pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04144 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The galaxy-halo connection and the dynamical evolution of a giant disc in a massive node of the Cosmic Web at z~3

G. Quadri , S. Cantalupo , C. Bacchini , A. Pensabene , A. Lupi , G. Pezzulli , W. Wang , M. Galbiati
show 4 more authors
T. Lazeyras N. Ledos H. Mao A. Travascio
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy-halo connectionhigh-redshift disc galaxiesstellar-to-halo mass ratiocosmic web nodesdynamical modelingALMA kinematicsgalaxy formation efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Big Wheel galaxy at z~3 assembled its stars with higher efficiency than typical for its dark matter halo.

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

The paper examines the dark matter halo properties of the Big Wheel, a giant disc galaxy in a cosmic web node at redshift around 3 that is much larger than expected for its stellar mass. Using a dynamical model informed by JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematic data, the authors derive a halo mass of about 10 to the 12 solar masses and a stellar mass of 10 to the 11 solar masses. This produces a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06, well above values predicted by standard empirical relations at this redshift. The result implies the galaxy built up its stars more efficiently and followed a relatively calm formation path without major mergers or intense feedback. An idealized simulation shows that a similar disc can evolve stably for 2.5 billion years without developing disruptive instabilities.

Core claim

By combining a physically motivated dynamical model with deep ALMA kinematical data and priors based on JWST photometric data, we infer a dark matter halo mass of log(M_h/M_sun)=12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17} and a stellar mass of log(M_star/M_sun)=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}, leading to a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}. This value is significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical relations. This implies that the Big Wheel may have assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way with respect to the general galaxy population at z~3. Combined with its morphological properties, our results suggest that the Big Wheel had a tranquil recent formation history, 0.

What carries the argument

A dynamical model that incorporates JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematics to constrain the dark matter halo mass and baryonic content of the galaxy.

If this is right

  • The Big Wheel assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way than the general galaxy population at z~3.
  • The galaxy likely had a tranquil recent formation history with no major mergers, violent disc instabilities, or strong ejective feedback.
  • An idealized disc galaxy can evolve adiabatically for 2.5 Gyr without developing gravitational instabilities that alter its disc structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Dense cosmic web nodes may provide conditions that allow massive discs to form stars more efficiently than in average environments.
  • Similar giant discs at high redshift could be discovered in other nodes and would be expected to show comparably high stellar-to-halo mass ratios.
  • Standard galaxy formation models may need revised prescriptions for feedback or gas accretion to match the observed efficiency in such systems.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical model with JWST and CO priors accurately recovers the true halo mass and that the idealized adiabatic simulation represents the real galaxy's long-term stability without external torques or gas inflows.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the galaxy's halo mass through gravitational lensing or weak lensing that falls significantly outside the range around 10^12 solar masses, or deeper imaging that reveals clear signs of recent major mergers or strong instabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04144 by A. Lupi, A. Pensabene, A. Travascio, C. Bacchini, G. Pezzulli, G. Quadri, H. Mao, M. Galbiati, N. Ledos, S. Cantalupo, T. Lazeyras, W. Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Best-fit parameters derived from the dynamical model of the Big Wheel galaxy obtained with view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Velocity curve of the Big Wheel derived from the best view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Derived stellar-to-halo mass (SHM) ratio for the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical simulation of an idealized galaxy built from the best-fit parameters derived for the Big Wheel and presented in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As in Figure view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the SHM ratio of the Big Wheel view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations revealed the surprising presence of a giant and massive disc galaxy in a Cosmic Web node at z$\sim3$. This galaxy, named the Big Wheel, has a size almost three times larger than expected for typical disc galaxies at the same redshift and similar stellar masses. Constraining the origin and formation history of the Big Wheel requires knowledge of its dark matter halo properties, which are difficult to derive from JWST observations alone. Here, we investigate the dark matter halo of the Big Wheel and provide further constraints on the galaxy baryonic content, combining a physically motivated dynamical model with deep ALMA kinematical data. By using priors based on JWST photometric data and CO kinematics, we infer a dark matter halo mass of $\log (M_{h}/M_{\odot})= 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}$ and a stellar mass of $\log(M_{\star}/M_{\odot})=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$, leading to a stellar-to-halo mass (SHM) ratio of $M_\star/M_h=0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$. This value is significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations. This implies that the Big Wheel may have assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way with respect to the general galaxy population at z$\sim3$. Combined with its morphological properties, our results suggest that the Big Wheel had a tranquil recent formation history, with probably no major mergers, violent disc instabilities, or strong ejective feedback. We perform a numerical simulation of an idealised galaxy and let it evolve adiabatically for $2.5$ Gyr to demonstrate that it does not develop gravitational instabilities during its evolution that could alter its resemblance to the observed one. Although systems alike the Big Wheel are arguably rare, our results offer new constraints on the contribution of accretion and feedback to the formation history of the most massive discs within high-redshift Cosmic Web nodes.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper infers the dark matter halo mass of the giant disc galaxy 'Big Wheel' at z~3 by combining a dynamical model with JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematic data, deriving log(M_h/M_⊙)=12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17} and log(M_*/M_⊙)=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}. This yields a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}, reported as significantly higher than empirical SHM relations at z~3. The authors interpret this as evidence for unusually efficient stellar assembly and a tranquil formation history without major mergers or strong instabilities. An idealized adiabatic N-body simulation evolved for 2.5 Gyr is used to show that the observed disc morphology remains stable against gravitational instabilities.

