Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Measurements of the z=4-10 X-ray Luminosity Function: the high space density of moderate-luminosity, obscured AGN

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that moderate-luminosity, heavily obscured black-hole growth was 10-220 times more common at z = 5-10 than extrapolated X-ray models predict, so the early AGN space density barely declined.

desk verdict First real attempt at the z>6 XLF at moderate luminosities, with a clever stacking trick, but the 10x/220x excesses and the 0.982 obscured fraction are not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16145 v1 pith:QHKRHXHF submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

C. L. Barlow-Hall , J. Aird This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords X-rayluminosityfunctionactivegalacticnucleihigh-redshiftgalaxiesobscuredAGNCompton-thickblackholeaccretionratedensityCOSMOSfieldChandrasurvey
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 asks how many actively growing supermassive black holes existed in the young Universe, using the X-ray luminosity function (XLF) as the tracer. The authors combine the deep Chandra COSMOS-Legacy X-ray imaging with $z=4$–$10$ galaxies from the COSMOS2020 near-infrared catalogue, producing a sample of 32 moderate-luminosity X-ray AGN and measuring the binned XLF in the redshift intervals $z=4$–$5$, $5$–$7$ and $7$–$10$. At $z=4$–$5$ the measured space densities match lower-redshift model predictions, but at $z=5$–$7$ they are about 10 times higher than model extrapolations and at $z=7$–$10$ they could be as much as 220 times higher. The population is also almost entirely obscured, with an intrinsic obscured fraction of $0.982^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$, and correcting for obscuration raises the inferred space densities further. The paper argues that the AGN space density therefore declined only weakly after $z\sim4$, bridging the gap between bright quasar surveys and JWST's abundant low-luminosity AGN, and implying that a large fraction of the first galaxies hosted rapidly growing black holes.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the binned XLF estimator together with its obscuration-correction scheme. Space densities are measured with the $n_{\mathrm{obs}}/n_{\mathrm{mdl}}$ method of Miyaji et al. (2001), which takes a parametric model (here the Georgakakis et al. 2015 LDDE XLF) and scales it by the ratio of observed to predicted source counts in each luminosity–redshift bin, folding in the Chandra area curves at the appropriate detection threshold. Equal in importance is the sample-building step: direct extraction of X-ray counts at the positions of 882,856 COSMOS2020 sources, with a relaxed false-probability threshold of $3.38\times10^{-5}$ chosen to hold the false fraction near 5 per cent for $z\ge4$ sources, adds 11 sources that blind detection missed. Obscuration is classified from Bayesian hardness ratios (Park et al. 2006) compared with the Borus torus model (Baloković et al. 2018), splitting the sample into unabsorbed, absorbed and Compton-thick bins; scale factors $\gamma(N_{\mathrm{H}},\mathrm{bin},z_{\mathrm{bin}})$ are then applied to the fiducial Pouliasis et al. (2024) XLF so that the predicted counts in each column-density and redshift bin match the observed numbers, which is how the obscured fraction and the corrected space densities are obtained.

