Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Black Holes in the Red-sequence Elliptical Galaxies at Redshifts $\sim 0.7-2.5$: Not Dark Energy Source but Remanants of Little Red Dots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 JWST data on twelve high-redshift quiescent ellipticals reject black holes as a dark energy source at about 11 sigma and identify little red dots as their progenitors.

desk verdict A useful, plausible test of cosmologically coupled black holes whose headline 11-sigma exclusion is undermined by unmodeled selection effects and host misclassification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19589 v1 pith:ENFOQQFA submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc

Lei Lei , Ze-Fan Wang , Yi-Ying Wang , Lei Feng , Yi-Zhong Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords darkenergycosmologicallycoupledblackholesJWSTAGNsamplered-sequenceellipticalgalaxieslittlereddotshole-hostgalaxyscalingrelationMCMClikelihoodhigh-redshiftquasars
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
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 tests whether black holes gain mass as the universe expands and thereby act as dark energy. Using 12 bright JWST-detected AGNs hosted by red-sequence elliptical galaxies at redshifts 2.0 to 7, it compares their black hole masses with the local $M_{\star}$–$M_{\rm BH}$ relation. The fit gives a cosmological coupling strength $k=0.13\pm0.27$, consistent with no coupling and incompatible with the $k=3$ needed for dark energy at about 11 $\sigma$. The paper also simulates the evolution of little red dots and finds they naturally become the red-sequence ellipticals with low-mass black holes seen at $z\sim0.7$–$2.5$. If right, the dark-energy origin of black holes is dead, and these high-redshift systems have an ordinary astrophysical explanation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local black-hole-mass versus stellar-mass fundamental plane for red-sequence ellipticals, $\log_{10}(M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot)=8.66+1.32\,\log_{10}(M_{\star}/10^{11}M_\odot)$, used as a no-coupling baseline, together with a Gaussian likelihood that puts a redshift-dependent $k\log(1+z)$ term into the expected black-hole mass. The second mechanism is a Monte Carlo evolution simulation: mock little red dots drawn from JWST-observed stellar masses, black-hole masses, star-formation rates, and accretion rates are grown from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim0.85$ with quenched star formation and constant low accretion, reproducing the observed samples at $z\approx1.61$ and $z\approx0.85$.

