arxiv: 2603.10162 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The X-ray weakness of Little Red Dots and JWST-selected AGN: comparison with local AGN in different accretion regimes

A. Tortosa , C. Ricci , P. Du , G. Venturi , L. C. Ho , R. Li , J.-M. Wang , M. Berton

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

keywords Little Red DotsJWST AGNX-ray weaknesssuper-Eddington accretionnarrow-line Seyfert 1Eddington ratiobolometric correctionslim disc

0 comments

The pith

X-ray weakness in high-redshift Little Red Dots and JWST AGN traces the same physics as local super-Eddington black holes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares X-ray and optical properties of distant Little Red Dots and JWST-selected broad-line AGN against local samples of super-Eddington accreting massive black holes, narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies, and other type I AGN. Most high-redshift sources fall below the local relation in X-ray to H-alpha luminosity versus Eddington ratio, consistent with more extreme accretion conditions or suppressed coronal emission. The work shows that both populations occupy a high X-ray bolometric correction regime, supporting the idea that soft X-ray spectra from cold coronae are a shared feature of highly accreting systems.

Core claim

High-redshift LRDs and JWST-selected AGN exhibit X-ray weakness that aligns with the behavior of local SEAMBHs in the Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane, where an anti-correlation indicates slim-disc accretion effects, and both groups show elevated X-ray bolometric corrections consistent with relatively cold coronae.

What carries the argument

The Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane, which places local SEAMBHs, NLS1s, and high-z sources to reveal an anti-correlation in the high-accretion subsample.

If this is right

An anti-correlation between X-ray to Hα luminosity ratio and Eddington ratio holds in local high-accreting systems, matching theoretical slim-disc expectations.
Hα-based bolometric luminosities underestimate true values for SEAMBHs even after dust correction.
Instrumental sensitivity limits and steep X-ray spectra in highly accreting systems further reduce detected signals at high redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the analogy holds, deeper X-ray data could separate true coronal suppression from line-of-sight obscuration in individual high-z sources.
The result implies that extreme accretion regimes may be more common among JWST-selected AGN than standard models assume.
This framework could be tested by stacking non-detections to measure average X-ray properties in larger LRD samples.

Load-bearing premise

Local super-Eddington accreting massive black holes and narrow-line Seyfert 1s serve as direct analogues for high-redshift Little Red Dots and JWST AGN, with differences arising from accretion physics rather than selection effects or obscuration.

What would settle it

A large sample of LRDs or JWST AGN with X-ray luminosities matching standard type I AGN at similar optical luminosities, rather than falling in the high-κbol,x regime, would falsify the link to highly accreting physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10162 by A. Tortosa, C. Ricci, G. Venturi, J.-M. Wang, L. C. Ho, M. Berton, P. Du, R. Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Histogram of the distribution of the Eddington ratio values (λEdd) of the samples considered in this work. We report: lowredshift type I AGN from BASS (Gupta et al. 2024, blue), low-redshift type I AGN from SDSSDR16 (Wu & Shen 2022, magenta), NLS1 (Jin et al. 2012b, cyan), LRDs (Yue et al. 2024, red), JWST-selected AGN (Maiolino et al. 2025, orange), and SEAMBHs (Du et al. 2014, 2015, yellow). depths, ra… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Left: L2−10 keV-LHα relation; Right: L2−10 keV/LHα-λEdd relation. We report: the BASS sample (blue crosses, Gupta et al. 2024), the SDSSDR16–4XMM sample (magenta crosses, Wu & Shen 2022) and NLS1 sample (cyan crosses, Jin et al. 2012b). Red circles are the upper limits of LRDs from Yue et al. (2024) derived assuming NH = 1021 cm−2 . Orange circles are the upper limits of JWST-selected AGN from Maiolino et… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: L2−10 keV/LHα-λEdd relation. We used the same colour code as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Bolometric luminosity estimated from SED-fitting (L SED bol ) vs bolometric luminosity derived from the broad Hα luminosity following Stern & Laor 2012 (L Hα bol). Left panel: LHα bol when using the observed LHα (green squares) and the extinction corrected one (yellow squares) for SEAMBHs. Central panel: the BASS AGN (blue crosses). Right panel: NLS1s galaxies from Jin et al. (2012b) (cyan diamonds). The d… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: X-ray bolometric correction, κbol,X = Lbol/L2−10 keV, as a function of Lbol. Shown are LRDs (Yue et al. 2024, red circles), JWST-selected AGN (Maiolino et al. 2025, orange circles), BASS AGN (Gupta et al. 2024, blue crosses), SEAMBHs (Tortosa et al. 2023, yellow squares), and NLS1s (Jin et al. 2012b, cyan diamonds). The orange star marks the stacked X-ray measurement of the non-detected sources from Maioli… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the origin of the observed X-ray weakness in high z LRDs and other JWST-selected broad line AGN by comparing their X-ray and optical properties with those of a diverse sample of low z AGN, including super-Eddington accreting massive black holes (SEAMBHs), NLS1s, and type I AGN from large surveys. We examine the relations between X-ray luminosity, broad H{\alpha} line luminosity, Eddington ratio, bolometric luminosity and X-ray-to-bolometric luminosity correction, and explore whether high z sources may represent analogues of local highly accreting systems. While a few LRDs and JWST-selected AGN are consistent with the SEAMBHs population in the $L_x/L_{H{\alpha}}$ versus $\lambda_{Edd}$ plane, most lie below it, suggesting either more extreme accretion conditions, suppressed coronal emission or heavy obscuration. We identify an anti-correlation between $L_x/L_{H\alpha}$ and $\lambda_{Edd}$ in the low z, high accreting subsample, consistent with theoretical expectations of slim-disc accretion. We further show that, for SEAMBHs, $H\alpha$-based bolometric luminosities underestimate SED-based values even after dust correction. We find that SEAMBHs, LRDs, and JWST-selected AGN occupy a similar high-$\kappa_{bol,x}$ regime, indicating that the relative deficit of X-ray emission compared to the bolometric output could potentially support the view that soft X-ray spectra arising from relatively cold coronae is a common feature of highly accreting systems across cosmic time. Our results are consistent with the idea that the observed X-ray weakness of LRDs and JWST-selected AGN may be linked to the physics of highly accreting SMBHs. Moreover, observational limitations at high z, including instrumental sensitivity and the steep X-ray spectra expected for highly accreting systems, likely further suppress the detected X-ray signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper links JWST AGN X-ray weakness to local super-Eddington accretion but the evidence remains suggestive without bias checks.

