pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22559 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A Quasar--Companion System Without AGN Outflow at z sim 6: The Case of PSO J083+11

Muhammad Akmal Husain , Irham Taufik Andika , Mochamad Ikbal Arifyanto
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 10:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift quasarsAGN feedbackALMA observations[C II] emissionreionization epochstar formation ratescompanion galaxiespre-outflow phase
0
0 comments X

The pith

A z=6.34 quasar and companion show ordered gas rotation with no outflow signatures, interpreted as a pre-feedback accretion phase.

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

The paper uses ALMA observations of the [C II] line and far-infrared continuum to map cold gas and dust in a quasar at redshift 6.34 and its nearby companion galaxy. It measures high star-formation rates in the quasar host but finds compact, centrally peaked emission, regular rotation, and velocity dispersions too low to indicate powerful outflows, with no morphological disturbances. The authors conclude the system is observed before AGN feedback has developed on large scales, during a stage of rapid supermassive black hole growth. This snapshot matters for understanding how early black holes and galaxies co-evolve during reionization without yet being shaped by feedback. A sympathetic reader would take the result as evidence that the outflow phase is not immediate after the quasar turns on.

Core claim

The central claim is that the quasar PSO J083.8371+11.8482 at z=6.34 and its companion exhibit [C II] emission with ordered rotational kinematics, velocity dispersions below typical outflow values, and no significant morphological asymmetries or disturbed velocity fields, so the system is interpreted as being observed in a pre-outflow accretion phase where rapid supermassive black hole growth precedes the development of large-scale AGN feedback.

What carries the argument

The [C II] 158 μm moment maps and derived velocity dispersion fields, which trace the spatial distribution and kinematics of cold interstellar gas to test for outflow signatures.

If this is right

  • Rapid supermassive black hole accretion can occur before large-scale AGN feedback affects the circumgalactic medium.
  • Star formation in the quasar host proceeds at high rates without suppression from outflows.
  • The companion galaxy at 18 kpc projected distance remains unaffected by quasar-driven winds in the current epoch.
  • High-redshift quasar systems may commonly pass through this pre-outflow stage before feedback becomes observable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Feedback models for the reionization epoch may need to incorporate a delay between the start of black hole accretion and the launch of large-scale outflows.
  • Targeted deeper observations of marginal high-velocity channels in this and similar systems could reveal the onset of feedback.
  • If pre-outflow phases are common, the duty cycle of observable AGN feedback at z greater than 6 would be shorter than often assumed.

Load-bearing premise

The lack of asymmetries, disturbed velocities, and high dispersions shows that AGN-driven outflows are absent rather than simply undetectable due to viewing angle, timing, or current data sensitivity.

