Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 112 references

Self-regulated growth of galaxy sizes along the star-forming main sequence

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For 997 galaxies at z 0.5–2, the sign of the central-to-outskirt star-formation ratio flips at the main-sequence ridge, predicting whether a galaxy shrinks or grows.

desk verdict A plausible but not-yet-established observational confirmation of the predicted outside-in/inside-out growth pattern across the MS; the key correlation shares SED-fit noise on both axes, so it needs a robustness test before it can anchor the self-regulation picture. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00599 v1 pith:75M5WEOS submitted 2024-11-30 astro-ph.GA

Shweta Jain , Sandro Tacchella , Moein Mosleh This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyevolutionstar-formingmainsequencespatiallyresolvedstarformationhistoriespixel-by-pixelSEDfittinginside-outgrowthoutside-insizesGOODS-S
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that where a galaxy sits relative to the star-forming main sequence (the tight relation between star formation rate and stellar mass) tells you which way its size is evolving. Using about 997 GOODS-S galaxies at redshifts 0.5 to 2.0, the authors reconstruct spatially resolved star formation histories and find that galaxies on the upper envelope of the main sequence have higher specific star formation in their centers than in their outskirts, meaning they grow outside-in and should shrink. Galaxies below the main sequence show the opposite pattern, growing inside-out and should expand. This anticorrelation with galaxy size implies a self-regulating cycle: gas compaction builds the center, central depletion shifts star formation outward, and the galaxy grows again, which would keep the size–mass relation flat. If correct, a galaxy's offset from the main sequence becomes a predictor of its structural growth direction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatially resolved star formation history reconstructed pixel-by-pixel with an exponentially declining tau model, split into a central region within the half-mass ellipse R50s and an outskirts region from 1 to 3 R50s. These histories yield the 100 Myr specific star formation rates and mass-weighted ages for each region, summarized as sSFR100,central/sSFR100,outskirts and t50,central/t50,outskirts. The comparison quantity is ΔMS = log(sSFR100,galaxy/sSFRMS), where the main sequence ridge is fitted as sSFRMS = sb (M⋆/$10^{10}$ M⊙)^β (1+z)^μ with best-fit values sb = 0.22, β = −0.39, and μ = 0.85.

