Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 141 references

Testing the AGN unified model with simulated emission lines from the circumgalactic medium (CGM)

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulated CGM nebulae around obscured and unobscured AGN at z=2–3 differ in symmetry, surface brightness slope, and Lyα line width, but only joint stacking along radio jets can test the unified model.

desk verdict First useful simulations of type-II AGN nebulae and a promising radio-jet stacking test, but the ≥75-source requirement rests on a pseudo-replicated bootstrap and needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19585 v1 pith:53K6P5MY submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Shiwu Zhang , Zheng Cai , Aura Obreja , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Léo Michel-Dansac , Jérémy Blaizot , Donghui Quan , Mingyu Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords AGNunifiedmodelcircumgalacticmediumLyαnebulaeionizationconetype-IIradiativetransferFIREsimulationsemissionline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether glowing gas clouds around distant active galactic nuclei can reveal the hidden structure of the engine. Using simulations of ten massive galaxies at z=2–3, it finds that nebulae around obscured (type-II) AGN are less symmetric, have flatter surface brightness profiles, and have larger Lyα line widths beyond 10 kpc than those around unobscured (type-I) AGN, while total luminosity, area, and HeII/Lyα remain statistically indistinguishable. These differences trace to how the AGN's ionization cone projects onto the sky. But because the cone's orientation cannot be known from nebula images alone, single nebula observations cannot test the unified model; stacking at least 75 type-II Lyα nebulae aligned along radio jets could expose the cone at 95% confidence. If true, this gives a practical path for testing the unified model at high redshift with current instruments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ionization cone carved by the AGN's dusty torus: sightlines inside the cone (type-I) project the cone as a circle, while sightlines outside (type-II) project it as an hourglass-like shape. This projection difference drives the predicted asymmetries (quantified by the flux-weighted αw axis-ratio parameter), the flatter surface brightness profiles (quantified by the scale length r_h), and the outer line-width offsets. The stacking test relies on the assumption that radio jets are coaxial with the torus, so aligning nebulae along the jet direction exposes the cone's elongation.