What would settle it

Detection of broad [C II] line wings exceeding 300 km/s or clear velocity-field disturbances in deeper ALMA data on this same system would show that outflows are present.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22559 by Irham Taufik Andika, Mochamad Ikbal Arifyanto, Muhammad Akmal Husain.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectral fitting results for PSO J083+11 and its companion galaxy. (Upper left panel) [Cii] 158 𝜇m emission line spectrum of the quasar, with observed data (black points with error bars) and best-fit Gaussian profile (red curve). (Lower left panel) [C ii] spectrum of the companion galaxy with the same representation. (Upper right panel) FIR spectral energy distribution of the quasar, showing observational … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dual diagnostic for [C ii] deficit evaluation. (Left panel) 𝐿[C II]/𝐿FIR versus FIR luminosity. (Right panel) 𝐿[C II]/𝐿FIR versus FIR surface brightness ΣFIR, with theoretical models from Lutz et al. (2016) (solid line, derived from local star-forming galaxies and local quasars) and Díaz-Santos et al. (2017) (dashed line, derived from local ULIRGs and PDR simulations). The comparison sample is detailed in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlation between [C ii] and FIR luminosities for the sample in Table A1. The dashed line shows the best-fit relation with 1𝜎 dispersion (gray band). PSO J083+11 (large red circle) and its companion (large blue circle) lie within this scatter, consistent with normal star-forming galaxy behavior. The right axis indicates SFR derived from [C ii] luminosity using the De Looze et al. (2014) calibration. ties… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quasar moment maps, each covering an area of 3. ′′312 × 3. ′′312 centered at 𝛼 = 83.83700◦ and 𝛿 = 11.84830◦ . (Left Panel) Quasar intensity map (moment 0). The lower left corner shows the beam size, and the lower right corner shows the scale conversion from 1 ′′ to kpc. The contour lines represent intensity levels [4, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40] × 𝜎, measured from the outer region towards the center o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Moment maps of the companion galaxy, each covering an area of 2. ′′7 × 2. ′′7 centered at 𝛼 = 83.8373◦ and 𝛿 = 11.8474◦ . (Left panel) The intensity (moment 0) map of the companion galaxy. The contours represent intensity levels [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] × 𝜎. Here, 𝜎 is the standard deviation of the background intensity calculated by excluding pixels with intensities above 2𝜎, resulting in 𝜎 = 0.04099 Jy beam−1 km s… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined moment maps of the quasar and its companion galaxy. All panels cover an area of 7. ′′336 × 7. ′′336. (Upper left panel) Combined intensity (moment 0) map. The contours and 𝜎 value for the quasar are the same as in view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quasar’s moment channel map spans 4. ′′032 × 4. ′′032, constructed from 50 km s−1 velocity channels. The value shown at the top of each channel is given in units of km s−1 . Contours are drawn at [3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30] × 𝜎, where 𝜎 varies per channel with values ranging from 0.0057 to 0.0128 Jy beam−1 km s−1 (mean 𝜎 = 0.0083 Jy beam−1 km s−1 ). The central two rows (rows 2 and 3) highlig… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

PSO J083.8371+11.8482, a quasar at $z = 6.34$ with a nearby companion galaxy, provides an opportunity to study the impact of active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity on the surrounding environment during the epoch of reionization. We analyze ALMA observations of the [C\,\textsc{ii}] 158~$\mu$m emission line and the far-infrared (FIR) continuum, which trace cold interstellar gas and dust-reprocessed radiation from star formation and AGN heating. The quasar host shows star formation rates (SFRs) of $544$--$3764~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}}$ from [C\,\textsc{ii}] and $1861$--$2932~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}}$ from FIR emission, while the companion galaxy exhibits lower SFRs of $21$--$145$ and $76$--$211~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}}$ from the same diagnostics. Both galaxies follow typical $L_{\mathrm{[C\,II]}}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$ ratios observed in star-forming galaxies and show no evidence for a [C\,\textsc{ii}] deficit, indicating that stellar heating dominates the interstellar medium energetics. The [C\,\textsc{ii}] moment maps reveal compact emission with centrally peaked intensity and ordered rotational kinematics in both systems. Velocity dispersions remain well below values associated with powerful AGN-driven outflows, and no significant morphological asymmetries or disturbed velocity fields indicative of AGN feedback or major mergers are detected, although marginal kinematic substructure in the quasar's high-velocity channels warrants further investigation. Although the companion lies at a projected distance of $18.248 \pm 0.277$~kpc within the quasar proximity zone, neither morphological nor kinematic signatures indicate AGN-driven outflows affecting the circumgalactic medium. We therefore interpret this system as being observed in a pre-outflow accretion phase, where rapid supermassive black hole growth precedes the development of large-scale AGN feedback.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ALMA observations of the [C II] 158 μm emission line and FIR continuum toward the z=6.34 quasar PSO J083.8371+11.8482 and its companion galaxy at a projected separation of 18.248 ± 0.277 kpc. The authors derive SFRs of 544–3764 M⊙ yr⁻¹ (quasar host) and 21–145 M⊙ yr⁻¹ (companion) from [C II], with consistent but somewhat lower values from the FIR continuum. Both systems exhibit L_[C II]/L_FIR ratios typical of star-forming galaxies with no [C II] deficit. The [C II] moment maps show compact, centrally peaked emission, ordered rotation, and velocity dispersions below those commonly associated with powerful outflows; no morphological asymmetries or disturbed velocity fields are reported. The authors interpret the system as being observed in a pre-outflow accretion phase in which rapid supermassive black hole growth precedes large-scale AGN feedback.

