Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 101 references

Temporarily quiescent galaxies at cosmic dawn: probing bursty star formation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations predict that temporarily quiescent galaxies outnumber star-forming ones among the faintest galaxies of the first billion years.

desk verdict A genuinely useful prediction paper, but the 'hidden majority' claim leans on a satellite-heavy sample that could inflate the faint-end fractions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16418 v1 pith:UHM2ZHLD submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.GA

Viola Gelli , Andrea Pallottini , Stefania Salvadori , Andrea Ferrara , Charlotte Mason , Stefano Carniani , Michele Ginolfi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesburstystarformationtemporarilyquiescentstellarfeedbackcosmologicalzoom-insimulationsBalmerbreakJWSTreionization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the bursty, stop-and-start star formation in the first billion years makes temporary quiescence the normal state for the faintest low-mass galaxies. Analyzing over 200 simulated galaxies at $z\sim6-8$, it finds that most undergo quiescent phases after starbursts, driven by stellar feedback rather than by environment, and that the fraction of temporarily quiescent systems rises steeply toward the faint end, becoming the majority below $M_\star<10^8\,M_\odot$ and $M_{UV}>-17$. These systems are predicted to be faint, with strong Balmer breaks and no emission lines, so current surveys systematically miss them. If correct, the census of galaxies during reionization is incomplete, and the quiescent fraction becomes a measurable, population-level probe of feedback physics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a suite of cosmological zoom-in simulations coupled to forward spectral modeling. The simulations track gas, dark matter, and stars at roughly 20 parsec resolution with on-the-fly radiative transfer, non-equilibrium chemistry up to molecular hydrogen, and stellar feedback from supernovae, winds, and an approximate radiation-pressure prescription; the duty cycle, defined as the fraction of time a galaxy spends with positive star formation, is the quantity that links burstiness to quiescent fractions. The forward modeling converts simulated galaxies into synthetic JWST photometry and spectra, including stellar continua, nebular emission lines, and dust attenuation, so predicted quiescent fractions can be expressed as a function of UV luminosity rather than hard-to-measure stellar mass. The Balmer break is the key observable feature: it makes quiescent galaxies drop out of blue filters such as F200W while remaining visible in redder filters, which is why the paper proposes F200W drop-out selection.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a deep JWST survey reaching $M_{UV}\sim-16$ with mass-complete selection at $z\sim6-8$: if the measured fraction of temporarily quiescent galaxies at $M_{UV}>-17$ is far below the predicted 50%, or if quiescent candidates show Balmer breaks much weaker than 0.5 at fixed stellar mass, then the feedback-regulated quiescence cycle in the simulations would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that temporarily quiescent galaxies—systems with zero star formation at the time they are observed—are not rare anomalies but the dominant population at the faint end of the galaxy population at cosmic dawn. In the simulations, a quarter of the low-mass sample is caught in a quiescent phase, and the fraction rises to roughly 70% near $M_\star\sim10^{7.5}\,M_\odot$ and above 50% for $M_\star<10^8\,M_\odot$, corresponding to $M_{UV}>-17$. The quiescence is produced by stellar feedback, mainly supernovae and photoevaporation of molecular hydrogen, which expels gas from shallow potential wells after starbursts; environment plays a secondary role, although satellites are less likely to re-accrete gas. Forward-modeled spectra show these galaxies are faint (mean $M_{UV}=-15.6$ at $M_\star=10^8\,M_\odot$), have strong Balmer breaks, and lack emission lines, matching the locus of JWST-discovered quiescent candidates. Comparing predicted and observed quiescent fractions, the paper finds similar luminosity trends but slightly higher observed fractions at $M_{UV}\sim-20$ to $-19$, suggesting real galaxies may be even burstier than the simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation's subgrid stellar feedback model—supernovae, stellar winds, and an approximate radiation-pressure treatment at roughly 20 parsec resolution—correctly reproduces how long and how often low-mass galaxies stay quenched, so the predicted quiescent fractions are trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current JWST surveys are likely missing most of the faint, low-mass galaxy population at $z\sim6-8$, because temporarily quiescent galaxies fall below detection limits blueward of the Balmer break.
  • The quiescent fraction as a function of luminosity is a direct measurement of duty cycles; higher observed fractions imply shorter duty cycles and more bursty star formation than the fiducial feedback model produces.
  • Around 84% of the quiescent systems bright enough to detect are expected to appear as F200W drop-outs, giving a concrete search strategy for deep JWST fields.
  • A candidate within about 5 arcseconds of a spectroscopically confirmed massive galaxy has about a 95% probability of being a true satellite, enabling redshift confirmation and tests of how environment affects whether quenched dwarfs resume star formation.
