Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

ADF22-WEB: ALMA and JWST (sub)kpc-scale views of dusty star-forming galaxies in a $z\approx$3 proto-cluster

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 The paper argues that z≈3 dusty starbursts in a proto-cluster core are predominantly disk-like galaxies with compact cores, so the local morphology-density relation must form after that epoch.

desk verdict Solid matched-resolution ALMA+JWST morphology of z~3 protocluster DSFGs; the disk interpretation is well supported, while the morphology-density-relation narrative overreaches the small sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01868 v1 pith:G3FBT7GE submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.GA

Hideki Umehata , Mariko Kubo , Ian Smail , Bret D. Lehmer , Erik B. Monson , Kouichiro Nakanishi , Yuichi Matsuda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustystar-forminggalaxiessubmillimeterproto-clustersSSA22SersicprofilesgalaxymorphologycosmicwebJWSTNIRCam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses matched ALMA and JWST images, at angular resolutions down to 0.05 arcseconds, to dissect nine dusty star-forming galaxies embedded in the cosmic-web filaments of the SSA22 proto-cluster core at z≈3.09. It claims that once bright compact regions are masked, the 870-micron dust emission follows an exponential disk profile, meaning the dust is spread across disks with superimposed compact cores, clumps, and bar-like ridges. JWST F444W images show Sersic indices between about 1 and 3, indicating stellar bulges coexisting with disks, and the close agreement of axis ratios and position angles between the dust and stellar fits argues that the dust truly traces the disks. The authors conclude that the most massive galaxies in this dense high-redshift environment are predominantly late-type, in sharp contrast to the early-type dominance of local cluster cores, and interpret this as witnessing the early assembly phase of the morphology-density relation.

What carries the argument

The central tool is two-dimensional Sersic profile fitting, applied to ALMA 870-micron images at about 0.15 arcseconds and to JWST F444W images at matched resolution, with iterative masking of residual pixels above 5-sigma in the ALMA fits to expose an underlying smooth disk component. The Sersic index n characterizes profile concentration: n≈1 corresponds to an exponential disk and high n to a concentrated spheroid, so comparing n, effective radius, axis ratio, and position angle between the two tracers lets the paper test whether dust and stellar emission share the same geometry. A second element is the core dust mass surface density estimated from 0.05-arcsecond 1.1-millimeter maps, combined with the F444W Sersic index and F200W–F444W color, to place the galaxies in an evolutionary diagram of dust-obscured bulge growth.

What would settle it

A single deep ALMA 870-micron observation of one of these DSFGs at about 0.05 to 0.08 arcseconds that resolves out the extended component and shows the flux concentrated in unresolved cores and clumps, with no exponential disk remaining in the residual after masking, would falsify the disk claim; alternatively, [C II] or CO kinematics showing no ordered rotation across the apparent disk would weaken the late-type interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the core of the SSA22 proto-cluster at z≈3.09, dusty star-forming galaxies have predominantly disk-like morphologies with superimposed compact cores. For the six brightest sources, the 870-micron Sersic index measured after iteratively masking bright residual pixels is close to unity, with a mean n=0.86±0.05, indicating an exponential disk; without the masks the mean rises to n=1.37±0.08, quantifying the extra concentrated core light. The JWST F444W Sersic indices range from about 1 to 3, pointing to coexisting bulges and stellar disks, and the ALMA and F444W measurements agree well in axis ratio and position angle, supporting the interpretation that dust emission originates across the disks. The paper therefore argues that these DSFGs are late-type galaxies undergoing rapid, heavily obscured growth, and that the sharp contrast with the early-type morphology-density relation seen in local clusters means we are observing the early formation of that relation.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that iteratively masking the brightest 5-sigma pixels in the ALMA images reveals a real pre-existing smooth exponential disk, rather than manufacturing one by fitting only the faint wings of unresolved compact cores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The most massive galaxies in the proto-cluster core at z≈3 are predominantly late-type, so the morphology-density relation must emerge after this epoch.
  • Dust continuum emission in DSFGs traces star formation across the disk rather than only in compact starburst cores, since the ALMA and F444W axis ratios and position angles agree.
  • Compact red dusty cores in some DSFGs mark an ongoing, dust-obscured bulge-growth phase, often accompanied by X-ray AGNs, suggesting simultaneous bulge and black-hole growth.
  • ADF22.A11 may be a transitional object where the center has already quenched, with n≈4 in F444W, while the disk still forms stars, offering evidence for inside-out quenching.
  • Bars and offset ridges in dust emission in at least ADF22.A1, A3, and A5 indicate that secular bar-driven gas inflow contributes to the starbursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these disky DSFGs are truly the ancestors of local ellipticals, their transformation into spheroids must be completed between z≈3 and z≈1; counting mergers or measuring disk settling in proto-cluster cores over that redshift range would test this.
  • The tight ALMA–F444W axis-ratio correlation seen here, not seen in the general field, could reflect shared gas inflow geometry along cosmic-web filaments; a larger proto-cluster sample can check whether the alignment is systematic.
  • ADF22.A11's n≈4 F444W profile with faint dust may be a snapshot of inside-out quenching; near-infrared spectroscopy of its gas could confirm that the center is already passive.
  • The 5-sigma masking step biases the fitted Sersic index downward by construction, so independent checks with visibility-plane modeling or deeper stacking of the extended component are needed before the disk conclusion is generalized.
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. The paper analyzes ALMA 870 um and 1.1 mm images together with JWST/NIRCam (F115W–F444W) images of nine spectroscopically confirmed dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) at z ~ 3.09 in the SSA22 proto-cluster core. Fluxes are measured at multiple resolutions and cross-checked, and Sersic profiles are fit to the ALMA 870 um images both with and without iterative bright-pixel masking, as well as to the NIRCam F444W images. The masked ALMA fits give Sersic indices near unity, which the authors interpret as evidence that dust emission arises from disks with superimposed compact cores; the F444W fits give n ~ 1–3.5, suggesting bulges and disks. Combining dust mass surface density, F444W Sersic index, and F200W–F444W colors, the paper argues that the proto-cluster DSFGs span different evolutionary stages, including red, dusty cores undergoing rapid bulge growth. The paper concludes that these DSFGs are predominantly disk-dominated and interprets this as the early formation stage of the local morphology-density relation.