What would settle it

A complete sample of quiescent ellipticals at z>2 selected by host stellar mass rather than AGN luminosity, with black-hole masses measured from rest-frame optical lines, should show whether the M_star–M_BH relation tracks k=3 once selection is accounted for. If the inferred coupling returns to about k=3 under that selection function, the 11-sigma rejection fails; if it stays near k=0, the claim stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that black holes in massive, quiescent elliptical galaxies have not grown with cosmic expansion: the coupling strength is $k=0.13\pm0.27$, i.e., consistent with $k=0$ and rejected at about $11\sigma$ relative to the $k=3$ required for a dark-energy source. The evidence is the location of 12 AGN host galaxies at $z=2.09$–$6.77$ on the local black-hole-mass versus stellar-mass plane; under $k=3$ their black holes should sit far below the observed masses. A Monte Carlo likelihood using the local fundamental plane with intrinsic scatter yields the bound. In a second step, the paper argues that little red dots—compact, red, low-accretion-rate AGNs at $z\sim5$–$8$—can grow, quench, and accrete slowly into exactly the red-sequence ellipticals with relatively low-mass black holes previously used to claim $k\approx3$, so no cosmological coupling is needed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 12 JWST-selected AGNs fairly represent black holes in massive red-sequence ellipticals at these redshifts: that detection is not biased toward a particular black-hole mass range, the hosts are truly quiescent with constant stellar mass, and the virial black-hole masses carry no systematic offset relative to the local relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $k=0.13\pm0.27$, cosmologically coupled stellar-remnant black holes cannot supply the measured dark-energy density; another mechanism must drive cosmic acceleration.
  • The apparent growth of black holes in the earlier red-sequence sample is reinterpreted as an evolutionary track from little red dots rather than cosmological coupling, so those data no longer support $k\approx3$.
  • Future space-telescope samples of quiescent ellipticals at $z>2$ should continue to follow the no-coupling plane, with scatter dominated by intrinsic scatter rather than redshift evolution.
  • Little red dots at $z\approx5$–$8$ become viable progenitors for the relatively low-mass black holes seen in massive ellipticals at $z\approx0.7$–$2.5$, with growth driven by sustained low-level accretion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted $11\sigma$ assumes the 12 detected AGNs are an unbiased sample of all massive red-sequence ellipticals at these redshifts; a flux-limited selection could in principle reject $k=3$ even if the coupling were real, because $k=3$ predicts black holes fainter than the detection threshold.
  • A testable extension is to model the survey selection function and redo the likelihood; if the selection correction moves $k$ upward, the decisive constraint could weaken.
  • The little-red-dot simulation keeps accretion rates roughly constant and quenches star formation after $z\approx1.6$; X-ray stacking of the presumed descendants at $z\approx1$ could check whether that accretion assumption holds.
  • The same data could constrain other redshift-dependent growth laws, like Eddington-limited accretion histories, separating ordinary accretion from cosmological coupling.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles a sample of 12 JWST-detected broad-line AGNs at redshifts z≈2–7 whose hosts are classified as red-sequence elliptical galaxies with stellar masses above 4×10^10 M_sun. Assuming the local Mstar–MBH fundamental plane (Eq. 1) evolves only through a cosmological coupling factor (1+z)^{-k}, the authors fit k = 0.13 ± 0.27 (68% CI) and claim that the cosmologically coupled black-hole dark-energy hypothesis (k = 3) is rejected at about 11σ. In a second part, the paper simulates the evolution of little red dots (LRDs) from z≈6 to z≈1.61 and z≈0.85 and argues that they can evolve into the red-sequence elliptical hosts without cosmological coupling.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, this would be a decisive observational disproof of a prominent and actively discussed dark-energy hypothesis, and the paper would also provide a plausible evolutionary link between JWST-discovered LRDs and lower-redshift red-sequence ellipticals. The compilation of high-redshift AGN host properties in Table I is useful, the MCMC implementation is straightforward, and the posterior for k is transparently presented. However, the headline significance is not supported: the likelihood ignores the strong luminosity selection of the sample, and the inference assumes no intrinsic redshift evolution of the Mstar–MBH relation. The LRD simulation is an interesting illustrative model but is not an independent test. The manuscript's main quantitative conclusion is therefore not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (2)–(4), Methods] The likelihood in Eq. (3) treats the 12 observed (Mstar, MBH) pairs as random draws from the underlying Mstar–MBH relation with only measurement scatter and intrinsic scatter. This is not valid for a flux-limited, luminosity-selected sample. The authors explicitly select 'bright, high stellar mass quasars observed by JWST' and impose Mstar > 4×10^10 M_sun and E(B-V) < 0.5; detection of a broad-line AGN depends on luminosity, hence on MBH at a given Eddington ratio. Under k = 3, Eq. (2) predicts log MBH roughly 5.8–7.2 for the stellar masses and redshifts in Table I, whereas the observed values are 7.3–10.0. A survey with a luminosity threshold would then only detect the high-mass tail of the k = 3 population, producing exactly the offset shown in Figure 1. The fitted k = 0.13 ± 0.27 and the quoted ~11σ exclusion therefore characterize the conditional distribution of detectable objects, not the coupling strength of the underlying population. The paper must include a selection function P(det | Mstar, MBH, z, survey limits) or otherwise demonstrate that the strong selection on AGN luminosity does not bias the inference; without this, the headline claim is unsupported.
  2. [Table I and Data] The classification of several hosts as red-sequence ellipticals with constant stellar mass is not secure. Table I lists SFR values up to 543.8 M_sun/yr (J1030+0524), 311.1 M_sun/yr (J1148+5251), and other sources with SFR > 100 M_sun/yr, and some E(B-V) values near the 0.5 threshold. At z~5–7, rest-frame optical morphology and SED fitting give limited constraints on quiescence, and broad-line AGN light can contaminate host photometry. If the stellar mass is not constant over the redshift baseline, or if the host stellar mass is overestimated, then the constant-Mstar assumption entering Eq. (2) biases k. The authors should show, for each source, the quantitative offset from the adopted SFR–Mstar main sequence and address host-light decomposition systematics.
