pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30436 · v1 · pith:YGL2DEUNnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

JWST Predictions for z > 10 Galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations -- I: Photometry and Sizes

Samantha E Hardin , John H Wise , Emily K Troutman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesJWST observationsgalaxy simulationsstellar massesstar formation ratesgalaxy sizesphotometryz greater than 10
0
0 comments X

The pith

Renaissance Simulations reproduce JWST z>10 galaxy trends at lower stellar masses.

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

The paper compares galaxies formed in the Renaissance Simulations to the first JWST discoveries at redshifts above 10. Simulated galaxies span stellar masses from roughly 10^3 to 10^8 solar masses and star formation rates from 10^{-4} to 10 solar masses per year, overlapping the lower end of JWST values while extending to fainter systems. The simulated objects remain compact, with most half-light radii between 1 and 10 parsecs and half-mass radii near 0.1 kiloparsec, and they appear bluer than typical lower-redshift galaxies while connecting smoothly to the observed UV magnitude sequence. This overlap indicates that the simulations capture the formation pathways of the earliest observed galaxies.

Core claim

The Renaissance galaxies provide an accurate representation of the formation history of JWST's z > 10 discoveries and follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses. Stellar masses range from approximately 10^3 to 10^8 solar masses, overlapping JWST galaxies from 10^7 to 10^9 solar masses; star formation rates increase from 10^{-4} to 10 solar masses per year and overlap the lower JWST range of 1-20 solar masses per year; the galaxies are compact with half-light radii mostly 1-10 parsecs and half-stellar-mass radii around 0.1 kiloparsec; Sersic indices lie between 0 and 4; and the galaxies are bluer while transitioning into the absolute UV magnitudes of the JWST mai

What carries the argument

Mock photometry and size measurements generated from the Renaissance Simulations for galaxies at z>10, used to compare stellar mass, SFR, half-light radius, half-mass radius, Sersic index, and UV magnitude distributions against JWST observations.

If this is right

  • The simulations extend the galaxy main sequence to stellar masses three orders of magnitude below current JWST detections.
  • Galaxy morphology shows little change across the simulated mass range, with most objects remaining compact.
  • The simulated color and magnitude trends connect directly to the observed JWST sequence, allowing the runs to fill in the faint end.
  • The agreement makes the simulations a practical tool for predicting properties of still-fainter galaxies at these redshifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the overlap holds, the simulations can be used to forecast the number density and detectability of galaxies below current JWST limits.
  • The compactness prediction offers a clear target for future high-resolution imaging or lensing studies of z>10 systems.
  • Any future discrepancy in size or color distributions would point to specific missing physics such as altered feedback efficiency at early times.

Load-bearing premise

The Renaissance Simulations correctly capture the dominant physical processes of star formation, feedback, metal enrichment, and cosmology that govern galaxy formation at z>10 without major missing ingredients or resolution limits that would change the reported overlaps.