Significance. If the central disk-dominance claim holds, the paper provides a valuable observational datum for the evolution of the morphology-density relation and for the internal structure of DSFGs in a proto-cluster environment. Strengths include the multi-resolution flux cross-checks in Section 3.2, the convolution of model profiles with the synthesized beam in the Sersic fits (Section 3.3), the explicit comparison of masked and unmasked fits, the fixed-n test in Appendix A, and the candid discussion of caveats such as flux recovery, F444W dust extinction, and the small sample size. The comparison of ALMA and F444W sizes, axis ratios, and position angles is a useful addition to the literature, and the paper's emphasis on the coexistence of disks, cores, bars, and clumps is timely.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Table 3] The central disk-dominance claim rests on the masked Sersic fits. Iterative masking of residual pixels above 5σ removes the bright central core and clumps before fitting, and the reported mean n drops from 1.37 ± 0.08 (unmasked) to 0.86 ± 0.05 (masked). The interpretation that this exposes an underlying exponential disk is not uniquely supported by the data: if the true profile is a compact high-n Sersic with a masked center, the remaining outer wings can be approximated by n ≈ 1. The paper does not provide a recovery simulation showing that the masking-and-fitting procedure returns the input n for single-component Sersic profiles with n spanning 1–4 in the presence of the 0.15″ beam and the measured noise, nor does it fit an explicit two-component (disk + core) model. The fixed-n = 1 test in Appendix A is not an adequate substitute because it forces n = 1 rather than testing whether the residual wings of a high-n profile masquerade as an exponential disk. I recommend adding injection-recovery simulations or explicit two-component fits before the abstract's claim that 'dust emission arises from disks' is accepted.
  2. [Appendix A, Table A1] The statement in §3.3 that the fixed-n = 1 unmasked fits 'broadly yielded similar parameters compared with the fit with bright emission masks' is not fully supported by the numbers. For ADF22.A1, Re changes from 4.73 ± 0.53 kpc (masked free-n) to 2.82 ± 0.31 kpc (fixed-n unmasked), and ADF22.A7 changes from 1.53 ± 0.15 to 1.30 ± 0.15 kpc. These differences are several times the quoted uncertainties and indicate that the fixed-n fit is not simply recovering the same disk component. Since the fixed-n fit is the main check on the masking procedure, this discrepancy should be discussed and ideally reconciled with a two-component model.
  3. [§5.3, Abstract] The concluding claim that 'we are witnessing the early formation of the morphology-density relation' goes beyond what the data directly show. The paper demonstrates that nine DSFGs in the SSA22 proto-cluster core have disk-dominated dust and stellar profiles, and it compares their Sersic indices, sizes, and axis ratios with field DSFGs from Hodge et al. (2025). However, the comparison is not quantitative in terms of environment: the field sample is not matched in stellar mass, redshift, or selection (e.g., L_IR limits), and the paper does not show that the proto-cluster DSFGs are more disk-dominated than field DSFGs at fixed mass. Without such a differential test, the claim about the origin of the morphology-density relation is an interpretation rather than a measurement. I suggest either adding a matched control comparison or softening the conclusion to state that the ancestors of local cluster ellipticals were disk-dominated at z ≈ 3 in this proto-cluster.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] The sentence listing 5σ limiting magnitudes gives five values for four filters ('29.74, 29.01, 29.15, 29.49, 29.00 AB mag for F115W, F200W, F356W, and F444W'); please correct the number of values or filters.
  2. [§2.2.1] The phrase 'The recipitable water vapor' should be 'The precipitable water vapor'.
  3. [§4.1] There is a typo: 'invisiblein the bluer bands' should read 'invisible in the bluer bands'.
  4. [Table 3] The ADF22.A4 masked fit reports b/a = 1.0 ± 0.1 with an essentially unconstrained position angle (114.1 ± 100.5 deg); it would be helpful to note that PA is meaningless for a round source and to exclude this PA from the correlation analysis in §4.3.
  5. [Table 2] The header 'IRCS IRCS' above the R.A. and Dec. columns appears to be an undefined or leftover coordinate-system label; please define it or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the morphological analysis is self-contained and the disk interpretation is supported by independent fits and external comparisons.

