Next Article in Journal
A Comparison Study of Collisions at Relativistic Energies Involving Light Nuclei
Previous Article in Journal
On Restrictions of Current Warp Drive Spacetimes and Immediate Possibilities of Improvement
Previous Article in Special Issue
The History of Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

What Do Radio Emission Constraints Tell Us About Little Red Dots as Tidal Disruption Events?

1
Konkoly Observatory, HUN-REN Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, Konkoly Thege Miklós út 15-17, 1121 Budapest, Hungary
2
CSFK, MTA Centre of Excellence, Konkoly Thege Miklós út 15-17, 1121 Budapest, Hungary
3
Institute of Physics and Astronomy, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/A, 1117 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Universe 2025, 11(9), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11090294
Submission received: 25 July 2025 / Revised: 29 August 2025 / Accepted: 30 August 2025 / Published: 1 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Studies of Galaxies at High Redshift)

Abstract

The real nature of little red dots (LRDs), a class of very compact galaxies in the early Universe recently discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope, is still poorly understood. The most popular theories competing to interpret the phenomena include active galactic nuclei and enhanced star formation in dusty galaxies. To date, however, neither model gives a completely satisfactory explanation to the population as a whole; thus, alternative theories have arisen, including tidal disruption events (TDEs). By considering observational constraints on the radio emission of LRDs, we discuss whether TDEs are adequate alternatives solving these high-redshift enigmas. We utilise radio flux density upper limits from LRD stacking analyses, TDE peak radio luminosities, and volumetric density estimates. We find that the characteristic values of flux densities and luminosities allow radio-quiet TDEs as the underlying process of LRDs in any case, while the less common radio-loud TDEs are compatible with the model under special constraints only. Considering other factors, such as volumetric density estimates, delayed and long-term radio flares of TDEs, and cosmological time dilation, TDEs appear to be a plausible explanation for LRDs from the radio point of view.

1. Introduction

Recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) photometric and spectroscopic observations revealed the presence of a new population of high-redshift ( z 4 ) objects [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. These compact sources have a red continuum in the rest-frame optical waveband, show excess ultraviolet (UV) emission, and exhibit broad-line emission features in their spectra [4,6,8]. Different theories were proposed to explain the nature of these so-called little red dots (LRDs), including highly obscured active galactic nuclei (AGN) [4,5,9], enhanced star formation in dusty galaxies [10,11,12,13], or the combination of these two processes [11,13,14,15].
Interestingly, the radio and X-ray properties of LRDs do not follow those of ‘regular’ high-redshift AGN [5,16,17,18,19,20]. To date, only one LRD was found to have a radio counterpart [21], while the rest remain non-detected in the radio, even after stacking radio maps at the positions of known LRDs [18,19,20]. Considering both radio-quiet and radio-loud scenarios, flux density detection thresholds of 0.5–2 μJy were estimated, which could be uncovered via 10–100 h long observations with upcoming sensitive state-of-the-art radio instruments, such as the Next-Generation Very Large Array and the Square Kilometre Array [22]. Similarly, only a handful X-ray-detected LRDs were found [5,23], and the majority of the population remains silent, with only upper limits found on the X-ray fluxes via stacking [5,16,17]. Moreover, LRDs remained undetected in the far-infrared regime [7,11,12], with the absence of hot dust emission expected from an AGN torus [12,24]. The extremely small fraction of radio- and X-ray-detected sources, the non-detection in the far infrared waveband, the missing torus-related emission, and the apparent dichotomy in the rest-frame colours and spectral properties of the population [25,26] raise the question of whether the LRDs are an extremely special case of active galaxies [19,27], or whether the phenomenon might not be satisfactorily explained by the AGN model [28,29,30].
Recently, an alternative model was suggested, explaining the observational properties of LRDs with tidal disruption events (TDEs) in dense clusters [31]. In this model, it is theorised that black hole seeds forming through runaway collapse in dense clusters with a TDE rate of 10 4 per year would explain the compactness, UV emission, broad Hα emission, and X-ray weakness of LRDs.
Tidal disruption events (TDEs) are rare transient phenomena, theorised in the early 1970s. TDEs occur when a star’s orbit passes close enough to a massive black hole (MBH, 10 5 10 7 M ) [32,33], causing the star to be pulled apart by the MBH’s tidal forces, and a tidal stream of material is formed around the black hole. A portion of this material is captured by the MBH, forming an accretion disc, while producing luminous electromagnetic flares, which can last from weeks to years. To date, ∼150 TDEs and candidates have been identified [34].
Approximately half of the TDEs were detected in one or more radio bands [35,36], either close to the discovery date or during follow-up observations. In several cases, TDEs are accompanied by late-time radio flare-ups [37,38], even up to thousands of days after discovery [38,39], with around 40 % of optical TDEs showing delayed activity in the radio [38]. Due to the inherently diverse radio properties of TDEs, various mechanisms were proposed and tested to explain the intrinsic radio emission, including external shocks with both relativistic [40,41] and non-relativistic [42,43] jets and internal [44,45] and external [46,47] shock mechanisms due to interactions with or collisions within the created debris stream. Out of the several dozen radio-observed TDEs, only a few percent were found to be particularly bright in the radio wavebands, up to years or even decades after the initial disruption event [42,48,49]. These sources, labeled as radio-loud (RL) TDEs, are believed to host energetic radio jets at a small inclination angle with respect to the line of sight of the observer, releasing their energy with a specific luminosity of ν L ν > 10 40 erg s−1 (here, ν denotes the observing frequency). The remaining sources that emit their radio power below this limit are classified as radio-quiet (RQ) and often are not detected; alternatively, they are detected with a delay after the higher-energy observations [38,39,50]. RQ TDEs are believed to be either off-axis synchrotron jets dimmed via Doppler deboosting or are theorised to be slow outflows interacting with the surrounding circumnuclear medium, accelerating the free electron content [35,51]. RL TDEs are usually discovered via their γ -ray outbursts and are also addressed as radio TDEs, while RQ TDEs are found by their initial detection in the X-ray, optical or UV bands [35,52,53]. As the optical–X-ray spectral energy distribution of RQ TDEs can be characterised by a black-body function peaking in the UV or the soft X-ray regimes [53,54], they are also referred to as thermal TDEs. The occurrence rate of radio-emitting TDEs with powerful radio jets was estimated to be 3 · 10 10 yr−1 galaxy−1 [55], while for thermal TDEs, this rate was found to be 5 · 10 5 yr−1 galaxy−1 [35]. Other works reported an overall TDE rate, i.e., a value for the ensemble of both thermal and radio TDEs, within the order of magnitude of ∼ 10 4 yr−1 galaxy−1 [56,57].
In this paper, we explore the possibility of TDEs as an explanation for LRDs, based on the extreme quiescence of the latter in the radio regime.

