Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Constraining the major merger history of $z \sim 3-9$ galaxies using JADES: dominant in-situ star formation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At redshifts 3 to 9, major mergers deliver only about 3-13% of the stellar mass that galaxies build, so in-situ star formation dominates early mass assembly.

desk verdict Solid JADES close-pair measurement; the qualitative conclusion holds, but the 3-13% ex-situ fraction is not as precise as advertised because the merger timescale is uncertain by factors of 2-3. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01721 v2 pith:INT2OGW5 submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.GA

Dávid Puskás , Sandro Tacchella , Charlotte Simmonds , Kevin Hainline , Francesco D'Eugenio , Stacey Alberts , Santiago Arribas , William M. Baker
show 18 more authors
Andrew J. Bunker Stefano Carniani Stéphane Charlot Qiao Duan Daniel J. Eisenstein Zhiyuan Ji Benjamin D. Johnson Gareth C. Jones Roberto Maiolino William McClymont Marcia Rieke Pierluigi Rinaldi Brant Robertson Hannah Übler Christina C. Williams Christopher N. A. Willmer Chris Willott Joris Witstok
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymergersclosepairsmajormergerratein-situstarformationex-situstellarmassJWSTJADEShigh-redshiftgalaxies
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

Using deep JWST/JADES imaging of the GOODS-South and GOODS-North fields, this paper counts close pairs of galaxies with stellar masses $\log(M_\star/\mathrm{M}_\odot)=[8,10]$ and mass ratios $\geq 1/4$ over the redshift range $3 \leq z \leq 9$, and converts those counts into merger rates. The central result is that the major merger rate per galaxy flattens beyond $z \sim 6$ at roughly $2$–$8\,\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$, and that the cumulative stellar mass accreted through major mergers is only about $3$–$13\%$ of the mass built by star formation. The paper concludes that in-situ star formation, not hierarchical merging, is the dominant direct channel of stellar mass growth in the early universe. This matters because models of early galaxy formation often assume mergers are the primary route to mass assembly; if correct, these results redirect attention to gas accretion and star formation as the main engine, with mergers playing a secondary but possibly still important indirect role.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the pair probability function $\mathrm{PPF}(z) = \mathcal{Z}(z)\,\mathcal{M}_\theta(z)\,\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{pair}}(z)$, where $\mathcal{Z}(z)$ is a redshift probability function formed from the overlap of the two galaxies' full photometric-redshift posteriors (with spectroscopic redshifts inserted when available), $\mathcal{M}_\theta(z)$ is a binary angular-separation mask translating $5$–$30$ kpc projected separation, and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{pair}}(z)$ enforces the $\geq 1/4$ stellar mass ratio and completeness limits. Integrating this function over each redshift bin, with weights for mass incompleteness, photometric-redshift quality, and survey-boundary area, yields the close-pair fraction. The observability timescale $\tau_P(z) = 2.4\,(1+z)^{-2}\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ converts that fraction into a merger rate, and comparison of the integrated merger mass accretion with the star-forming main sequence, cross-checked with the 50,000-galaxy model, yields the ex-situ mass fraction.

What would settle it

Measure the real merger rate at $z=6$–$9$ in the same stellar mass range using a fully spectroscopic sample (or resolved kinematics from JWST/NIRSpec IFU) and compare the number of actual mergers per galaxy per Gyr with the photometric-pair-derived $2$–$8\,\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$. Alternatively, in a hydrodynamic simulation, compute how long a pair that is truly merging satisfies the $5$–$30$ kpc projected-separation and photometric-redshift proximity criteria, and test whether that timescale differs from $2.4\,(1+z)^{-2}$ Gyr by more than a factor of two. If either test returns a substantially different timescale or merger rate, the $3$–$13\%$ ex-situ fraction is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the first two billion years of cosmic history, major mergers are not the main way galaxies build their stellar mass. Using the probability-based close-pair method on JADES data, the authors find that the close-pair fraction peaks near $z\sim5$–$6$ for galaxies of $10^{8}$–$10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$ and is flat or mildly declining for more massive galaxies; the inferred major merger rate rises to $z\sim6$ and then plateaus at $2$–$8\,\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$ per galaxy. Integrating the merger mass accretion rate and comparing it with the star-forming main sequence gives an ex-situ stellar mass fraction—the share of stars acquired from mergers rather than formed in the galaxy—of roughly $3$–$13\%$ over $z \approx 3$–$9$. A simple Monte Carlo model of 50,000 galaxies driven by the measured merger rate and a star-forming main sequence specific star formation rate reproduces the same range. The conclusion is that direct mass assembly at these redshifts is dominated by in-situ star formation; major mergers are a significant but secondary channel, though they could still trigger star formation indirectly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a galaxy pair remains visible as a close pair for a time $\tau_P(z) = 2.4\,(1+z)^{-2}$ Gyr; the paper adopts this single simulation-based timescale to convert every measured pair fraction into a merger rate and into the $3$–$13\%$ ex-situ fraction, and published alternatives differ by factors of $2$–$3$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, major mergers add at most a $\sim$10% contribution to the stellar mass of $10^8$–$10^{10}\,M_\odot$ galaxies between $z=3$ and $z=9$, so gas accretion and star formation must be the primary growth channel in the early universe.
  • The flattening of the merger rate at $z \gtrsim 6$ to $2$–$8\,\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$ means the often-assumed monotonically rising merger rate with redshift does not continue into the first billion years; this is a direct constraint for galaxy formation models.
  • The pair-fraction turnover at high redshift is tied to the paucity of massive galaxies in the exponential tail of the stellar mass function, not necessarily to a change in merger physics, so future surveys at fixed mass need to account for this selection effect.
  • The methodology of propagating full photometric-redshift posteriors into the pair count can be applied to other deep JWST fields to extend the merger history to $z>9$ and to fainter galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The adopted observability timescale is the shortest among published estimates, so the derived $3$–$13\%$ ex-situ fraction is likely an upper bound; a longer timescale at $z>3$ would make major mergers even less important for direct mass growth.
  • The analysis excludes minor mergers with mass ratios below $1/4$, which are expected to be more numerous; adding them would raise the total ex-situ fraction but is unlikely to reverse the conclusion that in-situ star formation dominates for typical $10^8$–$10^{10}\,M_\odot$ galaxies.
  • Because the data are photometric, line-of-sight projection can still masquerade as a pair; the turnover seen at $z\sim6$ could partly reflect this contamination, and a spectroscopically complete sample would be the cleanest test.
  • The paper leaves open an indirect role for mergers: if they trigger the starbursts that make in-situ star formation so dominant, then merger activity still shapes galaxies even while contributing little direct mass.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses JADES NIRCam imaging and the full photometric-redshift posterior distributions to measure close-pair fractions and major merger rates for galaxies with log(M*/Msun) in [8,10] over z~3-9. The authors find that the low-mass pair fraction rises to a peak near z~5-6 and then turns over, while higher-mass bins show flatter or declining evolution. Converting pair fractions to merger rates with the Snyder et al. (2017) observability timescale, they report merger rates of 2-8 Gyr^-1 per galaxy that flatten beyond z~6. Integrating the mass accretion from major mergers and comparing with star-formation rates, they conclude that major mergers contribute roughly 3-13% of stellar mass growth over z~3-9, with in-situ star formation dominating. A simple numerical model is presented as support for this conclusion.