What would settle it

Conduct the jet-aligned stacking of ≥75 type-II Lyα nebulae at z=2–3 with a surface brightness limit near $10^{-18}$ erg $s^{-1}$ $cm^{-2}$ $arcsec^{-2}$; if the stacked type-II nebulae show no elongation along the jet axis relative to type-I stacks, the claim that the ionization cone imprints on CGM nebulae would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the AGN unified model, the paper claims that type-II (obscured) CGM nebulae exhibit less symmetric morphologies, flatter surface brightness profiles, and larger Lyα emission line widths at R≥10 kpc than type-I (unobscured) nebulae, while luminosity, area, and HeII/Lyα are statistically indistinguishable. Because the projection of the ionization cone cannot be known a priori in observations, nebula observations alone cannot test the unified model. However, stacking at least 75 type-II Lyα nebulae aligned along their radio jets can reveal the ionization cone at 95% confidence with current instruments.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation assumes type-I and type-II AGN have identical intrinsic luminosity and SED, differing only by the observer's viewing angle through the dusty torus; if real obscured AGN are intrinsically fainter or have different SEDs, the predicted differences may not transfer to observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Type-II nebulae should be systematically less symmetric than type-I nebulae when AGN luminosity and torus opening angle are matched.
  • Type-II nebulae should show flatter surface brightness profiles (larger scale length) and larger Lyα line widths at R≥10 kpc, although the ~20 km s−1 width offset may be near current instrument limits.
  • Nebula properties correlate with AGN intrinsic luminosity and torus half-opening angle, so they can constrain the AGN engine but cannot test the unified model by themselves.
  • Stacking ≥75 type-II Lyα nebulae aligned along their radio jets should reveal the ionization cone at ≥95% confidence with present-day instruments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unified model holds, the predicted HeII/Lyα equality between types implies that line-ratio selection alone cannot classify obscured versus unobscured nebulae, so future surveys should prioritize morphological and kinematic diagnostics.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same jet-aligned stacking to already abundant type-I Lyα nebulae; residual elongation there would signal jet-enhancement of Lyα rather than the cone, contaminating the test.
  • The ≥75-source requirement implies that current samples of type-II nebulae (only a few cases) are far too small, so a dedicated narrowband or IFU survey of obscured AGN at z=2–3 is a concrete next step.
  • Because the simulations omit AGN feedback, the predicted differences may be amplified or damped in real systems; including quasar-mode feedback would boost the anisotropy, making the cone easier to detect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses ten FIRE zoom-in halos at z=2-3 and post-processes them with CLOUDY and the Lyα Monte Carlo code RASCAS to generate mock Lyα, Hα, and HeII nebulae around type-I (unobscured) and type-II (obscured) AGN. The AGN radiation is anisotropic, with torus half-opening angle Δ ∈ [50°,70°] and observer viewing angle defining AGN type (Sec. 2.2). The central results are: the two nebula types have statistically indistinguishable luminosity, area, and HeII/Lyα within the virial radius; type-II nebulae are less symmetric, have flatter SB profiles, and have larger Lyα line widths at R≥10 kpc; nebulae properties correlate with Δ and L_AGN in a complicated way; and stacking ≥75 type-II Lyα nebulae aligned on radio jets could reveal the ionization cone at 95% confidence with current instruments (Secs. 3, 4). The paper concludes that nebula observations alone cannot test the unified model because the cone geometry is unknown a priori.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, this is the first systematic simulation of type-II CGM nebulae and gives a concrete, falsifiable observing strategy for the ionization cone at z=2-3. Strengths include the use of a realistic multiphase CGM from FIRE, the explicit treatment of photoionization with CLOUDY and resonant scattering with RASCAS, and the favorable comparison with observed type-I Lyα luminosity-area, symmetry, and SB profiles. The paper also carefully flags several model limitations in the text (Sec. 3.5, Sec. 4.3, Appendix B). However, the headline sample-size estimate rests on pseudo-replication of only 10 halos, and the transfer of the predictions to observed type-II AGN assumes identical intrinsic luminosity between the two populations. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be adopted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 14, Sec. A4] The bootstrap behind the '≥75 type-II Lyα nebulae' estimate draws with replacement from 90 type-II (and 90 type-I) mock images, but these images are not 90 independent CGM realizations: they are 10 halos × 3 random cone orientations × 3 torus half-opening angles (Sec. A4), with the same gas density fields reused across orientation and Δ. The resampled distribution therefore mixes within-halo and between-halo variance, and the resulting 95% confidence sample size does not directly estimate the halo-to-halo variance a real survey would have. If between-halo scatter dominates, the required N is larger than 75; if within-halo scatter dominates, it is smaller. Please replace the naive bootstrap with a cluster/block bootstrap that resamples halos (or otherwise reports the uncertainty in N_required), and re-derive the headline number.