alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Lyαα in Compact Broad-Line Emitters, Including Little Red Dots, Is More Closely Linked to the Host Galaxy than to the Broad-Line Nucleus

AI contributions
  • GPT-5.6 Sol · bare
  • Claude Code
View details

Abstract

JWST has found many faint broad-line AGN at z>4z>4, but it is unclear whether the Lyαα we see from them comes from the accreting black hole or from its host galaxy. The answer matters for how these sources are interpreted and for how many ionizing photons they release. We use deep JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy from the DIVER program to measure Lyαα in 12 compact broad-line emitters (CBEs) at z=4.2z=4.2–5.5 in GOODS-N. CBEs include little red dots (LRDs), little blue dots, and other broad-line AGN. Six are detected in Lyαα. Every source shows a broad-line region, yet Lyαα does not follow it: the sources with the strongest Hαα relative to the UV include weak detections and nondetections, and every detected Lyαα line (FWHM ≈300\approx300–1000~km~s−1^{-1}) is narrower than broad Hαα (1100–3300~km~s−1^{-1}). Instead, Lyαα appears to track the host galaxy. We model the AGN-subtracted host with a dust-attenuated SED fit. Including the upper limits, the observed Lyαα follows the Lyαα production in this host model more closely than it follows Hαα/UV, in both equivalent width and luminosity. Every detection exceeds its host-model value by a factor of 1.5–18, leaving room for a nuclear contribution. The black hole is visible in these sources, but the Lyαα we observe is more closely tied to its host. The median effective Lyαα escape fraction of the detections is only 0.09, which suggests that ionizing escape from CBEs is typically modest and varies widely.

Email: [email protected]

  • These authors contributed equally to the analysis in this work.

Introduction

JWST has revealed a large population of faint broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGN) at z>4z > 4 (e.g., J. Matthee et al. [72]; I. Juodžbalis et al. [52]; Z. Zhang et al. [102]; X. Lin et al. [60, 61]). Most are identified through broad Hα\alpha emission from dense gas moving at thousands of km s−1^{-1} near an accreting black hole. Many are also X-ray weak and show little variability, which keeps their physical nature under debate (M. Yue et al. [101]; R. Maiolino et al. [68]; M. Kokubo & Y. Harikane [56]; J. E. Greene et al. (2025)). A prominent subset, the little red dots (LRDs), pairs compact red rest-optical continua with blue rest-UV emission. LRDs have been studied through their identification, sizes, number densities, and dust emission (J. F. W. Baggen et al. [6]; P. G. Pérez-González et al. [81]; C. O. Williams et al. [99]; Y. Ma et al. (2025); I. Delvecchio et al. [27]; J. Ding et al. [29]), black-hole and host masses (I. Juodžbalis et al. [51]; B. L. Jones et al. (2025); L. R. Ivey et al. [42]), rest-UV and rest-optical spectra (H. B. Akins et al. [1]; P. Rinaldi et al. [84]; K. Davis et al. [24]; B. Wang et al. [98]), low-redshift analogs (C. J. Burke et al. 2025; P. Rinaldi et al. 2025b; X. Lin et al. 2026b,c), and possible origins and descendants [43, 78, 103]. If these AGN are common and their ionizing photons escape efficiently, they could contribute substantially to the ionizing background during reionization. Whether their Lyα\alpha and Lyman-continuum (LyC) photons escape depends on gas beyond the visible broad-line region (BLR).

Lyα\alpha traces high-redshift galaxies and the ionization state of the intergalactic medium (IGM; e.g., [70, 19, 93, 22, 37]). Lyα\alpha and LyC photons may escape through the same low-column-density, low-attenuation channels, and observations and simulations find a broad connection between their escape fractions [59, 7, 21]. The observed Lyα\alpha also depends on transfer through neutral gas, dust, the circumgalactic medium (CGM), and the IGM (e.g., [8, 20]), so it is a useful but indirect probe of LyC escape (for reviews, see [80, 39]). In the Case B limit, the intrinsic Lyα\alpha/Hα\alpha ratio is fixed to first order [79], although optically thick or density-bounded gas can move it away from Case B [88, 74]. Because JWST measures both Hα\alpha and Lyα\alpha in AGN at z>4z > 4, broad-line AGN offer a direct test of whether strong nuclear recombination emission comes with strong observed Lyα\alpha. A type-1 view shows the BLR along one sightline, but Lyα\alpha photons scatter through gas from nuclear to intergalactic scales and need not escape along the same path.

Recent JWST observations show that the two can differ. LRDs and other broad-line sources can have strong broad Balmer emission but weak, narrow, or spatially extended Lyα\alpha [96] (Z. Ji et al. 2026a), and broad Lyα\alpha is uncommon even when broad Hα\alpha is clearly present [53]. Some LRDs may still have a BLR contribution: a stacked medium-resolution spectrum shows a broad Lyα\alpha wing that matches broad Hα\alpha [32]. Compact blue broad-line sources, or little blue dots (LBDs; [67]), show higher Lyα\alpha visibility, possibly through lower gas columns [69]. LRD selections still differ between studies, which use different color cuts or continuum-slope criteria [33, 55, 2, 36, 102] (D. D. Kokorevsky et al. 2025), and spectroscopic LRD samples are heterogeneous [25, 82]. To avoid depending on a particular LRD definition, we refer to LRDs, LBDs, and other broad-line AGN collectively as compact broad-line emitters (CBEs). This umbrella term spans the full range of continuum colors and is broader than the blue CBE selection of S. Mascia et al. [69]; we select our sample on broad Hα\alpha alone.

