Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

No evidence for excess AGN activity in recently quenched massive galaxies at cosmic noon

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep Chandra observations of more than 200 massive post-starburst galaxies at redshift 1–3 reveal no excess X-ray AGN activity: the mean AGN luminosity matches passive galaxies and sits a factor of 2.6 below star-forming galaxies of equal…

desk verdict A careful, transparent null result on AGN in post-starbursts at z~1-3; the measurement is solid, the selection is the softest link, and it deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15342 v1 pith:PN4FODB2 submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA

Omar Almaini , Vivienne Wild , David Maltby , Elizabeth Taylor , Kate Rowlands , Thomas de Lisle , Katherine Alatalo , Jimi Harrold
show 3 more authors
Guillaume Hewitt Pallavi Patil Maya Skarbinski
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleipost-starburstgalaxiesgalaxyquenchingX-raystackingcosmicnoonChandraevolutionblackholefeedback
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

This paper asks whether supermassive black holes switch on when a massive galaxy quenches its star formation, timing that would implicate AGN feedback as the cause of quenching. Using deep X-ray data on roughly 4,000 massive galaxies at cosmic noon (redshift 1–3), including over 200 freshly quenched post-starburst systems, the authors measure how often galaxies host X-ray AGN and how bright those AGN are on average. They find that 6.2±1.5 per cent of post-starbursts host X-ray AGN, between the star-forming rate of 8.2±0.5 per cent and the passive rate of 5.7±0.8 per cent, and that stacked average luminosities are comparable to old passive galaxies rather than elevated. The authors conclude that AGN activity is not enhanced during the post-starburst phase; it simply tracks the reduced availability of fuel. If correct, popular models in which a bright quasar phase coincides with the starburst and drives the initial quenching require revision, while episodic short-lived AGN bursts can still explain the observed outflows.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two tools: the PCA 'super-colours' used to classify galaxies and the stacking code CSTACK used to measure average X-ray flux. Super-colours are linear combinations of rest-frame broad-band photometry, spanning 2500 to 15000 Å, that separate star-forming, passive, and post-starburst galaxies by the shape of their spectral energy distributions, with post-starbursts identified by A-star dominated SEDs indicating a recent burst quenched within roughly 1 Gyr. CSTACK stacks the Chandra images at the locations of X-ray-undetected galaxies, within 8 arcmin of field centres, to push below individual detection limits, after removing known sources and applying a bootstrap to derive uncertainties. The argument is carried by comparing AGN detection fractions and stacked mean luminosities across three populations matched in stellar mass and redshift, together with a simple model that adds AGN light to a template post-starburst SED to quantify how often blue AGN would misclassify a quenched galaxy as star-forming. This model yields the key correction: at most about 30 per cent of Type 1 AGN could be missing, and correcting for them leaves the conclusions unchanged.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey of massive galaxies at redshift 1–3 selected purely on Balmer absorption, with matching Chandra and mid-infrared data, would settle whether the null result is robust: if such spectroscopically confirmed post-starbursts show X-ray AGN fractions or mean luminosities distinctly above the passive-galaxy level, beyond the modelled ~0.1 dex correction, the paper's conclusion would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that recently quenched massive galaxies at cosmic noon do not show enhanced AGN activity. X-ray AGN are detected in $6.2 \pm 1.5$ per cent of massive post-starburst galaxies ($M_\ast > 10^{10.5}\,M_\odot$, $1<z<3$), below the $8.2 \pm 0.5$ per cent found in star-forming galaxies and statistically indistinguishable from the $5.7 \pm 0.8$ per cent in passive galaxies. Stacking the X-ray emission of undetected galaxies shows that post-starbursts have mean $0.5{-}8$ keV luminosities a factor of $2.6 \pm 0.3$ below mass- and redshift-matched star-forming galaxies, but similar to passive galaxies. The mean X-ray luminosity scales with star-formation rate across all populations, indicating that AGN activity tracks gas availability rather than the quenching event itself. The authors reconcile these low rates with the prevalence of high-velocity outflows in post-starburst galaxies by positing that luminous AGN phases are short-lived, visible only about 5 per cent of the time, so the winds outlast the X-ray-bright episode. In their picture, X-ray AGN may help maintain quiescence, but there is no direct link to the primary quenching event.