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Table 3, Fig. 13] The claim that nebulae observations can constrain the AGN engine is supported mainly by the correlation analysis in Sec. 4.1. These correlations are computed for a single halo (A1 at z=3.0) with repeated random cone orientations and varied Δ or MBH. The Spearman p-values in Table 3 treat those repeated realizations as independent, but they share the same gas density field; the effective independent sample size is much smaller than the number of mock images. The p-values and correlation coefficients should be recomputed (or clearly labeled) with halo as the unit of independence, or the section should be presented as an illustrative single-halo study rather than a general constraint.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.2, Sec. 3.3] The type-I/type-II mock images are generated by construction: the observer is placed inside the ionization cone for type-I and outside for type-II (Sec. 2.2, Fig. 2). The reported differences in asymmetry (Sec. 3.2) and surface-brightness slope (Sec. 3.3) therefore follow largely from the assumed projection geometry of the unified model. This makes the results a self-consistent prediction of the model, not an independent test of it. To justify the 'testing the unified model' framing, the paper should either confront the predictions with the existing type-II nebulae in detail (e.g., den Brok et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2023a,c) or demonstrate that an alternative model (e.g., intrinsically different SEDs or feedback) would not reproduce the same observables.
  4. [Sec. 3.5, Sec. A1.1] The predictions assume that unobscured and obscured AGN share the same intrinsic luminosity and SED, differing only by the viewing angle through the dusty torus (Eq. A1; Sec. A1.1; also explicitly stated in Sec. 3.5). If the real type-II population at z=2-3 is intrinsically fainter or has a different SED, the predicted non-differences in luminosity, area, and HeII/Lyα, and the sample-size requirement in Sec. 4.2, will not transfer directly to observations. The authors flag this limitation, but it is load-bearing; please add a sensitivity test that varies the relative intrinsic luminosity and/or SED of the two populations, or soften the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  5. [Sec. A2, Eq. A2, Appendix B] The photoionization grid uses Φ(H) computed from Eq. A2 under the assumption that the CGM is fully ionized. Appendix B shows that this is inaccurate outside the ionization cone (f_ion,esc drops to ~0.5 by 20 kpc), but it only estimates the effect on Lyα emissivity, not on the HeII/Lyα ratio or the line-width profiles. The Sec. 3.5 claim that type-I and type-II nebulae have consistent HeII/Lyα in 10-100 kpc could be sensitive to this approximation. Please quantify the effect of the optically-thin assumption on the HeII/Lyα prediction (or explicitly state that this prediction is provisional).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'αw,I≈0.71 and αw,I≈0.55' should refer to αw,II for the second value.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption 'the SB profiles of the type-I nebulae are flatter than those of the type-I nebulae' should read 'type-II nebulae are flatter than type-I nebulae'.
  3. [Table 3] The last row entries '0.78 ≥ 99' and '0.84 ≥ 99' are missing a slash and should be formatted like the other p-values (e.g., '0.78 / ≥ 99').
  4. [Throughout] 'Welsch t-test' should be 'Welch's t-test'.
  5. [Data Availability] Consider depositing the CLOUDY emissivity tables and the RASCAS configuration files in a public repository rather than 'available upon request', which would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a forward-modeling study whose geometric input (torus viewing angle) is explicitly acknowledged, and its quantitative claims rest on radiative-transfer post-processing and external comparisons rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-modeling experiment, not a derivation of the unified model from nebular observations. Type-I and type-II nebulae are generated by placing the observer inside or outside a pre-assumed ionization cone (Sec. 2.2, A4), and the resulting morphological asymmetries and flatter surface-brightness profiles are openly attributed to that projection geometry (Secs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.1). Because the model is the input and the nebular properties are the computed output, reporting these differences as model predictions is not circular: the differences are not used to infer the very assumptions that produced them, and the paper explicitly concludes that nebular observations alone cannot test the unified model without independent knowledge of the cone orientation. The nontrivial quantitative claims—statistically indistinguishable luminosity, area, and HeII/Lyα, the ~20 km/s line-width offset, and the ≥75-source stacking requirement—emerge from CLOUDY and RASCAS post-processing of multi-phase FIRE halos with no parameter fitted to those predicted quantities, and are checked against external observational benchmarks (luminosity-area relation, observed type-I SB profiles and α_w, HeII/Lyα). The self-citations to Obreja et al. (2024) are supporting rather than load-bearing, as the paper's own χ² comparisons independently favor Δ=60°. The Sec. 3.5 caveat that observed type-I and type-II AGN may not share identical intrinsic luminosity is a transfer limitation, not a circular step, and the bootstrap pseudo-replication in Sec. 4.2 (90 images from 10 halos) is a statistical-validity concern outside the circularity definition adopted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central predictions rest on the unified-model geometry and on FIRE halos as CGM templates, plus several adopted parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the torus half-opening angle, viewing angle, Eddington ratio, AGN luminosity derived from an assumed MBH-M* relation, and analysis thresholds. The most consequential domain assumptions are identical intrinsic luminosity for both AGN types and the absence of AGN feedback in the hydrodynamic input.