2. Methodology

To test the possibility of TDEs as the underlying physical processes of LRDs, we calculated upper limits to the rest-frame specific luminosities of LRDs based on their radio flux density upper limits, following the equation
ν L ν = 4 π D L 2 S ν ( 1 + z ) α 1 ,
where S is the flux density upper limit from the respective stacking analysis, D L is the luminosity distance at redshift z, and α is the power-law spectral index, following the S ν ν α convention. For the calculations, we applied a standard flat ΛCDM cosmological model with H 0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1, Ω M = 0.3 , and Ω Λ = 0.7 .
For the analysis described below, we assumed that the whole LRD population is caused by TDEs, as proposed by [31]. The properties of the representative TDEs selected for the analysis are listed in Table 1. Peak radio luminosity values were adopted from [35].

2.1. Rest-Frame Luminosity Estimation of LRDs

Rest-frame luminosities of LRDs were calculated using the parameter space of various flux densities, redshifts, and spectral indices (hereafter Method L). For flux densities, 3-GHz upper limits ( S 10 μJy and S 0.5 μJy) were used, while redshift ranges ( 2.4 z 11.4 and 2.26 z 10.26 ) were defined by adopting the values of the known LRDs in the respective stacking analyses at 3 GHz [19,20]. Based on the stacking analysis on radio maps from the Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS) [58,59] of 919 objects, a 3 σ upper limit of ∼10 μJy was found for the flux density of LRDs [19]. Alternatively, we used 3 σ upper limits of 0.5 μJy determined for 22 broad-line objects based on deep radio observations in the GOODS-N field [20]. We note that a similar flux density upper limit was found by stacking of maps of 434 LRDs selected from the COSMOS field Very Large Array observations [18]. For spectral indices, we considered various values ( 2.05 α 2.55 ) found for TDEs in the literature [37,39,49,60,61,62,63]. We compare the estimated luminosity ranges of LRDs with values observed in two RQ and two RL TDEs (Table 1) in Section 3.1.

2.2. Flux Density Estimation of ‘High-Redshift’ TDEs

In the other way around (hereafter Method S), 3-GHz flux densities were calculated for a RQ (thermal) and a RL (radio) TDE, Sw J2058.4+05 and XMMSL1 J0740−85, respectively, for the whole redshift range ( 2.26 z 11.4 ) covered in the two stacking analyses [6,19], using the following relation:
S = ν L ν 4 π D L 2 ν ( 1 + z ) α 1 ,
where ν L ν is the specific luminosity of the respective TDE. For the estimation, rest-frame peak radio luminosities were used (listed in Table 1), considering a wide range of spectral indices of known TDEs ( 2.05 α 2.55 ) from the literature [37,39,49,60,61,62,63]. The range of possible flux densities was compared to the upper limits determined for LRDs [19,20].

2.3. Volumetric Number Density Estimation

Redshift-dependent TDE rates TDE 1 ( z ) and TDE 2 ( z ) were estimated following two separate relations. Values for TDE 1 ( z ) were calculated using the TDE rate–redshift relation from [64] scaled by a factor of 4 · 10 6 Mpc−3 [65]. Alternatively, TDE 2 ( z ) values were calculated, combining the ( 1 + z ) 2.8 density–redshift relation for galaxies [66] with rates of 2 · 10 4 [56], 5 · 10 5 [35], and 3 · 10 10 galaxy−1 yr−1 [55], determined for a mixed sample, RQ, and RL TDEs, respectively. The typical rate of TDEs varies between 10 5 and 10 9 Mpc−3 yr−1 in the redshift range 0.35 z 12 .

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Luminosities of LRDs

The luminosity ranges determined for the LRD upper limits based on the parameter space of redshifts and spectral indices of known TDEs (Method L, Section 2.1) are illustrated in Figure 1. The values calculated at redshifts 2.4 z 11.4 and 2.26 z 10.26 are in agreement with those found in low-redshift known TDEs. The S < 10 μJy flux density upper limit [19] found from stacking the 3 GHz radio maps of 919 LRDs allows both RL and RQ TDEs (Figure 1, upper panel). On the other hand, the more strict constraint of S < 0.5 μJy [20] found by stacking the more sensitive radio images of a smaller sample of LRDs only allows RL TDEs at higher redshifts, while the majority of the parameter space only allows RQ TDEs as the origin of the LRD population (Figure 1, lower panel). The only radio-detected LRD to date, PRIMER-COS 3866 ( z = 4.66 ), has a luminosity of ν L ν = 9 · 10 40 erg s−1 [21]. This would place PRIMER-COS 3866 among the more powerful RL TDEs.