Significance. If the non-detection of outflow signatures can be placed on a quantitative footing, the result would provide direct observational support for a temporal offset between rapid black-hole accretion and the onset of galaxy-scale feedback at z∼6. Such a phase is predicted by some semi-analytic and cosmological simulations but remains sparsely constrained by observations during the epoch of reionization. The dual-tracer approach ([C II] plus FIR) and the presence of a companion within the quasar proximity zone add value for studies of early AGN–galaxy co-evolution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Kinematic analysis and discussion] The central claim that the system is observed in a pre-outflow phase rests on the assertion that velocity dispersions are “well below values associated with powerful AGN-driven outflows” and that no morphological or kinematic disturbances are present. However, the manuscript provides neither explicit numerical thresholds from the literature nor a quantitative assessment of the minimum detectable outflow velocity or mass-loading factor given the achieved sensitivity, beam size, and channel width. Without these limits it is not possible to distinguish absence of outflows from non-observability.
  2. [Results and discussion] The abstract notes “marginal kinematic substructure in the quasar’s high-velocity channels” that “warrants further investigation,” yet the text does not report a statistical significance test, moment-1/2 map residuals, or comparison against simple outflow toy models. This substructure is directly relevant to the no-outflow conclusion and must be quantified before the interpretation can be considered secure.
  3. [Companion galaxy analysis] The companion galaxy at 18 kpc shows no [C II] disturbance, but the paper does not derive upper limits on possible outflow mass or velocity that could be ruled out at the observed sensitivity. Projection effects (outflow along the line of sight or perpendicular to the disk) and the fact that [C II] primarily traces neutral gas while outflows are often multiphase are not addressed, weakening the claim that the circumgalactic medium is unaffected.
minor comments (2)
  1. [SFR derivation] The reported SFR ranges from [C II] (544–3764 M⊙ yr⁻¹ for the quasar) are unusually broad; the text should clarify whether these bounds reflect different conversion factors, excitation assumptions, or spatial apertures.
  2. [Discussion] The manuscript would benefit from a brief comparison table placing the observed velocity dispersions and L_[C II]/L_FIR ratios against literature samples of both star-forming galaxies and known high-z quasar outflows.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report. The comments highlight important areas where the kinematic analysis and interpretation can be placed on a firmer quantitative footing. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Kinematic analysis and discussion] The central claim that the system is observed in a pre-outflow phase rests on the assertion that velocity dispersions are “well below values associated with powerful AGN-driven outflows” and that no morphological or kinematic disturbances are present. However, the manuscript provides neither explicit numerical thresholds from the literature nor a quantitative assessment of the minimum detectable outflow velocity or mass-loading factor given the achieved sensitivity, beam size, and channel width. Without these limits it is not possible to distinguish absence of outflows from non-observability.

    Authors: We agree that explicit thresholds and sensitivity limits are needed to support the no-outflow interpretation. In the revised manuscript we will (i) cite specific literature values for velocity dispersions and mass-loading factors associated with powerful AGN-driven outflows at high redshift, and (ii) provide a quantitative estimate of the minimum detectable outflow velocity and mass-loading factor using the measured rms noise, beam size, and channel width. This will include a calculation of the flux upper limit for a hypothetical broad-line component and the corresponding mass-loading factor that could be ruled out. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] The abstract notes “marginal kinematic substructure in the quasar’s high-velocity channels” that “warrants further investigation,” yet the text does not report a statistical significance test, moment-1/2 map residuals, or comparison against simple outflow toy models. This substructure is directly relevant to the no-outflow conclusion and must be quantified before the interpretation can be considered secure.