full rationale

The paper is an observational morphological study, not a derivation, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs. The Sérsic index at 870 µm is a free parameter in the profile fit; the iterative 5σ residual masking is defined from fit residuals, not from an assumed n, so the measured ⟨n⟩=0.86 does not equal an input by construction. The unmasked fits (⟨n⟩=1.37) and the fixed-n=1 fits provide internal checks, and the disk interpretation is additionally supported by the ALMA–F444W b/a and PA correlations and by the external stacked detection of faint extended components (Gullberg et al. 2019). Self-citations (Umehata et al. 2015, 2019, 2024) supply target selection, field context, and some complementary data or interpretations, but the central morphological measurements and the comparison to local morphology-density relations are made with the new ALMA and JWST data presented here; the cited prior results are independent measurements rather than assumptions that already contain the conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely relabeled. The iterative-masking concern raised by a skeptical reading is a possible systematic or measurement bias and a correctness risk, not a circularity under the definitions used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative results depend on adopted dust properties (Td, beta, kappa) that are taken from the literature rather than measured here, and on analysis choices (5-sigma masking, fixed n=1 for faint sources) that shape the disk-plus-core interpretation. No new physical entities are introduced; the interpretive frame (proto-bulge, early morphology-density relation) organizes existing measurements rather than postulating new components.

free parameters (4)
  • Dust temperature Td = 25 K
    Adopted in Eq. (2) for the dust mass surface density estimate (Section 5.2), following Scoville et al. (2016). The derived Sigma_Md,core scales strongly with this choice.
  • Spectral emissivity index beta = 1.8
    Adopted in Eq. (2) for the dust mass surface density estimate (Section 5.2).
  • Dust mass absorption coefficient kappa(nu850) = 0.04 m2/kg
    Adopted from Li & Draine (2001) in Eq. (2); converts flux to dust mass and directly scales Sigma_Md,core.
  • Dust temperature and emissivity for flux correction = Td = 30 K, beta = 2.0
    Used to apply a 5% correction to the 1.0-arcsec 1.1 mm fluxes in Section 3.2 so they can be compared with the high-resolution 1.146 mm fluxes; an assumed modified blackbody.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Iterative masking of residual pixels above 5-sigma isolates the underlying smooth disk profile in the ALMA 870 um fits.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 following Hodge et al. (2019); the disk interpretation (n ~ 1) depends on this masking not manufacturing the exponential profile.
  • domain assumption F444W (rest-frame around 1.1 um) light primarily traces stellar mass.
    Stated in Section 4.2 with the caveat that dust extinction may flatten profiles; the stellar morphology and bulge-growth interpretation rely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The z=3.09 SSA22 proto-cluster core is the direct ancestor of the densest regions in the local universe.
    Argued in Section 5.3 via phase-space conservation in hierarchical collapse; this connects the observed disk morphologies to the local morphology-density relation.
  • domain assumption Standard concordance cosmology (H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.30, Omega_Lambda=0.70).
    Stated in Section 1; sets the angular scale of 7.63 kpc/arcsec used for all physical sizes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ADF22-WEB: ALMA and JWST (sub)kpc-scale views of dusty star-forming galaxies in a $z\approx$3 proto-cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3FBT7GE