Significance. If the qualitative result holds, this is an important constraint on early galaxy assembly: it directly quantifies, from JWST data, that hierarchical major merging is a secondary channel for stellar mass growth at z~3-9, complementing simulation-based studies. The paper's strengths include the probabilistic treatment of photo-z uncertainties, the use of a large spectroscopic redshift catalogue for validation, careful stellar-mass completeness corrections, and a transparent comparison with literature measurements. The central quantitative claim, however, rests on a single assumed merger observability timescale whose factor-2-3 uncertainty is acknowledged but not propagated, and the numerical-model consistency check is partially circular. The qualitative conclusion that in-situ star formation dominates appears robust, but the specific 3-13% ex-situ fraction is not supported at that precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 (Eq. 33) and Section 6.5] The headline claim that major mergers contribute 'approximately 3-13%' to mass growth is not supported at that precision, because the conversion R_M = f_P/tau_P in Eq. (32) carries the factor-2-3 uncertainty in tau_P that the paper itself identifies in Section 6.5, yet no systematic error is propagated into Table 3, Figure 13, or the abstract. Since the cumulative merger mass in Eq. (42) is proportional to the time integral of R_M, varying tau_P within published values changes the ex-situ fraction by roughly the same factor (e.g., from about 13% to about 4% or about 39% at z~3), so the quoted 3-13% is conditional on one adopted timescale rather than a robust confidence interval. The authors should propagate this systematic uncertainty into the reported range, or explicitly state that the range is conditional on tau_P = 2.4(1+z)^-2 Gyr.
  2. [Section 6.3 (Figure 13)] The numerical model is presented as an independent estimate ('in agreement with our previous estimate'), but it is not independent: it injects the same fitted merger rate R_M(z) from Section 5.2 (Eq. 35) and the same SFMS sSFR (McClymont et al. 2025a) used in Section 6.2, and the quenching threshold at 10^10.8 M_sun is an ad hoc input. The agreement between the purple and blue curves is therefore partly by construction. This section should be reframed as a consistency check, and the sensitivity to the assumed SFMS, burstiness, quenching threshold, and merger-ratio distribution should be quantified as a spread rather than folded into a single 3-13% range.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Figure 8] The claimed turnover and peak in the lowest stellar-mass bin at z~5-6 is driven by one subfield, GS-Medium, and the text acknowledges that the peak becomes less evident without it and that overdensities at z~5-6 may be responsible. Because this evolutionary trend is one of the paper's principal observational results and feeds into the interpretation of the z~6 flattening of the merger rate, the authors should present the pair fraction computed with GS-Medium excluded (and, if possible, an overdensity-corrected version) and quantify the significance of the peak, rather than relying on the pooled average alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.6 (Eq. 28)] Equation (28) contains corrupted typesetting symbols that make the formula unreadable and should be regenerated.
  2. [Section 6.2 vs 6.3] The ex-situ fraction is quoted as 1-8% in Section 6.2, 3-13% in the abstract and Section 6.3, and 5-12% for the alternative SFMS; these ranges should be reconciled and their definitions stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 5.4 (Eqs. 37-41)] The text states that sMAR = R_M * mu and later uses <M*,2/M*,1> = 0.474, but the connection between the two is not made explicit; clarify that using mu = 0.48 is an approximation and quantify its effect on the cumulative mass budget.
  4. [Section 3.3.3 (Eq. 12)] The assumed stellar mass evolution M*(z) = M_peak * ((1+z)/(1+z_peak))^2, which assumes a constant mass-to-light ratio and ignores the M*-z covariance, is a strong approximation; it should be tested against a simple stellar-population model or explicitly listed among the systematic caveats.
  5. [Figure 12] The hatched regions for the five sSFR prescriptions are difficult to distinguish when overplotted with literature data; consider separate panels or a zoomed inset for the z>6 range.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Merger-rate normalization and ex-situ fraction estimates are partly circular: the adopted timescale is calibrated on Illustris and then Illustris agreement is cited as support, and the numerical model restates the same R_M and SFMS inputs; the central in-situ conclusion remains independently grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.5 (timescale choice) and Section 6.4 (comparison with Snyder et al. 2017)]
    "We choose the observability timescale given by Snyder et al. (2017), which is obtained from the Illustris simulation (Genel et al. 2014; Vogelsberger et al. 2014) in order to reconcile the merger rates with the pair counts directly measured from the simulation. ... Findings from Illustris by Snyder et al. (2017) also agree with these results, especially at the lower redshift regime."