Load-bearing premise

The photometric PCA classification correctly identifies the post-starburst galaxies and does not systematically miss those whose blue AGN light moves them into the star-forming class; if unobscured AGN are more common in the earliest quenching phase, the retained post-starburst sample could underrepresent exactly the AGN-rich objects the paper is looking for.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The post-starburst phase is not a phase of enhanced AGN activity; the AGN detection rate at cosmic noon is similar in quenched and passive galaxies, so black hole fueling tracks gas availability rather than the recent starburst.
  • Models in which a luminous quasar phase is directly responsible for the initial quenching of massive galaxies at $z \sim 2$ must be reconciled with this null result, or must place the bright episode before the observable post-starburst phase.
  • The rare X-ray-detected AGN in post-starbursts, accreting at roughly 5 per cent Eddington, are energetically sufficient to drive the observed $\sim 1000$ km/s outflows at 1–2 per cent coupling efficiency, so episodic AGN bursts can maintain quiescence without being the trigger.
  • The observed correlation between mean X-ray luminosity and star-formation rate across all populations implies that AGN activity in the early universe is primarily set by fuel supply rather than by the host's recent star-formation history.
  • Photometric selection can miss quenched galaxies hosting low-reddening luminous AGN, but the modelled correction, about 0.09 dex for post-starbursts, is too small to change the conclusion that AGN activity is not elevated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would come from a complete spectroscopic census of massive quenched galaxies at $z \sim 2$ using Balmer absorption selection, which does not depend on AGN colour; if a substantial population of blue, luminous AGN is found among spectroscopically confirmed post-starbursts beyond the modelled 30 per cent Type 1 fraction, the null result would weaken.
  • The short-duty-cycle interpretation predicts a timing signature: post-starbursts should show a correlation between X-ray luminosity and time since the burst, with the highest luminosities in the youngest objects; the present sample is too small to test this, but a larger sample with better age resolution could do so.
  • If the AGN burst phase is as short and stochastic as proposed, X-ray variability between two epochs should be detectable in a subset of the detected post-starbursts; a Chandra re-observation of the 25 X-ray-detected post-starbursts could test whether the AGN flicker on Myr timescales.
  • Because the paper argues that AGN activity traces star-formation rate, the scatter in $L_{\rm X}/\mathrm{SFR}$ within post-starbursts may be a more sensitive probe of AGN feedback than the mean, since the feedback effect is likely to appear as an enhanced ratio in the most recently quenched objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Chandra X-ray data from the UDS field to measure AGN activity in ~4000 massive (M* > 10^10.5 Msun) galaxies at 1 < z < 3, focusing on ~245 post-starburst systems identified via PCA-based super-colour photometric classification. The authors report an X-ray detection fraction of 6.2 +/- 1.5% for PSBs, between the values for star-forming (8.2 +/- 0.5%) and passive (5.7 +/- 0.8%) galaxies. In a stacking analysis, the average X-ray luminosity of PSBs is comparable to that of passive galaxies and a factor 2.6 +/- 0.3 below that of star-forming galaxies of similar stellar mass and redshift. The paper concludes that there is no evidence for excess AGN activity in the post-starburst phase, and that the low levels of AGN activity can be reconciled with observed outflows via a short AGN duty cycle of about 5%.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides an important observational constraint on AGN feedback models at cosmic noon: massive recently-quenched galaxies do not show elevated X-ray AGN activity relative to older passive systems, despite theoretical expectations of a delayed AGN phase after a starburst. The study is carefully designed, with control samples matched in stellar mass and redshift, bootstrap uncertainties from the CSTACK tool, and an appendix (Appendix A) showing that the quasar-removal criteria do not change the primary conclusions. The empirical, non-circular comparison of detection rates and stacked luminosities is a strength, and the paper is transparent about its main caveats, particularly the possible misclassification of PSBs hosting blue AGN light. The significance of the work is high for the field, as it directly addresses a key prediction of feedback models, and the null result is sharpened by the stacking analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Fig. 6] The correction for AGN contamination of the photometric PSB classification rests on a chain of fixed assumptions: a single Elvis et al. (1994)/Assef et al. (2010) AGN SED, a single 'typical' PSB at z~1.5, a black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio of 0.15%, a Milky Way reddening law, and a 30% Type 1 AGN fraction from Lawrence & Elvis (2010). Each of these is uncertain at roughly the factor-of-two level, and together they set the quoted 0.09 dex boost to the mean PSB luminosity. The detection fraction (6.2 +/- 1.5%) is more sensitive to selection than the stacked mean: if the true unobscured fraction among recently quenched galaxies is higher than 30%, or if the PSB population spans a wider range of SEDs than the single template, the remaining sample could be systematically depleted in exactly the AGN hosts being tested. The authors should present the correction as a function of the assumed Type 1 fraction (e.g., 10-70%) and a small set of alternative AGN SEDs, or use the star-forming sample to empirically bound the contamination, before concluding that the null result is robust.
  2. [§3, Fig. 2] The headline detection fraction for PSBs (6.2 +/- 1.5%) is formally consistent with both the passive (5.7 +/- 0.8%) and star-forming (8.2 +/- 0.5%) fractions at roughly the 1-sigma level; the difference from star-forming galaxies is 2.0 +/- 1.6 percentage points. The stronger claim of a suppressed AGN population therefore rests mainly on the stacking analysis, which combines many individually undetected galaxies. The text should state this explicitly: the 'no excess' conclusion is driven by the stacked luminosities rather than by the detection rates, and the significance of the stacked deficit should be quoted with systematic uncertainties included (e.g., from the assumed photon index and the quasar-removal choice).
  3. [§7.3, §4.3] The paper's own caveat that enhanced AGN activity in the earliest quenching phase (<~250 Myr after the burst) cannot be ruled out is important and should be presented more prominently, because the PSB selection averages over timescales up to ~1 Gyr and the photometric age estimates in Section 4.3 suffer from degeneracies between burst age and burst strength. As written, the abstract and conclusions could be read as ruling out a feedback-linked AGN episode in the immediate post-quenching phase, whereas the data actually constrain the average AGN properties over a heterogeneous population. I would ask the authors to either (a) state this scope limitation in the abstract and conclusions, or (b) add a stacking analysis in the narrowest age bins possible, explicitly propagating the photometric age uncertainties, so the reader can assess whether the null result extends to the first ~250 Myr.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1] The word 'acitivity' in the final sentence of the introduction should be corrected to 'activity'.
  2. [§4.3] The text refers to 'burst times' but the quantity plotted is the time since the last burst; please harmonize the terminology and define the zero point precisely.
  3. [§3] The footnote states that the z>2 bin in the lower panel of Figure 2 may be incomplete and that a factor 1.2 correction would change the detection fractions; it would help if the figure or text indicated whether any correction was applied to the plotted points, and how the uncertainty in that correction was propagated.
  4. [§2.4] The quasar-removal criterion (L_X > 10^44 erg/s and CLASS_STAR > 0.95) is defined a priori, but the number of removed PSBs (2 out of 245) is small; it would be useful to state explicitly how the two PSBs removed are classified in the Appendix A variants, since they are the most relevant for the main comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray detection and stacking measurements are independent of the PCA classification inputs, and the Section 5 misclassification correction is an explicit, small adjustment rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison: the Chandra X-ray detection fraction and stacked mean luminosity of post-starburst galaxies are compared with star-forming and passive control samples of similar stellar mass and redshift. The PSB classifications are taken from the authors' earlier PCA 'super-colour' work (Wild et al. 2014; Wilkinson et al. 2021), but the X-ray measurements are independent of how those classifications were constructed. No parameter is fitted to the X-ray data and then renamed as a prediction. Section 5 discusses a possible bias from blue AGN light and applies a 'simple correction' using an external AGN SED, an assumed 30 per cent Type 1 fraction, and the assumption that missing AGN resemble detected ones; the correction boosts the PSB mean luminosity by only 0.09 dex, and Appendix A shows the conclusions are robust to alternative quasar-removal cuts. Section 7.3 explicitly states that enhanced AGN activity in the earliest quenching phase cannot be ruled out, which is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. The self-citations to the UDS PCA catalogues are appropriate prior work and are not load-bearing in the sense of a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in via citation. No step in the derivation reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs; therefore no circularity is identified.