    Authors: We will quantify the marginal kinematic substructure in the revised version. This will include a statistical significance assessment of the high-velocity channel features, residuals from the moment-1 and moment-2 maps relative to a rotating-disk model, and a brief comparison to simple outflow toy models (e.g., a biconical outflow with varying opening angle and velocity). These additions will be placed in the results and discussion sections to clarify whether the substructure is consistent with noise or requires further data. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Companion galaxy analysis] The companion galaxy at 18 kpc shows no [C II] disturbance, but the paper does not derive upper limits on possible outflow mass or velocity that could be ruled out at the observed sensitivity. Projection effects (outflow along the line of sight or perpendicular to the disk) and the fact that [C II] primarily traces neutral gas while outflows are often multiphase are not addressed, weakening the claim that the circumgalactic medium is unaffected.

    Authors: We will add upper limits on outflow mass and velocity for the companion galaxy based on the achieved sensitivity and beam size. The revised text will explicitly discuss projection effects, noting that an outflow aligned with the line of sight or perpendicular to the disk plane could remain undetected in the [C II] data, and will acknowledge that [C II] primarily traces neutral gas while AGN outflows are often multiphase. These caveats will be incorporated into the interpretation of the circumgalactic medium. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in purely observational analysis

full rationale

The paper reports direct ALMA measurements of [CII] 158 μm line and FIR continuum for PSO J083+11 and its companion, deriving SFRs, L_[CII]/L_FIR ratios, moment maps, velocity dispersions, and morphological properties. These are compared against external literature benchmarks for star-forming galaxies and typical AGN-outflow signatures. The pre-outflow interpretation follows from non-detection of expected kinematic disturbances and asymmetries, without any fitted parameters, self-defined models, or self-citation chains that reduce the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained against independent observational standards.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical assumptions about [C II] and FIR as tracers without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption [C II] 158 μm emission traces cold interstellar gas and star formation rates in galaxies
    Standard diagnostic in high-redshift galaxy studies invoked for SFR estimates
  • domain assumption FIR continuum emission traces dust-reprocessed radiation from star formation and AGN heating
    Common assumption in FIR observations of galaxies
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersions and kinematic maps reliably indicate presence or absence of AGN-driven outflows when compared to known signatures
    Used to conclude no outflows from ordered rotation and low dispersions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1498 out tokens · 44328 ms · 2026-05-08T10:53:41.472374+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 121 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.2009.07784 , 903, 34

    Andika I. T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.2009.07784 , 903, 34

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.07784 2020

  4. [4]

    Arp H., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159345 , 250, 31

    work page doi:10.1086/159345 1981

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , 935, 167

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    Barai P., Gallerani S., Pallottini A., Ferrara A., Marconi A., Cicone C., Maiolino R., Carniani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2563 , 473, 4003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2563 2018

  9. [9]

    Bañados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , 553, 473

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  10. [10]

    Bañados E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3659 , 881, L23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3659 2019

  11. [11]

    J., et al

    Beelen A., Cox P., Benford D. J., Dowell C. D., Kovács A., Bertoldi F., Omont A., Carilli C. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500636 , 642, 694

    work page doi:10.1086/500636 2006

  12. [12]

    V., Cooper J

    Bicknell G. V., Cooper J. L., Sutherland R. S., 2010, in Antonuccio-Delogu V., Silk J., eds, , AGN feedback in galaxy formation. Cambridge University Press, pp 165--174

    2010

  13. [13]

    Bischetti M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a77 , 970, 9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a77 2024

  14. [14]

    J., Spoon H., Hailey-Dunsheath S., Verma A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/13 , 799, 13

    Brisbin D., Ferkinhoff C., Nikola T., Parshley S., Stacey G. J., Spoon H., Hailey-Dunsheath S., Verma A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/13 , 799, 13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/13 2015