What would settle it

Discovery of a large population of z>10 galaxies whose half-light radii lie systematically outside the 1-10 parsec range or whose stellar masses and SFRs fall well below the simulated lower bounds would falsify the claimed overlap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30436 by Emily K Troutman, John H Wise, Samantha E Hardin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The number of galaxies binned by stellar masses in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right, respectively. 2.5. JWST z > 10 galaxy properties In this paper, we compare the Renaissance galaxies to spectroscopically confirmed JWST galaxies with z > 10. We compile the physical properties of these JWST galaxies from several papers into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Pop II SFRs over 10 Myr of the galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respectively, as a function of their stellar masses. The red hexbins depict the number of galaxies. The stars represent the z > 10 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies observed by JWST. The dashed lines show sSFRs that overlap most with the data. The blue points represent the median of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The number of galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respec￾tively, as a function of half stellar mass radius. Nearly all galaxies have sizes below 1 kpc with a median around 100 pc. age. In general, our galaxies represent the earliest stages of galaxy formation that will eventually reach the high mass regime seen by JWST. 4. MORPHOLOGIES OF THE RENAISSANCE GA… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respec￾tively, as a function of stellar mass and half stellar mass radius. The blue points represent the medians of the half stellar mass radii with 1σ error bars. been published yet for the spectroscopically confirmed z > 10 JWST galaxies, the half stellar mass radii give us an idea of the morphology and co… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ratio of half light to half stellar mass radii represented as a histogram for the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right. This distri￾bution highlights that the emitted light is more concentrated than the stellar mass in most low-mass galaxies. 4.4. Half light radii and half mass radii comparison The fraction of half light radii to half stellar mass radii shown in [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The probability distribution of the Sersic index in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respectively for the F200W filter. The data in this filter was chosen because its wavelength is redward of the Lyα line. We disregard Sersic indices higher than than 3 in this plot to focus on the bulk of the simulated galaxies. ulations galaxies clearly demonstrate that it is not u… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Sersic index as a function of stellar mass for the F200W filter represented as hexbins colored by the number of galaxies. There is a histogram of the number of halos with each Sersic index on the x-axis and a histogram with the number halos with each stellar mass on the y-axis for the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respectively. The stars represent spectroscopical… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The probability distribution of the apparent magnitude in JWST’s wideband filters in the Rarepeak re￾gion of Renaissance in increasing stellar mass cuts in each panel. Each probability distribution line is colored based on the filters. mean in the F150W and F200W filters with decreas￾ing standard deviations with respect to stellar mass for each. This trend is also seen in the Normal and Void re￾gions with… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The absolute UV magnitude as a function of stellar mass represented by red hexbins for the galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right respectively. The absolute UV magnitude was averaged over 100 viewing angles of the Renaissance galaxies, as included in the catalog. The absolute UV magnitudes of the JWST galaxies are represented on the figure as stars of various … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The color-magnitude plots for each combination of JWST wideband filters with the hexbins colored by number of halos for the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right, respectively. The stars represent spectroscopically confirmed JWST galaxies at z > 10. Normal region, as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Color-color diagrams of all combinations of the wideband NIRCam filters for the Rarepeak region of the Renaissance Simulation. The hexbins are colored by the mean stellar mass of the galaxies in each hexbin. The colors of the spectroscopically confirmed z > 10 JWST galaxies are included with error bars as stars of various colors. hexbins colored by the mean SFRs. For all of these figures, some hexbins exi… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

JWST has enabled new high redshift observations with 14 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies at $z > 10$ to date, leading to a need for high redshift, high resolution simulations to interpret these observations. We present the physical properties and mock observations of the galaxies in the Renaissance Simulations to add to the growing database of high redshift simulation data to guide and interpret observations. We find that they provide an accurate representation of the formation history of JWST's $z > 10$ discoveries and follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses. The stellar masses of the Renaissance galaxies range from $\approx 10^{3}$ to $10^8 M_{\odot}$ and overlap well with the $z > 10$ JWST galaxies with a stellar mass range of about $10^{7}$ to $10^9 M_{\odot}$. The simulated SFRs increase from $10^{-4}$ to $10^1 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$, overlapping the JWST galaxies' lower SFRs in the range $1 - 20 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$. These compact galaxies show minimal morphology change as their stellar masses increase with the majority of the half light radii between $1$ and $10$ pc and the majority of the half stellar mass radii around $0.1$ kpc; their Sersic indices vary between $0$ and $4$. The Renaissance galaxies are bluer and generally transition well into the absolute UV magnitudes of the JWST galaxies in the main sequence of galaxies. Overall, our simulations agree well with JWST's discoveries to date, making them a valuable tool in the continued effort to understand the high redshift Universe.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations at z > 10, reporting stellar masses from ~10^3 to 10^8 M⊙, SFRs from 10^{-4} to 10^1 M⊙ yr^{-1}, half-light radii mostly 1-10 pc (with half-stellar-mass radii ~0.1 kpc), Sersic indices 0-4, and blue colors with UV magnitudes that transition into the JWST range. Mock photometry is generated and compared to the 14 spectroscopically confirmed JWST z > 10 galaxies (masses ~10^7-10^9 M⊙, SFRs 1-20 M⊙ yr^{-1}). The central claim is that the simulated galaxies provide an accurate representation of JWST z > 10 formation histories, follow observed trends, and usefully extend them to lower masses.

