Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Coevolution of halo and quasar properties in dense environments: CARLA J1017+6116 at z=2.8

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A radio-loud quasar at z=2.8 hosts a Lyα halo spanning at least 128 physical kpc, yet reanalysis of VLBI data shows no extended jet, leading the paper to conclude that radiative feedback, not mechanical jet power, is sculpting the gas.

desk verdict A careful KCWI case study of a z=2.8 quasar Lyα halo that overreaches when it converts a visually motivated VLBI non-detection into a claim that radiative feedback dominates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10094 v1 pith:XNVG4FTR submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Sofia G. Gallego , Simona Mei , Christopher Martin , Donal O'Sullivan , Emanuele Daddi , Dominika Wylezalek , Nicholas Seymour This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords Lyαhaloquasarfeedbackradio-loudgalaxyclustercircumgalacticmediumVLBIadaptivekernelsmoothinghighredshift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports deep Keck Cosmic Web Imager spectroscopy of the Lyman-$\alpha$ halo around the radio-loud quasar at the center of the galaxy cluster CARLA J1017+6116 at z=2.8. It claims the halo extends at least 16 arcsec (roughly 128 physical kpc) down to a surface brightness of $10^{-19}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcsec$^{-2}$, with a total observed Lyα luminosity of $\log_{10}(L/L_\odot)=43.35\pm0.05$ and a biconical, asymmetric morphology. A reanalysis of archival VLBI data finds no persistent parsec-scale jet, only compact, epoch-dependent radio emission, so the paper argues that radiatively driven processes dominate over mechanical jet feedback in shaping the halo. If correct, this shows that a radio-loud quasar in a dense, high-redshift cluster can influence a large gas reservoir through its radiation field even when jet activity is weak, episodic, or suppressed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lyα halo extracted from the KCWI datacube using adaptive kernel smoothing (AKS), a technique that smooths faint extended emission at increasing kernel sizes while preserving compact bright features. The analysis also relies on moment maps of velocity offset and line width, a reanalysis of VLBI data by fitting single- and two-Gaussian models to small cutouts, HST F140W imaging for continuum counterparts, and the damped Lyα absorber along the quasar sight line as a tracer of dense neutral gas.

What would settle it

Deep integral-field observations extending well beyond 16 arcsec south of the quasar, combined with PSF-subtracted imaging inside the masked central 3-arcsec region, would settle the claim: a one-sided plume, a jet-aligned filament, or a fading/moving jet knot at the 3.5-milliarcsecond secondary component would all contradict the conclusion that radiative feedback is the dominant shaping agent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Lyα halo around the quasar in CARLA J1017+6116 is large and luminous, with distinct kinematic regions, and that its biconical shape is not accompanied by a detectable jet in VLBI images. The paper finds compact radio emission varying across epochs at 2, 5, and 8 GHz, with a faint secondary component at about 3.5 milliarcseconds that is present but of unclear nature, and no consistent jet position angle across frequencies. It therefore argues that mechanical feedback from a jet is limited or episodic, while radiative feedback from the quasar is the primary mechanism ionizing and shaping the extended halo, aided by an inhomogeneous circumgalactic medium and possibly by photoionization cones.

