Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 203 references

The ALPINE-ALMA [CII] Survey: Unveiling the baryon evolution in the ISM of $z\sim5$ star-forming galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that z~5 galaxies built their dust so fast that only a top-heavy initial mass function—one favoring massive stars—can reproduce 93% of the observed sample, versus 65% for the standard Chabrier IMF.

desk verdict The 65% vs 93% reproduction fractions rest on an undefined count, but the paper is a competent, honest application worth sending to a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02505 v1 pith:JMC5MELG submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA

P. Sawant , A. Nanni , M. Romano , D. Donevski , G. Bruzual , N. Ysard , B. C. Lemaux , H. Inami
show 23 more authors
F. Calura F. Pozzi K. Ma{l}ek Junais M. Boquien A. L. Faisst M. Hamed M. Ginolfi G. Zamorani G. Lorenzon J. Molina S. Bardelli E. Ibar D. Vergani C. Di Cesare M. Béthermin D. Burgarella P. Cassata M. Dessauges-Zavadsky E. D'Onghia Y. Dubois G. E. Magdis H. Mendez-Hernandez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:formationevolutionISMhigh-redshiftISM:dustinitialmassfunctionchemicalmodels
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

This work asks why galaxies at z~5, when the Universe was less than 1.5 billion years old, already hold the dust they do, and whether the usual assumption about the masses of newborn stars can account for it. The authors fit one-zone chemical evolution models to 98 galaxies from the ALPINE survey, matching gas masses derived from [CII] emission and dust masses from spectral energy distribution fitting. With the canonical Chabrier IMF the models reproduce 65% of the sample; with a top-heavy IMF (slope 1.8, more massive stars) the fraction rises to 93%. The models also require galactic outflows with mass-loading factors up to about 2, and dust growth in the ISM for intermediate-age galaxies. If correct, the result points to rapid dust production by Type II supernovae and a non-standard IMF in the early Universe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a one-zone chemical evolution model that integrates coupled equations for the total gas mass, individual gas species, and each dust species, with source and sink terms for star formation, stellar ejecta, outflows, inflows, supernova-shock destruction, and dust growth in the ISM. The model is run on a grid of initial gas masses, mass-loading factors, condensation fractions, and dust-growth efficiencies, and each galaxy is matched by minimizing a reduced chi-square over gas mass, 160 micron dust luminosity, star formation rate, and age. The central diagnostic is the dust formation rate diagram, specific dust mass versus specific star formation rate, where evolutionary tracks for the Chabrier and top-heavy IMFs are compared with the ALPINE data. The top-heavy IMF enters both the SED fitting and the chemical evolution model, keeping the star formation histories mutually consistent.

What would settle it

Measure the rest-frame far-infrared SED peak for a subset of the 21 continuum-detected ALPINE galaxies (for example with ALMA Band 8 or 9 or with JWST/MIRI) so that dust masses come from multi-band photometry rather than a single 160 µm luminosity; if the resulting masses disagree with the factor-of-2-rescaled values by more than the quoted factor-of-3 uncertainty, the 65% versus 93% reproduction fractions would need to be recomputed, and the top-heavy IMF preference could weaken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dust and gas content of z~5 main-sequence star-forming galaxies can be reproduced by chemical evolution models, but only if the models adopt a top-heavy initial mass function and maximal dust condensation in Type II supernovae. In the paper's accounting, Chabrier IMF models reproduce 65% of the 98 galaxies, while top-heavy IMF models reproduce 93%. The top-heavy IMF, implemented as a power law with slope $\xi=1.8$, puts more mass in short-lived massive stars, so supernovae enrich and dust the ISM on the short timescales needed for the youngest galaxies; the model separately requires outflows to lower gas masses with age and ISM dust growth to match intermediate-age galaxies. The same tracks overproduce dust in the oldest galaxies, which the paper reads as evidence for an additional dust destruction mechanism or an overestimate of the observed dust masses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the dust-mass calibration: the paper divides every SED-derived dust mass by a factor of 2 because the dust model being tested predicts a 70% carbon and 30% silicate mixture, even though the paper states these masses can shift by about a factor of 3 depending on the adopted absorption coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A top-heavy IMF with slope $\xi=1.8$ at $z\sim5$ implies that massive stars and core-collapse supernovae were more numerous relative to low-mass stars than assumed locally, so early galaxies enriched and dusted their ISM faster.
  • Outflows with mass-loading factors up to $\eta_{\rm out}\sim2$ are needed to deplete gas in galaxies older than about 300 Myr while keeping metallicities near or below solar.
  • For intermediate-age galaxies (300-600 Myr), dust growth in the ISM contributes roughly 60% of the dust, making the dust-to-gas ratio rise with age over that interval.
  • The models overproduce dust in the oldest galaxies, so either an unaccounted destruction mechanism (such as rotational disruption in strong radiation fields) is at work, or the observed dust masses are overestimated by up to a factor of about 2.
  • Even with a top-heavy IMF, the youngest and dustiest sources (sSFR $\gtrsim10^{-8}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, sM$_{\rm Dust}\gtrsim10^{-2}$) are not reproduced, identifying them as the key targets for sharper observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the top-heavy IMF preference is real, z~5 galaxies should carry abundance signatures of massive-star enrichment, such as low C/O ratios, which rest-frame ultraviolet or optical spectra could now test.
  • Extension: the 65% versus 93% fractions depend on the factor-of-2 rescaling of dust masses; reporting the reproduced fraction as a function of the assumed dust opacity scale would show how much of the IMF conclusion rests on that calibration.
  • Extension: applying the same model grid to JWST-selected samples at z>6, where even less time is available for dust build-up, would test whether the required IMF slope must grow still flatter or whether another rapid dust channel is needed.
  • Extension: measuring the carbon-to-silicate ratio or grain size distribution at z~5, through mid-infrared features or far-infrared colors, would test the 70/30 composition that anchors the dust-mass rescaling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses one-zone chemical evolution models, following gas, metals, and dust (SNII/SNIa/AGB enrichment, SN shock destruction, ISM dust growth, inflows and outflows), to interpret gas and dust measurements for 98 ALPINE z~5 star-forming galaxies. Physical parameters such as stellar mass, SFR, age, and dust mass are estimated with cigale under both a Chabrier IMF and a top-heavy IMF with slope xi=1.8. The models are used to constrain initial gas mass, inflow/outflow mass-loading factors, SN destruction efficiency, condensation fractions, and dust growth efficiency by matching specific gas mass, specific dust mass, and dust-to-gas ratio in the sSFR plane. The central quantitative result is that 65% of galaxies are 'reproduced' with a Chabrier IMF versus 93% with a top-heavy IMF, which is interpreted as evidence that a top-heavy IMF alleviates the tension for rapid dust build-up at early times.