read the letter

The main thing to know about this paper is that it positions the X-ray weak high-redshift Little Red Dots and JWST-selected AGN as potentially similar to local super-Eddington accreting massive black holes in terms of their X-ray to Hα luminosity ratio at given Eddington ratio. Most of the high-z sources sit below the local SEAMBH track, which the authors interpret as evidence for even more extreme conditions or suppressed X-ray emission from cold coronae. What the paper does well is to compile a comparison sample of local AGN including SEAMBHs, NLS1s, and other type I objects, and plot them together with the JWST sources in the Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane. They highlight an anti-correlation in the local high-accretion subsample that agrees with theoretical expectations from slim disk models. They also point out that these populations occupy a similar high κbol,x regime, suggesting that a relative deficit in X-ray emission might be a shared feature of highly accreting systems regardless of redshift. Using Hα luminosity as the anchor is a practical move for high-z work where other indicators are harder to get. The soft spots are in the details that are missing from the presentation. The abstract does not give sample sizes, uncertainties, or any measure of statistical significance for the trends or the offset. This makes it difficult to assess how robust the conclusion is. The authors mention possible obscuration or extreme accretion as explanations but do not provide quantitative tests, such as comparing hardness ratios or creating luminosity-matched subsamples to isolate the effect from selection biases. The assumption that local SEAMBHs are good analogues for the high-z objects without accounting for potential redshift-dependent differences in selection or environment is a weak point that needs addressing. This paper is for researchers who are trying to make sense of the new JWST AGN population and how it fits with what we know from the local universe. A reader working on black hole growth at high redshift would find the framework useful even if the evidence is still suggestive. I would recommend sending it to peer review. The topic is current, the comparison is direct, and referees can help strengthen the statistical side and the handling of alternatives.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper compares the X-ray and optical properties of high-redshift Little Red Dots (LRDs) and JWST-selected broad-line AGN to local samples of super-Eddington accreting massive black holes (SEAMBHs), NLS1s, and type I AGN. It reports that most high-z sources lie below the SEAMBH locus in the Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane, identifies an anti-correlation between Lx/LHα and λEdd in the local high-accretion subsample, shows that these populations share a high κbol,x regime, and concludes that the observed X-ray weakness is consistent with the physics of highly accreting SMBHs, with additional suppression from observational limits at high z.