Load-bearing premise

The biconical, radiatively shaped halo conclusion assumes that the emission seen inside the KCWI field of view, outside a masked 3-arcsec circle at the quasar, is representative of the whole halo even though the emission clearly extends beyond the southern edge of the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The halo's size and luminosity place it within the normal range for quasars at z≈3, so the feedback mechanism proposed here applies to a typical, not exceptional, quasar-host system.
  • A biconical Lyα halo can form without a persistent jet, meaning radiative feedback alone can produce large-scale anisotropic ionization structures in the circumgalactic medium.
  • Compact, variable radio emission over decades indicates episodic energy injection or jet suppression by the dense interstellar medium rather than continuous mechanical output.
  • The presence of one Lyα-emitting companion galaxy, a damped Lyα absorber, and mostly early-type galaxies near the quasar suggests that radiation from the quasar is influencing gas and star formation in its immediate environment.
  • Future comparisons with other radio-loud quasars will need to account for the possibility that jet position angles inferred from VLBI are not stable tracers of the large-scale halo axis when jet activity is weak.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: a direct test of the radiative-feedback picture would be to map the predicted ionization cones in other emission lines such as He II or C IV, which should trace the same biconical axis without requiring jet-induced shocks.
  • Editorial extension: if the biconical shape is carved by radiation rather than a jet, then the halo axis should be set by the quasar's accretion-disk orientation and could correlate with the DLA geometry, a connection the paper does not explicitly explore.
  • Editorial extension: deep observations extending beyond the southern edge of the KCWI field, where the halo is still bright, would reveal whether the symmetric biconical structure continues or breaks into a one-sided accretion flow, which would change the interpretation.
  • Editorial extension: a systematic survey of Lyα halos around radio-loud quasars with the same AKS technique could measure how often biconical, jet-less halos occur, turning this apparently rare morphology into a statistically testable population property.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Keck Cosmic Web Imager integral-field observations of the Lyα halo around the radio-loud quasar CARLA J1017+6116 at z=2.8, a spectroscopically confirmed cluster at cosmic noon. Using adaptive kernel smoothing, the authors detect extended Lyα emission that reaches at least 16 arcsec (128 physical kpc) down to a surface brightness of 10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2 and has a total observed luminosity of log10(L/Lsun)=43.35±0.05. From velocity-offset and FWHM maps they define six kinematic regions (R1-R6), including a redshifted LAE coincident with an HST F140W source and broad-line regions near the quasar. They also reanalyze archival VLBI data at 2, 5, and 8 GHz and report compact, variable radio emission with no detected extended jet-like structure, a secondary component at about 3.5 mas whose nature is unclear, and an inconsistent position angle across epochs. Combining these observations, the paper argues that radiative feedback, rather than mechanical jet feedback, is the primary process shaping the extended Lyα halo, while episodic or suppressed jet activity may still play a role.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable single-object study in a dense, high-redshift environment: it combines deep IFU spectroscopy of a Lyα halo around a radio-loud quasar in a confirmed z=2.8 cluster with a multi-epoch VLBI reanalysis and HST imaging. The treatment of the halo extent as a lower limit, the AKS reliability tests (noise slices, parameter variation), and the independent reanalysis of public VLBI data are commendable and give confidence in the main Lyα detection and luminosity measurement. The paper also places the halo in context with other high-redshift Lyα halos. However, the central interpretation that radiative feedback dominates over mechanical feedback depends on the absence of an extended jet, and that absence is currently supported only by visual inspection of contour maps rather than by quantitative flux upper limits or residual analyses. This is a load-bearing gap that needs to be addressed before the main conclusion is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4 and §4.4] The claim that no extended jet-like structure is present in any VLBI epoch or frequency is not quantified. The paper describes a single-Gaussian fit and subtraction in §3.4, but no residual maps, residual flux densities, or 3σ upper limits on extended emission beyond the core are reported for any epoch or frequency. Without such limits, a faint jet or extended component below the plotted contour threshold cannot be excluded, and the radiative-feedback-dominance conclusion in §5.2 is therefore under-supported. Please report the fitted model parameters (core and secondary flux densities, separations, PA, and uncertainties) and provide quantitative upper limits on extended emission at each epoch and frequency.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 9] The secondary radio component at approximately 3.5 mas with PA -108° and flux about three times fainter than the core is reported without a detection significance or uncertainty. It is unclear whether this component is detected above the local noise at every 5 GHz epoch or only in a subset, and its flux density error is not given. This information is necessary to assess whether the secondary component is a real jet-related feature, a sidelobe artifact, or an unrelated compact source, and it directly affects the discussion in §5.3 about episodic jet activity.
  3. [§4.1, §5.5, Fig. 5] The inferred biconical morphology is central to the interpretive framing, but the analysis masks a 3 arcsec diameter region around the quasar after PSF subtraction and the halo is stated to extend beyond the KCWI field of view, particularly to the south. The paper should state explicitly how the bicone axis and opening angle are defined, overlay the masked region and field-of-view boundary on the moment maps, and discuss whether jet-aligned emission or additional gas hidden in the masked central region could change the morphological interpretation. As written, the biconical shape is largely a visual impression from a truncated and centrally masked map.
  4. [§4.2, Fig. 5] The kinematic regions R1-R6 are defined by hard thresholds in velocity offset and FWHM (e.g., FWHM > 700, 800, and 900 km/s), but no uncertainty estimates are provided for the moment maps. Since the discussion of distinct kinematic components and broad-line regions relies on this segmentation, please provide moment error maps, show how the region boundaries vary with the adopted thresholds and AKS parameters, or state explicitly that these regions are illustrative rather than quantitatively robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] The text states that Spitzer IRAC channels 1 and 2 correspond to 3.6 µm and 8 µm, respectively; IRAC channel 2 is 4.5 µm, not 8 µm (8 µm is channel 4). Please correct this factual error.
  2. [§2.3 and Fig. 9] The band nomenclature is inconsistent with standard usage: the text and Fig. 9 caption assign X band to 5 GHz and C band to 8 GHz, whereas in radio astronomy C band is approximately 4-8 GHz and X band is approximately 8-12 GHz. Please revise the band names or frequencies so that they are internally consistent and standard.
  3. [§3.2] The AKS description says the smoothing window varied from 0.3 arcsec (no smoothing) to 1.5 arcsec, and later says the smoothing radius increased up to 5 pixels, but the relation between 1.5 arcsec and 5 pixels is not stated. Please clarify the pixel scale and how the S/N=6 threshold is applied at each smoothing scale.
  4. [Table 1] The table lists 'Jet direction degrees -136±3' as a property of the quasar, but this value is from Plavin et al. (2022) and is later called into question by the authors' reanalysis. Please mark the entry as a literature value and indicate the disagreement in the table or caption.
  5. [§4.3 and Fig. 8] The spectra in Fig. 8 are said to be extracted from the original datacube without AKS but with 2-pixel Gaussian smoothing for visualization; the text does not state the extraction apertures or whether the spectra are background-subtracted. A brief description of the extraction method would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author; for an observational paper using public archives, it would be helpful to state explicitly which reduced products (e.g., moment maps, segmentation masks) will be made available, and to provide the KCWI observation program identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the halo luminosity and extent are direct observables, and the VLBI reanalysis is an independent analysis of public archive data.