What would settle it

Observe the same sample with spatially resolved nebular emission maps, such as H-alpha or [O II], to measure the current central-to-outskirt sSFR ratio independently of SED modeling; if the sign of the ratio does not flip from positive to negative as galaxies cross ΔMS = 0, or if galaxies with positive ratios show no subsequent decrease in half-mass radius, the self-regulation claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a correlation between the spatially resolved specific star formation rate ratio, log(sSFR100,central/sSFR100,outskirts), and the distance from the main sequence, ΔMS, with a partial correlation of 0.48 ± 0.02 after taking stellar mass and redshift into account. Galaxies above the main sequence ridge (ΔMS > 0) show centrally enhanced specific star formation, meaning their stellar mass doubles faster inside the half-mass ellipse than outside, which is outside-in growth and a shrinking half-mass radius. Galaxies below the ridge (ΔMS < 0) show the reverse, with more active star formation in the outskirts, inside-out growth, and an expanding half-mass radius. The trend anticorrelates with galaxy size: larger galaxies above the main sequence are shrinking while smaller galaxies below it are growing, which the authors interpret as self-regulation of size growth along the main sequence. Mass-weighted age ratios independently support the same picture, with younger centers in galaxies above the main sequence and similar central and outskirts ages in galaxies below it.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes that pixel-by-pixel SED fitting with a single exponentially declining tau model recovers the true spatially resolved star formation histories, so if real star formation histories are more complex, every derived sSFR ratio, the fitted main-sequence ridge, and the ΔMS correlation could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A galaxy's offset from the main sequence ridge predicts the direction of its size evolution: above the ridge galaxies build their centers and shrink, while below the ridge they build their outskirts and grow.
  • The anticorrelation between growth direction and size keeps the size–mass relation nearly flat, matching the observed shallow slopes for star-forming galaxies.
  • The pattern holds across stellar masses from about 10^9.8 to 10^11.5 solar masses and redshifts 0.5 to 2.0, with no strong redshift dependence, meaning the self-regulation cycle operates over several billion years of cosmic time.
  • Massive galaxies below the main sequence show depleted centers with active outskirts, connecting the growth-direction picture to inside-out quenching and the transition toward quiescence.
  • The observed sequence—central enhancement above the main sequence, central depletion, then outward growth—supports an oscillatory, rather than monotonic, drift around the main sequence, consistent with compaction-driven bulge growth followed by disc regrowth.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the correlation is causal, the relatively cheaply measured ΔMS could serve as a proxy for the direction of size evolution in large surveys that lack spatially resolved data.
  • The paper notes in Section 2.4 that its main sequence normalization depends on the assumed star formation history model, so rerunning the analysis with nonparametric or bursty star formation histories would test whether the sign flip at ΔMS = 0 is an artifact of the tau model.
  • The natural next test is to follow individual galaxies through repeated compaction and regrowth cycles in simulations, which would quantify how much of the flat size–mass relation arises from this oscillation rather than from steady growth.
  • Extending this analysis to z > 3 with JWST would reveal whether the same compaction–depletion–regrowth cycle operated near the peak of cosmic star formation or whether early galaxies grew more monotonically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents spatially resolved star formation histories for ~997 galaxies in GOODS-South at 0.5≤z≤2.0, derived from pixel-by-pixel SED fitting with an exponentially declining tau model. Dividing each galaxy into a central region within the half-mass ellipse and an outer annulus, the authors compute the ratio of 100-Myr specific star formation rates in the two regions and correlate it with the galaxy's offset from the star-forming main sequence (ΔMS), finding a partial correlation of 0.48±0.02 after controlling for stellar mass and redshift. They interpret this as evidence for self-regulated size growth: galaxies above the MS grow outside-in (central build-up), while those below grow inside-out (outer star formation), connecting the MS scatter to structural evolution.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable observational result: it directly links the position of a galaxy relative to the star-forming main sequence to the spatial distribution of recent star formation, providing a possible mechanism for the near-constant scatter of the MS and for the flat size–mass relation. The analysis uses a reasonably large, homogeneous HST/CANDELS sample and includes useful robustness checks (varying the central aperture definition in Sec. 2.3, restricting to star-forming galaxies). The partial-correlation framework is appropriate for separating the gradient–ΔMS relation from mass and redshift trends. However, the central claim rests on pixel-level SED fitting with a single, restrictive SFH model, and no null test is presented that would separate a true physical correlation from one induced by shared measurement errors between the two axes of Fig. 