The largest study so far analyzed 110 LRDs with NIRSpec PRISM spectra (Z. Ji et al. 2026a). It finds that Lyα\alpha/Hα\alpha lies below that of star-forming galaxies and that Lyα\alpha luminosity tracks [O III] luminosity, which suggests that Lyα\alpha is tied to the host rather than to the compact broad-line source. Two questions remain open. At PRISM resolution, the Lyα\alpha line width cannot be compared with the broad-Hα\alpha width, and [O III] can be excited by both star formation and the AGN [92, 32], so it may not fully isolate the host.

In this paper, we ask which component of a CBE is most closely related to the Lyα\alpha that we observe. Broad Hα\alpha traces the visible broad-line nucleus. AGN-subtracted imaging and spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting give an independent view of the host galaxy, which in LRDs is often faint, extended, or offset from the compact source [17, 86]. We use the Deep Insights into UV Spectroscopy at the Epoch of Reionization (DIVER) survey to measure Lyα\alpha in 12 CBEs at z=4.17z = 4.17–5.54, mostly from medium-resolution G140M spectra that resolve line widths well below those of broad Hα\alpha. We test whether Lyα\alpha follows Hα\alpha, whether it shares the broad-Hα\alpha line width, and whether it follows the Lyα\alpha in the AGN-subtracted host SED model. § 2 describes the data and measurements, § 3 presents the results, § 4 discusses the origin of the observed Lyα\alpha and the implications for ionizing escape, and § 5 summarizes our findings. We adopt the Planck 2018 flat Λ\LambdaCDM cosmology as implemented in Astropy (H0=67.66H_0 = 67.66 km s−1^{-1} Mpc−1^{-1}, Ωm=0.310\Omega_m = 0.310; [83]). All magnitudes are in the AB system.

Data and Measurements

DIVER spectroscopy

DIVER (JWST PID 8018; PI: X. Lin) is a NIRSpec multi-object spectroscopic survey of GOODS-N, with median exposure times of 20.4 hr in F070LP/G140M and 2.3 hr in PRISM. Target selection and slit allocation did not use prior information on Lyα\alpha. The reduction follows Y. Zhu et al. [104], with the DIVER-specific updates of Y. Zhu et al. [105]. These updates extend the F070LP/G140M wavelength coverage to ≃3 μ\simeq3\,\mum, using the flat-field and sensitivity calibration of J. Scholtz et al. [89]. With this calibration, fluxes agree with those from the other gratings within 10%. The pipeline treats the nodded MSA spectra as point sources and applies the standard point-source path-loss correction for the planned intra-shutter position. We extract 1D spectra in a six-pixel (≃0.6′′\simeq0.6^{\prime\prime}) aperture and apply no further aperture correction or scaling to imaging. Lyα\alpha is likely more extended than the UV continuum. Emission scattered outside the 0.2′′0.2^{\prime\prime} shutter or removed by the nodded Note—Lyα\alpha fluxes are in 10−1810^{-18} erg s−1^{-1} cm−2^{-2}, EWs are rest-frame Å, FWHMs are in km s−1^{-1}, and luminosities are in erg s−1^{-1}. Limits are 2σ2\sigma. G140M-1 and G140M-2 denote first- and second-order G140M; PRISM is first order. FWHMLyα,obs\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha,\mathrm{obs}} includes instrumental broadening (Section 3.3). fesc,Lyαefff^{\mathrm{eff}}_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha} uses total Hα\alpha. Broad-Hα\alpha FWHMs are from J. Zhang et al. [102] and I. Juodžbalis et al. [52].

background subtraction is therefore potentially missed, and line fluxes and EWs might be biased low. L. Napolitano et al. [77] found an average NIRSpec Lyα\alpha slit loss of 35±10%35 \pm10\% at z≃6z \simeq6. All sources are reduced and measured in the same way, so this bias affects relative comparisons less than absolute values.

F070LP/G140M covers first-order Lyα\alpha at z≳4.8z \gtrsim4.8. At lower redshift, Lyα\alpha is recorded in second order at an apparent wavelength λapp=2×1215.67(1+z)\lambda_{\mathrm{app}} = 2 \times1215.67 (1 + z) Å. This falls in the extended range, whose calibration assumes first-order light. We convert second-order line fluxes to true fluxes with the ratio of the first- and second-order sensitivity curves of msaexp (G. Brammer [9]) and the wavelength Jacobian, dλapp=2dλtrue\mathrm{d}\lambda_{\mathrm{app}} = 2\mathrm{d}\lambda_{\mathrm{true}}, for apparent wavelengths of 1.301.30–2.00 μ2.00\,\mum. The conversion factors for our five second-order measurements are 3.193.19–5.055.05, and a ±0.002 μ\pm0.002\,\mum shift in apparent wavelength changes them by ≲4%\lesssim4\%. We test the conversion with sources at z>4.8z > 4.8, whose Lyα\alpha appears in both orders of the same G140M spectrum. For the 13 with second-order S/N ≥5\geq5, at true wavelengths of 0.750.75–0.98 μ0.98\,\mum, the converted second-order fluxes are a median of 1.01 times the first-order fluxes (16th–84th percentiles 0.690.69–1.941.94). Our second-order lines lie at 0.660.66–0.69 μ0.69\,\mum, where the second-order sensitivity rises steeply, so individual fluxes may be uncertain by a factor of ∼2\sim2. Halving or doubling them does not change our conclusions (Sections 3.2 and § 4.2). PRISM gives only marginal Lyα\alpha fluxes for 1029154 and 1008411 (S/N of 2.8 and 1.1), 0.5 and 0.2 times the converted values. Near the blue end of PRISM, Lyα\alpha fluxes of other DIVER sources scatter widely and include significantly negative values, so we do not use PRISM to test the conversion.

