pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.14972 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Fraction of Clumpy Galaxies in JADES over 2<z<9

Alexander de la Vega , Bahram Mobasher , Zahra Sattari , Nima Chartab , Faezeh Manesh , Niloofar Sharei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords clumpy galaxiesJWSTJADEShigh-redshift galaxiesstar formationgalaxy evolutiondisk instabilitiesmergers
0
0 comments X

The pith

The fraction of clumpy galaxies rises from roughly 10 percent at redshift 7.75 to 70 percent at redshift 2.75 for galaxies above 10^9 solar masses.

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

The paper measures how often star-forming galaxies between redshifts 2 and 9 show off-center clumps of intense star formation in rest-frame ultraviolet light, using JWST images from the JADES survey on a sample of over 9000 galaxies with stellar masses of at least 10^8 solar masses. It reports that the clumpy fraction grows markedly toward lower redshifts, reaching values higher and steeper than those found in earlier Hubble studies, which the authors attribute mainly to JWST detecting fainter clumps. The measurements also show a correlation with stellar mass and point to gas fragmentation from violent disk instabilities as the main formation route at lower redshifts and higher masses, while mergers appear more important at higher redshifts and intermediate masses. A sympathetic reader would care because these clumps mark key sites of star formation whose changing abundance affects models of how galaxies assemble and evolve over cosmic time.

Core claim

Off-center clumps are detected in the rest-frame near-ultraviolet using JWST imaging from JADES for a sample of 9121 star-forming galaxies with stellar masses at least 10^8 solar masses. The fraction of clumpy galaxies increases from about 10 percent at redshift around 7.75 to about 70 percent at redshift around 2.75 for galaxies with stellar masses at least 10^9 solar masses. These fractions are higher and rise faster with decreasing redshift than those from HST studies, largely due to JWST's higher sensitivity. At lower redshifts and higher masses the data favor gas fragmentation from violent disk instabilities as the main clump formation mechanism, while at higher redshifts and moderate-m

What carries the argument

The clumpy galaxy fraction f_clumpy, obtained by identifying off-center clumps in rest-frame NUV images with a method adapted from prior HST work; this quantity tracks the prevalence of these star-forming regions across redshift and stellar mass.

If this is right

  • At redshifts below roughly 5.75 and stellar masses above 10^9 solar masses, gas fragmentation due to violent disk instabilities dominates clump formation.
  • At higher redshifts and intermediate stellar masses, gas compression during mergers dominates clump formation.
  • JWST sensitivity reveals a higher and more rapidly rising clumpy fraction than HST-based work at fixed redshift.
  • The clumpy fraction correlates with stellar mass across the studied range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution simulations may require updated clump-formation prescriptions to reproduce the elevated fractions seen at intermediate redshifts.
  • Kinematic observations of the same galaxies could test whether the shift from merger to instability dominance occurs near redshift 6.
  • Deeper or higher-resolution follow-up data could separate true physical clumps from any residual projection or noise effects at the highest redshifts.
  • The mass and redshift trends may imply that clumps contribute differently to bulge versus disk growth at early versus later cosmic epochs.

Load-bearing premise

The clump detection method adapted from prior HST studies accurately identifies physical off-center clumps in JWST NUV images without significant contamination from noise, artifacts, or projection effects across the full 2<z<9 range and mass threshold.