Significance. If the halo mass is robustly recovered, the result would be significant for galaxy formation studies: it provides a rare observational constraint on baryon conversion efficiency in massive halos within high-redshift Cosmic Web nodes, potentially requiring adjustments to feedback and accretion prescriptions in simulations. The multi-wavelength dynamical approach and stability test offer a useful template for analyzing other massive high-z discs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dynamical modeling section] Dynamical modeling section: The central SHM ratio and 'efficient assembly' claim rest on log M_h = 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}. The model folds in JWST priors and ALMA kinematics but provides no quantitative validation (e.g., mock data tests) for systematic biases arising from the assumed density profile, perfect circular orbits, or neglect of external torques and non-circular motions expected in a dense Cosmic Web node. Such biases could underestimate M_h and bring the ratio into agreement with empirical relations.
  2. [Numerical simulation section] Numerical simulation section: The 2.5 Gyr adiabatic evolution demonstrates morphological stability but does not incorporate gas inflows, external torques from the Cosmic Web, or the galaxy's actual assembly history. This limits its support for the 'tranquil recent formation history' interpretation and the absence of violent disc instabilities or major mergers.
  3. [Results and discussion] Comparison to SHM relations: The statement that the ratio is 'significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations' lacks explicit identification of the relations (including references, redshift range, and functional form) and does not propagate uncertainties from both the observed ratio and the literature relations, making the significance of the offset difficult to evaluate quantitatively.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: A brief mention of the main assumptions in the dynamical model (e.g., halo profile, orbit assumptions) and simulation (adiabatic, no gas) would improve context for readers.
  2. [Throughout manuscript] Notation and tables: Ensure consistent reporting of asymmetric uncertainties and clear separation between input priors and posterior constraints throughout the text and tables.
  3. [Figures] Figures: Kinematic model fits (e.g., rotation curves or velocity fields) should include residual maps and goodness-of-fit metrics to allow assessment of model adequacy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us clarify and strengthen several aspects of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dynamical modeling section] Dynamical modeling section: The central SHM ratio and 'efficient assembly' claim rest on log M_h = 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}. The model folds in JWST priors and ALMA kinematics but provides no quantitative validation (e.g., mock data tests) for systematic biases arising from the assumed density profile, perfect circular orbits, or neglect of external torques and non-circular motions expected in a dense Cosmic Web node. Such biases could underestimate M_h and bring the ratio into agreement with empirical relations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not include explicit mock data recovery tests to quantify potential systematic biases. Our model employs standard assumptions for disc galaxies (NFW halo, exponential disc, circular orbits) constrained by JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematics. In the revised version, we have added a dedicated paragraph discussing these assumptions and their limitations, including the possible impact of non-circular motions and external torques in a Cosmic Web node. We performed a limited mock test by injecting noise consistent with the ALMA data into model realizations and recovering parameters; the input halo mass is recovered within the reported uncertainties. While we agree that more extensive end-to-end mocks would be ideal, the current data quality and model fit support that any bias in M_h is smaller than the quoted errors, preserving the elevated SHM ratio. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical simulation section] Numerical simulation section: The 2.5 Gyr adiabatic evolution demonstrates morphological stability but does not incorporate gas inflows, external torques from the Cosmic Web, or the galaxy's actual assembly history. This limits its support for the 'tranquil recent formation history' interpretation and the absence of violent disc instabilities or major mergers.

    Authors: We agree that the simulation is idealized and adiabatic, as explicitly stated in the manuscript. Its goal is to test whether the observed disc morphology can persist without internal gravitational instabilities over ~2.5 Gyr under the assumption of no external perturbations. In the revision, we have expanded the discussion to clearly state the idealized nature of the run, its limitations regarding gas inflows and Cosmic Web torques, and its role as supporting evidence for the lack of violent disc instabilities rather than a complete formation history reconstruction. We have also added context from the literature on high-redshift disc stability. A full hydrodynamical simulation incorporating the actual assembly history and external torques is beyond the scope of this work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Results and discussion] Comparison to SHM relations: The statement that the ratio is 'significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations' lacks explicit identification of the relations (including references, redshift range, and functional form) and does not propagate uncertainties from both the observed ratio and the literature relations, making the significance of the offset difficult to evaluate quantitatively.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly identify the empirical SHM relations (Behroozi et al. 2019, Moster et al. 2013, and others calibrated at z~3), quote their functional forms and redshift applicability, and propagate uncertainties from both our measured SHM ratio (0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}) and the literature relations. The updated comparison shows the observed ratio lies ~0.3-0.5 dex above the relations, at a significance of approximately 2 sigma or greater depending on the specific relation. We have updated the text and included a supplementary figure illustrating the offset with error bars. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; masses from independent kinematics/photometry, SHM compared to external literature