  15. [15]

    Bromm V., Yoshida N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608 , 49, 373

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608 2011

  16. [16]

    M., van der Werf P

    Butler K. M., van der Werf P. P., Topkaras T., Rybak M., Venemans B. P., Walter F., Decarli R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acad03 , 944, 134

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acad03 2023

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Carilli C. L., Walter F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953 , 51, 105

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953 2013

  18. [18]

    Carniani S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..29C 559, A29

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322320 2013

  19. [19]

    Carniani S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1088 , 478, 1170

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1088 2018

  20. [20]

    Carniani S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3178 , 499, 5136

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3178 2020

  21. [21]

    Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at High Redshift

    Casey C. M., Narayanan D., Cooray A., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rep.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 , 541, 45

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 2014

  22. [22]

    Cicone C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 , 562, A21

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 2014

  23. [23]

    Cicone C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980 , 574, A14

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424980 2015

  24. [24]

    Connor T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaab9 , 900, 189

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaab9 2020

  25. [25]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2355C 444, 2355

    Costa T., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1632 , 444, 2355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1632 2014

  26. [26]

    G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448L..30C 448, L30

    Costa T., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu193 , 448, L30

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu193 2015

  27. [27]

    V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/81 , 747, 81

    Croxall K. V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/81 , 747, 81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/1/81 2012

  28. [28]

    MNRAS493(1), 1330–1343 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stz3303 arXiv:1903.12346 [astro-ph.CO] 29

    Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., Eilers A.-C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3303 , 493, 1330

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3303 2019

  29. [29]

    De Breuck C., Maiolino R., Caselli P., Coppin K., Hailey-Dunsheath S., Nagao T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1104.5250 , 530, L8

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1104.5250 2011

  30. [30]

    De Looze I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322489 , 568, A62

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322489 2014

  31. [31]

    Decarli R., Falomo R., Treves A., Barattini M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913760 , 511, A27

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913760 2010

  32. [32]

    Decarli R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature22358 , 545, 457

    work page doi:10.1038/nature22358 2017

  33. [33]

    Decarli R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa , 854, 97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5aa 2018

  34. [34]

    Decarli R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449239 , 689, A219

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449239 2024

  35. [35]

    Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Silk J., Haehnelt M., Kimm T., Slyz A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts224 , 428, 2885

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts224 2013

  36. [36]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

    Dunne L., Eales S. A., Edmunds M. G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06440.x , 341, 589

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06440.x 2003

  37. [37]

    Díaz-Santos T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d7 , 846, 32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d7 2017

  38. [38]

    G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..58E 692, A58

    Ebagezio S., Seifried D., Walch S., Bisbas T. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449682 , 692, A58

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449682 2024

  39. [39]

    ApJ840(1), 24 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Eilers A.-C., Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Lukić Z., Mazzucchelli C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1703.02539 , 840, 24

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.02539 2017

  40. [40]

    Observational Evidence of AGN Feedback

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , 50, 455

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  41. [41]

    Fan X., Carilli C., Keating B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 , 44, 415

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 2006

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Fan X., Ba \ n ados E., Simcoe R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 , 61, 373

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 2023

  43. [43]

    P., Venemans, B

    Farina E. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8df4 , 848, 78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8df4 2017

  44. [44]

    D., Babu G

    Feigelson E. D., Babu G. J., 2012, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy. Cambridge University Press

    2012

  45. [45]

    Fensch J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2920 , 465, 1934

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2920 2017

  46. [46]

    M., Bournaud F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu677 , 441, 1615

    Gabor J. M., Bournaud F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu677 , 441, 1615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu677 2014

  47. [47]

    S.-c., 2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.2573901 , https://doi.org

    Ginsburg A., Robitaille T., Koch E., Naiman J., Rosolowsky E., Beaumont C., Team T. S.-c., 2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.2573901 , https://doi.org