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

The central AGN fractions and stacked luminosity ratios are direct measurements with statistical uncertainties; no free parameter is tuned to produce the null result. The listed assumptions enter luminosity conversions, the quasar-removal threshold, and the misclassification correction. The most fragile assumption is the photometric classification, which the paper partially tests but cannot fully validate.

free parameters (5)
  • Photon index for K-correction = 1.7 (assumed)
    Assumed for 0.5-8 keV band K-correction and flux conversion (Sections 2.3 and 4). Changes absolute luminosities but not the relative comparison unless PSB spectra differ systematically.
  • Bolometric correction k_bol = 18 (assumed)
    Used in Section 5 to map X-ray luminosity to Eddington ratio and to set the quasar-removal threshold at Lx around 1e44 erg/s. Appendix A shows results are insensitive to varying the cut.
  • Black hole to stellar mass ratio = 0.15 per cent (assumed from McLure & Dunlop 2002; Haring & Rix 2004)
    Used in Section 5 to estimate Eddington ratios from stellar masses in the AGN contamination model.
  • Unobscured Type 1 AGN fraction = 30 per cent (assumed from Lawrence & Elvis 2010)
    Used in Section 5 to correct for potentially misclassified quenched galaxies; if the true fraction differs, the correction amplitude changes.
  • Galactic neutral hydrogen column = 2.54e20 cm^-2 (assumed from Dickey & Lockman 1990)
    Used with Gamma=1.7 for count-rate to flux conversion in Section 4; standard foreground correction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
    Adopted in Section 1 for distance and luminosity calculations; standard.
  • domain assumption PCA super-colour classifications from Wilkinson et al. (2021) separate PSB, passive, and star-forming galaxies over 1<z<3.
    Section 2.2 defines the samples; Section 5 tests AGN-induced misclassification but cannot fully exclude it.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts are accurate enough for binning and stacking (sigma_NMAD=0.019).
    Section 2.1 calibrates against about 8000 spectroscopic redshifts.
  • domain assumption X-ray luminosity is an unbiased tracer of AGN activity, meaning Compton-thick or heavily obscured AGN are not markedly overrepresented in PSBs.
    Section 6 acknowledges this; hardness ratios show no significant difference but the PSB sample is small.
  • domain assumption Bayesian SED fits provide reliable SFRs and burst ages for quenched galaxies.
    Used for SFR binning in Section 4.2 and time-since-burst analysis in Section 4.3; authors note age and burst-strength degeneracies.
  • domain assumption CSTACK stacking tool correctly handles Chandra PSF and source masking.
    Section 4 relies on CSTACK v4.5; no independent verification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No evidence for excess AGN activity in recently quenched massive galaxies at cosmic noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PN4FODB2

