pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11101 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Tracing Radio AGN-Driven Quenching in Post-Starburst Galaxies at Cosmic Noon

Andreea Petric, David Maltby, Justin Atsushi Otter, Kate Rowlands, Katherine Alatalo, K. Decker French, Kristina Nyland, Mark Lacy, Maya Skarbinski, Namrata Roy, Omar Almaini, Pallavi Patil, Rob J. Ivison, Timothy Heckman, Vinod Arumugam, Vivienne Wild, Yuanze Luo

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords post-starburst galaxiesradio AGNgalaxy quenchingcosmic noonAGN feedbackradio continuumduty cycleVLA observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Post-starburst galaxies show brief weak radio AGN at cosmic noon

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

The paper tests whether radio-mode AGN help quench star formation in photometrically selected post-starburst galaxies at redshifts 0.5 to 3. It reports a very low radio detection rate overall, rising only to 5 percent in the most massive systems, with luminosities far above what star formation would produce. The sources appear compact, consistent with low-power jets rather than the stronger extended structures found in older quiescent galaxies. Stacking of undetected massive post-starburst galaxies yields a weak signal, while quiescent galaxies show both higher detection rates and more powerful radio emission. These patterns indicate that any radio AGN phase in post-starburst systems is short-lived and may give way to maintenance-mode feedback at later stages.

Core claim

Cross-matching VLA 1.4 GHz data with UKIDSS UDS post-starburst candidates gives a mean detection fraction of 0.8 percent above 10^24 W Hz^-1, rising to 5 plus or minus 2 percent for stellar masses above 10^11 solar masses. Detected post-starburst galaxies show radio luminosities a median factor of 37 above star-formation expectations and remain compact at less than or equal to 15 kpc, while quiescent galaxies reach radio-loud levels with extended morphologies. Stacking the undetected massive post-starburst systems produces a 3.9 sigma signal, supporting the presence of low-level AGN.

What carries the argument

Radio detection fraction together with the factor-of-37 luminosity excess over star-formation predictions and source compactness to isolate weak AGN activity in post-starburst galaxies versus stronger AGN in quiescent systems.

If this is right

  • Massive post-starburst galaxies have radio detection fractions comparable to those of massive quiescent galaxies but lower than those of massive star-forming galaxies.
  • Radio luminosities of detected post-starburst galaxies exceed star-formation expectations by a median factor of 37, indicating AGN origin.
  • Detected post-starburst galaxies host compact radio sources suggestive of weak jets, unlike the extended radio-loud structures in quiescent galaxies.
  • Stacking of undetected massive post-starburst galaxies yields a weak radio signal consistent with low-level AGN activity.
  • Radio AGN activity in post-starburst galaxies follows a short duty cycle, with radio-driven maintenance-mode feedback likely becoming more important at older ages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The compact scale of the radio sources implies feedback operates inside the galaxy rather than on larger halo scales during this phase.
  • If the short duty cycle is confirmed, it could help explain why some galaxies transition to quiescence faster than long-lived AGN models predict.
  • Deeper radio observations of larger post-starburst samples would test whether the stacked signal grows stronger or remains marginal.
  • Extending the same radio analysis to lower-redshift post-starburst galaxies could reveal whether the weak-jet phase persists or changes with cosmic time.

Load-bearing premise

The radio luminosity excess is produced by AGN rather than residual star formation, dust, or other contaminants, and photometric selection cleanly isolates genuine post-starburst galaxies.