Significance. If the central comparison is made rigorous, the paper would be a valuable addition to the debate on dust production at z>4: it uses a comparatively large sample, simultaneously models gas and dust, explicitly contrasts two IMFs, and connects SED fitting to chemical evolution in a consistent way. The authors also make the ALPINE data products and their grid-based model framework transparent, and they are explicit about several degeneracies and systematic uncertainties. However, the headline 65% versus 93% reproduction fractions currently rest on an undefined classification rule, a model-dependent dust-mass rescaling, and parameters fitted to the same data that are later said to be reproduced; these issues must be fixed before the quantitative claim can be evaluated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, item 4; Section 3.5; Sections 4.2-4.3] The headline result that '65% of our galaxies can be reproduced with a canonical Chabrier IMF' and '93% with THIMF' is not auditable because the paper never defines what counts as a reproduced galaxy. Section 3.5 gives a reduced chi-square definition (Eq. 19) and probability-weighted mean parameters (Eqs. 20-21), but no acceptance threshold is stated. The text in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 describes galaxies as 'reproduced' or 'overproduced' qualitatively, and Section 5.2 says the models 'fall short' for young sources, again without a formal criterion. Without a rule such as 'the best model or the probability-weighted model must match sM_Gas and sM_Dust simultaneously within a stated confidence interval, with a specified treatment of upper limits,' the reported fractions are not falsifiable and could change substantially under different reasonable definitions.
  2. [Section 3.3] The observed dust masses used in the comparison are rescaled by a factor of two: 'we divide the dust masses derived from cigale by a factor of 2 for subsequent analysis.' The justification is that the authors' dust evolution model predicts a 70% carbon/30% silicate composition, whereas the Draine et al. (2014) models in cigale assume a different composition and different opacities. Because this normalization comes from the very model family being tested, it is not an independent calibration. The paper acknowledges that dust masses can vary by a factor of about 3 depending on the adopted absorption coefficient, but the impact of this systematic on the 65% versus 93% comparison is not quantified. The authors should show how the reproduction fractions vary when the rescaling factor is varied over the plausible range, or treat the factor as a free parameter in the comparison.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Table 3] There is a circular element in the use of the words 'reproduce' and 'successfully reproduce.' The parameters M_Gas,ini, eta_in, and eps_SN are determined by minimizing Eq. 19 against the same observed quantities (specific gas mass, dust luminosity, SFR, age) that are later said to be reproduced by the models. A fit to data is not by itself a problem, but the claim that a galaxy is 'reproduced' must be evaluated against the fitted parameters in a way that does not simply reward the ability of the grid to pass near the data. At minimum, the paper should state the reproduction criterion in terms of the posterior predictive distribution, and should report how many galaxies are reproduced with the probability-weighted mean parameters versus the full grid.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Table 1/Table 2] The top-heavy IMF is fixed to a single slope, xi=1.8, because slopes of 1.35 and 1.5 'provided poorly constrained SED fits' in cigale. Since the central claim is that the THIMF improves the reproduction fraction from 65% to 93%, the choice of xi is load-bearing. The paper should either present the dependence of the reproduction fraction on xi, or explicitly frame the analysis as a test of a specific top-heavy IMF rather than of top-heavy IMFs in general. Otherwise it is not clear whether the result is driven by the IMF shape or by the particular SED-fitting degeneracies that led to the selection of xi=1.8.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'phyiscs' should be 'physics'.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The inverse triangles for upper limits are not explicitly defined in the captions; stating 'upper limits on gas mass' and 'upper limits on dust mass' is helpful, but it would also be useful to state how these upper limits enter the reduced chi-square and the reproduction counting.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. 21] The probability p_m in Eq. 21 is described as the chi-square probability, but the expression appears to omit a normalization prefactor that depends on the chi-square value; checking the exact functional form against a standard reference would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 4.2] The metallicity constraint '12 + log(O/H) ~ 9.0' is stated as an adopted terminal metallicity, but the justification is brief and the value is based on a small subsample; a more explicit discussion of how the constraint propagates into the allowed eta_out range would be helpful.
  5. [Section 5.2] The statement that THIMF 'falls short for younger galaxies (< 100 Myr)' is interesting, but the paper does not give a quantitative measure of how many galaxies fall into this category; reporting this subset explicitly would make the conclusion easier to assess.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Dust masses are renormalized using the model's own predicted composition, and the 65%/93% reproduction fractions are counts based on parameters fitted to the same galaxies; the headline comparison is therefore partially circular.

  1. self definitional [Sect. 3.3 (Estimates of the dust masses)]
    "Due to this differences in the dust composition and optical properties, our predicted dust masses are∼ 2 times lower than those estimated by cigale. To account for this discrepancy, we divide the dust masses derived from cigale by a factor of 2 for subsequent analysis."

    The observed dust masses that enter the dust formation rate diagram and the 65%/93% reproduction fractions are rescaled by a factor of 2 chosen because the authors' own dust-evolution model predicts a 70% carbon / 30% silicate composition. The model's predicted composition is therefore used to calibrate the very data against which the model is tested: MDust,obs is partially constructed from MDust,model. Because all specific dust masses shift by the same factor, the counts of 'reproduced' galaxies and the Chabrier-versus-THIMF comparison are not independent of the model's dust prescriptions. The paper itself notes dust masses can vary by a factor of about 3 depending on the absorption coefficient, so the normalization is not an externally fixed calibration.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 3.5 (Eq. 19), Table 3, and Sect. 6 item 4]
    "For all the other parameters, we determine optimal values for each model that best reproduce our galaxies. We minimize the reduced chi-square for each source... (i.e., Mgas, dust luminosity at 160µm, SFR, and age...) ... We find that 65% of our galaxies can be reproduced with a canonical Chabrier IMF. The fraction increases to 93% when adopting a THIMF."