@misc{pith2026250415342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No evidence for excess AGN activity in recently quenched massive galaxies at cosmic noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PN4FODB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15342}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of AGN activity within recently quenched massive galaxies at cosmic noon ($z\sim 2$), using deep Chandra X-ray observations of the Ultra-Deep Survey (UDS) field. Our sample includes over 4000 massive galaxies ($M_\ast > 10^{10.5}$ M$_{\odot}$) in the redshift range $1 < z < 3$, including more than 200 transitionary post-starburst (PSB) systems. We find that X-ray emitting AGN are detected in $6.2 \pm 1.5$ per cent of massive PSBs at these redshifts, a detection rate that lies between those of star-forming and passive galaxies ($8.2 \pm 0.5$ per cent and $5.7 \pm 0.8$ per cent, respectively). A stacking analysis shows that the average X-ray luminosity for PSBs is comparable to older passive galaxies, but a factor of $2.6 \pm 0.3$ below star-forming galaxies of similar redshift and stellar mass. The average X-ray luminosity in all populations appears to trace the star-formation rate, with PSBs showing low levels of AGN activity consistent with their reduced levels of star formation. We conclude that, on average, we see no evidence for excess AGN activity in the post-starburst phase. However, the low levels of AGN activity can be reconciled with the high-velocity outflows observed in many PSBs, assuming the rare X-ray detections represent short-lived bursts of black hole activity, visible $\sim$5 per cent of the time. Thus, X-ray AGN may help to maintain quiescence in massive galaxies at cosmic noon, but the evidence for a direct link to the primary quenching event remains elusive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. confirms the well-known result that detected X-ray AGN are preferentially located in galaxies of high stellar mass (e.g., Alonso-Herrero et al. 2008; Aird et al. 2012). It is also clear that the majority of X-ray selected AGN at these redshifts are located within star-forming galaxies. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The X-ray detected fraction as a function of redshift for the three primary galaxy populations, for galaxies with high stellar mass (𝑀∗ > 1010.5 M⊙). Redshift bins of width Δ𝑧 = 0.5 are used in the range 0.5 < 𝑧 < 2, with a single bin for the range 2 < 𝑧 < 3. Points are plotted at the mean redshift within each bin. The upper plot is based on all X-ray detections, while the lower plot is restricted to AGN with lumino… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The mean 0.5 − 8 keV X-ray luminosity as a function of redshift for the three primary galaxy populations, determined for galaxies at high stellar mass (𝑀∗ > 1010.5 M⊙). The unfilled points denote the average luminosity from a stacking analysis, excluding individual X-ray detections. The filled points combine stacked data and individual detections to produce the overall mean X-ray luminosity for each population. Reds… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mean X-ray luminosity as a function of star-formation rate for the three primary galaxy populations, determined for galaxies at high stellar mass (𝑀∗ > 1010.5 M⊙). The unfilled points denote the average luminosity from a stacking analysis, excluding individual dete…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The upper figure shows the PCA ‘supercolour’ diagram, used to classify galaxies into star-forming, passive and PSB categories (Wild et al. 2014; Wilkinson et al. 2021). The black curves show the impact of adding AGN light to a typical PSB (initially located at the red …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This figure shows the rest-frame UVJ colour-colour diagram, with the classification boundaries from Whitaker et al. (2012). Galaxies classified by the PCA supercolour technique are overlaid for comparison. Rest-frame UVJ colours are determined from the best-fitting sup…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Chandra X-ray hardness ratios as a function of redshift for the high-mass (𝑀∗ > 1010.5 M⊙) star-forming, passive, and PSB galaxies detected as X-ray sources. For clarity the 1𝜎 uncertainties are displayed for the PSBs only. Hardness ratios and their uncertainties w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An illustration of a plausible scenario for the co-evolution of AGN activity and star formation in a recently quenched galaxy, consistent with our Chandra observations. AGN activity broadly traces the SFR (displayed with arbitrary scaling), but there is no excess of X-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Delay Time Distribution of Quasi-Periodic Eruptions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QPE host galaxies are more likely to have recently formed a large burst of stars (burst mass fraction above 1%) than TDE host galaxies or mass- and redshift-matched controls.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aird J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746...90A 746, 90

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/90 2012

  2. [2]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3390A 465, 3390

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3390A 465, 3390

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2932 2017

  3. [3]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1225A 474, 1225

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1225A 474, 1225

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2700 2018

  4. [4]

    L., Georgakakis A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4360A 484, 4360

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4360A 484, 4360

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz125 2019

  5. [5]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...31A 798, 31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/31 2015

  6. [6]

    Almaini O., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1401A 472, 1401

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  7. [7]

    G., Rieke G

    Alonso-Herrero A., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., Rieke G. H., Alexander D. M., Rigby J. R., Papovich C., Donley J. L., Rigopoulou D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..127A 677, 127

    work page doi:10.1086/529010 2008

  8. [8]

    Ashby M. L. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769...80A 769, 80

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

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..970A 713, 970

    Assef R. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..970A 713, 970

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Baldry I. K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R. H., Nichol R. C., Szalay A. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..681B 600, 681

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3111B 461, 3111

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    B., Ellis R

    Belli S., Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...17B 874, 17

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Belli S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.630...54B 630, 54

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Benson A

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    2006

  7. [15]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    Brown M. J. I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..150B 703, 150

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    Brusa M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...432...69B 432, 69

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    2003

  11. [19]

    Bugiani L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981...25B 981, 25

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Carraro R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A..65C 642, A65

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Naab T., Oser L., Moster B

    Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Oser L., Moster B. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4105C 449, 4105

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Cicone C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..21C 562, A21

