pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.10613 · v3 · pith:2CMHBT4Inew · submitted 2024-09-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Exploring the interplay between star formation efficiency and dust in regulating the UV luminosity of early systems in the JWST and ALMA era

Georgios Panagiotis Nikopoulos , Pratika Dayal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 20:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords star formation efficiencyUV luminosity functiondust enrichmenthigh-redshift galaxiessupernova dustgalaxy evolutionburstiness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Explaining the UV luminosity function at redshifts 5 to 13 requires an average star formation efficiency that increases with redshift as 10 to the power of 0.13z minus 3.5.

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

The paper builds an analytic model linking how efficiently gas turns into stars in early galaxies with the effects of dust produced by supernovae on the ultraviolet light that escapes. It shows that matching the observed numbers of bright galaxies demands an average efficiency that rises steadily toward earlier times, with some systems exceeding this average by a factor of ten. Dust production in type II supernovae dominates enrichment, while growth and sputtering alter the dust mass by 60 percent and 40 percent at redshift 7. Galaxies above redshift 9 retain modest dust fractions that become more dispersed, lowering attenuation at higher redshifts. The model concludes that existing dust mass data at redshifts 5 and 7 come from galaxies brighter than the typical population contributing to the luminosity function, and assuming all stars form at once yields a lower limit on stellar masses.

Core claim

Explaining the UV LF at z ∼ 5 - 13 requires an average star formation efficiency that evolves as f_*(z) = 10^{0.13z-3.5}, with a number of observations exceeding this main sequence by a factor of 10. The dust enrichment of early systems is driven by dust production in SNII ejecta, while growth and sputtering impact the dust mass by 60% and 40% respectively at z ∼ 7. Galaxies at z ≳ 9 can retain significant dust, reaching average dust-to-stellar mass ratios of 0.19% (0.14%) at z ∼ 9 (z ∼ 11). Dust attenuation decreases with redshift as dust becomes increasingly dispersed within halos. Observations by ALMA at z ∼ 5 and 7 are not representative of the average population that makes up the UV LF.

What carries the argument

Analytic formalism tracking redshift-dependent star formation efficiency with scatter around the main sequence, plus dust production in type II supernovae, destruction, ejection, growth, and sputtering.

Load-bearing premise

The dust processes are calibrated to ALMA dust mass estimates at redshifts 5 to 7 even though the model concludes these estimates do not represent the average galaxies contributing to the UV luminosity function.

What would settle it

Direct measurements of star formation efficiency in a complete sample of galaxies at redshifts 10 to 13 that show no increase with redshift or a different functional dependence would falsify the required efficiency evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.10613 by Georgios Panagiotis Nikopoulos, Pratika Dayal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The evolving UV LF at z ∼ 5 − 16. In each panel, lines show theoretical results for intrinsic and dust-attenuated UV LFs for the fiducial model as well as those allowing for a scatter of 0.5 and 1 dex on f∗, as marked in panel a; the dark and light shaded areas show the corresponding 1σ scatter for the f∗ ±0.5 and f∗ ±1 dex cases, respectively. In every panel, the solid green and yellow lines show the theo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The redshift evolution of the UV luminosity density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The dust mass as a function of the stellar mass at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The SFR inferred from the UV as a function of the total intrinsic SFR for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dust mass function for z ∼ 5 − 11, as marked. The black line corresponds to the results of the fiducial model. The red dot-dashed and purple dotted lines show results obtained by scattering the star formation efficiency for every halo within 0.5 and 1 dex, respectively; the light and dark grey shaded areas show the scatter associated with 0.5 and 1 dex of scatter on f∗, respectively. systems compared t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the UV LF at z ∼ 5 (left) and z ∼ 7 (right), including the UV LF data points inferred from the ALPINE and REBELS surveys allowing for 0.5 and 1 dex of scatter on f∗. As marked, we show intrinsic and dust-attenuated results from the theoretical model for the fiducial model as well as models where f∗ is scattered by 0.5 and 1 dex; the dark and light gray shaded regions show the 1σ scatter associated … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