What would settle it

Measure spectroscopic redshifts for the 32 X-ray sources in the sample, especially the eight in the $z=7$–$10$ bin, using JWST/NIRSpec or ALMA. If a substantial fraction turn out to lie at $z\sim2$–$3$, their rest-frame 2–10 keV luminosities drop by more than an order of magnitude and the claimed $10$–$220\times$ space-density excess collapses toward the model predictions; if most sources are confirmed above $z>6$, the paper's conclusion stands. A cheaper partial check is to recompute the XLF using only sources whose galaxy-only and AGN-template photometric redshifts agree.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $z=4$–$10$ X-ray luminosity function does not decline steeply above $z\sim5$ as previous lower-redshift models extrapolate, but stays at roughly its $z=4$–$5$ normalisation out to $z=7$–$10$. The measurement is based on 32 X-ray detected AGN with $L_X\approx10^{43}$–$10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the COSMOS field: 21 from the blind Chandra source catalogue and 11 added by extracting X-ray counts directly at the positions of COSMOS2020 galaxies using a relaxed false-probability threshold. Binned space densities, computed with the $n_{\mathrm{obs}}/n_{\mathrm{mdl}}$ method, are consistent with model predictions at $z=4$–$5$ but exceed extrapolated models by about an order of magnitude at $z=5$–$7$ and by up to a factor of roughly 220 at $z=7$–$10$. Hardness-ratio analysis with the Borus spectral model indicates the sample is dominated by absorbed and Compton-thick sources (column densities above $10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$), with an obscured fraction of $0.982^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$ that rises toward higher redshift; applying $N_{\mathrm{H}}$- and redshift-dependent correction factors to the full-band XLF increases the space densities and brings them into line with the hard-band measurements. The authors conclude that the early AGN population is much larger than previously assumed, that much of it is hidden by dense gas, and that black-hole accretion was significant before the bulk of stellar mass assembled.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the COSMOS2020 LePhare photometric redshifts correctly place the 32 sources at $z=4$–$10$: if many of them are actually $z\sim2$–$3$ galaxies, their rest-frame X-ray luminosities are overestimated and the claimed space densities, especially at $z=7$–$10$, are inflated, and the paper offers no spectroscopic confirmation of the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measurements are right, the space density of AGN is roughly flat from $z\sim4$ to $z\sim10$ instead of dropping steeply, so supermassive black holes were accumulating mass well before the peak of stellar-mass assembly in their host galaxies.
  • The intrinsic obscured fraction of $0.982^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$, with the Compton-thick fraction rising to 0.97 at $z=7$–$10$, implies that high-redshift X-ray surveys miss most of the AGN population, and that counting only blind detections understates the space density; stacking and position-matched extraction are needed to recover it.
  • The apparent X-ray weakness of many JWST-selected AGN, including Little Red Dots, is naturally explained as heavy obscuration: they are plausibly the same moderate-luminosity, Compton-thick population seen here, and the gap between X-ray and JWST measurements closes once obscuration is accounted for.
  • The black-hole accretion rate density inferred from the obscuration-corrected XLF rises toward $z\sim7$–$10$ and is consistent with JWST-based estimates, implying significant black-hole growth preceded the build-up of the bulk of stellar mass in early galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader should treat the largest claimed excess as an upper envelope rather than a precise density: the $z=7$–$10$ bin holds only a handful of sources, so the factor of 220 is a ratio between a small observed count and a tiny model prediction and carries wide uncertainty even under the paper's own assumptions.
  • If the photometric redshifts survive spectroscopic scrutiny, a corollary the authors leave implicit is that black-hole seeding and duty-cycle models must produce far more active massive black holes at $z>6$ than they currently do, because this measured accretion density is hard to reconcile with the local black-hole mass density under standard radiative efficiencies.
  • The position-matched extraction method could be carried into the deeper Chandra Deep Fields, where it would test whether the flat space density persists below $L_X\approx10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, the luminosity regime where JWST finds most of its AGN candidates.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents measurements of the X-ray luminosity function (XLF) of AGN at z=4-10 in the COSMOS field, combining Chandra COSMOS-Legacy imaging with COSMOS2020 photometric redshifts. The authors construct a sample of 32 z>=4 X-ray AGN, comprising 21 blind detections and 11 directly extracted sources, and measure binned XLF points using the n_obs/n_mdl method. They report consistency with model extrapolations at z=4-5 but higher space densities at z=5-7 and z=7-10, with claimed excesses of ~10x at z=5-7 and up to ~220x at z=7-10 when obscuration corrections are applied. Using hardness ratios and the Borus spectral model, they split the sample into unabsorbed, absorbed, and Compton-thick bins, derive model-normalized correction factors, and report an intrinsic obscured fraction of 0.982(+0.007,-0.008). They then convert the corrected XLF to a bolometric QLF and to a black hole accretion density that rises toward high redshift, bridging JWST-selected AGN results.