free parameters (5)
  • Torus half-opening angle Δ = 50-70 degrees in main runs; 10-80 degrees in Sec. 4.1.1; Δ=60 degrees favored by comparison with observed SB profiles
    Controls the opening angle of the ionization cone, directly shaping the mock nebulae. Treated as a free parameter in the model and in the correlation study.
  • Viewing angle θ (observer inclination) = 0-360 degrees in steps of 10, then random in/out of cone
    Determines whether the mock AGN is type-I or type-II; the paper samples three random cone orientations per system and one sightline in and out of the cone. It is a modeling choice, not measured.
  • Eddington ratio λ = 0.1
    Adopted from literature on broad-line AGN at z=2-3 to convert MBH to L_AGN. Not varied in the main runs.
  • AGN intrinsic luminosity L_AGN = 2.3-15.2 × 10^45 erg/s from MBH values in Table A1
    Derived from MBH, which comes from the MBH-M* relation, and from λ=0.1. The assumption that both AGN types share this luminosity is load-bearing for the comparison.
  • Surface brightness threshold σ_SB = 3.0×10^-19 for morphology, 3.5×10^-18 for luminosity-area, varied 10^-21 to 10^-17 in Fig. 14
    Analysis choice that determines which pixels count as nebula; affects αw, r_h, and the required sample size.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AGN unified model geometry: an optically thick dusty torus with N_H ≥ 10^22 cm^-2 obscures the BLR along equatorial sightlines, and the ionization cone is coaxial with the torus axis
    The whole mock-image construction assumes this model to generate type-I versus type-II nebulae; introduced in Sec. 1 and implemented in Sec. A1.1.
  • domain assumption CGM gas from FIRE zoom-in simulations without AGN feedback is a valid template for z=2-3 massive halos
    The simulations do not include AGN feedback, as stated in Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.3, which can alter temperature, density, and neutral fraction of CGM gas and hence nebula emission.
  • domain assumption Both AGN types share the same intrinsic luminosity and SED, with only the viewing angle differing
    Stated in Sec. A1.1 and flagged in Sec. 3.5; necessary for interpreting observed differences as orientation effects.
  • domain assumption SMBH masses are inferred from stellar masses using the MBH-M* relation at z~2 rather than from the simulated MBH
    Sec. 2.1: simulated MBH values are not within the measured MBH-M* relation, so MBH is rescaled from M*, setting L_AGN through the Eddington ratio.
  • domain assumption Radio jets are coaxial with the torus axis
    Sec. 3.3.2 and Sec. 4.2 assume jet alignment for stacking nebulae along the torus axis, citing Vernet et al. 2001 and Drouart et al. 2012.
  • ad hoc to paper The CGM is treated as fully ionized when computing the incident ionizing flux Φ(H) in Eq. A2
    Appendix B shows this is inaccurate outside the ionization cone, where the ionizing escape fraction drops to about 0.5 within 20 kpc, but the authors argue that including attenuation would strengthen the reported differences. It is an approximation adopted to make the calculation tractable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the AGN unified model with simulated emission lines from the circumgalactic medium (CGM)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53K6P5MY