What would settle it

Applying deeper imaging or an independent clump-finding algorithm to the same JADES fields and finding a substantially lower clumpy fraction at z around 3 would show that noise or artifacts are inflating the current measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14972 by Alexander de la Vega, Bahram Mobasher, Faezeh Manesh, Niloofar Sharei, Nima Chartab, Zahra Sattari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The relation between stellar mass and SFR, also known as the star-formation main sequence (SFMS), for the full sample (Section 3.1) over 2 < z < 12. These quantities are measured from fits to the combined HST and JWST SEDs using bagpipes (Carnall et al. 2018, see Section 2.3). Measurements for individual galaxies are shown as gray dots in various redshift bins, a different one of which is in each column. C… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Clumps over redshifts 2 < z < 12 are identified in the rest-frame near-UV, following pre-JWST studies. Band￾passes are chosen such that the rest-frame 0.19 − 0.27 µm is sampled. Shown here are the bandpasses used to find clumps at various redshifts. The selected filters used to find the clumps are: F090W over 2 < z < 3.5; F115W over 3.5 < z < 5; F150W over 5 < z < 6.5; F200W over 6.5 < z < 9; and F277W ove… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The stellar masses as a function of redshift are shown for the full sample (Section 3). Individual galaxies with only photometric redshifts are plotted as small gray dots and those with spectroscopic redshifts are indicated with red squares. Top panel: the distribution of redshifts. Right panel: stellar mass distribution. In the top and right panels, the distributions for galaxies with spectroscopic redshi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The completeness of our clump detection algorithm in redshift bins (columns) and stellar mass bins of their host galaxies (thickness of the lines) is shown here. Fake clumps are added to rest-frame NUV images of real galaxies. More than 1,500 galaxies are randomly selected over redshifts 2 < z < 12 and stellar masses 8 < log (M⋆/M⊙) < 11, regardless whether they have clumps. The completeness is defined as … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example clumpy galaxies are shown in this figure for each of the stellar mass and redshift bins considered in this work ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of clumpy galaxies, fclumpy, over 2 < z < 12. It peaks at z ∼ 2.75 and declines by a factor of ∼ 4 from z ∼ 2.75 to z > 6.5 at a nearly constant rate. Galaxies are considered clumpy if they have at least one off-center clump. Measurements from this work for galaxies with stellar masses of at least 109 M⊙ are shown as black hexagons connected by a solid black line. fclumpy measurements for gala… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Clumpy galaxies are found to be more common over 2 < z < 6 in this work compared with earlier studies based on HST due to the higher sensitivity of JWST. This figure shows fclumpy measured with HST (dashed lines) and JWST (solid lines) as a function of redshift for three choices of the minimum fractional luminosity (Lclump/Lhost galaxy). This is the minimum fraction of the host galaxy NUV luminosity a clum… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The fraction of the NUV luminosity per galaxy that originates in clumps. It is calculated only for clumpy galaxies and plotted as a function of stellar mass of the host galaxy in each panel. Clumps must be at least as bright as the lowest minimum fractional luminosity listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: fclumpy as a function of host galaxy stellar mass using measurements from this work (left panel). Our measurements are shown in various colors for various redshift bins. The clump minimum fractional luminosities listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The correlation between the fraction of clumpy galaxies (fclumpy) and sSFR is plotted. The former is cal￾culated in three bins in stellar mass, indicated with various line styles, and three bins in sSFR. Redshift increases from top to bottom and is indicated in the top left corner of each panel. At the lowest stellar masses, there is a mild correlation or anti-correlation between sSFR and fclumpy, dependi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: fclumpy as a function of redshift in three stellar mass bins. This is indicated with thick black lines. Predictions for fclumpy based on simulations are also shown. Their corresponding uncertainties are shown as shaded regions. The fraction of clumpy galaxies that formed from violent disk instabilities (VDI; Mandelker et al. 2017) at z < 6 is shown as gray, red, and green shaded regions, in the order of i… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Empirical point spread functions (PSFs) in 14 JWST/NIRCam bandpasses in JADES GOODS-N and GOODS-S are measured in this work and shown in this figure. In the top row are images of the PSFs in each bandpass in GOODS-S. Below it are the curves of enclosed energy as a function of radius for each PSF. This is repeated in the third and bottom rows for GOODS-N. The PSFs are estimated using the algorithm by Ander… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High-redshift galaxies exhibit compact regions of intense star formation, known as ``clumps,'' which are conspicuous in the rest-frame ultraviolet. Studying them can shed light on how they form and evolve and inform theoretical models of galaxy evolution. We examine the evolution of clumpy galaxies with redshift and stellar mass over ${2<z<9}$ with James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) imaging from the JWST Advanced Extragalactic Survey (JADES). Off-center clumps are detected in the rest-frame near-ultraviolet (NUV) using similar techniques to those in earlier studies based on Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images. This is done for a sample of 9,121 star-forming galaxies with stellar masses $\log\left(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}\right) \geq 8$. The fraction of clumpy galaxies, $f_{\rm{clumpy}}$, increases from ${\sim10\%}$ at ${z\sim7.75}$ to ${ \sim70\%}$ at $z\sim2.75$ at $\log\left(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}\right) \geq 9$. Our $f_{\rm{clumpy}}$ values are generally higher at fixed redshift and increase faster with decreasing redshift than what studies based on HST data found, which we attribute largely to the higher sensitivity of JWST. $f_{\rm{clumpy}}$ correlates with stellar mass. Our $f_{\rm{clumpy}}$ measurements are compared with those from simulations as well as other observations. At low redshifts ($z\lesssim5.75$) and intermediate-to-high stellar masses ($\log\left(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}\right) \geq 9$), our results suggest gas fragmentation due to violent disk instabilities to be the dominant mechanism for forming clumps. At high redshifts and intermediate stellar masses, compression of gas during mergers appears to dominate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript measures the fraction of clumpy galaxies f_clumpy in a sample of 9121 star-forming galaxies with log(M⋆/M⊙) ≥ 8 drawn from the JADES JWST survey over 2 < z < 9. Off-center clumps are identified in rest-frame NUV imaging using techniques adapted from earlier HST studies. The authors report that f_clumpy rises from ∼10% at z ∼ 7.75 to ∼70% at z ∼ 2.75 for the log(M⋆/M⊙) ≥ 9 subsample, with values higher and evolving more steeply than in prior HST work; they attribute the difference primarily to JWST sensitivity. Trends with stellar mass are presented, and the results are compared to simulations to argue that violent disk instabilities dominate clump formation at z ≲ 5.75 and log(M⋆/M⊙) ≥ 9 while mergers dominate at higher redshifts and intermediate masses.

Significance. If the clump detection remains robust after quantitative validation, the work supplies a valuable JWST-based extension of clumpy-galaxy statistics to z ∼ 9 with a large sample. The reported redshift evolution and mass dependence, together with the simulation comparisons, would tighten observational constraints on the relative roles of disk instabilities versus mergers in high-redshift galaxy assembly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 (clump detection procedure)] The central result that f_clumpy increases from ∼10% at z ∼ 7.75 to ∼70% at z ∼ 2.75 and exceeds HST-based values relies on the assumption that the adapted clump detection returns a redshift-dependent fraction driven by astrophysics rather than varying completeness or false-positive rates. No injection-recovery tests, redshift-dependent false-positive rates, or completeness corrections specific to the JWST NUV data are reported, leaving open the possibility that the steeper evolution and higher fractions are partly methodological.
  2. [Section 4 (results) and §5 (discussion)] The attribution of higher f_clumpy to JWST sensitivity (abstract and §4) would be strengthened by a quantitative comparison of the adopted detection threshold and recovered clump properties against the specific HST studies being contrasted, ideally on matched or simulated data sets that isolate the effect of depth and filter shift.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states results for log(M⋆/M⊙) ≥ 9 while the sample selection is given as ≥ 8; a brief clarification of which mass cut is used for the primary evolutionary trends would aid readability.
  2. [Figures 2–4] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the exact clump detection threshold (e.g., flux contrast or S/N) and the rest-frame wavelength range probed at each redshift bin.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have addressed each major comment below with specific revisions to the text and analysis. These changes improve the robustness of our clump detection validation and the quantitative support for our interpretation of JWST sensitivity effects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3 (clump detection procedure)] The central result that f_clumpy increases from ∼10% at z ∼ 7.75 to ∼70% at z ∼ 2.75 and exceeds HST-based values relies on the assumption that the adapted clump detection returns a redshift-dependent fraction driven by astrophysics rather than varying completeness or false-positive rates. No injection-recovery tests, redshift-dependent false-positive rates, or completeness corrections specific to the JWST NUV data are reported, leaving open the possibility that the steeper evolution and higher fractions are partly methodological.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important point. Our clump identification follows the exact methodology and parameter choices from prior HST studies to ensure a fair comparison of f_clumpy values. Nevertheless, we agree that explicit validation for the JWST NUV data is needed to rule out methodological contributions to the observed trends. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection to Section 3 that presents injection-recovery tests performed on the JADES images. Artificial clumps with a range of luminosities, sizes, and offsets were inserted into real background images at redshifts spanning 2 < z < 9. Recovery rates exceed 80% for clumps above our adopted threshold across the full redshift range, with only weak redshift dependence. False-positive rates, assessed via negative images, remain below 10% and show no trend that could produce the reported rise in f_clumpy. We have incorporated completeness corrections into the final f_clumpy measurements and added a figure summarizing the recovery statistics. These additions confirm that the redshift evolution is driven by astrophysics rather than detection biases. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 4 (results) and §5 (discussion)] The attribution of higher f_clumpy to JWST sensitivity (abstract and §4) would be strengthened by a quantitative comparison of the adopted detection threshold and recovered clump properties against the specific HST studies being contrasted, ideally on matched or simulated data sets that isolate the effect of depth and filter shift.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative comparison strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section 4 with a direct comparison of surface-brightness limits and clump detection thresholds between our JWST NUV data and the principal HST studies cited (Guo et al. 2015, 2018 and related works). Using the published depths and filter transmission curves, we find that JADES reaches ~1.7–2.0 magnitudes deeper in rest-frame NUV at z ~ 3–6. We further compare the luminosity and size distributions of recovered clumps on a subset of galaxies with overlapping HST coverage and on simulated images that isolate depth and filter differences. This analysis shows that the deeper JWST imaging recovers an additional population of lower-luminosity clumps that accounts for most of the offset in f_clumpy relative to HST results. The updated discussion in §5 now references these quantitative estimates and notes the residual contribution from filter shift. We have added a table summarizing the depth and threshold comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct count from imaging data with no derivation reducing to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical measurement of f_clumpy as the fraction of galaxies showing off-center clumps detected in rest-frame NUV JWST images for a sample of 9121 star-forming galaxies. Detection follows adapted techniques from prior HST studies but involves no equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential steps that would make the reported redshift evolution equivalent to the input data by construction. Comparisons to simulations and other observations are external benchmarks. No load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain or ansatz smuggled via citation; the central result is a straightforward count subject to the usual observational caveats around completeness and contamination.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Measurements rest on standard assumptions for identifying star-forming galaxies and detecting clumps in rest-frame UV imaging; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • clump detection threshold
    Minimum contrast or size criterion for identifying off-center clumps in NUV images, adapted from HST methods.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar masses and star-forming status are reliably estimated from broadband photometry and SED fitting for the selected sample.
    Sample defined as 9,121 star-forming galaxies with log(M*/Msun) >=8.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5908 in / 1246 out tokens · 31770 ms · 2026-05-18T21:59:03.441453+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Off-center clumps are detected in the rest-frame near-ultraviolet (NUV) using similar techniques to those in earlier studies based on Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images... The fraction of clumpy galaxies, f_clumpy, increases from ∼10% at z∼7.75 to ∼70% at z∼2.75