@misc{pith2026250201868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ADF22-WEB: ALMA and JWST (sub)kpc-scale views of dusty star-forming galaxies in a $z\approx$3 proto-cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3FBT7GE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01868}
}
read the original abstract

We present a morphological analysis of ALMA and JWST NIRCam images of nine dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) at zspec=3.09, all embedded within the cosmic web filaments at the SSA22 proto-cluster core. The ALMA 870um and 1.1mm images are obtained at spatial resolutions ranging from 0.5" to 0.05" (350 pc at z=3.09). The high-resolution images enable us to resolve inner structures traced by dust continuum, identifying compact dusty cores, clumps, and offset ridges within bars. Sersic profile fit was performed for both ALMA 870um and NIRCam F444W images at comparable resolutions (0.15"). The Sersic index measured for 870um, masking bright regions, indicates values close to unity, suggesting that dust emission arises from disks with superimposed compact core components. For the JWST F444W images (restframe 1um), the Sersic indices range between nF444W = 1-3, pointing to the coexistence of bulges and stellar disks in these DSFGs. A comparison of dust mass surface density, nF444W, and F200W-F444W color (restframe 0.5-1um) reveals diversity among the DSFGs, likely reflecting different evolutionary stages including some DSFGs with red cores, indicating ongoing rapid bulge growth phases heavily obscured by dust. The predominantly disk-like morphologies observed in most DSFGs in the proto-cluster core contrast sharply with early-type morphologies that dominate the highest density environment in the local universe. This suggests that we are witnessing the early formation of the morphology-density relation, as massive galaxies undergo rapid growth as late-type galaxies fueled by cosmic web gas filaments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The cutout images of the six brightest z = 3.09 DSFGs in ADF22. From left to right, close-up views are shown, with each inserted square indicating the area highlighted in the adjacent tile. Each map presents 870 µm images with resolutions of 0.5 ′′ and 0.15′′, as well as 1.1 mm images with resolutions of 0.08′′ and 0.05′′, respectively. The panel sizes are 5′′ × 5 ′′ , 2.5 ′′ × 2.5 ′′, 2′′ × 2 ′′, and 1′′ × 1 ′′, re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cutout images of three z = 3.09 DSFGs in the vicinity of ADF22.A4. Panels are as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 1.1 mm flux ratio between two angular res￾olutions (S1.1mm,0.05asec/S1.1mm,1asec) is shown as a function of the observed total 1.1,mm flux S1.1mm,1asec. The open circle represents the case of ADF22.A1 at 0.08′′. The frac￾tion of recovered flux at 0.05′′ is broadly correlated with the total flux. This correlation may reflect differences in the in￾trinsic nature of dusty star-forming activity between bright and fa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the profile fit with ALMA 870 µm imaging on the six brightest DSFGs in ADF22 (0.15′′ resolution). From left to right, each panel shows the observed images, the best-fit S´ersic profile, and the residual maps. Each panel is 2.4 ′′ × 2.4 ′′ (18.3×18.3 kpc2 ) i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Postage stamps of the NIRCam images as marked. Each panel is 3.8 ′′ × 3.8 ′′ (29 × 29 kpc2 at z = 3.09) in size. Dust extinction is severe in bluer bands (F115W and F200W). suggesting the presence of less dusty regions within these DSFGs as well as inhomogeneous dust o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A combined ALMA and JWST views of nine DSFGs. (left) NIRCam pseudo-color images (blue: F200W, green: F356W, red: F444W) for the nine proto-cluster DSFGs in ADF22, in which PSF sizes are matched to that of F444W. Each panel is 2′′ × 2 ′′ in size. (middle) ALMA 870 µm im…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Postage stamps of JWST NIRCam F444W images for the nine DSFGs in ADF22 (30 × 30 kpc2 in size). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of parameters derived by pro￾file fit on ALMA 870 µm and JWST NIRCam F444W im￾ages. Blue filled circles show the results from ALMA profile fit with the bright source masks, while yellow circles show the results without the masks (only in the top right panel)…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The F444W residual images after subtracting the best-fit S´ersic model with a fixed S´ersic index (n = 1). The contours represent the 870 µm emission at 0.15′′, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relation among dust mass surface density at the core (Σ Md,core), S´ersic index measured for the F444W image (nF444W), and F200W-F444W color at the core. Dusty starburst at the core, which causes severe dust reddening, would correspond to the rapid growth phase of…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. ADF22-WEB: Detection of a molecular gas reservoir in a massive quiescent galaxy located in a $z\approx3$ proto-cluster core

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    ALMA's CO(3-2) detection in ADF22-QG1 provides the first direct measurement of molecular gas in a quiescent galaxy at z~3, with gas fraction and gas-to-dust ratio constraints.