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2573901 2019

  48. [48]

    Gruppioni C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 , 643, A8

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 2020

  49. [49]

    Gullberg B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1501.06909 , 449, 2883

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1501.06909 2015

  50. [50]

    L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506580 , 650, 7

    Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506580 , 650, 7

    work page doi:10.1086/506580 2006

  51. [51]

    Haiman Z., Loeb A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307393 , 519, 479

    work page doi:10.1086/307393 1999

  52. [52]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Harrison C. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41550-017-0165 , 1, 0165

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0165 2017

  53. [53]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2034 , 488, 5029

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2034 2019

  54. [54]

    Herrera-Camus R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/1 , 800, 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/1 2015

  55. [55]

    Royal Society Open Science , keywords =

    Hodge J. A., da Cunha E., 2020, @doi [R. Soc. Open Sci.] 10.1098/rsos.200556 , 7, 200556

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.200556 2020

  56. [56]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Hopkins P. F., Elvis M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x , 401, 7

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x 2010

  57. [57]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629588 , 602, A49

    Hughes T. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629588 , 602, A49

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629588 2017

  58. [58]

    Inayoshi K., Visbal E., Haiman Z., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1911.05791 , 58, 27

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.05791 2019

  59. [59]

    Iono D., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0606043 , 645, L97

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0606043 2006

  60. [60]

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

    Ishibashi W., Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22074.x , 427, 2998

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22074.x 2012

  61. [61]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , 36, 189

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  62. [62]

    King A., Pounds K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 , 53, 115

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015

  63. [63]

    Lagache G., Cousin M., Chatzikos M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732019 , 609, A130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732019 2018

  64. [64]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law D. R., Steidel C. C., Erb D. K., Larkin J. E., Pettini M., Shapley A. E., Wright S. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2057 , 697, 2057

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/2057 2009

  65. [65]

    , keywords =

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/25 , 801, 25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/25 2015

  66. [66]

    L., Satyapal S., Fischer J., Wolfire M

    Luhman M. L., Satyapal S., Fischer J., Wolfire M. G., Sturm E., Dudley C. C., Lutz D., Genzel R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376965 , 594, 758

    work page doi:10.1086/376965 2003

  67. [67]

    Lutz D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527706 , 591, A136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527706 2016

  68. [68]

    Madau P., Rees M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312934 , 542, L69

    work page doi:10.1086/312934 2000

  69. [69]

    M., Oliva E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379600 , 596, L155

    Maiolino R., Juarez Y., Mujica R., Nagar N. M., Oliva E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379600 , 596, L155

    work page doi:10.1086/379600 2003

  70. [70]

    Malhotra S., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323046 , 561, 766

    work page doi:10.1086/323046 2001

  71. [71]

    Marsden G., Borys C., Chapman S., Halpern M., Scott D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08837.x , 359, 43

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08837.x 2005

  72. [72]

    Mazzucchelli C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f75 , 881, 163

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f75 2019

  73. [73]

    Mazzucchelli C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451290 , 694, A171

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451290 2025

  74. [74]

    D., Fan X., Strauss M

    McGreer I. D., Fan X., Strauss M. A., Haiman Z., Richards G. T., Jiang L., Bian F., Schneider D. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/73 , 148, 73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/73 2014

  75. [75]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  76. [76]

    Springer

    Mesinger A., 2016, Understanding the Epoch of Reionization through Observations and Theory. Springer

    2016

  77. [77]

    C., Wang R., Shangguan J., Bauer F

    Molina J., Ho L. C., Wang R., Shangguan J., Bauer F. E., Treister E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9b , 944, 30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9b 2023

  78. [78]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3133 , 527, 4420

    Molyneux S. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3133 , 527, 4420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3133 2024

  79. [79]

    Morganti R., 2017, @doi [Frontiers] 10.48550/arXiv.1712.05301 , 4

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.05301 2017

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

    Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , 474, 616

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10159 2011

Showing first 80 references.