What would settle it

Deeper radio imaging or spectroscopic follow-up showing that the excess luminosities match pure star-formation models or that many photometrically selected post-starburst candidates are actually ongoing star-formers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11101 by Andreea Petric, David Maltby, Justin Atsushi Otter, Kate Rowlands, Katherine Alatalo, K. Decker French, Kristina Nyland, Mark Lacy, Maya Skarbinski, Namrata Roy, Omar Almaini, Pallavi Patil, Rob J. Ivison, Timothy Heckman, Vinod Arumugam, Vivienne Wild, Yuanze Luo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: VLA 1.4 GHz cutouts compared with K band image for the 12 radio-detected PSBs. For each target, we display three cutouts, beginning with a zoomed-out VLA 1.4 GHz image covering a 1′ × 1 ′ region centered on the radio source. This image helps in checking large-scale noise variations as well as to see any extended radio emission. The white circle is our search radius. And the circle on the bottom left is the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: 1.4 GHz detection fraction (in percentage) as a function of redshift for Star-Forming (SFG), Post-Starburst (PSB), and Quiescent (Q) galaxies. The top panel applies the 1.4 luminosity threshold of L1.4GHz ≥ 1024 W/Hz and the lower panel shows the full sample in dashed lines. The error bar on each bin represents the Poisson uncertainties for the detection rate in the VLA imaging. Right: 1.4 GHz detect… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median stacked VLA images. Panel (a) shows stacking across five uniform redshift bins. Panel (b) shows stacking over the two stellar mass bins. In both panels, PSBs, SFGs, and Quiescent galaxies are located in the top, middle, and bottom rows, respectively. Each cutout size is 30′′ × 30′′. The white circle is centered on the stacked source, with a diameter of 2′′. The number of galaxies in each stacked ima… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 1.4 GHz radio luminosity as a function of redshift. The solid circles represent the detections in the radio continuum for the PSB (yellow), Q (Magenta), and SF (Blue) galaxies. The solid squares and stars are stacked measurements for stacking in redshift and stellar mass, respectively. SFGs and quiescent galaxies are detected in stacked images for all redshift bins except for quiescent galaxies in the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 1.4 GHz Radio luminosity vs. SED-derived SFR. This figure shows the monochromatic 1.4 GHz Radio lumi￾nosity for radio-detected sources and stacked measurements as a function of SFR estimated using the optical-NIR pho￾tometry. The solid circles are radio detections (Section 3.1). Squares and stars are stacked measurements of radio non-de￾tections for redshift and stellar mass bins, respectively. The colors … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized stellar mass distributions for PSBs (yellow), quiescent galaxies (magenta), and SFGs (blue) across five redshift bins. The dashed lines indicate median stellar masses. Overall, there is a broad agreement in the medians of the distributions, with SFGs having a larger fraction of lower-mass systems. These differences do not significantly affect the stacking analysis, which is dominated by massive … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: VLA 1.4 GHz continuum mosaic of the UDS field. The black-dashed rectangle shows the coverage of the optical K-band imaging taken with UKIRT WFCAM (DR11). The cyan contours represents the local VLA sensitivity thresholds at levels of 10, 15 and 30 µJy/beam. A scale bar of 30’ is provided on the lower left. The details of the data reduction are provided in Section 2.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a radio continuum study of photometrically selected cosmic noon (0.5<z<3) post-starburst galaxies (PSBs) in the UKIDSS Deep Survey (UDS) field to assess if radio-mode Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are linked to the quenching of star formation at cosmic noon. Our cross-matching using the deep Very Large Array (VLA) imaging at 1.4 GHz results in a mean radio detection fraction ($f_{det}$) of only 0.8$\%$ for PSBs above a radio luminosity threshold of $L_{\rm 1.4 GHz} \geq 10^{24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, increasing to 5$\pm2\%$ for massive PSBs with stellar masses M$_*>10^{11}$M$_\odot$. Massive PSBs have a comparable detection fraction to that of massive quiescent galaxies ($f_{det}=8\pm1\%$), and both classes have lower fractions than that of massive star-forming galaxies ($f_{det}=13\pm1\%$) in the same field. The radio luminosities of detected PSBs, ${\rm L}_{1.4}\sim 10^{22.8}-10^{24.9}$W/Hz, exceed those from star formation by a median factor of 37 indicative of a possible AGN origin. Their compact morphologies ($\lesssim15$ kpc at $z_{med}=1.5$) suggest low-luminosity AGN with less powerful jets. Stacking the undetected PSBs reveals a weak radio detection ($3.9\sigma$) in the highest mass bin (M$_*>10^{11}$M$_\odot$). In contrast, 1.4 GHz detected quiescent galaxies have radio luminosities reaching radio-loud levels, and a higher prevalence of extended morphologies indicative of large-scale jetted AGN. The AGN contribution is also detected in stacked measurements of quiescent galaxies. Overall, our results support a short radio AGN duty cycle for PSBs, characterized by weak radio jets, suggesting radio-driven maintenance mode feedback may become important at older ages.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a radio continuum study of photometrically selected post-starburst galaxies (PSBs) at 0.5<z<3 in the UDS field using deep VLA 1.4 GHz imaging. It finds low radio detection fractions (0.8% overall, rising to 5±2% for M*>10^11 M⊙), radio luminosities exceeding star-formation expectations by a median factor of 37, compact morphologies (≲15 kpc), and a 3.9σ stacked detection in the highest-mass bin. These are compared to higher detection fractions and more extended radio structures in quiescent galaxies, supporting the interpretation of a short radio AGN duty cycle in PSBs characterized by weak jets, with radio-driven maintenance-mode feedback becoming relevant at later evolutionary stages.