James Webb Telescope (JWST) observations have unveiled numerous galaxy candidates between $z \sim 9 - 16.5$, hinting at an over-abundance of sources at the bright-end of the UV luminosity function (UV LF) at z $\gsim$ 11. Complementarily, the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA) has been yielding dust mass estimates at $z \sim 5 - 7$. In this work, we develop an analytic formalism baselined against ALMA results, jointly exploring the impact of bursty star formation and its associated dust enrichment, on the visibility of early galaxies, while also modelling sources scattered off the main sequence of star formation. We incorporate dust production in type II Supernovae, dust destruction, ejection, growth and sputtering. Our key results are: (i) explaining the UV LF at $z \sim 5 - 13$ requires an average star formation efficiency that evolves as $f_*(z) = 10^{0.13z-3.5}$, with a number of observations exceeding this main sequence by a factor of 10; (ii) The dust enrichment of early systems is driven by dust production in SNII ejecta, while growth and sputtering impact the dust mass by 60\% and 40\% respectively at $z \sim 7$; (iii) galaxies at $z \gsim 9$ can retain significant dust, reaching average dust-to-stellar mass ratios of 0.19\% (0.14\%) at $z \sim 9$ ($z \sim 11$). Dust attenuation decreases with redshift as dust becomes increasingly dispersed within halos; (iv) observations by ALMA at $z \sim 5$ and 7 are not representative of the average population that makes up the UV LF; (v) assuming all stars to have formed instantaneously results in a high light-to-mass ratio. This naturally results in our model yielding a lower limit on the stellar mass contained in a halo, also under-predicting the observed stellar mass function.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytic model baselined on ALMA dust-mass estimates to explore how evolving star-formation efficiency f_*(z), bursty star formation, and dust production/growth/sputtering jointly shape the UV luminosity function at z~5-13. It concludes that matching the observed UV LF requires an average efficiency f_*(z)=10^{0.13z-3.5}, that dust growth and sputtering alter dust mass by 60% and 40% at z~7, that ALMA z~5-7 data are unrepresentative of the mean UV-LF population, and that instantaneous star formation yields a lower limit on stellar mass.

Significance. If the dust-attenuation modeling is robust, the work supplies a compact parametrization of average f_* evolution and quantifies the relative roles of SNII dust production versus growth/sputtering, offering a framework for interpreting JWST bright-end excesses and ALMA non-detections. The explicit functional form and percentage impacts constitute concrete, testable outputs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract, key results (i) and (iv)] Abstract (key result i and baseline statement): the claimed necessity of the specific functional form f_*(z)=10^{0.13z-3.5} rests on dust-attenuation modeling whose parameters (growth 60%, sputtering 40% at z~7) are fixed by ALMA dust-mass estimates at z~5-7; yet key result (iv) states that these same ALMA observations are not representative of the average population that dominates the UV LF. This internal tension directly affects whether the derived f_* evolution applies to the mean population.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for identifying a potential ambiguity in how the calibration and application of the model are presented. We agree that the abstract and key results section would benefit from clearer wording to distinguish the role of ALMA data in calibrating dust physics parameters from the derivation of f_*(z) for the mean UV LF population. We address the comment below and will make revisions to improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, key results (i) and (iv)] Abstract (key result i and baseline statement): the claimed necessity of the specific functional form f_*(z)=10^{0.13z-3.5} rests on dust-attenuation modeling whose parameters (growth 60%, sputtering 40% at z~7) are fixed by ALMA dust-mass estimates at z~5-7; yet key result (iv) states that these same ALMA observations are not representative of the average population that dominates the UV LF. This internal tension directly affects whether the derived f_* evolution applies to the mean population.

    Authors: The dust production, growth, and sputtering efficiencies are physical parameters in the model that are calibrated to reproduce the dust masses reported by ALMA at z~5-7. These efficiencies are assumed to be universal and are not population-specific. With these fixed efficiencies, the model is then applied to the full halo population to compute dust masses, attenuations, and UV luminosities. The f_*(z) = 10^{0.13z-3.5} parametrization is obtained by requiring the resulting UV LF to match observations at z~5-13. The model simultaneously predicts that the ALMA-detected galaxies at these redshifts are the dustier subset, while the UV LF is dominated by systems with lower dust content that fall below ALMA sensitivity; this is the basis for key result (iv). Thus there is no circularity: ALMA constrains the dust physics, which is then used to model the mean population that sets the UV LF. We will revise the abstract and the discussion of key results (i) and (iv) to state this distinction explicitly and to note that the derived f_* applies to the average UV LF population under the calibrated dust model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

f_*(z) functional form fitted to reproduce UV LF; dust model baselined on ALMA data that paper concludes are unrepresentative