    The global parameters MGas_ini, eta_in, and eps_SN (Table 3) are obtained by minimizing Eq. 19 against the observed Mgas and dust luminosity of the same galaxies. The 65%/93% claim then counts how many of these same galaxies are 'reproduced' by tracks built with those fitted parameters. Thus the reproduction fraction summarizes the quality of the fit to the calibration data rather than an out-of-sample prediction; with no explicit acceptance threshold in Eq. 19, a loose match criterion lets the grid freedom inflate the success count. The comparison retains physical content in the relative behavior of the two IMFs, but the headline percentages are not independent validations.

full rationale

The paper has real independent content: the ALPINE [CII] and continuum measurements are external, the chemical evolution code follows published stellar-yield prescriptions, and the THIMF-versus-Chabrier comparison involves varied physical parameters (condensation fractions, dust-growth efficiency, outflow strength) that are not all determined by the data. The many self-citations (e.g., the Burgarella et al. 2022 stacked IR template and the Nanni et al. 2020 model framework) are not by themselves circular, because the template is empirical and the model code is a stated framework with external assumptions. However, two steps compromise the independence of the central quantitative claim. First, the observed dust masses are divided by 2 using the very dust-evolution model being tested, so the data and model share a common composition assumption. Second, the 'reproduced' fractions in Sect. 6 are computed with parameters that were fitted to the same Mgas and dust-luminosity values used to define reproduction, making the 65%/93% headline a fit-quality statement rather than a prediction. The paper also never defines the threshold for counting a galaxy as reproduced, which makes the fractions non-auditable; that is a falsifiability problem rather than a circular reduction, but it amplifies the circularity concern because no external criterion separates fitting from reproducing. Overall, the central claim is partially circular, warranting a score of 6 rather than a higher score, because the IMF comparison and the physical interpretations (outflows, dust growth, SNII dominance) rest on more than the rescaling and the fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports the full machinery of galactic chemical evolution (yields, dust prescriptions, scaling relations) from prior literature and fits its main normalization parameters (initial gas mass, inflow, SN destruction) to the same data it later claims to reproduce. The dust mass rescaling factor is the most paper-specific input: it is not an external calibration but a consequence of the model's own composition prediction. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • MGas_ini (initial gas mass) = 3.3 x Mstar_fin (Chabrier), 4.4 x Mstar_fin (THIMF)
    Fitted to reproduce observed gas masses in Sect. 3.5; sets the gas evolution normalization for every model track.
  • eta_in (inflow mass-loading) = 0.6
    Derived from chi-square minimization over the gas and metallicity constraints (Sect. 3.5, Table 3).
  • eps_SN (SN destruction efficiency) = 0.1
    Fitted value from Table 3; controls dust destruction timescale in Eq. 8.
  • SN condensation fraction fcond = grid 0.05 to 1.0
    Varied per galaxy/age to match dust observations; authors explicitly note degeneracy with outflow and dust growth (Sect. 3.5).
  • dust growth efficiency (sticking coefficient) = 0, 0.5, 1.0
    Grid of values used in Eq. 10; choosing the value per galaxy is part of the matching freedom.
  • eta_out (outflow mass-loading) = 0 to 2 (tested up to 3)
    Varied per galaxy to reproduce gas depletion; capped at 2 to respect metallicity and outflow constraints.
  • dust mass rescaling factor = 0.5 (divide by 2)
    Ad hoc correction in Sect. 3.3 to convert cigale dust masses to the 70% carbon/30% silicate composition predicted by the model itself; directly normalizes all observed dust masses.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption One-zone chemical evolution with instantaneous mixing of gas, metals, and dust (Eqs. 3-5)
    Each galaxy is modeled as a single well-mixed reservoir; no spatial, multiphase, or clump structure is included, though z~5 ISM is likely clumpy.
  • domain assumption Type II SN dust yields from Limongi & Chieffi (2018) with rotational weighting from Prantzos et al. (2018)
    Chosen as among the highest dust producers (Nanni et al. 2020); this choice directly sets the dust production rate of the models.
  • domain assumption [CII] luminosity traces total gas mass via the Zanella et al. (2018) relation (Eq. 18)
    Extrapolates a local scaling relation to z~5 and assumes it holds for these galaxies, as in Dessauges-Zavadsky et al. (2020).
  • domain assumption Delayed star formation history with tau_main=500 Myr used in both SED fitting and chemical models
    The inferred ages that define the old/intermediate/young bins depend on this SFH; the paper cites Topping et al. (2022) showing order-of-magnitude effects for other SFHs.
  • domain assumption Terminal gas-phase metallicity constrained to 12+log(O/H)=9.0 from a 10-galaxy stack (Vanderhoof et al. 2022)
    Applied to all 98 sources, although the observational constraint comes from a small sub-sample of ALPINE galaxies.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust mass rescaling by factor of 2 based on model-predicted 70/30 carbon/silicate composition
    The normalization of all observed dust masses is set by the model's own predicted composition (Sect. 3.3), introducing a circular element into the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper THIMF slope xi=1.8 adopted because xi=1.35 and 1.5 gave poorly constrained SED fits
    The tested IMF slope is chosen for convergence of the SED fitting rather than from an external prior (Sect. 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALPINE-ALMA [CII] Survey: Unveiling the baryon evolution in the ISM of $z\sim5$ star-forming galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMC5MELG

@misc{pith2026241202505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALPINE-ALMA [CII] Survey: Unveiling the baryon evolution in the ISM of $z\sim5$ star-forming galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMC5MELG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02505}
}
read the original abstract