  • If the observed excess at $M_{UV}\sim-20$ to $-19$ persists, it indicates that supernova feedback alone is too weak and that stronger feedback or additional mechanisms are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension, beyond the paper, is to apply the F200W drop-out selection to existing deep blank fields: if the recovered quiescent fraction at $M_{UV}>-17$ falls below the predicted 50%, the quiescent phases in the simulations are too long or too frequent.
  • The same logic implies that emission-line-selected samples are systematically biased toward starbursting phases, so population statistics built from line-selected galaxies should include a burstiness correction calibrated by the quiescent fraction.
  • The comparison can be sharpened by measuring continuum slopes and Balmer breaks of individual drop-out candidates, since red colors alone can mimic higher-redshift interlopers; the paper's own photo-z test shows broad redshift errors of about $\Delta z\sim3$.
  • Counting quiescent satellites versus isolated dwarfs in the same luminosity bin would isolate the environmental starvation effect the paper identifies as a secondary but real influence on whether quenched galaxies can restart star formation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the SERRA cosmological zoom-in simulations to analyze 209 low-mass galaxies (Mstar < 10^9.5 Msun) at z ~ 6-8, quantifying the fraction of systems that are temporarily quiescent (SFR=0) or in SFR downturns. The authors derive mass- and luminosity-dependent quiescent fractions from the simulated star formation histories, forward-model SEDs including stellar continuum, nebular lines, and dust, compare the predicted fractions with JWST observations from Endsley et al. (2024a), and propose a search strategy based on F200W drop-outs near massive galaxies. The central claims are that temporarily quiescent galaxies become the dominant population at Mstar < 10^8 Msun and MUV > -17, that observed JWST fractions at MUV ~ -20 to -19 are slightly higher than predicted, suggesting stronger feedback, and that most such systems are missed by current surveys.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides falsifiable, forward-modeled predictions for a population that is largely missed by current JWST selection, with direct implications for interpreting bursty star formation at cosmic dawn. The methodology is established (SERRA, cloudy-based nebular emission, dust attenuation), the quiescent fractions are emergent outputs rather than fitted parameters, and the comparison with Endsley et al. is a useful external benchmark. A particular strength is that the predictions are concrete and testable, e.g., F200W drop-out fractions and Balmer break strengths. However, the predicted fractions depend on the subgrid feedback model and on the sample's environmental composition, and neither dependence is tested or weighted to represent the field; these limitations directly affect the headline population-level statements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.1, 3.2, 3.3; Fig. 3; Abstract] The claim that temporarily quiescent galaxies dominate at Mstar < 10^8 Msun and MUV > -17 is derived from a sample in which 131 of 209 systems (63%) are satellites, yet Sec. 3.2 reports fQ,sat = 32% versus fQ,isol = 13% and then states 'from now on we will not distinguish between the two'. Because the zoom-ins are centered on ~10^10 Msun LBGs, the satellite fraction is far above the cosmic average for low-mass galaxies, and the same section notes that satellites are less likely to re-accrete gas, so environment affects the duration of quiescence. The mass-dependent fractions in Fig. 3, and the abstract/summary statements built on them, therefore reflect a non-representative mixture of environments. Please provide a central-only version of Fig. 3 and of the MUV-dependent fractions in Figs. 6-7, or a volume-weighting argument showing that the satellite excess does not inflate the quoted fractions, before the population-level claim is justified.
  2. [Secs. 2.1, 5.1; Fig. 3] The predicted quiescent fractions are controlled by the subgrid feedback implementation (SNe, winds, approximate radiation pressure at ~20 pc resolution). No resolution or feedback-variation tests are presented, so it is not demonstrated that the duty cycles and fQ values in Fig. 3 are robust. This matters for the inference in Sec. 5.1 that the observed excess of quiescent and starbursting galaxies implies 'stronger feedback or additional processes may be at play'—that conclusion is only as strong as the untested feedback model. Please add or cite resolution/feedback studies for SERRA, or otherwise quantify the theoretical uncertainty on fQ, for example by varying the SN energy or radiation-pressure coupling, or by comparing with independent simulation codes.