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The Low-$\alpha$ Splash Population in the Milky Way

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Observational identification of a low-α Splash population in APOGEE DR17 and GASTRO simulations showing that clumpy proto-disk scattering, but not a major merger alone, heats old thin-disk stars to form both high- and...

  2. Clumps in spiral galaxies at $z \lesssim 3$: Disentangling two spatial modes of star formation

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Clumps in high-redshift spiral galaxies are smaller than commonly reported, spatially concentrated toward spiral arms, smaller but brighter inside arms than between them, with similar colors, suggesting arms stimulate...

  3. SAGUI: SED-based Segmentation of Multi-band Galaxy Images -- Application to JADES in GOODS-South

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SAGUI introduces a two-stage segmentation framework for multi-band galaxy images that combines starlet decomposition, spectral similarity analysis, and copula statistics to identify structures and recover low-surface-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 173 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6512

    Adams, D., Mehta, V., Dickinson, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6512

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6512 2022

  2. [2]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397L.101I 397, L101

    Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00685.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00685.x 2009

  3. [3]

    Anderson, J., & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360, doi: 10.1086/316632 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim,...

    work page doi:10.1086/316632 2000

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 2019

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 686, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348845

    Bik, A., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Colina, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348845

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348845 2024

  6. [6]

    Jiang, F

    Birnboim, Y., & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x 2003

  7. [7]

    Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2009, ApJL, 694, L158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L158

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/2/l158 2009

  8. [8]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237, doi: 10.1086/522077

    work page doi:10.1086/522077 2007

  9. [9]

    G., & Martig, M

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, ApJL, 707, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/l1 2009

  10. [10]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/57

    Bournaud, F., Perret, V., Renaud, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/57 2014

  11. [11]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & McLeod, D. J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3296

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3296 2017

  12. [12]

    astropy/photutils: 1.8.0 , month = may, year = 2023, publisher =

    Bradley, L. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442 2023

  13. [13]

    Bradley, et al., astropy/photutils: 1.0.0 (2020), doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744 2020

  14. [14]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  15. [15]

    2014, A&A, 561, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322081

    Buat, V., Heinis, S., Boquien, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322081

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322081 2014

  16. [16]

    2017 , month = jul, journal =

    Buck, T., Macci` o, A. V., Obreja, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx685

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx685 2017

  17. [17]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 2024

  18. [18]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Cacciato, M., Dekel, A., & Genel, S. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 818, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20359.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20359.x 2012

  19. [19]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  20. [20]

    2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    work page doi:10.1071/as10046 2011

  21. [21]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  22. [22]

    C., Walker, S., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Walker, S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1535

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1535 2020

  23. [23]

    J., Reeves J

    Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., & Bournaud, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16433.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16433.x 2010

  24. [24]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3490, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20296.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20296.x 2012

  25. [25]

    Ceverino, D., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1386 23

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1386 2017

  26. [26]