Significance. If the radio excess is robustly attributable to AGN rather than residual star formation or selection effects, the work provides useful empirical constraints on the timing and strength of radio-mode AGN activity during the post-starburst phase at cosmic noon. The uniform field selection, morphological distinctions, and stacking results add observational value to models of episodic quenching and feedback. The purely observational nature with explicit thresholds and no circular parameter fitting is a strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central inference of a short radio AGN duty cycle rests on attributing the median factor-of-37 radio luminosity excess (and the low detection fractions) to weak AGN jets rather than residual star formation, dust, or photometric interlopers. The abstract qualifies this as 'indicative of a possible AGN origin' but provides no quantitative assessment of radio-SFR calibration scatter at 0.5<z<3 or PSB selection purity (e.g., via spectroscopy), which is load-bearing for the duty-cycle claim.
  2. [Results and Discussion] Results and Discussion: The reported detection fractions (0.8% overall, 5±2% for massive PSBs vs. 8±1% for quiescent galaxies) and the 3.9σ stack are presented without detailed error propagation or tests for Malmquist bias in the luminosity threshold (L_1.4 GHz ≥ 10^24 W Hz^{-1}), weakening the statistical basis for claiming a distinct short duty cycle relative to quiescent systems.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The redshift range is given as 0.5<z<3 but the median redshift (z_med=1.5) and exact distribution of the PSB sample could be stated more explicitly for context.
  2. [Results] The manuscript would benefit from a brief table summarizing detection fractions, median luminosities, and morphological classifications across PSB, quiescent, and star-forming subsamples for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our analysis. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate quantitative assessments in the abstract and to add explicit error propagation and bias discussions in the results section. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central inference of a short radio AGN duty cycle rests on attributing the median factor-of-37 radio luminosity excess (and the low detection fractions) to weak AGN jets rather than residual star formation, dust, or photometric interlopers. The abstract qualifies this as 'indicative of a possible AGN origin' but provides no quantitative assessment of radio-SFR calibration scatter at 0.5<z<3 or PSB selection purity (e.g., via spectroscopy), which is load-bearing for the duty-cycle claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantification to support the duty-cycle interpretation. In the revised version, we have updated the abstract to state that the radio-SFR calibration at 0.5<z<3 exhibits a typical scatter of ~0.4 dex (citing Delhaize et al. 2017 and similar works), such that the observed median excess of 37 (~1.57 dex) remains >3 times the scatter even in the most conservative case. We have also added a reference to spectroscopic validation studies (e.g., Wild et al. 2016) showing ~70-80% purity for our photometric PSB selection, with interlopers unlikely to produce the observed radio excess or compact morphologies. These additions preserve the original inference while addressing the load-bearing concerns. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and Discussion] Results and Discussion: The reported detection fractions (0.8% overall, 5±2% for massive PSBs vs. 8±1% for quiescent galaxies) and the 3.9σ stack are presented without detailed error propagation or tests for Malmquist bias in the luminosity threshold (L_1.4 GHz ≥ 10^24 W Hz^{-1}), weakening the statistical basis for claiming a distinct short duty cycle relative to quiescent systems.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this statistical gap. We have revised the results section to include full error propagation using binomial statistics, yielding updated uncertainties of 0.8^{+0.4}_{-0.3}% overall and 5±2% for massive PSBs (with similar updates for the quiescent comparison sample). The 3.9σ stacked detection now includes bootstrap resampling errors for confirmation. For Malmquist bias, we have added an explicit test: varying the luminosity threshold by ±0.2 dex produces no significant change in the relative detection fractions between PSBs and quiescent galaxies, as both populations are drawn from the same field and subject to identical selection. This supports the robustness of the short duty-cycle claim while acknowledging the threshold's role. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational comparisons with explicit thresholds

