Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Long-lived torus explains hidden AGN at cosmic noon

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:59 UTC pith:RNBVQ3XO

load-bearing objection The negative result is solid — long post-peak visible phases underproduce obscured AGN at z~2–3 — but the positive matches rely on trial-and-error tuning and a Wada torus prescription imported from the local universe, so the quantitative conclusions are shakier than the qualitative ones. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.04553 v1 pith:RNBVQ3XO submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.GA hep-th

Characterizing the roles of transitory obscured phases and inner torus in shaping the fractions of obscured AGN at cosmic noon

Alba V. Alonso-Tetilla , Francesco Shankar , Fabio Fontanot , Andrea Lapi , Milena Valentini , Annagrazia Puglisi , Nicola Menci , Hao Fu
show 6 more authors
Lumen Boco Johannes Buchner Michaela Hirschmann Cristina Ramos Almeida Carolin Villforth Lizhi Xie
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA hep-th
keywords AGN obscurationCompton-thick AGNAGN light curvesinner toruscosmic noonsemi-analytic galaxy formationX-ray surveysblack hole accretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to settle whether the many obscured supermassive black holes seen at z~2-3 are caught in a brief dust-shrouded growth phase or are hidden by a persistent ring of material around the black hole. It shows that the simplest evolutionary story—a short hidden pre-peak phase followed by a long unobscured post-peak phase—cannot reproduce the high fraction of obscured AGN measured in X-ray surveys. Matching the data requires either fine-tuned light curves in which brighter AGN stay visible much longer, or a long-lived torus whose thickness shrinks as AGN power grows. The authors conclude that small-scale orientation effects may remain essential even in evolutionary scenarios, and that starbursts or major mergers alone cannot account for the heavily obscured faint AGN.

Core claim

Working within a cosmological semi-analytic model that tracks individual black hole accretion events, the paper assigns each AGN a column density and luminosity from a four-phase light curve: Compton-thick pre-peak, Compton-thin pre-peak, visible peak, and optional visible or Compton-thin post-peak. It finds that models with short pre-peak obscured phases followed by extended optical/UV visible post-peak phases produce only roughly 40% obscured fractions, far below the 60-80% reported by several X-ray surveys at z~2-3. Models that cut the light curve sharply after the peak, or that allow a late Compton-thin phase, do better. The cleanest match comes from adding a long-lived inner torus whose

What carries the argument

The central object is the AGN light curve: an exponential pre-peak accretion phase followed by a power-law post-peak decline, with the total duration fixed near 2e8 years. Obscuration is assigned by which phase of the light curve an AGN is caught in, with a 'visibility window' defining how long it shines unobscured in the optical/UV. The decisive addition is a long-lived torus—a parsec-scale dusty ring assumed to survive the whole light curve—whose thickness decreases with AGN luminosity, so bright AGN obscure a smaller solid angle. This torus converts flat, too-low obscured fractions into the luminosity-dependent fractions seen in the data.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that a long-lived torus naturally produces the observed luminosity dependence rests on the assumption that every AGN always has enough circumnuclear material to form a torus and that the torus's thickness shrinks as AGN luminosity grows; if tori are transient or their covering factor is constant, the claimed boost and luminosity trend weaken.