  3. [Sec. 4.2; Fig. 6] The comparison with Endsley et al. (2024a) uses SFR3/SFR50 < 0.2 as the definition of 'temporarily quiescent' for the mock galaxies, whereas elsewhere in the paper (Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2) quiescent is defined as SFR = 0. These definitions are not equivalent: a galaxy with low but non-zero SFR after a recent burst can have ratio < 0.2 without being SFR = 0, and the two definitions can yield different mass- and luminosity-dependent fractions. Please quantify how the predicted fQ in Fig. 6 changes when the SFR3/SFR50 < 0.2 threshold is applied instead of SFR = 0, and confirm that the comparison with observations is not biased by this mismatch.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence 'For Mstar > 5 x 10^8 Msun quiescent systems represent < 10% of the satellite population' is inconsistent with the combined-sample framing of Fig. 3; please clarify whether this statement refers to satellites only or to the total sample.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 6] The abstract states 'strong Balmer breaks (> 0.5)' while the Sec. 6 bullet reports 'strong Balmer breaks (0-2 for Mstar ~ 10^8.5 Msun)'; please define the threshold and use it consistently.
  3. [Appendix; Eq. (1)] The definitions of Mmin and Mmax in the Appendix are ambiguous: 'the magnitude of the most luminous of our simulated satellites' and 'the magnitude corresponding to the typical expected sensitivity limit' should specify whether these are absolute or apparent magnitudes, and over what wavelength/filter.
  4. [Sec. 5.2; Appendix] The 95% satellite probability is based on Nsat = 2.5 and Nfield = 0.13, but no uncertainty is given for these numbers; please state whether these are Poisson means and how the quoted probability changes if Nfield is varied by a factor of two.
  5. [Sec. 5.2] The reference to 'App. 6' should be to the Appendix (or a properly numbered appendix section), as the appendix is not numbered 6 in the current structure.
  6. [Sec. 5.1] The first paragraph cites 'Endsley et al. (2024b)' while the comparison throughout Sec. 4.2 is with 'Endsley et al. (2024a)'; please correct the citation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted quiescent fractions are emergent simulation outputs compared against external JWST data.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions — the mass- and luminosity-dependent fractions of temporarily quiescent galaxies (Figs. 3 and 6) and the forward-modeled SED properties (faint M_UV, strong Balmer breaks, absent emission lines) — are direct outputs of the SERRA zoom-in simulations and of spectral synthesis with starburst99/cloudy, not quantities fitted to the JWST samples. The Endsley et al. (2024a) comparison is performed after the simulation predictions and uses an external data set, so it is not a self-fulfilling fit. The duty-cycle/quiescent-fraction relation noted in Sec. 3.3 is definitional, but the mass-dependent f_Q values are measured from the simulated galaxy sample rather than derived from that definition. The attribution of quenching to SNe relies partly on same-team prior work (Gelli et al. 2023; Pallottini & Ferrara 2023), but that is an interpretative overlay; the numerical f_Q predictions do not reduce to those citations, and the paper also presents direct mass-dependence evidence. The over-representation of satellites (63% of the sample) is a selection/representativeness caveat, not a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter makes a predicted quantity equal to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on the SERRA simulation model and on SED modeling choices. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The main unverified ingredients are the subgrid feedback prescriptions, the dust attenuation law, and the definition of quiescence; these are model assumptions, not fitted parameters, and no new parameters are fit to the JWST data in this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • dust-to-metal ratio f_d = 0.08
    Adopted in Sec. 2.2 for attenuating synthetic spectra, replacing f_d=0.3 from Gelli et al. 2021. It affects predicted UV magnitudes, Balmer break strengths, and drop-out fractions; authors state results are robust but do not show a comparison.
  • initial gas metallicity floor Z_floor = 1e-3 Zsun
    Set in Sec. 2.1 to mimic unresolved Pop III enrichment; an input choice that can influence early cooling and star formation in the lowest-mass galaxies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SERRA's subgrid stellar feedback implementation (SNe, winds, approximate radiation pressure) is an adequate representation of feedback in low-mass z=6-8 galaxies.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the quiescent fraction predictions; no feedback variation or resolution study is presented.
  • domain assumption A galaxy is 'temporarily quiescent' when its SFR averaged over the last 3 Myr is zero in the simulation.
    Defined in Sec. 3.2; maps simulation time resolution to observable post-starburst phase and sets all fraction values.
  • standard math Planck 2014 Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=67.8 and Omega_m=0.308 is assumed.
    Background cosmology stated in Sec. 2.1; standard across modern cosmological simulations.
  • domain assumption Starburst99, Padova tracks, and cloudy provide reliable rest-frame UV-optical continua and emission line fluxes.
    Used in Sec. 2.2 for SED modeling; standard tools but subject to stellar model and nebular model uncertainties.
  • domain assumption MW-like dust attenuation with f_d=0.08 is appropriate for z=6-8 galaxies.
    Adopted in Sec. 2.2 based on recent ALMA measurements; can alter predicted brightness and drop-out identification.
  • domain assumption Bagpipes photometric redshift errors on mock F200W drop-outs are representative of real JWST photometry.
    Underpins the 95% satellite identification probability in the Appendix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporarily quiescent galaxies at cosmic dawn: probing bursty star formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHM2ZHLD

