ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy of High-Redshift Galaxies. II. 0.03" Resolution CO Kinematics Reveal Super-Eddington Accretion in a Dust-Obscured Galaxy at z=3.111

Ken-ichi Tadaki

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy of High-Redshift Galaxies. II. 0.03" Resolution CO Kinematics Reveal Super-Eddington Accretion in a Dust-Obscured Galaxy at z=3.111

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A black hole in a dusty galaxy at z=3.1 is swallowing matter more than four times faster than the Eddington limit, a new dynamical measurement suggests.

desk verdict Genuinely new high-resolution ALMA data and a compelling XDR excitation signature; the dynamical black-hole mass is plausible but not secure enough to carry the λ_Edd≳4 headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.01352 v2 pith:HJN7G42K submitted 2026-03-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Ken-ichi Tadaki This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesdust-obscuredhotsupermassiveblackholesEddingtonratiomoleculargaskinematicsCOlineexcitationX-ray-dominatedregions

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

The paper tries to establish that the black hole at the center of W2305-0039, a hyperluminous dust-obscured galaxy at z=3.111, is accreting matter at a rate well above the Eddington limit. It does this in two steps: first, high-resolution CO line observations show that the gas within ~500 pc is excited by X-rays from an obscured active nucleus; second, forward modeling of the CO kinematics yields a dynamical black-hole mass of log(M/Msun)=8.3. Combined with the infrared-derived AGN luminosity, this implies an Eddington ratio of at least 4, meaning the black hole doubles its mass in a few million years. A sympathetic reader would care because this is one of the first dust-insensitive, dynamical black-hole mass measurements in an obscured high-redshift galaxy, and it directly supports the idea that super-Eddington accretion powers the fastest growth of early supermassive black holes.

What carries the argument

Two coupled measurements carry the argument. First, the radial CO(11-10)/CO(7-6) luminosity ratio, derived from visibility-plane two-disk fits, serves as an excitation diagnostic: X-ray-dominated region (XDR) calculations reproduce the steep rise within ~500 pc, while photodissociation-region models fail, identifying the central engine as an X-ray-luminous AGN. Second, a forward kinematic model of the position-velocity diagram treats the CO(11-10) gas as an axisymmetric rotating disk — an exponential surface-density distribution plus a central point mass — with [CI]-based Gaussian priors on the disk mass and size, and an MCMC fit to the observed PV diagram yields the black-hole mass and intr

What would settle it

A sub-0.005-arcsecond (~40 pc) observation of CO(11-10) or another dense-gas tracer that resolves the nuclear rotation curve: if the velocity field shows that the central mass is not point-like (e.g., a spatially extended stellar cusp) or is dominated by outflows/non-circular motions, the derived black-hole mass and the super-Eddington conclusion would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the molecular gas in the nucleus of W2305-0039 is being irradiated by a deeply obscured active galactic nucleus, and that the same gas moves in a dispersion-dominated disk whose weak ordered rotation carries the dynamical signature of a central point mass of about 2×10^8 solar masses. Because the galaxy's AGN luminosity is about 6×10^47 erg/s, the resulting Eddington ratio is ≥4, so the black hole is growing far above the classical Eddington limit. The evidence for the AGN is the CO(11-10)/CO(7-6) line ratio, which exceeds unity within 500 pc and can only be reproduced by X-ray-dominated region models; the evidence for the black-hole mass is a forward model of the p

