the modified blackbody fits; used with the gas-to-dust ratio to infer molecular gas mass.
  • Stellar mass M* = 10^10.7 +/- 0.1 Msun
    Result of STARDUST and Bagpipes SED fitting; central to the massive main-sequence galaxy classification.
  • Star formation rate SFR_IR = 540 +/- 177 Msun/yr
    Derived from the STARDUST infrared luminosity; used for the main-sequence comparison and depletion time.
  • Dust-emitting area upper limit = 9.08 kpc^2
    Adopted from the F444W diffuse component half-light radius; used in the optically thick MBB fit and Sigma_IR diagnostic.
  • Gas-to-dust mass ratio delta_gdr = 100
    Assumed constant from Magdis et al. (2012); converts M_dust to molecular gas mass and feeds the thick-versus-thin comparison.
  • alpha_CI calibration = 17.0 +/- 0.3 or 4.1 +/- 1.4 Msun K^-1 km^-1 s pc^-2
    Two literature calibrations used in Section 3.4 to convert [CI](1-0) luminosity to molecular gas mass; the choice changes M_mol by about a factor of four.
  • Soft X-ray to bolometric luminosity correction = from Lusso et al. (2012)
    Applied in Section 3.5 to a 2-3 sigma X-ray detection to obtain L_bol greater than 5.35e44 erg/s; introduces large systematic uncertainty.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A single-temperature modified blackbody with a dust emissivity index of about 2 describes the far-infrared SED of XS55.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 and Appendix B to fit SCUBA-2 450/850 µm, ALMA 2 mm, and 3 mm photometry; this model determines T_dust and M_dust, which underpin the coldest DSFG claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The half-light radius of the diffuse F444W component (9.08 kpc^2) provides a valid upper limit on the far-infrared emitting area.
    Used in Section 3.3 for the optically thick MBB case and in the Sigma_IR versus T_dust diagnostic in Section 4.1; if the FIR-emitting region extends beyond the stellar half-light radius, the inferred dust opacity and temperature change.
  • domain assumption A constant gas-to-dust mass ratio of 100 applies to the interstellar medium of XS55.
    Adopted in Section 3.4 to convert the fitted dust mass to molecular gas mass and used in Section 4.1 to compare with the [CI]-based gas mass; this is a standard solar-metallicity value but is uncertain at high redshift.
  • domain assumption The [CI](1-0) line luminosity traces the molecular gas mass with an alpha_CI of 17.0 or 4.1 solar masses per K km/s pc^2.
    Used in Section 3.4 to derive two gas mass estimates that differ by a factor of about four; the choice of calibration affects the gas-mass comparison that favors the optically thick dust model in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption The X-ray flux, if real, is a lower limit on the AGN emission and the Lusso et al. (2012) soft X-ray to bolometric correction applies.
    Used in Section 3.5 to convert a 2-3 sigma X-ray detection into L_bol greater than 5.35e44 erg/s; the correction is calibrated on local AGN and may not hold for heavily obscured high-redshift sources.
  • domain assumption The radio emission of XS55 follows the Delvecchio et al. (2021) infrared-radio correlation.
    Used in Section 3.3 to model the radio component of the SED and in Section 3.5 to assess radio excess; the correlation has large scatter and is poorly constrained at z~5.
  • standard math A flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.27, Omega_Lambda=0.73 and a Chabrier (2003) IMF are assumed.
    Adopted in Section 1; these conventions affect luminosity distances, mass and size scales, and SFR calibrations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Behind the dust veil: A panchromatic view of an optically dark galaxy at z=4.82." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYXZ6J57

@misc{pith2026241209363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Behind the dust veil: A panchromatic view of an optically dark galaxy at z=4.82},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYXZ6J57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09363}
}
abstract