Recent observations reveal a rapid dust build-up in high-redshift galaxies (z > 4), challenging current models of galaxy formation. While our understanding of dust production and destruction in the interstellar medium (ISM) is advancing, probing baryonic processes in the early Universe remains a complex task. We characterize the evolution of 98 z~5 star-forming galaxies observed as part of the ALPINE survey by constraining the physical processes underpinning the gas and dust production, consumption, and destruction in their ISM. We make use of chemical evolution models to simultaneously reproduce the observed dust and gas content. For each galaxy, we estimate initial gas mass, inflows and outflows, and efficiencies of dust growth and destruction. We test the models with the canonical Chabrier and top-heavy initial mass functions (IMFs), with the latter enabling rapid dust production on shorter timescales. Our models successfully reproduce gas and dust content in older galaxies (> 600 Myr) regardless of the IMF, with Type II SNe as the primary dust source and no dust growth in ISM with moderate inflow of primordial gas. In case of intermediate-age galaxies (300 - 600 Myr), we reproduce the gas and dust content through Type II SNe and dust growth in ISM, though we observe an over-prediction of dust mass in older galaxies, potentially indicating an unaccounted dust destruction mechanism and/or an overestimation of the observed dust masses. The number of young galaxies (< 300 Myr) reproduced, increases for models assuming top-heavy IMF but with maximal prescriptions of dust production. Galactic outflows are necessary to reproduce observed gas and dust masses. The Chabrier IMF models reproduce 65% of galaxies, while top-heavy IMF models improve this to 93%, easing tensions with observations. Upcoming JWST data will refine these models by resolving degeneracies in intrinsic galaxy properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar mass, SFR, age and dust mass (from top-left to bottom-right) plotted for galaxies assuming THIMF against Chabrier IMF. The estimates are derived from SED-fitting code cigale with errors calculated using a bayesian analysis. The histograms on each axis show the distribution of the galaxies. Offsets in M∗, SFR, and MDust among both IMFs are shown as ratios of the median values (and corresponding uncertainties … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Age of the ALPINE galaxies as a function of sSFR assum￾ing a Chabrier IMF (pink squares) and a THIMF (red circles). Cyan, orange, and green regions represent old (≳ 600 Myr), intermediate (300−600 Myr), and young (≲ 300 Myr) population of galaxies. Cross￾bars indicate the average error on the age and sSFR for the respective sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. sMGas is plotted against sSFR for the ALPINE galaxies assuming a Chabrier (left) and THIMF (right). Circles represent galaxies detected via [CII], while upper limits on gas mass are shown as inverse triangles. Evolutionary models (solid and dotted lines) are plotted for different final ages (increasing from right to left). The figure shows the case with [MGas,ini, ηout, ηin, ϵS N] ∼ [3.3, 0-2, 0.6, 0.1] and [4.4, 0-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: sMDust is plotted against sSFR for the ALPINE galaxies assuming a Chabrier IMF (left panel) and THIMF (right panel). Circles indicate galaxies with detected dust continuum, while inverse triangles represent upper limits on the dust mass. Dust evolution tracks are plott…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: sMDust plotted against sSFR for the ALPINE galaxies assuming a Chabrier IMF (left) and THIMF (right). Circles represent galaxies with detected continuum emission, while inverse triangles mark upper limits on dust mass. Contributions from various dust sources are distin…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dust to Gas ratio plotted against sSFR for the ALPINE galaxies assuming a Chabrier (left) and THIMF (right). Only galaxies with [CII] detections are shown. Circles represent galaxies with detected dust continuum, while upper limits on dust mass are indicated by inverse…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

203 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

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

    2023

  4. [4]

    Algera , H. S. B., Inami , H., Sommovigo , L., et al. 2024, , 527, 6867

    2024

  5. [5]

    R., Mahony , E

    Allison , J. R., Mahony , E. K., Moss , V. A., et al. 2019, , 482, 2934

    2019

  6. [6]

    2019, , 484, 1852

    Aoyama , S., Hirashita , H., Lim , C.-F., et al. 2019, , 484, 1852

    2019

  7. [7]

    S., Takeuchi , T

    Asano , R. S., Takeuchi , T. T., Hirashita , H., & Inoue , A. K. 2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213

    2013

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

Show all 203 references
  1. [9]

    Bakx , T. J. L. C., Sommovigo , L., Carniani , S., et al. 2021, , 508, L58

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., Cowie , L

    Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., Sanders , D. B., et al. 1998, , 394, 248

    1998

  3. [11]

    & Tsujimoto , T

    Bekki , K. & Tsujimoto , T. 2023, , 526, L26

    2023

  4. [12]

    2015, , 573, A113

    B \'e thermin , M., Daddi , E., Magdis , G., et al. 2015, , 573, A113

    2015

  5. [13]

    2020, , 643, A2

    B \'e thermin , M., Fudamoto , Y., Ginolfi , M., et al. 2020, , 643, A2

    2020

  6. [14]

    2017, , 607, A89

    B \'e thermin , M., Wu , H.-Y., Lagache , G., et al. 2017, , 607, A89

    2017

  7. [15]

    2022, , 663, A50

    Boquien , M., Buat , V., Burgarella , D., et al. 2022, , 663, A50

    2022

  8. [16]

    2019, , 622, A103

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

    2019

  9. [17]

    J., Aravena , M., Decarli , R., et al

    Bouwens , R. J., Aravena , M., Decarli , R., et al. 2016, , 833, 72

    2016

  10. [18]

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

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Wilson , C

    Brown , T. & Wilson , C. D. 2019, , 879, 17

    2019

  13. [21]

    & Charlot , S

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

    2003

  14. [22]

    2019, , 632, A79

    Buat , V., Ciesla , L., Boquien , M., Ma ek , K., & Burgarella , D. 2019, , 632, A79

    2019

  15. [23]

    2022, , 664, A73

    Burgarella , D., Bogdanoska , J., Nanni , A., et al. 2022, , 664, A73

    2022

  16. [24]

    2005, , 360, 1413

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

    2005

  17. [25]

    2014, , 438, 2765

    Calura , F., Gilli , R., Vignali , C., et al. 2014, , 438, 2765

    2014

  18. [26]

    2023, , 523, 2351

    Calura , F., Palla , M., Morselli , L., et al. 2023, , 523, 2351

    2023

  19. [27]

    2008, , 479, 669

    Calura , F., Pipino , A., & Matteucci , F. 2008, , 479, 669

    2008

  20. [28]

    2017, , 465, 54

    Calura , F., Pozzi , F., Cresci , G., et al. 2017, , 465, 54

    2017

  21. [29]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  22. [30]