@misc{pith2026250719585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the AGN unified model with simulated emission lines from the circumgalactic medium (CGM)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53K6P5MY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19585}
}
abstract

The CGM around unobscured AGN has received much attention in recent years. Comparatively, nebulae associated with obscured AGN are less studied. Here, we simulate the Ly$\alpha$, H$\alpha$, and HeII nebulae around the two types of AGN at $z=2-3$ with ten massive systems from the FIRE simulations based on the unified model to show their differences and to test if they can be used to constrain the AGN model. We post-process the data with the CLOUDY and the Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer code, RASCAS. Overall, we find that the Ly$\alpha$ nebulae around the unobscured AGN (type-I nebulae) and obscured AGN (type-II nebulae) do not exhibit significant differences in the luminosity, area, and HeII/Ly$\alpha$ when the simulated cutout is set to the halo virial radius. Whereas, the type-II nebulae exhibit less symmetric morphologies, flatter surface brightness profiles, and larger emission line widths (at $R\geq 10$ kpc) than those of the type-I nebulae. These nebulae properties exhibit complicated correlations with the AGN, indicating that nebulae observations can be applied to constrain the AGN engine. However, independent observations on nebulae in the mentioned emissions are insufficient to test the unified model as a priori in observations is not possible to know the direction and opening angle of the ionization cone. We prompt that the joint observations of Ly$\alpha$ nebulae and radio jets can help to reveal the ionization cone to probe the unified model. Our calculations suggest that this method requires $\geq 75$ type-II Ly$\alpha$ nebulae with current instruments to reach a confidence level of $\geq 95\%$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The halo mass versus the stellar mass of 12 massive systems in FIRE simulations and the observed SHMR (dotted-dashed lines) at 𝑧 = 2 − 3 (Shuntov et al. 2022). The color of the stars denotes the redshift of the halos. The red and blue lines represent the SHMR in the redshift ranges of 𝑧 = 2 − 2.5 and 𝑧 = 2.5 − 3, respectively, with the shadows denoting the 3-𝜎 stellar mass scatter where 𝜎 (log M★)=0.25 (Matthee et a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The workflow for producing the mock observables. The anisotropic AGN radiation is constructed with the x-cigale (Boquien et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020) code. The gas emissivities are then calculated by running cloudy (Ferland et al. 2017) on the grid of parameters. These emissivities are assigned to the gas particles by cross-matching the parameters with the gas properties. For the Ly𝛼 without the processing o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper left: The hydrogen number density (nH) of the A1 system at 𝑧 = 2.0 (Tab. 1) projected on the 𝑥 − 𝑦 plane centered on the SMBH. The physical width of this image is 200 kpc. The blue diamond marks the position of the SMBH and the blue solid line denotes the orientation of the host galaxy projected on the 𝑥 − 𝑦 plane. Upper right two panels: The mock images of the type-I Ly𝛼 nebulae with and without processing of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The luminosity-area relation of the Ly𝛼 nebulae at 𝑧 = 2 − 3. The small blue and orange squares represent the simulated two types of nebulae, respectively. The colormap denotes the half-opening angle of the torus (Δ) which ranges in 50o − 70o . The gray dots, stars, an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relation between the SB limit (𝜎SB) and the 𝛼 parameter of Ly𝛼 nebulae. In a wide range of 𝜎SB, the 𝛼w of the type-II nebulae keeps lower than that of the type-I nebulae while the 𝛼uw of the two types of nebulae tends to equal to each other at 𝜎SB ≤ 3.0 × 10−19erg …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper left: The median-stacked SB profiles of the Ly𝛼 nebulae with the processing of rascas. The blue and orange colors denote the profile of type-I and type-II nebulae, respectively, with the shadows denoting the 16th and 84th percentiles. The solid, dashed, dash-dott…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The mean values and histograms of the best-fit scale length (𝑟ℎ) and normalization parameter (𝐶) of the simulated Ly𝛼 nebulae. The blue and orange colors denote the type-I and type-II nebulae, respectively. The squares denote the mean values of the Ly𝛼 nebulae wi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: the stacked images of Ly𝛼 nebulae after aligning 90 mock images along the torus axis for each type of nebulae. The cosmic dimming effect has been corrected. The vertical dashed lines represent the torus axis. The dashed contours denote SB limits of [2𝜎SB, 5𝜎SB, 1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper: The radially projected 2D spectra of the Ly𝛼 nebulae with the processing of rascas. Panels from left to right are the spectra of the type-I nebulae, spectra of the type-II nebulae, and their residuals. The white dashed line marks the location where Δ𝑣 = 0 km s−…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: The radial profile of the flux-weighted velocity dispersion (𝜎𝑣) of the Ly𝛼 nebulae with (solid line) and without (dash-dotted line) the processing of rascas. The blue and orange lines represent the median 𝜎𝑣 of the type-I and type-II nebulae, respectively. The …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The radial profiles of He ii/Ly𝛼 under different opening angle of dust torus (Δ). These profiles are generated by collecting the pixels from all mock ratio maps of the 10 massive systems (90 mock maps in total). The blue and orange solid lines denote the median profil…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: correlations between the nebulae properties (𝛼w, 𝑟ℎ, and 𝐶) and the half-opening angle of the torus (Δ) of the two types of nebulae. The square, hexagon, diamond, and triangle represent the Ly𝛼 with the processing of rascas, Ly𝛼 without the processing of rascas,…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The probability map showing the chance that the stacked type-II Ly𝛼 nebulae have the 𝛼w below the 3-𝜎 scatter of the 𝛼w of the stacked type-I Ly𝛼 nebulae. The 𝑥-axis represents the sample size and the 𝑦-axis represents the 1-𝜎 SB limit. The colorbar represents the fra…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 19 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]

    L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5962A 502, 5962

    Aird J., Coil A. L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5962A 502, 5962

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab312 2021

  3. [3]

    M., Hickox R

    Alexander D. M., Hickox R. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewAR..56...93A 56, 93

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  4. [4]

    Alexandroff R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3306A 435, 3306

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1500 2013

  5. [5]

    F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4698A 470, 4698

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4698A 470, 4698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 2017

  6. [6]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ARA&A..31..473A 31, 473

    arXiv 1993

  7. [7]

    F., Cantalupo S., Prochaska J

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Hennawi J. F., Cantalupo S., Prochaska J. X., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829....3A 829, 3

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/3 2016

  8. [8]