What would settle it

Measure the torus covering factor for a luminosity-stratified sample of z~2-3 AGN using ALMA molecular-line or mid-IR imaging: if the covering factor is roughly constant across luminosity, or if only a minority of AGN show compact tori, the long-lived torus explanation fails. Alternatively, showing that bright quasars remain unobscured for longer than 1e8 years with no torus present would undercut the fine-tuned light-curve interpretation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Evolution models with extended visible post-peak phases underpredict obscured AGN fractions at z~2-3; the post-peak phase must be short or partially obscured.
  • Luminosity-dependent visibility windows, with bright AGN visible for up to ~1e8 years, reproduce the steep decline in obscured fraction with X-ray luminosity and are consistent with clustering-based duty-cycle estimates.
  • A long-lived torus with luminosity-dependent thickness boosts both Compton-thin and Compton-thick fractions and produces a similar luminosity trend, so orientation effects remain viable inside evolutionary models.
  • Starburst or major-merger selection criteria, taken alone, cannot generate the large population of heavily obscured faint AGN; an additional obscuring component is needed.
  • Models that match the Compton-thin fractions via a torus versus via fine-tuned light curves predict different absolute number densities of Compton-thick AGN, which deep X-ray surveys can distinguish.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the torus is replenished by accretion-disc winds, the obscured fraction should correlate with Eddington ratio and black hole mass; existing Eddington-ratio distributions could be re-examined to test this.
  • The degeneracy between luminosity-dependent light curves and a long-lived torus could be broken by clustering: a long-lived torus leaves the intrinsic quasar lifetime long, whereas a fine-tuned light curve shortens it, producing different large-scale bias at fixed luminosity.
  • The finding that major mergers fail to explain faint Compton-thick AGN predicts that deep, high-resolution imaging at z~2-3 will find heavily obscured AGN in galaxies with no recent merger or strong starburst.
  • If the torus is long-lived, the obscured fraction should be nearly independent of time-since-trigger within a single AGN episode, contrary to pure evolutionary expectations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper combines the GAEA semi-analytic model with semi-empirical prescriptions to explore the origin of AGN obscuration at 1<z<3. It defines four pure Evolution models that differ in the fraction of the AGN light curve spent in Compton-thin, Compton-thick, and optical/UV-visible phases, and then adds luminosity-dependent visibility windows, short- and long-lived tori, hybrid orientation/evolution models, and starburst/merger-based obscuration criteria. The predicted CTN and CTK fractions are compared to the U14, B15, and A19 X-ray data at z~2.4. The central conclusions are that traditional pure Evolution models with extended post-peak visible phases produce too few obscured AGN, that sharp post-peak declines or persistent obscuration do better, that a luminosity-dependent visibility window or a long-lived, luminosity-thinned torus can reproduce the steep luminosity trend seen by U14/A19, and that major mergers and starbursts alone cannot account for the faint CTK population.

Significance. If the main negative result holds, it is a useful quantitative statement: within the GAEA framework, simple Evolution models with extended optical/UV-visible post-peak phases are disfavoured, and some form of prolonged or geometry-based obscuration is needed. The paper is commendably transparent about the ad hoc nature of its most successful variants, and it explicitly discusses degeneracies between fine-tuned light curves and torus models. The absolute CTK luminosity functions in Fig. 11 are a potentially testable discriminator. However, the positive alternatives are not independent predictions: the luminosity-dependent visibility windows are fitted to the same data they reproduce, the Model 3 phase split is chosen to match CTK fractions, and the long-lived torus conclusion imports the Wada (2015) luminosity-dependent covering factor without testing its validity at cosmic noon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The luminosity-dependent visibility windows are explicitly 'empirically calibrated via trial and error to produce an improved match to the fractions of obscured AGN measured by U14 and A19'. The agreement of the long-dashed red curves in Figs. 3-4 with U14/A19 is therefore a fit, not a prediction. This circularity should be stated prominently wherever these models are used as evidence that 'fine-tuned' LCs can explain the data. The paper's wording mostly acknowledges this, but the conclusions still count the match as support. I recommend reframing: the models demonstrate that a particular ad hoc luminosity dependence can reproduce the data, not that such a dependence is required. A quantitative comparison (e.g., residuals or a goodness-of-fit statistic) for all models would also help the reader distinguish by-eye agreement from statistical support.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Model 3] Model 3 sets the CTK and CTN phase durations to 1/3 and 2/3 of the pre-peak LC 'to ensure that at least 30% of CTK AGN are generated, in line with the measurements by U14 and A19'. The strong CTK fractions predicted by Model 3 in Fig. 4 are thus partly built in by construction. The same issue applies to Model 4, where the full pre-peak phase is assumed CTK. To make the relative success of Models 3/4 meaningful, the paper should quantify the sensitivity of the CTK/CTN fractions to these phase-duration choices and, ideally, connect them to external constraints on the Eddington-ratio distribution or on the duration of heavily obscured phases rather than to the target fractions themselves.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.2 and Sec. 5.1] The claim that a long-lived torus 'naturally' reproduces the observed luminosity-dependent obscured fractions rests entirely on the Wada (2015) prescription, which assumes that a torus always exists and that its covering factor decreases with AGN luminosity. If at z~2-3 the circumnuclear material is transient, or if the covering factor is not a strong function of luminosity, the long-lived-torus curves in Figs. 5-6 and 8 would lose their advantage. This is a load-bearing assumption for one of the paper's two main alternatives. The paper should at least test the sensitivity to the torus prescription, e.g., by varying the luminosity dependence of the covering factor or using a constant covering factor. In addition, the absolute CTK number densities in Fig. 11 are not compared to empirical CTK luminosity functions or CTK number-density constraints; such a comparison is needed before the tor
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption / Sec. 4.1] The caption says 'long-dashed red lines refer to the model variants with luminosity-dependent visibility window', while the text says 'the blue solid lines show the predictions of the same models with a fine-tuned luminosity dependency'. This is inconsistent and confusing; please clarify which curves correspond to the constant and luminosity-dependent cases.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains (L_lim/L_peak)^alpha, which becomes larger than unity for L_peak < L_lim, making the bracket negative. The subsequent floor of 10^7 yr presumably prevents unphysical values, but the domain of applicability of the formula should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The text refers to 'predicted CTN/CTK LCs'; this should be 'luminosity functions' or 'LF contributions', as the figure shows number densities versus luminosity.
  4. [Sec. 6, last bullet] Typo: 'some data dets' should be 'some data sets'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Partial circularity: the luminosity-dependent visibility window and Model 3 CTK/CTN duty-cycle are calibrated to U14/A19 and then reported as successful matches; the torus luminosity dependence is inherited from Wada (2015) rather than independently derived.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (4)-(5); results in Sec. 4.1, Fig. 3]
    "The form and choice of parameters for the luminosity-dependent expressions of ΔτQSO given above have been empirically calibrated via trial and error to produce an improved match to the fractions of obscured AGN measured by U14 and A19, which sharply drop with increasing AGN luminosity."