3.2. Flux Densities of TDEs

The flux densities estimated from peak radio luminosities of known TDEs (Method S, Section 2.2) for the total redshift range ( 2.26 z 11.4 ) of LRDs are shown in Figure 2. The flux density ranges allowed by the parameter space of redshift, spectral index, and TDE luminosity suggest that LRDs are consistent with an underlying process from thermal/RQ TDEs, considering both [19,20]. On the other hand, energetic radio TDEs such as Sw J2058.4+05 ( ν L ν 10 41 erg s−1) are only permitted at redshifts z 6 with a very steep spectrum, 2 α 1 . These constraints permit objects with similar spectra as the RQ TDEs with delayed radio emission, like ASASSN-15oi ( ν L ν = 7 · 10 38 erg s−1) [60] and AT2019dsg ( ν L ν = 4 · 10 38 erg s−1) [67,68]. To date, only one object, PRIMER-COS 3866 ( ν L ν = 9 · 10 40 erg s−1) [21], has been detected in radio wavebands out of 900 known LRDs. Thus, the radio-detected fraction of LRDs is estimated to be 10 3 . Considering that RQ sources dominate the characteristic properties of LRDs, and that the dominant population of TDEs is also radio-quiet, even when detected in radio bands, the connection between the two phenomena cannot be ruled out.

3.3. Number Densities

The relation between volumetric number densities of galaxies, LRDs, and TDE rates is illustrated in Figure 3. The number density of LRDs was found to be approximately constant in the range of 2 · 10 5 10 4 Mpc−3 at redshifts z 4 [4,6,11], while rapidly declining in the lower-redshift regime [5]. LRD densities are consistent with values found for regular galaxies [69,70,71,72,73,74,75] within the same redshift domain. Based on this, if LRDs are indeed associated with TDEs [31], the expected number of TDEs would be in the same order of magnitude as in ‘regular’ galaxies. Assuming the most optimistic scenario, i.e., where the ratio of the TDE rate to the galaxy number density is approximately constant (within an order of magnitude, TDE 2 ( z ) ), the evolution of TDE rates with respect to the redshift (Figure 3) would predict one TDE for ∼ 10 3 galaxy yr−1. Considering the number or LRDs (919) and their radio-detected fraction, we would expect radio LRDs in the same order of magnitude as the predicted TDE rate in the best-case estimation. Considering the similar occurrence rate, the long-term nature of the radio emission in TDEs lasting for as long as decades, and that the cosmological time dilation by the factor ( 1 + z ) at the redshifts of LRDs would make the radio emission detectable up to ∼100 years in the observer’s frame, a population of high-redshift tidal disruption events as the hidden process behind JWST little red dots could be consistent with their extremely radio-quiet nature.
It is important to note, as discussed by [31], that the observational properties of the known LRDs are not completely uniform. Thus, it is plausible that these high-redshift sources may reflect a diversity of astrophysical objects and processes rather than a single universal model, raising the possibility of distinct subsets of the LRD population.

4. Conclusions

We found that the inferred luminosity values calculated from the flux density upper limits from radio stacking analyses focusing on little red dots [19,20] are consistent with the observed values of known tidal disruption events. Considering the radio luminosity at peak value, the less strict constraints [19] allow the occurrence of powerful radio (RL) TDEs as an explanation for the generally extremely radio-quiet LRDs, while the luminosities estimated from the more stringent flux density limit of [20] only allow thermal (RQ) TDEs to be those responsible for producing LRDs. Taking into account that TDEs tend to be radio-detected up to decades after the initial outburst, the cosmological time dilatation at the redshift range of LRDs, the order-of-magnitude agreement between the TDE occurrence rate of 10 3 yr−1 and that of the radio LRDs, the low fraction of RL TDEs [35], and the number of known LRDs [19], we conclude that, based on the radio properties, tidal disruption events are possible explanations of little red dots. As LRDs were found not to be an entirely homogeneous population, either of the previously discussed models (AGN, dusty star-forming galaxies, or TDEs) could explain distinct subsets of these mysterious objects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F.; methodology, K.P.; validation, J.F. and S.F.; formal analysis, K.P.; investigation, K.P.; data curation, K.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P.; writing—review and editing, J.F. and S.F.; visualization, K.P.; funding acquisition, J.F. and S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH), grant numbers OTKA K134213 and PD146947, and by the NKFIH excellence grant TKP2021-NKTA-64.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AGNactive galactic nuclei
JWSTJames Webb Space Telescope
LRDlittle red dot
RLradio-loud
RQradio-quiet
TDEtidal disruption event
UVultraviolet
VLASSVery Large Array Sky Survey