Optically dark dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) play an essential role in massive galaxy formation at early cosmic time, however their nature remains elusive. Here we present a detailed case study of all the baryonic components of a $z=4.821$ DSFG, XS55. Selected from the ultra-deep COSMOS-XS 3GHz map with a red SCUBA-2 450$\mu$m/850$\mu$m colour, XS55 was followed up with ALMA 3mm line scans and spectroscopically confirmed to be at $z=4.821$ via detections of the CO(5-4) and [CI](1-0) lines. JWST/NIRCam imaging reveals that XS55 is a F150W-dropout with red F277W/F444W colour, and a complex morphology: a compact central component embedded in an extended structure with a likely companion. XS55 is tentatively detected in X-rays with both Chandra and XMM-Newton, suggesting an active galactic nucleus (AGN) nature. By fitting a panchromatic SED spanning NIR to radio wavelengths, we revealed that XS55 is a massive main-sequence galaxy with a stellar mass of $M_\ast=(5\pm1)\times10^{10}\,{\rm M_\odot}$ and a star formation rate of ${\rm SFR}=540\pm177~{\rm M_\odot\,yr^{-1}}$. The dust of XS55 is optically thick in the far infrared (FIR) with a surprisingly cold dust temperature of $T_{\rm dust}=33\pm2\,{\rm K}$, making XS55 one of the coldest DSFGs at $z>4$ known to date. This work unveils the nature of a radio-selected F150W-dropout, suggesting the existence of a population of DSFGs hosting active black holes embedded in optically thick dust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-wavelength cutout images of XS55. The instrument, wavelength and field of view (FoV) are shown in green text in each panel. line is detected at 98.99 GHz at 9.8σ (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: ALMA 3mm spectrum of XS55. The red line shows the line-free continuum, and the blue dotted line indicates the flux error per channel at 1σ level. The spectroscopic redshift is shown in text, along with the velocity width of the channels. Bottom-left: Velocity space spectrum of CO(5-4) (blue) and [CI](1-0) (red) at z = 4.8214, the uncertainty per channel is shown as dashed lines. Bottom-right: Continuum and cont… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-wavelength images of XS55. Left: COSMOS-XS 3 GHz map (van der Vlugt et al. 2021) overlaid with 2,3σ 0.5 − 7 keV contours from Chandra, smoothed with a 1" Gaussian, in purple. Middle: JWST colour image of XS55 representing F115W+F105W, F277W, and F444W as blue, green, and red channels respectively. Overlaid are ALMA 3mm continuum emission contours at 5, 8, and 11σ, with the beam size shown as a white ellipse. R… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NIR to Radio SED of XS55, fit using STARDUST (Kokorev et al. 2021). The total SED (black), is shown with its different components: stellar (blue), dust (red), and radio (magenta). An optically thick modified blackbody (Magdis et al. 2012), fitted with mercurius (Witsto…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Dust temperature versus redshift for XS55 and literature samples. The Td − z relation of main sequence galaxies from Schreiber et al. (2018) is shown as a black line, with the uncertainty as the gray shaded area. Literature samples are from Riechers et al. (2013)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Barro, G., et al

    Alcalde Pampliega, B., Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 135

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Algera, H. S. B., van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 139

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08052

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08052

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Weibel, A., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 449

    2023

  5. [5]

    E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J

    Birkin, J. E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3926

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    C., McLure, R

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

    2018

  7. [7]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31

    2023

  8. [8]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Aravena, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 55

    work page 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 215

    2021

  2. [10]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 159

    Chen, C.-C., Liao, C.-L., Smail, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 159

    2022

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 62

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 62

    2016

  5. [13]

    K., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Cullen, F., & Hayward, C

    Cochrane, R. K., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Cullen, F., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 961, 37

    2024

  6. [14]

    K., Hayward, C

    Cochrane, R. K., Hayward, C. C., Anglés-Alcázar, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1779

    2019

  7. [15]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy

    2021

  8. [16]

    T., et al

    Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A123

    2021

  9. [17]

    2017, A&A, 602, A3

    Delvecchio, I., Smolˇci´c, V ., Zamorani, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A3

    2017

  10. [18]

    2020, A&A, 644, A144

    Donevski, D., Lapi, A., Małek, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A144

    2020

  11. [19]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Dunne, L., Maddox, S. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., Ivison, R. J., & Gomez, H. L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 962

    2022

  12. [20]

    2009, ApJS, 184, 158

    Elvis, M., Civano, F., Vignali, C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 158

    2009

  13. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 204

    Enia, A., Talia, M., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 204

    2022

  14. [22]

    L., Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P

    Faisst, A. L., Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4192

    2020

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 620, A152 Frias Castillo, M., Rybak, M., Hodge, J

    Franco, M., Elbaz, D., Béthermin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A152 Frias Castillo, M., Rybak, M., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05596

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K., & Sugahara, Y

    Fudamoto, Y ., Inoue, A. K., & Sugahara, Y . 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2962

    2023

  17. [25]

    A., Schouws, S., et al

    Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P. A., Schouws, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 597, 489

    2021

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 117

    Gao, Z.-K., Lim, C.-F., Wang, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 117

    2024

  19. [27]

    2024b, A&A, 687, A288 Gómez-Guijarro, C., Elbaz, D., Xiao, M., et al

    Gentile, F., Talia, M., Daddi, E., et al. 2024b, A&A, 687, A288 Gómez-Guijarro, C., Elbaz, D., Xiao, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A43 Gómez-Guijarro, C., Magnelli, B., Elbaz, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A34