Significance. If the excess space density and the high obscured fraction are confirmed, these measurements would substantially revise the picture of supermassive black hole growth in the early Universe, filling the gap between bright quasar surveys and JWST-discovered faint AGN. The paper makes several methodologically sound contributions: the use of quantified area curves for both blind and extracted samples, the statistical setting of the false-probability threshold, and the explicit exploration of four photometric-redshift variants in Fig. 8. The main results, however, are not yet secure: the high-z and obscuration claims depend on photometric redshifts that have no spectroscopic confirmation, and on correction factors defined relative to an extrapolated model. The paper is important and publishable after substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 7, Appendix A, §5.1] The headline excesses at z=7-10 rest on the primary sample's choice of the lower-χ² LePhare redshift from either galaxy or AGN templates. Appendix A documents large template disagreements, e.g., source 481876 has z_GAL=2.87 versus z_QSO=7.38, source 387554 has z_GAL=2.82 versus z_QSO=6.51, and source 329887 has z_GAL=4.14 versus z_QSO=1.09. The conservative 'without+low' sample (both templates z>=4, using the lower of the two redshifts) contains only two sources at z=7-10 (Fig. 7), and §5.1 explicitly admits that the most conservative z=7-10 measurement is within 1σ of the Georgakakis et al. (2015) extrapolation. The abstract's 10x and 220x figures are therefore upper-envelope statements, not secure measurements. Please add a quantitative contamination test, for instance reassigning a fraction of the 32 primary sources to z~2-3 and recomputing the XLF, and consider presenting the conservative sample as the primary result for the z=7-10 claims.
  2. [§4.3, Eqs. (11)-(14), Table 1] The obscuration-corrected XLF, the obscured fraction f_obsc, and the BHAD all depend on the gamma factors defined in Eq. (13) as n_obs/n_mdl per N_H-redshift bin. These factors are not independent measurements: they force the corrected model to reproduce the observed counts under the Pouliasis et al. (2024) fiducial model, the representative N_H values 10^22.5, 10^23.5, and 10^24.5 cm^-2, and the assumed Borus spectral parameters. The reported uncertainty on f_obsc (0.982^{+0.007}_{-0.008}) includes only Poisson counting errors, not the systematic uncertainty in the model extrapolation, the N_H boundaries, or the spectral model. This is particularly concerning because gamma_ctk = 217^{+130}_{-86} at z=7-10, meaning the result is dominated by the small number of Compton-thick sources predicted by the fiducial model. Please provide a systematic error budget and show f_obsc and BHAD under alternative fiducial XLF models and alternative N_H grids.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (8)] The binned XLF is computed with n_obs/n_mdl using the Georgakakis et al. (2015) model as the reference. At z=7-10 the three models plotted in Figs. 5 and 6 differ by orders of magnitude in their extrapolations, so the claim in §3.2 that the method is 'only marginally sensitive' to the reference model requires quantitative demonstration. Please recompute the binned points with Ueda et al. (2014) and Pouliasis et al. (2024) as the reference models and show the resulting spread, or provide a test that the shape difference within each bin is negligible.
  4. [§2.4, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The blind+extracted sample adopts a false-probability threshold that yields a 5% expected false fraction for z>=4 sources. With only 32 sources in the primary sample, about 1.6 false sources are expected, and the z=7-10 bins contain just 2-8 sources depending on the redshift variant. The binned XLF calculation treats all observed sources as real and does not subtract this expected contamination; moreover, the false fraction is likely higher for the z>=7 subset than for the z>=4 sample as a whole because true sources are fainter at higher redshift. Please quantify the effect of the expected false sources on the high-z bins (e.g., via Monte Carlo removal) and consider computing the false fraction for the z>=7 subset.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The model name is misspelled as 'Georgiakais et al. (2015)', and the phrase 'the z=4−5 to panel' is garbled; it should read 'the z=4−5 panel'.
  2. [§3.4] The notation for the AGN-template redshift is inconsistent: 'z_AGN' appears once while 'z_QSO' is used elsewhere; please standardize.
  3. [Appendix A] The appendix uses first-person singular ('I provide', 'my sample') in a two-author paper; please change to 'we' and 'our'.
  4. [§6 (viii)] The phrase 'an mild increase' should be 'a mild increase'.
  5. [§5.3] The sentence 'extensive modelling of the the redshift evolution' contains a doubled 'the'.
  6. [Key words] The key words are placeholders ('keyword1 – keyword2 – keyword3') and should be replaced with actual keywords.
  7. [Acknowledgements] The name 'Georgakais' is misspelled; it should be 'Georgakakis'.
  8. [§2.3] The cross-matching code is referred to as both 'Nway' and 'NWay'; please use one consistent spelling.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 10x/220x excesses and the 0.982 obscured fraction are computed from γ=n_obs/n_mdl correction factors, so the headline numbers are fitted normalizations to the observed counts rather than independent predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eqs. (11)-(14); Table 1; Abstract]
    "The correction factor can thus be written as, γ(N H,bin,z bin)= n_mdl(N H,bin,z bin|φ_mdl,corr)/n_mdl(N H,bin,z bin|φ_fidcl) = n_obs(N H,bin,z bin)/n_mdl(N H,bin,z bin|φ_fidcl), where n_obs(N H,bin,z bin) is the observed number of sources within a given obscuration range (N H,bin) for a given redshift bin, and n_mdl(N H,bin,z bin|φ_fidcl) is the expected total number of sources (across all L X) in an N H–z bin assuming our fiducial XLF model."

    The γ factors are explicitly defined as the ratio of the observed number of sources to the number predicted by the fiducial model, so they are fitted to reproduce the observed binned counts by construction. The obscuration-corrected XLF in Eq. (14) is then built from these γs, and Table 1 gives γ_ctk = 217 at z = 7–10, which is the origin of the abstract's 'could be as high as 220× the model extrapolations' statement. Thus the headline 10x/220x excess is not an independent physical prediction; it is a restatement of n_obs/n_mdl for bins where the fiducial model predicts very few obscured sources, scaled into a 'corrected' XLF that is normalized to the same observed counts it claims to explain.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eq. (15); Conclusions (v)]
    "we use our obscuration correction factors (γunabs, γabs and γctk) to determine the intrinsic fraction of obscured (i.e. NH>10^23) AGN, f_obsc, f_obsc = (γabs+γctk)/(γunabs+γabs+γctk), ... The obscured fraction of AGN across the full redshift range of z=4−10 is 0.982+0.007/−0.008."