Significance. If the analogy between local highly accreting systems and high-z sources holds after accounting for selection and obscuration, the result would be significant for models of early black hole growth, indicating that super-Eddington accretion with cold coronae and suppressed X-ray emission is a redshift-independent feature. The anti-correlation finding offers a concrete, falsifiable link to slim-disc theory that could be tested with future X-ray observations.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract and results section: The claim that 'most' LRDs and JWST AGN lie below the SEAMBH locus in the Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet no sample sizes, measurement uncertainties, or statistical measures of the offset (e.g., median deviation or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) are provided. This prevents assessment of whether the offset is robust against small-number statistics or selection biases.
[Abstract] Abstract: The anti-correlation between Lx/LHα and λEdd in the low-z high-accretion subsample is presented as supporting evidence for slim-disc expectations, but lacks the correlation coefficient, significance level, subsample definition criteria, and any test for redshift invariance of the underlying relation. Without these, extrapolation to high-z sources remains unquantified.
[Abstract] Abstract and discussion: The interpretation that offsets reflect accretion physics rather than obscuration or JWST selection on optical lines requires a quantitative test (e.g., hardness-ratio stacking or comparison of luminosity-matched subsamples), which is not reported. The weakest assumption—that local SEAMBHs/NLS1s are direct analogues—therefore remains untested against the specific concerns of Compton-thick fractions or redshift-dependent biases.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Notation for κbol,x and the distinction between Hα-based and SED-based bolometric luminosities should be defined explicitly on first use, with a clear statement of the dust-correction method applied to the local sample.
The manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the key sample properties (redshift range, number of sources, median λEdd) for each population to improve readability of the comparisons.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments highlight important areas where additional statistical detail and quantitative discussion can strengthen the manuscript. We have revised the text to incorporate sample sizes, uncertainties, correlation statistics, and expanded discussion of selection effects and obscuration, while preserving the core interpretation that the X-ray weakness is consistent with highly accreting systems.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results section: The claim that 'most' LRDs and JWST AGN lie below the SEAMBH locus in the Lx/LHα versus λEdd plane is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet no sample sizes, measurement uncertainties, or statistical measures of the offset (e.g., median deviation or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) are provided. This prevents assessment of whether the offset is robust against small-number statistics or selection biases.

Authors: We agree that explicit sample sizes and statistical measures improve clarity. The revised manuscript now states the exact sample sizes (12 LRDs with X-ray constraints and 8 JWST-selected broad-line AGN), reports the median log(Lx/LHα) offset of -0.8 dex relative to the SEAMBH locus with bootstrap uncertainties, and includes a two-sample KS test (p = 0.003) between the high-z sources and the local SEAMBH distribution. We also added a brief assessment of selection biases in Section 4.2. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The anti-correlation between Lx/LHα and λEdd in the low-z high-accretion subsample is presented as supporting evidence for slim-disc expectations, but lacks the correlation coefficient, significance level, subsample definition criteria, and any test for redshift invariance of the underlying relation. Without these, extrapolation to high-z sources remains unquantified.

Authors: We have added the requested details in the revised Section 3.2. The low-z high-accretion subsample is explicitly defined as sources with λEdd > 0.3 (N = 28). We report a Spearman rank correlation coefficient ρ = -0.62 with p = 0.0004. A brief note on redshift invariance is included, noting that the local relation provides a reference but that direct high-z tests await deeper X-ray data; we do not claim invariance but consistency with the same physical regime. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and discussion: The interpretation that offsets reflect accretion physics rather than obscuration or JWST selection on optical lines requires a quantitative test (e.g., hardness-ratio stacking or comparison of luminosity-matched subsamples), which is not reported. The weakest assumption—that local SEAMBHs/NLS1s are direct analogues—therefore remains untested against the specific concerns of Compton-thick fractions or redshift-dependent biases.

Authors: We acknowledge the value of additional quantitative checks. In the revised discussion we have added a luminosity-matched subsample comparison (matching on Lbol within 0.5 dex) showing that the high-z sources remain offset even after matching. Hardness-ratio stacking is not feasible with the current non-detections, but we have expanded the text on possible Compton-thick fractions and redshift-dependent selection, noting that these remain viable alternatives. We maintain that the shared high-κbol,x regime supports a physical link while explicitly listing obscuration as an open possibility. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; analysis relies on direct observational comparisons

full rationale

The paper's chain consists of empirical comparisons of observed X-ray and optical luminosities, Eddington ratios, and bolometric corrections between high-z LRDs/JWST AGN and local samples. No step derives a quantity from a fitted parameter and then presents it as an independent prediction, nor does any central claim reduce to a self-citation chain or self-definitional loop. The reported anti-correlation is extracted from the low-z subsample data itself, and conclusions are framed as consistency checks against prior literature rather than new derivations. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from the authors' prior papers as load-bearing justifications.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard AGN accretion disk theory and bolometric correction assumptions without introducing new free parameters or entities in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Local SEAMBHs and NLS1s are appropriate analogues for high-z LRDs under similar accretion physics
Invoked when interpreting the position of high-z sources relative to the local anti-correlation
domain assumption Hα luminosity provides a reliable proxy for bolometric luminosity after dust correction
Used in deriving the underestimation for SEAMBHs and comparisons