    2022

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Gottumukkala, R., Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 966

    2024

  21. [29]

    L., Heywood, I., Jarvis, M

    Hale, C. L., Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2024, MN- RAS[arXiv:2411.04958]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 29

    Hasinger, G., Cappelluti, N., Brunner, H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 29

    2007

  23. [31]

    Heintz, K. E. & Watson, D. 2020, ApJ, 889, L7

    2020

  24. [32]

    J., Hale, C

    Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., Hale, C. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2150

    2022

  25. [33]

    A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al

    Hodge, J. A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 130

    2019

  26. [34]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Path- way to the SKA, 6

    Jarvis, M., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Path- way to the SKA, 6

    2016

  27. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 56

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 56

    2018

  28. [36]

    E., et al

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 144

    2019

  29. [37]

    E., et al

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A3

    2022

  30. [38]

    B., Hodge, J., et al

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Hodge, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, L16

    2024

  31. [39]

    P., Fanciullo, L., Köhler, M., et al

    Jones, A. P., Fanciullo, L., Köhler, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A62

    2013

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Kokorev, V ., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, L25

    2023

  33. [41]

    I., Magdis, G

    Kokorev, V . I., Magdis, G. E., Davidzon, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 40

    2021

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 969, L28

    Ling, C., Sun, B., Cheng, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, L28

    2024

  35. [43]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 172

    Liu, D., Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 172

    2018

  36. [44]

    D., et al

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 623

    2012

  37. [45]

    2020, A&A, 633, A134

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134

    2020

  38. [46]

    E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 6

    2012

  39. [47]

    P., Spilker, J

    Marrone, D. P., Spilker, J. S., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 51

    2018

  40. [48]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  41. [49]

    A., Sharon, C

    Pavesi, R., Riechers, D. A., Sharon, C. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 43

    2018

  42. [50]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097 Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Annunziatella, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L16

    2010

  43. [51]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Mil- limeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Cla...

    2014

  44. [52]

    2023, A&A, 678, A164

    Riccio, G., Yang, G., Małek, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A164

    2023

  45. [53]

    A., Bradford, C

    Riechers, D. A., Bradford, C. M., Clements, D. L., et al. 2013, Nature, 496, 329

    2013

  46. [54]

    A., Carilli, C

    Riechers, D. A., Carilli, C. L., Capak, P. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 84

    2014

  47. [55]

    A., Leung, T

    Riechers, D. A., Leung, T. K. D., Ivison, R. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 1

    2017

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 679, A129

    Rizzo, F., Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A129

    2023

  49. [57]

    E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al

    Rowland, L. E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al. 2024, MN- RAS[arXiv:2405.06025]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2018, A&A, 609, A30

    Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., Pannella, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A30

    2018

  51. [59]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

    2015

  52. [60]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 155

    Shu, X., Yang, L., Liu, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 155

    2022

  53. [61]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A55

    2024

  54. [62]

    M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 43

    2019

  55. [63]

    M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 58 Article number, page 7 of 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    2017

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 36

    Smail, I., Dudzeviˇci¯ut˙e, U., Gurwell, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 36

    2023

  57. [65]

    M., et al

    Smail, I., Dudzeviˇci¯ut˙e, U., Stach, S. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3426 Smolˇci´c, V ., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A1

    2021

  58. [66]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 23

    Talia, M., Cimatti, A., Giulietti, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 23

    2021

  59. [67]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 20

    2023

  60. [68]

    E., Daddi, E., et al

    Valentino, F., Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 27 van der Vlugt, D., Algera, H. S. B., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 5 van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J. A., Jin, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 131

    2018

  61. [69]

    2012, Nature, 486, 233

    Walter, F., Decarli, R., Carilli, C., et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 233

    2012

  62. [70]

    2019, Nature, 572, 211

    Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 211

    2019

  63. [71]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 176

    Ward, E., de la Vega, A., Mobasher, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 176

    2024

  64. [72]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11 Weiß, A., Ivison, R. J., Downes, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, L45

    2022

  65. [73]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1751

    Witstok, J., Smit, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1751

    2022

  66. [74]

    Y ., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al

    Xiao, M. Y ., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A18

    2023

  67. [75]

    2024, A&A, 684, A196 1 Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN), Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: nbsi@space.dtu.dk 2 DTU-Space, Technical University of Denmark, Elektrovej 327, DK- 2800 Kgs

    Zhou, L., Wang, T., Daddi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A196 1 Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN), Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: nbsi@space.dtu.dk 2 DTU-Space, Technical University of Denmark, Elektrovej 327, DK- 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: shuji@dtu.dk 3 Niels Bohr Institute, Univer...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.