Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

What you see is what you get: empirically measured bolometric luminosities of Little Red Dots

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two of the most luminous Little Red Dots emit most of their light in the rest-frame optical, so their true bolometric luminosities are about ten times lower than published values.

desk verdict Honest, data-driven lower-limit bolometric corrections for LRDs, but the headline L_bol/L5100~5 and the mass-scale implications hinge on the FIR being negligible—a prior the authors state clearly but do not test beyond upper limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05434 v1 pith:OU3Q6OYM submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Jenny E. Greene , David J. Setton , Lukas J. Furtak , Rohan P. Naidu , Marta Volonteri , Pratika Dayal , Ivo Labbe , Pieter van Dokkum
show 22 more authors
Rachel Bezanson Gabriel Brammer Sam E. Cutler Karl Glazebrook Anna de Graaff Michaela Hirschmann Raphael E. Hviding Vasily Kokorev Joel Leja Hanpu Liu Yilun Ma Jorryt Matthee Themiya Nanayakkara Pascal A. Oesch Richard Pan Sedona H. Price Justin S. Spilker Bingjie Wang John R. Weaver Katherine E. Whitaker Christina C. Williams Adi Zitrin
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords LittleRedDotsbolometriccorrectionsactivegalacticnucleispectralenergydistributionshigh-redshiftgalaxiesintermediate-massblackholesfar-infraredemissionAGNdemographics
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

Little Red Dots are compact, extremely red sources that JWST has shown to be common in the early universe and that are thought to be accreting black holes. The paper tries to establish that these objects are not ordinary active galactic nuclei hidden behind dust: the red optical light we see is intrinsic, and most of the bolometric luminosity emerges there. Integrating the full observed spectral energy distributions of two of the most luminous known Little Red Dots, from X-ray upper limits to far-infrared upper limits, gives L_bol/L_5100 = 5, about half the standard AGN correction, and implies published luminosities were roughly ten times too high. If correct, the implied black hole masses fall to about 10^5-10^7 solar masses, with host galaxies near 10^8 solar masses, easing several demographic tensions. This matters because Little Red Dots may dominate the broad-line AGN population at high redshift, so the luminosity scale sets what we think early black hole growth looked like.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the panchromatic spectral energy distribution assembled for each source: PRISM spectroscopy in the UV/optical, MIRI photometry in the mid-infrared, and ALMA/Herschel non-detections in the far-infrared. The SED is divided into standard rest-frame regions (X-ray, UV, optical, NIR, IR) and integrated to produce bolometric corrections, the conversion factors that turn a single observed luminosity such as L_5100 or L_H-alpha into a total luminosity. Two extrapolations bracket the unseen far-infrared: a minimum-FIR case, which linearly drops the reddest MIRI flux to zero at the ALMA band, and a maximum-FIR case built from all available upper limits. The minimum case is the default

What would settle it

A detection of A2744-45924 or RUBIES-BLAGN-1 in deep ALMA observations around rest-frame 100 microns at a level near the present 3-sigma limits would settle the matter: the paper's maximum-FIR calculation puts L_bol/L_5100 at 37 in that case, reversing the factor-of-ten downward revision. Similarly, a stacked far-infrared detection across a larger Little Red Dot sample showing a cold-dust bump would prove the missing reprocessed luminosity exists, while continued non-detections would support the optical-dominated SED.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is empirical: the bolometric luminosity of a Little Red Dot should be measured from its observed spectral energy distribution rather than inferred from a dust-reddened standard AGN template. For A2744-45924 and RUBIES-BLAGN-1, the two sources with the deepest panchromatic coverage, the default integration assumes the far-infrared contribution is minimal, with the SED dropping linearly from the reddest MIRI detection to zero at the ALMA band. That yields L_bol = 1.1 x 10^45 erg/s for A2744-45924 and a similar result for RUBIES-BLAGN-1, with an average L_bol/L_5100 of about 5; more than half of the total emerges in the rest-frame optical, while the X-ray corona, the b