  3. [Eq. (1) and Result] The inference assumes that the local Mstar–MBH fundamental plane (Eq. 1) is universal up to the (1+z)^{-k} factor. However, there is independent evidence that the Mstar–MBH relation evolves with redshift and that high-redshift quasars can host overmassive black holes; moreover, the authors' own LRD simulation includes stellar mass growth and BH accretion that would move objects relative to the local relation without any cosmological coupling. The analysis must either model this intrinsic evolution or argue quantitatively that it is negligible; otherwise the fitted k conflates astrophysical evolution of the relation with the cosmological coupling signal.
  4. [Result and discussion, Figure 3] The LRD evolution simulation is calibrated to the observed LRD population and adopts, without physical derivation, constant SFR and constant BH accretion rates from z~6 to z~1.61 and then SFR = 0 with continued accretion. The good match in Figure 3 is therefore an illustration that the assumed tracks can connect the two populations, not an independent test of the no-coupling hypothesis. The text should present it as such, and the abstract's claim that LRDs 'naturally evolve' into the red-sequence ellipticals should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The word 'Remanants' should be 'Remnants'.
  2. [Eqs. (3)–(4)] Equation (4) defines sigma_tot, but Eq. (3) uses sigma_i; state explicitly that sigma_i = sigma_tot,i.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption does not label the grey region representing the intrinsic scatter of the local relation.
  4. [Data section] The sentence claiming that the impact of observational biases is 'relatively small' for hosts with Mstar > 4×10^10 M_sun requires quantitative support or should be deleted.
  5. [References] Several references are still arXiv preprints (e.g., [48]–[50]); update to published versions where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupling strength k is estimated from data against an external local relation, and the LRD evolution is a forward model rather than a restatement of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a maximum-likelihood estimate of the cosmological coupling strength k. Equation (2) is a redshift-adjusted form of the local M_BH-M_star relation in Equation (1), and Equation (3) compares the predicted black-hole mass to the 12 measured values; k is a free parameter, not an input, so the resulting k=0.13±0.27 and the approximate 11-sigma distance from k=3 are not circular. Equation (1) is attributed to the authors' previous work [37], but it is an empirical fit to local quiescent elliptical AGNs shown in Figure 1, not to the high-redshift sample used for the k test; it therefore counts as independent calibration under the review rules. The LRD section is a forward simulation: initial stellar and black-hole masses, star-formation rates, and accretion rates are taken from observed JWST LRD properties [50,55,69], and the mock population is evolved to z~1.61 and z~0.85 and then selected with Mstar>4e10 M_sun. The final agreement with the Farrah et al. samples is a consistency check, not a fit to those samples. The most serious concern about the paper is the absence of a flux-limited selection function in Equation (3), since the sample is composed of luminous broad-line AGNs; however, selection bias is a statistical validity issue rather than a self-definitional or by-construction circularity, and the instructions limit circularity findings to exhibited reductions of outputs to inputs. No such reduction is present in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The k-result rests on the external local M*-MBH relation and the assumption that high-z hosts are passive; the LRD scenario rests on observationally motivated initial conditions and simple constant-rate evolution. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • k (cosmological coupling strength) = 0.13 +/- 0.27 (68% CI)
    Fitted to the 12 JWST AGN offsets from the local M*-MBH relation; the central claim depends on this fit.
  • LRD initial stellar mass distribution (mean 9.05, sigma 0.4) = log10(M*/Msun) = 9.05 +/- 0.4
    Adopted from JWST LRD observations [50] to seed the evolutionary simulation; not fitted to the target ellipticals.
  • LRD initial black hole mass distribution (mean 7.35, sigma 0.5) = log10(MBH/Msun) = 7.35 +/- 0.5
    Adopted from [50] as initial conditions for mock LRD sources.
  • SFR-main sequence relation coefficients (slope 0.7, intercept -5.3, scatter 0.8 dex) = log10(SFR) = 0.7 log10(M*) - 5.3, scatter 0.8
    Adopted from Speagle et al. [55] and JWST LRD measurements; drives stellar mass growth in the simulation.
  • BH accretion rate relation (normalization -9.0, scatter 0.5 dex) = log10(MBHdot) = log10(MBH) - 9.0, scatter 0.5
    Adopted from Daly (2021) and LRD observations; drives black hole mass growth in the simulation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local M*-MBH fundamental plane (Eq. 1) is redshift-independent and applies to z>2 red-sequence ellipticals.
    The whole k measurement compares high-z BH masses to a z=0 relation; if the relation evolves or differs for these hosts, the inferred k shifts.
  • domain assumption The selected JWST AGN hosts are genuinely passive red-sequence ellipticals whose stellar masses are constant in time.
    Needed so the only expected MBH evolution is coupling; Table I lists SFRs up to about 540 Msun/yr and morphologies at z>5 are uncertain.
  • domain assumption Virial BH mass estimates from broad lines are unbiased relative to the local relation, with no systematic offset beyond quoted errors.
    A systematic offset of about 0.5 dex would change k by several tenths and shrink the claimed significance.
  • ad hoc to paper In the LRD simulation, SFR and BH accretion rate remain constant between z=6 and z=1.61, after which SFR is set to zero.
    These evolution prescriptions are chosen for convenience to match the red-sequence ellipticals; the paper says the conclusion is unchanged if SFR is not zeroed but does not show it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Holes in the Red-sequence Elliptical Galaxies at Redshifts $\sim 0.7-2.5$: Not Dark Energy Source but Remanants of Little Red Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ENFOQQFA