Significance. If the resolution and subgrid physics concerns are addressed, the work supplies a valuable public database of mock photometry and sizes for interpreting JWST high-redshift observations, particularly by populating the lower-mass regime. Direct overlap comparisons and the extension of trends constitute a concrete contribution to the growing suite of high-z simulation-observation interfaces.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; results on photometry and sizes] Abstract and results section on sizes/masses: the reported half-light radii (1-10 pc) and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙ are load-bearing for the claim that the simulations 'follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses' and 'provide an accurate representation.' The manuscript must explicitly state the Renaissance grid resolution, softening length, and minimum resolved mass relative to these scales; without this, it is impossible to determine whether the compact sizes and low-mass extension are physical or set by numerical floors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'overlap well' and 'agree well' but does not report quantitative metrics (e.g., distribution overlap statistics or selection-function-matched comparisons); adding these would strengthen the presentation without altering the central claim.
  2. [Methods] Mock photometry pipeline details (filter transmission, dust attenuation model, and any post-processing adjustments) should be cross-referenced to a dedicated methods subsection for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and recommendation for major revision. We address the single major comment below and agree to incorporate the requested numerical details to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; results on photometry and sizes] Abstract and results section on sizes/masses: the reported half-light radii (1-10 pc) and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙ are load-bearing for the claim that the simulations 'follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses' and 'provide an accurate representation.' The manuscript must explicitly state the Renaissance grid resolution, softening length, and minimum resolved mass relative to these scales; without this, it is impossible to determine whether the compact sizes and low-mass extension are physical or set by numerical floors.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly stating the Renaissance Simulations' grid resolution, gravitational softening length, and minimum resolved stellar mass (relative to the reported half-light radii of 1-10 pc and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙) is necessary to support our claims. These parameters are documented in the original Renaissance papers (Wise et al. 2012, 2014), but were not restated in this manuscript. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section quoting the relevant values (e.g., maximum grid resolution, softening, and the mass threshold for resolved star particles) and directly compare them to the galaxy scales reported in the results. This will demonstrate that the compact sizes and low-mass extension are resolved and physical rather than numerical artifacts, thereby reinforcing the overlap with JWST trends. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct comparison of independent simulation outputs to JWST observations

full rationale

The paper presents physical properties and mock observations derived from the Renaissance Simulations and compares them directly to independent JWST observational data on stellar masses, SFRs, sizes, and UV magnitudes. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are described that would reduce the reported overlaps or trends to quantities defined from the JWST sample itself. The agreement is an external, falsifiable comparison between simulation outputs and separate observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. Typical cosmological simulation assumptions (Lambda-CDM, subgrid physics) are implicit but not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5856 in / 1036 out tokens · 28175 ms · 2026-06-29T06:19:34.360834+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1134, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Colla...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 2025

  2. [2]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Zavala, J. A., Mitsuhashi, I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3723 2023

  3. [3]

    O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B

    Baldwin, J. O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 29, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad220a

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad220a 2024

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G., Oesch, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023

  7. [7]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 2023

  8. [8]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    Brummel-Smith, C., Bryan, G., Butsky, I., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01636 2019

  9. [9]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  10. [10]

    J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration

    Bunker, A. J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha, J. Hodge, J. Afonso, L. Pentericci, & D. Sobral, 342–346, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319009463

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921319009463 2020

  11. [11]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  12. [12]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  13. [13]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    work page doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  14. [14]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318–322, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318–322, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  15. [15]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  16. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009b, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486

  17. [18]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w 2023

  18. [19]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472 2023

  19. [20]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5c05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5c05 2026

  20. [21]

    2025, A&A, 698, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453267

    Dottorini, D., Calabr` o, A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453267

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453267 2025

  21. [22]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 2003

  22. [23]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3163

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3163 2026

  23. [24]

    The 2013 Release of Cloudy

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  24. [25]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e 2022

  25. [26]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023

  26. [27]

    R., & Mirocha, J

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Mirocha, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac310