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract / Key results (i)]
    "explaining the UV LF at z ∼ 5 - 13 requires an average star formation efficiency that evolves as f_*(z) = 10^{0.13z-3.5}"

    The quoted functional form is introduced as the requirement needed to reproduce the UV LF; the 'explanation' therefore reduces to the fitting choice itself rather than an independent derivation from halo assembly, feedback, or external constraints.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "we develop an analytic formalism baselined against ALMA results... (iv) observations by ALMA at z ∼ 5 and 7 are not representative of the average population that makes up the UV LF"

    Dust enrichment parameters (SNII production, destruction, growth, sputtering) are calibrated on the ALMA z~5-7 sample; the same paper then states those observations do not represent the mean UV-LF population. The resulting dust-attenuation model is therefore used to infer the required f_* for a population whose dust properties were never directly constrained by the calibration data.

full rationale

The central result (i) states that matching the UV LF requires a specific f_*(z) = 10^{0.13z-3.5}. This is presented as an explanation but is obtained by tuning the efficiency parameter to the target LF data. Separately, the analytic model is explicitly 'baselined against ALMA results' at z~5-7, yet result (iv) states those same ALMA observations 'are not representative of the average population that makes up the UV LF'. Because the dust production/destruction/growth parameters (which control attenuation and thus the inferred f_*) are fixed using the non-representative sample, the necessity of that particular f_*(z) form rests on inputs the paper itself flags as unrepresentative. No external benchmark or first-principles derivation is shown for either step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on one explicitly fitted efficiency evolution and standard dust physics assumptions; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • f_*(z) slope and normalization (0.13, -3.5)
    Evolving star formation efficiency parameters chosen to reproduce the observed UV LF at z=5-13
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dust evolution includes production in type II supernovae, destruction, ejection, growth and sputtering with fixed relative efficiencies
    Invoked to compute dust mass evolution and attenuation in the analytic formalism

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5940 in / 1549 out tokens · 36640 ms · 2026-05-23T20:50:25.737055+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Stardust Galaxies at z>9: A Dust-Origin Transition Behind the Excess of UV-Bright Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A transition to low-opacity SNe-produced dust at z>9 reproduces the observed low attenuation and UV luminosity function excess in early galaxies.

  2. How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A data-driven model using UV luminosity functions and halo accretion matching predicts star formation efficiencies peaking at 0.8-0.9 at z>9, with bursty formation and the need for variable IMF or dust to avoid unphys...

  3. Stardust Galaxies at z>9: A Dust-Origin Transition Behind the Excess of UV-Bright Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A transition to low-opacity supernova-produced dust at z>9 reduces effective UV attenuation in gas-rich galaxies and reproduces the observed UV luminosity function and A_FUV-M_star relation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 4755

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Algera, H. S. B., Inami, H., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6142

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5184

    Atek, H., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., & Schaerer, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5184

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Shuntov, M., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1201

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Atek, H. et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 814, 69

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Tamura, Y ., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4294 Béthermin, M., Fudamoto, Y ., Ginolfi, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A2

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    & Schneider, R

    Bianchi, S. & Schneider, R. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 973

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 160

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & McLeod, D. J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3612

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2023a, VizieR Online Data Catalog: MORA: ALMA 2mm survey (Casey+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJ/923/215. Originally published in: 2021ApJ...923..215C

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 948, L14

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, L14

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Choudhury, T. R. & Dayal, P. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L19

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    R., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al

    Cueto, E. R., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A138

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Davis, A. J. & Natarajan, P. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1498

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    & Ferrara, A

    Dayal, P. & Ferrara, A. 2018, Phys. Rep., 780, 1

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 1449

    Dayal, P., Ferrara, A., & Saro, A. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1449

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 989 de Bennassuti, M., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., & Salvadori, S

    Dayal, P., Ferrara, A., Sommovigo, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 989 de Bennassuti, M., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., & Salvadori, S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3039

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z

    Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    2020, A&A, 643, A5 Di Cesare, C., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Ginolfi, M., Pozzi, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A5 Di Cesare, C., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4632