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 / Fig. 4, with Secs. 2.2 and 2.4] The two variables in Fig. 4, log(sSFR100,central/sSFR100,outskirts) and ΔMS = log(sSFR100,galaxy/sSFRMS), are both constructed from the same pixel-by-pixel SED fits (Sec. 2.2). Pixel-fit errors in the central and outer regions enter the y-axis with opposite signs and also enter the galaxy-integrated sSFR that defines ΔMS, so correlated, spatially varying fit errors can generate a spurious correlation. The aperture checks in Sec. 2.3 reuse the same fitted pixel maps and therefore cannot diagnose this effect, and the star-forming-only subsample does not break the shared-noise covariance. The authors should add a null test that preserves the pixel error covariance while destroying the physical relation—for example, randomly permuting central/outskirt pixel assignments within each galaxy, or simulating mock galaxies with no intrinsic gradient but with the same noise properties—and show that the partial correlation is not reproduced by noise alone.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The analysis relies on a single exponentially declining tau model with τ in [0.01, 1.0] Gyr, fixed Chabrier IMF and Calzetti dust law, and only seven broad-band filters. This prior strongly restricts the allowed SFH shapes and can introduce spatially varying systematic biases, since the age–dust degeneracy behaves differently in high-S/N central pixels than in low-surface-brightness outskirts. Both the y-axis and the x-axis of Fig. 4 are derived from these fits, so the measured correlation could partly be an artifact of the assumed model. The paper itself states in Sec. 2.4 that the derived MS normalization is 'largely dependent on the assumed model of SFH'; the same caveat applies to the sSFR gradient. The authors should repeat the analysis with alternative SFH models (e.g., delayed-τ or non-parametric SFHs, different dust laws) or quantify how the partial correlation and the inferred growth patterns change under plausible model variations.
  3. [Secs. 3.1 and 4] The conclusion that the observed sSFR gradient implies 'outside-in' or 'inside-out' growth assumes that the current 100-Myr sSFR ratio directly predicts the future direction of half-mass-radius evolution. The supporting mass-weighted age ratio in Sec. 3.2 is derived from the same SED fits and is subject to the same systematics; it does not independently confirm the temporal interpretation. To make the central claim load-bearing, the authors should connect the observed gradients to actual size evolution—for example, by comparing with galaxies observed at two epochs, with simulation predictions, or by explicitly deriving the expected ΔR50 from the measured sSFR profile and showing that it matches the observed size trends in Fig. 5. At minimum, the assumption that a single snapshot maps onto a growth direction should be stated and discussed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.4] Report the uncertainties on the fitted MS parameters (sb, β, μ), since these uncertainties propagate into ΔMS and hence into the partial correlation.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] Clarify whether the reported partial correlation coefficients are computed for the full sample of 997 galaxies or for the star-forming subsample, and state the sample size used in the PINGOUIN calculation.
  3. [Fig. 4 / Fig. 5] The color coding by size is hard to read in printed grayscale; consider using a colormap with larger contrast or adding contours.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] The phrase 'observed similar trends' should be quantified; please state how the correlation coefficient and slope change for the 1 kpc aperture case.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The Limitations subsection does not mention the potential shared-noise/circularity issue or the SFH-model dependence beyond the MS normalization; these should be acknowledged as limitations of the present analysis.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 1] '997 galaxies' appears in the abstract and in figure captions; please ensure the number is consistent and define the sample selection in one place.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central ΔMS–sSFR-gradient correlation is partly built from the same per-pixel SED-fit quantities, so the self-regulation interpretation is not yet separated from this definitional covariance.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 and Figure 4 caption; MS definition in Section 2.4]
    "Figure 4 shows the ratio of sSFR in the galaxies' central regions (sSFR100,central; within R50s), and their outskirts (sSFR100,outskirts; within 1 − 3R50s) as a function of the distance from the MS (ΔMS; see Section 2 for details). The distance from the MS is defined as ΔMS ≡ log(sSFR100,galaxy/sSFRMS), where sSFR100,galaxy represents the sSFR of the whole galaxy measured over 100 Myr."