Sample

The sample contains the 12 sources with secure broad Hα\alpha in the CONGRESS/FRESCO census of J. Zhang et al. [102] and the JADES census of I. Juodžbalis et al. [52] that have usable DIVER Lyα\alpha coverage (Table 1). We restrict the sample to z<6z < 6, because IGM attenuation of Lyα\alpha rises steeply at higher redshift (e.g., [105, 19] (G. C. Jones et al. 2025)). Our test requires a directly visible BLR, so the sample excludes photometric LRD candidates without broad-line spectroscopy and narrow-line AGN. J. Zhang et al. [102] identify the LRDs among these broad-Hα\alpha emitters with color selections (see also [54]) and find that 42%–47% of them are not LRDs. We analyze the CBEs as one population and do not classify individual objects.

IDzzSpectrumFLyαF_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}EWLyα\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}log⁡fesc,Lyαeff\log f^{\mathrm{eff}}_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}log⁡LHα,total\log L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha,\mathrm{total}}FWHMHα,broad\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{H}\alpha,\mathrm{broad}}FWHMLyα,obs\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha,\mathrm{obs}}
10291544.17PRISM<2.88< 2.88<59< 59<−1.80< -1.8042.572003⋯\cdots
10867844.405G140M-2<1.47< 1.47<30< 30<−1.84< -1.8442.373179⋯\cdots
10084114.41G140M-28.43±1.618.43 \pm1.61273±71273 \pm71−0.99-0.9942.283281424
10086714.41G140M-2<10.17< 10.17<127< 127<−1.28< -1.2842.652272⋯\cdots
10868554.41G140M-211.52±0.6411.52 \pm0.64360±72360 \pm72−1.11-1.1142.531724961
10333204.48PRISM<8.86< 8.86<116< 116<−0.91< -0.9142.241951⋯\cdots
10206214.681G140M-210.25±0.4010.25 \pm0.40216±57216 \pm57−0.88-0.8842.321605316
10346205.19G140M-111.56±0.4211.56 \pm0.4273±473 \pm4−1.20-1.2042.801077512
10776525.229G140M-1<1.10< 1.10<20< 20<−1.68< -1.6842.261026⋯\cdots
99940145.23G140M-1<0.70< 0.70<10< 10<−2.38< -2.3842.772084⋯\cdots
10205145.36G140M-1161.9±2.6161.9 \pm2.6693±19693 \pm190.0842.701612585
10873885.54G140M-11.79±0.251.79 \pm0.2524±424 \pm4−2.80-2.8043.652964665

Table 1. CBE sample and Lyα\alpha constraints

Lyalpha measurements

Figure 1 shows the Lyα\alpha spectra of the 12 CBEs. We measure first-order G140M Lyα\alpha following Y. Zhu et al. [105]. A local continuum is fitted outside the line, and the line peak is located within ±1000\pm1000 km s−1^{-1} of the systemic redshift. The continuum-subtracted flux is summed within ±16\pm16 Å (observed frame; ≈±600\approx\pm600 km s−1^{-1}) of the peak. A line is detected if both the integrated and peak signal-to-noise ratios are ≥3\geq3. Second-order fluxes are summed within ±2500\pm2500 km s−1^{-1} after subtracting the median continuum at +4000+4000 to +9000+9000 km s−1^{-1}, and then converted. For PRISM, we subtract a clipped red-side continuum at rest-frame 1350–1500 Å and integrate over 1170–1270 Å. Nondetections are reported as 2σ2\sigma upper limits. We adopt PRISM for 1029154, whose second-order Lyα\alpha falls at 1.257 μ\mum, below the calibrated range, and for 1033320, whose second-order Lyα\alpha falls in a spectral gap.

Figure 1. Lyα spectra of the 12 CBEs, ordered by redshift, in velocity relative to the systemic (Hα) redshift. Labels give the adopted spectrum and the rest-frame EWLyα_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} (2σ2\sigma limits for nondetections). Pink bands show the 1σ1\sigma uncertainty, and the local continuum is subtracted. G140M panels span ±4000\pm4000 km s−1^{-1}; second-order panels show the apparent, first-order-calibrated flux density, while the adopted line fluxes include the order-dependent response conversion. For G140M detections, blue curves show a Gaussian with the broad-Hα FWHM at the systemic velocity, scaled to the Lyα peak. The two PRISM panels span ±32,000\pm32,000 km s−1^{-1}, and the gray band marks the rest-frame 1170–1270 Å integration window. For 1033320, second-order G140M Lyα falls in a spectral gap, and we adopt the PRISM constraint.

The rest-frame EWLyα\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} divides the line flux by the continuum at rest-frame 1300 Å from the best-fit SED of the total (AGN+host) photometry (Y. Zhu et al. [105]); the continuum is largely undetected in the grating spectra. For 1034620, which lacks an SED fit, we use the PRISM red-side continuum.

We define the effective Lyα escape fraction

fesc,Lyαeff=LLyα8.7LHα,(1)f_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} = \frac{L_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}}{8.7L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}}, \tag*{(1)}

where LHαL_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} is the total (broad+narrow) Hα luminosity, not corrected for dust, and 8.7 is the Case B Lyα/Hα ratio (D. E. Osterbrock & G. J. Ferland [79]) for Te=104T_{\mathrm{e}} = 10^{4} K and ne≈350 cm−3n_{\mathrm{e}} \approx350\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3} (M. Hayes [38]). fesc,Lyαefff_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} is an empirical visibility ratio that includes radiative transfer in the nucleus and host, CGM and IGM transmission, aperture effects, and the Hα normalization. Total Hα is from the NIRCam grism measurements of J. Zhang et al. [102]. For the JADES sources 1020621 and 1077652, we fit narrow and broad Hα and [N ii] in the public JADES G395M spectra (F. D’Eugenio et al. [28]); the narrow component carries about two-thirds of the Hα flux of 1020621. For 1020514, fesc,Lyαeff=1.20f_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} = 1.20; the aperture mismatch between the slit Lyα and slitless Hα measurements and departures from Case B, such as collisional enhancement of Lyα, may contribute.