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Donnan, R.J

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03171

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 684, A207

    Ferrara, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A207

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    2000, MNRAS, 319, 539

    Ferrara, A., Pettini, M., & Shchekinov, Y . 2000, MNRAS, 319, 539

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 58

    Ferrara, A., Sommovigo, L., Dayal, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 58

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    A., Faisst, A., et al

    Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P. A., Faisst, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A4

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Fudamoto, Y ., Smit, R., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 144

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07834

    Fujimoto, S., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07834

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1071

    Graziani, L., Schneider, R., Ginolfi, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1071

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Harikane, A

    Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18352

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    K., Mawatari, K., et al

    Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Mawatari, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 1

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    K., Mawatari, K., et al

    Hashimoto, T., Inoue, A. K., Mawatari, K., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 71

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    & Aoyama, S

    Hirashita, H. & Aoyama, S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2555

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 3698

    Hutter, A., Dayal, P., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3698

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Inami, H., Algera, H. S. B., Schouws, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3126

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 73

    Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 73

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    S., Boone, F., et al

    Laporte, N., Ellis, R. S., Boone, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L21 Le´sniewska, A. & Michałowski, M. J. 2019, A&A, 624, L13

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L46

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    & Ferrara, A

    Lisenfeld, U. & Ferrara, A. 1998, ApJ, 496, 145

    work page 1998

  44. [44]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, L70

    Mancini, M., Schneider, R., Graziani, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L70

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T

    Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 521, 497

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    & Dayal, P

    Mauerhofer, V . & Dayal, P. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 2196

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    McKee, C. F. 1989, ApJ, 345, 782

    work page 1989

  48. [48]

    C., & Marinacci, F

    McKinnon, R., Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., Hayward, C. C., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1505

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    McKinnon, R., V ogelsberger, M., Torrey, P., Marinacci, F., & Kannan, R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    J., McLure, R

    McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3812

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    & Furlanetto, S

    Mirocha, J. & Furlanetto, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 843

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.02794

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 785

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 785

    work page 2003

  55. [55]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, Astrophysical Journal, 266, 713

    work page 1983

  56. [56]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S10

    Ono, Y ., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y ., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S10

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    K., & Loeb, A

    Pacucci, F., Dayal, P., Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., & Loeb, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, L6

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    & Matteucci, F

    Padovani, P. & Matteucci, F. 1993, ApJ, 416, 26

    work page 1993

  59. [59]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1689 Pérez-González, P

    Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Decataldo, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1689 Pérez-González, P. G., Costantin, L., Langeroodi, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L1

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Piana, O., Dayal, P., & Choudhury, T. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5661 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Ashdown, M., & et. al. 2016, A&A, 596, A107

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    2023, A&A, 669, L8

    Popping, G. 2023, A&A, 669, L8

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    S., & Galametz, M

    Popping, G., Somerville, R. S., & Galametz, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3152

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, L117

    Renzini, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L117

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    D., Spilker, J

    Reuter, C., Vieira, J. D., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 78

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.10033

    work page arXiv

  66. [66]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    work page 1955

  67. [67]

    Seab, C. G. & Shull, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 275, 652

    work page 1983

  68. [68]

    Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 308, 119

    work page 1999

  69. [69]

    & Lidz, A

    Sipple, J. & Lidz, A. 2024, ApJ, 961, 50

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    & Mesinger, A

    Sobacchi, E. & Mesinger, A. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3340

    work page 2013

  71. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5930

    Sommovigo, L., Ferrara, A., Carniani, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5930

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    & Ferrara, A

    Todini, P. & Ferrara, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 726

    work page 2001

  73. [73]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 975

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    P., Sinha, M., Croton, D

    Triani, D. P., Sinha, M., Croton, D. J., Pacifici, C., & Dwek, E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2490

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    Tsai, J. C. & Mathews, W. G. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 448, 84

    work page 1995

  76. [76]

    P., Clay, S

    Vijayan, A. P., Clay, S. J., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4072

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    P., Thomas, P

    Vijayan, A. P., Thomas, P. A., Lovell, C. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7337 V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5167

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    K., et al

    Watson, D., Christensen, L., Knudsen, K. K., et al. 2015, Nature, 519, 327

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y ., et al

    Willott, C. J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 966, 74

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Yung, L. Y . A., Somerville, R. S., Finkelstein, S. L., Wilkins, S. M., & Gardner, J. P. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5929

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.