@misc{pith2026250619589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Holes in the Red-sequence Elliptical Galaxies at Redshifts $\sim 0.7-2.5$: Not Dark Energy Source but Remanants of Little Red Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ENFOQQFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19589}
}
abstract

The nature of dark energy remains one of the most profound mysteries in modern cosmology. One intriguing proposal is that black holes (BHs) could be the astrophysical source of dark energy through a cosmological coupling mechanism, and strong evidence has been claimed via analyzing the growth of the black hole masses in the red-sequence elliptical galaxies at redshifts $\leq 2.5$. In this work, with a group of very high redshift AGNs detected by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in the red-sequence elliptical galaxies, we show that the possibility of BHs being the astrophysical source of dark energy has been rejected at a confidence level exceeding 10$\sigma$. Moreover, it turns out that the Little Red Dots recently discovered by JWST, characterized by the low accretion rates, can naturally evolve into the red-sequence elliptical galaxies hosting the relatively low mass black holes at the redshifts of $\sim 0.7-2.5$, without the need of black hole cosmological coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Our selected AGNs and the local sample. The black line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Probability distribution function of the posterior of the cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The evolution history of the JWST little red dots is con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

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

    If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V . Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, et al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998), astro- ph/9805201

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nu- gent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, et al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999), astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Frieman, M

    J. Frieman, M. Turner, and D. Huterer, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.46, 385 (2008), 0803.0982

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y . Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525 (2011), 1103.5870

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998), astro-ph/9708069

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D58, 023503 (1998), astro-ph/9711102

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V . Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 141301 (2005), astro-ph/0505494

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013), 1304.1961

    arXiv 2013

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 071301 (2003), astro-ph/0302506

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y .-F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare, and J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rept.493, 1 (2010), 0909.2776

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Qiu, Modern Physics Letters A25, 909 (2010), 1002.3971

    T. Qiu, Modern Physics Letters A25, 909 (2010), 1002.3971

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y .-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and E. N. Saridakis, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 106901 (2016), 1511.07586

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Amendola, C

    L. Amendola, C. Quercellini, D. Tocchini-Valentini, and A. Pasqui, Astrophys. J. Lett.583, L53 (2003), astro- ph/0205097

    2003

  6. [14]

    Amendola and C

    L. Amendola and C. Quercellini, Phys. Rev. D68, 023514 (2003), astro-ph/0303228

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    K. S. Croker, K. A. Nishimura, and D. Farrah, Astrophys. J. 889, 115 (2020), 1904.03781

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Farrah, S

    D. Farrah, S. Petty, K. S. Croker, G. Tarl´e, M. Zevin, E. Hatzim- inaoglou, F. Shankar, L. Wang, D. L. Clements, A. Efstathiou, et al., Astrophys. J.943, 133 (2023), 2212.06854

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The dashed contours in black, blue and red show our simulated LRDs redshiftz∼6,z∼1.61 and z∼0.85

    are shown as red and blue points. The dashed contours in black, blue and red show our simulated LRDs redshiftz∼6,z∼1.61 and z∼0.85. Three contours correspond to sample density levels of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.3, respectively. The black points with error bars are JWST LRDs adopted fr...