    L., Carilli , C., Jones , G., et al

    Capak , P. L., Carilli , C., Jones , G., et al. 2015, , 522, 455

    2015

  23. [31]

    M., Alatalo , K., et al

    Cappellari , M., McDermid , R. M., Alatalo , K., et al. 2012, , 484, 485

    2012

  24. [32]

    N., van Dokkum , P

    Cardamone , C. N., van Dokkum , P. G., Urry , C. M., et al. 2010, , 189, 270

    2010

  25. [33]

    L., Riechers , D., Walter , F., et al

    Carilli , C. L., Riechers , D., Walter , F., et al. 2013, , 763, 120

    2013

  26. [34]

    M., Scoville , N

    Casey , C. M., Scoville , N. Z., Sanders , D. B., et al. 2014, , 796, 95

    2014

  27. [35]

    M., Zavala , J

    Casey , C. M., Zavala , J. A., Spilker , J., et al. 2018, , 862, 77

    2018

  28. [36]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  29. [37]

    R., Dav \'e , R., Brooks , A., Quinn , T., & Shen , S

    Christensen , C. R., Dav \'e , R., Brooks , A., Quinn , T., & Shen , S. 2018, , 867, 142

    2018

  30. [38]

    S., Jones , A

    Clemens , M. S., Jones , A. P., Bressan , A., et al. 2010, , 518, L50

    2010

  31. [39]

    K., Hayward , C

    Cochrane , R. K., Hayward , C. C., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., & Somerville , R. S. 2023, , 518, 5522

    2023

  32. [40]

    D., et al

    Combes , F., Rex , M., Rawle , T. D., et al. 2012, , 538, L4

    2012

  33. [41]

    W., Ritter , C., Herwig , F., & Venn , K

    C \^o t \'e , B., O'Shea , B. W., Ritter , C., Herwig , F., & Venn , K. A. 2017, , 835, 128

    2017

  34. [42]

    2019, , 627, A132

    Cousin , M., Buat , V., Lagache , G., & Bethermin , M. 2019, , 627, A132

    2019

  35. [43]

    2015, , 219, 40

    Cristallo , S., Straniero , O., Piersanti , L., & Gobrecht , D. 2015, , 219, 40

    2015

  36. [44]

    R., et al

    da Cunha , E., Walter , F., Smail , I. R., et al. 2015, , 806, 110

    2015

  37. [45]

    2012, , 747, 72

    Dabringhausen , J., Kroupa , P., Pflamm-Altenburg , J., & Mieske , S. 2012, , 747, 72

    2012

  38. [46]

    2019, , 486, 2827

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827

    2019

  39. [47]

    2022, , 512, 989

    Dayal , P., Ferrara , A., Sommovigo , L., et al. 2022, , 512, 989

    2022

  40. [48]

    2014, , 568, A62

    De Looze , I., Cormier , D., Lebouteiller , V., et al. 2014, , 568, A62

    2014

  41. [49]

    2020, , 496, 3668

    De Looze , I., Lamperti , I., Saintonge , A., et al. 2020, , 496, 3668

    2020

  42. [50]

    Dell'Agli , F., Valiante , R., Kamath , D., Ventura , P., & Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez , D. A. 2019, , 486, 4738

    2019

  43. [51]

    2020, , 643, A5

    Dessauges-Zavadsky , M., Ginolfi , M., Pozzi , F., et al. 2020, , 643, A5

    2020

  44. [52]

    2023, , 519, 4632

    Di Cesare , C., Graziani , L., Schneider , R., et al. 2023, , 519, 4632

    2023

  45. [53]

    2018, , 614, A33

    Donevski , D., Buat , V., Boone , F., et al. 2018, , 614, A33

    2018

  46. [54]

    2023, , 678, A35

    Donevski , D., Damjanov , I., Nanni , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A35

    2023

  47. [55]

    2020, , 644, A144

    Donevski , D., Lapi , A., Ma ek , K., et al. 2020, , 644, A144

    2020

  48. [56]

    T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al

    Draine , B. T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al. 2014, , 780, 172

    2014

  49. [57]

    Draine , B. T. & Li , A. 2007, , 657, 810

    2007

  50. [58]

    e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2020, , 494, 3828

    2020

  51. [59]

    S., McLure , R

    Dunlop , J. S., McLure , R. J., Biggs , A. D., et al. 2017, , 466, 861

    2017

  52. [60]

    L., Capak , P

    Faisst , A. L., Capak , P. L., Davidzon , I., et al. 2016, , 822, 29

    2016

  53. [61]

    L., Schaerer , D., Lemaux , B

    Faisst , A. L., Schaerer , D., Lemaux , B. C., et al. 2020, , 247, 61

    2020

  54. [62]

    Ferrarotti , A. S. & Gail , H. P. 2006, , 447, 553

    2006

  55. [63]

    J., Oteo , I., et al

    Fudamoto , Y., Ivison , R. J., Oteo , I., et al. 2017, , 472, 2028

    2017

  56. [64]

    A., Magnelli , B., et al

    Fudamoto , Y., Oesch , P. A., Magnelli , B., et al. 2020, , 491, 4724

    2020

  57. [65]

    D., Bethermin , M., et al

    Fujimoto , S., Silverman , J. D., Bethermin , M., et al. 2020, , 900, 1

    2020

  58. [66]

    C., & Hjorth , J

    Gall , C., Andersen , A. C., & Hjorth , J. 2011, , 528, A13

    2011

  59. [67]

    & Hjorth , J

    Gall , C. & Hjorth , J. 2018, , 868, 62

    2018

  60. [68]

    2021, , 649, A18

    Galliano , F., Nersesian , A., Bianchi , S., et al. 2021, , 649, A18

    2021

  61. [69]

    M., Tumlinson , J., et al

    Geha , M., Brown , T. M., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2013, , 771, 29

    2013

  62. [70]

    C., Koekemoer , A

    Giavalisco , M., Ferguson , H. C., Koekemoer , A. M., et al. 2004, , 600, L93

    2004

  63. [71]

    2018, , 473, 4538

    Ginolfi , M., Graziani , L., Schneider , R., et al. 2018, , 473, 4538

    2018

  64. [72]