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac310 2022

  27. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae839

    Garaldi, E., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae839

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae839 2024

  28. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8

    Garg, P., Narayanan, D., Byler, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8 2022

  29. [30]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36 2024

  30. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    Gelli, V., Salvadori, S., Pallottini, A., & Ferrara, A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2410 2020

  31. [32]

    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

  32. [33]

    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

  33. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e 2024

  34. [35]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023

  35. [36]

    J., Adams, N

    Harvey, T., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29 2024

  36. [37]

    H., & Haghi, H

    Haslbauer, M., Kroupa, P., Zonoozi, A. H., & Haghi, H. 2022, ApJL, 939, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50 2022

  37. [38]

    Hazlett, R., Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Wise, J. H. 2025, ApJ, 978, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad919e 2025

  38. [39]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    work page doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  39. [40]

    M., Rieke, G

    Helton, J. M., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 729, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02503-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02503-z 2025

  40. [41]

    F., Gurvich, A

    Hopkins, P. F., Gurvich, A. B., Shen, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1902

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1902 2023

  41. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/mcse.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  42. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710 2022

  43. [44]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.145804 2025

  44. [45]

    S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Ellis, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1903

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1903

  45. [46]

    P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O

    Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56097, doi: 10.33232/001c.156097

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.156097 2026

  46. [47]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2309.03269

  47. [48]

    P., Cadiou, C., et al

    Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05201

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05201 2025

  48. [49]

    W., Munshi, F., Trebitsch, M., & Tremmel, M

    Keller, B. W., Munshi, F., Trebitsch, M., & Tremmel, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb148

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb148 2023

  49. [50]

    C., Jr.\ 1998, , 36, 189, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  50. [51]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  51. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    Kravtsov, A., & Belokurov, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.04578 2024

  52. [53]

    2025a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991 25

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2025a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991 25

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.129991

  53. [54]

    LaChance, P., Croft, R. A. C., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20439, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20439

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.20439

  54. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3034

    Legrand, L., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3034

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3034 2022

  55. [56]

    H., & Regan, J

    McCaffrey, J., Hardin, S., Wise, J. H., & Regan, J. A. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 47, doi: 10.21105/astro.2304.13755

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2304.13755 2023

  56. [57]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1861

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1861

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1861 2025

  57. [58]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 2022

  58. [59]

    A "Black Hole Star" Reveals the Remarkable Gas-Enshrouded Hearts of the Little Red Dots

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16596 2025

  59. [60]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56033, doi: 10.33232/001c.156033

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.156033 2026

  60. [61]

    J., Robitaille, T., et al

    Narayanan, D., Turk, M. J., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc487

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc487 2021

  61. [62]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  62. [63]

    The ASTRID simulation: the evolution of supermassive black holes , volume=

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac351 2022

  63. [64]

    A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/129 2016

  64. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d 2025

  65. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a O’Shea, B. W., Wise, J. H., Xu, H., & Norman, M. L. 2015, ApJL, 807, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a 2023

  66. [67]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  67. [68]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012:

    2012

  68. [69]

    Oschmann, Jr., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925230

  69. [70]

    E., Pontoppidan, K

    Pickering, T. E., Pontoppidan, K. M., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, C. R. Benn, & R. L. Seaman (SPIE), 44, doi: 10.1117/12.2231768

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2231768 2016

  70. [71]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 2023

  71. [72]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2011, A&A, 536, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117150

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117150 2011

  72. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    Rosdahl, J., Katz, H., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1655 2018

  73. [74]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 2002

  74. [75]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Kannan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2508 2023

  75. [76]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Borrow, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2156 2024

  76. [77]

    D., & Lang, M

    Smith, B. D., & Lang, M. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1881, doi: 10.21105/joss.01881

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01881 2019

  77. [78]

    F., Pe˜ na, T., Yung, L

    Snyder, G. F., Pe˜ na, T., Yung, L. Y. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3397 2023

  78. [79]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3011 2017

  79. [80]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1185 2023

  80. [81]

    P., Topping, M

    Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Endsley, R., & Tang, M. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 4, Vol. 4, 453–499, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00128-0

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00128-0 2026

Showing first 80 references.