full rationale

This is an observational measurement paper rather than a derivation from a fitted model, so the central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The Lyα halo extent (≥16 arcsec to 10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2) and total luminosity (log10(L/Lsun) = 43.35 ± 0.05) are measured directly from KCWI data cubes after adaptive kernel smoothing; the smoothing method is described explicitly and its parameters are not fitted to reproduce the reported luminosity or extent. The VLBI reanalysis in Sect. 3.4 and 4.4 is an independent re-examination of public archive data from the Radio Fundamental Catalog, and it explicitly contests the earlier Plavin et al. (2022) position-angle measurement rather than importing it; the conclusion that no persistent jet is detected is an inference from those images, not a quantity defined by the present authors' own previous results. The self-citations to AKS methodology papers (Martin et al. 2019; O'Sullivan et al. 2020; Daddi et al. 2021) are technical citations to a data-processing technique, and the technique does not encode the halo properties being reported. Citations to Noirot et al. (2018) and Mei et al. (2023) supply cluster redshift, overdensity, and stellar-mass context, but those are not used to define the Lyα halo measurements or the radiative-feedback interpretation. The radiative-feedback conclusion is interpretive and explicitly hedged, with alternative explanations (episodic jet activity, CGM asymmetries, projection effects) discussed in Sect. 5. The skeptical concern that the no-jet VLBI conclusion lacks quantified flux upper limits is a robustness or evidential-support issue, not a circularity: a visual non-detection can be weak evidence without being circular evidence. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its main measurements and contains no significant circular chain.