    X., Hennawi J

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., Obreja A., Buck T., Cantalupo S., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3907A 473, 3907

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2465 2018

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    F., Prochaska J

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., O \ n orbe J., Farina E. P., Cantalupo S., Lusso E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3162A 482, 3162

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Cai Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace42b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..24A 952, L24

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Obreja A., Costa T., Farina E. P., Cai Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace42b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..24A 952, L24

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16795 ), @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Baes M., Verstappen J., De Looze I., Fritz J., Saftly W., Vidal P \'e rez E., Stalevski M., Valcke S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..196...22B 196, 22

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    Boquien M., Burgarella D., Roehlly Y., Buat V., Ciesla L., Corre D., Inoue A. K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Borisova E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831...39B 831, 39

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Buchner J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...89B 802, 89

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Byrohl C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5129B 506, 5129

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Cai Z., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...71C 837, 71

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Cai Z., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..245...23C 245, 23

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    Camps P., Baes M., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&C.....9...20C 9, 20

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    X., Hennawi J

    Cantalupo S., Arrigoni-Battaia F., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., Madau P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.506...63C 506, 63

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Cantalupo S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5188C 483, 5188

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Perley R

    Carilli C. L., Perley R. A., Dhawan V., Perley D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874L..32C 874, L32

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Chen Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508...19C 508, 19

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...459..717C 459, 717

    Christensen L., Jahnke K., Wisotzki L., S \'a nchez S. F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...459..717C 459, 717

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Ciesla L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..10C 576, A10

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Claeyssens A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A..78C 666, A78

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Keating L

    Costa T., Arrigoni Battaia F., Farina E. P., Keating L. C., Rosdahl J., Kimm T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.1767C 517, 1767

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Cui W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..977C 514, 977

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Daddi E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926L..21D 926, L21

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Helou G., Magdis G

    Dale D. A., Helou G., Magdis G. E., Armus L., D \' az-Santos T., Shi Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784...83D 784, 83

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Dicken D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A...5D 689, A5

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Farina E

    Drake A. B., Farina E. P., Neeleman M., Walter F., Venemans B., Banados E., Mazzucchelli C., Decarli R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..131D 881, 131

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Drouart G., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A..45D 548, A45

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..196F 887, 196

    Farina E. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..196F 887, 196

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1416F 703, 1416

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5575F 525, 5575

    Fawcett V. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5575F 525, 5575

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458L..14F 458, L14

    Feldmann R., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458L..14F 458, L14

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1050F 470, 1050

    Feldmann R., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1050F 470, 1050

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Feltre A., Hatziminaoglou E., Fritz J., Franceschini A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21695.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..120F 426, 120

    2012

  34. [42]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    2017 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Fossati M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3044F 503, 3044

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Fritz J., Franceschini A., Hatziminaoglou E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..767F 366, 767

    2006

  37. [45]

    arXiv:2409.00174

    Fumagalli M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240900174F p. arXiv:2409.00174

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    E., Peacock J

    Geach J. E., Peacock J. A., Myers A. D., Hickox R. C., Burchard M. C., Jones M. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...85G 874, 85

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Hamann F., Perrotta S., Rupke D

    Gillette J., Lau M. W., Hamann F., Perrotta S., Rupke D. S. N., Wylezalek D., Zakamska N. L., Vayner A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2578G 526, 2578

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Girdhar A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1608G 512, 1608

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Girdhar A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9322G 527, 9322

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Y., Kravtsov A

    Gnedin N. Y., Kravtsov A. V., Chen H.-W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..765G 672, 765

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Gonz \'a lez Lobos V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..41G 679, A41

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    L., De Zotti G., Silva L., Bressan A., Danese L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..580G 600, 580

    Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Silva L., Bressan A., Danese L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..580G 600, 580

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    Greene J. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Guo Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898...26G 898, 26

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Croston J

    Hardcastle M. J., Croston J. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NewAR..8801539H 88, 101539

    2020

  48. [56]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...39H 959, 39

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Hasinger G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...490..905H 490, 905

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Lehnert M

    Heckman T. M., Lehnert M. D., van Breugel W., Miley G. K., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370...78H 370, 78

    1991 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Prochaska J

    Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...58H 766, 58

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651...61H 651, 61

    Hennawi J. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651...61H 651, 61

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    F., Prochaska J

    Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Cantalupo S., Arrigoni-Battaia F., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa5397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..779H 348, 779