Load-bearing premise

The headline factor L_bol/L_5100 = 5 assumes that essentially nothing is emitted beyond rest-frame roughly 100 microns, with the SED linearly extrapolated from the reddest MIRI detection to zero at the ALMA band; if dusty reprocessed light sits just below the ALMA and Herschel upper limits, the same objects would have L_bol/L_5100 = 37, restoring the old higher luminosities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published L_bol values for the UNCOVER and ASPIRE samples drop by roughly an order of magnitude when the new L_bol/L_5100 = 5 and L_bol/L_H-alpha corrections are applied.
  • Typical Little Red Dot black hole masses shift from about 10^6-10^8 to 10^5-10^7 solar masses, with host galaxies around 10^7-10^8 solar masses.
  • The revised z about 5 and z about 6-9 bolometric luminosity functions fall below semi-analytic model predictions, relieving earlier tensions with clustering, overmassive black holes, and the integrated black hole mass density.
  • H-alpha becomes a usable bolometric indicator for Little Red Dots only after normalizing the observed equivalent width to the roughly 940 angstrom average of the two anchor sources.
  • The optical-peaked SEDs agree with quasi-spherical accretion flow models in which a roughly 5000 K photosphere, not dust reprocessing, produces the red continuum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the far-infrared deficit survives deeper ALMA stacking on a larger sample, the optical-dominated correction would become a general property of the class, making many Little Red Dots candidate intermediate-mass black holes already present at z = 3-9.
  • A detected warm roughly 300 K component, such as the one seen in low-redshift analogs, would force the bolometric correction upward and partially restore the old luminosity scale; the paper's picture would then apply only to the FIR-faint subset.
  • The lower mass scale weakens the need to invoke super-Eddington accretion for these objects; if true Eddington ratios are much lower, current virial mass estimates and scaling relations for Little Red Dots would need systematic revision.
  • The same logic suggests that host stellar masses inferred from SED fitting may be overestimated if templates include a luminous reddened AGN component; deep imaging and dynamical masses should be checked against the predicted roughly 10^8 solar-mass hosts.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses X-ray through submillimeter observations of two luminous Little Red Dots (A2744-45924 and RUBIES-BLAGN-1) to construct panchromatic SEDs and derive empirical bolometric luminosities, bolometric corrections, and demographic implications. The default 'minimum FIR' SED linearly extrapolates the reddest MIRI detection to zero at the ALMA band, yielding an average L_bol/L_5100 ~ 5.4 and an order-of-magnitude reduction relative to standard AGN dust-corrected estimates. The paper also constructs a 'maximum FIR' SED allowed by the Herschel/ALMA upper limits, which gives L_bol/L_5100 ~ 37. The authors argue that the low bolometric luminosities imply lower black hole and stellar masses, alleviating previous tensions with clustering, overmassive black holes, and black hole mass density. The analysis is transparent, and the data are valuable, but the central claim is conditional on an assumed negligible far-infrared contribution that is not directly measured.

Significance. If the low-FIR interpretation is correct, the paper provides the most complete bolometric energy budgets for Little Red Dots to date and would substantially revise the inferred masses and demographics of this population. The compiled X-ray-to-ALMA data for two extreme sources, including MIRI detections and deep ALMA non-detections, are unique and will be useful to the community. The authors are also commendably explicit about the systematic uncertainty in the FIR. However, the headline result—that most emission emerges in the rest-frame optical—is not an empirical measurement but a consequence of an adopted extrapolation; the same data allow a factor-of-several larger bolometric luminosity. The demographic conclusions scale from this assumption, so the paper's central claim is not yet established as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 1] The default bolometric luminosity is a model-dependent lower limit, not an empirical measurement. The 'minimum FIR SED' is defined as a linear extrapolation from the reddest MIRI band to zero at the most constraining ALMA band, i.e., zero rest-frame emission beyond ~100 μm. All long-wavelength constraints are non-detections (Herschel/PACS and ALMA bands 6–9), so they only set upper limits. The paper's own Table 1 (column 7) shows that a 'maximum FIR' SED allowed by those same limits gives an average L_bol/L_5100 = 37, a factor ~7 higher than the quoted 5.4 and above the standard AGN value of ~9. Since the abstract states 'L_bol/L_5100 = 5' and 'more than half of the bolometric luminosity likely emerges in the rest-frame optical' as the main result, the conditional nature must be elevated to a headline qualifier. As written, the claim that this is an empirical measurement is not supported
  2. [§6.1–6.2, Figure 3] All demographic implications—the revised luminosity function, the duty cycle, the implied black hole mass scale of 10^5–10^7 M_sun, and the reduced black hole mass density—are computed exclusively under the minimum-FIR L_bol. The maximum-FIR case would shift the luminosity function points in Figure 3 rightward by ~0.8 dex and would largely restore the original tension with model predictions and with Eddington-limit masses. The authors should either compute the demographic quantities for both FIR cases or explicitly state that every conclusion in Section 6 is conditional on the FIR being negligible. A reader should not have to infer that the central demographic claims invert under an allowed interpretation of the same data.
  3. [Title and Abstract] The title 'What you see is what you get' and the abstract's 'empirically measured bolometric luminosities' overstate the observational basis. What is directly measured is the integrated UV-to-MIR SED plus upper limits beyond; the bolometric luminosity additionally depends on an extrapolation to unobserved FIR wavelengths. The paper is transparent in §3 and §5.1, but the presentation should be reframed so that the headline is 'a lower limit under the assumption of negligible FIR' or 'a model-dependent estimate,' with the maximum-FIR case presented as an equally valid constraint rather than a footnote. This reframing is necessary for the paper's central claim to be accurate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Line 'we directly their bolometric luminosities' appears to be missing a verb (likely 'measure' or 'estimate').
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'L_bol/L_ν' is ambiguous; it could be confused with a ratio to a specific flux density rather than to the luminosity integrated over a band. I suggest defining the band-integrated luminosity notation explicitly, e.g., L_bol / L_{<band>}.
  3. [§5.2] The statement that 'L_5100/L_opt = 0.4 ± 0.15' appears inconsistent with the values implied by Table 1: for A2744-45924, L_bol/L_opt = 2.7 and L_bol/L_5100 = 3.9 give L_5100/L_opt ≈ 0.69; for RUBIES-BLAGN-1 the corresponding value is ≈0.49. Please clarify whether L_5100/L_opt is defined with L_opt from the same band definition and reconcile the numbers or state that the 0.4 value comes from a different sample.
  4. [§5.3] The proposed renormalization of Hα EW to 940 Å is based on only the two sources in this paper. The text presents this as a practical correction for future samples; I recommend stating explicitly that this average is small-N and not yet validated on an independent sample.
  5. [§6.3] The comparison to the BH* model of Naidu et al. (2025) is presented as independent support, but that model is built with overlapping authorship and is motivated by the same gas-enshrouding picture used to motivate the minimum-FIR assumption. This is a consistency argument, not an external validation; the text should say so.
  6. [Figure 1 caption] The caption is very long and mixes several concepts (region definitions, data symbols, extrapolations, model curves). Breaking it into explicit labeled bullets would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bolometric corrections are direct integrals of the observed SEDs, with the FIR-minimum choice transparently stated as an assumption rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core measurement is a numerical integration of the observed SEDs (PRISM spectra, MIRI detections, ALMA/X-ray limits) after explicitly declaring a linear extrapolation from the last MIRI point to zero at the ALMA wavelength (Section 3). The reported L_bol/L_5100=5 is therefore a ratio of an assumed-integrated SED to a monochromatic luminosity; no parameter is fit to force the ratio. Table 1 also gives the maximum-FIR alternative (L_bol/L_5100=37), so the central value is a stated lower limit under a stated assumption, not a hidden consequence of the definition. The BH* model (Naidu et al. 2025) is used only as a consistency check after the empirical corrections are derived, and its prediction (L_bol/L_opt=2.6) is not an input to the fit. The demographic discussion re-scales published LFs with the new corrections and is a re-derivation, not a circular one. The main caveat—that the low-FIR assumption controls the headline number—is explicitly acknowledged in the abstract and Section 5.1; this is a limitation/prior about unseen FIR emission, not circular reasoning.

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

The central derivation is a numerical integration of observed fluxes, so it rests on the completeness of the SED coverage and on modeling choices for unobserved regions. The dominant modeling choice is the far-infrared extrapolation. The paper also assumes two luminous sources are representative of the population. No completely novel physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Maximum-FIR blackbody SED normalization and temperature = not reported (fit to upper limits)
    The light-purple 'maximal IR' SED in Figure 1 is a sum of modified blackbodies fit to all MIR/FIR upper limits; the resulting L_bol upper limit of 7e45 erg/s depends on the assumed dust temperatures.
  • Average H-alpha EW renormalization (940 A) = 940 A
    Average rest-frame H-alpha EW of the two sources, used in Section 5.3 to renormalize the L_bol/L_Halpha correction for the population.
  • L_5100/L_opt ratio from modified blackbody fits = 0.4 +/- 0.15
    Used in Section 5.2 to estimate the spread in L_bol/L_5100 across the spectroscopic LRD population; from de Graaff et al. in preparation, not independently published here.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two sources A2744-45924 and RUBIES-BLAGN-1 are representative of the broader LRD population in SED shape.
    Invoked in Sections 4.1 and 5.1 to justify applying the derived corrections to the full population; supported only by qualitative arguments and stacking results.
  • domain assumption The rest-frame optical SED is intrinsic, not heavily dust-reddened.
    Central hypothesis of Section 4.1; motivated by lack of dust reprocessing, Balmer break strength, and line ratios, but not directly proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Far-infrared emission is negligible (minimum-FIR case).
    The default bolometric corrections assume a linear extrapolation from MIRI to zero at the ALMA band; if significant FIR exists, corrections are much larger (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption The ALMA and Herschel non-detections set reliable upper limits on FIR emission.
    Basis for the FIR constraints in Sections 2.2 and 5.1; depends on calibration of ALMA/Herschel data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What you see is what you get: empirically measured bolometric luminosities of Little Red Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OU3Q6OYM

@misc{pith2026250905434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What you see is what you get: empirically measured bolometric luminosities of Little Red Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OU3Q6OYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05434}
}
abstract

New populations of red active galactic nuclei (known as ``Little Red Dots'') discovered by JWST exhibit remarkable spectral energy distributions. Leveraging X-ray through far-infrared observations of two of the most luminous known Little Red Dots, we directly their bolometric luminosities. We find evidence that more than half of the bolometric luminosity likely emerges in the rest-frame optical, with $L_{\rm bol}/L_{5100} = 5$, roughly half the value for ``standard'' Active Galactic Nuclei. Meanwhile, the X-ray emitting corona, UV-emitting black-body, and reprocessed mid to far-infrared emission are all considerably sub-dominant, assuming that the far-infrared luminosity is well below current measured limits. We present new bolometric corrections that dramatically lower inferred bolometric luminosities by a factor of ten compared to published values in the literature. These bolometric corrections are in accord with expectations from models in which gas absorption and reprocessing are responsible for the red rest-frame optical colors of Little Red Dots. We discuss how this lowered luminosity scale suggests a lower mass scale for the population by at least an order of magnitude {\bf (e.g., $\sim 10^5-10^7~{\rm M_{\odot}}$ black holes, and $\sim 10^8~{\rm M_{\odot}}$ galaxies)}, alleviating tensions with clustering, overmassive black holes, and the integrated black hole mass density in the Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The panchromatic spectral energy distributions of A2744-45924 (z = 4.46; top) and RUBIES-BLAGN-1 (z = 3.1, bottom). These are the SEDs that we integrate to derive bolometric luminosities. The bolometric corrections are calculated in the shaded (rest-frame) regions labeled as X-ray (white), UV (blue), optical (green), NIR (red), and IR (goldenrod) following the definitions in Risaliti & Elvis (2004) that we adopt in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Published values of Lbol based on Hα (red) compared with new values presented here (purple). We show measurements from ASPIRE (Lin et al. 2024, circles) and UNCOVER (Labbe et al. 2025; Greene et al. 2024, stars). In the case of ASPIRE, the Hα luminosities were taken with no additional reddening correction, while in the case of UNCOVER, a typical AV ∼ 1.5 mag correction was applied. Across the board, we see tha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bolometric luminosity function from the current analysis (purple symbols) as compared with Greene et al. (2024) (red). For reference, we show the “maximum” line, which assumes that every halo hosts a black hole radiating at its Eddington limit. The points are still higher than the bolometric luminosity function based on X-ray and UV observations from Shen et al. (2020, grey crosses), but now sit comfortably below bo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. ATLAS. II. Extremely High Incidence of Balmer Line Absorption with Predominant Blueshifts in LRDs: Statistical Insights through Comparison with Type 1 AGNs

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

    Balmer-line absorption occurs in ~35% (14/40) of JWST little-red-dot AGNs, roughly 850x the rate in SDSS type-1 AGNs, with mostly slow blueshifted absorber velocities.

  2. Quenching of X-ray emission in little red dots by both Compton-thick gas and high accretion rates

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    X-ray non-detection of little red dots requires both Compton-thick gas columns (~1e25 cm^-2) and intrinsically weak X-ray emission with bolometric correction k_bol,X ≳ 30.

  3. You can't see me: Super-Eddington growth hindering X-ray detection in high-z broad-line active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    High-redshift JWST broad-line AGNs may be low-mass black holes accreting far above Eddington, whose steep, over-cooled coronal spectra explain their X-ray non-detections and make them appear overmassive.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  2. [2]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz551

    Amarantidis, S., Afonso, J., Messias, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz551

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz551 2019

  3. [3]

    T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07745

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07745 2024

  5. [5]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

  6. [6]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01887

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01887

  7. [7]

    C., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.09085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.09085

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.09085 2025

  8. [8]

    C., Rossi, E

    Begelman, M. C., Rossi, E. M., & Armitage, P. J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13344.x

    arXiv 2008

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.18873, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18873

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    C., Li, R., & Inayoshi, K

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Inayoshi, K. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03183, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03183

    doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y

    Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Zhuang, M.-Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04446

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chen, K., Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22600, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22600

    doi

  6. [14]

    M., Rhook, K., Corbett, E

    Croom, S. M., Rhook, K., Corbett, E. A., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05910.x

    2002

  7. [15]

    E., et al

    Dayal, P., Volonteri, M., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A211, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449331 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, ar...

    2025 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2003, in The Mass of Galaxies at Low and High Redshift, ed

    Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., & GOODS Team. 2003, in The Mass of Galaxies at Low and High Redshift, ed. R. Bender & A. Renzini, 324, doi: 10.1007/10899892 78

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    D., et al

    Egami, E., Rex, M., Rawle, T. D., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014696

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07834, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.07834

    Fujimoto, S., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07834, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.07834

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 952, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d

    doi

  13. [21]

    J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 4568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1627

    doi

  14. [22]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Eilers, A.-C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04912, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04912

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Li, Y., et al

    Habouzit, M., Somerville, R. S., Li, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3147

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hubeny, I., Agol, E., Blaes, O., & Krolik, J. H. 2000, ApJ, 533, 710, doi: 10.1086/308708

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05459

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    Inayoshi, K., & Ichikawa, K. 2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03551

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Netzer, H., et al

    Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631, doi: 10.1086/308704

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    Kido, D., Ioka, K., Hotokezaka, K., Inayoshi, K., & Irwin, C. M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06965, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06965 13

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, A&A, 691, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    Killi, M., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2140 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2140 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Matthee, J., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Matthee, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04557

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

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

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    Lambrides, E., Garofali, K., Larson, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    Lin, X., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02896

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Sun, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02896

    doi

  39. [47]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10659

  40. [48]

    E., & Ma, Y

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07190. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07190

    2025

  41. [49]

    L., Greene, J

    Liu, X., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1098, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1098

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 689, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451249

    Mazzucchelli, C. 2024, A&A, 689, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451249

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Setton, D

    Ma, Y., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06257, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06257

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    doi

  46. [55]

    P., Kotiwale, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Kotiwale, G., et al. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02846

    doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01874

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    2025, A&A, 693, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452422

    Perger, K., Fogasy, J., Frey, S., & Gab´ anyi, K.´E. 2025, A&A, 693, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452422

    2025 doi

  50. [59]

    F., Schaye, J., et al

    Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf660

    2025 doi

  51. [60]

    H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Price, S. H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03920, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03920

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

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

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  54. [63]

    2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Risaliti, G., & Elvis, M. 2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 308, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe, ed. A. J. Barger, 187, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2471-9 6

    2004 doi

  55. [64]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16595, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16595

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al

    Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 47, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.18731

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.18731

    2023 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    Searle, L., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1968, ApJ, 153, 1003, doi: 10.1086/149728

    1968 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03424. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03424

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02059, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02059

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    Shuder, J. M. 1981, ApJ, 244, 12, doi: 10.1086/158678

    1981 doi

  63. [72]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Stern, J., & Laor, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    2012

  64. [73]

    A., Weaver, J

    Suess, K. A., Weaver, J. R., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fe

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    P., Plat, A., et al

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Plat, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06359 14

    2025 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04609

    2025 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09542, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09542

    Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09542, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09542

    2025 doi

  68. [77]

    R., et al

    Treiber, H., Greene, J., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12232, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12232

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 Vanden Berk, D

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12328.x

    2007

  71. [80]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    2006 doi

  72. [81]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279, doi: 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    Volonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279, doi: 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    2010 doi

  73. [82]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f1

    Trebitsch, M. 2017, ApJ, 849, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f1

    2017 doi

  74. [83]

    L., et al

    Wang, B., de Graaff, A., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02304

    doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    2024b, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    Wang, B., Leja, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    doi

  76. [85]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    2024 doi

  77. [86]

    A., Bing, L., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Bing, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01945

    2025 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    Yee, H. K. C. 1980, ApJ, 241, 894, doi: 10.1086/158403

    1980 doi

  79. [88]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.