    The merger rate is defined by Eq. 32 as R_M = f_P / tau_P(z), with tau_P(z)=2.4(1+z)^-2 taken from Snyder et al. (2017). That timescale was derived from the Illustris simulation specifically so that pair-count-derived merger rates match the simulation's true merger rates. Therefore, if the JADES pair fractions resemble Illustris pair fractions, the derived R_M will agree with Illustris by construction. Citing this agreement in Section 6.4 as independent support is circular: the calibration input and the validation target are the same simulation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.3, Figure 13, compared with Section 6.2]
    "This model allows us to calculate the ex-situ mass fraction of galaxies by using empirical values such as merger rates and SFMS SFRs, as well as some simple assumptions. ... All three calculations give consistent values of f_ex-situ, ranging between 3-13%."

    The numerical model in Section 6.3 uses exactly the same fitted merger-rate parameterisation (Table 4, from this work's pair fractions) and the same SFMS sSFR (McClymont et al. 2025a) that Section 6.2 integrates analytically. The model output is therefore a Monte-Carlo restatement of the Section 6.2 ratio, not an independent estimate. The paper presents the agreement of the 'three calculations' as mutual confirmation, but the numerical-model curve is forced by its inputs; the 3-13% range is a propagation of the same R_M and SFMS rather than an independent constraint.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular: pair fractions are measured directly from JADES photometry/spectroscopy with a probabilistic PPF, and the conclusion that in-situ star formation dominates is obtained by comparing the resulting merger-induced mass accretion against independent SFMS prescriptions, including external ones from Speagle et al. (2014) and Popesso et al. (2023). The fragility of the absolute 3-13% range is a real systematic concern (the adopted tau_P carries factor 2-3 literature scatter and is not propagated into the headline uncertainty), but that is a calibration-uncertainty issue, not circularity. The circularity that does exist is confined to two self-consistency checks: (i) the merger-rate comparison with Illustris/Snyder et al. (2017) is partly built from the tau_P calibrated on that same simulation, and (ii) the numerical-model ex-situ fraction is a restatement of the same R_M and SFMS inputs used in the analytic estimate. These steps inflate the appearance of independent confirmation but do not drive the main conclusion, which survives under alternative SFMS choices and even under factor-3 timescale changes. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the validation chain with an independently grounded central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of external calibrations (merger timescale, SFMS, SMF) and several hand-chosen model parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The most important free parameters are the fitted pair fraction and merger rate relations, which are then reused inside the numerical model.