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    arXiv:2408.16826

    Herwig E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240816826H p. arXiv:2408.16826

    2024 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..356H 175, 356

    2008 doi

  56. [65]

    F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..581H 445, 581

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    F., Torrey P., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458..816H 458, 816

    Hopkins P. F., Torrey P., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458..816H 458, 816

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J

    Johnson S. D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2553J 452, 2553

    2015 doi

  59. [68]

    H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    1996 doi

  60. [69]

    Khaire V., Srianand R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4174K 484, 4174

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403576K p

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240403576K p. arXiv:2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...38K 968, 38

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    W., Hamann F., Gillette J., Perrotta S., Rupke D

    Lau M. W., Hamann F., Gillette J., Perrotta S., Rupke D. S. N., Wylezalek D., Zakamska N. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1624L 515, 1624

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704.1640L 704, 1640

    Laursen P., Sommer-Larsen J., Andersen A. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704.1640L 704, 1640

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Steidel C

    Law D. R., Steidel C. C., Chen Y., Strom A. L., Rudie G. C., Trainor R. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..119L 866, 119

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..123....3L 123, 3

    1999 doi

  67. [76]

    H., Calzetti D., Heckman T

    Leitherer C., Li I. H., Calzetti D., Heckman T. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..140..303L 140, 303

    2002 doi

  68. [77]

    arXiv:2405.13113

    Li M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513113L p. arXiv:2405.13113

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [78]

    Liu W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..152L 965, 152

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    X., Hennawi J

    Lusso E., Fumagalli M., Rafelski M., Neeleman M., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., O'Meara J. M., Theuns T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...41L 860, 41

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    Mackenzie R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..494M 502, 494

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    arXiv:2308.01230

    Maiolino R., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230801230M p. arXiv:2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  73. [82]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...47M 880, 47

    Marino R. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...47M 880, 47

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    Marques-Chaves R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..23M 629, A23

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    Matthee J., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    2017 doi

  76. [85]

    Matthee J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963..129M 963, 129

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    A., Walter F., Di Mascia F., Decarli R., Neeleman M., Venemans B., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250214539M p

    Meyer R. A., Walter F., Di Mascia F., Decarli R., Neeleman M., Venemans B., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250214539M p. arXiv:2502.14539

    2025 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    Michel-Dansac L., Blaizot J., Garel T., Verhamme A., Kimm T., Trebitsch M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.154M 635, A154

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    Mignoli M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A...9M 626, A9

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    C., Shahinyan K., Sugarman H

    Moran E. C., Shahinyan K., Sugarman H. R., V \'e lez D. O., Eracleous M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148..136M 148, 136

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...93M 864, 93

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    P., Naab T., White S

    Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1822M 477, 1822

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    R., Alexander D

    Mullaney J. R., Alexander D. M., Fine S., Goulding A. D., Harrison C. M., Hickox R. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..622M 433, 622

    2013 doi

  84. [93]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3234N 490, 3234

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., Lehnert M. D., Eisenhauer F., Gilbert A., Tecza M., Abuter R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..693N 650, 693

    2006 doi

  86. [95]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., Lehnert M. D., De Breuck C., Gilbert A. M., van Breugel W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...491..407N 491, 407

    2008 doi

  87. [96]

    Netzer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..365N 53, 365

    2015 doi

  88. [97]

    B., Martin C., Matuszewski M., Hoadley K., Hamden E., Neill J

    O'Sullivan D. B., Martin C., Matuszewski M., Hoadley K., Hamden E., Neill J. D., Lin Z., Parihar P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab838c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894....3O 894, 3

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    V., Buck T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8078O 527, 8078

    Obreja A., Arrigoni Battaia F., Macci \`o A. V., Buck T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8078O 527, 8078

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  91. [100]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  92. [101]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..16P 571, A16

    2014 doi

  93. [102]

    Ploeckinger S., Schaye J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.4857P 497, 4857

    2020 doi

  94. [103]

    X., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..136P 776, 136

    Prochaska J. X., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..136P 776, 136

    2013 doi

  95. [104]

    X., Lau M

    Prochaska J. X., Lau M. W., Hennawi J. F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..140P 796, 140

    2014 doi

  96. [105]