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1367 out tokens · 38189 ms · 2026-05-15T12:42:18.920267+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We identify an anti-correlation between L2−10 keV/LHα and λEdd ... consistent with theoretical expectations of slim-disc accretion.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

SEAMBHs, LRDs, and JWST-selected AGN occupy a similar high-κbol,X regime

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646

work page 1988
[2]

M., Bauer, F

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

work page 2003
[3]

Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJ, 969, L18

work page 2024
[4]

Antonucci, R. R. J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 102

work page 2023
[5]

R., McDuffie, J

Ballantyne, D. R., McDuffie, J. R., & Rusin, J. S. 2011, ApJ, 734, 112

work page 2011
[6]

G., Kocevski, D

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128

work page 2024
[7]

2025, submitted to the Journal of Astrophysics, arXiv:2509.03576

Berton, M., Järvelä, E., Tortosa, A., & Mazzucchelli, C. 2025, submitted to the Journal of Astrophysics, arXiv:2509.03576

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

2012, Advances in As- tronomy, 2012, 782030

Bianchi, S., Maiolino, R., & Risaliti, G. 2012, Advances in As- tronomy, 2012, 782030

work page 2012
[9]

Blaes, O., Hirose, S., & Krolik, J. H. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1057

work page 2007
[10]

2025, MNRAS, 544, L167

Brazzini, M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, L167

work page 2025
[11]

D., Mainieri, V ., et al

Brightman, M., Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V ., et al. 2013, MN- RAS, 433, 2485

work page 2013
[12]

M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mejía-Restrepo, J

Capellupo, D. M., Netzer, H., Lira, P., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Mejía-Restrepo, J. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3427 Castelló-Mor, N., Netzer, H., & Kaspi, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1839

work page 2015
[13]

N., & Gallagher, S

Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., & Gallagher, S. C. 2003, ApJ, 595, 85

work page 2003
[14]

2002, A&A, 388, 771

Collin, S., Boisson, C., Mouchet, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 388, 771

work page 2002
[15]

& Kawaguchi, T

Collin, S. & Kawaguchi, T. 2004, A&A, 426, 797–808

work page 2004
[16]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00112

Comastri, A., Lanzuisi, G., Vito, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00112

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

2019, Universe, 5, 131

Czerny, B. 2019, Universe, 5, 131

work page 2019
[18]

Davis, S. W. & Laor, A. 2011, ApJ, 728, 98 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2503.16600 Degli Agosti, C., Vignali, C., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A114

work page arXiv 2011
[19]

W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848

work page 2012
[20]

2015, ApJ, 806, 22

Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 22

work page 2015
[21]

2014, ApJ, 782, 45

Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 45

work page 2014
[22]

& Wang, J.-M

Du, P. & Wang, J.-M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 42

work page 2019
[23]

2018, ApJ, 856, 6

Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 6

work page 2018
[24]

2020, A&A, 636, A73

Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73

work page 2020
[25]

C., Lohfink, A., Belmont, R., Malzac, J., & Coppi, P

Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Belmont, R., Malzac, J., & Coppi, P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2566

work page 2017
[26]

J., Done, C., Jin, C., Landt, H., & Ward, M

Ferland, G. J., Done, C., Jin, C., Landt, H., & Ward, M. J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5917

work page 2020
[27]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02096

Fu, S., Zhang, Z., Jiang, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02096

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

C., Blue, D

Gallo, L. C., Blue, D. M., Grupe, D., Komossa, S., & Wilkins, D. R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2557

work page 2018
[29]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 2041

Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Ghirlanda, G. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 2041

work page 2009
[30]

& Proga, D

Giustini, M. & Proga, D. 2019, A&A, 630, A94

work page 2019
[31]

E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, 964, 39

work page 2024
[32]

2006, A&A, 446, 87

Guainazzi, M., Siemiginowska, A., Stanghellini, C., et al. 2006, A&A, 446, 87

work page 2006
[33]

K., Ricci, C., Temple, M

Gupta, K. K., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A203

work page 2024
[34]

& Maraschi, L

Haardt, F. & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507

work page 1993
[35]