free parameters (5)
  • Power law + exponential fit parameters for pair fraction and merger rate = f0, m, tau from Table 4 (e.g., All mass f0=0.0371, m=2.27, tau=-0.48; R_M All R0=0.0249, m=2.85, tau=-0.16)
    Fitted to the measured pair fractions/merger rates plus literature using weighted least squares; the merger rate fit is then used as input to the numerical model in Section 6.3.
  • Adopted median merger ratio mu = 0.48 (0.485 from pair fraction distributions; 0.474 from SMF mass ratio)
    Used to convert merger rate to specific mass accretion rate (Eq. 37). Average of measured medians; scatter across bins is large at high-z.
  • Numerical model parameters = N=50,000 galaxies, slope alpha=-1.5, mass range 10^-1 to 10^6 M_sun at z=16, 10,000 steps to z=0.5, quenching mass…
    Chosen by hand for the simple model in Section 6.3; the authors state they are 'reasonable but somewhat arbitrary' and do not significantly affect outputs.
  • Stellar mass function parameters = alpha(z) fitted line, capped at -2.2; log10 Phi*(z) fitted line; M*=10.7 fixed
    Used in completeness weights (Eq. 16-17) and in merger rate density and mean mass calculations. Fitted to external JWST SMF measurements (Navarro-Carrera+24, Harvey+25), not to this paper's pair data, but they affect pair fractions via the weights.
  • Weight clipping thresholds = w_comp1 clipped to [0.1,1.0]; w_comp2 clipped to [1,10]
    Chosen to prevent over-correction near the completeness limit; affects low-mass and high-redshift bins.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The EAZY redshift posterior P(z), with a constant prior, is a faithful representation of the true redshift probability distribution.
    Used throughout Section 3.3 to build the pair probability function. Validated against spec-z (outlier fraction 6.91% GS, 13.62% GN), but catastrophic outliers remain.
  • domain assumption The merger observability timescale tau_P(z)=2.4(1+z)^-2 Gyr from Snyder et al. (2017) is correct for these systems.
    Section 5.1, Eq. 33. Converts pair fractions to merger rates. Literature timescales differ by factor 2-3; the authors acknowledge this and choose the shortest.
  • domain assumption The observed close-pair fraction equals the merger fraction, i.e., C_merg=1, so no correction is made for pairs that will not merge.
    Section 5.1. They define R_M=f_P/tau_P, equivalent to setting C_merg=1. Projection effects mean about half of projected pairs may not merge (Huško+22), so this may overestimate merger rates.
  • domain assumption The star-forming main sequence sSFR of McClymont et al. (2025a) describes mass growth via star formation at z=3-9.
    Section 6.2. Used to compute cumulative star-formation mass. Validated against JADES-based Simmonds et al. (in prep.) and Prospector sSFRs, and alternative SFMS prescriptions give <16% ex-situ.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar mass evolves with redshift as M*(z)=M_peak*((1+z)/(1+z_peak))^2 (Eq. 12), assuming constant mass-to-light ratio.
    Section 3.3.3. Needed because SED codes do not output M*-z covariance. This scaling enters the primary and secondary selection masks.
  • domain assumption The Pozzetti et al. (2010) completeness method, assuming the same colors for undetected galaxies as the faintest 20% of detected ones, gives the stellar mass completeness limit.
    Section 2.5.2 and Section 4.1. The authors note this may fail for bursty low-mass galaxies at high-z.
  • domain assumption The Schechter function SMF from Navarro-Carrera et al. (2024) and Harvey et al. (2025), with M*=10.7 fixed, describes the galaxy mass function over z~3-9.
    Appendix B. Used for completeness weights and mean masses. The fixed M* is motivated by weak redshift dependence but is an extrapolation at some redshifts.
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical model assumptions: galaxies follow the SFMS, quench at 10^10.8 M_sun, mergers occur as a Poisson process with the measured R_M, and mass ratios are uniform in [0.25,1].
    Section 6.3. These are the 'simple numerical model' assumptions used to derive the 3-13% ex-situ fraction. Not directly calibrated to data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the major merger history of $z \sim 3-9$ galaxies using JADES: dominant in-situ star formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INT2OGW5

@misc{pith2026250201721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the major merger history of $z \sim 3-9$ galaxies using JADES: dominant in-situ star formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INT2OGW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01721}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of galaxy close-pair fractions and major merger rates to evaluate the importance of mergers in the hierarchical growth of galaxies over cosmic time. This study focuses on the previously poorly understood redshift range of $z \approx 3-9$ using JADES observations. Our mass-complete sample includes primary galaxies with stellar masses of ${\rm log}(M_\star/{\rm M_\odot}) = [8, 10]$, having major companions (mass ratio $\geq 1/4$) selected by $5-30$ pkpc projected separation and redshift proximity criteria. Pair fractions are measured using a statistically robust method incorporating photometric redshift posteriors and available spectroscopic data. The pair fraction evolves with redshift and shows dependence on the stellar mass: at ${\rm log}(M_\star/{\rm M_\odot}) = [8.0, 8.5]$ there is an increase up to $z\sim5-6$, followed by a turnover; while at higher stellar masses there is a flattening and weak decline with increasing redshift. Similarly, the derived galaxy major merger rate increases and flattens beyond $z \sim 6$ to $2-8~{\rm Gyr^{-1}}$ per galaxy, showing a weak scaling with stellar mass, driven by the evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function. A comparison between the cumulative mass accretion from major mergers and the mass assembled through star formation indicates that major mergers contribute approximately $3-13\%$ to the total mass growth over the studied redshift range, which is in agreement with the ex-situ mass fraction estimated from our simple numerical model. These results highlight that major mergers contribute little to the direct stellar mass growth compared to in-situ star formation but could still play an indirect role by driving star formation itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Footprint of the JADES GOODS-South and GOODS-North fields from the mosaics as RGB images (using the F090W, F200W, and F444W bands). Both the GOODS-South and GOODS-North field is further divided into deep and medium tiers based on the exposure time in the F444W band, with the deep tier indicated by the orange area with exposure time above the threshold of T GS exp = 32.5 ks, and T GN exp = 9.5 ks, respectively. The G… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One-to-one comparison between the estimated photometric red￾shifts from EAZY and all the available spectroscopic redshifts from JADES and other surveys as indicated by the colours. This comparison is for ob￾jects in the GOODS-South field, including only the highest-quality redshifts and the best coordinate matches between the photometric and spectroscopic sources. There is a good agreement between the two types of r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar mass distribution of our sample in the GOODS-South field, with grey dots representing masses estimated with Prospector. The stellar mass completeness limit is calculated by the method of Pozzetti et al. (2010). The red dots represent the 𝑀lim values of the faintest 20% galaxies, while the red circles with black edges are the 𝑀min values in each redshift bin (width of Δ𝑧 = 0.5), obtained by taking the 90th pe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: example of a candidate close-pair system at 𝑧1 = 4.22+0.08 −0.13 (primary galaxy), where the red curve indicates the photometric redshift posterior distribution 𝑃1(𝑧) of the primary galaxy, and the blue curve represents 𝑃2(𝑧) for the companion galaxy. Both …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Close galaxy pairs with a high probability of being actual mergers (N𝑧 > 0.8) at 3 < 𝑧 < 4. The RGB cutouts (with blue, green, and red assigned to the F090W, F200W, and F444W bands, respectively) are ordered by decreasing projected separation between the close pairs (f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift-evolution of the major galaxy close-pair fractions for three different stellar mass bins. Uncertainties are obtained by bootstrapping with 100 resamples. The lowest stellar mass bin shows the most clear evolution by increasing up to 𝑧 ∼ 6 and then turning over…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Redshift-evolution of the close-pair fractions for three different stellar mass bins, represented by the three subplots. Each subplot displays the field￾to-field variation within each bin for the four subfields (e.g., GS and GN, deep and medium tier), with the lowest s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The evolution of major galaxy pair fractions measured in this work and their associated uncertainty bands, colour-coded by stellar mass. Data points from the existing literature (Conselice et al. 2003, 2008; de Ravel et al. 2009; Casteels et al. 2014; Mundy et al. 2017…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the merger observability timescale derived by Snyder et al. (2017) that is redshift-dependent, and the timescale of Con￾selice et al. (2022) that is also mass-ratio dependent, and 10% of the Hubble time. They agree well, especially at higher redshif…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the galaxy major merger rate (top panel) and merger rate density (bottom panel) with redshift for the three stellar mass bins between 𝑧 ≈ 3 − 9. Merger rates steeply increase at intermediate redshifts (𝑧 ≈ 3 − 6), after which they flatten and become const…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the galaxy major merger rate with redshift for the three stellar mass bins between 𝑧 ≈ 3 − 9. Merger rates increase at intermediate redshifts (𝑧 ≈ 3 − 6), after which they flatten and become constant at high redshifts (𝑧 ≈ 6 − 9). By fitting a power law +…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The redshift evolution of the cumulative ex-situ stellar mass frac￾tion due to major mergers from our numerical model that simulates the mass growth of galaxies using the merger rate from our measurements (valid for the 108 − 1010 M⊙ stellar mass range) and assuming a…