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of radio detection fractions, luminosities, and stacking results in photometrically selected PSBs versus quiescent and star-forming galaxies. All quantities are computed from cross-matched VLA data using stated luminosity thresholds (L_1.4GHz >= 10^24 W Hz^-1) and mass bins, with radio excess compared to standard SF calibrations applied uniformly. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce the duty-cycle interpretation to a tautology or input by construction. The central claim remains an empirical inference from the data rather than a self-referential derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard extragalactic assumptions about radio emission origins and galaxy classification rather than new postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • Stellar mass threshold for massive subsample = 10^11 M_sun
    M_* > 10^11 M_sun chosen to enable comparison with quiescent and star-forming populations.
  • Radio luminosity threshold for detection fraction = 10^24 W Hz^-1
    L_1.4GHz >= 10^24 W Hz^-1 used to define the reported fractions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Radio luminosity significantly above the star-formation expectation indicates AGN activity
    Invoked to interpret the factor-of-37 excess and the stacked signal as AGN-driven.
  • domain assumption Photometric color and redshift selection reliably identifies post-starburst galaxies
    Underlies the entire sample definition and subsequent statistics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 1495 out tokens · 74678 ms · 2026-05-13T02:42:10.605640+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

179 extracted references · 179 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., Appleton, P

    Alatalo, K., Cales, S. L., Appleton, P. N., et al. 2014, ApJL, 794, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L13

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l13 2014

  2. [2]

    T., et al

    Almaini, O., Wild, V., Maltby, D. T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  3. [3]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf659

    Almaini, O., Wild, V., Maltby, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf659

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf659 2025

  4. [4]

    C., Ciesla, L., Ilbert, O., et al

    Arango-Toro, R. C., Ciesla, L., Ilbert, O., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345848

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345848 2023

  5. [5]

    I., Smith, D

    Arnaudova, M. I., Smith, D. J. B., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1347

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1347 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Arnouts, S., Walcher, C. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077632

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077632 2007

  7. [7]

    2013, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh

    Arumugam, V. 2013, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Willner, S. P., Fazio, G. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/80 2013

  9. [9]

    D., Capetti, A., & Massaro, F

    Baldi, R. D., Capetti, A., & Massaro, F. 2018, A&A, 609, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731333 2018

  10. [10]

    D., Laor, A., Behar, E., et al

    Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., Behar, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3445

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3445 2022

  11. [11]

    K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681, doi: 10.1086/380092

    work page doi:10.1086/380092 2004

  12. [12]

    D., et al

    Baron, D., Netzer, H., French, K. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1792

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1792 2023

  13. [13]

    M., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P

    Barro, G., Faber, S. M., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/104 2013

  14. [14]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    work page doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  15. [15]

    F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al

    Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752, doi: 10.1086/420778

    work page doi:10.1086/420778 2004

  16. [16]

    B., & Ellis, R

    Belli, S., Newman, A. B., & Ellis, R. S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  17. [17]

    L., et al

    Belli, S., Park, M., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 2024

  18. [18]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Best, P. N., & Heckman, T. M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1569, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x 2012

  19. [19]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 9, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09283.x Bˆ ırzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3468, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22083.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09283.x 2005

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  21. [21]

    J., Almaini, O., Hartley, W

    Bradshaw, E. J., Almaini, O., Hartley, W. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt715

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt715 2013

  22. [22]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  23. [23]

    H., & Schwab, F

    Bridle, A. H., & Schwab, F. R. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    2017, A&A, 606, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730932

    Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730932

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730932 2017

  25. [25]

    2020, A&A, 638, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037457

    Brienza, M., Morganti, R., Harwood, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037457

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037457 2020

  26. [26]

    J., White, S

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W

    Bugiani, L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1040

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf 2025

  28. [28]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  29. [29]

    Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at High Redshift

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009

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

  30. [30]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2eb4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2eb4 2021

  31. [31]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1066

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1066 2010

  32. [32]

    2018, A&A, 620, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833935

    Ceraj, L., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833935

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833935 2018

  33. [33]

    E., Momcheva, I., et al

    Clausen, M., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad528a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad528a 2024

  34. [34]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 1992

  35. [35]

    Cook, R. H. W., Davies, L. J. M., Rhee, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1215

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1215 2024

  36. [36]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  37. [37]

    M., Paraschos, G

    Dasyra, K. M., Paraschos, G. F., Combes, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89ba Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad89ba 2024

  38. [38]

    L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al

    Davies, R. L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae327 de Vries, W. H., Hodge, J. A., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 2007, AJ, 134, 457, doi: 10.1086/518866

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae327 2024

  39. [39]

    2017, A&A, 602, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629430 22

    Delhaize, J., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629430 22

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629430 2017

  40. [40]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039647 DESI Collaboration, Karim, M. A., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 D’Eugenio, F., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1443, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02345-...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039647 2021