Host decomposition and host-model Lyalpha

We fit the AGN–host decomposition of all 12 sources in the JADES Data Release 5 (DR5) NIRCam images and catalogs (D. J. Eisenstein et al. [31]; B. D. Johnson et al. [48]; B. E. Robertson et al. [87]), generally following Z. Ma et al. (2026) (Figure 2). The AGN is modeled with the JADES mosaic point-spread function (PSF) and the host with a single PSF-convolved Sérsic profile. To improve the host characterization, we fit the short-wavelength bands jointly, with one Sérsic shape and one AGN–host offset shared across them. A Markov chain Monte Carlo fit then gives the point-source (PS) and host fluxes in each band. We fit the host photometry with Prospector (B. D. Johnson et al. [47]) and FSPS (C. Conroy et al. [23]), using the model of Y. Zhu et al. [105]. The model assumes a G. Chabrier [15] initial mass function and a seven-bin nonparametric star-formation history with the continuity prior of J. Leja et al. [58]. It includes the flexible dust law of M. Kriek & C. Conroy [57] with extra attenuation of young stars (S. Charlot & S. M. Fall [16]), nebular emission (N. Byler et al. [12]), dust emission (B. T. Draine & A. Li [30]), and a mid-infrared AGN component. The redshift may vary within ±0.01\pm0.01 of the spectroscopic value, and the model photometry is computed with the neural-network emulator of E. P. Mathews et al. [71]. The fitted photometry begins at F090W, redward of Lyα for all sources except 1087388, whose Lyα red wing falls at the blue edge of F090W and contributes ≲4%\lesssim4\% of that band. Neither the spectroscopic Lyα nor Hα enters the fit.

Figure 2. AGN–host decomposition and host SED for a strong (1020514, top) and a weak (1087388, bottom) Lyα detection. Left: F115W data, the PS+host model, the Sérsic host model, the data after PS subtraction, and the residual (Z. Ma et al. 2026); each panel has its own display stretch. Right: AGN-subtracted host photometry (orange) and the best-fit host SED model (gray), with the Lyα wavelength marked; 1087388 has no JADES F150W, F200W, or F277W imaging, so its host photometry has four bands. The annotations compare the Lyα in the host SED model with the observed Lyα, which is not used in the fit.

The host-model Lyα is the Lyα emission in the dust-attenuated best-fit host SED model. We integrate the positive excess above a power-law continuum, fitted at rest-frame 1275–1305 and 1325–1365 Å, over 1215–1270 Å, and convert it to an EW and a luminosity. The model includes dust attenuation but no Lyα resonant transfer through neutral gas, the CGM, or the IGM, so the host-model Lyα traces Lyα production in the host. The model is sampled at ≈10\approx10 Å near Lyα, so the integration is approximate. The host model of 1086784 has no coherent Lyα excess, and we omit it from the host comparison.

Non-AGN comparison sample

The comparison sample is the 250 non-AGN galaxies in the DIVER Lyα sample of Y. Zhu et al. [105], measured with the same spectra and methods. None of the CBEs are in this sample. We use the 173 galaxies with Hα and UV measurements: 84 Lyα detections and 89 3σ3\sigma upper limits, as in Y. Zhu et al. [105]. At the 2σ2\sigma level used for the CBEs, these limits would be a factor of 1.5 lower.

Results

The 12 sources include six Lyα detections and six 2σ2\sigma upper limits, a detection fraction of 0.50 (68% binomial confidence interval 0.36–0.64). Non-AGN galaxies at the same redshifts have a similar detection fraction of 0.40 (34 of the 86 with Lyα measurements at z=4.17z = 4.17–5.54; 0.34–0.45). The detections span EWLyα=24\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} = 24–693 Å, and the limits span EWLyα<10\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} < 10 to <127< 127 Å.

Strong Halpha does not predict strong Lyalpha

Figure 3 shows EWLyα\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} as a function of LHα/Lν,1500L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_{\nu,1500}, where both samples use total Hα and the observed total UV continuum. The CBEs have higher Hα/UV than most DIVER non-AGN galaxies, but larger Hα/UV does not imply stronger Lyα. Source 1087388 has the largest Hα luminosity and Hα/UV in the sample but EWLyα=24\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} = 24 Å, while 1020514 has the strongest Lyα at the lowest Hα/UV among the CBEs.

Figure 3. Lyα EW versus Hα/UV. Both samples use total Hα and the observed total Lν,1500L_{\nu,1500}. Gray circles and open triangles show DIVER non-AGN detections and 3σ3\sigma upper limits. Blue filled squares show CBE Lyα detections, and open squares with arrows show 2σ2\sigma upper limits. Error bars show 1σ1\sigma EW uncertainties. Open hexagons show Lyα-detected AGN and ULIRGs at z<0.3z < 0.3 from W. Liu et al. [64], whose UV continuum is measured near 1125 Å, so their positions are approximate. Two of them, at log⁡(LHα/Lν)=16.2\log(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_{\nu}) = 16.2 and 16.7, are shown at the right edge with arrows.