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. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Probing the Merger Rates of Supermassive Black Holes and Galaxies with Gravitational Waves

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A mock-data forecast shows that roughly forty LISA-detected SMBH merger events, combined with PTA background constraints, can recover galaxy and SMBH merger rates, while twelve events cannot.

  2. Performance of morphological classifiers for galaxy mergers compared to current machine learning methods

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated G-M20 and G-C morphological cuts achieve ~70% merger precision comparable to ML, with better high-z robustness, but only select pre-mergers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

216 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Agazie G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..37A 952, L37

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b 2023

  2. [2]

    Alberts S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...85A 975, 85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cc 2024

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2410.16354

    Allen N., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241016354A p. arXiv:2410.16354

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16354 2024

  4. [4]

    Arribas S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.146A 688, A146

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 2024

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [6]

    Bacon R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A...4B 670, A4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 2023

  7. [7]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539..557B 539, 557

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539..557B 539, 557

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf475 2025

  8. [8]

    E., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..115B 471, 115

    Barnes J. E., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..115B 471, 115

    doi:10.1086/177957 1996

Show all 216 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4922B 483, 4922

    Baugh C. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4922B 483, 4922

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Beckwith S. V. W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.1729B 132, 1729

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...32B 799, 32

    Behroozi P. S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...32B 799, 32

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...57B 770, 57

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Hearin A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..241B 640, 241

    Bell E. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..241B 640, 241

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    B., Ellis R

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

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Ben \' tez N., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..571B 536, 571

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

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

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Tal T., Marchesini D., Kriek M., Franx M., Coppi P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1290B 697, 1290

    Bezanson R., van Dokkum P. G., Tal T., Marchesini D., Kriek M., Franx M., Coppi P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1290B 697, 1290

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Ellison S

    Bickley R. W., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Bottrell C., Gwyn S., Hudson M. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3294B 514, 3294

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Ellison S

    Bickley R. W., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Wilkinson S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.6149B 519, 6149

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Bluck A. F. L., Conselice C. J., Bouwens R. J., Daddi E., Dickinson M., Papovich C., Yan H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00608.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394L..51B 394, L51

    2009

  14. [22]

    B \"o ker T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acb846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135c8001B 135, 038001

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Bournaud F., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730....4B 730, 4

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Bradley L., et al., 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10967176 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Brammer G., 2021, eazy-py , https://github.com/gbrammer/eazy-py, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.5012704

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    G., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...359L...1C 359, L1

    Carlberg R. G., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...359L...1C 359, L1

    1990 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Casteels K. R. V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1157C 445, 1157

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Cattapan A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..130C 874, 130

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

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

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    Claeyssens A., Adamo A., Richard J., Mahler G., Messa M., Dessauges-Zavadsky M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2180C 520, 2180

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..393C 51, 393

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638..686C 638, 686

    Conselice C. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638..686C 638, 686

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    J., Bershady M

    Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Dickinson M., Papovich C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.1183C 126, 1183

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    J., Mundy C

    Conselice C. J., Mundy C. J., Ferreira L., Duncan K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b1a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..168C 940, 168

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    Covelo-Paz A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.178C 694, A178

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2013.31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...52C 30, e052

    Croton D. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2013.31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...52C 30, e052

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277....4D 277, 4

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    Dalmasso N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.4472D 533, 4472

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    Decarli R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..138D 882, 138

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    Decarli R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.219D 689, A219

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4381D 523, 4381

    Desmons A., Brough S., Mart \' nez-Lombilla C., De Propris R., Holwerda B., L \'o pez-S \'a nchez \'A . R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4381D 523, 4381

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    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