    sSFR100,galaxy is the mass-weighted combination of the same per-pixel SED-fit sSFR values that define sSFR100,central and sSFR100,outskirts, since the galaxy value is the aggregate of the central and outskirt pixel sets. Thus the x-axis (ΔMS) and the y-axis (log sSFR100,central/sSFR100,outskirts) share the same fitted pixel-level quantities and their noise. For fixed stellar mass, redshift, and outskirts sSFR, raising the central sSFR increases both the y-axis ratio and the galaxy-averaged sSFR that enters ΔMS, so a positive correlation is partly guaranteed by the construction of a weighted mean versus a component contrast, not solely by the physical outside-in growth interpreted in the paper. The stated robustness checks in Section 2.3 ('we tested various physical regions ...

full rationale

The paper's main observational claim is a correlation between two quantities that are both derived from the same pixel-by-pixel SED fits: ΔMS is built from the galaxy-integrated sSFR, which is the mass-weighted average of the very central and outskirt pixel sSFRs whose ratio forms the other axis. This creates a built-in positive covariance between the two axes, so the headline correlation is partly an artifact of the construction rather than a freestanding measurement of outside-in versus inside-out growth. The paper does not include a control that randomizes the physical relation while preserving the shared pixel-error structure, and its robustness checks merely vary the aperture definitions on the same maps. The self-citations to Jain et al. (2024), Mosleh et al. (2020), and Tacchella et al. (2016b) are not themselves treated as load-bearing uniqueness theorems; the methodology is described as an adopted model, and the interpretive framework is presented as consistency with prior simulations rather than as a forced derivation. For these reasons the circularity is real but partial: the correlation is not equivalent to its inputs by strict identity, but its sign and significance are substantially influenced by the definitional overlap between a weighted mean and a component ratio computed from identical per-pixel SED-fit outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three groups of inputs: fitted MS parameters (sb, beta, mu), the chosen sSFR threshold and aperture, and the SED fitting assumptions (exponentially declining tau model, dust law, IMF). No new physical entities are introduced; the 'blue nugget' compaction cycle is borrowed from previous work. The two fitted MS parameters and the tau prior range carry the most weight because they directly set the Delta_MS axis and the sSFR values whose ratio forms the y-axis.

free parameters (6)
  • MS normalization sb = 0.22
    Fitted to the sSFR100 versus M* plane of the 997 sample galaxies using OLS (Section 2.4). Used to define Delta_MS for all galaxies.
  • MS mass slope beta = -0.39
    Fitted in the same OLS regression (Section 2.4). Controls the mass dependence of the MS ridge.
  • MS redshift index mu = 0.85
    Fitted in the same OLS regression (Section 2.4). Controls the redshift evolution of the MS ridge.
  • sSFR quiescent threshold = -10.1 (log yr^-1)
    Chosen from literature (Tacchella et al. 2022; Carnall et al. 2019) to split star-forming from quiescent galaxies, which sets which galaxies enter the MS fit.
  • Central/outskirt aperture = 1-3 R50s
    Chosen aperture to divide galaxies into central and outskirt regions; robustness checked with 1 kpc and 1-3 kpc alternatives, but the default choice affects all sSFR ratio values.
  • Tau model prior range = 0.01-1.0 Gyr
    Adopted grid prior for the exponentially declining SFH in iSEDfit; the upper limit strongly shapes the allowed sSFR values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each pixel follows an exponentially declining star formation history (SFR proportional to exp(-t/tau)).
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and used to reconstruct all pixel SFHs. This single-component model cannot represent rising or delayed SFHs and may bias the derived sSFRs.
  • domain assumption The Calzetti et al. (2000) dust attenuation law and a fixed metallicity range Z = 0.004 to 0.03 apply to all pixels.
    Adopted in the SED fitting (Section 2.2) without testing alternative dust or metallicity priors.
  • standard math The main sequence can be described by the parametric form sSFR_MS = sb (M*/1e10 M_sun)^beta (1+z)^mu (Equation 1).
    The functional form is taken from Tacchella et al. 2016a and is standard in the field, but the parameterization is an assumption about the shape of the MS ridge.
  • domain assumption All pixels of a galaxy share the same redshift, taken from the 3D-HST catalog.
    Reasonable for spatially resolved galaxies in a deep survey, but ignores internal velocity structure and possible redshift errors.
  • domain assumption The ratio of current sSFR in the center to the outskirts indicates the direction of future size evolution.
    Used to translate the observed snapshot into outside-in versus inside-out growth. This is a physically motivated inference but is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption The sample from Mosleh et al. (2020) is complete and representative for the stated mass and redshift ranges.
    The selection is described in Section 2.1, but completeness is inherited from the parent catalog and not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-regulated growth of galaxy sizes along the star-forming main sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75M5WEOS

@misc{pith2026241200599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-regulated growth of galaxy sizes along the star-forming main sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75M5WEOS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00599}
}
abstract