Both axes are normalized by the UV continuum, so some positive covariance is expected. A fit to the 84 non-AGN detections gives

log⁡EWLyα=a+blog⁡(LHα/Lν,1500),(2)\log\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} = a + b \log(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_{\nu,1500}), \tag*{(2)}

with a=−8.719a = -8.719 and b=0.757b = 0.757. The six CBE detections scatter around this relation, with a median residual of +0.03 dex and individual residuals from −1.49 to +0.94 dex. Five of the six upper limits lie 0.25–1.33 dex below the relation, and the PRISM limit for 1033320 lies on it. At high Hα/UV, the CBEs span a wide range of Lyα strength, and several lie well below the non-AGN relation. The 14 Lyα-detected AGN and ULIRGs at z<0.3z < 0.3 from W. Liu et al. [64] show the same behavior: nine lie below the relation (median residual −0.32 dex), and all five with log⁡(LHα/Lν)>14.9\log(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_{\nu}) > 14.9 lie 0.4–2.0 dex below it. We find no clear trend between EWLyα_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} and UV luminosity, total Hα luminosity, or broad-Hα FWHM among the six detections (Spearman rank coefficient ∣ρ∣≤0.49|\rho| \le0.49, pp-value ≥0.36\ge0.36).

Observed Lyalpha and host-model Lyalpha

Because the Lyα strength does not follow the Hα/UV, we turn to the host galaxy. Figure 4 compares the observed and host-model Lyα for the 11 sources with a host-model value (six detections and five upper limits). The observed Lyα tends to rise with the host-model Lyα, more clearly in EW than in luminosity, but not with Hα/UV.

Figure 4. Observed Lyα versus the Lyα emission in the dust-attenuated best-fit host SED model, in (a) EW and (b) luminosity. The host model uses neither the spectroscopic Lyα nor photometry containing Lyα. Filled squares show the six detections with 1σ error bars, and open squares with arrows show 2σ upper limits. The dashed line marks equality. 1086784 has no coherent host-model Lyα and is omitted.

To include the upper limits, we use the generalized Kendall rank correlation coefficient τ\tau (T. Isobe et al. [41]), which runs from −1 to +1 like Spearman ρ\rho and uses only pairs of sources whose order is unambiguous; pp-values come from random permutations. The host model gives τ=0.37\tau= 0.37 (p=0.14p = 0.14) in EW and τ=0.26\tau= 0.26 (p=0.31p = 0.31) in luminosity, whereas Hα/UV gives τ=−0.19\tau= -0.19 (p=0.44p = 0.44). In bootstrap resamplings, the host relation has the larger τ\tau in 88% of cases in EW (against Hα/UV) and in 77% in luminosity (against broad-Hα luminosity, τ=0.04\tau= 0.04). These fractions are 71%–93% when we drop 1034620 and 9994014, whose decompositions are affected by a foreground neighbor and image artifacts (Z. Ma et al. (2026)), or halve or double the second-order fluxes. A linear fit that treats the upper limits as censored values gives a positive slope of observed on host-model EW (one-sided permutation p=0.03p = 0.03), whereas Hα/UV gives none (p=0.67p = 0.67). With the slope fixed at unity, the host model predicts the observed EW with a scatter of 0.66 dex, compared with 1.05 dex for Hα/UV; in luminosity, the scatter is 0.81 dex for the host model and 1.07 dex for Case B Hα. With 11 sources, this preference is not yet decisive. The

Lyalpha is narrower than broad Halpha

six detections alone give the same picture: Spearman ρ=0.83\rho= 0.83 (p=0.058p = 0.058) for the host model and ρ=−0.49\rho= -0.49 (p=0.36p = 0.36) for Hα/UV.

Every detection lies above the one-to-one relation, by factors of 1.5–18. Because the host model already includes dust attenuation and resonant transfer usually reduces Lyα further, the excess implies additional Lyα from outside the stellar host component, possibly from the AGN, or host Lyα production that the SED fit underestimates. The host models also underpredict narrow Hα. Their dust-attenuated Hα is a median of 0.3 (range 0.06–1.15) of the observed narrow Hα. Part of the narrow-line emission may therefore arise outside the stellar host component, or the fit may miss some star formation. Conversely, 9994014 lies at least a factor of 4 below its host-model luminosity, so host Lyα production alone does not guarantee visible Lyα.

Figure 2 shows the two ends of the sample, 1020514 and 1087388. In both, the host accounts for most of the rest-frame 1500 Å light (75% and 64%), and the point source dominates the rest-frame optical. Their host-model EWs are 64 and 17 Å, and their observed EWs are 693 and 24 Å. The host of 1020514 is young, low-mass, and nearly dust-free (mass-weighted age ≈ 30 Myr, log⁡M∗/M⊙=7.9\log M_\ast/M_\odot= 7.9, and diffuse dust optical depth τV=0.01\tau_V = 0.01), whereas the host of 1087388 is older, more massive, and dustier (≈ 400 Myr, 9.2, and 0.36). Host age alone does not set the Lyα strength, however: among the detections, the oldest host, 1008411 (≈ 550 Myr), has EWLyαEW_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} = 273 Å.

Lyα\alpha is narrower than broad Hα\alpha

If the observed Lyα\alpha came directly from the BLR, we would expect it to be about as broad as broad Hα\alpha. Figure 5 shows that it is not: every detected Lyα\alpha line is narrower than broad Hα\alpha, with observed FWHMs of 316–961 km s−1^{-1} against 1077–3281 km s−1^{-1}, a ratio of 0.13–0.56. These Gaussian-fit widths include instrumental broadening (about 530–560 km s−1^{-1} in first order and 300–320 km s−1^{-1} in second order), so the intrinsic lines are narrower still; three lines (1020621, 1034620, and 1020514) are at most marginally resolved.