References

  1. Furtak, L.J.; Zitrin, A.; Plat, A.; Fujimoto, S.; Wang, B.; Nelson, E.J.; Labbé, I.; Bezanson, R.; Brammer, G.B.; van Dokkum, P.; et al. JWST UNCOVER: Extremely Red and Compact Object at zphot = 7.6 Triply Imaged by A2744. Astrophys. J. 2023, 952, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Labbé, I.; van Dokkum, P.; Nelson, E.; Bezanson, R.; Suess, K.A.; Leja, J.; Brammer, G.; Whitaker, K.; Mathews, E.; Stefanon, M.; et al. A population of red candidate massive galaxies 600 Myr after the Big Bang. Nature 2023, 616, 266–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Barro, G.; Pérez-González, P.G.; Kocevski, D.D.; McGrath, E.J.; Trump, J.R.; Simons, R.C.; Somerville, R.S.; Yung, L.Y.A.; Arrabal Haro, P.; Akins, H.B.; et al. Extremely Red Galaxies at z = 5–9 with MIRI and NIRSpec: Dusty Galaxies or Obscured Active Galactic Nuclei? Astrophys. J. 2024, 963, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Greene, J.E.; Labbe, I.; Goulding, A.D.; Furtak, L.J.; Chemerynska, I.; Kokorev, V.; Dayal, P.; Volonteri, M.; Williams, C.C.; Wang, B.; et al. UNCOVER Spectroscopy Confirms the Surprising Ubiquity of Active Galactic Nuclei in Red Sources at z > 5. Astrophys. J. 2024, 964, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kocevski, D.D.; Finkelstein, S.L.; Barro, G.; Taylor, A.J.; Calabrò, A.; Laloux, B.; Buchner, J.; Trump, J.R.; Leung, G.C.K.; Yang, G.; et al. The Rise of Faint, Red Active Galactic Nuclei at z > 4: A Sample of Little Red Dots in the JWST Extragalactic Legacy Fields. Astrophys. J. 2025, 986, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Matthee, J.; Naidu, R.P.; Brammer, G.; Chisholm, J.; Eilers, A.C.; Goulding, A.; Greene, J.; Kashino, D.; Labbe, I.; Lilly, S.J.; et al. Little Red Dots: An Abundant Population of Faint Active Galactic Nuclei at z ∼ 5 Revealed by the EIGER and FRESCO JWST Surveys. Astrophys. J. 2024, 963, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Labbe, I.; Greene, J.E.; Bezanson, R.; Fujimoto, S.; Furtak, L.J.; Goulding, A.D.; Matthee, J.; Naidu, R.P.; Oesch, P.A.; Atek, H.; et al. UNCOVER: Candidate Red Active Galactic Nuclei at 3 < z < 7 with JWST and ALMA. Astrophys. J. 2025, 978, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kocevski, D.D.; Onoue, M.; Inayoshi, K.; Trump, J.R.; Arrabal Haro, P.; Grazian, A.; Dickinson, M.; Finkelstein, S.L.; Kartaltepe, J.S.; Hirschmann, M.; et al. Hidden Little Monsters: Spectroscopic Identification of Low-mass, Broad-line AGNs at z > 5 with CEERS. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2023, 954, L4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Durodola, E.; Pacucci, F.; Hickox, R.C. Exploring the Active Galactic Nucleus Fraction of a Sample of JWST’s Little Red Dots at 4 < z < 8: Overmassive Black Holes Are Strongly Favored. Astrophys. J. 2025, 985, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baggen, J.F.W.; van Dokkum, P.; Brammer, G.; de Graaff, A.; Franx, M.; Greene, J.; Labbé, I.; Leja, J.; Maseda, M.V.; Nelson, E.J.; et al. The Small Sizes and High Implied Densities of “Little Red Dots” with Balmer Breaks Could Explain Their Broad Emission Lines without an Active Galactic Nucleus. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2024, 977, L13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pérez-González, P.G.; Barro, G.; Rieke, G.H.; Lyu, J.; Rieke, M.; Alberts, S.; Williams, C.C.; Hainline, K.; Sun, F.; Puskás, D.; et al. What Is the Nature of Little Red Dots and what Is Not, MIRI SMILES Edition. Astrophys. J. 2024, 968, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Williams, C.C.; Alberts, S.; Ji, Z.; Hainline, K.N.; Lyu, J.; Rieke, G.; Endsley, R.; Suess, K.A.; Sun, F.; Johnson, B.D.; et al. The Galaxies Missed by Hubble and ALMA: The Contribution of Extremely Red Galaxies to the Cosmic Census at 3 < z < 8. Astrophys. J. 2024, 968, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barrufet, L.; Oesch, P.A.; Marques-Chaves, R.; Arellano-Cordova, K.; Baggen, J.F.W.; Carnall, A.C.; Cullen, F.; Dunlop, J.S.; Gottumukkala, R.; Fudamoto, Y.; et al. Quiescent or dusty? Unveiling the nature of extremely red galaxies at z > 3. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2025, 537, 3453–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, G.; Caputi, K.I.; Papovich, C.; Arrabal Haro, P.; Bagley, M.B.; Behroozi, P.; Bell, E.F.; Bisigello, L.; Buat, V.; Burgarella, D.; et al. CEERS Key Paper. VI. JWST/MIRI Uncovers a Large Population of Obscured AGN at High Redshifts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2023, 950, L5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kokorev, V.; Chisholm, J.; Endsley, R.; Finkelstein, S.L.; Greene, J.E.; Akins, H.B.; Bromm, V.; Casey, C.M.; Fujimoto, S.; Labbé, I.; et al. Silencing the Giant: Evidence of Active Galactic Nucleus Feedback and Quenching in a Little Red Dot at z = 4.13. Astrophys. J. 2024, 975, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ananna, T.T.; Bogdán, Á.; Kovács, O.E.; Natarajan, P.; Hickox, R.C. X-Ray View of Little Red Dots: Do They Host Supermassive Black Holes? Astrophys. J. Lett. 2024, 969, L18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yue, M.; Eilers, A.C.; Ananna, T.T.; Panagiotou, C.; Kara, E.; Miyaji, T. Stacking X-Ray Observations of “Little Red Dots”: Implications for Their Active Galactic Nucleus Properties. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2024, 974, L26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Akins, H.B.; Casey, C.M.; Lambrides, E.; Allen, N.; Andika, I.T.; Brinch, M.; Champagne, J.B.; Cooper, O.; Ding, X.; Drakos, N.E.; et al. COSMOS-Web: The over-abundance and physical nature of “little red dots”–Implications for early galaxy and SMBH assembly. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2406.10341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Perger, K.; Fogasy, J.; Frey, S.; Gabányi, K.