    The obscured fraction is computed from the same γ values that were calibrated as n_obs/n_mdl in each N_H bin. Consequently f_obsc is a ratio of fitted normalization factors rather than an independently measured intrinsic quantity. The quoted 0.982 value is therefore a model-dependent rescaling of the Pouliasis et al. (2024) XLF needed to match the observed binned counts, not a separate empirical constraint on the obscured fraction; any error or assumption in the fiducial model propagates directly into the claimed fraction.

full rationale

The paper's binned XLF measurements in Section 3 use the standard n_obs/n_mdl estimator with external models only as references; that part is not circular. The circularity enters in Section 4.3, where the obscuration correction factors are defined by Eq. (13) as γ = n_obs/n_mdl. These factors are then inserted into Eq. (14) to produce the obscuration-corrected XLF, and the same γs are used in Eq. (15) to derive the obscured fraction. The abstract's 10x/220x excesses and the 0.982 obscured fraction thus reduce, by construction, to ratios of observed to model-predicted counts rather than to an independent derivation. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present; the redshift uncertainty and small sample sizes are correctness risks, not circularity. Overall, the central quantitative claims are partially forced by the fitted γ normalizations, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on photometric redshift fidelity and on the spectral/obscuration model used to convert counts to luminosities and corrections. The gamma factors are ratios of observed to model-predicted counts rather than conventional free parameters, but they are model-dependent calibrations, and the high-z numbers in particular depend on the assumed XLF shape.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_unabs/gamma_abs/gamma_ctk per redshift bin = z=4-5: 0.10, 0.38, 0.9; z=5-7: 0.5, 1.1, 4; z=7-10: <4.7, 13, 217
    Equation 13 defines each correction factor as n_obs/n_mdl so model-predicted counts exactly match observed counts in each NH and redshift bin; these factors then rescale the XLF and determine the obscured fraction.
  • Representative NH values for obscuration bins = 10^22.5, 10^23.5, 10^24.5 cm^-2
    Chosen to represent unabsorbed, absorbed, and Compton-thick bins in the Borus count-rate conversion; the choice shifts the predicted count rates and therefore the gamma values and inferred luminosities.
  • Photon index and reflection component = Gamma=1.9, pexrav relative strength 1.0
    Adopted spectral model from Aird et al. (2015) to convert Chandra count rates to rest-frame 2-10 keV luminosities; alternative spectral assumptions would change LX and the binned XLF.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption COSMOS2020 LePhare photometric redshifts correctly assign sources to z=4-10
    The full sample and XLF depend on z_best>=4 from template fits; Appendix A and Section 3.4 show large galaxy versus AGN redshift discrepancies, so this is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Hardness ratio to NH mapping via the Borus torus model is correct at z=4-10
    Section 4.2 classifies sources as unabsorbed, absorbed, or Compton-thick using Borus model tracks; errors in this mapping propagate into the gamma corrections and obscuration fractions.
  • ad hoc to paper The XLF shape and evolution within each NH and redshift bin follows the Pouliasis et al. (2024) fiducial model
    Stated in Section 4.3: the correction assumes no luminosity dependence and the same underlying XLF shape across obscuration levels, which constructs the corrected XLF rather than measuring it independently.
  • ad hoc to paper No luminosity dependence in the obscured fraction
    Section 4.3 assumes the same correction factor applies at all LX; if the obscured fraction varies with luminosity, the corrected XLF and BHAD are biased.
  • standard math Chandra area curves and false-probability calculations accurately quantify survey sensitivity
    Section 2.2.2 uses Poisson cumulative probabilities to build area curves; the n_obs/n_mdl method depends directly on this sensitivity model.
  • standard math Flat Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=70, OmegaM=0.3, OmegaLambda=0.7
    Adopted in Section 1 for computing comoving volumes in the XLF and BHAD calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurements of the z=4-10 X-ray Luminosity Function: the high space density of moderate-luminosity, obscured AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHKRHXHF

@misc{pith2026250616145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurements of the z=4-10 X-ray Luminosity Function: the high space density of moderate-luminosity, obscured AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHKRHXHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16145}
}
abstract

SMBHs are theorised to undergo significant growth in the early Universe, however, the X-ray Luminosity Function (XLF), used as a principal tracer of the SMBH accretion density, lacks observational constraints at z>6, until now. We present new measurements of the z=4-10 XLF at intermediate luminosities, taking advantage of recent deep near-IR imaging from UltraVISTA that enables us to identify galaxies and AGN at high redshifts within which we identify X-ray sources using Chandra COSMOS data. We first performed a cross-match to a deep Chandra source list, for which the X-ray sensitivity can be accurately quantified, before exploiting available X-ray data further through direct extraction of X-ray counts at the positions of COSMOS2020 galaxies. With the resulting z=4-10 X-ray AGN sample, comprised of 21 blind detections and 11 directly extracted detections, we have measured the early space density of AGN, at moderate-luminosities where the majority of early SMBH growth occurred. These measurements reveal higher space-densities than expected, based on the extrapolation of XLF models from lower redshifts. Whilst our measured space densities at z=4-5 are consistent with model predictions, at z=5-7 we find space densities of the order of 10$\times$ the extrapolated model predictions and could be as high as 220$\times$ the model extrapolations at z=7-10. In addition, we find evidence that a large fraction of the early AGN population are heavily obscured, with an obscured fraction of 0.982$^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$; correcting for this obscuration further increases the measured space densities. Comparing to recent JWST results, these measurements begin to bridge the gap between the bright-end of the quasar luminosity function and the latest JWST observations of very early, low-luminosity AGN, indicating a larger fraction of the first galaxies play host to rapidly growing SMBH than previously thought.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16145 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hard band (2–7 keV, blue) and full band (0.5–7 keV, purple) area curves, giving the sky area coverage as a function of the effective area￾corrected count rate, determined with the blind sample false probability threshold of 4 × 10−6 (solid line) and the blind+extracted sample thresh￾old of 3.38 × 10−5 (dashed line). All use of these area curves is based on the count rate (converted to intrinsic X-ray luminosities at… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of the false probabilities of sources from the full-band Chandra-COSMOS data, showing values directly extracted from the Chandra imaging or the blind detections where available. The full sample of COS￾MOS2020 sources is shown by the grey outline, with those remaining once sources around the blind X-ray detected sources are removed shown in solid grey. The blind only sample, obtained using the full-band fa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Rest-frame 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity against redshift, obtained from the full band count rate, for all sources included in our high-redshift samples. Sources are shown at redshifts based on both the galaxy template (𝑧𝐺 𝐴𝐿) and AGN template (𝑧𝑄𝑆𝑂) photometric redshift fits (red and blue respectively). Sources that would leave the high redshift sample given either their galaxy or AGN redshift fit are indicated by empt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Binned measurements of the high redshift XLF of AGN (black triangles), based on the cross-matched blind source sample and the best-fitting photometric redshift estimates (i.e. the primary high-redshift sample). At 𝑧 = 4 − 5 (left hand panel) our measurements are consis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flow chart illustrating the creation of the four photometric-redshift version dependant high-redshift samples, from our blind+extracted sample, with+low (solid pink), with+high (solid blue), without+low (empty pink) and without+high (empty blue). The number of sources …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Binned XLF measurements at 𝑧 ≥ 4 determined from the blind and extracted sample using either the lowest (pink) or the highest (blue) possible photometric redshift, with (solid symbols) and without (empty symbols) sources for which only one photometric redshift measurem…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Full band obscuration corrected XLF measurements (black triangles; determined in §4.1) for the redshift bins of 𝑧 = 4 − 5, 5 − 7 and 7 − 10. The uncorrected full band (purple circles; from figure 6), hard band (blue diamonds) and Pouliasis et al. (2024) model extrapola…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Hardness Ratio (HR) with respect to the best-fitting redshift of all sources within our blind+extracted sample. The dotted lines indicated the expected value of HR based on the Borus spectral model (Baloković et al. 2018) with a column density of NH = 1022cm−2 , 1…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of model predicted source numbers (left) and corrected source numbers (right; see section 4.3) for unabsorbed (blue), absorbed (green) and Compton-thick (red) samples, with the observed number of sources shown by the points. Open histograms show full sample…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Pouliasis et al. (2024) XLF model before (solid line) and after (dashed line) correction to our obscuration binned measurements, for NH < 1023 (top row), 1023cm−2 ≤ 𝑁H ≤ 1024cm−2 (middle row) and NH > 1024cm−2 (bottom row). Our measured XLF are shown for compariso…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fraction of the blind+extracted sample that are Compton Thick (pink points) and the fraction that are obscured (black points), across the full luminosity range of the sample. Previous observational measurements of the obscured fraction from Vito et al. (2018) for 𝐿X =…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The bounds of the XLF measured in this paper, with lower bounds given by the lower bounds of the photometry dependent XLF determined in §3.4 and the upper bounds given by the upper uncertainty on the obscuration corrected XLF measurements (see section 4.3). Extrapolat…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Our estimates of the bolometric QLF (purple squares) based on our final XLF measurements and converted to bolometric estimates based on the corrections from Shen et al. (2020). The solid squares indicate our best estimates, while the uncertainties show the range from …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of the BHAD with redshift, as given by our measure￾ments of the 𝑧 = 4 − 10 XLF (black crosses). Previous X-ray based measure￾ments by Aird et al. (2015) and Pouliasis et al. (2024) are shown by the purple and blue lines respectively and can be seen to follow…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The eROSITA X-ray luminosity function of active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The eROSITA DR2 sample yields a new soft-band AGN X-ray luminosity function spanning eight decades in luminosity to z≈6, with lower low-redshift bright-end densities and higher high-redshift abundances than previous models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aihara H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71..114A 71, 114

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  2. [2]

    Aird J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15829.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.2531A 401, 2531

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.1892A 451, 1892

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  4. [4]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3390A 465, 3390

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3390A 465, 3390

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2932 2017

  5. [5]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1225A 474, 1225

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1225A 474, 1225

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2700 2018

  6. [6]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4360A 484, 4360

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4360A 484, 4360

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz125 2019

  7. [7]

    B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adab76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L..29A 980, L29

    Akins H. B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adab76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L..29A 980, L29

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adab76 2025

  8. [8]

    M., Hickox R

    Alexander D. M., Hickox R. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewAR..56...93A 56, 93

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

Show all 154 references
  1. [9]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    Ananna T. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    arXiv:2501.09585

    Arevalo Gonzalez F., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250109585A p. arXiv:2501.09585

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Arnouts S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329..355A 329, 355

    2002

  4. [12]

    Ashby M. L. N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aad4fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...39A 237, 39

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...56A 728, 56

    Assef R. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...56A 728, 56

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Balokovi \'c M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...42B 854, 42

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Barlow-Hall C., 2024, Phd thesis, The University of Edinburgh

    2024

  9. [17]

    L., Delaney J., Aird J., Evans P

    Barlow-Hall C. L., Delaney J., Aird J., Evans P. A., Osborne J. P., Watson M. G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.6055B 519, 6055

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    Bogd \'a n \'A ., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..126B 8, 126

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Adams N. J., Milvang-Jensen B., McCracken H. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2059B 493, 2059

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Terlevich R

    Boyle B. J., Terlevich R. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01264.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.293L..49B 293, L49

    1998

  14. [22]

    J., Shanks T., Croom S

    Boyle B. J., Shanks T., Croom S. M., Smith R. J., Miller L., Loaring N., Heymans C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03730.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.317.1014B 317, 1014

    2000

  15. [23]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Alexander D

    Brandt W. N., Alexander D. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&ARv..23....1B 23, 1

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    N., Hasinger G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..827B 43, 827

    Brandt W. N., Hasinger G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..827B 43, 827

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Brightman M., Nandra K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18207.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1206B 413, 1206

    2011

  19. [27]

    Brinch M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..153B 943, 153

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2410.07340

    Brooks M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241007340B p. arXiv:2410.07340

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Brusa M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693....8B 693, 8

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    2003

  23. [31]

    Buchner J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...89B 802, 89

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Buchner J., Salvato M., Budava\'ri T., Fotopoulou S., 2021, nway: Bayesian cross-matching of astronomical catalogs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2102.014

    2021

  25. [33]

    A., Morris D

    Cameron R. A., Morris D. C., Virani S. N., Wolk S. J., Blackwell W. C., Minow J. I., O'Dell S. L., 2002, in Bohlender D. A., Durand D., Handley T. H., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI. p. 132

    2002

  26. [34]

    Capak P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172...99C 172, 99

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Cappelluti N., et al., 2024, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe10070276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Univ...10..276C 10, 276

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Walter F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..105C 51, 105

    Carilli C. L., Walter F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..105C 51, 105

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Civano F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...62C 819, 62

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Coupon J., Czakon N., Bosch J., Komiyama Y., Medezinski E., Miyazaki S., Oguri M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...7C 70, S7

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Cruise M., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9...36C 9, 36

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    N., Aird J., Evans P

    Delaney J. N., Aird J., Evans P. A., Barlow-Hall C., Osborne J. P., Watson M. G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.1620D 521, 1620

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    doi

  34. [42]

    T., McLeod D

    Donnan C. T., McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Carnall A. C., Cullen F., Magee D., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4554D 520, 4554

    doi

  35. [43]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Elvis M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..184..158E 184, 158

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Fan X., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2833F 122, 2833

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..55F 940, L55

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..55F 940, L55

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Fruscione A., Burke D., Siemiginowska A., 2009, Chandra News, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ChNew..16...26F 16, 26

    2009

  40. [48]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...2G 595, A2

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    Gehrels N., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303..336G 303, 336

    1986 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Aird J., Trichas M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13423.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1205G 388, 1205

    Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Laird E. S., Aird J., Trichas M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13423.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1205G 388, 1205

    2008

  43. [51]

    Georgakakis A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.1946G 453, 1946

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1976G 471, 1976

    Georgakakis A., Aird J., Schulze A., Dwelly T., Salvato M., Nandra K., Merloni A., Schneider D. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1976G 471, 1976

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Gilli R., Comastri A., Hasinger G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463...79G 463, 79

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    Gilli R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494...33G 494, 33

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    Gilli R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A..17G 666, A17

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Bautz M

    Grant C. E., Bautz M. W., Plucinsky P. P., Ford P. G., 2024, in den Herder J.-W. A., Nikzad S., Nakazawa K., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 130...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    Greene J. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Barlow-Hall C., Hickox R

    Guetzoyan P., Aird J., Georgakakis A., Coil A. L., Barlow-Hall C., Hickox R. C., Rankine A. L., Terrazas B. A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536...79G 536, 79

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    Habouzit M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1940H 503, 1940

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    N., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..138H 979, 138

    Hainline K. N., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..138H 979, 138

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Best P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..589H 52, 589

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Alexander D

    Hickox R. C., Alexander D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..625H 56, 625

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    Ikeda S., Awaki H., Terashima Y., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..608I 692, 608

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...457..841I 457, 841

    2006 doi

  59. [67]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690.1236I 690, 1236

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..55I 556, A55

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    Inayoshi K., Visbal E., Haiman Z., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58...27I 58, 27

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Noda H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241203653I p

    Inayoshi K., Kimura S. S., Noda H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241203653I p. arXiv:2412.03653

    2024 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kalfountzou E., Civano F., Elvis M., Trichas M., Green P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1430K 445, 1430

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...48K 236, 48

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...48K 236, 48

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403576K p

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403576K p. arXiv:2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...38K 968, 38

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..581K 33, 581

    1995

  69. [77]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L..21K 965, L21

    Kov \'a cs O. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L..21K 965, L21

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Sajina A., Petric A

    Lacy M., Ridgway S. E., Sajina A., Petric A. O., Gates E. L., Urrutia T., Storrie-Lombardi L. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802..102L 802, 102

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Laigle C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224...24L 224, 24

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..180..102L 180, 102

    Laird E. S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..180..102L 180, 102

    2009 doi

  73. [81]

    Laloux B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2546L 518, 2546

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Laloux B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3459L 532, 3459

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    W., Mykytyn D., 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008

    Lang D., Hogg D. W., Mykytyn D., 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008

    2016

  76. [84]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..29L 953, L29

    Larson R. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..29L 953, L29

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A...1L 643, A1

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    Luo B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..228....2L 228, 2

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    Lusso E., Valiante R., Vito F., 2023, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 122, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_116-1

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    2014 doi

  81. [89]

    Madau P., Haardt F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976L..24M 976, L24

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    Magdziarz P., Zdziarski A. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    1995 doi

  83. [91]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.145M 691, A145

    2024 doi

  84. [93]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1921M 538, 1921

    1921 doi

  85. [94]

    Marchesi S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..150M 827, 150

    2016 doi

  86. [95]

    Matthee J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963..129M 963, 129

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    McCracken H. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    2012 doi

  88. [97]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..105M 768, 105

    McGreer I. D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..105M 768, 105

    2013 doi

  89. [98]

    Miyaji T., Hasinger G., Schmidt M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...369...49M 369, 49

    2001 doi

  90. [99]

    Originally published in: 2012A&A...544A.156M

    Moneti A., et al., 2023, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The fourth UltraVISTA data release (DR4) (Moneti+, 2019) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/373. Originally published in: 2012A&A...544A.156M

    2023

  91. [100]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..206....8M 206, 8

    2013 doi

  92. [101]

    Nandra K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...10N 220, 10

    2015 doi

  93. [102]

    Napolitano L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A..50N 693, A50

    2025 doi

  94. [103]

    L., et al., 2007, in UV , X-Ray , and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV

    O'Dell S. L., et al., 2007, in UV , X-Ray , and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV . SPIE, pp 19--30, @doi 10.1117/12.734594 , https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/6686/668603/Managing-radiation-degradation-of-CCDs-on-the-Chandra-X-ra...

    2007 doi

  95. [104]

    Onodera M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...26O 755, 26

    2012 doi

  96. [105]

    C., Ferrara A., Gallerani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..681O 480, 681

    Orofino M. C., Ferrara A., Gallerani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..681O 480, 681

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  98. [107]

    J., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.2.579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..579P 281, 579

    Page M. J., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.2.579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..579P 281, 579

    1996 doi

  99. [108]

    L., Siemiginowska A., van Dyk D

    Park T., Kashyap V. L., Siemiginowska A., van Dyk D. A., Zezas A., Heinke C., Wargelin B. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..610P 652, 610

    2006 doi

  100. [109]

    Peca A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..162P 943, 162

    2023 doi

  101. [110]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..863P 110, 863

    Pickles A. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..863P 110, 863

    1998 doi

  102. [111]

    Polletta M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663...81P 663, 81

    2007 doi

  103. [112]

    Pouliasis E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..97P 685, A97

    2024 doi

  104. [113]

    J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ARA&A..22..471R 22, 471

    Rees M. J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ARA&A..22..471R 22, 471

    1984

  105. [114]

    E., Comastri A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...54R 33, e054

    Reines A. E., Comastri A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...54R 33, e054

    2016 doi

  106. [115]

    Ren K., Trenti M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..110R 923, 110

    2021 doi

  107. [116]

    S., et al., 2023, in Siegmund O

    Reynolds C. S., et al., 2023, in Siegmund O. H., Hoadley K., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII. p. 126781E ( @eprint arXiv 2311.00780 ), @doi 10.1117/1...

    2023 arXiv

  108. [117]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...14R 773, 14

    Ross N. P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...14R 773, 14

    2013 doi

  109. [118]

    Salvato M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690.1250S 690, 1250

    2009 doi

  110. [119]

    Salvato M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...61S 742, 61

    2011 doi

  111. [120]

    Salvato M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4937S 473, 4937

    2018 doi

  112. [121]

    B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172...86S 172, 86

    Sanders D. B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172...86S 172, 86

    2007 doi

  113. [122]

    Sawicki M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5202S 489, 5202

    2019 doi

  114. [123]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  115. [124]

    Schmidt M., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..393S 151, 393

    1968 doi

  116. [125]

    P., Gunn J

    Schmidt M., Schneider D. P., Gunn J. E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110...68S 110, 68

    1995 doi

  117. [126]

    Scholtz J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.175S 697, A175

    2025 doi

  118. [127]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....1S 172, 1

    2007 doi

  119. [128]

    Sharma R., Sharma M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3287S 531, 3287

    2024 doi

  120. [129]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Alexander D

    Shen X., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Alexander D. M., Richards G. T., Ross N. P., Hickox R. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.3252S 495, 3252

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    Shuntov M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..61S 664, A61

    2022 doi

  122. [131]

    B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665L...7S 665, L7

    Sillassen N. B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665L...7S 665, L7

    2022 doi

  123. [132]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    2015 doi

  124. [133]

    S., Connolly A

    Szalay A. S., Connolly A. J., Szokoly G. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117...68S 117, 68

    1999 doi

  125. [134]

    Taniguchi Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67..104T 67, 104

    2015 doi

  126. [135]

    Taylor M., 2013, Starlink User Note, 253

    2013

  127. [136]

    A., Aird J., Coil A

    Terrazas B. A., Aird J., Coil A. L., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241108838T p. arXiv:2411.08838

    2024 doi arXiv

  128. [137]

    Trakhtenbrot B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825....4T 825, 4

    2016 doi

  129. [138]

    Trinca A., Schneider R., Valiante R., Graziani L., Ferrotti A., Omukai K., Chon S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.3563T 529, 3563

    2024 doi

  130. [139]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    Ueda Y., Akiyama M., Hasinger G., Miyaji T., Watson M. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    2014 doi

  131. [140]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  132. [141]

    Vito F., Gilli R., Vignali C., Comastri A., Brusa M., Cappelluti N., Iwasawa K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3557V 445, 3557

    2014 doi

  133. [142]

    Vito F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2378V 473, 2378

    2018 doi

  134. [143]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    2022 doi

  135. [144]

    Weaver J., Zalesky L., Allen N., Taamoli S., 2023, The Farmer: Photometry routines for deep multi-wavelength galaxy surveys , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2312.016

    2023

  136. [145]

    C., Brinkman B., Canizares C., Garmire G., Murray S., Van Speybroeck L

    Weisskopf M. C., Brinkman B., Canizares C., Garmire G., Murray S., Van Speybroeck L. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114....1W 114, 1

    2002 doi

  137. [146]

    Wise M., 1997, Chandra News, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ChNew...5...22W 5, 22

    1997

  138. [147]

    Wolf J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A...5W 647, A5

    2021 doi

  139. [148]

    Yang J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..262Y 923, 262

    2021 doi

  140. [149]

    Yang G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950L...5Y 950, L5

    2023 doi

  141. [150]

    Yue M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..176Y 966, 176

    2024 doi

  142. [151]

    F., Yang J., Aird J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2123Z 518, 2123

    Zhang H., Behroozi P., Volonteri M., Silk J., Fan X., Hopkins P. F., Yang J., Aird J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2123Z 518, 2123

    2023 doi

  143. [152]

    Zhu Q., Li Y., Li Y., Maji M., Yajima H., Schneider R., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5583Z 514, 5583

    2022 doi

  144. [153]

    Zubovas K., King A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4289Z 501, 4289

    2021 doi

  145. [154]

    de Graaff A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.189D 697, A189

    2025 doi

  146. [155]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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