  44. [53]

    arXiv:2407.09472

    Duan Q., et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240709472D p. arXiv:2407.09472

    doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    arXiv:2411.04944

    Duan Q., et al., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241104944D p. arXiv:2411.04944

    doi

  46. [55]

    Duncan K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..110D 876, 110

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Efron B., 1979, @doi [The Annals of Statistics] 10.1214/aos/1176344552 , 7, 1

    1979

  48. [57]

    Efron B., 1981, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/68.3.589 , 68, 589

    1981 doi

  49. [58]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602465E p

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602465E p. arXiv:2306.02465

    doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p. arXiv:2310.12340

    doi

  51. [60]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2043E 418, 2043

    2011

  52. [61]

    L., Mendel J

    Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., Patton D. R., Palmer M. J. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3128E 430, 3128

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    Ellison S. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    P., Williams C

    Endsley R., Behroozi P., Stark D. P., Williams C. C., Robertson B. E., Rieke M., Gottl \"o ber S., Yepes G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1178E 493, 1178

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    K., Pettini M., Shapley A

    Erb D. K., Pettini M., Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., Law D. R., Reddy N. A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1168E 719, 1168

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821..122F 821, 122

    Faisst A. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821..122F 821, 122

    2016 doi

  57. [67]

    J., Duncan K., Cheng T.-Y., Griffiths A., Whitney A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895..115F 895, 115

    Ferreira L., Conselice C. J., Duncan K., Cheng T.-Y., Griffiths A., Whitney A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895..115F 895, 115

    2020 doi

  58. [68]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  60. [70]

    Fragkoudi F., Grand R. J. J., Pakmor R., G \'o mez F., Marinacci F., Springel V., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1587F 538, 1587

    2025 doi

  61. [71]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..25F 949, L25

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    Gao F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..94G 637, A94

    2020 doi

  63. [73]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  64. [74]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135f8001G 135, 068001

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135f8001G 135, 068001

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    E., Lara-L \'o pez M

    Gardu \ n o L. E., Lara-L \'o pez M. A., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hopkins A. M., Owers M. S., Pimbblet K. A., Holwerda B. W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2969G 501, 2969

    2021 doi

  66. [76]

    Genel S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..789G 688, 789

    2008 doi

  67. [77]

    Genel S., Bouch \'e N., Naab T., Sternberg A., Genzel R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719..229G 719, 229

    2010 doi

  68. [78]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..175G 445, 175

    2014 doi

  69. [79]

    Giavalisco M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600L..93G 600, L93

    2004 doi

  70. [80]

    Gupta A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..35G 957, L35

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    N., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...66H 964, 66

    Hainline K. N., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...66H 964, 66

    doi

  72. [82]

    N., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...71H 964, 71

    Hainline K. N., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...71H 964, 71

    doi

  73. [83]

    Harvey T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978...89H 978, 89

    2025 doi

  74. [84]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L...2H 955, L2

    2023 doi

  75. [85]

    M., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..124H 962, 124

    Helton J. M., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..124H 962, 124

    doi

  76. [86]

    M., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...41H 974, 41

    Helton J. M., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...41H 974, 41

    doi

  77. [87]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..356H 175, 356

    2008 doi

  78. [88]

    F., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..202H 715, 202

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..202H 715, 202

    doi

  79. [89]

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

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

    doi

  80. [90]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..34H 949, L34

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..34H 949, L34

    2023 doi

  81. [91]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973....8H 973, 8

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973....8H 973, 8

    2024 doi

  82. [92]

    G., Baugh C

    Hu s ko F., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.5918H 509, 5918

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    Iodice E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A...3I 635, A3

    2020 doi

  84. [94]

    Jakobsen P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..80J 661, A80

    2022 doi

  85. [96]

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

    2022 doi

  86. [97]

    arXiv:2410.00099

    Ji Z., Giavalisco M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241000099J p. arXiv:2410.00099

    2024 doi

  87. [98]

    arXiv:2401.00934

    Ji Z., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240100934J p. arXiv:2401.00934

    2024 doi

  88. [99]

    Jin S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L..11J 670, L11

    2023 doi

  89. [100]

    Jogee S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1971J 697, 1971

    2009 doi

  90. [101]

    D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

    2021 doi

  91. [102]

    Johnson B., et al., 2024, dfm/python-fsps: v0.4.7 (v0.4.7), @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12447779 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12447779

    2024 doi

  92. [103]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240512955J p

    Jones G. C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240512955J p. arXiv:2405.12955

    2024 doi arXiv

  93. [104]

    Kado-Fong E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..103K 866, 103

    2018 doi

  94. [105]

    arXiv:2502.20437

    Kannan R., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.20437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250220437K p. arXiv:2502.20437

    2025 doi

  95. [106]

    S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..320K 172, 320

    Kartaltepe J. S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..320K 172, 320

    2007 doi

  96. [107]

    S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721...98K 721, 98

    Kartaltepe J. S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721...98K 721, 98

    2010 doi

  97. [108]

    S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..221...11K 221, 11

    Kartaltepe J. S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..221...11K 221, 11

    2015 doi

  98. [110]

    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

  99. [111]

    Kriek M., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775L..16K 775, L16

    2013 doi

  100. [112]

    Lamperti I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.153L 691, A153

    2024 doi

  101. [113]

    Lanz L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...90L 768, 90

    2013 doi

  102. [114]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03083.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.311..565L 311, 565

    2000

  103. [115]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P

    Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., Byler N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..170L 837, 170

    2017 doi

  104. [116]

    C., Johnson B

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....3L 876, 3

    2019 doi

  105. [117]

    Li W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..168L 944, 168

    2023 doi

  106. [118]

    Lin L., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617L...9L 617, L9

    2004 doi

  107. [119]

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A...7L 548, A7

    2012 doi

  108. [120]

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.127L 564, A127

    2014 doi

  109. [121]

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..53L 576, A53

    2015 doi

  110. [122]

    M., Jonsson P., Cox T

    Lotz J. M., Jonsson P., Cox T. J., Primack J. R., 2008a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1137L 391, 1137

    2008

  111. [123]

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

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

    doi

  112. [125]

    M., Jonsson P., Cox T

    Lotz J. M., Jonsson P., Cox T. J., Croton D., Primack J. R., Somerville R. S., Stewart K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742..103L 742, 103

    2011 doi

  113. [126]

    D., Conroy C., Dav \'e R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...33L 904, 33

    Lower S., Narayanan D., Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Dav \'e R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...33L 904, 33

    2020 doi

  114. [127]

    Man A. W. S., Zirm A. W., Toft S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830...89M 830, 89

    2016 doi

  115. [128]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1549M 475, 1549

    Mantha K. B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1549M 475, 1549

    2018 doi

  116. [129]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2643M 486, 2643

    Mantha K. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2643M 486, 2643

    2019 doi

  117. [130]

    Marconcini C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2488M 533, 2488

    2024 doi

  118. [131]

    Margalef-Bentabol B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..24M 687, A24

    2024 doi

  119. [132]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.191M 678, A191

    Marshall M. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.191M 678, A191

    2023 doi

  120. [133]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241011035M p

    Marshall M. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241011035M p. arXiv:2410.11035

    2024 doi

  121. [134]

    arXiv:2503.00106

    McClymont W., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250300106M p. arXiv:2503.00106

    doi

  122. [135]

    arXiv:2503.04894

    McClymont W., et al., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250304894M p. arXiv:2503.04894

    doi

  123. [136]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1067M 535, 1067

    Meyer R. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1067M 535, 1067

    2024 doi

  124. [137]

    C., Hernquist L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...431L...9M 431, L9

    Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...431L...9M 431, L9

    1994 doi

  125. [138]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241206957M p

    Miller T. B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241206957M p. arXiv:2412.06957

    2024 doi arXiv

  126. [139]

    Molino A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2891M 441, 2891

    2014 doi

  127. [140]

    V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Pillepich A., Avila-Reese V., Sales L. V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    2023 doi

  128. [141]

    L., Patton D

    Moreno J., Torrey P., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Bluck A. F. L., Bansal G., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1107M 448, 1107

    2015 doi

  129. [142]

    Moreno J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1320M 485, 1320

    2019 doi

  130. [143]

    Morishita T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963....9M 963, 9

    2024 doi

  131. [144]

    J., Conselice C

    Mundy C. J., Conselice C. J., Duncan K. J., Almaini O., H \"a u ler B., Hartley W. G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3507M 470, 3507

    2017 doi

  132. [145]

    Naab T., Khochfar S., Burkert A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636L..81N 636, L81

    2006 doi

  133. [146]

    I., Iani E., Kokorev V., van Mierlo S

    Navarro-Carrera R., Rinaldi P., Caputi K. I., Iani E., Kokorev V., van Mierlo S. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..207N 961, 207

    2024 doi

  134. [147]

    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

  135. [148]

    A., Moster B

    O'Leary J. A., Moster B. P., Naab T., Somerville R. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3215O 501, 3215

    2021 doi

  136. [149]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    2023 doi

  137. [150]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  138. [151]

    R., Carlberg R

    Patton D. R., Carlberg R. G., Marzke R. O., Pritchet C. J., da Costa L. N., Pellegrini P. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..153P 536, 153

    2000 doi

  139. [152]

    R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..208P 565, 208

    Patton D. R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..208P 565, 208

    2002 doi

  140. [153]

    R., Ellison S

    Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., Mendel J. T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17932.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412..591P 412, 591

    2011

  141. [154]

    R., Torrey P., Ellison S

    Patton D. R., Torrey P., Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433L..59P 433, L59

    2013 doi

  142. [155]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4969P 494, 4969

    Patton D. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4969P 494, 4969

    2020 doi

  143. [156]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..51P 631, A51

    Pearson W. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..51P 631, A51

    2019 doi

  144. [157]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..52P 661, A52

    Pearson W. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..52P 661, A52

    2022 doi

  145. [158]

    Perna M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..89P 679, A89

    2023 doi

  146. [159]

    Perna M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A..59P 696, A59

    2025 doi

  147. [160]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  148. [161]

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

    2023 doi

  149. [162]

    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

  150. [163]

    Reeves A. M. M., Hudson M. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2037R 527, 2037

    2024 doi

  151. [164]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    Rieke M. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    doi

  152. [165]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..269...16R 269, 16

    Rieke M. J., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..269...16R 269, 16

    doi

  153. [166]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..611R 7, 611

    Robertson B. E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..611R 7, 611

    2023 doi

  154. [167]

    Rodr \' guez Del Pino B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.187R 684, A187

    2024 doi

  155. [168]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449...49R 449, 49

    2015 doi

  156. [169]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2371R 458, 2371

    2016 doi

  157. [170]

    Romano M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.111R 653, A111

    2021 doi

  158. [171]