É. Deep silence: Radio properties of little red dots. Astron. Astrophys. 2025, 693, L2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mazzolari, G.; Gilli, R.; Maiolino, R.; Prandoni, I.; Delvecchio, I.; Norman, C.; Jimenez-Andrade, E.F.; Belladitta, S.; Vito, F.; Momjian, E.; et al. The radio properties of the JWST-discovered AGN. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2412.04224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gloudemans, A.J.; Duncan, K.J.; Eilers, A.C.; Farina, E.P.; Harikane, Y.; Inayoshi, K.; Lambrides, E.; Vardoulaki, E. Another Piece to the Puzzle: Radio Detection of a JWST-detected Active Galactic Nucleus Candidate. Astrophys. J. 2025, 986, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Latif, M.A.; Aftab, A.; Whalen, D.J.; Mezcua, M. Radio emission from little red dots may reveal their true nature. Astron. Astrophys. 2025, 694, L14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maiolino, R.; Risaliti, G.; Signorini, M.; Trefoloni, B.; Juodžbalis, I.; Scholtz, J.; Übler, H.; D’Eugenio, F.; Carniani, S.; Fabian, A.; et al. JWST meets Chandra: A large population of Compton thick, feedback-free, and intrinsically X-ray weak AGN, with a sprinkle of SNe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2025, 538, 1921–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, B.; de Graaff, A.; Davies, R.L.; Greene, J.E.; Leja, J.; Brammer, G.B.; Goulding, A.D.; Miller, T.B.; Suess, K.A.; Weibel, A.; et al. RUBIES: JWST/NIRSpec Confirmation of an Infrared-luminous, Broad-line Little Red Dot with an Ionized Outflow. Astrophys. J. 2025, 984, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kokorev, V.; Caputi, K.I.; Greene, J.E.; Dayal, P.; Trebitsch, M.; Cutler, S.E.; Fujimoto, S.; Labbé, I.; Miller, T.B.; Iani, E.; et al. A Census of Photometrically Selected Little Red Dots at 4 < z < 9 in JWST Blank Fields. Astrophys. J. 2024, 968, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Z.; Jiang, L.; Liu, W.; Ho, L.C.; Inayoshi, K. JWST Insights into Narrow-line Little Red Dots. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2506.04350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pizzati, E.; Hennawi, J.F.; Schaye, J.; Eilers, A.C.; Huang, J.; Schindler, J.T.; Wang, F. ’Little red dots’ cannot reside in the same dark matter haloes as comparably luminous unobscured quasars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2025, 539, 2910–2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Casey, C.M.; Akins, H.B.; Kokorev, V.; McKinney, J.; Cooper, O.R.; Long, A.S.; Franco, M.; Manning, S.M. Dust in Little Red Dots. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2024, 975, L4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kokubo, M.; Harikane, Y. Challenging the AGN scenario for JWST/NIRSpec broad Hα emitters/Little Red Dots in light of non-detection of NIRCam photometric variability and X-ray. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.04777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de las Mercedes Carranza Escudero, M.; Conselice, C.J.; Adams, N.; Harvey, T.; Austin, D.; Behroozi, P.; Ferreira, L.; Ormerod, K.; Duan, Q.; Trussler, J.; et al. Lonely Little Red Dots: Challenges to the AGN-nature of little red dots through their clustering and spectral energy distributions. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2506.04004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bellovary, J. Little Red Dots Are Tidal Disruption Events in Runaway-collapsing Clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2025, 984, L55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wevers, T.; van Velzen, S.; Jonker, P.G.; Stone, N.C.; Hung, T.; Onori, F.; Gezari, S.; Blagorodnova, N. Black hole masses of tidal disruption event host galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017, 471, 1694–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ryu, T.; Krolik, J.; Piran, T. Measuring Stellar and Black Hole Masses of Tidal Disruption Events. Astrophys. J. 2020, 904, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goldtooth, A.; Zabludoff, A.I.; Wen, S.; Jonker, P.G.; Stone, N.C.; Cao, Z. A Census of Archival X-Ray Spectra for Modeling Tidal Disruption Events. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2023, 135, 034101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alexander, K.D.; van Velzen, S.; Horesh, A.; Zauderer, B.A. Radio Properties of Tidal Disruption Events. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Goodwin, A.J.; Burn, M.; Anderson, G.E.; Miller-Jones, J.C.A.; Grotova, I.; Baldini, P.; Liu, Z.; Malyali, A.; Rau, A.; Salvato, M. A Systematic Analysis of the Radio Properties of 22 X-Ray-selected Tidal Disruption Event Candidates with the Australia Telescope Compact Array. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2025, 278, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Anumarlapudi, A.; Dobie, D.; Kaplan, D.L.; Murphy, T.; Horesh, A.; Lenc, E.; Driessen, L.; Duchesne, S.W.; Dykaar, H.; Gaensler, B.M.; et al. Radio Afterglows from Tidal Disruption Events: An Unbiased Sample from ASKAP RACS. Astrophys. J. 2024, 974, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cendes, Y.; Berger, E.; Alexander, K.D.; Chornock, R.; Margutti, R.; Metzger, B.; Wieringa, M.H.; Bietenholz, M.F.; Hajela, A.; Laskar, T.; et al. Ubiquitous Late Radio Emission from Tidal Disruption Events. Astrophys. J. 2024, 971, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Horesh, A.; Sfaradi, I.; Fender, R.; Green, D.A.; Williams, D.R.A.; Bright, J.S. Are Delayed Radio Flares Common in Tidal Disruption Events? The Case of the TDE iPTF 16fnl. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 920, L5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Burrows, D.N.; Kennea, J.A.; Ghisellini, G.; Mangano, V.; Zhang, B.; Page, K.L.; Eracleous, M.; Romano, P.; Sakamoto, T.; Falcone, A.D.; et al. Relativistic jet activity from the tidal disruption of a star by a massive black hole. Nature 2011, 476, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. van Velzen, S.; Mendez, A.J.; Krolik, J.H.; Gorjian, V. Discovery of Transient Infrared Emission from Dust Heated by Stellar Tidal Disruption Flares. Astrophys. J. 2016, 829, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alexander, K.D.; Berger, E.; Guillochon, J.; Zauderer, B.A.; Williams, P.K.G. Discovery of an Outflow from Radio Observations of the Tidal Disruption Event ASASSN-14li. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2016, 819, L25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Goodwin, A.J.; Alexander, K.D.; Miller-Jones, J.C.A.; Bietenholz, M.F.; van Velzen, S.; Anderson, G.E.; Berger, E.; Cendes, Y.; Chornock, R.; Coppejans, D.L.; et al. A radio-emitting outflow produced by the tidal disruption event AT2020vwl. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 522, 5084–5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pasham, D.R.; van Velzen, S. Discovery of a Time Lag between the Soft X-Ray and Radio Emission of the Tidal Disruption Flare ASASSN-14li: Evidence for Linear Disk-Jet Coupling. Astrophys. J. 2018, 856, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sfaradi, I.; Horesh, A.; Fender, R.; Green, D.A.; Williams, D.R.A.; Bright, J.; Schulze, S. A Late-time Radio Flare Following a Possible Transition in Accretion State in the Tidal Disruption Event AT 2019azh. Astrophys. J. 2022, 933, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Krolik, J.; Piran, T.; Svirski, G.; Cheng, R.M. ASASSN-14li: A Model Tidal Disruption Event. Astrophys. J. 2016, 827, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yalinewich, A.; Steinberg, E.; Piran, T.; Krolik, J.H. Radio emission from the unbound debris of tidal disruption events. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 487, 4083–4092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mattila, S.; Pérez-Torres, M.; Efstathiou, A.; Mimica, P.; Fraser, M.; Kankare, E.; Alberdi, A.; Aloy, M.Á.; Heikkilä, T.; Jonker, P.G.; et al. A dust-enshrouded tidal disruption event with a resolved radio jet in a galaxy merger. Science 2018, 361, 482–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ravi, V.; Dykaar, H.; Codd, J.; Zaccagnini, G.; Dong, D.; Drout, M.R.; Gaensler, B.M.; Hallinan, G.; Law, C. FIRST J153350.8+272729: The Radio Afterglow of a Decades-old Tidal Disruption Event. Astrophys. J. 2022, 925, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Blagorodnova, N.; Gezari, S.; Hung, T.; Kulkarni, S.R.; Cenko, S.B.; Pasham, D.R.; Yan, L.; Arcavi, I.; Ben-Ami, S.; Bue, B.D.; et al. iPTF16fnl: A Faint and Fast Tidal Disruption Event in an E+A Galaxy. Astrophys. J. 2017, 844, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gezari, S. Tidal Disruption Events. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 59, 21–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saxton, R.; Komossa, S.; Auchettl, K.; Jonker, P.G. X-Ray Properties of TDEs. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. van Velzen, S.; Holoien, T.W.S.; Onori, F.; Hung, T.; Arcavi, I. Optical-Ultraviolet Tidal Disruption Events. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gezari, S.; Heckman, T.; Cenko, S.B.; Eracleous, M.; Forster, K.; Gonçalves, T.S.; Martin, D.C.; Morrissey, P.; Neff, S.G.; Seibert, M.; et al. Luminous Thermal Flares from Quiescent Supermassive Black Holes. Astrophys. J. 2009, 698, 1367–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, G.C.; Levan, A.J.; Stanway, E.R.; Tanvir, N.R.; Cenko, S.B.; Berger, E.; Chornock, R.; Cucchiaria, A. Swift J1112.2-8238: A candidate relativistic tidal disruption flare. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2015, 452, 4297–4306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stone, N.C.; Metzger, B.D. Rates of stellar tidal disruption as probes of the supermassive black hole mass function. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 455, 859–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. van Velzen, S. On the Mass and Luminosity Functions of Tidal Disruption Flares: Rate Suppression due to Black Hole Event Horizons. Astrophys. J. 2018, 852, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gordon, Y.A.; Boyce, M.M.; O’Dea, C.P.; Rudnick, L.; Andernach, H.; Vantyghem, A.N.; Baum, S.A.; Bui, J.P.; Dionyssiou, M. A Catalog of Very Large Array Sky Survey Epoch 1 Quick Look Components, Sources, and Host Identifications. Res. Notes Am. Astron. Soc. 2020, 4, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gordon, Y.A.; Boyce, M.M.; O’Dea, C.P.; Rudnick, L.; Andernach, H.; Vantyghem, A.N.; Baum, S.A.; Bui, J.P.; Dionyssiou, M.; Safi-Harb, S.; et al. A Quick Look at the 3 GHz Radio Sky. I. Source Statistics from the Very Large Array Sky Survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2021, 255, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Horesh, A.; Cenko, S.B.; Arcavi, I. Delayed radio flares from a tidal disruption event. Nat. Astron. 2021, 5, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, Y.; Baldi, R.D.; del Palacio, S.; Guolo, M.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Done, C.; Castro Segura, N.; Pasham, D.R.; Middleton, M.; et al. The radio detection and accretion properties of the peculiar nuclear transient AT 2019avd. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 520, 2417–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dykaar, H.; Drout, M.R.; Gaensler, B.M.; Kaplan, D.L.; Murphy, T.; Horesh, A.; Anumarlapudi, A.; Dobie, D.; Driessen, L.N.; Lenc, E.; et al. An Untargeted Search for Radio-emitting Tidal Disruption Events in the VAST Pilot Survey. Astrophys. J. 2024, 973, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hajela, A.; Alexander, K.D.; Margutti, R.; Chornock, R.; Bietenholz, M.; Christy, C.T.; Stroh, M.; Terreran, G.; Saxton, R.; Komossa, S.; et al. Eight Years of Light from ASASSN-15oi: Toward Understanding the Late-time Evolution of TDEs. Astrophys. J. 2025, 983, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sun, H.; Zhang, B.; Li, Z. Extragalactic High-energy Transients: Event Rate Densities and Luminosity Functions. Astrophys. J. 2015, 812, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ramirez-Ruiz, E.; Rosswog, S. The Star Ingesting Luminosity of Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in Globular Clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2009, 697, L77–L80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bouwens, R.J.; Illingworth, G.D.; Thompson, R.I.; Blakeslee, J.P.; Dickinson, M.E.; Broadhurst, T.J.; Eisenstein, D.J.; Fan, X.; Franx, M.; Meurer, G.; et al. Star Formation at z ~6: The Hubble Ultra Deep Parallel Fields. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2004, 606, L25–L28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Stein, R.; van Velzen, S.; Kowalski, M.; Franckowiak, A.; Gezari, S.; Miller-Jones, J.C.A.; Frederick, S.; Sfaradi, I.; Bietenholz, M.F.; Horesh, A.; et al. A tidal disruption event coincident with a high-energy neutrino. Nat. Astron. 2021, 5, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mohan, P.; An, T.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, J.; Yang, X.; Wang, A. High-resolution VLBI Observations of and Modeling the Radio Emission from the Tidal Disruption Event AT2019dsg. Astrophys. J. 2022, 927, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wilkins, S.M.; Di Matteo, T.; Croft, R.; Khandai, N.; Feng, Y.; Bunker, A.; Coulton, W. Confronting predictions of the galaxy stellar mass function with observations at high redshift. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2013, 429, 2098–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bouwens, R.J.; Illingworth, G.D.; Oesch, P.A.; Trenti, M.; Labbé, I.; Bradley, L.; Carollo, M.; van Dokkum, P.G.; Gonzalez, V.; Holwerda, B.; et al. UV Luminosity Functions at Redshifts z ∼ 4 to z ∼ 10: 10,000 Galaxies from HST Legacy Fields. Astrophys. J. 2015, 803, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bowler, R.A.A.; Jarvis, M.J.; Dunlop, J.S.; McLure, R.J.; McLeod, D.J.; Adams, N.J.; Milvang-Jensen, B.; McCracken, H.J. A lack of evolution in the very bright end of the galaxy luminosity function from z = 8 to 10. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 493, 2059–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maio, U.; Viel, M. JWST high-redshift galaxy constraints on warm and cold dark matter models. Astron. Astrophys. 2023, 672, A71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Byrohl, C.; Nelson, D.; Horowitz, B.; Lee, K.G.; Pillepich, A. Introducing cosmosTNG: Simulating galaxy formation with constrained realizations of the COSMOS field. Astron. Astrophys. 2025, 698, A103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Harvey, T.; Conselice, C.J.; Adams, N.J.; Austin, D.; Juodžbalis, I.; Trussler, J.; Li, Q.; Ormerod, K.; Ferreira, L.; Lovell, C.C.; et al. EPOCHS. IV. SED Modeling Assumptions and Their Impact on the Stellar Mass Function at 6.5 ≤ z ≤ 13.5 Using PEARLS and Public JWST Observations. Astrophys. J. 2025, 978, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rojas-Ruiz, S.; Bagley, M.; Roberts-Borsani, G.; Treu, T.; Finkelstein, S.L.; Morishita, T.; Leethochawalit, N.; Mason, C.; Bañados, E.; Trenti, M.; et al. The BoRG-JWST Survey: Abundance and Mass-to-light Ratio of Luminous z = 7–9 Galaxies from Independent Sight Lines with NIRSpec. Astrophys. J. 2025, 985, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Muru, M.M.; Tempel, E. Using photometric redshift data to improve the detection of galactic filaments with the Bisous model. Astron. Astrophys. 2023, 670, A77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bunker, A.J.; Stanway, E.R.; Ellis, R.S.; McMahon, R.G. The star formation rate of the Universe at z~6 from the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2004, 355, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. McLeod, D.J.; McLure, R.J.; Dunlop, J.S. The z = 9–10 galaxy population in the Hubble Frontier Fields and CLASH surveys: The z = 9 luminosity function and further evidence for a smooth decline in ultraviolet luminosity density at z ≥ 8. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 459, 3812–3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ownsworth, J.R.; Conselice, C.J.; Mundy, C.J.; Mortlock, A.; Hartley, W.G.; Duncan, K.; Almaini, O. The evolution of galaxies at constant number density: A less biased view of star formation, quenching, and structural formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 461, 1112–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Meng, J.; Li, C.; Mo, H.J.; Chen, Y.; Wang, K. Measuring Galaxy Abundance and Clustering at High Redshift from Incomplete Spectroscopic Data: Tests on Mock Catalogs. Astrophys. J. 2024, 964, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Finkelstein, S.L.; Leung, G.C.K.; Bagley, M.B.; Dickinson, M.; Ferguson, H.C.; Papovich, C.; Akins, H.B.; Arrabal Haro, P.; Davé, R.; Dekel, A.; et al. The Complete CEERS Early Universe Galaxy Sample: A Surprisingly Slow Evolution of the Space Density of Bright Galaxies at z ∼ 8.5–14.5. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2024, 969, L2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Franco, M.; Akins, H.B.; Casey, C.M.; Finkelstein, S.L.; Shuntov, M.; Chworowsky, K.; Faisst, A.L.; Fujimoto, S.; Ilbert, O.; Koekemoer, A.M.; et al. Unveiling the Distant Universe: Characterizing z ≥ 9 Galaxies in the First Epoch of COSMOS-Web. Astrophys. J. 2024, 973, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Parameter space allowed by the 3-GHz flux density upper limits [19,20] on LRDs. Possible radio spectral index ( α ) values are shown as a function of redshift (z), while the colour scale indicates the logarithm of specific luminosity ( ν L ν ) values. Contours of peak radio luminosities [35] of the four selected representative TDEs (Table 1) are denoted with dashed and dotted contours for the RL and RQ sources, respectively. The RL/RQ threshold ( ν L ν > 10 40 erg s−1) dividing the radio and thermal TDE populations is shown with a solid line. For comparison, the luminosity [21] of the only LRD detected to date in radio bands (PRIMER-COS 3866) is indicated with a dash-dotted line.