@misc{pith2026250116418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporarily quiescent galaxies at cosmic dawn: probing bursty star formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHM2ZHLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16418}
}
abstract

The bursty, time-variable nature of star formation in the first billion years, as revealed by JWST, drives phases of temporary quiescence in low-mass galaxies that quench after starbursts. These galaxies provide unique probes of the burstiness of early star formation and its underlying physical processes. Using the SERRA cosmological zoom-in simulations, we analyze over 200 galaxies with $M_\star<10^{9.5}\rm M_\odot$ at $z\sim 6-8$, finding that most experience quiescent phases driven by stellar feedback, with minimal influence from environmental effects. The fraction of temporarily quiescent galaxies increases with decreasing mass and luminosity, representing the dominant population at $M_\star<10^8\rm M_\odot$ and $M_{UV}>-17$. By forward modeling their spectral energy distributions, we show that they are faint ($\langle M_{UV}\rangle = -15.6$ for $M_\star=10^{8}\rm M_\odot$), have strong Balmer breaks ($> 0.5$) and no emission lines. Comparing our predicted fractions with JWST results, we find similar luminosity-dependent trends; however, the observed fractions of temporarily quiescent galaxies at $M_{UV}\sim-20$ to $-19$ are higher, suggesting that stronger feedback or additional mechanisms beyond supernovae may be at play. We propose searching for F200W drop-outs and satellites in the proximity ($<5^{\prime\prime}$) of massive ($>10^{10}\rm M_\odot$) galaxies as effective strategies to uncover the hidden majority of faint ($M_{UV}>-17$), temporarily quiescent systems, crucial for constraining early feedback processes in low-mass galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel shows the SFH of two typical galaxies, one with high mass and high duty cycle, the other with low mass and low duty cycle and undergoing a quiescent phase at the end of the simulation (z ∼ 6, indicated by the dashed vertical line). The bottom panel shows the fraction of stellar mass formed with respect to the final stellar mass (M⋆) of each galaxy as a function of the time elapsed from its first star f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar mass (M⋆) - star formation rate (SFR), averaged over 3 Myr, relation for a sample of 208 galaxies at z = 6−8 from the serra simulations (Pallottini et al. 2022). The galaxies are color-coded with the ratio between SFR averaged over 3 Myr (SFR3) and 50 Myr (SFR50), which is an indicator of whether the galaxies are experiencing bursts (> 1) or downturns (< 1) of star formation. Galaxies undergoing phases of qu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fraction of serra galaxies that are quiescent (SFR = 0) and that are experiencing a downturn in star formation (SFR3/SFR50 < 1) galaxies per stellar mass bin. Shown are the 1σ Poisson errors in each bin. The inset shows the same fractions as a function of the average duty cycle in each bin. fQ,isol = 13%. As shown by Gelli et al. (2023), both satellite and central galaxies undergo similar bursty feedback-regulated e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral energy distributions of the star forming and temporarily quiescent serra galaxies at redshift 6 < z < 8 in the observed wavelength range covered by JWST/NIRCam and NIRSpec. Horizontal lines are the expected sensitivity limits for NIRCam imaging for a 20 hrs ex…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Balmer break strength as a function of the stellar mass for temporarily quiescent galaxies in SERRA. The col￾ors show the UV magnitude and filled scatter points mark those galaxies that are above typical deep (20 hrs) NIR￾Cam detection limits in at least 4 wide band fi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between serra and observations by Endsley et al. (2024a). Left: fractions of temporarily quiescent galaxies SFR3/SFR50 < 0.2 and starburst galaxies SFR3/SFR50 > 1 as a function of the UV magnitude. Right: cumulative fractions of galaxies in three MUV bins as…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fractions of temporarily quiescent (red) and downturn (green) galaxies in the serra simulations as a function of the absolute magnitude MUV (left panel), and the AB magnitude in two NIRCam filters F150W (central panel) and F356W (right panel), respectively blueward and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthetic image of a group of galaxies at z ∼ 6 as they would appear in different JWST/NIRCam filters. The colored pixels are those with expected flux at S/N > 5 in a typical 20 hrs observation. The displayed field of view has a side of 5′′ and is centered on a massive…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: bagpipes results for the photometric redshift for a typical temporarily quiescent galaxy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simple sketch illustrating the possible presence of background or foreground contaminant interloper galaxies (black spiral symbols) in the cosmic volume enclosed by the same redshift range measured for the satellites in the observed region around an LBG [PITH_FULL_IM…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  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]

    acknowledgments ... acknowledgments

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    pynbody: Astrophysics Simulation Analysis for Python

    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

  5. [5]

    2024, , 527, 11372, 10.1093/mnras/stad3902

    Asada , Y., Sawicki , M., Abraham , R., et al. 2024, , 527, 11372, 10.1093/mnras/stad3902

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3902 2024

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2023, JWST's GLIMPSE: gravitational lensing & NIRCam imaging to probe early galaxy formation and sources of reionization , JWST Proposal

    Atek , H., Chisholm , J., Alavi , A., et al. 2023, JWST's GLIMPSE: gravitational lensing & NIRCam imaging to probe early galaxy formation and sources of reionization , JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. \#3293

    2023

  8. [8]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006

    Baes , M., & Camps , P. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006 2015

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    M., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al

    Baker , W. M., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09070. 2501.09070

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Cullen , F., et al

    Begley , R., McLure , R. J., Cullen , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10988, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10988

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31 , 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31 , 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, , 477, 552, 10.1093/mnras/sty552

    Behrens , C., Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Gallerani , S., & Vallini , L. 2018, , 477, 552, 10.1093/mnras/sty552

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Wu , H.-Y. 2013, , 762, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    1994, , 106, 275

    Bertelli , G., Bressan , A., Chiosi , C., Fagotto , F., & Nasi , E. 1994, , 106, 275

    1994

  7. [15]

    2024, , 531, 3406, 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    Bhagwat , A., Costa , T., Ciardi , B., Pakmor , R., & Garaldi , E. 2024, , 531, 3406, 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Oesch , P

    Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., Stefanon , M., et al. 2021, , 162, 47, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

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

    Bouwens , R. J., Smit , R., Schouws , S., et al. 2022, , 931, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    C., McLure , R

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

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023, , 619, 716, 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, , 506, 2373, 10.1093/mnras/stab1831

    Chaves-Montero , J., & Hearin , A. 2021, , 506, 2373, 10.1093/mnras/stab1831

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, , 686, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348091

    Ciesla , L., Elbaz , D., Ilbert , O., et al. 2024, , 686, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348091

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Papovich , C., Finkelstein , S

    Cole , J. W., Papovich , C., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.10152, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.10152

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2024, , 684, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    Curti , M., Maiolino , R., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, , 684, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Brammer , G., et al

    de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, , 527, 2139, 10.1093/mnras/stad3239

    Dome , T., Tacchella , S., Fialkov , A., et al. 2024, , 527, 2139, 10.1093/mnras/stad3239

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Topping , M

    Endsley , R., Chisholm , J., Stark , D. P., Topping , M. W., & Whitler , L. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    P., Whitler , L., et al

    Endsley , R., Stark , D. P., Whitler , L., et al. 2024 b , , 533, 1111, 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    L., & Morishita , T

    Faisst , A. L., & Morishita , T. 2024, , 971, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58e2

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385, 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2024, , 684, A207, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348321

    Ferrara , A. 2024, , 684, A207, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348321

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 522, 3986, 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    Ferrara , A., Pallottini , A., & Dayal , P. 2023, , 522, 3986, 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, , 512, 58, 10.1093/mnras/stac460

    Ferrara , A., Sommovigo , L., Dayal , P., et al. 2022, , 512, 58, 10.1093/mnras/stac460

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, , 949, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    Fujimoto , S., Arrabal Haro , P., Dickinson , M., et al. 2023, , 949, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    R., & Mirocha , J

    Furlanetto , S. R., & Mirocha , J. 2022, , 511, 3895, 10.1093/mnras/stac310

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Gelli , V., Mason , C., & Hayward , C. C. 2024 a , , 975, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2024 b , , 964, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23ec

    Gelli , V., Salvadori , S., Ferrara , A., & Pallottini , A. 2024 b , , 964, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23ec

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 913, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/abfe6c

    Gelli , V., Salvadori , S., Ferrara , A., Pallottini , A., & Carniani , S. 2021, , 913, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/abfe6c

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, , 954, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acee80

    ---. 2023, , 954, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acee80

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, , 498, 4134, 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    Gelli , V., Salvadori , S., Pallottini , A., & Ferrara , A. 2020, , 498, 4134, 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, , 686, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349135

    Gim \'e nez-Arteaga , C., Fujimoto , S., Valentino , F., et al. 2024, , 686, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349135

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Grassi , T., Bovino , S., Schleicher , D. R. G., et al. 2014, , 439, 2386, 10.1093/mnras/stu114

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn , O., & Abel , T. 2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    2011

  35. [43]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz , K. E., Brammer , G. B., Gim \'e nez-Arteaga , C., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1517, 10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

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

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Speagle , J

    Iyer , K. G., Speagle , J. S., Caplar , N., et al. 2024, , 961, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acff64

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al

    Iyer , K. G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al. 2020, , 498, 430, 10.1093/mnras/staa2150

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Devriendt , J., & Slyz , A

    Katz , H., Kimm , T., Ellis , R. S., Devriendt , J., & Slyz , A. 2023, , 524, 351, 10.1093/mnras/stad1903

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    1998, , 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    R., & Knebe , A

    Knollmann , S. R., & Knebe , A. 2009, , 182, 608, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, , 499, 1250, 10.1093/mnras/staa2792

    Kohandel , M., Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., et al. 2020, , 499, 1250, 10.1093/mnras/staa2792

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, , 975, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d03

    Kokorev , V., Chisholm , J., Endsley , R., et al. 2024, , 975, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d03

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  46. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13045, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13045

    Langeroodi , D., & Hjorth , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13045, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13045

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    S., Boone , F., et al

    Laporte , N., Ellis , R. S., Boone , F., et al. 2017, , 837, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62aa

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    D., et al

    Leitherer , C., Schaerer , D., Goldader , J. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 3, 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  49. [58]

    C., Johnson , B

    Leja , J., Carnall , A. C., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2019, , 876, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al

    Looser , T. J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02470, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02470

    2023 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    2024, , 629, 53, 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    ---. 2024, , 629, 53, 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    F., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al

    Ma , X., Hopkins , P. F., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al. 2018, , 478, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/sty1024

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    2023, , 679, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723

    Markov , V., Gallerani , S., Pallottini , A., et al. 2023, , 679, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

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

    Mason , C. A., Trenti , M., & Treu , T. 2023, , 521, 497, 10.1093/mnras/stad035

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    Mirocha , J., & Furlanetto , S. R. 2023, , 519, 843, 10.1093/mnras/stac3578

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    2024, , 971, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    Morishita , T., Stiavelli , M., Grillo , C., et al. 2024, , 971, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    2023, , 269, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., Isobe , Y., et al. 2023, , 269, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    2024, , 961, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    Narayanan , D., Lower , S., Torrey , P., et al. 2024, , 961, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    I., et al

    Navarro-Carrera , R., Rinaldi , P., Caputi , K. I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23249. 2410.23249

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    E., & Prelogovi \'c , D

    Nikoli \'c , I., Mesinger , A., Davies , J. E., & Prelogovi \'c , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.15237, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.15237