We present a systematic analysis of the spatially resolved star formation histories (SFHs) using Hubble Space Telescope imaging data of $\sim 997$, intermediate redshifts $0.5 \leq z \leq 2.0$ galaxies from the GOODS-S field, with stellar mass range $9.8 \leq \log \mathrm{M}_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot} \leq 11.5$. We estimate the SFHs in three spatial regions (central region within the half-mass radii $\mathrm{R}_{50s}$, outskirts between $1-3~\mathrm{R}_{50s}$, and the whole galaxy) using pixel-by-pixel spectral-energy distribution (SED) fitting, assuming exponentially declining tau model in individual pixels. The reconstructed SFHs are then used to derive and compare the physical properties such as specific star-formation rates (sSFRs), mass-weighted ages (t$_{\mathrm{50}}$), and the half-mass radii to get insights on the interplay between the structure and star-formation in galaxies. The correlation of sSFR ratio of the center and outskirts with the distance from the main sequence (MS) indicates that galaxies on the upper envelope of the MS tend to grow outside-in, building up their central regions, while those below the MS grow inside-out, with more active star formation in the outskirts. The findings suggest a self-regulating process in galaxy size growth when they evolve along the MS. Our observations are consistent with galaxies growing their inner bulge and outer disc regions, where they appear to oscillate about the average MS in cycles of central gas compaction, which leads to bulge growth, and subsequent central depletion possibly due to feedback from the starburst, resulting in more star formation towards the outskirts from newly accreted gas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — The stellar mass maps (in M⊙) of galaxies derived using the spatially resolved SED fitting (pixel-by-pixel method; Mosleh et al. 2020). We display the 50th percentile of the inferred stellar masses. The inner and outer dashed ellipses represent the central and the outskirts regions. The central region encompasses the region within the half-mass radii (R50s) and the outskirts extends from 1 − 3R50s. The maps are sm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The SFH of an example galaxy. The left panels show the spatially resolved stellar mass map, age map, and τ map from top to bottom. The inner and outer dashed ellipses represent the central and the outskirts regions, characterized by the region within R50s and from 1 − 3R50s, respectively. The right panel displays the three spatially resolved SFHs obtained from pixel-by-pixel SED fitting for: (i) the entire galaxy … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — The sSFR-M⋆ distribution of the galaxies in our sample (997 galaxies in total), where the sSFR is measured over the last 100 Myr. The distribution is color-coded by the redshift of the galaxies. The spatially resolved SFHs of all the galaxies are em￾ployed to infer the stellar masses and sSFRs. The lime green line represents the star-forming MS at redshift of z = 1.2 (median red￾shift of our sample). The MS is def… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Ratio of the sSFR in the galaxies’ central region ( sSFR100,central; within R50s) to outskirts ( sSFR100,outskirts; within 1−3R50s) as a function of the distance from the MS (∆MS), color-coded by the PSF-corrected half-mass radius ( R50,PSF−corrected; in kpc). The le…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The figure follows the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The figure follows the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Ratio of the mass-weighted ages of the galaxies’ central region (t50,central) to outskirts (t50,outskirts) as a function of the distance from the MS (∆MS). The ages are in lookback time. The vertical black line represents the ∆MS = 0.0, while the dashed blue lines sh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — The PSF-corrected half-mass sizes (R50,PSF−corrected; in kpc) versus stellar masses (M⋆; in M⊙), color-coded by the ratio of sSFR (upper panels; sSFR100,central/sSFR100,outskirts) and redshifts (lower panels). The left panels show the individual data points, while th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02059.x , 303, 641

    Abraham R. G., et al., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02059.x , 303, 641

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801L..12A 801, L12

    Abramson L. E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801L..12A 801, L12

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l12 2015

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602472B p

    Baker W. M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602472B p. arXiv:2306.02472

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02472 2023

  4. [4]

    Barro G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...47B 840, 47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 2017

  5. [5]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3014B 477, 3014

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty768 2018

  6. [6]

    Belli S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..206B 799, 206

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/206 2015

  7. [7]

    Belli S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...17B 874, 17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  8. [8]

    Bluck A. F. L., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu594 , 441, 599

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu594 2014

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Bottrell C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..390B 486, 390

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Bouch \'e N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718.1001B 718, 1001