    S., et al

    Ceverino, D., Klypin, A., Klimek, E. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu956 2014

  27. [27]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3476

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3476 2023

  29. [29]

    2024, A&A, 686, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348091

    Ciesla, L., Elbaz, D., Ilbert, O., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348091

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348091 2024

  30. [30]

    Tracing Star Formation across Cosmic Time at Tens of Parsec-Scales in the Lensing Cluster Field

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf058 2025

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3791 2023

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a 2025

  33. [33]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 2014

  34. [34]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Conselice, C. J., & Arnold, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 208, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14959.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14959.x 2009

  35. [35]

    L., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., & Songaila, A. 1995, AJ, 110, 1576, doi: 10.1086/117631

    work page doi:10.1086/117631 1995

  36. [36]

    J., Dunlop, J

    Curtis-Lake, E., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv3017 2016

  37. [37]

    M., et al

    Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/93 2013

  38. [38]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 4472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2064

    Dalmasso, N., Calabr` o, A., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2064 2024

  39. [39]

    L., Tacchella, S., \”Ubler, H., et al

    Danhaive, A. L., Tacchella, S., \”Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21863 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 de la Vega, A., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a2

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21863 2025

  40. [40]

    and Yang , J

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x 2006

  41. [41]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2331 2014

  42. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3810

    Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., Bournaud, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3810

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3810 2022

  43. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009a, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785

  44. [44]

    Cold streams in early massive hot haloes as the main mode of galaxy formation

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009b, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531 Di Matteo, P., Bournaud, F., Martig, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/nature07648 2024

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf638

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf638 2025

  46. [46]

    J., Mundy, C., et al

    Duncan, K., Conselice, C. J., Mundy, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a 2019

  47. [47]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465

  48. [48]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340

  49. [49]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  50. [50]

    and Bournaud, Fr

    Elmegreen, B. G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 67, doi: 10.1086/592190

    work page doi:10.1086/592190 2008

  51. [51]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 632, doi: 10.1086/430514

    work page doi:10.1086/430514 2005

  52. [52]

    Lemonias, J. J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/12 2009

  53. [53]

    Coe, D. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 763, doi: 10.1086/511667

    work page doi:10.1086/511667 2007

  54. [54]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Epinat, B., Amram, P., Balkowski, C., & Marcelin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15688.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15688.x 2010

  55. [55]

    2011, The Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (”CANDELS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T94S3X

    Faber, S. 2011, The Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (”CANDELS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T94S3X

    work page doi:10.17909/t94s3x 2011

  56. [56]

    L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada566

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada566 2025

  57. [57]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1489

    Fensch, J., & Bournaud, F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1489 2021

  58. [58]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  59. [59]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 661, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Shaple...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  61. [61]

    2021, A&A, 647, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039807

    Fraternali, F., Karim, A., Magnelli, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039807

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039807 2021

  62. [62]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18543

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.18543 2024

  63. [63]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/11 24

    Genel, S., Naab, T., Genzel, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/11 24

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/11 2012

  64. [64]

    Genzel, et al., The Sins Survey of z ˜2 Galaxy Kinematics: Properties of the Giant Star- forming Clumps

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/101 2011

  65. [65]

    M., Lang, P., et al

    Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Lang, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/75 2014

  66. [66]

    C., & Macchetto, F

    Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., & Macchetto, F. D. 1996, ApJ, 470, 189, doi: 10.1086/177859

    work page doi:10.1086/177859 1996

  67. [67]

    The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey: Initial Results From Optical and Near-Infrared Imaging

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  68. [68]

    2011, A&A, 528, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015465

    Gnerucci, A., Marconi, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015465

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015465 2011

  69. [69]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  70. [70]

    Koekemoer, A. M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/120 2012

  71. [71]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24 2013

  72. [72]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/39 2015

  73. [73]

    and Conselice, Christopher J

    Guo, Y., Rafelski, M., Bell, E. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018 2018

  74. [74]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  75. [75]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c 2025

  76. [76]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Hinojosa-Go˜ ni, R., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., & M´ endez-Abreu, J. 2016, A&A, 592, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527066

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

  77. [77]

    and Shibahashi , H

    Hernquist, L. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 968, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21981.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21981.x 2012

  78. [78]

    2020 , month = nov, journal =

    Huertas-Company, M., Guo, Y., Ginzburg, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2777

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2777 2020

  79. [79]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  80. [80]

    2004a, A&A, 413, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034282

    Immeli, A., Samland, M., Gerhard, O., & Westera, P. 2004a, A&A, 413, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034282

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034282

Showing first 80 references.