Figure 5. Observed Lyα FWHM versus broad-Hα FWHM for the six detections, from first-order (squares) and second-order (circles) G140M spectra. The Lyα widths include instrumental broadening; gray bands mark the nominal instrumental FWHM for each order. The dashed line marks equal widths, and the dotted line marks y=0.5xy = 0.5x, the approximate apparent width of a BLR-width line whose blue half is absorbed.

Two effects could make BLR Lyα\alpha look narrower. First, neutral gas can absorb the blue half of the line, roughly halving its apparent width (dotted line in Figure 5). Only 1086855 lies above this line. Its Lyα\alpha is the broadest in the sample (FWHM = 961±\pm64 km s−1^{-1}, peak redshifted by ≈\approx 800 km s−1^{-1}) but still narrower than its broad Hα\alpha (1724 km s−1^{-1}). This line may reflect clumpy neutral gas or a favorable escape path, as inferred for an LRD with broad Lyα\alpha in SPURS (M. Tang et al. [95]). Second, a faint broad component could hide beneath a bright narrow core. When we add a systemic component with the broad-Hα\alpha width, five lines do not need it (2σ2\sigma limits of 10–49% of the narrow-line flux). Only 1020514, the brightest line, prefers a broad red wing with ≈\approx 40% of the narrow-line flux, which may be a weak nuclear contribution or a red scattering wing. S. Geris et al. [32] detect a broad Lyα\alpha component in a stacked medium-resolution spectrum of eight LRDs; because a stack averages over sources, such a component could arise in a subset of objects like 1020514.

Lyα\alpha produced or scattered away from the nucleus could also be offset along the slit. In the 2D spectra, the Lyα\alpha and continuum positions agree within 0.14″ (≤1\leq1 kpc) for all six detections; the formal 0.024″ offset of 1020621, in second-order data, drops to 2.4σ2.4\sigma when we allow for a 0.1-pixel systematic uncertainty.

Discussion

What sets the observed Lyα\alpha

Every source in our sample has a directly visible BLR, yet the Lyα\alpha strength does not follow the Hα\alpha luminosity or Hα\alpha/UV. Other broad-line samples also show weak or mostly narrow Lyα\alpha ([96, 53]). In 110 LRDs at z≥4z \geq4, Z. Ji et al. (2026a) find Lyα\alpha luminosities and EWs similar to those of star-forming galaxies but systematically lower Lyα\alpha/Hα\alpha. Our CBEs show this deficit mainly through their nondetections: the detections scatter around the non-AGN relation in Figure 3, while five of the six upper limits lie below it. AGN and ULIRGs at z<0.3z < 0.3 also lie at or below this relation, which suggests that AGN do not generally have higher Lyα\alpha visibility than star-forming galaxies. Within that sample, Lyα\alpha EW increases with AGN luminosity and AGN fraction ([64]); we find no such trend with Hα\alpha luminosity.

Two processes can separate the observed Lyα\alpha from the BLR. First, dense nuclear gas can change the intrinsic Lyα\alpha/Hα\alpha ratio: Balmer-continuum opacity, enhanced n=2n = 2 populations, collisional effects, and electron scattering can drive it far from Case B ([90]). In LRDs, such dense gas may also produce the observed Balmer breaks and Balmer absorption ([40, 76, 26 a]), and the broad Balmer profiles may partly reflect radiative transfer through it rather than BLR kinematics alone ([73]). Second, Lyα\alpha is resonantly transferred through the nucleus, host, and CGM. The neutral-gas covering fraction, dust, and velocity structure shape the emerging line (e.g., [35]), and gas velocities move Lyα\alpha into regions of higher or lower IGM transmission ([13]). A high covering fraction can suppress Lyα\alpha even when the BLR is seen through a lower-opacity sightline. In LRDs, enhanced broad Hα\alpha relative to bolometric luminosity suggests high BLR covering factors and large gas columns ([100]), which would favor this suppression. Where Lyα\alpha does escape, it can do so through narrow channels. In LRD-204851, radiative-transfer modeling of the Lyα\alpha profile favors a low-column-density biconical cavity in a dense, slowly expanding neutral envelope ((Z. Ji et al. 2026b)), and narrow-line ratios in LRDs also point to lower-density channels through the gas envelope ([92]). The narrow line profiles (Section 3.3) suggest that the observed Lyα\alpha is largely shaped outside the BLR.

Observed Lyα\alpha follows the host-model Lyα\alpha more closely than Hα\alpha/UV (Section 3.2). Because the host model traces Lyα\alpha production in the host, this relation suggests that host star formation contributes to the observed line, although the host dust and gas that shape the host-model Lyα\alpha could also regulate the escape of nuclear Lyα\alpha. Z. Ji et al. (2026a) reach a similar conclusion by a different route. In their LRDs, Lyα\alpha luminosity tracks [O III] luminosity more closely than [O III] EW, and at z≳5.5z \gtrsim5.5 the Lyα\alpha maps are often extended, asymmetric, and offset from the rest-optical light. They interpret these results as Lyα\alpha associated with the host-scale component rather than with the compact source of the broad lines and red continuum. In our 2D spectra, Lyα\alpha and continuum positions agree within 0.14″ along the slit (Section 3.3), but the 0.2″ shutter would miss emission extended or offset beyond it.

The excess above the host model leaves room for a nuclear contribution, which would also emerge narrow after transfer through host and CGM gas. We conclude that, in our sample, the observed Lyα\alpha of CBEs is more closely related to the host galaxy than to the BLR. Larger samples with deep rest-UV spectroscopy and Lyα\alpha maps will test this result beyond our six detections and five upper limits.

