Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

JWST PRIMER: strong evidence for the environmental quenching of low-mass galaxies out to $\mathbf{\textit{z} \simeq 2}$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Deep JWST imaging shows that low-mass quiescent galaxies were shut down by their environment, not by their own mass, as early as redshift 2.

desk verdict Solid JWST-based study with a good multi-observable case for two quenching pathways; the 'strong evidence' headline oversells the high-redshift size-mass slopes, which are partly fixed rather than measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09592 v1 pith:33KO22QN submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.GA

M. L. Hamadouche , R. J. McLure , A. Carnall , D. J. McLeod , J. S. Dunlop , K. Whitaker , C. T. Donnan , R. Begley
show 6 more authors
T. M. Stanton O. Almaini J. Aird F. Cullen S. Cutler A. M. Koekemoer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyevolutionquenchingquiescentgalaxiesstellarmassfunctionsize-massrelationmorphologyJWSTPRIMERsurvey
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 paper uses deep JWST near-infrared imaging from the PRIMER survey to argue that the quiescent galaxy population at $0.25

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the size-mass relation of quiescent galaxies split at the pivot mass $\log_{10}(M_\star/M_\odot) \simeq 10$, supported by the double Schechter fit to the quiescent stellar-mass function and by non-parametric morphology. The paper fits single power laws separately to low-mass and high-mass quiescent sub-samples, a smoothly broken power law to the full quiescent sample, and a power-law size-redshift relation $R_e \propto (1+z)^{-\beta}$ to median sizes in three mass ranges. The decisive comparison is between the low-mass quiescent slopes and evolutions and those of star-forming galaxies: equal slopes and equal redshift evolution imply that the quiescent dwarfs are drawn from the same parent population and were quenched without structural transformation. The F356W filter provides rest-frame near-infrared sizes, which avoids the bias from younger, bluer central regions and gives mass-weighted structure.

What would settle it

Measure the low-mass quiescent size-mass slope at $1.75<z<2.25$ without fixing it, using a sample large enough to fit it freely; a slope significantly steeper than the star-forming value near $\alpha=0.17$ would reject the central continuity claim. A second check is environmental: if low-mass quiescent galaxies at $z \sim 2$ are not preferentially found in overdense regions, the ram-pressure interpretation would lose its support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a mass-complete sample of roughly 1,400 quiescent and 25,000 star-forming galaxies in the JWST PRIMER fields, the paper measures rest-frame near-infrared sizes with Galfit and morphological statistics (S\'ersic index, Gini, $M_{20}$). It finds that quiescent galaxies split into two populations at $\log_{10}(M_\star/M_\odot) \simeq 10$ in every redshift bin from $z=0.25$ to $z=2.25$. Low-mass quiescent galaxies follow a size-mass slope of $\alpha \simeq 0.17$-$0.18$, indistinguishable from the star-forming slope ($\alpha \simeq 0.17$-$0.21$) at fixed lower normalization, and their median size evolves as $R_e \propto (1+z)^{-0.24\pm0.08}$, essentially the same as star-forming galaxies ($R_e \propto (1+z)^{-0.25\pm0.03}$). High-mass quiescent galaxies have steeper slopes ($\alpha \simeq 0.55$-$0.69$) and much faster size growth ($R_e \propto (1+z)^{-1.14\pm0.02}$). Morphologically, low-mass quiescent galaxies occupy the spiral/irregular region of the Gini-$M_{20}$ plane with lower S\'ersic indices, while high-mass ones sit in the elliptical/S0 region. Combined with the double Schechter shape of the quiescent stellar-mass function, the paper concludes that two quenching channels are operating: environmental quenching (e.g. ram-pressure stripping) for the low-mass population and internal mass quenching (e.g. AGN feedback) followed by minor mergers for the high-mass population.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the low-mass quiescent size-mass slope at $1.25<z<2.25$ equals its low-redshift value: in the two highest redshift bins the paper fixes $\alpha=0.17$ rather than measuring it, so the claim that low-mass quiescent galaxies track the star-forming size-mass relation at $z>1.25$ collapses if the true slope is steeper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the split is real, galaxy formation models must include an environmental quenching channel that operates below $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ by $z \sim 2$, not just at low redshift.
  • Because low-mass quiescent and star-forming galaxies evolve in size at almost the same rate, the low-mass quiescent population should be a nearly undisturbed fossil record of dwarf star-forming disks at cosmic noon.
  • The steep size growth of high-mass quiescent galaxies (about 0.34 dex from $z \sim 2$ to $z \sim 0.5$) supports dry minor mergers as the dominant growth mechanism for massive quiescent galaxies, with little contribution from newly quenched star-forming systems.
  • The double Schechter shape of the quiescent stellar-mass function out to $z \sim 2$ means single-component fits will systematically underestimate the low-mass end, affecting estimates of the quiescent mass budget at cosmic noon.
  • If low-mass quenching is environmental, the number density of low-mass quiescent galaxies should rise toward lower redshift and concentrate in overdense regions; the paper finds supporting evidence in known quiescent dwarfs inside overdensities at $z \sim 2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ram-pressure stripping is the cause, low-mass quiescent galaxies should show outside-in ageing: older stellar populations in their outskirts and younger light toward the centre. This is testable with resolved colour profiles or deep integral-field spectroscopy, which the paper does not present.
  • The same low-mass versus high-mass split should appear in other deep near-infrared surveys with a similar pivot mass; measuring how the pivot moves with redshift would show whether the boundary between environmental and internal quenching changes as the universe ages.
  • Because low-mass quiescent galaxies were apparently quenched without structural transformation, they should retain the rotation of their pre-quenching disks; deep kinematic observations could check whether they rotate like star-forming disks rather than being pressure-supported like classic ellipticals.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses JWST PRIMER NIRCam imaging of the COSMOS and UDS fields (~300 sq. arcmin) to study the galaxy stellar-mass function, size-mass relations, and morphologies of star-forming and quiescent galaxies in four redshift bins from 0.25<z<2.25. The authors report that the quiescent GSMF is well described by a double Schechter function with a low-mass upturn at log10(M*/M_sun) <~ 10 out to z~2.25, and that the quiescent population separates into two distinct classes around log10(M*/M_sun) ~ 10. Low-mass quiescent galaxies are found to have shallower size-mass slopes consistent with star-forming galaxies, disk-like morphologies (low Sersic indices, Gini and M20 values similar to spirals), and median size evolution Re ∝ (1+z)^{-0.24±0.08}, matching low-mass star-forming galaxies and much slower than the β=1.14±0.02 evolution of high-mass quiescent galaxies. The paper interprets these results as evidence that low-mass quiescent galaxies were quenched by environmental mechanisms while high-mass quiescent galaxies were quenched internally and subsequently grew by minor mergers.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a coherent, multi-observable case that environmental quenching already operated at z~2, extending previous GSMF-based evidence to size and morphology measurements from JWST. The use of the PRIMER public data, the careful SED fitting with Bagpipes, and the direct measurement of median size evolution are genuine strengths, and the consistency among the GSMF upturn, size-mass slopes, Sersic indices, and Gini-M20 morphology is impressive. However, the headline claim that the low-mass quiescent size-mass slope is indistinguishable from the star-forming slope at z>1.25 is weakened by the fact that the two highest-redshift slopes are fixed rather than measured (Table 4), so the significance of the high-redshift size-mass result is conditional. The paper is likely to be an important reference for quenching studies at cosmic noon, but the presented evidence does not yet fully support the strongest statements in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 / Table 4] Table 4 and its footnote (a) state that in the two highest-redshift bins (1.25<z<1.75 and 1.75<z<2.25) the low-mass quiescent size-mass slopes were fixed to their low-redshift values (alpha=0.17). Therefore the abstract's claim that the low-mass quiescent slope is 'indistinguishable from that followed by star-forming galaxies' and the conclusion (iii) that this slope 'shows little sign of evolution' are not based on measurements in the two bins where the claim is most novel; they are partly input assumptions. This is a load-bearing issue for the central environmental-quenching interpretation. Please either fit the slope freely in these bins (reporting the uncertainty), or explicitly restrict the slope-comparison claim to z<1.25 and present the z>1.25 behavior as conditional on the assumed slope.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 4.3.3] The split between 'low-mass' and 'high-mass' quiescent galaxies is applied at log10(M*/M_sun)=10, which the text (Section 4.2) says is motivated by 'the observed inflection point in the quiescent GSMF' from the same PRIMER data. Because the same data are used to choose the pivot and then to infer distinct size-mass slopes and morphological differences for the two sub-populations, the two-population conclusion is partly circular. Please test the robustness of the fitted slopes and of the median Sersic-index differences to varying the pivot mass over a plausible range (e.g., 9.5 to 10.5), or adopt an a priori split, and state how the conclusions change.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4.1 / 5.1] In the highest-redshift bin (1.75<z<2.25), the double-Schechter fit to the quiescent GSMF gives alpha2 = -2.60 +/- 2.25, i.e. the low-mass slope is essentially unconstrained. The text nonetheless states that PRIMER 'firmly established' the low-mass upturn out to z~2.25, and the abstract says the upturn is 'confirmed' at z<~2.0. This is stronger than the parameter constraints warrant. Please provide a quantitative model comparison (e.g., delta chi-squared or BIC for the single versus double Schechter fits) and quote the uncertainty on the amplitude of the upturn, or soften the language for the highest-redshift bin.
  4. [Section 4.3.3 / Table 7 and Figure 5] The equality of the low-mass quiescent and star-forming size-redshift slopes is judged only by the overlap of uncertainties (beta_Q = 0.24 +/- 0.08 versus beta_SF = 0.25 +/- 0.03). Given the much larger uncertainty on beta_Q, this statement is weaker than it appears. Please add a quantitative statement of the constraint, for example the 1-sigma or 2-sigma upper bound on |beta_Q - beta_SF|, so that the reader can judge how strongly the data actually prefer identical evolution. This is not a fatal issue, but it is needed to support the 'indistinguishable' language.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6(iv)] There is a typo in 'In constrast' which should be 'In contrast'.
  2. [Table 2 caption] The word 'subseqeuntly' should be 'subsequently'.
  3. [Section 4.3.2] The code name is written inconsistently as 'Statmorph' here and 'StatMorph' earlier; please use a single spelling throughout.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix contains only the placeholder text 'SOME EXTRA MATERIAL'; this appears to be leftover template content and should be removed before publication.
  5. [References] The reference for Salim et al. (2018) spells out 'The Astrophysical Journal' while all other journal names are abbreviated; please standardize the reference style.
  6. [Figure 3] In the bottom row of Figure 3, the single power-law fits for low- and high-mass quiescent galaxies are difficult to distinguish in a grayscale print; please use different line styles or labels.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'indistinguishable from star-forming' size-mass slope claim at z > 1.25 reduces to an input assumption: Table 4 fixes the low-mass quiescent slope to the low-redshift value 0.17 in the two highest-redshift bins, so the claimed non-evolution and equality with the star-forming slope are imposed, not measured.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2.2 and Table 4 footnote; Conclusions item (iii)]
    "aFor the two highest-redshift bins, the low-mass quiescent slopes were fixed to their low-redshift values. ... The slope of the size-mass relation for low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that of the star-forming galaxy relation and shows little sign of evolution within the redshift range studied."

    The size-mass slope of low-mass quiescent galaxies in the two highest-redshift bins (1.25 < z < 1.75 and 1.75 < z < 2.25) is not fitted to the data; it is set equal to the low-redshift value of alpha = 0.17, which is also essentially the star-forming slope (0.17-0.21). The paper then presents as a result that this slope is indistinguishable from the star-forming slope and shows little evolution out to z ~ 2.25. For the two bins where the relation is most novel, the 'measured' slope is, by construction, the assumed input value, so the specific claim of slope equality and non-evolution at z > 1.25 is not an independent measurement.

full rationale

The central claim that low-mass quiescent galaxies follow the same size-mass relation as star-forming galaxies at z > 1.25 is partially circular: Table 4 fixes the low-mass quiescent slope to 0.17 in the two highest-redshift bins, so the stated non-evolution and equality with the star-forming slope in those bins is an input assumption rather than a measurement. This warrants a score of 6 under the rubric for 'one or more predictions reduce by construction.' However, the paper is not wholly circular. The size-redshift evolution of median sizes (beta_Q = 0.24 +/- 0.08 vs beta_SF = 0.25 +/- 0.03; Table 7, Fig. 5) is measured directly, and the Sersic-index and Gini-M20 morphology trends are also independent lines of evidence. The GSMF results provide some support, but the highest-redshift double-Schechter low-mass slope is very poorly constrained (alpha2 = -2.60 +/- 2.25 at 1.75 < z < 2.25), a limitation the authors implicitly acknowledge via small sample sizes; this weakens but does not circularize the GSMF claim. Self-citations of Hamadouche et al. (2022) are used for the standard size-fitting method and are consistent with broad independent literature, so they are not load-bearing. Overall, the slope non-evolution result at z > 1.25 is partially constructed, giving a score of 6, while the independent size-evolution and morphology measurements keep the paper from being fully circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on standard photometric and SED-fitting assumptions, on the chosen functional forms for the mass function and size-mass relations, and on two hand-imposed choices: the fixed low-mass size-mass slope at high redshift and the 10^10 Msun mass split. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Quiescent GSMF double Schechter low-mass slope alpha1 = 0.30 +/- 0.43, 0.19 +/- 0.45, 0.22 +/- 0.46, 0.02 +/- 0.38 (4 redshift bins)
    Fitted to the binned quiescent stellar mass function; the low-mass upturn claim depends on alpha1 being > -1, and its uncertainty is large at high z.
  • Quiescent GSMF characteristic mass log M* = 10.70 to 10.73
    Fitted Schechter characteristic mass in each redshift bin.
  • Size-mass low-mass quiescent slope alpha (fixed) = 0.17 (imposed in z>1.25 bins)
    The low-mass quiescent size-mass slope is fixed to the low-redshift value in the two highest redshift bins, making the no-evolution result an input.
  • Size-mass high-mass quiescent slope alpha = 0.55 to 0.69
    Fitted to high-mass quiescent galaxies (log10(M*/Msun)>10).
  • Size evolution slope beta for low-mass quiescent galaxies = 0.24 +/- 0.08
    Fitted to median sizes vs redshift; central to the claim that low-mass quiescent and star-forming galaxies evolve at the same rate.
  • Size evolution slope beta for high-mass quiescent galaxies = 1.14 +/- 0.02
    Fitted to median sizes; steep slope interpreted as minor merger growth.
  • Double power-law transition sharpness delta = 6 (fixed)
    Adopted from Mowla et al. 2019a and Kawinwanichakij et al. 2021 to reduce degeneracy.
  • Pivot mass split log10(M*/Msun) = 10.0
    Chosen by hand based on the observed inflection in the quiescent GSMF, then used to define the two sub-populations.
  • Size uncertainty floor = 0.1 dex
    Assumed constant uncertainty on Galfit sizes because formal errors are underestimated.
  • Bagpipes SED parameters (stellar mass, SFH slopes, dust) = per galaxy
    Stellar masses and SFH parameters are fitted to photometry in Bagpipes; the mass function and size-mass relations depend on these fits.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption UVJ color selection separates quiescent from star-forming galaxies at 0.25<z<2.25
    Used to define the quiescent sample (Section 3.2); dusty star-forming interlopers could mimic quiescent colors.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from Begley et al. (2024) have about 3% catastrophic outliers and 0.02 scatter
    Redshift bins and stellar mass estimates depend on these redshifts (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Bagpipes SED fitting with double-power-law SFH and BC03/Chevallard & Charlot models returns unbiased stellar masses
    Stellar masses drive the mass function and size-mass relations (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The double Schechter function is the correct functional form for the quiescent GSMF
    Used to fit the mass functions (Section 4.1); no model comparison is presented.
  • domain assumption The low-mass upturn in the quiescent GSMF is caused by environmental quenching
    Interpretive prior from Peng et al. (2010) used to connect the GSMF shape to the quenching mechanism (Sections 4.1, 5.1).
  • domain assumption Rest-frame near-IR F356W sizes trace mass-weighted structure
    Suess et al. (2022) recommendation adopted in Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-mass quiescent size-mass slope is constant with redshift (alpha=0.17)
    Imposed in the two highest redshift bins (Table 4 footnote), needed to fit the size-mass relations with small samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST PRIMER: strong evidence for the environmental quenching of low-mass galaxies out to $\mathbf{\textit{z} \simeq 2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33KO22QN

@misc{pith2026241209592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST PRIMER: strong evidence for the environmental quenching of low-mass galaxies out to $\mathbf\textitz \simeq 2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33KO22QN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09592}
}
abstract

We present the results of a study investigating the galaxy stellar-mass function (GSMF), size-mass relations and morphological properties of star-forming and quiescent galaxies over the redshift range $0.25<z<2.25$, using the JWST PRIMER survey. The depth of the PRIMER near-IR imaging allows us to confirm the double Schechter function shape of the quiescent GSMF out to $z\simeq2.0$, via a clear detection of the upturn at $\mathrm{log}_{10}(M_{\star}/ M_{\odot}) \leq 10$ thought to be induced by environmental quenching. In addition to the GSMF, we confirm that quiescent galaxies can be split into separate populations at $\mathrm{log}_{10}(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \simeq 10$, based on their size-mass relations and morphologies. We find that low-mass quiescent galaxies have more disk-like morphologies (based on S\'ersic index, Gini coefficient and $M_{20}$ metrics) and follow a shallower size-mass relation than their high-mass counterparts. Indeed, the slope of the size-mass relation followed by low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that followed by star-forming galaxies, albeit with a lower normalization. Moreover, within the errors, the evolution in the median size of low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that followed by star-forming galaxies ($R_{e}\propto(1+z)^{-0.25\pm0.03})$, and significantly less rapid than that displayed by high-mass quiescent galaxies ($R_{e}\propto (1+z)^{-1.14\pm 0.03})$. Overall, our results are consistent with low and high-mass quiescent galaxies following different quenching pathways. The evolution of low-mass quiescent galaxies is qualitatively consistent with the expectations of external/environmental quenching (e.g. ram-pressure stripping). In contrast, the evolution of high-mass quiescent galaxies is consistent with internal/mass quenching (e.g. AGN feedback) followed by size growth driven by minor mergers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UVJ diagrams as a function of redshift for the final, mass-complete, PRIMER UDS and COSMOS samples. In each panel, UVJ-selected quiescent galaxies are colour-coded by Sérsic index while star-forming galaxies are shown as black points. In the first three redshift bins, quiescent galaxies with redder colours are seen to have higher values of Sérsic index. Small number statistics make it difficult to ascertain whether … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Galaxy stellar-mass functions for star-forming and quiescent galaxies within the PRIMER UDS and COSMOS fields over the redshift range 0.25 < z < 2.25. The solid blue and red lines are our best-fitting single and double Schechter function fits to the star-forming and quiescent stellar-mass functions, respectively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Star-forming (blue, top panel) and quiescent (red, middle and bottom panels) galaxy size-mass relations. Blue and red contours indicate the sizes of PRIMER galaxies at 0.25 < z < 2.25, measured in the F356W filter. In the middle panel, we compare our double power-law fits to previous literature results (Kawinwanichakij et al. 2021; Nedkova et al. 2021). It can be seen that the double power-law fits do not capture th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top panel shows our quiescent galaxy sample on the size-mass plane, colour-coded by Sérsic index. The bottom panel shows the same sample on the Gini-M20 plane, again color-coded by Sérsic index. The distribution of the sample on the G − M20 plane provides a non-par…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The size evolution of quiescent and star-forming galaxies within three different stellar-mass ranges. We find that the slope of the relation followed by low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that followed by low-mass star-forming galaxies. We also find …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Trading oxygen for iron II. Oxygen- versus iron-dependent cosmic star formation history

    astro-ph.GA 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Most cosmic star formation occurred in gas with non-solar O/Fe; the cosmic mean [Fe/H] lags [O/H] by up to ~0.5 dex.

  2. Environmental vs. intrinsic quenching at cosmic noon: Predictions from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for VLT-MOONRISE

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In TNG and EAGLE simulations, central and high-mass satellite galaxies are best predicted to quench by black hole mass while low-mass satellites by halo mass, yielding opposite predictions for detecting environmental ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    G., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..694A 471, 694

    Abraham R. G., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..694A 471, 694

    doi:10.1086/177999 1996

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2312.12207

    Alberts S., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.12207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231212207A p. arXiv:2312.12207

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.12207 2023

  4. [4]

    Almaini O., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1401A 472, 1401

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  5. [5]

    arXiv:2307.09590

    Antwi-Danso J., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230709590A p. arXiv:2307.09590

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09590 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R

    Baldry I. K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R. H., Nichol R. C., Szalay A. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..681B 600, 681

    doi:10.1086/380092 2004

  8. [8]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3828B 512, 3828

    Barone T. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3828B 512, 3828

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac705 2022

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2410.10988

    Begley R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241010988B p. arXiv:2410.10988

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Kriek M., Conroy C., Bezanson R., Franx M., van der Wel A., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210512750B p

    Beverage A. G., Kriek M., Conroy C., Bezanson R., Franx M., van der Wel A., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210512750B p. arXiv:2105.12750

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G., Kriek M., Conroy C., Sandford N

    Beverage A. G., Kriek M., Conroy C., Sandford N. R., Bezanson R., Franx M., van der Wel A., Weisz D. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948..140B 948, 140

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Boselli A., Gavazzi G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..517B 118, 517

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Brennan R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2933B 451, 2933

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1660B 444, 1660

    Bruce V. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1660B 444, 1660

    2014 doi

  8. [18]

    P., Bruce V

    Buitrago F., Trujillo I., Curtis-Lake E., Montes M., Cooper A. P., Bruce V. A., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., Cirasuolo M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4888B 466, 4888

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    J., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Byler N., Dalcanton J. J., Conroy C., Johnson B. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...44B 840, 44

    2017 doi

  10. [20]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  11. [21]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    2018 doi

  12. [22]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.619..716C 619, 716

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.619..716C 619, 716

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    2024 doi

  14. [24]

    Chevallard J., Charlot S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1415C 462, 1415

    2016 doi

  15. [25]

    Cimatti A., Nipoti C., Cassata P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01237.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422L..62C 422, L62

    2012

  16. [26]

    Cirasuolo M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...10C 180, 10

    2020 doi

  17. [27]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..291C 52, 291

    Conselice C. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..291C 52, 291

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...34C 925, 34

    Cutler S. E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...34C 925, 34

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967L..23C 967, L23

    Cutler S. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967L..23C 967, L23

    2024 doi

  20. [30]

    D'Onofrio M., Marziani P., Buson L., 2015, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2015.00004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015FrASS...2....4D 2, 4

    2015

  21. [31]

    Davidzon I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..70D 605, A70

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    Dekel A., Birnboim Y., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368....2D 368, 2

    2006

  23. [33]

    Dekel A., Silk J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303...39D 303, 39

    1986 doi

  24. [34]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    Dubois Y., Gavazzi R., Peirani S., Silk J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.3297D 433, 3297

    2013 doi

  26. [36]

    Dubois Y., Peirani S., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Gavazzi R., Welker C., Volonteri M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3948D 463, 3948

    2016 doi

  27. [37]

    S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal

    Dunlop J. S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1

    2021

  28. [38]

    J., et al., 2017, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    2017

  29. [39]

    Fontana A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...459..745F 459, 745

    2006 doi

  30. [40]

    M., Dav \'e R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21640.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1816G 427, 1816

    Gabor J. M., Dav \'e R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21640.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1816G 427, 1816

    2012

  31. [41]

    arXiv:2409.10586

    George K., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240910586G p. arXiv:2409.10586

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [42]

    Glazebrook K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.628..277G 628, 277

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Gould K. M. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/accadc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..248G 165, 248

    2023 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]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1262H 512, 1262

    Hamadouche M. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1262H 512, 1262

    2022 doi

  37. [47]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..741H

    Hamadouche M. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..741H

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    H \"a ussler B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..615H 172, 615

    2007 doi

  39. [49]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Wilman D., Weinmann S., Iovino A., Cucciati O., Zibetti S., Villalobos \'A ., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2938H 444, 2938

    2014 doi

  40. [50]

    F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..915H 724, 915

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..915H 724, 915

    2010 doi

  41. [51]

    H., Venhola A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..80J 647, A80

    Janz J., Salo H., Su A. H., Venhola A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..80J 647, A80

    2021 doi

  42. [52]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..15K 946, L15

    Kartaltepe J. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..15K 946, L15

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..134K 847, 134

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    arXiv:2109.09766

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210909766K p. arXiv:2109.09766

    2021 arXiv

  45. [55]

    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

  46. [56]

    J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..603K 42, 603

    Kormendy J., Kennicutt Robert C. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..603K 42, 603

    2004

  47. [57]

    Kova c K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..717K 438, 717

    2014 doi

  48. [58]

    G., Franx M., Illingworth G

    Kriek M., van Dokkum P. G., Franx M., Illingworth G. D., Magee D. K., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705L..71K 705, L71

    2009 doi

  49. [59]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  50. [60]

    Kuchner U., Ziegler B., Verdugo M., Bamford S., H \"a u ler B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...604A..54K 604, A54

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    Lange R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2603L 447, 2603

    2015 doi

  52. [62]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4cea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...68L 970, 68

    Long A. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4cea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...68L 970, 68

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..177L 672, 177

    Lotz J. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..177L 672, 177

    2008 doi

  54. [64]

    M., Fritz J., Werle A., Vulcani B., Moretti A., Gullieuszik M., Kulier A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2604 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5359M 525, 5359

    Marasco A., Poggianti B. M., Fritz J., Werle A., Vulcani B., Moretti A., Gullieuszik M., Kulier A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2604 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5359M 525, 5359

    2023 doi

  55. [65]

    F., Brammer G., Franx M., Nersesian A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..134M 972, 134

    Martorano M., van der Wel A., Baes M., Bell E. F., Brammer G., Franx M., Nersesian A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..134M 972, 134

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    L., Bower R

    McGee S. L., Bower R. G., Balogh M. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442L.105M 442, L105

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    J., McLure R

    McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Cullen F., Carnall A. C., Duncan K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4413M 503, 4413

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1088M 428, 1088

    McLure R. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1088M 428, 1088

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    McLure R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    2018 doi

  60. [70]

    Moore B., Lake G., Katz N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..139M 495, 139

    1998 doi

  61. [71]

    Moutard T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...590A.103M 590, A103

    2016 doi

  62. [72]

    Moutard T., Sawicki M., Arnouts S., Golob A., Malavasi N., Adami C., Coupon J., Ilbert O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2147M 479, 2147

    2018 doi

  63. [73]

    B., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L..13M 872, L13

    Mowla L., van der Wel A., van Dokkum P., Miller T. B., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L..13M 872, L13

    doi

  64. [74]

    A., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...57M 880, 57

    Mowla L. A., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...57M 880, 57

    doi

  65. [75]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...18M 777, 18

    2013 doi

  66. [76]

    V., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210607663N p

    Nedkova K. V., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210607663N p. arXiv:2106.07663

    2021 arXiv

  67. [77]

    B., Ellis R

    Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., Bundy K., Treu T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..162N 746, 162

    2012 doi

  68. [78]

    R., Conselice C

    Ownsworth J. R., Conselice C. J., Mortlock A., Hartley W. G., Almaini O., Duncan K., Mundy C. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2198O 445, 2198

    2014 doi

  69. [79]

    Papovich C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...93P 750, 93

    2012 doi

  70. [80]

    Papovich C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...30P 854, 30

    2018 doi

  71. [81]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...15P 766, 15

    Patel S. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...15P 766, 15

    2013 doi

  72. [82]

    Y., Ho L

    Peng C. Y., Ho L. C., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..266P 124, 266

    2002 doi

  73. [83]

    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

  74. [84]

    Pozzetti L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..13P 523, A13

    2010 doi

  75. [85]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4140R 483, 4140

    2019 doi

  76. [86]

    C., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , 859, 11

    Salim S., Boquien M., Lee J. C., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , 859, 11

    2018 doi

  77. [87]

    Samuel J., Pardasani B., Wetzel A., Santistevan I., Boylan-Kolchin M., Moreno J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3849S 525, 3849

    2023 doi

  78. [88]

    arXiv:2307.08633

    Sandles L., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.08633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230708633S p. arXiv:2307.08633

    2023 doi arXiv

  79. [89]

    Santini P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..135S 940, 135

    2022 doi

  80. [90]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..121S 464, 121

    Schaefer A. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..121S 464, 121

    2017 doi

  81. [91]

    J., White S

    Shen S., Mo H. J., White S. D. M., Blanton M. R., Kauffmann G., Voges W., Brinkmann J., Csabai I., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343..978S 343, 978

    2003

  82. [92]

    A., Wild V., Maltby D

    Socolovsky M., Almaini O., Hatch N. A., Wild V., Maltby D. T., Hartley W. G., Simpson C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1242S 476, 1242

    2018 doi

  83. [93]

    S., Davé R., 2015, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Davé R., 2015, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , 53, 51

    2015 doi

  84. [94]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  85. [95]

    A., Kriek M., Price S

    Suess K. A., Kriek M., Price S. H., Barro G., 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., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..33S 937, L33

    Suess K. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..33S 937, L33

    2022 doi

  87. [97]

    G., Rowlands K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2297T 522, 2297

    Taylor E., Almaini O., Merrifield M., Maltby D., Wild V., Hartley W. G., Rowlands K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2297T 522, 2297

    2023 doi

  88. [98]

    arXiv:2409.01351

    Tomicic N., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240901351T p. arXiv:2409.01351

    2024 doi arXiv

  89. [99]

    J., Bundy K., Cooper M

    Trujillo I., Conselice C. J., Bundy K., Cooper M. C., Eisenhardt P., Ellis R. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12388.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382..109T 382, 109

    2007

  90. [100]

    V., White S

    \"U bler H., Naab T., Oser L., Aumer M., Sales L. V., White S. D. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2092U 443, 2092

    2014 doi

  91. [101]

    Valentino F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...20V 947, 20

    2023 doi

  92. [102]

    R., Tinker J

    Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., van den Bosch F. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..336W 432, 336

    2013 doi

  93. [103]

    J., Quadri R

    Williams R. J., Quadri R. F., Franx M., van Dokkum P., Labb \'e I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1879W 691, 1879

    2009 doi

  94. [104]

    J., Lagos C

    Wright R. J., Lagos C. d. P., Davies L. J. M., Power C., Trayford J. W., Wong O. I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3740W 487, 3740

    2019 doi

  95. [105]

    arXiv:2404.05683

    de Graaff A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.05683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240405683D p. arXiv:2404.05683

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [106]

    C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H. J., Pasquali A., McIntosh D. H., Weinmann S. M., Kang X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387...79V 387, 79

    2008

  97. [107]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..203...24V 203, 24

    2012 doi

  98. [108]

    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

  99. [109]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..223...29V 223, 29

    2016 doi

  100. [110]

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