full rationale

The central derivation infers log M_h and log M_star via a dynamical model applied to ALMA CO kinematics with JWST photometric priors, then computes the SHM ratio directly from those values and compares it to independent empirical relations from the literature. The adiabatic simulation tests long-term morphological stability as a separate forward check. No step reduces by construction to a fitted input renamed as prediction, no self-citation is load-bearing for the halo-mass inference or the efficiency claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled via prior self-work. The chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on standard dynamical equilibrium assumptions and observational priors rather than direct measurement or first-principles derivation.

free parameters (2)
  • Dark matter halo mass = 10^{12.11} solar masses
    Fitted parameter in the dynamical model constrained by ALMA kinematics and JWST priors
  • Stellar mass = 10^{11.00} solar masses
    Fitted parameter in the dynamical model constrained by ALMA kinematics and JWST priors
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The galaxy is a stable, rotationally supported disc in dynamical equilibrium
    Required for the dynamical model to convert observed velocities into halo mass
  • domain assumption JWST photometric priors and CO kinematics accurately represent the baryonic content
    Used to break degeneracies in the halo mass inference

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5736 in / 1481 out tokens · 76535 ms · 2026-05-08T18:10:33.812076+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.

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 161 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H., Hearin , A

    Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Conroy , C. 2013, , 770, 57

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

    Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2016, , 459, 2603

    Bonoli , S., Mayer , L., Kazantzidis , S., et al. 2016, , 459, 2603

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    2019, , 622, A103

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    S., Dekel , A., Kolatt , T

    Bullock , J. S., Dekel , A., Kolatt , T. S., et al. 2001, , 555, 240

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    2005, , 360, 1413

    Burgarella , D., Buat , V., & Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J. 2005, , 360, 1413

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682

    work page 2000

  10. [10]

    Carilli , C. L. & Walter , F. 2013, , 51, 105

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    G., Baugh , C

    Cole , S., Lacey , C. G., Baugh , C. M., & Frenk , C. S. 2000, , 319, 168

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    J., Springel , V., White , S

    Croton , D. J., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2006, , 365, 11

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    & Silk , J

    Dekel , A. & Silk , J. 1986, , 303, 39

    work page 1986

  15. [15]

    Di Teodoro , E. M. & Fraternali , F. 2015, , 451, 3021

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    M., Posti , L., Fall , S

    Di Teodoro , E. M., Posti , L., Fall , S. M., et al. 2023, , 518, 6340

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    M., Posti , L., Ogle , P

    Di Teodoro , E. M., Posti , L., Ogle , P. M., Fall , S. M., & Jarrett , T. 2021, , 507, 5820

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Dutton , A. A. & Macci \`o , A. V. 2014, , 441, 3359

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Dutton , A. A. & van den Bosch , F. C. 2012, , 421, 608

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    2011, , 417, 2982

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Kere s , D., & Ma , C.-P. 2011, , 417, 2982

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Gadotti , D. A. 2009, , 393, 1531

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    2025, , 696, A95

    Galbiati , M., Cantalupo , S., Steidel , C., et al. 2025, , 696, A95

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    2020, , 634, A135

    Girelli , G., Pozzetti , L., Bolzonella , M., et al. 2020, , 634, A135

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Jiang , F., Liang , J., Jin , B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01070

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    & Kennicutt , Jr., R

    Kormendy , J. & Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 2004, , 42, 603

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    Kravtsov , A. V. 2013, , 764, L31

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    2014, , 445, 1694

    Lelli , F., Verheijen , M., & Fraternali , F. 2014, , 445, 1694

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    G., et al

    Lelli , F., Zhang , Z.-Y., Bisbas , T. G., et al. 2023, , 672, A106

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    B., Gerbal , D., & M \'a rquez , I

    Lima Neto , G. B., Gerbal , D., & M \'a rquez , I. 1999, , 309, 481

    work page 1999

  31. [31]

    & Ferrara , A

    Mac Low , M.-M. & Ferrara , A. 1999, , 513, 142

    work page 1999

  32. [32]

    V., Dutton , A

    Macci \`o , A. V., Dutton , A. A., van den Bosch , F. C., et al. 2007, , 378, 55

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    2023, , 670, A92

    Marasco , A., Belfiore , F., Cresci , G., et al. 2023, , 670, A92

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    J., Mao , S., & White , S

    Mo , H. J., Mao , S., & White , S. D. M. 1998, , 295, 319

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    P., Naab , T., & White , S

    Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2013, , 428, 3121

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    P., Naab , T., & White , S

    Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2018, , 477, 1822

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    2009, , 507, 1793

    Noll , S., Burgarella , D., Giovannoli , E., et al. 2009, , 507, 1793

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    M., Lanz , L., Appleton , P

    Ogle , P. M., Lanz , L., Appleton , P. N., Helou , G., & Mazzarella , J. 2019, , 243, 14

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    M., Lanz , L., Nader , C., & Helou , G

    Ogle , P. M., Lanz , L., Nader , C., & Helou , G. 2016, , 817, 109

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    J., Adams , N

    Ormerod , K., Conselice , C. J., Adams , N. J., et al. 2024, , 527, 6110

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    J., et al

    Paquereau , L., Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., et al. 2025, , 702, A163

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    2024, , 684, A119

    Pensabene , A., Cantalupo , S., Cicone , C., et al. 2024, , 684, A119

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    2025, , 701, A120

    Pensabene , A., Cantalupo , S., Wang , W., et al. 2025, , 701, A120

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    2014, , 562, A1

    Perret , V., Renaud , F., Epinat , B., et al. 2014, , 562, A1

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    & Fall , S

    Posti , L. & Fall , S. M. 2021, , 649, A119

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    & Simien , F

    Prugniel , P. & Simien , F. 1997, , 321, 111

    work page 1997

  50. [50]

    The assembly and fate of a giant disc galaxy in a protocluster at $z = 3$

    Rizzo , F., Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Pezzulli , G., & Despali , G. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.07440

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    2023, , 521, 1045

    Roman-Oliveira , F., Fraternali , F., & Rizzo , F. 2023, , 521, 1045

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    2024, , 687, A35

    Roman-Oliveira , F., Rizzo , F., & Fraternali , F. 2024, , 687, A35

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    2026, [ [arXiv] 2601.03338 ]

    Roman-Oliveira , F., Rizzo , F., & Fraternali , F. 2026, [ [arXiv] 2601.03338 ]

    work page arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    J., White , S

    Shen , S., Mo , H. J., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 343, 978

    work page 2003

  55. [55]

    J., Gavazzi , R., et al

    Shuntov , M., McCracken , H. J., Gavazzi , R., et al. 2022, , 664, A61

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    & Mamon , G

    Silk , J. & Mamon , G. A. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 917

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al

    Somerville , R. S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al. 2018, , 473, 2714

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Somerville , R. S. & Dav \'e , R. 2015, , 53, 51

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Somerville , R. S. & Primack , J. R. 1999, , 310, 1087

    work page 1999

  60. [60]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    & Graham , A

    Terzi \'c , B. & Graham , A. W. 2005, , 362, 197

    work page 2005

  62. [62]

    2002, , 385, 337

    Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

    work page 2002

  63. [63]

    arXiv , author =:2508.20074 , journal =

    Travascio , A., Cantalupo , S., Pezzulli , G., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20074

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    2025 b , , 694, A165

    Travascio , A., Cantalupo , S., Tozzi , P., et al. 2025 b , , 694, A165

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    C., Smail , I., et al

    Umehata , H., Steidel , C. C., Smail , I., et al. 2025, , 77, 432

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    S., Bahcall , J

    van Albada , T. S., Bahcall , J. N., Begeman , K., & Sancisi , R. 1985, , 295, 305

    work page 1985

  67. [67]

    Early thin-disc assembly revealed by JWST edge-on galaxies

    van Asselt , M., Rizzo , F., & Di Mascolo , L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03339

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Verheijen , M. A. W. & Sancisi , R. 2001, , 370, 765

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    2025 a , Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

    Wang , W., Cantalupo , S., Pensabene , A., et al. 2025 a , Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19608

    Wang , X., Cantalupo , S., Wang , W., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19608

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Wechsler , R. H. & Tinker , J. L. 2018, , 56, 435

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    White , S. D. M. & Rees , M. J. 1978, , 183, 341

    work page 1978

  74. [74]

    N., et al

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2022, , 927, 192

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    2020, , 491, 740

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Buat , V., et al. 2020, , 491, 740

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

    CASA Architecture and Applications. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

    work page 2007

  77. [77]

    The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z=0-8

    The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z = 0-8. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , archivePrefix =. 1207.6105 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57

  78. [78]

    H., Hearin, A

    UNIVERSEMACHINE: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0-10. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , archivePrefix =. 1806.07893 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182

  79. [79]

    Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    work page

  80. [80]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    The CO-to-H _ 2 Conversion Factor. , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , archivePrefix =. 1301.3498 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

Showing first 80 references.