Implications for ionizing escape

Lyα\alpha visibility gives a rough guide to ionizing escape, because LyC leakers at z≃2z \simeq2 show larger Lyα\alpha escape fractions, less dust, and lower neutral-gas columns [75]. At z≃5z \simeq5–6, CGM and IGM transmission add scatter to this relation [94]. The six detections have a median fesc,Lyαeff=0.091f_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} = 0.091, a 16th–84th percentile range of 0.051–0.35, and a full range of 0.0016–1.20; the upper percentile is set mainly by 1020514. Five of the six upper limits lie below the median, and the PRISM limit for 1033320 (<0.12< 0.12) lies above it. The detection-only median is an upper estimate of the characteristic escape scale; halving or doubling the second-order fluxes (§ 2.1) gives 0.057–0.18. Normalizing by narrow Hα\alpha alone, which carries 23–65% of the total, raises the individual values by factors of 1.6–4.2 and the detection median to 0.28.

D. Jiang et al. [46] derive an upper bound on the AGN contribution to the ionizing budget at z≈7.5z \approx7.5 that scales with the assumed LyC escape fraction:

N˙ionAGNN˙ion,req≃0.32(fescLyC0.75).(3)\frac{\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ion}}^{\mathrm{AGN}}}{\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ion,req}}} \simeq0.32 \left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{esc}}^{\mathrm{LyC}}}{0.75}\right). \tag*{(3)}

Taking fesc,Lyαeff=0.091f_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} = 0.091 as an approximate escape scale gives a contribution of about 3.9%, and the 16th–84th percentile range gives 2.2–15%; the narrow-Hα\alpha median gives about 12%. This scaling is approximate: the normalization refers to z≈7.5z \approx7.5, our sample lies at z≈4z \approx4–5.5, and fesc,Lyαefff_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} measures Lyα\alpha visibility. If ionizing photons also escape through narrow low-column channels like that in LRD-204851 (Z. Ji et al. 2026b), the escape fraction depends on viewing angle, and our single sightline need not give the angle-averaged value. The star-forming-galaxy relation fescLyC≃0.15fescLyαf_{\mathrm{esc}}^{\mathrm{LyC}} \simeq0.15 f_{\mathrm{esc}}^{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} of R. Begley et al. [7] would give an even smaller contribution of about 0.58%. Estimates in which AGN supply a much larger share, such as 31–75% at z≃5z \simeq5–6 [91], depend on the adopted LyC escape fractions, which our data suggest are typically modest for CBEs. LRD ionizing spectra may also be softer than standard AGN spectra [97], and the timing of helium reionization limits how many LBDs can be highly super-Eddington [14]. Our results support the conclusion of D. Jiang et al. [46] and S. Mascia et al. [69] that faint AGN are unlikely to dominate the ionizing photon budget during reionization.

Summary

We measured Lyα\alpha in 12 CBEs at z=4.17z = 4.17–5.54 with DIVER JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy, finding six detections and six upper limits. We learn three things.

  1. A visible BLR does not make Lyα\alpha bright: the Lyα\alpha strength does not follow Hα\alpha or Hα\alpha/UV.

  2. The observed Lyα\alpha is unlikely to come directly from the BLR: every detected line is narrower than broad Hα\alpha.

  3. Lyα\alpha is more closely tied to the host galaxy than to the nucleus, with room for a nuclear contribution.

The low Lyα\alpha visibility of these sources (median fesc,Lyαeff≈0.09f_{\mathrm{esc,Ly}\alpha}^{\mathrm{eff}} \approx0.09) suggests modest ionizing escape, so faint AGN are unlikely to dominate reionization. Deep rest-UV spectroscopy and Lyα\alpha maps of larger samples will show how host and nuclear Lyα\alpha combine.

Acknowledgements

Y.Z. acknowledges support from the NIRCam Science Team contract to the University of Arizona, NAS5-02105. Y.Z. is also supported by JWST program #6434. L.K. acknowledges the support of a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (grant number URF\R1\251793). A.J.B. acknowledges funding from the “FirstGalaxies” Advanced Grant from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 789056). Support for program #6434 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-03127. This manuscript benefited from language editing with ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.6 Sol), and the analysis code was developed with assistance from Claude Code (Anthropic, Claude Opus 5.5). All revised content and code were reviewed and verified by the authors.

This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope. The data were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-03127 for JWST. These observations are associated with programs #8018 (DIVER), #1895 (FRESCO), #3577 (CONGRESS), and #1181 (JADES). JADES DR5 includes NIRCam data from JWST programs 1176, 1180, 1181, 1210, 1264, 1283, 1286, 1287, 1895, 1963, 2079, 1989, 2514, 2516, 2674, 3215, 3577, 3990, 4540, 4762, 5398, 5997, 6434, 6511, and 6541. JADES DR5 includes MIRI data from JWST programs 1180, 1181, and 1207. The authors acknowledge the teams of programs 1895, 1963, 2079, 2514, 3215, 3577, 3990, 6434, and 6541 for developing their observing program with a zero-exclusive-access period.

We respectfully acknowledge the University of Arizona is on the land and territories of Indigenous peoples. Today, Arizona is home to 22 federally recognized tribes, with Tucson being home to the O’odham and the Yaqui. The university strives to build sustainable relationships with sovereign Native Nations and Indigenous communities through education offerings, partnerships, and community service.

Author Contributions

Y.Z. initiated and led this project, reduced the DIVER data, and led the interpretation. Z.M. performed the imaging decomposition and the host SED fitting. X.L. led the DIVER program. All authors contributed to the analysis and discussion.

Facilities: JWST (NIRSpec, NIRCam); MAST

Software: Astropy ([3, 4, 5]), JWST Calibration Pipeline (H. Bushouse et al. [11])

References

  1. [1]Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Berg, D. A., et al. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00949DOI
  2. [2]Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrid es, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984DOI
  3. [3]Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068
  4. [4]Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip\H{o}cz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f
  5. [5]Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74DOI
  6. [6]Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8DOI
  7. [7]Begley, R., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 4040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3417DOI
  8. [8]Bolan, P., Lemaux, B. C., Mason, C., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 3263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1963DOI
  9. [9]Brammer, G. 2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7299500DOI
  10. [11]Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17515973
  11. [12]Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66DOI
  12. [13]Cain, C., Lopez, G., D’Aloisio, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada152DOI
  13. [14]Cain, C., Smith, B., Bowling, G. B., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.28745DOI
  14. [15]Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392DOI
  15. [16]Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250DOI
  16. [17]Chen, C.-H., Ho, L. C., Li, R., & Inayoshi, K. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade00a
  17. [19]Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2026a, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4220DOI
  18. [20]Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2026b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21516DOI
  19. [21]Choustikov, N., Katz, H., Saxena, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 2463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1586DOI
  20. [22]Christenson, H. M., Becker, G. D., D’Aloisio, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf450DOI
  21. [23]Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486DOI
  22. [24]Davis, K., Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.00258DOI
  23. [25]de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21820
  24. [26]de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025b, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 701, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202544681
  25. [27]Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Magnelli, B., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 704, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557164DOI
  26. [28]D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 277, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148DOI
  27. [29]Ding, J., Yue, M., Zhu, Y., Fan, X., & Luo, Y. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2609.11879DOI
  28. [30]Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055DOI
  29. [31]Eisenstein, D. J., Willcott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02465
  30. [32]Geris, S., Maiolino, R., Ji, X., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.21614DOI
  31. [33]Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5fDOI
  32. [35]Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., McCourt, M., & Oh, S. P. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 607, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731013DOI
  33. [36]Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920DOI
  34. [37]Hashemi, S., Becker, G. D., Zhu, Y., & Hong, H. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 542, 104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1225DOI
  35. [38]Hayes, M. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.25DOI
  36. [39]Hayes, M. J., & Scarlata, C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acee6aDOI
  37. [40]Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeabd
  38. [41]Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 306, 490, doi: 10.1086/164359DOI
  39. [42]Ivey, L. R., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.09177
  40. [43]Jeon, J., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14155
  41. [46]Jiang, D., Jiang, L., Sun, S., Liu, W., & Fu, S. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1890, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02676-7DOI
  42. [47]Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67DOI
  43. [48]Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B. E., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15954DOI
  44. [51]Juodžbalis, I., Marconcini, C., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21748
  45. [52]Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 546, stag086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag086DOI
  46. [53]Kageura, Y., Ouchi, M., Yanagisawa, H., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.14534DOI
  47. [54]Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7dDOI
  48. [55]Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09981
  49. [56]Kokubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae119eDOI
  50. [57]Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16DOI
  51. [58]Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133cDOI
  52. [59]Lin, X., Cai, Z., Wu, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09532
  53. [60]Lin, X., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08028DOI
  54. [61]Lin, X., Fan, X., Wang, F., et al. 2026a, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1b9bDOI
  55. [64]Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Rupke, D. S. N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a46DOI
  56. [67]Madau, P., & Maiolino, R. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22386
  57. [68]Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2024, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00504
  58. [69]Mascia, S., Matthee, J., Torralba, A., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.25021DOI
  59. [70]Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7DOI
  60. [71]Mathews, E. P., Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace720DOI
  61. [72]Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345DOI
  62. [73]Matthee, J., Torralba, A., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667DOI
  63. [74]McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 190, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf745
  64. [75]Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3601
  65. [76]Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596DOI
  66. [77]Napolitano, L., Pentericci, L., Dickinson, M., et al. 2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 708, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556912
  67. [78]Obuchi, S., Ichikawa, K., Yamada, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae16d6
  68. [79]Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei
  69. [80]Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859
  70. [81]Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb
  71. [82]Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Carniani, S., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20247DOI
  72. [83]Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
  73. [84]Rinaldi, P., Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae089c
  74. [86]Rinaldi, P., Bonaventura, N., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2025c, The Astrophysical Journal, 992, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa10
  75. [87]Robertson, B. E., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15956DOI
  76. [88]Scarlata, C., Hayes, M., Panagia, N., et al. 2024, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09015DOI
  77. [89]Scholtz, J., Carniani, S., Parlanti, E., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01034
  78. [90]Shields, J. C., & Ferland, G. J. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 402, 425, doi: 10.1086/172147
  79. [91]Singha, M., Malhotra, S., & Rhoads, J. E. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26990DOI
  80. [92]Sok, V., Nelson, E. J., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23778DOI
  81. [93]Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Mason, C., & Ellis, R. S. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eb7
  82. [94]Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1338
  83. [95]Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03563DOI
  84. [96]Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 705, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555596
  85. [97]Wang, B., Leja, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06024DOI
  86. [98]Wang, B., Leja, J., Labbe, I., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06024DOI
  87. [99]Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17
  88. [100]Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Kiyota, T., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.09726DOI
  89. [101]Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13290DOI
  90. [102]Zhang, J., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2681
  91. [103]Zhong, Y., Chen, X., Ichikawa, K., et al. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.13736DOI
  92. [104]Zhu, Y., Bonaventura, N., Sun, Y., et al. 2026a, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29b4
  93. [105]Zhu, Y., Fan, X., Keating, L. C., et al. 2026b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.19311DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_susv9xbf
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 7

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

GPT-5.6 Sol (bare), Claude Code · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents