Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

EPOCHS XI: The Structure and Morphology of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization to z ~ 12.5

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 This paper shows that the known decline of galaxy half-light radius with redshift continues to $z \sim 12.5$, with $R_e = (2.12 \pm 0.28)\,(1+z)^{-0.67 \pm 0.06}$ kpc, and that at fixed stellar mass galaxies were more compact earlier…

desk verdict Solid extension of size evolution to z~12.5 with a larger sample, but the abstract/body numbers disagree and the redshift-simulation test misses the wavelength shift it claims to cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14970 v2 pith:MHKT7A3O submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.GA

Lewi Westcott , Christopher J. Conselice , Thomas Harvey , Duncan Austin , Nathan Adams , Fabricio Ferrari , Leonardo Ferreira , James Trussler
show 24 more authors
Qiong Li Vadim Rusakov Qiao Duan Honor Harris Caio Goolsby Thomas J. Broadhurst Dan Coe Seth H. Cohen Simon P. Driver Jordan C. J. D'Silva Brenda Frye Norman A. Grogin Nimish P. Hathi Rolf A. Jansen Anton M. Koekemoer Madeline A. Marshall Rafael Ortiz III Nor Pirzkal Aaron Robotham Russell E. Ryan Jr. Jake Summers Christopher N. A. Willmer Rogier A. Windhorst Haojing Yan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxystructurehigh-redshiftgalaxiesepochofreionizationSersicprofilehalf-lightradiussize-massrelationmergersJWSTNIRCam
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 analyzes the sizes and shapes of 520 galaxies seen when the universe was less than a billion years old, between redshifts 6.5 and 12.5. It argues that galaxies did not stop shrinking at the redshifts probed by earlier surveys: the known decline of half-light radius continues, following $R_e = (2.12 \pm 0.28)\,(1+z)^{-0.67 \pm 0.06}$ kpc, and at a fixed stellar mass galaxies were noticeably more compact earlier, growing by about 53% in roughly 400 Myr. The paper also reports that the fraction of galaxies identifiable as mergers stays near $f_m \sim 0.12$ with little redshift dependence, and that the smallest galaxies tend to be rounder. The reason these trends matter is that they bear on whether compact galaxies in the early universe are a real evolutionary phase or an artifact of observing faint, distant sources. Artificial redshift experiments are used to argue that the trends are real.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by single-component S\'ersic profile fits made with GALFIT in the JWST NIRCam F444W band, chosen to sample rest-frame optical light and to minimize morphological K-correction; the half-light radius $R_e$, S\'ersic index $n$, and axis ratio $b/a$ from these fits are the parametric measurements. Non-parametric concentration and asymmetry are measured with Morfometryka, and the asymmetry criterion $A > 0.35$ from the CAS system is used to classify mergers. To rule out redshift-dependent observational biases, a subsample of 285 galaxies is artificially redshifted in steps of $\Delta z = 1$ up to $z = 12$ using the AREIA code, which rebins, dims, adds shot noise, and re-convolves sources with the F444W PSF, and the remeasured parameters are compared as fractional changes. The flat fractional-change trends for size, axis ratio, and asymmetry constitute the key check that the observed evolution is not an artifact.

What would settle it

If a substantial fraction of the $z \sim 9$-$12$ candidates were reassigned to neighboring redshifts by JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy, and the size-redshift or size-mass trends flattened after reassignment, the central claim would fail. A direct test would take the 520 galaxies, measure spectroscopic redshifts for as many as possible, and re-derive the $R_e(z)$ power law and the size-mass normalization with the secure redshifts only; if the smaller sizes at $z \sim 10$-$12$ disappear, the evolutionary interpretation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that galaxy structure evolution continues into the Epoch of Reionization: in rest-frame optical light (F444W), galaxies become progressively smaller with increasing redshift out to $z \sim 12.5$, and the size-mass relation shifts so that galaxies of a given stellar mass are smaller at earlier times. The paper quantifies this with a single S\'ersic half-light radius that declines as $R_e = (2.12 \pm 0.28)\,(1+z)^{-0.67 \pm 0.06}$ kpc, and with a size-mass relation whose normalization drops from $\log_{10}(R_{e0}/\mathrm{kpc}) \sim -0.6$ to $-0.77$ across redshift bins, corresponding to a roughly 53% size increase for a $\log(M_*/M_\odot) = 8$ galaxy in about 400 Myr. In addition, non-parametric asymmetry measurements give a merger fraction of $f_m = 0.12 \pm 0.07$, consistent with the roughly constant $f_m \sim 0.1$ seen at $z < 9$, and the sample shows an excess of round, high-axis-ratio objects among the most compact galaxies. The paper's redshift-simulation check finds flat fractional changes in size, axis ratio, and asymmetry when real galaxies are artificially moved to higher redshifts, which is taken as evidence that the observed trends reflect real evolution rather than surface-brightness or resolution effects.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the photometric redshifts and SED-derived stellar masses are accurate enough to bin galaxies by redshift and mass; the paper itself notes that photo-z scattering occurs near $z \sim 10$ because the Lyman break lies between the F115W and F150W filters, and only a small fraction of the sample has spectroscopic confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the trend is real, the small sizes of very high-redshift galaxies are a genuine evolutionary phase, not a selection or resolution artifact.
  • Galaxies of a given mass being roughly 53% larger only 400 Myr later implies rapid size growth in the first half-billion years of galaxy assembly.
  • A merger fraction near 0.12 with little redshift evolution from $z \sim 4$ to $z \sim 12$ implies that mergers were already assembling galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization.
  • The trend also holds for Petrosian radii, so galaxies grow in total size, not just in their half-light radii.
  • The excess of round, compact objects suggests that many early galaxies were either intrinsically round or dominated by a bright core whose outer diffuse component is too faint to detect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed with spectroscopy, the size-mass evolution provides a tight timeline for feedback-driven size growth: dense, lower-mass galaxies must puff up by about 50% within roughly 400 Myr, which simulations will need to reproduce without overproducing massive compact remnants.
  • Because no mass cut was applied, the sample is dominated by low-mass galaxies; deeper, wider surveys should test whether the same power law holds for $\log(M_*/M_\odot) > 9$ at $z > 8$, where current numbers are small.
  • The high axis ratios of compact galaxies could partly reflect a bright unresolved core; stacking the compact objects to search for faint extended emission would distinguish intrinsically round galaxies from core-dominated ones, a test the paper leaves implicit.
  • If photo-z scattering at $z \sim 10$ is as strong as the paper suggests, the true size at $z \sim 10$-$12$ could be even smaller or larger than measured; targeted spectroscopic follow-up of the dip at $z \sim 10$ would sharpen the evolutionary interpretation.
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 presents a structural analysis of 520 (or 521, depending on the manuscript version; see Major Comment 1) galaxy candidates at 6.5 < z < 12.5 from the EPOCHS v1 survey, using GALFIT single-Sersic fits in F444W and Morfometryka non-parametric measurements. The authors derive a size evolution Re = (2.12 ± 0.28)(1+z)^(-0.67 ± 0.06) kpc (full-text version), report a size-mass relation whose normalization evolves such that galaxies of fixed mass are smaller at higher redshift, measure a merger fraction fm = 0.12 ± 0.07, and find an excess of round, compact objects. They use AREIA artificial redshift simulations to argue that the observed size, axis-ratio, and asymmetry trends are real evolutionary effects rather than redshift-dependent observational artifacts.

Significance. If the results hold, they extend the known size evolution of galaxies into the epoch of reionization and support the interpretation that the compactness of z > 6.5 galaxies is a genuine evolutionary phase. The paper's strengths include the use of multiple independent size measures (Sersic, Petrosian, Kron), tests of PSF systematics (Appendix C), recovery simulations of Sersic profiles (Appendix E), and a uniform reduction across six JWST fields. The paper also makes comparisons with simulations and previous work. The main technical risk is the incompleteness of the artificial redshift simulation in reproducing rest-frame wavelength changes, and the internal inconsistency in the abstract's headline numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 8] The arXiv version of the abstract quotes 521 galaxies and Re = (2.74 ± 0.49)(1+z)^(-0.79 ± 0.08) kpc, while the full-text abstract and the conclusions in Section 8 quote 520 galaxies and Re = (2.12 ± 0.28)(1+z)^(-0.67 ± 0.06) kpc. These are the two central quantitative claims of the paper, and the discrepancy must be reconciled before publication; it also raises the question of which version corresponds to the submitted analysis.
  2. [Section 6.5 and Figures 13/Table 3] The AREIA simulation re-bins and flux-scales the F444W image and convolves it with the F444W PSF, but it does not change the rest-frame wavelength of the light being observed. At z ~ 7 F444W samples rest-frame ~0.55 micron, while at the simulated z ~ 12 it would sample ~0.34 micron in a real observation. Since galaxy size is wavelength-dependent, the simulation cannot test whether part of the observed size decline from z ~ 7 to z ~ 12 is a morphological K-correction. The claim in Section 6.5 that the simulation shows the trends 'are due to real evolutionary effects and not redshift effects' is therefore stronger than the simulation supports. Please either include wavelength-dependent mock observations (e.g., using multi-band imaging to assign rest-frame wavelength-dependent morphologies) or explicitly quantify the expected K-correction and revise the claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 6.1] The photometric redshift uncertainty, including the admitted z ~ 10 scattering between F115W and F150W, is not propagated into the size-redshift power law or the size-mass relation. The size-mass relation (Table 1) assumes a fixed gradient from the 6.5 < z < 7.5 bin, so the claimed evolution is entirely in the normalization; this assumption should be checked (e.g., by allowing the slope to vary in stacked bins) and the effect of photo-z scatter on the bin medians should be quantified or at least discussed as a systematic.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Appendix A] 73 of the 520 galaxies (14%) have their Sersic index fixed to n = 0.05 after failing the free-fit criteria. While Appendix A shows similar sizes for n = 0.05 and n = 1, the possibility that these objects are systematically different (e.g., higher-n compact objects) could bias the median sizes and the size evolution. Please show that the main results are robust to excluding these 73 objects.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The paper states that F444W is used to 'best probe the rest frame optical', but at z > 9 F444W corresponds to rest-frame UV (~340 nm at z = 12). The wording should be adjusted, and the caveat that the rest-frame wavelength varies across the sample should be stated wherever morphological K-correction is discussed.
  2. [Section 6.5] The phrase 'all known cosmological effects' in Section 6.5 is an overstatement; the simulation includes geometric rebinning, surface brightness dimming, and noise, but not wavelength-dependent morphology or color-dependent PSF variations.
  3. [Table 2] The header rows use approximate redshifts (7, 8, 9, 10.5, 12) rather than the bin definitions in the text; please make the bins consistent for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 2] The cutout mosaics would benefit from a scale bar in physical kpc at each redshift; currently the PSF FWHM is shown but not a kpc scale, making visual size comparisons difficult.
  5. [Appendix B] The NMAD values in Table 4 are useful, but the sample used (235 galaxies) is a subset; please state whether the F410M trends are verified on the same redshift bins and with the same selection.
  6. [References] Several entries have only arXiv IDs (e.g., Adams et al. 2024) and should be updated with accepted journal references where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the size trends are fits to measured GALFIT/Morfometryka parameters, the AREIA redshift simulation is a consistency control rather than a self-derived prediction, and the self-citations are data products and external calibrations rather than self-referential derivations.

full rationale

EPOCHS XI is an observational measurement paper, not a derivation from assumed inputs. The size-redshift power law (Eq. 6) and the size-mass relation are fits to measured half-light radii and Bagpipes stellar masses, so there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The merger fraction uses the externally calibrated CAS asymmetry threshold (Conselice 2003) applied to measured asymmetry values; the threshold is not re-derived here, and the comparison with independent pair-fraction work provides external anchoring. The AREIA artificial-redshift experiment is a control check: it re-observes the same galaxies at higher redshifts and measures whether the included observational effects (geometric rebinning, cosmological surface-brightness dimming, PSF, noise) reproduce the observed decline. The near-flat recovered size gradient supports the claim that the observed decline is not produced by those effects. A caveat is that the simulation re-uses the F444W image and therefore does not simulate the morphological K-correction as the band shifts from rest-frame optical at z~7 to rest-frame UV at z~12; this is a completeness limitation of the control, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. Self-citations to EPOCHS v1 (Conselice et al. 2024) and Harvey et al. (2024) provide the catalogue, photometric redshifts, and stellar masses, but the structural measurements and the trends are made independently in this paper. No step defines or fits the claimed result in terms of itself, and no specific equation or construction can be exhibited in which a prediction is equivalent to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements rest on standard photometric and morphological fitting assumptions plus several domain choices: Sersic model adequacy, PSF fidelity, photometric redshift quality, and the validity of the CAS merger criterion at high redshift. There are no invented physical entities. The free parameters are mostly selection thresholds and the fitted power-law parameters that constitute the results, not hidden inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Size evolution power-law normalization and slope = A = 2.12 ± 0.28 kpc, beta = -0.67 ± 0.06 in Re = A(1+z)^beta
    Fitted to median half-light radii in five redshift bins; this is the paper's headline empirical result, not an assumed input, but it is a fit whose central claim depends on it.
  • Size-mass relation gradient = 0.04 ± 0.02 dex(kpc)/dex(M*)
    Gradient fitted to the 6.5<z<7.5 bin and held fixed for higher-z bins; used to claim size growth for fixed mass at increasing redshift.
  • Fixed Sersic index for failed fits = n = 0.05
    Galaxies that failed initial GALFIT criteria were re-fit with n held at 0.05; 73 of the final 520 galaxies come from this re-fit, and the choice affects their half-light radii.
  • Residual flux fraction cutoff = RFF < 0.5
    Manual cutoff applied to accept or reject GALFIT models; 36 plus 35 galaxies were removed on this basis, so the cutoff shapes the sample.
  • Signal-to-noise threshold = SNR > 10 sigma in F444W
    Selection threshold that reduces the EPOCHS v1 catalogue to the 567 galaxies considered in this work.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Sersic profile with the Ciotti and Bertin bn approximation is an adequate model for high-z galaxy light distributions.
    Invoked throughout Section 4.1; the paper fits single Sersic models and interprets their parameters as physical structure.
  • domain assumption The simulated WebbPSF model accurately represents the F444W PSF.
    Used as the PSF in all GALFIT fits; Appendix C tests against an empirical PSF and finds Re robust but n and b/a sensitive.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from EAZY and stellar masses from Bagpipes with the log-normal SFH prior are accurate enough for redshift binning and the size-mass relation.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3; most galaxies lack spectroscopic redshifts, and the paper notes photo-z scattering at z~10.
  • domain assumption The CAS asymmetry criterion A>0.35 and A>S, calibrated at lower redshift, remains valid for classifying mergers at z>6.5.
    Section 6.3, Eq. 7; the merger fraction is derived from this threshold.
  • domain assumption The AREIA artificial redshift simulations capture all relevant redshift-dependent observational effects.
    Section 6.5; used to argue observed trends are evolutionary rather than redshift effects.
  • domain assumption Single-component Sersic fits in F444W probe rest-frame optical structure without significant morphological K-correction.
    Section 4.1; choice of band motivated by rest-frame optical access, with F410M comparison in Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EPOCHS XI: The Structure and Morphology of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization to z ~ 12.5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHKT7A3O

@misc{pith2026241214970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EPOCHS XI: The Structure and Morphology of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization to z ~ 12.5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHKT7A3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14970}
}
abstract

We present a structural analysis of 521 galaxy candidates at 6.5 < z < 12.5, with $SNR > 10\sigma$ in the F444W filter, taken from the EPOCHS v1 sample, consisting of uniformly reduced deep JWST NIRCam data, covering the CEERS, JADES GOOD-S, NGDEEP, SMACS0723, GLASS and PEARLS surveys. We use standard software to fit single S\'ersic models to each galaxy in the rest-frame optical and extract their parametric structural parameters (S\'ersic index, half-light radius and axis-ratio), and \texttt{Morfometryka} to measure their non-parametric concentration and asymmetry parameters. We find a wide range of sizes for these early galaxies, but with a strong galaxy-size mass correlation up to $z \sim 12$ such that galaxy sizes continue to get progressively smaller in the high-redshift regime, following $R_{e} = 2.74 \pm 0.49 \left( 1 + z \right) ^{-0.79 \pm 0.08}$ kpc. Using non-parametric methods we find that galaxy merger fractions, classified through asymmetry parameters, at these redshifts remain consistent with those in literature, maintaining a value of $f_{m} \sim 0.12 \pm 0.07$ showing little dependence with redshift when combined with literature at $z > 4$. We find that galaxies which are smaller in size also appear rounder, with an excess of high axis-ratio objects. Finally, we artificially redshift a subsample of our objects to determine how robust the observational trends we see are, determining that observed trends are due to real evolutionary effects, rather than being a consequence of redshift effects.

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. Morphological Demographics of Galaxies at $z\sim 10-16$: Log-Normal Size Distribution and Exponential Profiles Consistent with the Disk Formation Scenario

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Galaxies at z=10-16 have a log-normal size distribution with sigma 0.52, nearly uniform axis ratios, and exponential profiles, consistent with early disk formation.

  2. Evolution of Size, Mass, and Density of Galaxies Since Cosmic Dawn

    physics.gen-ph 2025-10 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Under the author's CCC+TL cosmology, galaxy effective radii are larger by roughly (1+z)^0.93, reducing the inferred density and mass of early galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Ⱦ4tݿ9pKQ]] =uo: O^C0 p; 듟?y+ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 sb. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ p 0i + @ k 8]ˆ! - 8 ӟk P ̆ fӦM믿ޮ*ӧ TH Y.p 饗l sN /OkAuu <xдZٳ[ 7e! TN @ N:ev [f cs]]] 6:

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J., Conselice , C

    Adams , N. J., Conselice , C. J., Ferreira , L., et al. 2023, , 518, 4755, 10.1093/mnras/stac3347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3347 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, EPOCHS Paper II: The Ultraviolet Luminosity Function from 7.5<z<13.5 using 180 square arcminutes of deep, blank-fields from the PEARLS Survey and Public JWST data. 2304.13721

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    little red dots

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, COSMOS-Web: The over-abundance and physical nature of "little red dots"--Implications for early galaxy and SMBH assembly. 2406.10341

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Shuntov, M., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 1201, 10.1093/mnras/stac3144

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    J., et al

    Austin, D., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2023, 10.17909/v7ke-ze45

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Adams, N

    Austin, D., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, EPOCHS III: Unbiased UV continuum slopes at 6.5<z<13 from combined PEARLS GTO and public JWST NIRCam imaging. 2404.10751

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023 a , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Pirzkal, N., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Pirzkal, N., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023 b , The Next Generation Deep Extragalactic Exploratory Public (NGDEEP) Survey. 2302.05466

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    E., Nelson , E

    Benton , C. E., Nelson , E. J., Miller , T. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08328, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08328

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Jangren , A., & Conselice , C

    Bershady , M. A., Jangren , A., & Conselice , C. J. 2000, , 119, 2645, 10.1086/301386

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3703–3716, 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3703–3716, 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Bluck , A. F. L., Conselice , C. J., Buitrago , F., et al. 2012, , 747, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/34

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    2024 a , astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    Bradley, L., Sipecz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024 a , astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2024 b , astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, 1.13.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024 b , astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, 1.13.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 1503–1513, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Holwerda, B

    Bridge, J. S., Holwerda, B. W., Stefanon, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3213

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2018, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  18. [26]

    J., Epinat, B., et al

    Buitrago, F., Conselice, C. J., Epinat, B., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 1494–1521, 10.1093/mnras/stu034

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2008, SIZE EVOLUTION OF THE MOST MASSIVE GALAXIES AT 1.7 ! z ! 3 FROM GOODS NICMOS SURVEY IMAGING

    2008

  20. [28]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 265, 1013–1021, 10.1093/mnras/265.4.1013

    Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., & D’Onofrio, M. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 265, 1013–1021, 10.1093/mnras/265.4.1013

    1993 doi

  22. [30]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Saintonge, A., et al

    Chamba, N., Marcum, P. M., Saintonge, A., et al. 2024, A Break In the Size-Stellar Mass Relation: Evidence for Quenching and Feedback in Dwarf Galaxies. 2408.13311

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    1991, , 249, 99

    Ciotti , L. 1991, , 249, 99

    1991

  26. [34]

    1999, Analytical properties of the R^ (1/m) luminosity law

    Ciotti, L., & Bertin, G. 1999, Analytical properties of the R^ (1/m) luminosity law. astro-ph/9911078

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., Momcheva , I., et al

    Clausen , M., Whitaker , K. E., Momcheva , I., et al. 2024, , 971, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad528a

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

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

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Conselice , C. J. 2003, , 147, 1, 10.1086/375001

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, The evolution of galaxy structure over cosmic time, Annual Reviews Inc., 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Bershady , M

    Conselice , C. J., Bershady , M. A., Dickinson , M., & Papovich , C. 2003, , 126, 1183, 10.1086/377318

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Mundy , C

    Conselice , C. J., Mundy , C. J., Ferreira , L., & Duncan , K. 2022, , 940, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b1a

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Yang , C., & Bluck , A

    Conselice , C. J., Yang , C., & Bluck , A. F. L. 2009, , 394, 1956, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14396.x

    2009

  34. [42]

    J., Adams, N., Harvey, T., et al

    Conselice, C. J., Adams, N., Harvey, T., et al. 2024, EPOCHS I. The Discovery and Star Forming Properties of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization at 6.5 < z < 18 with PEARLS and Public JWST data. 2407.14973

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G., Vega-Ferrero , J., et al

    Costantin , L., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Vega-Ferrero , J., et al. 2023, , 946, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb926

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    J., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, The ultraviolet continuum slopes of high-redshift galaxies: evidence for the emergence of dust-free stellar populations at z > 10. 2311.06209

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    2023, Spectroscopic confirmation of four metal-poor galaxies at z=10.3-13.2

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Spectroscopic confirmation of four metal-poor galaxies at z=10.3-13.2. 2212.04568

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    2024, The rate and contribution of mergers to mass assembly from NIRCam observations of galaxy candidates up to 13.3 billion years ago

    Dalmasso, N., Calabrò, A., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, The rate and contribution of mergers to mass assembly from NIRCam observations of galaxy candidates up to 13.3 billion years ago. 2403.11428

    2024

  39. [47]

    1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247

    de Vaucouleurs , G. 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247

    1948

  40. [48]

    B., et al

    Delgado-Serrano, R., Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 509, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912704

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    T., McLeod , D

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

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2024, Galaxy Mergers in the Epoch of Reionization I: A JWST Study of Pair Fractions, Merger Rates, and Stellar Mass Accretion Rates at z = 4.5-11.5 . 2407.09472

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J., Mundy , C., et al

    Duncan , K., Conselice , C. J., Mundy , C., et al. 2019, , 876, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

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

    Eisenstein , D. J., Willott , C., Alberts , S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    C., Dickinson , M., Giavalisco , M., et al

    Ferguson , H. C., Dickinson , M., Giavalisco , M., et al. 2004, , 600, L107, 10.1086/378578

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    R., & Trevisan , M

    Ferrari , F., de Carvalho , R. R., & Trevisan , M. 2015, , 814, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/55

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Ferreira, L., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Sazonova , E., et al

    Ferreira , L., Conselice , C. J., Sazonova , E., et al. 2023, , 955, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L55, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    L., Pascale , M., Foo , N., et al

    Frye , B. L., Pascale , M., Foo , N., et al. 2023, , 952, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd929

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 35, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Kristian , J

    Groth , E. J., Kristian , J. A., Lynds , R., et al. 1994, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 185, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 53.09

    1994

  56. [64]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, The Cosmos in its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z > 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N. 2306.02468

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2023, , 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

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

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Harvey, T., Conselice, C., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, EPOCHS IV: SED Modelling Assumptions and their impact on the Stellar Mass Function at 6.5 < z < 13.5 using PEARLS and public JWST observations. 2403.03908

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P., Malhotra , S., & Rhoads , J

    Hathi , N. P., Malhotra , S., & Rhoads , J. E. 2008, , 673, 686, 10.1086/524836

    2008 doi

  60. [68]

    1786, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76, 457

    Herschel, W. 1786, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76, 457. http://www.jstor.org/stable/106639

  61. [69]

    1983, Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis , WILEY SERIES in PROBABILITY and STATISTICS : PROBABILITY and STATISTICS SECTION Series (Wiley)

    Hoaglin, D., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. 1983, Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis , WILEY SERIES in PROBABILITY and STATISTICS : PROBABILITY and STATISTICS SECTION Series (Wiley). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HRrvAAAAMAAJ

    1983

  62. [70]

    L., Mack , J., Avila , R., et al

    Hoffmann , S. L., Mack , J., Avila , R., et al. 2021 a , in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 238, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 216.02

    2021

  63. [71]

    L., Mack , J., Avila , R., et al

    Hoffmann , S. L., Mack , J., Avila , R., et al. 2021 b , in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 53, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 216.02

    2021

  64. [72]

    2011, , 411, 2439, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x

    Hoyos , C., den Brok , M., Verdoes Kleijn , G., et al. 2011, , 411, 2439, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x

    2011

  65. [73]

    Hubble , E. P. 1926, , 64, 321, 10.1086/143018

    1926 doi

  66. [74]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    2017, The Hubble Legacy Fields (HLF-GOODS-S) v1.5 Data Products: Combining 2442 Orbits of GOODS-S/CDF-S Region ACS and WFC3/IR Images

    Illingworth, G., Magee, D., Bouwens, R., et al. 2017, The Hubble Legacy Fields (HLF-GOODS-S) v1.5 Data Products: Combining 2442 Orbits of GOODS-S/CDF-S Region ACS and WFC3/IR Images. 1606.00841

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    2023, , 948, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    Jacobs , C., Glazebrook , K., Calabr \`o , A., et al. 2023, , 948, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    A., & Windhorst , R

    Jansen , R. A., & Windhorst , R. A. 2018, , 130, 124001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae476

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    H., Penner , K., et al

    Jogee , S., Miller , S. H., Penner , K., et al. 2009, , 697, 1971, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1971

    2009 doi

  71. [79]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    S., Jeong, W.-S., et al

    Kim, E., Hwang, H. S., Jeong, W.-S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3113–3124, 10.1093/mnras/stab2090

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 36, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  74. [82]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, A Census of Photometrically Selected Little Red Dots at 4 < z < 9 in JWST Blank Fields. 2401.09981

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kron , R. G. 1980, , 43, 305, 10.1086/190669

    1980 doi

  76. [84]

    2024, , 968, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43eb

    Kuhn , V., Guo , Y., Martin , A., et al. 2024, , 968, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43eb

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, UNCOVER: Candidate Red Active Galactic Nuclei at 3<z<7 with JWST and ALMA. 2306.07320

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    2024, The evolution of galaxy morphology from redshift z=6 to 3: Mock JWST observations of galaxies in the ASTRID simulation

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2024, The evolution of galaxy morphology from redshift z=6 to 3: Mock JWST observations of galaxies in the ASTRID simulation. 2401.16608

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    L., Hutchison, T

    Larson, R. L., Hutchison, T. A., Bagley, M., et al. 2023 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    R., Koo , D

    Lin , L., Patton , D. R., Koo , D. C., et al. 2008, , 681, 232, 10.1086/587928

    2008 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Primack , J., & Madau , P

    Lotz , J. M., Primack , J., & Madau , P. 2004, , 128, 163, 10.1086/421849

    2004 doi

  83. [91]

    E., et al

    López-Sanjuan, C., Balcells, M., García-Dabó, C. E., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 643–653, 10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/643

    2009 doi

  84. [92]

    J., Mortlock , A., et al

    Margalef-Bentabol , B., Conselice , C. J., Mortlock , A., et al. 2016, , 461, 2728, 10.1093/mnras/stw1451

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    2021, Sonora Bobcat: cloud-free, substellar atmosphere models, spectra, photometry, evolution, and chemistry , Sonora Bobcat, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5063476

    Marley, M., Saumon, D., Morley, C., et al. 2021, Sonora Bobcat: cloud-free, substellar atmosphere models, spectra, photometry, evolution, and chemistry , Sonora Bobcat, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5063476

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    A., Acquaviva , V., Ade , P

    Marriage , T. A., Acquaviva , V., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2011, , 737, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/61

    2011 doi

  87. [95]

    2024, , 972, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    Martorano , M., van der Wel , A., Baes , M., et al. 2024, , 972, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    P., Sifón, C., et al

    Menanteau, F., Hughes, J. P., Sifón, C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 7, 10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/7

    2012 doi

  89. [97]

    J., Hartley , W

    Mortlock , A., Conselice , C. J., Hartley , W. G., et al. 2013, , 433, 1185, 10.1093/mnras/stt793

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    J., Conselice , C

    Mundy , C. J., Conselice , C. J., Duncan , K. J., et al. 2017, , 470, 3507, 10.1093/mnras/stx1238

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Dokkum, P. v., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  92. [100]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    J., Suess , K

    Nelson , E. J., Suess , K. A., Bezanson , R., et al. 2023, , 948, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1e1

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 670–692, 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 670–692, 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    Oke , J. B. 1974, , 27, 21, 10.1086/190287

    1974 doi

  96. [104]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  97. [105]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    J., Adams , N

    Ormerod , K., Conselice , C. J., Adams , N. J., et al. 2024, , 527, 6110, 10.1093/mnras/stad3597

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    2024, Galaxies Going Bananas: Inferring the 3D Geometry of High-Redshift Galaxies with JWST-CEERS

    Pandya, V., Zhang, H., Huertas-Company, M., et al. 2024, Galaxies Going Bananas: Inferring the 3D Geometry of High-Redshift Galaxies with JWST-CEERS. 2310.15232

    2024 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  101. [109]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H. W. 2010, Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  102. [110]

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

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. O. Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, Vol. 9143, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), ...

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    1976, , 210, L53, 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253

    Petrosian , V. 1976, , 210, L53, 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253

    1976

  104. [112]

    M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 936, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8a4e

    2022 doi

  105. [113]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., & Horner, S. D. 2005, in Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI, ed. J. B. Heaney & L. G. Burriesci, Vol. 5904, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 590401, 10.1117/12.615554

    2005 doi

  106. [114]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023 a , Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 028001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    J., Robertson, B

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023 b , JADES Initial Data Release for the Hubble Ultra Deep Field: Revealing the Faint Infrared Sky with Deep JWST NIRCam Imaging. 2306.02466

    2023

  108. [116]

    E., Tacchella , S., Johnson , B

    Robertson , B. E., Tacchella , S., Johnson , B. D., et al. 2023, , 942, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca086

    2023 doi

  109. [117]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Norberg, P., Driver, S. P., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 2640–2668, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19217.x

    2011

  110. [118]

    Rosse, T. E. 1850, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 140, 499. http://www.jstor.org/stable/108449

  111. [119]

    M., Simmons , B

    Schawinski , K., Urry , C. M., Simmons , B. D., et al. 2014, , 440, 889, 10.1093/mnras/stu327

    2014 doi

  112. [120]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  113. [121]

    A., Bezanson , R., Nelson , E

    Suess , K. A., Bezanson , R., Nelson , E. J., et al. 2022, , 937, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06

    2022 doi

  114. [122]

    A., Conselice , C

    Taylor-Mager , V. A., Conselice , C. J., Windhorst , R. A., & Jansen , R. A. 2007, , 659, 162, 10.1086/511806

    2007 doi

  115. [123]

    J., Bamford , S

    Tohill , C., Ferreira , L., Conselice , C. J., Bamford , S. P., & Ferrari , F. 2021, , 916, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac033c

    2021 doi

  116. [124]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    2022 doi

  117. [125]

    J., Bundy , K., et al

    Trujillo , I., Conselice , C. J., Bundy , K., et al. 2007, , 382, 109, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12388.x

    2007

  118. [126]

    F., Häussler, B., et al

    van der Wel, A., Bell, E. F., Häussler, B., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 203, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/24

    2012 doi

  119. [127]

    G., Whitaker , K

    van Dokkum , P. G., Whitaker , K. E., Brammer , G., et al. 2010, , 709, 1018, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1018

    2010 doi

  120. [128]

    G., Bowler, R

    Varadaraj, R. G., Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2024, The sizes of bright Lyman-break galaxies at z 3-5 with JWST PRIMER. 2401.15971

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  122. [130]

    2024, , 962, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ed

    Ward , E., de la Vega , A., Mobasher , B., et al. 2024, , 962, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ed

    2024 doi

  123. [131]

    E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 244, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853

    2019 doi

  124. [132]

    J., Duncan , K., & Spitler , L

    Whitney , A., Conselice , C. J., Duncan , K., & Spitler , L. R. 2020, , 903, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb824

    2020 doi

  125. [133]

    J., & Duncan, K

    Whitney, A., Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., & Duncan, K. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1422

    2021 doi

  126. [134]

    A., Cohen , S

    Windhorst , R. A., Cohen , S. H., Jansen , R. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163

    2023 doi

  127. [135]

    2023, Spectroscopy from Photometry: A Population of Extreme Emission Line Galaxies at 1.7 z 6.7 Selected with JWST Medium Band Filters

    Withers, S., Muzzin, A., Ravindranath, S., et al. 2023, Spectroscopy from Photometry: A Population of Extreme Emission Line Galaxies at 1.7 z 6.7 Selected with JWST Medium Band Filters. 2304.11181

    2023 arXiv

  128. [136]

    C., Oesch, P

    Xiao, M., Williams, C. C., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, PANORAMIC: Discovery of an Ultra-Massive Grand-Design Spiral Galaxy at z 5.2 . 2412.13264

    2024 arXiv

  129. [137]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca80c

    Yan, H., Ma, Z., Ling, C., Cheng, C., & Huang, J.-S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca80c

    2023 doi

  130. [138]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8803

    Yang, L., Morishita, T., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8803

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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