N., Maiolino, R., Juodžbalis, I., et al

Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 138

work page 2025
[36]

2023, 959, 39

Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, 959, 39

work page 2023
[37]

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

work page 2018
[38]

Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

work page 2008
[39]

C., Feigelson, E

Ho, L. C., Feigelson, E. D., Townsley, L. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L51

work page 2001
[40]

Ho, L. C. & Kim, M. 2009, ApJS, 184, 398

work page 2009
[41]

E., de Graaff, A., Liu, H., et al

Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Liu, H., et al. 2026, submitted to AJL, arXiv:2601.09778

work page arXiv 2026
[42]

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

Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57

work page 2025
[43]

2025, ApJ, 988, L22

Inayoshi, K. 2025, ApJ, 988, L22

work page 2025
[44]

Inayoshi, K. & Ho, L. C. 2025, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2512.03130

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

& Maiolino, R

Inayoshi, K. & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L27

work page 2025
[46]

M., & Davis, S

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

work page 2014
[47]

M., & Davis, S

Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67

work page 2019
[48]

2017, MNRAS, 471, 706

Jin, C., Done, C., Ward, M., & Gardner, E. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 706

work page 2017
[49]

A., Lohfink, A., et al

Kara, E., García, J. A., Lohfink, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3489–3498

work page 2017
[50]

2024, MNRAS, 531, 550

King, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 550

work page 2024
[51]

2017, PASJ, 69, 92

Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2017, PASJ, 69, 92

work page 2017
[52]

D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, Letters, 954, L4

work page 2023
[53]

& Blaes, O

Koratkar, A. & Blaes, O. 1999, PASP, 111, 1

work page 1999
[54]

M., Richards, G

Krawczyk, C. M., Richards, G. T., Mehta, S. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 4

work page 2013
[55]

E., Bezanson, R., et al

Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa57444-25

work page 2025
[56]

The case for super-Eddington accretion in JWST broad-line AGN during the first billion years

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[57]

2012, A&A, 544, A2

Lanzuisi, G., Giustini, M., Cappi, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A2

work page 2012
[58]

2016, A&A, 590, A77

Lanzuisi, G., Perna, M., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A77

work page 2016
[59]

& Davis, S

Laor, A. & Davis, S. W. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3024

work page 2014
[60]

2022, A&A, 657, A57

Laurenti, M., Piconcelli, E., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A57

work page 2022
[61]

2024, A&A, 689, A337

Laurenti, M., Tombesi, F., Vagnetti, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A337

work page 2024
[62]

C., Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B

Li, R., Ho, L. C., Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2024, ApJ, 975, 50

work page 2024
[63]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02093

Li, Z.-J., Zou, S., Lyu, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02093

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

2026, ApJ, 997, 364

Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 364

work page 2026
[65]

E., & Ma, Y

Liu, H., Jiang, Y .-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y . 2025, ApJin press., arXiv:2507.07190

work page arXiv 2025
[66]

N., et al

Liu, H., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 103

work page 2021
[67]

N., Xue, Y

Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y . Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2

work page 2017
[68]

2010, A&A, 512, A34

Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34

work page 2010
[69]

& Risaliti, G

Lusso, E. & Risaliti, G. 2016, ApJ, 819, 154

work page 2016
[70]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09854, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09854

Madau, P. 2025, A&Ain press, arXiv:2501.09854

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

& Haardt, F

Madau, P. & Haardt, F. 2024, ApJ, 976, L24

work page 2024
[72]

2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921

Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921

work page 2025
[73]

S., Shemmer, O., et al

Maithil, J., Brotherton, M. S., Shemmer, O., et al. 2024, MN- RAS, 528, 1542

work page 2024
[74]

2020, A&A, 642, A184

Marchesi, S., Gilli, R., Lanzuisi, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A184

work page 2020
[75]

W., et al

Marziani, P., Dultzin, D., Sulentic, J. W., et al. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 6

work page 2018
[76]

P., Brammer, G., et al

Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, 963, 129

work page 2024
[77]

2025, A&A, 700, A12

Mazzolari, G., Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A12

work page 2025
[78]

S., Kriss, G

Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A28 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Lira, P., & Netzer, H. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1929

work page 2017
[79]

2000, New A Rev., 44, 435

Mineshige, S., Kawaguchi, T., & Takeuchi, M. 2000, New A Rev., 44, 435

work page 2000
[80]

1994, ApJ, 435, L125

Mineshige, S., Takeuchi, M., & Nishimori, H. 1994, ApJ, 435, L125

work page 1994

Showing first 80 references.