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    2023, , 677, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    Pallottini , A., & Ferrara , A. 2023, , 677, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    2017 a , , 471, 4128, 10.1093/mnras/stx1792

    Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Bovino , S., et al. 2017 a , , 471, 4128, 10.1093/mnras/stx1792

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    2014, , 440, 2498, 10.1093/mnras/stu451

    Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Gallerani , S., Salvadori , S., & D'Odorico , V. 2014, , 440, 2498, 10.1093/mnras/stu451

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00061, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00061

    Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Gallerani , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00061, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00061

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    2017 b , , 465, 2540, 10.1093/mnras/stw2847

    ---. 2017 b , , 465, 2540, 10.1093/mnras/stw2847

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    2019, , 487, 1689, 10.1093/mnras/stz1383

    Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Decataldo , D., et al. 2019, , 487, 1689, 10.1093/mnras/stz1383

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    2022, , 513, 5621, 10.1093/mnras/stac1281

    Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Gallerani , S., et al. 2022, , 513, 5621, 10.1093/mnras/stac1281

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade, P. A. R. , Aghanim, N. , et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    S., et al

    Pontzen , A., Rovskar , R., Stinson , G. S., et al. 2013, pynbody: Astrophysics Simulation Analysis for Python

    2013

  70. [79]

    2023, , 519, 1526, 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso , P., Concas , A., Cresci , G., et al. 2023, , 519, 1526, 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    A., et al

    Prieto-Lyon , G., Strait , V., Mason , C. A., et al. 2023, , 672, A186, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245532

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    2013, , 436, 2188, 10.1093/mnras/stt1722

    Rosdahl , J., Blaizot , J., Aubert , D., Stranex , T., & Teyssier , R. 2013, , 436, 2188, 10.1093/mnras/stt1722

    2013 doi

  73. [82]

    2024, , 974, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad833d

    Rusta , E., Salvadori , S., Gelli , V., Koutsouridou , I., & Marconi , A. 2024, , 974, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad833d

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    1959, , 129, 243, 10.1086/146614

    Schmidt , M. 1959, , 129, 243, 10.1086/146614

    1959 doi

  75. [84]

    2023, , 525, 3254, 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    Shen , X., Vogelsberger , M., Boylan-Kolchin , M., Tacchella , S., & Kannan , R. 2023, , 525, 3254, 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    2023, , 949, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd457

    Strait , V., Brammer , G., Muzzin , A., et al. 2023, , 949, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd457

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    C., & Shen , X

    Sun , G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Hayward , C. C., & Shen , X. 2023 a , , 526, 2665, 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  78. [87]

    C., et al

    Sun , G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2023 b , , 955, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85a

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    B., Mirocha , J., & Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A

    Sun , G., Mu \ n oz , J. B., Mirocha , J., & Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21409, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21409

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [89]

    C., & Caplar , N

    Tacchella , S., Forbes , J. C., & Caplar , N. 2020, , 497, 698, 10.1093/mnras/staa1838

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    2002, , 385, 337, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    2002 doi

  82. [91]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2022, , 941, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca522

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07163, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07163

    Trussler , J., Conselice , C., Adams , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07163, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07163

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    2018, , 473, 271, 10.1093/mnras/stx2376

    Vallini , L., Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., et al. 2018, , 473, 271, 10.1093/mnras/stx2376

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  86. [95]

    1991, CWI Quarterly, 4, 283

    Van Rossum, G., & de Boer, J. 1991, CWI Quarterly, 4, 283

    1991

  87. [96]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  88. [97]

    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

  89. [98]

    J., et al

    Weibel , A., de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03829, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03829

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [99]

    C., & Draine , B

    Weingartner , J. C., & Draine , B. T. 2001, , 548, 296, 10.1086/318651

    2001 doi

  91. [100]

    P., Endsley , R., et al

    Whitler , L., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2023, , 519, 5859, 10.1093/mnras/stad004

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    H., Abel , T., Turk , M

    Wise , J. H., Abel , T., Turk , M. J., Norman , M. L., & Smith , B. D. 2012, , 427, 311, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21809.x

    2012

  93. [102]

    2025, , 537, 112, 10.1093/mnras/staf001

    Witten , C., McClymont , W., Laporte , N., et al. 2025, , 537, 112, 10.1093/mnras/staf001

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.