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18244.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1687C 413, 1687

    2011

  18. [26]

    Civano F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...30C 201, 30

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    Croton D. J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    2006

  21. [29]

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02345-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8.1443D 8, 1443

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    I., M \"u ller S \'a nchez F., Genzel R., Tacconi L

    Davies R. I., M \"u ller S \'a nchez F., Genzel R., Tacconi L. J., Hicks E. K. S., Friedrich S., Sternberg A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1388D 671, 1388

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4976D 528, 4976

    Davies R. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4976D 528, 4976

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951..105D 951, 105

    Davis J. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951..105D 951, 105

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Moustakas J., Tremonti C

    Diamond-Stanic A. M., Moustakas J., Tremonti C. A., Coil A. L., Hickox R. C., Robaina A. R., Rudnick G. H., Sell P. H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755L..26D 755, L26

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Lockman F

    Dickey J. M., Lockman F. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ARA&A..28..215D 28, 215

    1990

  28. [36]

    E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    Dressler A., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    1983 doi

  29. [37]

    e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Elvis M., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...95....1E 95, 1

    1994 doi

  31. [39]

    C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03017.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308L..39F 308, L39

    Fabian A. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03017.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308L..39F 308, L39

    1999

  32. [40]

    Fontana A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...424...23F 424, 23

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133g2001F 133, 072001

    French K. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133g2001F 133, 072001

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A., Narayanan D., Shirley Y., Walter F., Smith J.-D., Tremonti C

    French K. D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A., Narayanan D., Shirley Y., Walter F., Smith J.-D., Tremonti C. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801....1F 801, 1

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Earl N., Novack A

    French K. D., Earl N., Novack A. B., Pardasani B., Pillai V. R., Tripathi A., Verrico M. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..153F 950, 153

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Furusawa H., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..176....1F 176, 1

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    Georgakakis A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12962.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.2049G 385, 2049

    2008

  38. [46]

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

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Ramos Almeida C., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12020017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...17H 12, 17

    Harrison C. M., Ramos Almeida C., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12020017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...17H 12, 17

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Mullaney J

    Hickox R. C., Mullaney J. R., Alexander D. M., Chen C.-T. J., Civano F. M., Goulding A. D., Hainline K. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782....9H 782, 9

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01179.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420L...8H 420, L8

    Hopkins P. F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01179.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420L...8H 420, L8

    2012

  43. [51]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163....1H 163, 1

    2006 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..241H 394, 241

    Hughes D. H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..241H 394, 241

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..55I 556, A55

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1281J 428, 1281

    Jarvis M. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1281J 428, 1281

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16013.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1516K 402, 1516

    King A. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16013.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1516K 402, 1516

    2010

  49. [57]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..112K 846, 112

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..112K 846, 112

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...48K 236, 48

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab9b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...48K 236, 48

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Lanz L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...29L 935, 29

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Lawrence A., Elvis M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714..561L 714, 561

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    C., Wang J

    Li A., 2007, in Ho L. C., Wang J. W., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 373, The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei. p. 561

    2007

  54. [63]

    T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L.114M 459, L114

    Maltby D. T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L.114M 459, L114

    2016 doi

  55. [64]

    T., Almaini O., Wild V., Hatch N

    Maltby D. T., Almaini O., Wild V., Hatch N. A., Hartley W. G., Simpson C., Rowlands K., Socolovsky M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..381M 480, 381

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1139M 489, 1139

    Maltby D. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1139M 489, 1139

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    Man A. W. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ae3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...20M 919, 20

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    J., McLure R

    McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Cullen F., Carnall A. C., Duncan K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4413M 503, 4413

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Dunlop J

    McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05236.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.331..795M 331, 795

    2002

  60. [69]

    E., C-COSMOS Team 2008, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#10

    Miyaji T., Griffiths R. E., C-COSMOS Team 2008, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#10. p. 4.01

    2008

  61. [70]

    Mountrichas G., Shankar F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2088M 518, 2088

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    L., Buchner J., Salvato M., Yang G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4778N 524, 4778

    Ni Q., Aird J., Merloni A., Birchall K. L., Buchner J., Salvato M., Yang G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4778N 524, 4778

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1708P 477, 1708

    Pawlik M. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1708P 477, 1708

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    M., Bluck A

    Piotrowska J. M., Bluck A. F. L., Maiolino R., Peng Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1052P 512, 1052

    2022 doi

  65. [75]

    Pozzetti L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..13P 523, A13

    2010 doi

  66. [76]

    H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/682252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127..584R 127, 584

    Rieke G. H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/682252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127..584R 127, 584

    2015 doi

  67. [77]

    Risaliti G., Maiolino R., Salvati M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..157R 522, 157

    1999 doi

  68. [78]

    Rodighiero G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800L..10R 800, L10

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    Rowlands K., Wild V., Nesvadba N., Sibthorpe B., Mortier A., Lehnert M., da Cunha E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..258R 448, 258

    2015 doi

  70. [80]

    H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3417S 441, 3417

    Sell P. H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3417S 441, 3417

    2014 doi

  71. [81]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998 doi arXiv

  72. [82]

    D., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..396S 696, 396

    Silverman J. D., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..396S 696, 396

    2009 doi

  73. [83]

    J., Blain A

    Smail I., Ivison R. J., Blain A. W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490L...5S 490, L5

    1997 doi

  74. [84]

    Smercina A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..154S 929, 154

    2022 doi

  75. [85]

    Stasi \'n ska G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00550.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391L..29S 391, L29

    2008

  76. [86]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  77. [87]

    A., Bezanson R., Spilker J

    Suess K. A., Bezanson R., Spilker J. S., Kriek M., Greene J. E., Feldmann R., Hunt Q., Narayanan D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846L..14S 846, L14

    2017 doi

  78. [88]

    Sutherland W., Saunders W., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.259..413S 259, 413

    1992 doi

  79. [89]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1267S 438, 1267

    Swinbank A. M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1267S 438, 1267

    2014 doi

  80. [90]

    Talia M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4527T 471, 4527

    2017 doi

  81. [91]

    G., Rowlands K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2297T 522, 2297

    Taylor E., Almaini O., Merrifield M., Maltby D., Wild V., Hartley W. G., Rowlands K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2297T 522, 2297

    2023 doi

  82. [92]

    Taylor E., Maltby D., Almaini O., Merrifield M., Wild V., Rowlands K., Harrold J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1684T 535, 1684

    2024 doi

  83. [93]

    A., Moustakas J., Diamond-Stanic A

    Tremonti C. A., Moustakas J., Diamond-Stanic A. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663L..77T 663, L77

    2007 doi

  84. [94]

    arXiv:2502.06538

    Umehata H., Kubo M., Nakanishi K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206538U p. arXiv:2502.06538

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [95]

    E., Kriek M., van Dokkum P

    Whitaker K. E., Kriek M., van Dokkum P. G., Bezanson R., Brammer G., Franx M., Labb \'e I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..179W 745, 179

    2012 doi

  86. [96]

    Wild V., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Charlot S., Lemson G., Brinchmann J., Reichard T., Pasquali A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12256.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381..543W 381, 543

    2007

  87. [97]

    Wild V., Heckman T., Charlot S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16536.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405..933W 405, 933

    2010

  88. [98]

    Wild V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1880W 440, 1880

    2014 doi

  89. [99]

    Wild V., Almaini O., Dunlop J., Simpson C., Rowlands K., Bowler R., Maltby D., McLure R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..832W 463, 832

    2016 doi

  90. [100]

    Wild V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..529W 494, 529

    2020 doi

  91. [101]

    G., Simpson C., Rowlands K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4533W 504, 4533

    Wilkinson A., Almaini O., Wild V., Maltby D., Hartley W. G., Simpson C., Rowlands K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4533W 504, 4533

    2021 doi

  92. [102]

    Wu P.-F., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978..131W 978, 131

    2025 doi

  93. [103]

    A., Faber S

    Yan R., Newman J. A., Faber S. M., Konidaris N., Koo D., Davis M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648..281Y 648, 281

    2006 doi

  94. [104]

    M., Faber S

    Yesuf H. M., Faber S. M., Trump J. R., Koo D. C., Fang J. J., Liu F. S., Wild V., Hayward C. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...84Y 792, 84

    2014 doi

  95. [105]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.