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

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01918, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01918 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amvrosiadis, A., Lange, S., Nightingale, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01918, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01918 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01918 2024

  2. [2]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  3. [3]

    J., Cowie, L

    Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., Sanders, D. B., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 248, doi: 10.1038/28338

    doi:10.1038/28338 1998

  4. [4]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  5. [5]

    W., Chapman, S

    Blain, A. W., Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. 2004, ApJ, 611, 725, doi: 10.1086/422353

    doi:10.1086/422353 2004

  6. [6]

    Frayer, D. T. 2002, PhR, 369, 111, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00134-5

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00134-5 2002

  7. [7]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603, doi: 10.1038/380603a0

    doi:10.1038/380603a0 1996

  8. [8]

    G., et al

    Bournaud, F., Daddi, E., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 741, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079250 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 20

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079250 2008

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Chen, C.-C., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 194, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/194

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac98c6

    Chen, C.-C., Gao, Z.-K., Hsu, Q.-N., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac98c6

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d0

    Cheng, C., Huang, J.-S., Smail, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d0

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 673, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346535

    Colina, L., Crespo G´ omez, A.,´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346535

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Grogin, N

    Conselice, C. J., Grogin, N. A., Jogee, S., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L139, doi: 10.1086/378556 da Cunha, E., Groves, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/13

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 1517, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1517 De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S

    Daddi, E., Dannerbauer, H., Stern, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1517, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1517 De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Croton, D., &

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    2006

  10. [19]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    1980 doi

  12. [21]

    S., McLure, R

    Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Biggs, A. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3088

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    1999, ApJ, 515, 518, doi: 10.1086/307069

    Eales, S., Lilly, S., Gear, W., et al. 1999, ApJ, 515, 518, doi: 10.1086/307069

    1999 doi

  14. [23]

    S., Smail, I., Dressler, A., et al

    Ellis, R. S., Smail, I., Dressler, A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 483, 582, doi: 10.1086/304261

    1997 doi

  15. [24]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 632, doi: 10.1086/430514

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    Lemonias, J. J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/12

    2009 doi

  17. [26]

    Coe, D. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 763, doi: 10.1086/511667

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 59, doi: 10.1086/591840

    Genzel, R., Burkert, A., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59, doi: 10.1086/591840

    2008 doi

  19. [28]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    2023, A&A, 676, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346531

    Gillman, S., Gullberg, B., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346531

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    2024, A&A, 691, A299, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451006

    Gillman, S., Smail, I., Gullberg, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A299, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451006

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    R., Bertoldi, F., Smail, I., et al

    Greve, T. R., Bertoldi, F., Smail, I., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1165, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08979.x

    2005

  23. [32]

    M., Smail, I., et al

    Gullberg, B., Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe8c

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    M., et al

    Gullberg, B., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2835

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Blain, A

    Hainline, L. J., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/96

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2004, AJ, 128, 2073, doi: 10.1086/424935

    Hayashino, T., Matsuda, Y., Tamura, H., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2073, doi: 10.1086/424935

    2004 doi

  28. [37]

    H., Matsuda, Y., Umehata, H., et al

    Hayatsu, N. H., Matsuda, Y., Umehata, H., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 45, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx018

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    A., & da Cunha, E

    Hodge, J. A., & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556, doi: 10.1098/rsos.200556

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

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

    Hodge, J. A., Karim, A., Smail, I., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/91

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Swinbank, A

    Hodge, J. A., Swinbank, A. M., Simpson, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/103

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al

    Hodge, J. A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1846

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Cunha, E

    Hodge, J. A., Cunha, E. d., Kendrew, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a52

    2025 doi

  34. [43]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  35. [44]

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

    Hughes, D. H., Serjeant, S., Dunlop, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 241, doi: 10.1038/28328

    1998 doi

  36. [45]

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

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Cowley, W

    Ikarashi, S., Ivison, R. J., Cowley, W. I., & Kohno, K. 2022, A&A, 659, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141196

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    J., Caputi, K

    Ikarashi, S., Ivison, R. J., Caputi, K. I., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/133

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    S., Aretxaga, I., et al

    Iono, D., Yun, M. S., Aretxaga, I., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L10

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Smail, I., Le Borgne, J

    Ivison, R. J., Smail, I., Le Borgne, J. F., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 583, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01677.x

    1998

  41. [50]

    J., & Arag’on-Salamanca, A

    Kodama, T., Arimoto, N., Barger, A. J., & Arag’on-Salamanca, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 99, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802245

    1998 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1717, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11739.x

    Kodama, T., Tanaka, I., Kajisawa, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1717, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11739.x

    2007

  43. [52]

    J., Lintott, C

    Kruk, S. J., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2605

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2392

    Kubo, M., Yamada, T., Ichikawa, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2392

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    1999, MNRAS, 302, 111, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02090.x 21

    Lemson, G., & Kauffmann, G. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 111, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02090.x 21

    1999

  46. [55]

    Li, A., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 554, 778, doi: 10.1086/323147

    2001 doi

  47. [56]

    2005, ApJL, 634, L125, doi: 10.1086/499071

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2005, ApJL, 634, L125, doi: 10.1086/499071

    2005 doi

  48. [57]

    B., Chapman, S

    Miller, T. B., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 469, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    B., Lehmer, B

    Monson, E. B., Lehmer, B. D., Doore, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f84

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    B., Doore, K., Eufrasio, R

    Monson, E. B., Doore, K., Eufrasio, R. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd449

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014

    2016

  52. [61]

    J., Dunne, L., et al

    Oteo, I., Ivison, R. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1f1

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952 —. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2002 doi

  54. [63]

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

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampi...

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3312

    Popping, G., Pillepich, A., Calistro Rivera, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3312

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    A., Bradford, C

    Riechers, D. A., Bradford, C. M., Clements, D. L., et al. 2013, Nature, 496, 329, doi: 10.1038/nature12050

    2013 doi

  57. [66]

    2023, A&A, 679, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346444

    Rizzo, F., Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346444

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  60. [69]

    M., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/125

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/81 —. 2017, ApJ, 839, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65d0

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    J., & Blain, A

    Smail, I., Ivison, R. J., & Blain, A. W. 1997, ApJL, 490, L5, doi: 10.1086/311017

    1997 doi

  63. [72]

    M., et al

    Smail, I., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Stach, S. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab283

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf931

    Smail, I., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Gurwell, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf931

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    J., Lucey, J

    Smith, R. J., Lucey, J. R., & Carter, D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2994, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21922.x

    2012

  66. [75]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  67. [76]

    M., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., et al

    Stach, S. M., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1536

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 428, doi: 10.1086/305073

    1998 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Ivison, R

    Stevens, J. A., Ivison, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 264, doi: 10.1038/nature01976

    2003 doi

  70. [79]

    M., Egami, E., et al

    Sun, F., Helton, J. M., Egami, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 234, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16485.x

    2010

  72. [81]

    S., et al

    Tadaki, K., Iono, D., Yun, M. S., et al. 2018, Nature, 560, 613, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0443-1

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    2009, Nature, 459, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature07947

    Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., Nakanishi, K., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature07947

    2009 doi

  74. [83]

    J., et al

    Tamura, Y., Iono, D., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1270, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1270

    2010 doi

  75. [84]

    2024, Nature, 636, 69, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08201-6

    Tan, Q.-H., Daddi, E., Magnelli, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 69, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08201-6

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    Toft, S., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Magnelli, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    2014 doi

  77. [86]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3588

    Tsukui, T., Wisnioski, E., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3588

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu447 —

    Umehata, H., Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu447 —. 2015, ApJL, 815, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L8 —. 2017, ApJ, 835, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/98

    2014 doi

  79. [88]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy065

    Umehata, H., Hatsukade, B., Smail, I., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy065

    2018 doi

  80. [89]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    2019 doi

  81. [90]

    M., et al

    Umehata, H., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038146

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    C., Smail, I., et al

    Umehata, H., Steidel, C. C., Smail, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22155

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [92]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    2012, Nature, 486, 233, doi: 10.1038/nature11073

    Walter, F., Decarli, R., Carilli, C., et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 233, doi: 10.1038/nature11073

    2012 doi

  85. [94]

    L., Smail, I., Coppin, K

    Wardlow, J. L., Smail, I., Coppin, K. E. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1479, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18795.x Weiß, A., De Breuck, C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/88

    2011

Pith tools

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