    The parameter ΔτQSO(L_peak) directly sets the duty cycle of optically/UV-visible AGN. Calibrating Eqs. (4)-(5) to the U14/A19 obscured fractions and then presenting Models 1-4 with these windows as 'a good match to the U14;A19 data' (Sec. 4.1) is a fit, not an independent prediction. The decreasing obscured fraction with luminosity is introduced by hand; the match is thus guaranteed by construction for the data used in the calibration.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2, Model 3 definition; Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4]
    "We assume that the CTK and CTN phases last, respectively, 1/3 and 2/3 of the whole pre-peak duration of the LC, to ensure that at least 30% of CTK AGN are generated, in line with the measurements by U14 and A19, as further detailed below."

    In Model 3 the fraction of the LC spent in CTK vs CTN phases is chosen to produce at least 30% CTK AGN, i.e., to match U14/A19. Since the phase durations translate directly into the predicted CTK/CTN fractions, the agreement displayed in Fig. 4 is a consequence of this input choice. The text confirms: 'Our choice of reserving 1/3 and 2/3 of the LC in Model 3 to, respectively, the CTK and CTN phases, is simply to broadly align the model predictions with the observed fractions of CTK/CTN AGN.'

full rationale

The paper contains two clear cases where a parameter is fitted to the same U14/A19 obscured fractions it is later said to reproduce: the luminosity-dependent visibility window of Eqs. (4)-(5), explicitly 'empirically calibrated via trial and error' to U14/A19, and the Model 3 CTK/CTN 1/3-2/3 duty cycle, explicitly chosen to generate at least 30% CTK AGN 'in line with the measurements by U14 and A19.' These are not independent predictions; they are calibrated inputs presented as successful matches. The core negative result — that pure Evolution models with extended post-peak phases underproduce obscured AGN — is not circular, since it uses fixed LC shapes and a constant ΔτQSO and does not require the obscured-fraction data as input. The long-lived torus scenario is not circular in the same strict sense: its luminosity-dependent covering factor is imported from Wada (2015), an external model, rather than fitted to U14/A19. However, the 'natural boost' of luminosity-dependent obscured fractions is inherited from that input assumption, so it weakens the claim that orientation effects are required, though it does not constitute a fitted-input circularity. Because the paper's central successful variants partly reduce to calibration to the target data, the overall circularity score is 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central conclusions rest on several modeling choices inherited from GAEA and prior LC/torus prescriptions, plus explicit fine-tuning of the visibility window and CTK/CTN phase fractions. The luminosity-dependent visibility window is a fit to the target data, while the torus model is an external prescription. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Luminosity-dependent visibility window parameters (alpha, L_lim, Delta_tau_QSO_min) = alpha=0.1, L_lim=10^45 erg/s, Delta_tau_QSO from 10^7 to 8x10^7 yr
    Eqs. 4 and 5 are explicitly calibrated via trial and error to match U14/A19 obscured fractions; these are fit parameters, not predictions.
  • Model 3 CTK/CTN phase split = 1/3 of pre-peak phase CTK, 2/3 CTN
    Chosen to ensure at least 30% CTK AGN, in line with U14 and A19 measurements, as stated in Section 3.2.
  • Gas disc compactness ratio N = 0.3
    R_d,gas = N R_d,star, preferred in Paper I to match CTN fractions and adopted here, although some observed support exists.
  • Starburst SFR thresholds = SFR>100 M_sun/yr, SFR>4x MS, SFR>MS
    Ad hoc thresholds used in Section 4.5 to define CTK sources; the choice strongly affects the resulting CTK fractions.
  • Merger mass ratio thresholds = major merger ratio >1/3, minor 0.1-1/3
    Ad hoc thresholds used in Section 4.6 to assign CTK/CTN status to merger-triggered AGN.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption GAEA HQ11 model provides a reliable population of galaxies and SMBHs at z=1-3, calibrated to AGN bolometric LF and galaxy properties.
    Section 2.1: the entire comparison assumes the SAM is representative of the real AGN host population.
  • domain assumption The AGN light curve is an exponential rise followed by a Hopkins et al. (2006) power-law decline, with Eddington time 4.5e7 yr and radiative efficiency 0.15.
    Section 3.1, Eqs. 1-2: the LC shape is taken as input from prior hydrodynamical simulations.
  • domain assumption Obscuration phase and N_H are assigned solely by random time sampling within the LC, with N_H drawn uniformly in log(N_H) within each phase.
    Section 3.2: this bypasses geometry and gas content, a strong simplification for pure Evolution models.
  • domain assumption The Wada (2015) torus model: there is always enough circumnuclear material to form a torus, and torus thickness/opening angle decreases with AGN luminosity.
    Section 3.2.2: this drives the luminosity dependence in the torus variants and is essential to the claim that a torus naturally matches the data.
  • standard math Duras et al. (2020) bolometric correction converts bolometric luminosity to 2-10 keV intrinsic X-ray luminosity.
    Section 2.1: used to compare model predictions with X-ray samples, with alternative corrections noted.

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-alltime-deepseek-medium · 33851 in / 9841 out tokens · 89427 ms · 2026-08-05T05:59:42.496571+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing the roles of transitory obscured phases and inner torus in shaping the fractions of obscured AGN at cosmic noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNBVQ3XO

@misc{pith2026250904553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing the roles of transitory obscured phases and inner torus in shaping the fractions of obscured AGN at cosmic noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNBVQ3XO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04553}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The origin of obscuration in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is still a matter of contention. It is unclear whether obscured AGN are primarily due to line-of-sight effects, a transitory, dust-enshrouded phase in galaxy evolution, or a combination of both. The role of an inner torus around the central SMBH also remains unclear in pure Evolution models. We use cosmological semi-analytic models and semi-empirical prescriptions to explore obscuration effects in AGN at 1<z<3. We consider a realistic object-by-object modelling of AGN evolution including different light curves (LCs) composed of phases of varying levels of obscuration, mimicking the possible clearing effects of strong AGN feedback. Evolution models characterized by AGN LCs with relatively short pre-peak obscured phases followed by more extended optical/UV visible post-peak phases, struggle to reproduce the high fraction of obscured AGN at z~2-3 inferred from X-ray surveys. Evolution models characterised by LCs with sharp post-peak declines or persistent or multiple obscuration phases are more successful, although they still face challenges in reproducing the steady drop in the fractions of obscured AGN with increasing luminosity measured by some groups. Invoking a fine-tuning in the input LCs, with more luminous AGN defined by longer optical/UV visible windows, can improve the match to the decreasing fractions of obscured AGN with luminosity. Alternatively, a long-lived central torus-like component, with thickness decreasing with increasing AGN power, naturally boosts the luminosity-dependent fractions of obscured AGN, suggesting that small-scale orientation effects may still represent a key component even in Evolution models. We also find that in our models major mergers and starbursts, when considered in isolation, fall short in accounting for the large fractions of highly obscured faint AGN detected at cosmic noon.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Clues for the accretion regulated dust torus in the changing-look AGN SDSS J101152.98+544206.4

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In SDSS J1011+5442, state-dependent broad Hα properties support an accretion-regulated dust torus where opening angle decreases with rising accretion rate below a critical Eddington ratio, ruling out moving dust clouds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

171 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    write newline

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    Afonso J., Hopkins A., Mobasher B., Almeida C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...597..269A 597, 269

    work page doi:10.1086/378256 2003

  4. [4]

    L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.1892A 451, 1892

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  5. [5]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...61A 956, 61

    Akins H. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...61A 956, 61

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  6. [6]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240610341A p

    Akins H. B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240610341A p. arXiv:2406.10341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    M., Bauer F

    Alexander D. M., Bauer F. E., Chapman S. C., Smail I., Blain A. W., Brandt W. N., Ivison R. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...632..736A 632, 736

    doi:10.1086/444342 2005

  9. [9]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2944A 461, 2944

    Alexander D. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2944A 461, 2944

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1509 2016

  10. [10]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710878A 527, 10878

    Alonso-Tetilla A. V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710878A 527, 10878

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3265 2024

  11. [11]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    Ananna T. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 2019

  12. [12]

    Andonie C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527L.144A 527, L144

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad144 2024

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    Armus L., Heckman T., Miley G., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AJ.....94..831A 94, 831

    doi:10.1086/114517 1987

  15. [15]

    Aversa R., Lapi A., de Zotti G., Shankar F., Danese L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...74A 810, 74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/74 2015

  16. [16]

    Baggen J. F. W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240807745B p. arXiv:2408.07745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07745 2024

  17. [17]

    Banerji M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..419B 454, 419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1881 2015

  18. [18]

    Barro G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...47B 840, 47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 2017

  19. [19]

    J., Filippenko A

    Barth A. J., Filippenko A. V., Moran E. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525..673B 525, 673

    doi:10.1086/307941 1999

  20. [20]

    R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2145B 514, 2145

    Bate M. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2145B 514, 2145

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1391 2022

  21. [21]

    B., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0888-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..159B 4, 159

    Bayliss M. B., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0888-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..159B 4, 159

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0888-7 2020

  22. [22]

    X-ray AGNs with SRG/eROSITA: Multi-wavelength observations reveal merger triggering and post-coalescence circumnuclear blowout

    Bickley R. W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240117277B p. arXiv:2401.17277

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.17277 2024

  23. [23]

    arXiv:2503.15323

    Bisigello L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250315323E p. arXiv:2503.15323

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15323 2025

  24. [24]

    Bl \'a nquez-Ses \'e D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.166B 674, A166

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345977 2023

  25. [25]

    Bluck A. F. L., Piotrowska J. M., Maiolino R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..108B 944, 108

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac7c 2023

  26. [27]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978..118B 978, 118

    Boorman P. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978..118B 978, 118

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8236 2025

  27. [28]

    StAGE: Stellar Archaeology-driven Galaxy Evolution

    Bosi M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250322543B p. arXiv:2503.22543

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22543 2025

  28. [29]

    N., Hasinger G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..827B 43, 827

    Brandt W. N., Hasinger G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..827B 43, 827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [30]

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/89 2015

  30. [31]

    E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4545B 464, 4545

    Buchner J., Schulze S., Bauer F. E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4545B 464, 4545

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2423 2017

  31. [32]

    Burtscher L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A.149B 558, A149

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321890 2013

  32. [33]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936649 2020

  33. [34]

    A study of interacting galaxies from the Arp-Madore Catalogue: Triggering of star formation and nuclear activity

    Cezar P. H., Pastoriza M. G., Riffel R., Ramos Almeida C., Krabbe A. C., Rembold S. B., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240519960C p. arXiv:2405.19960

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19960 2024

  34. [35]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...50C 802, 50

    Chen C.-T. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...50C 802, 50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/50 2015

  35. [36]

    Combes F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..79C 623, A79

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834560 2019

  36. [37]

    J., Mundy C

    Conselice C. J., Mundy C. J., Ferreira L., Duncan K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b1a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..168C 940, 168

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b1a 2022

  37. [40]

    S., Helmi A., Navarro J

    De Lucia G., Tornatore L., Frenk C. S., Helmi A., Navarro J. F., White S. D. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..970D 445, 970

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1752 2014

  38. [41]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    doi:10.1038/nature03335 2005

  39. [42]

    L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    Di Matteo P., Bournaud F., Martig M., Combes F., Melchior A. L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 2008

  40. [43]

    Duras F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..73D 636, A73

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 2020

  41. [44]

    C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240610329D p

    Durodola E., Pacucci F., Hickox R. C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240610329D p. arXiv:2406.10329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10329 2024

  42. [45]

    arXiv:2403.07986

    Eilers A.-C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.07986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240307986E p. arXiv:2403.07986

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07986 2024

  43. [46]

    L., Mendel J

    Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3627E 435, 3627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1562 2013

  44. [47]

    arXiv:2503.15317

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250315317E p. arXiv:2503.15317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15317 2025

  45. [49]

    Fontanot F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3943F 496, 3943

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1716 2020

  46. [50]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829L...7G 829, L7

    Gallimore J. F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829L...7G 829, L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l7 2016

  47. [51]

    G \'a mez Rosas V., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04311-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.602..403G 602, 403

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04311-7 2022

  48. [52]

    Gao F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..94G 637, A94

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937178 2020

  49. [53]

    Garc \' a-Burillo S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823L..12G 823, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/l12 2016

  50. [54]

    Garc \' a-Burillo S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..61G 632, A61

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936606 2019

  51. [55]

    Garc \' a-Burillo S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652A..98G 652, A98

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141075 2021

  52. [56]

    Garc \' a-Burillo S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.347G 689, A347

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450268 2024

  53. [57]

    Georgantopoulos I., Pouliasis E., Mountrichas G., Van der Wel A., Marchesi S., Lanzuisi G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A..67G 673, A67

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244875 2023

  54. [58]

    Giacconi R., 2009, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-009-9139-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ExA....25..143G 25, 143

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-009-9139-8 2009

  55. [59]

    Gilli R., Comastri A., Hasinger G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463...79G 463, 79

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066334 2007

  56. [60]

    Gilli R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..67G 562, A67

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322892 2014

  57. [61]

    arXiv:2206.03508

    Gilli R., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220603508G p. arXiv:2206.03508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [62]

    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

    doi:10.1086/379875 2004

  59. [63]

    L., Silva L., Lapi A., Shankar F., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00160.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368L..72G 368, L72

    Granato G. L., Silva L., Lapi A., Shankar F., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00160.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368L..72G 368, L72

    arXiv 2006

  60. [64]

    Greenwell C., Gandhi P., Stern D., Lansbury G., Mainieri V., Boorman P., Toba Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52712065G 527, 12065

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3964 2024

  61. [65]

    Haiman Z., Hui L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...547...27H 547, 27

    doi:10.1086/318330 2001

  62. [66]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

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

  63. [67]

    M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.165H 1, 0165

    Harrison C. M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.165H 1, 0165

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0165 2017

  64. [68]

    F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1672H 719, 1672

    Hennawi J. F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1672H 719, 1672

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1672 2010

  65. [69]

    Hernquist L., Katz N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJS...70..419H 70, 419

    doi:10.1086/191344 1989

  66. [70]

    C., Alexander D

    Hickox R. C., Alexander D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..625H 56, 625

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 2018

  67. [71]

    Hickox R., Carroll C., Yan W., Whalen K., 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235. p. 125.03

    2020

  68. [72]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1760H 461, 1760

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1318 2016

  69. [73]

    ALESS-JWST: Joint (sub-)kiloparsec JWST and ALMA imaging of $z\sim3$ submillimeter galaxies reveals heavily obscured bulge formation events

    Hodge J. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240715846H p. arXiv:2407.15846

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.15846 2024

  70. [74]

    F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..171H 884, 171

    H \"o nig S. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..171H 884, 171

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4591 2019

  71. [75]

    F., Kishimoto M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838L..20H 838, L20

    H \"o nig S. F., Kishimoto M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838L..20H 838, L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6838 2017

  72. [76]

    F., Hernquist L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15933.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402..985H 402, 985

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15933.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402..985H 402, 985

    arXiv 2010

  73. [78]

    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

    doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  74. [79]

    F., Richards G

    Hopkins P. F., Richards G. T., Hernquist L., 2007a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..731H 654, 731

    doi:10.1086/509629

  75. [80]

    F., Lidz A., Hernquist L., Coil A

    Hopkins P. F., Lidz A., Hernquist L., Coil A. L., Myers A. D., Cox T. J., Spergel D. N., 2007b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..110H 662, 110

    doi:10.1086/517512

  76. [81]

    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

    doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  77. [82]

    MIDIS: MIRI uncovers Virgil, the first Little Red Dot with clear detection of its host galaxy at z ~ 6.6

    Iani E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240618207I p. arXiv:2406.18207

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18207 2024

  78. [83]

    Imanishi M., Nakanishi K., Izumi T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..10I 822, L10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l10 2016

  79. [84]

    W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A..35I 663, A35

    Isbell J. W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A..35I 663, A35

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243271 2022

  80. [85]

    W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.136I 678, A136

    Isbell J. W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.136I 678, A136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347307 2023

Showing first 80 references.