Load-bearing premise

The kinematic model assumes the CO(11-10) gas forms an axisymmetric rotating disk in equilibrium, and that the fitted central point mass is the black hole — but with a ~230 pc beam that is about 20 times larger than the expected sphere of influence, any non-circular motion, an unresolved stellar cusp, or a different mass distribution could mimic the black-hole term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the derived black-hole mass is correct, W2305-0039 is accreting at λ_Edd ≥ 4, with a mass-doubling time of only a few million years — fast enough to build a 10^9 solar-mass black hole by z≈6.
The high intrinsic gas velocity dispersion (~280 km/s) implies the nuclear disk is pressure- and turbulence-supported, consistent with the feedback expected from super-critical accretion.
The steep CO(11-10)/CO(7-6) ratio in the central 500 pc demonstrates that high-J CO emission is a practical, dust-insensitive diagnostic of buried AGN activity, locating the nucleus even when optical/UV tracers are obscured.
The stream-like CO(7-6) residuals after subtracting the two-disk model suggest that gas inflow from a larger-scale reservoir can sustain the compact nuclear disk for tens of millions of years at the present accretion rate.
Resolving the black-hole sphere of influence with longer-baseline observations would turn the current point-mass constraint into a unique black-hole mass measurement and directly test the super-Eddington interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

If this measurement survives higher-resolution follow-up, single-epoch virial black-hole masses for hot dust-obscured galaxies may need systematic downward revision: the dynamical mass here is ~0.5-1 dex below typical virial estimates, which would shift inferred Eddington-ratio distributions toward even more extreme values.
The same two-step recipe — high-J CO excitation ratio plus PV forward modeling — can be applied to fainter or lower-redshift obscured AGN where the sphere of influence is better resolved, making this a general black-hole-mass method rather than a single-object curiosity.
A decisive but untested alternative is that the central point mass is not a black hole but an unresolved stellar cusp or a nuclear star cluster; the current 230 pc beam cannot separate these, so the super-Eddington conclusion would collapse if a stellar mass component were shown to dominate the central potential.
The XDR interpretation itself could be probed by mapping additional CO transitions: a full high-J CO SLED spanning J=6 to J=13, in combination with the existing ratio, would either confirm or falsify the AGN-heating scenario independent of the kinematics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The data are the real thing. These are the first 0.03″ CO(11–10) and CO(7–6) maps of a Hot DOG, and the visibility-plane work is careful: the compact CO(11–10) component (Re≈173 pc), the even more concentrated 1.0 mm continuum (Re≈77 pc), and the steep central rise in CO(11–10)/CO(7–6) all hang together. The PDR/XDR comparison is persuasive—extreme PDR models cannot reach ratio ~1, while XDR models can with FX≳1 erg s−1 cm−2. That part of the paper deserves to be published.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader puts it: the black-hole mass. The paper itself admits the velocity gradient is weak and the kinematics are dispersion-dominated, and the beam is ~20× the nominal sphere of influence. So the PV model is really measuring a point-mass contribution inside the beam, not resolving the black hole. The model uses Gaussian priors on disk mass and radius from [CI], includes no stellar mass term, and the quoted errors are statistical only. The MBH–inclination degeneracy is acknowledged and the stress test without the sin(i) prior raises the 84th percentile to log MBH≈9.4—which still gives λ_Edd≈2, but that test does not touch the disk-mass priors or the missing stellar component. The λ_Edd≥4 lower bound is therefore not robust; the weaker claim of super-Eddington accretion is defensible but still assumption-dependent. The XDR interpretation also omits a shock-heating baseline, though that is a minor caveat given the contrast with PDR models.

The paper is honest about its limitations—it explicitly flags the weak gradient and looks ahead to long-baseline ALMA for resolving the sphere of influence. The reasoning is clear and the source is rare and important. What it needs is a systematic-error treatment: propagate the [CI] abundance and excitation-temperature uncertainties, run a model with a stellar cusp, and test whether the posterior recovers known input MBH values in controlled kinematics.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee. The excitation result and the dataset justify the time, even if the dynamical-MBH headline will need revision in revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA 0.03" (~230 pc) observations of the Hot DOG W2305−0039 at z=3.111, targeting CO(7–6) and CO(11–10), plus [CI] and continuum. Visibility-plane modeling shows the CO(11–10) emission is compact (Re≈173 pc) and the CO(11–10)/CO(7–6) ratio rises above unity in the central kiloparsec; the authors argue this ratio can be reproduced by XDR models but not by PDR models. Forward modeling of the CO(11–10) position–velocity diagram with an axisymmetric disk plus a central point mass yields log(MBH/M⊙)=8.3^{+0.7}_{−0.6} and σgas≈277 km/s. Combining this with L_AGN≈10^47.7 erg/s from SED decomposition leads to λ_Edd≳4, interpreted as super-Eddington accretion in a heavily obscured nucleus.

Significance. If the dynamical black-hole mass and the Eddington ratio are correct, this would be a rare direct, dust-insensitive constraint on a hyperluminous obscured AGN at z~3, supporting theories of rapid obscured black-hole growth. The paper has clear strengths: visibility-plane fitting to separate compact and extended components, explicit treatment of correlated noise in the PV modeling, use of public tools (KinMS, emcee), and an honest stress test varying the inclination prior. These are valuable methodological contributions. However, the central λ_Edd≳4 claim rests on a dynamical MBH estimate that is largely prior-driven and not uniquely determined by the data, given that the sphere of influence is unresolved by a factor of ~20 and the kinematics are dispersion-dominated with a weak velocity gradient. The quoted uncertainties do not include the dominant systematic terms.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Fig. 5] The black-hole mass estimate is not a unique dynamical measurement because the sphere of influence is unresolved. The synthesized beam is ~230 pc (0.03"), whereas for log MBH≈8.3 and σgas≈277 km/s the expected sphere of influence is ~10 pc. The PV diagram is therefore sensitive to the total mass within the beam, not to a central point mass. The model's point-mass term is degenerate with a compact exponential disk, a stellar cusp, or non-circular motions, especially since the kinematics are dispersion-dominated and the ordered rotation is described as a weak gradient (§4.1). The quoted asymmetric errors are statistical only; no systematic term accounts for the mass-distribution uncertainty. The result should be phrased as a central mass concentration, and the MBH/λ_Edd claims need to be correspondingly weakened.
[Section 4.2, Fig. 7] The disk-mass prior is informative and not conservative. The Gaussian prior on M_disk is centered on the [CI]-inferred gas mass (§3.4), which assumes LTE, optically thin [CI], Tex=100 K, and a carbon abundance of 8×10^-5. This prior—and the absence of any stellar component—directly controls the fitted MBH: if the true central mass distribution is more massive (e.g., a stellar cusp of ~10^9–10^10 M⊙ or a higher gas mass), MBH would be correspondingly lower. The posterior for log Mdisk ≈9.7±0.2 is essentially the prior, not a data-driven constraint. The inclination stress test explores only one of the model uncertainties; relaxing the disk-mass prior or adding a stellar component could push the MBH upper bound above log MBH≈9.4. The conclusion that λ_Edd≳4 is therefore not robust until these alternative assumptions are tested.
[Section 5] The λ_Edd calculation uses only the statistical uncertainty on MBH and the adopted ±0.1 dex on L_AGN. Sun et al. (2024) quote a fractional systematic error of 0.33 dex in the BayeSED framework, which the paper acknowledges but does not propagate into the Eddington-ratio lower bound. Under the paper's own inclination stress test, log MBH≈9.4 gives λ_Edd≈2, and with additional systematic uncertainties in L_AGN and in the mass model, the lower bound could fall further. The abstract's headline 'λ_Edd≳4' is thus not supported; the strongest defensible statement at this point is that the source is plausibly super-Eddington (λ_Edd≳1–2), not that it exceeds 4.
[Section 3.3] The excitation diagnostic compares only PDR and XDR models from galaxySLED. Mechanical heating by turbulence, shocks, or cosmic rays is not included, yet the nuclear gas is dispersion-dominated (σgas≈277 km/s) and likely hosts shocks, making such heating plausible. The statement that XDR models 'successfully reproduce' the ratio while PDR models 'fail' is therefore an overclaim: the ratio is consistent with XDR but does not uniquely require X-ray irradiation. This does not directly undermine the dynamical MBH inference, but it weakens the AGN-heating interpretation used to connect the CO excitation to the accretion state.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 7] The 1D posterior label '8.3+0.7 □0.6' appears to have a missing minus sign; it should read '8.3^{+0.7}_{-0.6}'.
[Abstract / Table 2] The circularized Re for CO(11–10) is quoted as 173±30 pc; make explicit that this is the circularized radius derived from the axis ratio q=0.76.
[Section 3.4] The statement that the extended-disk gas mass is a lower limit depends on the assumed abundance; the same caveat should be stated symmetrically for the compact-disk mass estimate.
[Section 4.1] The claim that elevated velocity dispersion across multiple beams rules out beam smearing as the primary cause should be supported by a beam-convolved model comparison, since beam smearing affects the velocity gradient and dispersion in a coupled way.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: MBH and L_AGN are independent inputs; λ_Edd is a derived ratio, and self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. (1) The MBH constraint (Sec. 4.2) is obtained by forward-modeling the CO(11-10) PV diagram with KinMS. It uses priors on M_disk and R_e,disk from [CI]-inferred gas mass (Sec. 3.4), but the [CI] prior is not derived from L_AGN or from the super-Eddington conclusion. The carbon-abundance assumption (8e-5) is an external chemical assumption motivated by AGN-irradiated environments via Meijerink & Spaans 2005; it does not enter as an input equal to the paper's output. (2) L_AGN = 10^47.7 erg/s is taken from the independent BayeSED decomposition (Sun et al. 2024), not fitted here. (3) λ_Edd = L_AGN / L_Edd(MBH) (Sec. 5) is an arithmetic combination of two independently obtained quantities; neither is defined in terms of the other. (4) The XDR interpretation (Sec. 3.3) compares the observed CO(11-10)/CO(7-6) ratio to galaxySLED models (Esposito et al. 2024) and does not feed back into the dynamical fit; the L_X/L_AGN consistency check is post-hoc. (5) Self-citations (Paper I 'Tadaki, submitted' and Tadaki et al. 2025) are used for motivation and target selection, not as the only support for any load-bearing claim; no uniqueness theorem is imported. The beam-vs-sphere-of-influence and disk-stellar-cusp degeneracies noted in the text are model-robustness/parameter-degeneracy concerns, not circularity: the fitted point mass is labeled a black hole by model construction, but that is a modeling assumption, not a redefinition of an input as a prediction. No equation in the paper reduces the result to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central lambda_Edd claim rests on a chain of external models and priors: SED-derived L_AGN, the KinMS disk model with [CI]-based gas-mass priors, the [CI] mass conversion, and the PDR/XDR grids. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are either fitted to data or chosen by hand. The most consequential choices are the [CI] abundance/temperature and the absence of a stellar-mass component in the dynamical model.

free parameters (10)

M_BH (black hole mass) = log(MBH/Msun)=8.3^{+0.7}_{-0.6}
Central fitted parameter from PV forward modeling; degenerate with disk mass and inclination; sphere of influence unresolved.
M_disk (disk mass) = log(Mdisk/Msun)=9.7^{+0.1}_{-0.2}
Fitted in KinMS; Gaussian prior centered on [CI]-inferred gas mass of 6.3e9 Msun.
R_e,disk (disk mass effective radius) = 0.04^{+0.02}_{-0.02} arcsec
Fitted in KinMS; prior from [CI]-based size constraint.
i (inclination) = 19^{+11}_{-8} deg
Fitted; prior from observed compact-disk axis ratio and assumed intrinsic thickness q_int=0.3.
sigma_gas (intrinsic velocity dispersion) = 277^{+16}_{-14} km/s
Fitted in PV model; assumed spatially uniform.
L_AGN = log(L_AGN/Lsun)=14.14+-0.02 (systematic 0.33)
Adopted from Sun et al. SED decomposition; direct input to the Eddington ratio.
[CI] excitation temperature = Tex=100 K
Chosen for the compact component; directly scales the inferred gas mass and the M_disk prior.
Neutral carbon abundance = X_CI=8e-5 relative to H2
Chosen, motivated by AGN-irradiated gas; directly scales the inferred gas mass.
X-ray flux threshold for XDR interpretation = log(FX/erg/s/cm2) >= 0
Model-grid threshold used to infer log(LX/erg/s) >= 44.1; not fitted to the data.
Radiative efficiency = epsilon=0.1
Fiducial value used only for accretion-rate and mass-doubling-time estimates, not for lambda_Edd.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption CO(11-10) PV emission traces an axisymmetric rotating disk in dynamical equilibrium, with a central point mass plus an exponential disk and uniform velocity dispersion (Section 4.2).
If the gas is outflowing or dominated by non-circular motions, the fitted central point mass is not the black-hole mass.
domain assumption The disk mass distribution and size are correctly represented by the [CI]-inferred molecular gas mass and effective radius (Section 4.2).
This assumes the [CI] LTE conversion (Tex=100 K, X_C=8e-5) and ignores any stellar mass contribution to the potential.
domain assumption galaxySLED/CLOUDY PDR and XDR models correctly predict CO line ratios for z~3 GMC conditions (Section 3.3).
The PDR-vs-XDR comparison is only as good as the external radiative-transfer grid, and shock heating is not included.
domain assumption L_AGN from Sun et al. BayeSED decomposition is accurate to about 0.1 dex (Section 2.1).
The Eddington ratio is directly proportional to this external SED-derived luminosity.
domain assumption [CI] emission is optically thin and in LTE (Section 3.4).
Standard assumption; if violated, the inferred gas masses and disk-mass priors would shift.
domain assumption The compact disk has intrinsic thickness q_int=0.3 for the inclination prior (Section 4.2).
This chosen value affects the inclination posterior, which is degenerate with MBH.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy of High-Redshift Galaxies. II. 0.03" Resolution CO Kinematics Reveal Super-Eddington Accretion in a Dust-Obscured Galaxy at z=3.111." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJN7G42K

@misc{pith2026260301352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy of High-Redshift Galaxies. II. 0.03" Resolution CO Kinematics Reveal Super-Eddington Accretion in a Dust-Obscured Galaxy at z=3.111},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJN7G42K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.01352}
}

abstract

We present ultra-high-resolution (0.03"~230 pc) Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations of the hyperluminous dust-obscured galaxy W2305-0039 at z=3.111, targeting the CO J=7-6 and J=11-10 lines. The CO(11-10) emission is extremely compact and exhibits anomalously high excitation relative to CO(7-6) within the central <500 pc. X-ray-dominated region models successfully reproduce this excitation, providing strong evidence for intense X-ray irradiation by a deeply obscured active galactic nucleus (AGN), while photodissociation-region models fail to match the observed ratio. Forward modeling of the nuclear CO(11-10) position-velocity diagram yields a dynamical black-hole mass of log(MBH/Msun) = 8.3$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ and an intrinsic gas velocity dispersion of $277~^{+16}_{-14}$ km s$^{-1}$. Combined with the AGN luminosity from infrared spectral energy distribution decomposition, these measurements imply a highly super-Eddington accretion state with $\lambda~_{\rm Edd}~\gtrsim 4$. Our results provide dynamical evidence that the most rapid phases of black-hole growth can occur within a compact, heavily obscured nuclear region. Extending ALMA beyond its current 16 km maximum baselines will be essential for pushing such dynamical measurements to tens-of-parsec scales and resolving the black-hole sphere of influence in massive galaxies at $z \gtrsim 6$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01352 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Morphology and kinematics of W2305−0039 at z = 3.111. ALMA maps of CO(7–6) integrated intensity, CO(11–10) integrated intensity, velocity field of the CO(11–10) line, and velocity dispersion. Contours are plotted every 2σ, starting at 3σ. The filled circle indicates the synthesized beam. The green lines indicate the orientation of the slit used to extract the PV diagram shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dust continuum emission in W2305−0039 at observed-frame 1.4 mm (Band 5; left) and 1.0 mm (Band 7; right). Contours are shown at 10, 20, 30, . . . , 80σ (left) and 10, 20, 30, . . . , 120σ (right). 3. RESOLVED STRUCTURE AND EXCITATION OF THE MOLECULAR GAS 3.1. Size measurements To quantify intrinsic source sizes and radial excitation without beam-smearing biases, we modeled the spatial distributions of the CO(7–6), … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Azimuthally averaged visibility amplitudes as a function of uv distance for the continuum and line datasets. Data points show the binned amplitudes (error bars, 1σ) for the individual ALMA projects, as indicated by the symbols. Dashed curves show the best-fitting two-component exponential-disk models, circularized for the azimuthal averaging. Shaded regions indicate the 1σ model uncertainty propagated from the fitte… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radial profile of the CO(11–10)/CO(7–6) luminosity ratio derived from the visibility modeling. The shaded region indicates the 1σ uncertainty from Monte Carlo error propagation. The left axis shows the line ratio, while the right axis gives the corresponding incident …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Position–velocity modeling of the nuclear CO(11–10) emission. Panels show the observed, best-fitting model, and residual PV diagrams extracted along the kinematic major axis. Contours indicate signal-to-noise levels of 3–13σ in steps of 2σ. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spatial noise correlations in the PV diagram estimated from an emission-free noise slice. PV diagram (spatial extent, velocity gradient, and line broadening) rather than the absolute flux scale. We explored the posterior distribution of the dynamical parameters using…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Posterior distributions from the MCMC fitting of the PV model. The one-dimensional panels report the median values and the 16th–84th percentile credible intervals. The red vertical and horizontal lines indicate the best-fitting parameter values corresponding to the max…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Residual CO(7–6) emission after subtracting the best-fit two-component visibility model, illustrating low-level non-axisymmetric structure. Contours are shown at ±3σ and ±4σ, with negative contours dashed. The blue and red ellipses indicate the best-fit extended and c…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

J., Eisenhardt, P

Assef, R. J., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Stern, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 27 Bañados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 80

2015
[2]

2008, MNRAS, 390, 71 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

Cappellari, M. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 71 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

2008
[3]

C., Banerji, M., et al

Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2120 ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy II13

2017
[4]

Cornwell, T. J. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 793

2008
[5]

A., Alatalo, K., Bureau, M., et al

Davis, T. A., Alatalo, K., Bureau, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 534 Díaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., et al. 2016, ApJL, 816, L6

2013
[6]

Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Wu, J., Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 173

2012
[7]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

Esposito, F., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

2024
[8]

J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385

2017

Show all 55 references

[9]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[10]

A., Keene, J., Blake, G

Frerking, M. A., Keene, J., Blake, G. A., & Phillips, T. G. 1989, ApJ, 344, 311

1989
[11]

2014, MNRAS, 445, 2848

Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., Neri, R., & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2848

2014
[12]

2014, ApJS, 215, 2

Han, Y., & Han, Z. 2014, ApJS, 215, 2

2014
[13]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07570

Helou, G., van Dishoeck, E., Zmuidzinas, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07570

2024 arXiv
[14]

C., & Alexander, D

Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625

2018
[15]

F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1

2006
[16]

F., & Quataert, E

Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529

2010
[17]

2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

2020
[18]

K., Yamamura, I., Suzuki, T., et al

Inoue, A. K., Yamamura, I., Suzuki, T., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130920Y

2024
[19]

M., & Davis, S

Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106

2014
[20]

A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C

Kepley, A. A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 024505

2020
[21]

2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Kohno, K., Kawabe, R., Tamura, Y., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11453, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, 114530N

2020
[22]

J., Tsai, C.-W., et al

Liao, M., Assef, R. J., Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2025, Resolving the black hole sphere of influence in a hyper-luminous obscured quasar at redshift 4.6, arXiv:2504.13409

2025 arXiv
[23]

2024, A&A, 685, A121

Loiacono, F., Decarli, R., Mignoli, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A121

2024
[24]

2025, ApJ, 986, 195

Luo, Y., Fan, L., Sun, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 195

2025
[25]

R., Hollenbach, D

Maloney, P. R., Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1996, ApJ, 466, 561

1996
[26]

2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

2004
[27]

A., Perna, M., Willott, C

Marshall, M. A., Perna, M., Willott, C. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A191 Martí-Vidal, I., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Muller, S., & Casey, S. 2014, A&A, 563, A136

2023
[28]

R., Blain, A

Martin, L. R., Blain, A. W., Díaz-Santos, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 978

2024
[29]

A., Kashikawa, N., et al

Matsuoka, Y., Strauss, M. A., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 150

2018
[30]

2005, A&A, 436, 397

Meijerink, R., & Spaans, M. 2005, A&A, 436, 397

2005
[31]

J., Warren, S

Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

2011
[32]

A., Timpe, M., et al

Mroczkowski, T., Gallardo, P. A., Timpe, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A142

2025
[33]

2023, ApJ, 958, 132

Neeleman, M., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 132

2023
[34]

J., et al

Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L13

2015
[35]

J., et al

Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 549, 488

2017
[36]

E., et al

Ricci, F., Treister, E., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 8

2022
[37]

Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

1964
[38]

2014, MNRAS, 439, 503

Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503

2014
[39]

2024, ApJ, 964, 95

Sun, W., Fan, L., Han, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 95

2024
[40]

2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 720

Tadaki, K., Esposito, F., Vallini, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 720

2025
[41]

Tsai, C.-W., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Wu, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 90

2015
[42]

Tsai, C.-W., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Jun, H. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 15

2018
[43]

2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 018001

Tsukui, T., Iguchi, S., Mitsuhashi, I., & Tadaki, K. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 018001

2023
[44]

Vallini, L., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Pallottini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4502 van der Werf, P. P., Isaak, K. G., Meijerink, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L42

2019
[45]

P., Neeleman, M., Walter, F., et al

Venemans, B. P., Neeleman, M., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L30

2019
[46]

N., Stern, D., et al

Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Stern, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4528

2018
[47]

2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279

Volonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279

2010
[48]

2015, ApJ, 804, 148

Volonteri, M., Silk, J., & Dubus, G. 2015, ApJ, 804, 148

2015
[49]

2011, ApJ, 730, 18 14Tadaki

Walter, F., Weiß, A., Downes, D., Decarli, R., & Henkel, C. 2011, ApJ, 730, 18 14Tadaki

2011
[50]

2022, ApJ, 927, 21 Weiß, A., Downes, D., Henkel, C., & Walter, F

Walter, F., Neeleman, M., Decarli, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 21 Weiß, A., Downes, D., Henkel, C., & Walter, F. 2005, A&A, 429, L25

2022
[51]

E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V., et al

Woods, T. E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e027

2019
[52]

L., Eisenhardt, P

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

2010
[53]

2012, ApJ, 756, 96

Wu, J., Tsai, C.-W., Sayers, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 96

2012
[54]

2015, Nature, 518, 512

Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512

2015
[55]

2023, ApJL, 951, L5

Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L5

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J., Eisenhardt, P

Assef, R. J., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Stern, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 27 Bañados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 80

2015

[2] [2]

2008, MNRAS, 390, 71 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

Cappellari, M. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 71 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

2008

[3] [3]

C., Banerji, M., et al

Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2120 ALMA High-J CO Spectroscopy II13

2017

[4] [4]

Cornwell, T. J. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 793

2008

[5] [5]

A., Alatalo, K., Bureau, M., et al

Davis, T. A., Alatalo, K., Bureau, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 534 Díaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., et al. 2016, ApJL, 816, L6

2013

[6] [6]

Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Wu, J., Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 173

2012

[7] [7]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

Esposito, F., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

2024

[8] [8]

J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385

2017