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    418, Galactic Bulges

    Bournaud F., 2016, in Laurikainen E., et al., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges. p. 355 ( @eprint arXiv 1503.07660 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6_13

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    Bower R. G., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    2006

  5. [14]

    B., et al., 2008b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/591786 , 686, 1503

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2008b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/591786 , 686, 1503

    doi

  6. [15]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    2012 doi

  7. [16]

    Brinchmann J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1151B 351, 1151

    2004

  8. [17]

    Calzetti D., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  9. [18]

    Caplar N., Tacchella S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3845C 487, 3845

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 , 873, 44

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 , 873, 44

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..112C 773, 112

    Carollo C. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..112C 773, 112

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    Cassata P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..106C 775, 106

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    Cenci E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7871C 527, 7871

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  15. [24]

    Cheung E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..131C 760, 131

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    Conti A., et al., 2003, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/378598 , 126, 2330

    2003 doi

  17. [26]

    J., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..386C 384, 386

    Cox T. J., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..386C 384, 386

    2008

  18. [27]

    D'Silva J. C. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..456D 518, 456

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Daddi E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..680D 626, 680

    2005 doi

  20. [29]

    Daddi E., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..156D 670, 156

    2007 doi

  21. [30]

    Daddi E., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714L.118D 714, L118

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    Dav \'e R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421...98D 421, 98

    2012

  23. [33]

    Dekel A., Burkert A., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 , 438, 1870

    2013 doi

  24. [34]

    Dekel A., Mandelker N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2071D 444, 2071

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    Dekel A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..999D 435, 999

    2013 doi

  26. [36]

    Dimauro P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..256D 513, 256

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    Dome T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2139D 527, 2139

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Donnari M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4817D 485, 4817

    2019 doi

  29. [39]

    A., van den Bosch F

    Dutton A. A., van den Bosch F. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14742.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396..141D 396, 141

    2009

  30. [40]

    Elbaz D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...33E 468, 33

    2007 doi

  31. [41]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706.1364F 706, 1364

    F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706.1364F 706, 1364

    2009 doi

  32. [42]

    C., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160..811F 160, 811

    Freeman K. C., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160..811F 160, 811

    1970 doi

  33. [43]

    L., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..580G 600, 580

    Granato G. L., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..580G 600, 580

    2004 doi

  34. [44]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    Grogin N. A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    2011 doi

  35. [45]

    E., Gott J

    Gunn J. E., Gott J. Richard I., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...176....1G 176, 1

    1972 doi

  36. [46]

    Guo Y., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24 , 207, 24

    2013 doi

  37. [47]

    He H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acca76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...56H 950, 56

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , 479, 5385

    Henden N. A., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , 479, 5385

    2018 doi

  39. [49]

    Jain S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3291J 527, 3291

    2024 doi

  40. [50]

    Jegatheesan K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..32J 684, A32

    2024 doi

  41. [51]

    Ji Z., Giavalisco M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..120J 935, 120

    2022 doi

  42. [52]

    Ji Z., Giavalisco M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943...54J 943, 54

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...36K 197, 36

    Koekemoer A. M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...36K 197, 36

    2011 doi

  44. [54]

    Kormendy J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..406K 217, 406

    1977 doi

  45. [55]

    Kretschmer M., Teyssier R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1385K 492, 1385

    2020 doi

  46. [56]

    Kriek M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..221K 700, 221

    2009 doi

  47. [57]

    N., Gunn J

    Lackner C. N., Gunn J. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20450.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.2277L 421, 2277

    2012

  48. [58]

    Lang P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...11L 788, 11

    2014 doi

  49. [59]

    Lapiner S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4515L 522, 4515

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    Leja J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936..165L 936, 165

    2022 doi

  51. [61]

    K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...58L 899, 58

    Leslie S. K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...58L 899, 58

    2020 doi

  52. [62]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 , 772, 119

    Lilly S. J., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 , 772, 119

    2013 doi

  53. [63]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.629...53L 629, 53

    Looser T. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.629...53L 629, 53

    2024 doi

  54. [64]

    A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..689M 582, 689

    MacArthur L. A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..689M 582, 689

    2003 doi

  55. [65]

    Magnelli B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..83M 678, A83

    2023 doi

  56. [66]

    Mancini C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1265M 489, 1265

    2019 doi

  57. [67]

    Mart \' n-Navarro I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..10M 513, L10

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    Mosleh M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837....2M 837, 2

    2017 doi

  59. [69]

    Mosleh M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc , 905, 170

    2020 doi

  60. [70]

    Moustakas J., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/50 , 767, 50

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...27N 828, 27

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...27N 828, 27

    2016 doi

  62. [72]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..219N 508, 219

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..219N 508, 219

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..162N 746, 162

    Newman A. B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..162N 746, 162

    2012 doi

  64. [74]

    Okamoto T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428..718O 428, 718

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    Osborne C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902...77O 902, 77

    2020 doi

  66. [76]

    Park M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..213P 515, 213

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    arXiv:2404.17945

    Park M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240417945P p. arXiv:2404.17945

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839..127P 839, 127

    Patel S. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839..127P 839, 127

    2017 doi

  69. [79]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433L..59P 433, L59

    Patton D. R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433L..59P 433, L59

    2013 doi

  70. [80]

    Peng Y.-j., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..193P 721, 193

    2010 doi

  71. [81]

    Popesso P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1526P 519, 1526

    2023 doi

  72. [82]

    Renaud F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442L..33R 442, L33

    2014 doi

  73. [83]

    Ribeiro B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..22R 593, A22

    2016 doi

  74. [84]

    Salim S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..267S 173, 267

    2007 doi

  75. [85]

    Salim S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..183S 958, 183

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    Sersic J. L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  77. [87]

    Shen S., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343..978S 343, 978

    2003

  78. [88]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998 doi arXiv

  79. [89]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    Skelton R. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    2014 doi

  80. [90]

    S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..481S 391, 481

    Somerville R. S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..481S 391, 481

    2008

  81. [91]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...15S 214, 15

    Speagle J. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...15S 214, 15

    2014 doi

  82. [92]

    Strait V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..23S 949, L23

    2023 doi

  83. [93]

    A., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..103S 877, 103

    Suess K. A., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..103S 877, 103

    doi

  84. [94]

    A., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4db3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885L..22S 885, L22

    Suess K. A., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4db3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885L..22S 885, L22

    doi

  85. [95]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abacc9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899L..26S 899, L26

    Suess K. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abacc9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899L..26S 899, L26

    2020 doi

  86. [96]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915...87S 915, 87

    Suess K. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915...87S 915, 87

    2021 doi

  87. [97]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1261094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..314T 348, 314

    2015 doi

  88. [98]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2790T 457, 2790

    doi

  89. [99]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458..242T 458, 242

    doi

  90. [100]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...56T 859, 56

    2018 doi

  91. [101]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..698T 497, 698

    2020 doi

  92. [102]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..134T 926, 134

    2022 doi

  93. [103]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psad076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ...76....1T 76, 1

    Tanaka T. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psad076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ...76....1T 76, 1

    2024 doi

  94. [104]

    Vallat R., 2018, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01026 , 3, 1026

    2018 doi

  95. [105]

    E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..29W 754, L29

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..29W 754, L29

    2012 doi

  96. [106]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    2017 doi

  97. [107]

    Wild V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..832W 463, 832

    2016 doi

  98. [108]

    Wisnioski E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..209W 799, 209

    2015 doi

  99. [109]

    Zolotov A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2327Z 450, 2327

    2015 doi

  100. [110]

    de Vaucouleurs G., 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948AnAp...11..247D 11, 247

    1948

  101. [111]

    G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L...5V 677, L5

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L...5V 677, L5

    2008 doi

  102. [112]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...28V 788, 28

    2014 doi

  103. [113]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...53V 960, 53

    2024 doi

  104. [114]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.