Figure 1. Parameter space allowed by the 3-GHz flux density upper limits [19,20] on LRDs. Possible radio spectral index ( α ) values are shown as a function of redshift (z), while the colour scale indicates the logarithm of specific luminosity ( ν L ν ) values. Contours of peak radio luminosities [35] of the four selected representative TDEs (Table 1) are denoted with dashed and dotted contours for the RL and RQ sources, respectively. The RL/RQ threshold ( ν L ν > 10 40 erg s−1) dividing the radio and thermal TDE populations is shown with a solid line. For comparison, the luminosity [21] of the only LRD detected to date in radio bands (PRIMER-COS 3866) is indicated with a dash-dotted line.
Universe 11 00294 g001
Figure 2. Parameter space allowed by the luminosities of RL and RQ TDEs, Sw J2058.4+05 and XMMSL1 J0740−85, respectively. Possible radio spectral index ( α ) values are shown as a function of redshift (z), while the colour scale indicates the 3-GHz radio flux density (S) values. The upper limits on the radio flux densities found in the stacking studies [19,20] are denoted with dashed and dotted contours, respectively. For comparison, the flux density [21] of the only LRD detected to date in radio bands (PRIMER-COS 3866) is indicated with a dash-dotted line.
Figure 2. Parameter space allowed by the luminosities of RL and RQ TDEs, Sw J2058.4+05 and XMMSL1 J0740−85, respectively. Possible radio spectral index ( α ) values are shown as a function of redshift (z), while the colour scale indicates the 3-GHz radio flux density (S) values. The upper limits on the radio flux densities found in the stacking studies [19,20] are denoted with dashed and dotted contours, respectively. For comparison, the flux density [21] of the only LRD detected to date in radio bands (PRIMER-COS 3866) is indicated with a dash-dotted line.
Universe 11 00294 g002
Figure 3. Volumetric density of galaxies (red), little red dots (black), and tidal disruption event occurrence rates (blue). The solid blue line denotes the redshift dependence of galaxies following the relation of ∼ ( 1 + z ) 2.8 [66] with a scaling factor of 1.2 · 10 2 [76]. Independent volumetric density estimations from the literature are denoted with blue bullet points [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,77,78,79,80,81,82]. For densities given within redshift ranges, mean values were used for the plot. The thick solid red line denotes the rate–redshift relation of TDEs [64], scaled by a factor of 4 · 10 6 Mpc−3 [65]. The dotted, dash-dotted, and dash-dot-dotted lines denote TDE occurrence rates per volumetric density combining the galaxy volumetric relation of ∼ ( 1 + z ) 2.8 [66] and rates of 2 · 10 4 [56], 5 · 10 5 [35], and 3 · 10 10 galaxy−1 yr−1 [55], for all, RQ, and RL TDEs, respectively. Volumetric densities of little red dots [4,6,11] are shown with closed black line segments.
Figure 3. Volumetric density of galaxies (red), little red dots (black), and tidal disruption event occurrence rates (blue). The solid blue line denotes the redshift dependence of galaxies following the relation of ∼ ( 1 + z ) 2.8 [66] with a scaling factor of 1.2 · 10 2 [76]. Independent volumetric density estimations from the literature are denoted with blue bullet points [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,77,78,79,80,81,82]. For densities given within redshift ranges, mean values were used for the plot. The thick solid red line denotes the rate–redshift relation of TDEs [64], scaled by a factor of 4 · 10 6 Mpc−3 [65]. The dotted, dash-dotted, and dash-dot-dotted lines denote TDE occurrence rates per volumetric density combining the galaxy volumetric relation of ∼ ( 1 + z ) 2.8 [66] and rates of 2 · 10 4 [56], 5 · 10 5 [35], and 3 · 10 10 galaxy−1 yr−1 [55], for all, RQ, and RL TDEs, respectively. Volumetric densities of little red dots [4,6,11] are shown with closed black line segments.
Universe 11 00294 g003
Table 1. TDEs selected for comparison from the sample presented by [35].
Table 1. TDEs selected for comparison from the sample presented by [35].
NameTypeRedshiftLuminosity (erg s−1)
XMMSL1 J0740−85RQ0.0173 1 · 10 37
ASASSN-14liRQ0.0206 9 · 10 37
Sw J1112−82RL0.8901 3 · 10 40
Sw J2058+05RL1.1853 8 · 10 41
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perger, K.; Fogasy, J.; Frey, S. What Do Radio Emission Constraints Tell Us About Little Red Dots as Tidal Disruption Events? Universe 2025, 11, 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11090294

AMA Style

Perger K, Fogasy J, Frey S. What Do Radio Emission Constraints Tell Us About Little Red Dots as Tidal Disruption Events? Universe. 2025; 11(9):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11090294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perger, Krisztina, Judit Fogasy, and Sándor Frey. 2025. "What Do Radio Emission Constraints Tell Us About Little Red Dots as Tidal Disruption Events?" Universe 11, no. 9: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11090294

APA Style

Perger, K., Fogasy, J., & Frey, S. (2025). What Do Radio Emission Constraints Tell Us About Little Red Dots as Tidal Disruption Events? Universe, 11(9), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11090294

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop