Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 86 references

The Evolutionary Pathway of Low-mass Supermassive Black Holes at Intermediate Redshift: Insights from the JADES Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that at intermediate redshifts some low-mass supermassive black holes lag far behind their host bulges, pointing to a galaxy-first evolutionary path.

desk verdict Useful new sample of low-mass AGNs at z~2-4, but the headline galaxy-first claim rests on a selection-biased comparison that the paper itself flags and never fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01293 v1 pith:LJLZNL7H submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.GA

Atsushi Hoshi , Toru Yamada This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ActivegalacticnucleiSupermassiveblackholesholephysicsSeyfertgalaxiesJWSTJADESsurveyGalaxybulgeformationVirialmassestimation
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 sets out to show that supermassive black holes and their host galaxies do not always grow together at intermediate redshifts. From the JWST JADES survey the authors assemble nine active galaxies at $24$, and several also fall below the local black-hole-to-bulge relation. The authors interpret this as evidence for a galaxy-first pathway in which bulges assemble before the central black hole has accreted much gas. If true, it would mean black hole growth is not the universal trigger of early bulge formation, and the local scaling relations are built by converging growth later.

What carries the argument

Three tools carry the argument. The first is the single-epoch virial estimator of Greene & Ho (2005), $M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot = 2.0\times10^6\,(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}})^{0.55}(\Delta V_{\mathrm{H}\alpha,BL}/10^3\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}})^{2.06}$, which converts broad-line luminosity and width into black hole mass. The second is the CIGALE spectral energy distribution fit, which supplies stellar masses and AGN fractions for each object. The third is two-dimensional GALFIT decomposition of the NIRCam F444W images into PSF and Sérsic components, which isolates the bulge and yields bulge masses via bulge-to-total ratios; the paper then compares black hole and bulge growth rates, $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm BH}$ versus $\mathrm{SFR}/M_{\star}$, to infer which component is growing faster at the observed epoch.

What would settle it

Dynamically calibrate the black hole masses: obtain reverberation-mapping or CO dynamical measurements for a handful of the nine AGNs; if those masses sit on the local $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm bulge}$ relation rather than below it, the undermassive claim and the galaxy-first conclusion collapse. Alternatively, a selection-free census of $z=2$-$4$ AGNs that reproduced the $z>4$ mass ratios would falsify the claimed dichotomy between the two epochs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using medium-resolution NIRSpec spectra and NIRCam imaging from the JADES survey, the paper identifies nine type 1 AGNs at $2<z<4$ with broad $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ emission and a non-zero AGN contribution in their spectral energy distributions, spanning black hole masses $10^{6.1}$–$10^{8.2}\,M_\odot$ and stellar masses $10^{9.3}$–$10^{11.0}\,M_\odot$. Black hole masses are estimated by the single-epoch virial method applied to the broad $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ line, with luminosities taken from combined broad and narrow components, and stellar masses come from CIGALE SED fitting. The central claim is that in the low-mass black hole regime ($M_{\rm BH}<10^8\,M_\odot$) these intermediate-redshift AGNs have $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\star}$ ratios of 0.01–0.1%, in contrast to the 1–10% ratios reported for $z>4$ JWST AGNs, implying a different growth path. From two-dimensional GALFIT decomposition of the F444W images, most of the sample falls below the local $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm bulge}$ relation of Kormendy & Ho (2013), and the paper reports the first discovery of an undermassive black hole with a prominent bulge at intermediate redshift. The conclusion is a galaxy-first evolutionary pathway in which substantial bulge formation precedes efficient gas accretion onto the central engine.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the locally calibrated single-epoch estimator (Greene & Ho 2005) yields unbiased black hole masses at $z=2$-$4$, and that the additional broad $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ component in one source (ID 49729) is an outflow rather than a second black hole; if either fails, the inferred masses shift by up to a dex and the under- or overmassive classification that supports the galaxy-first conclusion can flip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The local $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$–$M_{\rm bulge}$ relations are not universal at $z\sim3$; bulges can assemble without commensurate black hole growth, so the present-day scaling relations must be built by later, faster black hole growth.
  • The 1–2 dex offset in mass ratio between $z=2$–$4$ and $z>4$ AGNs in the low-mass regime implies the overmassive systems seen at $z>4$ do not evolve directly into the undermassive systems seen here; two distinct assembly channels are required.
  • Seven of the nine AGNs show specific black hole growth exceeding specific star formation, so the same systems that are undermassive today are converging toward the local scaling relations rather than diverging from them.
  • Bulge-dominated hosts with undermassive black holes (the first reported at intermediate redshift) provide a new population for testing bulge-formation scenarios, favoring mechanisms that build bulges without feeding the black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the galaxy-first interpretation is right, a mass-selected census at $z\sim3$ should find the undermassive fraction rising with bulge mass; the authors' sample is too small to test this, but the next generation of JWST/NIRSpec surveys could.
  • The 0.33 dex average upward shift when masses are recomputed from the 5100 Å continuum (instead of $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ luminosity) means the absolute location of the under/overmassive boundary is calibration-sensitive; reconciling the $\mathrm{H}\alpha$- and continuum-based estimators is a direct way to test the claim's robustness.
  • A natural descendant prediction: today's early-type galaxies with undermassive black holes (already suspected in local samples) could be the $z=2$–$4$ galaxy-first systems after a period of sub-Eddington growth; checking their bulges' formation redshifts would link the two epochs.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a sample of nine type 1 AGNs at 2<z<4 from the JADES survey, based on the detection of broad H-alpha emission lines and an AGN component in SED fits. Black hole masses are estimated with the single-epoch virial method using the Greene & Ho (2005) H-alpha calibration; stellar masses come from CIGALE SED fitting; bulge masses are inferred from GALFIT two-dimensional image decomposition in the rest-frame near-infrared. The authors report that the MBH/Mstar ratios of their low-mass SMBHs (<10^8 Msun) differ from those of z>4 JWST AGNs, suggest different evolutionary pathways, and identify undermassive BH systems with bulges, claiming a galaxy-first evolutionary path.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable contribution: it provides a rare sample of low-mass SMBHs at intermediate redshift, a regime that is still sparsely populated, and it directly probes the MBH-bulge relation at 2<z<4 with JWST imaging. The analysis is largely based on public JADES data, the spectral fitting is described in detail with BIC-based model selection, and the GALFIT decomposition tests several structural models. These are strengths. The significance is currently limited by the small sample size (nine objects), by several objects whose SED AGN fractions are consistent with zero, by unresolved or barely resolved bulge components, and by a comparison with z>4 samples that does not yet account for selection effects. The paper is therefore a promising pilot study whose headline claims need to be made more robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The statement that there is a 'significant difference' in MBH/Mstar ratios between the present sample (0.01-0.1%) and z>4 JWST AGNs (1-10%) is not supported by any statistical test. The two samples are selected by very different criteria (H-alpha S/N>10 in JADES vs luminous broad-line AGN selection at z>4), and the paper itself cites Pacucci et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2024) on selection biases in the introduction but does not propagate these caveats into the comparison. I ask for a quantitative treatment: restrict the comparison to a common luminosity or black-hole-mass window, apply a KS or bootstrap test, and discuss completeness. Without this, the offset could be a selection artifact rather than an evolutionary signal.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 4] For IDs 28074, 49729, and 209777, the effective radii of the Sersic components are 1.61, 1.78, and 1.64 pixels, respectively, which are comparable to or smaller than the PSF FWHM of 2.22 pixels (0.14 arcsec). These components are unresolved or barely resolved, so the recovered Sersic indices (including n>2 for 209777) are not robust. The conclusion that some of these objects are bulge-dominated and the 'first discovery of an undermassive BH system with a prominent bulge' claim depend on the stability of the decomposition. A resolution test (e.g., fitting pure PSF models to point sources, or injecting simulated galaxies with known n) is needed before interpreting these Sersic indices as physical.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figure 6] The claim that 'most of our sample shows undermassive BH systems relative to the local MBH-Mbulge relation' is weakened by the use of upper limits for late-type galaxies (n<2). For these objects, method (3) gives Mbulge < Mstar, and upper limits cannot establish that the BH-to-bulge ratio is low; they only place a lower limit on the ratio. The conclusion should be restricted to the objects with actual bulge mass measurements (IDs 22456, 29648, and, after addressing the resolution issue, possibly 209777), and the sample size behind the 'undermassive BH with bulge' claim should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 2.4, Table 1, Abstract] Several objects have SED-derived AGN fractions that are consistent with zero at the 1-sigma level: ID 22456 (0.07±0.17), ID 23682 (0.19±0.25), ID 29648 (0.13±0.19), and ID 78109 (0.22±0.22). Yet the abstract states that 'All of them show ... the AGN contribution in spectral energy distribution.' This is an overstatement: for these objects the AGN identification rests essentially on the broad H-alpha line alone. Please quantify the significance of the AGN fraction or soften the claim to 'most of them'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] Table 2 appears misaligned for rows where the [O III] measurement is blank; for example, for ID 22456 the value 41.65±0.04 appears under the [O III] FWHM column, but comparison with ID 23682 shows that this is log L_Halpha and all subsequent columns are shifted. Please reformat the table so that blank entries are clearly marked.
  2. [Section 2.3] The text says 'based on the AGN sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (?)' with a missing reference; Vanden Berk et al. (2001) appears in the reference list and is presumably the intended citation.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'NI I' should be [N II], 'OI I I' should be [O III], 'SI I' should be [S II], 'Saplpeter' should be 'Salpeter' (Table 3), 'Black allows' should be 'Black arrows' (Figure 6 caption), 'doted lines' should be 'dotted lines' (Figure 4 caption), and 'Galfitting' should be 'GALFIT fitting' (Table 4 caption).
  4. [Section 4.1] The text states: 'For two lower-redshift AGNs (ID 28074 and ID 49729 at z=2.0, 2.3)', but Table 1 gives z=2.261 for ID 28074 and z=3.189 for ID 49729. The redshifts and the adjective 'lower-redshift' are inconsistent with the table.
  5. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'The gray cross symbols represent the MBH-Mstar relation for the AGN sample at z<0.055' should be rephrased, since symbols represent individual objects, not a relation.
  6. [Section 2.3] The sentence 'The narrower broad component (~2200 km/s) is likely associated with a galaxy-scale outflow and was therefore excluded from the LHalpha measurement used for the LHalpha calculation' repeats 'LHalpha measurement'; please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BH and bulge masses are independently derived from external calibrations and image decomposition.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Black hole masses (Equation 1) use the Greene & Ho (2005) single-epoch virial calibration applied to measured H-alpha luminosity and broad-line FWHM, with no parameter fitted to the paper's conclusions. Stellar masses come from CIGALE SED fitting, and bulge masses come from independent GALFIT 2D decomposition of NIRCam images, so the low MBH/Mbulge result does not reduce to an input assumption. The z>4 comparison in Section 3.2 uses literature measurements; selection-function differences are a correctness caveat that the paper itself cites (Pacucci et al. 2023; Li et al. 2024), not a circular reduction. The growth-rate diagnostic in Section 3.3 couples Lbol and MBH through the same H-alpha luminosity, but it is an interpretive diagram rather than a prediction, and the central galaxy-first claim rests on the independent bulge-mass comparison. The self-citations to Hoshi et al. (2024) are comparative and not load-bearing. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard empirical calibrations and model choices rather than new physics. The main burden is the validity of local virial and structural calibrations at z=2-4, plus one object-specific assumption about an outflow interpretation.

free parameters (4)
  • AGN fraction fAGN in SED fitting = 0.07 to 0.90 (Table 1)
    Fit by CIGALE for each object; used to confirm AGN presence and to interpret host galaxy properties. For IDs 23682 and 29648 the AGN and non-AGN models give nearly identical reduced chi-square.
  • Radiative efficiency eta = 0.1
    Assumed in Equation (2) to convert Lbol to BH growth rate; directly affects the sMBH/sMstar growth-direction conclusion in Section 3.3.
  • Photometric aperture CIRC5 = 0.35 arcsec radius
    Chosen as the aperture giving the smallest reduced chi-square in SED fitting (Section 2.4); affects all photometry and hence Mstar and fAGN.
  • Bulge-to-total ratio B/T from GALFIT = Not tabulated; derived from Sersic and PSF magnitudes in Table 4
    The bulge mass is Mbulge approximately B/T times Mstar, so the central MBH-Mbulge comparison depends on the fitted image decomposition.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Greene & Ho (2005) single-epoch virial calibration remains valid at z=2-4 and for low-mass BHs.
    Invoked in Equation (1) to convert H-alpha width and luminosity to MBH; any redshift or luminosity-dependent bias propagates into every mass ratio.
  • domain assumption The broad H-alpha component traces virial motion in the BLR, and the combined broad and narrow H-alpha luminosity is the correct L_Halpha for the calibration.
    Section 2.3; the paper notes masses decrease by 0.13 dex if only the broad component is used, so this choice matters.
  • domain assumption GALFIT PSF plus Sersic decomposition correctly separates the AGN PSF from the host galaxy, and the F444W or F277W band traces stellar mass.
    Section 4.1; all bulge masses depend on this decomposition, and for n<2 systems Mbulge is only an upper limit.
  • ad hoc to paper For ID 49729, the second broad H-alpha component is an outflow rather than a second SMBH.
    Section 2.3; if it were a second SMBH, MBH for this object could differ, shifting its position in the mass-ratio diagrams.
  • domain assumption Local MBH-Mbulge and MBH-Mstar relations (Kormendy & Ho 2013; Greene et al. 2020) are the correct benchmarks for evaluating overmassive and undermassive systems.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.2; the undermassive classification is defined relative to these local relations, which may evolve.
  • domain assumption The radiative efficiency eta=0.1 is appropriate for all sources.
    Equation (2) in Section 3.3; differences in spin or accretion mode change sMBH and the growth-direction interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolutionary Pathway of Low-mass Supermassive Black Holes at Intermediate Redshift: Insights from the JADES Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJLZNL7H

@misc{pith2026250701293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolutionary Pathway of Low-mass Supermassive Black Holes at Intermediate Redshift: Insights from the JADES Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJLZNL7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01293}
}
abstract

Understanding the relationship between supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and their host galaxies at different redshifts is crucial for unraveling the processes of SMBH-galaxy co-evolution. We present the properties of nine type 1 Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) at intermediate redshift ($2<z<4$) using the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES). All of them show the significant $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ broad line and the AGN contribution in spectral energy distribution. Our sample covers SMBH masses of $10^{6.1-8.2}\ M_\odot$ and stellar masses of $10^{9.3-11.0}\ M_\odot$, comparable to those of the AGNs observed in the local universe. In the low-mass SMBH regime ($<10^{8}\ M_\odot$), the BH-to-stellar mass ratios in our sample ($0.01-0.1\%$) differ from those of the AGNs at $z>4$ ($1-10\%$), suggesting that black holes and galaxies may trace different evolutionary pathways at intermediate and high redshift. We also perform 2D image decomposition using GALFIT to constrain the bulge mass by evaluating the bulge contribution in the rest-frame near-infrared flux. We identify the AGNs with low BH-to-bulge mass ratios compared to those observed in the nearby bulge-dominant galaxies. This finding suggests the existence of a galaxy-first evolutionary path, in which bulge formation occurs before substantial gas is efficiently accreted onto the central engine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01293 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral fitting around the Hα broad line for intermediate redshift AGNs. Gray and blue lines show the rest-frame observed spectra and the total fitting results respectively. Red, orange and black dashed lines represent the fitting components of the broad line, the narrow lines and the continuum respectively. Each NIRSpec ID is taken from D’Eugenio et al. (2024). The line components used in the fitting are labeled i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MBH − Lbol relation for our AGN sample. Gray and green contours represent the relation at z < 0.35 (Liu et al. 2019) and 1 ≤ z < 2 (Shen et al. 2011) re￾spectively. The blue diamonds represent AGN sample at z > 4 (Harikane et al. 2023; Maiolino et al. 2024) from JWST. The dashed lines represent the Eddington ratios of λedd = 1, 0.1, 0.01. 3.2. Stellar mass and BH mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MBH and Mstar in our AGN sample are shown by orange circles. The black solid line shows the MBH −Mbulge relation for elliptical galaxies and bulge dominant galaxies in the local universe (Kormendy & Ho 2013). The red and blue dashed lines represent the MBH − Mstar relation for early-type and late-type galaxies respectively (Greene et al. 2020). The gray, red, and blue shaded regions indicate the intrinsic scatter as… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results of 2D image decomposition performed using Galfit. Images are 100×100 pixel cutouts displayed with a logarithmic red color scale. The leftmost column shows imaging data in NIRCam/F444W. Cyan rectangles indicate the positions of the three MSA slits. Each slit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Black hole mass (MBH) vs host galaxy bulge mass (Mbulge). Red diamonds represent the Mbulge estimated AGNs. Red and orange circles represent the early-type and late-type AGNs. ID 51236, which has a bulge component but an unconstrained Mbulge, is represented by a red sq…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SED fitting results using CIGALE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial surface brightness profiles of the target in the F444W band. The black solid line represents the observed data. The red and orange lines represent the PSF and S´ersic components, respectively. For galaxies modeled with two S´ersic components, the red and green s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ## 2 _|&MϒHbbyl7==D oM#۶m #FX ץK

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Bauer , F

    Alexander , D. M., Bauer , F. E., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2003, , 126, 539, 10.1086/376473

    doi:10.1086/376473 2003

  5. [5]

    T., Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Kov \'a cs , O

    Ananna , T. T., Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Kov \'a cs , O. E., Natarajan , P., & Hickox , R. C. 2024, , 969, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  6. [6]

    G., Cava , A., et al

    Barro , G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Cava , A., et al. 2019, , 243, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 2019

  7. [7]

    E., Nelson , E

    Benton , C. E., Nelson , E. J., Miller , T. B., et al. 2024, , 974, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e27

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e27 2024

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Brooks , A., & Christensen , C. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges, ed. E. Laurikainen , R. Peletier , & D. Gadotti , 317, 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6_12

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  3. [11]

    J., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Cameron , A. J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, , 690, A288, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682, 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, A&A, 608, A41

    Ciesla, L., Elbaz, D., & Fensch, J. 2017, A&A, 608, A41

    2017

  6. [14]

    Clauwens , B., Schaye , J., Franx , M., & Bower , R. G. 2018, , 478, 3994, 10.1093/mnras/sty1229

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    S., & Broeils , A

    Courteau , S., de Jong , R. S., & Broeils , A. H. 1996, , 457, L73, 10.1086/309906

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    Croton, D. J. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1808

    2006

  9. [17]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 83

    2014

  10. [18]

    J., Scholtz , J., et al

    D'Eugenio , F., Cameron , A. J., Scholtz , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 37

    Ding, X., Silverman, J., Treu, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 37

    2020

  12. [20]

    J., Willott , C., Alberts , S., et al

    Eisenstein , D. J., Willott , C., Alberts , S., et al. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., Johnson , B

    Eisenstein , D. J., Johnson , B. D., Robertson , B., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Bournaud , F., & Elmegreen , D

    Elmegreen , B. G., Bournaud , F., & Elmegreen , D. M. 2008, , 688, 67, 10.1086/592190

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, , 661, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    Ferruit , P., Jakobsen , P., Giardino , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    W., & Scott , N

    Graham , A. W., & Scott , N. 2015, , 798, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/54

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Greene, J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304

    2012

  18. [26]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122

    2005

  19. [27]

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

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

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Giavalisco , M., et al

    Guo , Y., Ferguson , H. C., Giavalisco , M., et al. 2013, , 207, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, , 959, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane , Y., Zhang , Y., Nakajima , K., et al. 2023, , 959, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kere s , D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  23. [31]

    2024, , 969, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad414c

    Hoshi , A., Yamada , T., Kokubo , M., Matsuoka , Y., & Nagao , T. 2024, , 969, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad414c

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2004, ApJ, 604, L89, 10.1086/383567

    Häring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89, 10.1086/383567

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    Inoue, A. K. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2920

    2011

  26. [34]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 111

    Izumi, T., Onoue, M., Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 111

    2019

  27. [35]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 36

    Izumi, T., Matsuoka, Y., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 36

    2021

  28. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 24

    Kimura, Y., Yamada, T., Kokubo, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 24

    2020

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    Kokubo , M., & Harikane , Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  31. [39]

    Kormendy , J., & Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 2004, , 42, 603, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    2004

  32. [40]

    E., Bezanson , R., et al

    Labbe , I., Greene , J. E., Bezanson , R., et al. 2025, , 978, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    H., Calzetti , D., & Heckman , T

    Leitherer , C., Li , I. H., Calzetti , D., & Heckman , T. M. 2002, , 140, 303, 10.1086/342486

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Shen , Y., et al

    Li , J., Silverman , J. D., Shen , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.00074, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.00074

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 21

    Liu, H.-Y., Liu, W.-J., Dong, X.-B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 21

    2019

  36. [44]

    N., Xue , Y

    Luo , B., Brandt , W. N., Xue , Y. Q., et al. 2017, , 228, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    H., et al

    Lyu , J., Alberts , S., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2024, , 966, 229, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    1998

  39. [47]

    2024, , 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino , R., Scholtz , J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, , 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Brammer , G., et al

    Matthee , J., Naidu , R. P., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 963, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184

    2013

  42. [50]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 140

    Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 140

    2001

  43. [51]

    2023, , 672, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345924

    Mountrichas , G. 2023, , 672, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345924

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    1998, , 392, 253, 10.1038/32596

    Noguchi , M. 1998, , 392, 253, 10.1038/32596

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    2009, , 507, 1793, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    Noll , S., Burgarella , D., Giovannoli , E., et al. 2009, , 507, 1793, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    2013, , 428, 718, 10.1093/mnras/sts067

    Okamoto , T. 2013, , 428, 718, 10.1093/mnras/sts067

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  48. [56]

    2011, , 417, 2721, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19439.x

    Orban de Xivry , G., Davies , R., Schartmann , M., et al. 2011, , 417, 2721, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19439.x

    2011

  49. [57]

    2023, , 957, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    Pacucci , F., Nguyen , B., Carniani , S., Maiolino , R., & Fan , X. 2023, , 957, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    K., Dubois , Y., et al

    Park , M.-J., Yi , S. K., Dubois , Y., et al. 2019, , 883, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3afe

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097

    2010

  53. [61]

    2020, A&A, 637, A84

    Pensabene, A., Carniani, S., Perna, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A84

    2020

  54. [62]

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

    Perrin , M. D., Sivaramakrishnan , A., Lajoie , C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann , Jr., M. Clampi...

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    D., Soummer, R., Elliott, E

    Perrin, M. D., Soummer, R., Elliott, E. M., Lallo, M. D., & Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2012: optical, infrared, and millimeter wave, Vol. 8442, SPIE, 1193--1203

    2012

  56. [64]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

    2015

  58. [66]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470

    2006

  59. [67]

    J., Robertson , B., Tacchella , S., et al

    Rieke , M. J., Robertson , B., Tacchella , S., et al. 2023, , 269, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  61. [69]

    B., Soifer , B

    Sanders , D. B., Soifer , B. T., Elias , J. H., et al. 1988, , 325, 74, 10.1086/165983

    1988 doi

  62. [70]

    Scannapieco , C., White , S. D. M., Springel , V., & Tissera , P. B. 2009, , 396, 696, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14764.x

    2009

  63. [71]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz , G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  64. [72]

    Sersic , J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  65. [73]

    T., Strauss, M

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

    2011

  66. [74]

    2024, , 531, 851, 10.1093/mnras/stae1226

    Shimizu , T., Oogi , T., Okamoto , T., Nagashima , M., & Enoki , M. 2024, , 531, 851, 10.1093/mnras/stae1226

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2019, , 482, 4846, 10.1093/mnras/sty2958

    Shirakata , H., Okamoto , T., Kawaguchi , T., et al. 2019, , 482, 4846, 10.1093/mnras/sty2958

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    Stalevski, M., Fritz, J., Baes, M., Nakos, T., & Popovi \'c , L. C . 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2756

    2012

  69. [77]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 2288

    Stalevski, M., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2288

    2016

  70. [78]

    R., & Reines , A

    Sturm , M. R., & Reines , A. E. 2024, , 971, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55e6

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 32

    Suh, H., Civano, F., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 32

    2020

  72. [80]

    D., & Schramm , M

    Suh , H., Hasinger , G., Steinhardt , C., Silverman , J. D., & Schramm , M. 2015, , 815, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/129

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    S., Silverman , J

    Tanaka , T. S., Silverman , J. D., Ding , X., et al. 2025, , 979, 215, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0a

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    E., Richards , G

    Vanden Berk , D. E., Richards , G. T., Bauer , A., et al. 2001, , 122, 549, 10.1086/321167

    2001 doi

  75. [83]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

    2020

  76. [84]

    Q., Luo , B., Brandt , W

    Xue , Y. Q., Luo , B., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2016, , 224, 15, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/15

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    2011, , 195, 10, 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/10

    ---. 2011, , 195, 10, 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/10

    2011 doi

  78. [86]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 740, 10.1093/mnras/stz3001

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Buat , V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 740, 10.1093/mnras/stz3001

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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