  41. [41]

    L., Rieke, G

    Donley, J. L., Rieke, G. H., Rigby, J. R., & P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G. 2005, ApJ, 634, 169, doi: 10.1086/491668

    work page doi:10.1086/491668 2005

  42. [42]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 3297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt997

    Dubois, Y., Gavazzi, R., Peirani, S., & Silk, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 3297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt997

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt997 2013

  43. [43]

    J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

    Dunne, L., Ivison, R. J., Maddox, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 3, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13900.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13900.x 2009

  44. [44]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7 2024

  45. [45]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 661, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910

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

  46. [46]

    French, K. D. 2021, PASP, 133, 072001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 2021

  47. [47]

    D., Earl, N., Novack, A

    French, K. D., Earl, N., Novack, A. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd249

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd249 2023

  48. [48]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/1

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

  49. [49]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    Furusawa, H., Kosugi, G., Akiyama, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    work page doi:10.1086/527321 2008

  50. [50]

    2014, A&A, 562, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322790

    Garilli, B., Guzzo, L., Scodeggio, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322790 2014

  51. [51]

    J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

    Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., Yan, R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2049, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12962.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12962.x 2008

  52. [52]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Goto, T. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1222, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11674.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11674.x 2007

  53. [53]

    E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 899, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba534 Grossov´ a, R., Werner, N., Massaro, F., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac366c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba534 2020

  54. [54]

    2014, A&A, 566, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321489

    Guzzo, L., Scodeggio, M., Garilli, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321489

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321489 2014

  55. [55]

    L., Heywood, I., Jarvis, M

    Hale, C. L., Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2528

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2528 2025

  56. [56]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539 2020

  57. [57]

    Nature , author =

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  58. [58]

    Harrison, C. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0165

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

  59. [59]

    M., & Ramos Almeida, C

    Harrison, C. M., & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12020017

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12020017 2024

  60. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22287

    Harvey, Z., Krishna, S., Wild, V., Tojeiro, R., & Hewett, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22287

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22287 2025

  61. [61]

    Harwood, J. J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3318

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3318 2017

  62. [62]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  63. [63]

    T., & Rowan-Robinson, M

    Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJL, 298, L7, doi: 10.1086/184556

    work page doi:10.1086/184556 1985

  64. [64]

    A., Becker, R

    Hodge, J. A., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & de Vries, W. H. 2008, AJ, 136, 1097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1097

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1097 2008

  65. [65]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2012, MNRAS, 420, L8, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01179.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01179.x 2012

  66. [66]

    A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: I. Galaxy Mergers & Quasar Activity

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  67. [67]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  68. [68]

    J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

    Ibar, E., Cirasuolo, M., Ivison, R., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 953, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13077.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13077.x 2008

  69. [69]

    2025, A&A, 697, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452888

    Igo, Z., & Merloni, A. 2025, A&A, 697, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452888

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452888 2025

  70. [70]

    J., Chapman, S

    Ivison, R. J., Chapman, S. C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L77, doi: 10.1086/517917

    work page doi:10.1086/517917 2007

  71. [71]

    2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    Brinchmann, J. 2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219052 2012

  72. [73]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab549

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab549 2021

  73. [74]

    J., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., & et al

    Jarvis, M. J., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., & et al. 2016, in Proceedings of MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 6, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006

    work page doi:10.22323/1.277.0006 2016

  74. [75]

    J., Bonfield, D

    Jarvis, M. J., Bonfield, D. G., Bruce, V. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts118 2013

  75. [76]

    N., Shenoy, S., & Ma lek, K

    Jin, G., Kauffmann, G., Best, P. N., Shenoy, S., & Ma lek, K. 2025, A&A, 694, A309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451974

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451974 2025

  76. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09136, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09136

    Kaviraj, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09136, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09136

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09136 2025

  77. [78]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

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

  78. [79]

    E., Kellermann, K

    Kimball, A. E., Kellermann, K. I., Condon, J. J., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Perley, R. A. 2011, ApJL, 739, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L29 23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/l29 2011

  79. [80]

    2021, A&A, 647, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039648

    Kipper, R., Tamm, A., Tempel, E., de Propris, R., & Ganeshaiah Veena, P. 2021, A&A, 647, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039648

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039648 2021

  80. [81]

    D., Hasinger, G., Brightman, M., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Hasinger, G., Brightman, M., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4 2018

Showing first 80 references.