  10. [18]

    Farrah et al., Astrophys

    D. Farrah et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.944, L31 (2023), 2302.07878

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Faraoni and M

    V . Faraoni and M. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D110, 063553 (2024), 2407.14549

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cadoni, R

    M. Cadoni, R. Murgia, M. Pitzalis, and A. P. Sanna, JCAP03, 026 (2024), 2309.16444

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Faraoni and C

    V . Faraoni and C. Zeyn, Phys. Rev. D109, 124002 (2024), 2401.00091

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cadoni, M

    M. Cadoni, M. Pitzalis, and A. P. Sanna, JCAP02, 051 (2025), 2410.10459

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Almatwi, Eur

    M. Almatwi, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 845 (2024), 2408.13559

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. P. Avelino, JCAP08, 005 (2023), 2303.06630

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mistele, Res

    T. Mistele, Res. Notes AAS7, 101 (2023), 2304.09817

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gaur and M

    R. Gaur and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D110, 043529 (2024), 2308.07374

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. K. Dahal, S. Maharana, F. Simovic, I. Soranidis, and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. D110, 044032 (2024), 2312.16804

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gao and X.-D

    S.-J. Gao and X.-D. Li, Astrophys. J.956, 128 (2023), 2307.10708

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K. S. Croker, G. Tarl ´e, S. P. Ahlen, B. G. Cartwright, D. Far- rah, N. Fernandez, and R. A. Windhorst, JCAP10, 094 (2024), 2405.12282

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ahlen, A

    S. Ahlen, A. Aviles, B. Cartwright, K. S. Croker, W. Elbers, D. Farrah, N. Fernandez, G. Niz, J. Rohlf, G. Tarl´e, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.20338 (2025), 2504.20338

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva, and P. Rocha, Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 2223 (2011), 1009.4403

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang and Z

    R. Zhang and Z. Zhang, JCAP06, 031 (2023), 2303.14047

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Mc Conville and E

    R. Mc Conville and E. O. Colg ´ain, Phys. Rev. D108, 123533 (2023), 2304.02718

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cadoni, A

    M. Cadoni, A. P. Sanna, M. Pitzalis, B. Banerjee, R. Murgia, N. Hazra, and M. Branchesi, JCAP11, 007 (2023), 2306.11588

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. Lacy, A. Engholm, D. Farrah, and K. Ejercito, Astrophys. J. Lett.961, L33 (2024), 2312.12344

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Calz `a, F

    M. Calz `a, F. Gianesello, M. Rinaldi, and S. Vagnozzi, Sci. Rep. 14, 31296 (2024), 2409.01801

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Andrae and K

    R. Andrae and K. El-Badry, Astron. Astrophys.673, L10 (2023), 2305.01307

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lei et al., Sci

    L. Lei et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 229811 (2024), 2305.03408

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. C. Rodrigues, S. Kumar, and M. Quartin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 2377 (2024), 2307.02474

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mlinar and T

    E. Mlinar and T. Zwitter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 3000 (2024), 2311.09007

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. L. Rodriguez, Astrophys. J. Lett.947, L12 (2023), 2302.12386

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y . Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. Astrophys641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Y .-Y . Wang, L. Lei, G.-W. Yuan, and Y .-Z. Fan, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L48 (2023), 2307.12487

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Janish and E

    R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071002 (2025), 2310.15395

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. Roy, C. Blanco, C. Dessert, A. Prabhu, and T. Temim, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071003 (2025), 2311.04987. 6

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lei, Y .-Y

    L. Lei, Y .-Y . Wang, G.-W. Yuan, T.-L. Wang, M. A. T. Groenewegen, and Y .-Z. Fan, Astrophys. J.980, 249 (2025), 2501.07119

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Z.-F. Wang, L. Lei, L. Feng, and Y .-Z. Fan, Res. Astron. Astro- phys.24, 125012 (2024), 2411.08774

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    X. Ding, M. Onoue, J. D. Silverman, Y . Matsuoka, T. Izumi, M. A. Strauss, K. Jahnke, C. L. Phillips, J. Li, M. V olonteri, et al., Nature (London)621, 51 (2023), 2211.14329

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang, E

    J. Zhang, E. Egami, F. Sun, X. Lin, J. Lyu, Y . Zhu, P. Rinaldi, Y . Sun, A. J. Bunker, R. Bhatawdekar, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2505.02895 (2025), 2505.02895

    2025

  42. [50]

    Juod ˇzbalis, R

    I. Juod ˇzbalis, R. Maiolino, W. M. Baker, E. C. Lake, J. Scholtz, F. D’Eugenio, B. Trefoloni, Y . Isobe, S. Tacchella, A. J. Bunker, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.03551 (2025), 2504.03551

    2025

  43. [51]

    R. Li, L. C. Ho, and C.-H. Chen, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2505.12867 (2025), 2505.12867

    2025

  44. [52]

    Yue, A.-C

    M. Yue, A.-C. Eilers, R. A. Simcoe, R. Mackenzie, J. Matthee, D. Kashino, R. Bordoloi, S. J. Lilly, and R. P. Naidu, Astrophys. J.966, 176 (2024), 2309.04614

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Maiolino et al., Astron

    R. Maiolino et al., Astron. Astrophys.691, A145 (2024), 2308.01230

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Harikane, Y

    Y . Harikane, Y . Zhang, K. Nakajima, M. Ouchi, Y . Isobe, Y . Ono, S. Hatano, Y . Xu, and H. Umeda, Astrophys. J.959, 39 (2023), 2303.11946

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kokorev, J

    V . Kokorev, J. Chisholm, R. Endsley, S. L. Finkelstein, J. E. Greene, H. B. Akins, V . Bromm, C. M. Casey, S. Fujimoto, I. Labb´e, et al., Astrophys. J.975, 178 (2024), 2407.20320

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. S. Speagle, C. L. Steinhardt, P. L. Capak, and J. D. Silverman, Astrophys. J. Suppl.214, 15 (2014), 1405.2041

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    K. E. Heintz et al., Nature Astron.7, 1517 (2023), 2212.02890

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Matthee et al., Astrophys

    J. Matthee et al., Astrophys. J.963, 129 (2024), 2306.05448

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Yang et al., Astrophys

    J. Yang et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L5 (2023), 2304.09888

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. Ito, T. S. Tanaka, K. Shimasaku, M. Ando, M. Onoue, M. Tanaka, S. Matsui, T. Kakimoto, and F. Valentino, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538, 1501 (2025), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/538/3/1501/62245817/staf372.pdf, URLhttps:...

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Labbe, J

    I. Labbe, J. E. Greene, R. Bezanson, S. Fujimoto, L. J. Furtak, A. D. Goulding, J. Matthee, R. P. Naidu, P. A. Oesch, H. Atek, et al., Astrophys. J.978, 92 (2025), 2306.07320

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ben-Ami, A

    S. Ben-Ami, A. Vikhlinin, and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.854, 4 (2018), 1712.03207

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.51, 511 (2013), 1304.7762

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. E. Reines and M. V olonteri, Astrophys. J.813, 82 (2015), 1508.06274

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhuang and L

    M.-Y . Zhuang and L. C. Ho, Nature Astronomy7, 1376 (2023), 2308.08603

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    H. B. Akins, C. M. Casey, N. Allen, M. B. Bagley, M. Dick- inson, S. L. Finkelstein, M. Franco, S. Harish, P. Arrabal Haro, O. Ilbert, et al., Astrophys. J.956, 61 (2023), 2304.12347

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sacchi and A

    A. Sacchi and A. Bogdan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2505.09669 (2025), 2505.09669

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y . Ma, J. E. Greene, D. J. Setton, A. D. Goulding, M. Annunzi- atella, X. Fan, V . Kokorev, I. Labbe, J. Li, X. Lin, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.08032 (2025), 2504.08032

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Pacucci and A

    F. Pacucci and A. Loeb, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2506.03244 (2025), 2506.03244

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    R. A. Daly, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.500, 215 (2021), 2010.06908

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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