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

The analysis is measurement-driven; the only chosen values are data-reduction thresholds. The physical interpretation rests on standard Lyα radiative transfer assumptions and on the unobserved parts of the halo, with no new physical entities introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • AKS detection S/N threshold = 6
    Pixels must reach S/N=6 at some smoothing scale to be detected (§3.2). The paper reports robustness tests at different thresholds, but the value is chosen by hand.
  • AKS smoothing kernel range = 0.3-1.5 arcsec
    Chosen to enhance diffuse emission while minimizing noise amplification (§3.2).
  • Connected voxel count threshold = 5
    Only pixels with at least five connected voxels are kept in moment maps (§3.2); the choice balances spatial completeness and spectral reliability.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=69.6, Ωm=0.286, ΩΛ=0.714
    Adopted in §1 to convert angular scales to physical kpc; a standard cosmological assumption.
  • domain assumption Lyα emission traces recombination radiation from photoionized gas in the CGM
    Used throughout §5 to interpret the halo as quasar radiative feedback; alternative sources such as fluorescence, scattering, or cooling radiation are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The variance rescale properly accounts for correlated noise in KCWI datacubes
    §3.2 states the uncorrelated-noise assumption does not fully hold and the variance is rescaled; the validity of this rescale is load-bearing for the detection significance.
  • domain assumption The halo emission extends smoothly beyond the KCWI field of view and the central 3 arcsec mask without altering the inferred biconical shape
    §4.1 notes the halo extends beyond the observed limits; the biconical interpretation in §5.5 relies on the unobserved parts not changing the global morphology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coevolution of halo and quasar properties in dense environments: CARLA J1017+6116 at z=2.8." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNVG4FTR

@misc{pith2026250510094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coevolution of halo and quasar properties in dense environments: CARLA J1017+6116 at z=2.8},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNVG4FTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10094}
}
read the original abstract