    H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    Rahmati A., Pawlik A. H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    2013 doi

  97. [106]

    E., Greene J

    Reines A. E., Greene J. E., Geha M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..116R 775, 116

    2013 doi

  98. [107]

    F., Quataert E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...36R 759, 36

    Roth N., Kasen D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...36R 759, 36

    2012 doi

  99. [108]

    C., Steidel C

    Rudie G. C., Steidel C. C., Pettini M., Trainor R. F., Strom A. L., Hummels C. B., Reddy N. A., Shapley A. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885...61R 885, 61

    2019 doi

  100. [109]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  101. [110]

    B., Soifer B

    Sanders D. B., Soifer B. T., Elias J. H., Madore B. F., Matthews K., Neugebauer G., Scoville N. Z., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...325...74S 325, 74

    1988 doi

  102. [111]

    N., Prescott M

    Sanderson K. N., Prescott M. K. M., Christensen L., Fynbo J., M ller P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..252S 923, 252

    2021 doi

  103. [112]

    Schaye J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..507S 559, 507

    2001 doi

  104. [113]

    Shen Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...45S 194, 45

    2011 doi

  105. [114]

    Shuntov M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..61S 664, A61

    2022 doi

  106. [115]

    Singha M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad004d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..107S 959, 107

    2023 doi

  107. [116]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364.1105S 364, 1105

    2005

  108. [117]

    C ., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19775.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.2756S 420, 2756

    Stalevski M., Fritz J., Baes M., Nakos T., Popovi \'c L. C ., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19775.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.2756S 420, 2756

    2012

  109. [118]

    Stalevski M., Ricci C., Ueda Y., Lira P., Fritz J., Baes M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2288S 458, 2288

    2016 doi

  110. [119]

    Stoughton C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123..485S 123, 485

    2002 doi

  111. [120]

    D., Schramm M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..129S 815, 129

    Suh H., Hasinger G., Steinhardt C., Silverman J. D., Schramm M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..129S 815, 129

    2015 doi

  112. [121]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1888T 493, 1888

    Terrazas B. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1888T 493, 1888

    2020 doi

  113. [122]

    Tristram K. R. W., Burtscher L., Jaffe W., Meisenheimer K., H \"o nig S. F., Kishimoto M., Schartmann M., Weigelt G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...563A..82T 563, A82

    2014 doi

  114. [123]

    Truong N., Pillepich A., Nelson D., Werner N., Hernquist L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.1563T 508, 1563

    2021 doi

  115. [124]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..389T 55, 389

    2017 doi

  116. [125]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....9T 192, 9

    2011 doi

  117. [126]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  118. [127]

    Venturi G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A..17V 648, A17

    2021 doi

  119. [128]

    Vernet J., Fosbury R. A. E., Villar-Mart \' n M., Cohen M. H., Cimatti A., di Serego Alighieri S., Goodrich R. W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...366....7V 366, 7

    2001 doi

  120. [129]

    Vietri G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A.175V 644, A175

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    Vijarnwannaluk B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c07 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...97V 941, 97

    2022 doi

  122. [131]

    Wang W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A..70W 680, A70

    2023 doi

  123. [132]

    Wang W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.169W 683, A169

    2024 doi

  124. [133]

    arXiv:2501.14026

    Wang B., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250114026W p. arXiv:2501.14026

    2025 doi arXiv

  125. [134]

    Weidinger M., M ller P., Fynbo J. P. U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.430..999W 430, 999

    2004 doi

  126. [135]

    Weidinger M., M ller P., Fynbo J. P. U., Thomsen B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...436..825W 436, 825

    2005 doi

  127. [136]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Smith B. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393...99W 393, 99

    2009

  128. [137]

    Yang G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..740Y 491, 740

    2020 doi

  129. [138]

    A., Sorini D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1612Y 527, 1612

    Yang T., Dav \'e R., Cui W., Cai Y.-C., Peacock J. A., Sorini D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1612Y 527, 1612

    2024 doi

  130. [139]

    Zhang S., et al., 2023a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abj9192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380..494Z 380, 494

    doi

  131. [140]

    Zhang Y., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948..103Z 948, 103

    doi

  132. [141]

    Zhang S., et al., 2023c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..124Z 952, 124

    doi

  133. [142]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1874D 495, 1874

    den Brok J. S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1874D 495, 1874

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.