    C., B \'e thermin , M., et al

    Ginolfi , M., Jones , G. C., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2020 a , , 643, A7

    2020

  65. [73]

    C., B \'e thermin , M., et al

    Ginolfi , M., Jones , G. C., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2020 b , , 633, A90

    2020

  66. [74]

    2020, , 897, 91

    Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pez , J., Novak , M., Decarli , R., et al. 2020, , 897, 91

    2020

  67. [75]

    2020, , 494, 1071

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

    2020

  68. [76]

    2020, , 643, A8

    Gruppioni , C., B \'e thermin , M., Loiacono , F., et al. 2020, , 643, A8

    2020

  69. [77]

    C., Giavalisco , M., et al

    Guo , Y., Ferguson , H. C., Giavalisco , M., et al. 2013, , 207, 24

    2013

  70. [78]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.10672

    Hamed , M., Ma ek , K., Buat , V., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.10672

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    2018, , 858, 77

    Hasinger , G., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al. 2018, , 858, 77

    2018

  72. [80]

    2007, , 172, 29

    Hasinger , G., Cappelluti , N., Brunner , H., et al. 2007, , 172, 29

    2007

  73. [81]

    & Woosley , S

    Heger , A. & Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 724, 341

    2010

  74. [82]

    2014, , 437, 1268

    Heinis , S., Buat , V., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2014, , 437, 1268

    2014

  75. [83]

    D., Marrone , D

    Hezaveh , Y. D., Marrone , D. P., Fassnacht , C. D., et al. 2013, , 767, 132

    2013

  76. [84]

    2015, , 447, 2937

    Hirashita , H. 2015, , 447, 2937

    2015

  77. [85]

    N., Lee , H., & Ahn , S.-H

    Hoang , T., Tram , L. N., Lee , H., & Ahn , S.-H. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 766

    2019

  78. [86]

    Hodge , J. A. & da Cunha , E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556

    2020

  79. [87]

    A., Karim , A., Smail , I., et al

    Hodge , J. A., Karim , A., Smail , I., et al. 2013, , 768, 91

    2013

  80. [88]

    2019, , 485, 1727

    Hou , K.-C., Aoyama , S., Hirashita , H., Nagamine , K., & Shimizu , I. 2019, , 485, 1727

    2019

  81. [89]

    2019, , 483, 3363

    Hu , C.-Y. 2019, , 483, 3363

    2019

  82. [90]

    H., Serjeant , S., Dunlop , J., et al

    Hughes , D. H., Serjeant , S., Dunlop , J., et al. 1998, , 394, 241

    1998

  83. [91]

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

    2022

  84. [92]

    K., Li , W., & Ho , L

    Inayoshi , K., Harikane , Y., Inoue , A. K., Li , W., & Ho , L. C. 2022, , 938, L10

    2022

  85. [93]

    J., Swinbank , A

    Ivison , R. J., Swinbank , A. M., Swinyard , B., et al. 2010, , 518, L35

    2010

  86. [94]

    1999, , 125, 439

    Iwamoto , K., Brachwitz , F., Nomoto , K., et al. 1999, , 125, 439

    1999

  87. [95]

    E., et al

    Jin , S., Daddi , E., Magdis , G. E., et al. 2019, , 887, 144

    2019

  88. [96]

    1995, Continuous Univariate Distributions, Volume 2, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley)

    Johnson, N., Kotz, S., & Balakrishnan, N. 1995, Continuous Univariate Distributions, Volume 2, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley)

    1995

  89. [97]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.06728

    Jones , E., Smith , B., Dav \'e , R., Narayanan , D., & Li , Q. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.06728

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    C., Vergani , D., Romano , M., et al

    Jones , G. C., Vergani , D., Romano , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 3540

    2021

  91. [99]

    Kirchschlager , F., Mattsson , L., & Gent , F. A. 2022, , 509, 3218

    2022

  92. [100]

    M., Aussel , H., Calzetti , D., et al

    Koekemoer , A. M., Aussel , H., Calzetti , D., et al. 2007, , 172, 196

    2007

  93. [101]

    I., Magdis , G

    Kokorev , V. I., Magdis , G. E., Davidzon , I., et al. 2021, , 921, 40

    2021

  94. [102]

    P., Coppin , K

    Koprowski , M. P., Coppin , K. E. K., Geach , J. E., et al. 2020, , 492, 4927

    2020

  95. [103]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Kroupa , P., Weidner , C., Pflamm-Altenburg , J., et al. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore , Vol. 5, 115

    2013

  96. [104]

    2023, , 616, 266

    Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P., Nelson , E., et al. 2023, , 616, 266

    2023

  97. [105]

    G., Baugh , C

    Lacey , C. G., Baugh , C. M., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2016, , 462, 3854

    2016

  98. [106]

    2018, , 609, A130

    Lagache , G., Cousin , M., & Chatzikos , M. 2018, , 609, A130

    2018

  99. [107]

    Lagos , C. d. P., Robotham , A. S. G., Trayford , J. W., et al. 2019, , 489, 4196

    2019

  100. [108]

    S., Boone , F., et al

    Laporte , N., Ellis , R. S., Boone , F., et al. 2017, , 837, L21

    2017

  101. [109]

    Larson , R. B. 1998, , 301, 569

    1998

  102. [110]

    2020, , 643, A1

    Le F \`e vre , O., B \'e thermin , M., Faisst , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A1

    2020

  103. [111]

    Le F \`e vre , O., Tasca , L. A. M., Cassata , P., et al. 2015, , 576, A79

    2015

  104. [112]

    C., Johnson , B

    Leja , J., Carnall , A. C., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2019, , 876, 3

    2019

  105. [113]

    C., Le Floc'h , E., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Lemaux , B. C., Le Floc'h , E., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2014, , 572, A90

    2014

  106. [114]

    & Chieffi , A

    Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2018, , 237, 13

    2018

  107. [115]

    2019, , 887, 235

    Liu , D., Schinnerer , E., Groves , B., et al. 2019, , 887, 235

    2019

  108. [116]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10568

    Lorenzon , G., Donevski , D., Lisiecki , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10568

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    C., Geach , J

    Lovell , C. C., Geach , J. E., Dav \'e , R., Narayanan , D., & Li , Q. 2021, , 502, 772

    2021

  110. [118]

    2020, , 904, 33

    Lower , S., Narayanan , D., Leja , J., et al. 2020, , 904, 33

    2020

  111. [119]

    2013, , 553, A132

    Magnelli , B., Popesso , P., Berta , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A132

    2013

  112. [120]

    2019, , 484, 2587

    Marassi , S., Schneider , R., Limongi , M., et al. 2019, , 484, 2587

    2019

  113. [121]

    Marks , M., Kroupa , P., Dabringhausen , J., & Pawlowski , M. S. 2012, , 422, 2246

    2012

  114. [122]

    2015, , 447, 1033

    Mart \' n-Navarro , I., La Barbera , F., Vazdekis , A., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., & Ferreras , I. 2015, , 447, 1033

    2015

  115. [123]

    S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K

    Mathis , J. S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K. H. 1977, , 217, 425

    1977

  116. [124]

    J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al

    McCracken , H. J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al. 2012, , 544, A156

    2012

  117. [125]

    C., & Marinacci , F

    McKinnon , R., Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., Hayward , C. C., & Marinacci , F. 2017, , 468, 1505

    2017

  118. [126]

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

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

    2007

  119. [127]

    2013, , 778, 149

    McWilliam , A., Wallerstein , G., & Mottini , M. 2013, , 778, 149

    2013

  120. [128]

    R., Dwek , E., & Slavin , J

    Micelotta , E. R., Dwek , E., & Slavin , J. D. 2016, , 590, A65

    2016

  121. [129]

    R., Matsuura , M., & Sarangi , A

    Micelotta , E. R., Matsuura , M., & Sarangi , A. 2018, , 214, 53

    2018

  122. [130]

    J., Hjorth , J., Gall , C., et al

    Micha owski , M. J., Hjorth , J., Gall , C., et al. 2019, , 632, A43

    2019

  123. [131]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17671

    Mitsuhashi , I., Tadaki , K.-i., Ikeda , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17671

    2023 arXiv

  124. [132]

    2013, , 434, 2390

    Nanni , A., Bressan , A., Marigo , P., & Girardi , L. 2013, , 434, 2390

    2013

  125. [133]

    2020, , 641, A168

    Nanni , A., Burgarella , D., Theul \'e , P., C \^o t \'e , B., & Hirashita , H. 2020, , 641, A168

    2020

  126. [134]

    2024, , 684, A163

    Nanni , A., Cristallo , S., Donevski , D., et al. 2024, , 684, A163

    2024

  127. [135]

    2015, , 525, 496

    Narayanan , D., Turk , M., Feldmann , R., et al. 2015, , 525, 496

    2015

  128. [136]

    2017, , 844, 82

    Nayyeri , H., Cooray , A., Jullo , E., et al. 2017, , 844, 82

    2017

  129. [137]

    2009, , 507, 1793

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

    2009

  130. [138]

    2020, , 494, 2355

    Palla , M., Calura , F., Matteucci , F., et al. 2020, , 494, 2355

    2020

  131. [139]

    2024, , 528, 2407

    Palla , M., De Looze , I., Rela \ n o , M., et al. 2024, , 528, 2407

    2024

  132. [140]

    2019, , 880, 129

    Pantoni , L., Lapi , A., Massardi , M., Goswami , S., & Danese , L. 2019, , 880, 129

    2019

  133. [141]

    2021, , 507, 3998

    Pantoni , L., Massardi , M., Lapi , A., et al. 2021, , 507, 3998

    2021

  134. [142]

    S., & Galametz , M

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

    2017

  135. [143]

    2021, , 653, A84

    Pozzi , F., Calura , F., Fudamoto , Y., et al. 2021, , 653, A84

    2021

  136. [144]

    2018, , 476, 3432

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Limongi , M., Chieffi , A., & Cristallo , S. 2018, , 476, 3432

    2018

  137. [145]

    D., De Looze , I., & Barlow , M

    Priestley , F. D., De Looze , I., & Barlow , M. J. 2022, , 509, L6

    2022

  138. [146]

    C., Galliano , F., et al

    R \'e my-Ruyer , A., Madden , S. C., Galliano , F., et al. 2015, , 582, A121

    2015

  139. [147]

    A., Bradford , C

    Riechers , D. A., Bradford , C. M., Clements , D. L., et al. 2013, , 496, 329

    2013

  140. [148]

    A., Carilli , C

    Riechers , D. A., Carilli , C. L., Capak , P. L., et al. 2014, , 796, 84

    2014

  141. [149]

    I., Ivison , R

    Robson , E. I., Ivison , R. J., Smail , I., et al. 2014, , 793, 11

    2014

  142. [150]

    2011, , 739, L40

    Rodighiero , G., Daddi , E., Baronchelli , I., et al. 2011, , 739, L40

    2011

  143. [151]

    2021, , 653, A111

    Romano , M., Cassata , P., Morselli , L., et al. 2021, , 653, A111

    2021

  144. [152]

    2020, , 496, 875

    Romano , M., Cassata , P., Morselli , L., et al. 2020, , 496, 875

    2020

  145. [153]

    2024, , 683, L9

    Romano , M., Donevski , D., Junais , et al. 2024, , 683, L9

    2024

  146. [154]

    2022, , 660, A14

    Romano , M., Morselli , L., Cassata , P., et al. 2022, , 660, A14

    2022

  147. [155]

    2023, , 677, A44

    Romano , M., Nanni , A., Donevski , D., et al. 2023, , 677, A44

    2023

  148. [156]

    & Narayanan , D

    Salim , S. & Narayanan , D. 2020, , 58, 529

    2020

  149. [157]

    Sarangi , A., Matsuura , M., & Micelotta , E. R. 2018, , 214, 63

    2018

  150. [158]

    2020, , 643, A3

    Schaerer , D., Ginolfi , M., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2020, , 643, A3

    2020

  151. [159]

    & Maiolino , R

    Schneider , R. & Maiolino , R. 2024, , 32, 2

    2024

  152. [160]

    C., & Carniani , S

    Scholtz , J., Maiolino , R., Jones , G. C., & Carniani , S. 2023, , 519, 5246

    2023

  153. [161]

    G., Aussel , H., et al

    Scoville , N., Abraham , R. G., Aussel , H., et al. 2007 a , , 172, 38

    2007

  154. [162]

    2007 b , , 172, 1

    Scoville , N., Aussel , H., Brusa , M., et al. 2007 b , , 172, 1

    2007

  155. [163]

    2016, , 820, 83

    Scoville , N., Sheth , K., Aussel , H., et al. 2016, , 820, 83

    2016

  156. [164]

    2022, , 928, 68

    Shivaei , I., Popping , G., Rieke , G., et al. 2022, , 928, 68

    2022

  157. [165]

    D., Dwek , E., Mac Low , M.-M., & Hill , A

    Slavin , J. D., Dwek , E., Mac Low , M.-M., & Hill , A. S. 2020, , 902, 135

    2020

  158. [166]

    D., Aalto , S., & Privon , G

    Sliwa , K., Wilson , C. D., Aalto , S., & Privon , G. C. 2017, , 840, L11

    2017

  159. [167]

    J., & Blain , A

    Smail , I., Ivison , R. J., & Blain , A. W. 1997, , 490, L5

    1997

  160. [168]

    2017, , 602, A1

    Smol c i \'c , V., Novak , M., Bondi , M., et al. 2017, , 602, A1

    2017

  161. [169]

    L., Hensley , H., et al

    Sneppen , A., Steinhardt , C. L., Hensley , H., et al. 2022, , 931, 57

    2022

  162. [170]

    2022, , 517, 5930

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

    2022

  163. [171]

    S., Steinhardt , C

    Speagle , J. S., Steinhardt , C. L., Capak , P. L., & Silverman , J. D. 2014, , 214, 15

    2014

  164. [172]

    S., Marrone , D

    Spilker , J. S., Marrone , D. P., Aravena , M., et al. 2016, , 826, 112

    2016

  165. [173]

    L., Kokorev , V., Rusakov , V., Garcia , E., & Sneppen , A

    Steinhardt , C. L., Kokorev , V., Rusakov , V., Garcia , E., & Sneppen , A. 2023, , 951, L40

    2023

  166. [174]

    L., Sneppen , A., Hensley , H., et al

    Steinhardt , C. L., Sneppen , A., Hensley , H., et al. 2022, , 934, 22

    2022

  167. [175]

    L., Weiss , A., De Breuck , C., et al

    Strandet , M. L., Weiss , A., De Breuck , C., et al. 2017, , 842, L15

    2017

  168. [176]

    K., Hashimoto , T., et al

    Sugahara , Y., Inoue , A. K., Hashimoto , T., et al. 2021, , 923, 5

    2021

  169. [177]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05248

    Sun , H., Wang , T., Xu , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05248

    2024 arXiv

  170. [178]

    J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A

    Tacconi , L. J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A. 2020, , 58, 157

    2020

  171. [179]

    Tasca , L. A. M., Le F \`e vre , O., Ribeiro , B., et al. 2017, , 600, A110

    2017

  172. [180]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2022, , 516, 975

    2022

  173. [181]

    2023, , 673, A41

    Tosi , S., Kamath , D., Dell'Agli , F., et al. 2023, , 673, A41

    2023

  174. [182]

    P., Sinha , M., Croton , D

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

    2020

  175. [183]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, , 55, 389

    2017

  176. [184]

    2011, , 416, 1916

    Valiante , R., Schneider , R., Salvadori , S., & Bianchi , S. 2011, , 416, 1916

    2011

  177. [185]

    N., Faisst , A

    Vanderhoof , B. N., Faisst , A. L., Shen , L., et al. 2022, , 511, 1303

    2022

  178. [186]

    D., Schneider , R., et al

    Ventura , P., Criscienzo , M. D., Schneider , R., et al. 2012, , 424, 2345

    2012

  179. [187]

    P., Clay , S

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

    2019

  180. [188]

    P., Wilkins , S

    Vijayan , A. P., Wilkins , S. M., Lovell , C. C., et al. 2022, , 511, 4999

    2022

  181. [189]

    2019, , 487, 4870

    Vogelsberger , M., McKinnon , R., O'Neil , S., et al. 2019, , 487, 4870

    2019

  182. [190]

    L., et al

    Wagg , J., Wiklind , T., Carilli , C. L., et al. 2012, , 752, L30

    2012

  183. [191]

    2024, , 963, 74

    Wang , B., Leja , J., Atek , H., et al. 2024, , 963, 74

    2024

  184. [192]

    2016, , 816, 84

    Wang , T., Elbaz , D., Schreiber , C., et al. 2016, , 816, 84

    2016

  185. [193]

    K., et al

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

    2015

  186. [194]

    Weingartner , J. C. & Draine , B. T. 2001, , 548, 296

    2001

  187. [195]

    E., Narayanan , D., Williams , C

    Whitaker , K. E., Narayanan , D., Williams , C. C., et al. 2021, , 922, L30

    2021

  188. [196]

    E., Pope , A., Cybulski , R., et al

    Whitaker , K. E., Pope , A., Cybulski , R., et al. 2017, , 850, 208

    2017

  189. [197]

    P., Endsley , R., et al

    Whitler , L., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2023, , 519, 5859

    2023

  190. [198]

    C., Labbe , I., Spilker , J., et al

    Williams , C. C., Labbe , I., Spilker , J., et al. 2019, , 884, 154

    2019

  191. [199]

    2022, , 515, 1751

    Witstok , J., Smit , R., Maiolino , R., et al. 2022, , 515, 1751

    2022

  192. [200]

    K., Cao , C., Lu , N., et al

    Xu , C. K., Cao , C., Lu , N., et al. 2014, , 787, 48

    2014

  193. [201]

    2018, , 481, 1976

    Zanella , A., Daddi , E., Magdis , G., et al. 2018, , 481, 1976

    2018

  194. [202]

    A., Monta \ n a , A., Hughes , D

    Zavala , J. A., Monta \ n a , A., Hughes , D. H., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 56

    2018

  195. [203]

    J., Papadopoulos , P

    Zhang , Z.-Y., Romano , D., Ivison , R. J., Papadopoulos , P. P., & Matteucci , F. 2018, , 558, 260

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.