Radio-loud active galactic nuclei, in particular radio-loud quasars, are fueled by accretion onto supermassive black holes and are among the most energetic sources in the Universe. While their impact on their surroundings - from the interstellar medium to the circumgalactic medium - is well recognized, the specific mechanisms remain uncertain. In this study we analyze deep Keck Cosmic Web Imager observations of the Lyman-alpha (Lya) halo surrounding the radio-loud quasar at the center of the cluster CARLA J1017+6116 at redshift z = 2.8. As is known from previous observations, the cluster hosts a high fraction of early-type galaxies, and the star formation of its spectroscopically confirmed cluster members is typical of or higher than that of galaxies on the main sequence. We find that the Lya halo extends at least 16 arcsec (128 pkpc) down to a surface brightness level of 1e-19 erg/s/cm^2/arcsec^2, with a total observed Lya luminosity of log10(L/Lsun) = 43.35 +- 0.05. The halo has distinct kinematic regions with asymmetries suggestive of complex interactions between the quasar and the intracluster medium, possibly driven by a combination of biconical feedback and episodic activity. Despite the quasar classification, our reanalysis of very long baseline interferometry data finds no evidence of extended jet structures; we instead find compact and variable radio emission that could indicate episodic jet activity or suppression by the dense interstellar medium. Combining these observations with imaging obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope, we identified one Lya-emitting source within the quasar halo. While mechanical feedback from a jet appears limited or episodic, radiative feedback likely plays a dominant role in shaping the extended Lya halo, highlighting the complex interplay between quasar-driven processes and the surrounding dense environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST F140W image, centered on CARLA J1017+6116. We show as circles the galaxies that are either spectroscopically confirmed at the cluster redshift (blue circles; Noirot et al. 2018) or selected as statisti￾cally belonging to the clusters (magenta circles; Mei et al. 2023). The black rectangle indicates the KCWI FoV. Red contours represent galaxy overdensity starting from S/N = 3, as indicated in Mei et al. (2023). T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral energy distribution of the J1017+6116 AGN, spanning radio to X-ray frequencies. The radio variability is likely driven by shock waves in the jet and Doppler boosting effects, which may cor￾relate to episodic energy injections or changes in viewing angle (see Sect. 5.1). 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 [Å] 10 50 F [1 0 1 7 e r g s 1 c m 2 Å] L y OIV] CIV CIII] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SDSS spectrum of the J1017+6116 AGN. The key emission lines are indicated with dashed red lines for reference. The background sky flux is shown in gray. – Optical data in the ugriz bands from SDSS (Fukugita et al. 1996). – X-ray observations from ROSAT (0.1 to 2.4 keV), as part of the ROSAT all-sky survey bright source catalog (RASS) (Britzen et al. 2007), detect a very low X-ray flux from our quasar, resulting in a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LAE halo detected in the KCWI datacube. The panels correspond to the first three moment maps of the extended emission: SB, flux￾weighted centroid with respect to the mean velocity, and the FWHM of the spectral line. The emission was extracted from the datacube using th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SB radial profile centered on the peak of the Lyα emission found to the southwest of the quasar, corresponding to a LAE in re￾gion R1 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Lyα spectra for each of the regions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Selection of VLBI images of J1017+6116 observed at various dates and frequencies: S band (2 GHz), X band (5 GHz), and C band (8 GHz), as labeled. The grayscale ellipses indicate the estimated PSF. The dark green, blue, and magenta contour lines correspond to flux densi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radio flux density measured over time at three different fre￾quencies: 2 GHz (green circles), 5 GHz (blue triangles), and 8 GHz (purple squares). The data were obtained using VLBI observations and plotted against the modified Julian date (MJD). Error bars indicate un￾…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lyα halo luminosity as a function of redshift. The green circles and teal triangles correspond to Lyα halos detected around radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars, respectively. The gray dots correspond to Lyα halos around LAEs with MUSE data (Leclercq et al. 2017). The r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 683, A64 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J

    Apostolovski, Y ., Aravena, M., Anguita, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A64 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3162

    2024

  2. [2]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ram- say, & H. Takami, 773508

    2010

  3. [3]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135

    2014

  4. [4]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20

    2013

  5. [5]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    1984

  6. [6]

    K., Steidel, C

    Bolda, C., Li, Z., Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., & Chen, Y . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01598

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

    1996

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39

    2016

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 4

    Bournaud, F., Chapon, D., Teyssier, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 4

    2011

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Britzen, S., Brinkmann, W., Campbell, R. M., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 759

    2007

  3. [11]

    R., Jones, T

    Burbidge, G. R., Jones, T. W., & O’Dell, S. L. 1974, ApJ, 193, 43

    1974

  4. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 71

    Cai, Z., Fan, X., Yang, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 71

    2017

  5. [13]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63

    2014

  6. [14]

    L., Hodge, J., Walter, F., et al

    Carilli, C. L., Hodge, J., Walter, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L33

    2011

  7. [15]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    Y ., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., V olonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y ., & Dubois, Y . 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336

    2018

  9. [17]

    S., Lane, W

    Cohen, A. S., Lane, W. M., Cotton, W. D., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 1245

    2007

  10. [18]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168 Coloma Puga, M., Balmaverde, B., Capetti, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L36

    2000

  11. [19]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    1998

  12. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 846, L31

    Daddi, E., Jin, S., Strazzullo, V ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, L31

    2017

  13. [21]

    M., Valentino, F., et al

    Daddi, E., Rich, R. M., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, L21

    2022

  14. [22]

    M., et al

    Daddi, E., Valentino, F., Rich, R. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A78

    2021

  15. [23]

    L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al

    Davies, R. L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4976

    2024

  16. [24]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

    2013

  17. [25]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5436

    Diana, A., Caccianiga, A., Ighina, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5436

    2022

  18. [26]

    X., Ouchi, M., & Hayes, M

    Dijkstra, M., Prochaska, J. X., Ouchi, M., & Hayes, M. 2019, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 46

    2019

  19. [27]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  20. [28]

    A., McNaught-Roberts, T., et al

    Eardley, E., Peacock, J. A., McNaught-Roberts, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3665

    2015

  21. [29]

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

    2021

  22. [30]

    & Shlosman, I

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

    2006

  23. [31]

    2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455

    Fabian, A. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455

    2012

  24. [32]

    Fielding, D., Quataert, E., McCourt, M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3810

    2017

  25. [33]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

    1996

  26. [34]

    M., & Prochaska, J

    Fumagalli, M., O’Meara, J. M., & Prochaska, J. X. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4100

    2016

  27. [35]

    G., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S., et al

    Gallego, S. G., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3854

    2018

  28. [36]

    G., Cantalupo, S., Sarpas, S., et al

    Gallego, S. G., Cantalupo, S., Sarpas, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 16

    2021

  29. [37]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1850

    Garnett, R., Ho, S., Bird, S., & Schneider, J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1850

    2017

  30. [38]

    2019, A&A, 632, A26

    Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., Peca, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A26

    2019

  31. [39]

    Gnedin, O. Y . 2003, ApJ, 582, 141

    2003

  32. [40]

    Gronke, M. & Oh, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1970

    2020

  33. [41]

    F., et al

    Guo, Y ., Bacon, R., Bouché, N. F., et al. 2023, Nature, 624, 53

    2023

  34. [42]

    2024, A&A, 688, A37

    Guo, Y ., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A37

    2024

  35. [43]

    N., Hellinger, D., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Hellinger, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 177

    2024

  36. [44]

    A., Wylezalek, D., Kurk, J

    Hatch, N. A., Wylezalek, D., Kurk, J. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 280

    2014

  37. [45]

    E., Romani, R

    Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 61

    2007

  38. [46]

    Heckman, T. M. & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589

    2014

  39. [47]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    2005

  40. [48]

    Katz, N., Keres, D., Dave, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 281, The IGM/Galaxy Connection. The Distribu- tion of Baryons at z=0, ed. J. L. Rosenberg & M. E. Putman, 185

    2003

  41. [49]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541 Kereš, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Davé, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2 Article number, page 12 of 15 Sofia G. Gallego et al.: Coevolution of halo and quasar properties in dense environments: CARLA J1017 +6116 at z=2.8

    1998

  42. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 581

    Kuchner, U., Haggar, R., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 581

    2022

  43. [51]

    & Cole, S

    Lacey, C. & Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627

    1993

  44. [52]

    G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A

    Lambas, D. G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A. L. 2012, A&A, 539, A45

    2012

  45. [53]

    2020, A&A, 635, A82

    Leclercq, F., Bacon, R., Verhamme, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A82

    2020

  46. [54]

    2017, A&A, 608, A8

    Leclercq, F., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A8

    2017

  47. [55]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 494

    Mackenzie, R., Pezzulli, G., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 494

    2021

  48. [56]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  49. [57]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 52, 415

    2014

  50. [58]

    P., et al

    Mainali, R., Zitrin, A., Stark, D. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1180

    2018

  51. [59]

    2005, MNRAS, 362, 799

    Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799

    2005

  52. [60]

    C., Darvish, B., Lin, Z., et al

    Martin, D. C., Darvish, B., Lin, Z., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1390

    2023

  53. [61]

    C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al

    Martin, D. C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 822

    2019

  54. [62]

    A., Amodeo, S., et al

    Mei, S., Hatch, N. A., Amodeo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A58

    2023

  55. [63]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42

    Morganti, R. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42

    2017

  56. [64]

    Morris, S. L. & van den Bergh, S. 1994, ApJ, 427, 696

    1994

  57. [65]

    C., et al

    Morrissey, P., Matuszewski, M., Martin, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 93

    2018

  58. [66]

    I., Hatch, N

    Muldrew, S. I., Hatch, N. A., & Cooke, E. A. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2528

    2015

  59. [67]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  60. [68]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 38

    Noirot, G., Stern, D., Mei, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 38

    2018

  61. [69]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 90 O’Kane, C

    Noirot, G., Vernet, J., De Breuck, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 90 O’Kane, C. J., Kuchner, U., Gray, M. E., & Aragón-Salamanca, A. 2024, MN- RAS, 534, 1682

    2016

  62. [70]

    D., Davé, R., Katz, N., Kollmeier, J

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Davé, R., Katz, N., Kollmeier, J. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 829 O’Sullivan, D. & Chen, Y . 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.05444 O’Sullivan, D. B., Martin, C., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 3

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 14 Pâris, I., Petitjean, P., Ross, N. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A79

    2016

  64. [72]

    Peebles, P. J. E. & Groth, E. J. 1975, ApJ, 196, 1

    1975

  65. [73]

    & Kovalev, Y

    Petrov, L. & Kovalev, Y . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11794

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077

    2018

  67. [75]

    V ., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V ., Kovalev, Y . Y ., & Pushkarev, A. B. 2022, ApJS, 260, 4

    2022

  68. [76]

    X., Lau, M

    Prochaska, J. X., Lau, M. W., & Hennawi, J. F. 2014, ApJ, 796, 140

    2014

  69. [77]

    E., Peek, J

    Putman, M. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Joung, M. R. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 491

    2012

  70. [78]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01657

    Richard, J., Bacon, R., Blaizot, J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01657

    2019

  71. [79]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 67

    2012

  72. [80]

    A., Vayner, A., et al

    Sabhlok, S., Wright, S. A., Vayner, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 84

    2024

  73. [81]

    J., Bicknell, G

    Saxton, C. J., Bicknell, G. V ., Sutherland, R. S., & Midgley, S. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 781

    2005

  74. [82]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  75. [83]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    2011

  76. [84]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1

    2022

  77. [85]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 786

    Shukla, G., Srianand, R., Gupta, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 786

    2022

  78. [86]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

    2005

  79. [87]

    C., Bogosavljevi´c, M., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2011, 736, 160

    2011

  80. [88]

    D., McNamara, B

    Tamhane, P. D., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 861

    2022

  81. [89]

    2019, Science, 366, 97

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97

    2019

  82. [90]

    Urry, C. M. & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803 van de Weygaert, R. & Bond, J. R. 2008, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, V ol. 740, A Pan-Chromatic View of Clusters of Galaxies and the Large-Scale Structure, ed. M. Plionis, O. López-Cruz, & D. Hughes, 24

    1995

  83. [91]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3803

    Vanzella, E., Balestra, I., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3803

    2017

  84. [92]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    2005

  85. [93]

    P., Röttgering, H

    Venemans, B. P., Röttgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 823 Villar Martín, M., Emonts, B. H. C., Cabrera Lavers, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A84

    2007

  86. [94]

    2023, A&A, 680, A70

    Wang, W., Wylezalek, D., Vernet, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A70

    2023

  87. [95]

    2016, A&A, 587, A98

    Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Blaizot, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A98

    2016

  88. [96]

    2018, Nature, 562, 229

    Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 229

    2018

  89. [97]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  90. [98]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 79

    Wylezalek, D., Galametz, A., Stern, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 79

    2013

  91. [99]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 17

    Wylezalek, D., Vernet, J., De Breuck, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 17

    2014

  92. [100]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53857-25 Appendix A: Additional figures 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 arcsec 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14arcsec 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 arcsec 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 ...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.