    Rose C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...54R 942, 54

    2023 doi

  159. [172]

    L., McAlpine W., Hickox R

    Satyapal S., Ellison S. L., McAlpine W., Hickox R. C., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1297S 441, 1297

    2014 doi

  160. [173]

    Saxena A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..68S 678, A68

    2023 doi

  161. [174]

    Schaye J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.4978S 526, 4978

    2023 doi

  162. [175]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..297S 203, 297

    1976 doi

  163. [176]

    Scholtz J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2463S 539, 2463

    2025 doi

  164. [177]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....1S 172, 1

    2007 doi

  165. [178]

    S., Graham A

    Seigar M. S., Graham A. W., Jerjen H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11899.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378.1575S 378, 1575

    2007

  166. [179]

    Serjeant S., Bakx T. J. L. C., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02093-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1143S 7, 1143

    2023 doi

  167. [180]

    L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..231S 682, 231

    Shapiro K. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..231S 682, 231

    2008 doi

  168. [181]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9461S 527, 9461

    Sharma R. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9461S 527, 9461

    2024 doi

  169. [182]

    Shibuya T., Miura N., Iwadate K., Fujimoto S., Harikane Y., Toba Y., Umayahara T., Ito Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psab111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74...73S 74, 73

    2022 doi

  170. [183]

    J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998

  171. [184]

    Simmonds C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2998S 535, 2998

    2024 doi

  172. [185]

    F., Lotz J

    Snyder G. F., Lotz J. M., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Guimar \ a es R. d. S., Torrey P., Hernquist L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468..207S 468, 207

    2017 doi

  173. [186]

    Spavone M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A..38S 603, A38

    2017 doi

  174. [187]

    Spavone M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..149S 864, 149

    2018 doi

  175. [188]

    Spavone M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..14S 639, A14

    2020 doi

  176. [189]

    S., Steinhardt C

    Speagle J. S., Steinhardt C. L., Capak P. L., Silverman J. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...15S 214, 15

    2014 doi

  177. [190]

    R., Bullock J

    Stewart K. R., Bullock J. S., Barton E. J., Wechsler R. H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702.1005S 702, 1005

    2009 doi

  178. [191]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..42S 956, L42

    Suess K. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..42S 956, L42

    2023 doi

  179. [192]

    C., Shen X., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2665S 526, 2665

    Sun G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hayward C. C., Shen X., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2665S 526, 2665

    2023 doi

  180. [193]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5416T 487, 5416

    2019 doi

  181. [194]

    C., Caplar N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..698T 497, 698

    Tacchella S., Forbes J. C., Caplar N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..698T 497, 698

    2020 doi

  182. [195]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..170T 927, 170

    2022 doi

  183. [196]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6236T 522, 6236

    2023 doi

  184. [197]

    D., Ellison S

    Thorp M. D., Ellison S. L., Pan H.-A., Lin L., Patton D. R., Bluck A. F. L., Walters D., Scudder J. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1462T 516, 1462

    2022 doi

  185. [198]

    Toft S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...68T 782, 68

    2014 doi

  186. [199]

    Toomre A., Toomre J., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..623T 178, 623

    1972 doi

  187. [200]

    J., Kewley L., Hernquist L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..108T 746, 108

    Torrey P., Cox T. J., Kewley L., Hernquist L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..108T 746, 108

    2012 doi

  188. [201]

    Treu T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..28T 942, L28

    2023 doi

  189. [202]

    Urrutia T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.141U 624, A141

    2019 doi

  190. [203]

    Ventou E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A...9V 608, A9

    2017 doi

  191. [204]

    Ventou E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..87V 631, A87

    2019 doi

  192. [205]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  193. [206]

    Weibel A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.1808W 533, 1808

    2024 doi

  194. [207]

    Westcott L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..121W 983, 121

    2025 doi

  195. [208]

    White S. D. M., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.183..341W 183, 341

    1978 doi

  196. [209]

    P., Endsley R., Leja J., Charlot S., Chevallard J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5859W 519, 5859

    Whitler L., Stark D. P., Endsley R., Leja J., Charlot S., Chevallard J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5859W 519, 5859

    2023 doi

  197. [210]

    J., Quadri R

    Williams R. J., Quadri R. F., Franx M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738L..25W 738, L25

    2011 doi

  198. [211]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    Williams C. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    2018 doi

  199. [212]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..268...64W 268, 64

    Williams C. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..268...64W 268, 64

    2023 doi

  200. [213]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...74W 966, 74

    Willott C. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...74W 966, 74

    2024 doi

  201. [214]

    Witstok J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..40W 682, A40

    2024 doi

  202. [215]

    Witten C., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02179-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..384W 8, 384

    2024 doi

  203. [216]

    K., Zhao Y., Scoville N., Capak P., Drory N., Gao Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...85X 747, 85

    Xu C. K., Zhao Y., Scoville N., Capak P., Drory N., Gao Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...85X 747, 85

    2012 doi

  204. [217]

    Yuan F.-T., Zheng Z.-Y., Jiang C., Zhu S., Lin R., Cheng C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...53Y 975, 53

    2024 doi

  205. [218]

    E., Koo D

    Zepf S. E., Koo D. C., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...337...34Z 337, 34

    1989 doi

  206. [219]

    de Graaff A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..87D 684, A87

    2024 doi

  207. [220]

    de Ravel L., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...498..379D 498, 379

    2009 doi

  208. [221]

    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 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.