Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Big, Dusty Galaxies in Blue Jay: Insights into the Relationship Between Morphology and Dust Attenuation at Cosmic Noon

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive dusty galaxies at cosmic noon appear about 30 percent larger in rest-optical than rest-NIR light because central dust flattens their optical light profiles.

desk verdict A careful JWST study that makes a plausible case for dust-driven rest-optical size inflation at cosmic noon, but the load-bearing Av correlation in Fig. 11 lacks redshift control and is partly model-built. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15346 v1 pith:C3QS3KCS submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA

Gabriel Maheson , Sandro Tacchella , Sirio Belli , Minjung Park , A. Lola Danhaive , Letizia Bugiani , Rebecca Davies , Razieh Emami
show 5 more authors
Amir H. Khoram Laurence Lam Joel Leja Trevor Mendel Erica June Nelson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustattenuationgalaxymorphologycosmicnoonsize-massrelationJWSTSEDfittingBalmerdecrementrest-frameoptical/NIRsizes
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 argues that dust does more than dim galaxies: it changes how their sizes appear, and it must be included when measuring morphology at cosmic noon. Using 141 galaxies at redshifts 1.7–3.5 with JWST spectra and deep imaging, the authors find that the effective dust attenuation law varies widely with stellar mass, star formation rate, and optical extinction. The sharpest result is that massive galaxies (about $10^{10}$ solar masses and above) look roughly 30 percent larger in rest-optical light than in rest-near-infrared light, because dust concentrated in their centres flattens the optical light profile. If correct, single-band size measurements overestimate the true stellar sizes of massive dusty galaxies, and size-mass relations at cosmic noon need dust-aware corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the two-component dust attenuation model combined with flexible attenuation laws and multi-band morphological fitting. A power-law 'birth cloud' component with fixed slope $n_1=-1$ attenuates light from stars younger than 10 Myr and from nebular regions, while an ISM component with a free slope $n_2$ and a 2175 Å UV bump whose strength is tied to $n_2$ attenuates all stars, built on a flexible curve anchored to the local starburst law. The effective attenuation law for each galaxy is recovered by comparing dust-on and dust-free model spectra from the SED fit, so stellar-population, dust, and morphological effects can be separated. Half-light radii come from one-component Sérsic profile fits to NIRCam images in F150W, F356W, and F444W; the flattening of the rest-optical light profile by the fitted central attenuation is what produces the ~30 percent size excess.

What would settle it

Dust-correct the rest-optical images for the most massive galaxies (for example by dividing the F150W image by the fitted attenuation map, or by using a Balmer-decrement-based attenuation map) and re-measure half-light radii; if the ~30 percent optical-versus-NIR size excess is caused by central dust, the corrected optical/NIR size ratio should become consistent with unity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a wavelength-dependent size gradient produced by dust. For the most massive star-forming galaxies in the sample ($M_\star \gtrsim 10^{10}\,M_\odot$), the half-light radius measured in F150W—which probes rest-optical light—is on average about 30 percent larger than the half-light radius measured in F444W, which probes rest-NIR light. The excess grows with the fitted optical attenuation $A_V$, and the authors interpret it as central dust attenuating the inner regions more strongly, flattening the optical surface-brightness profile and pushing the effective radius outward. Lower-mass galaxies show a wide range of optical-to-NIR size ratios, which the authors attribute to either inside-out growth or central starbursts rather than dust. The paper also establishes that the shape and strength of the attenuation law vary systematically with stellar mass, SFR, and $A_V$; that $A_V$ correlates more tightly with stellar-mass and SFR surface densities than with global quantities; and that nebular attenuation from the Balmer decrement tracks stellar-continuum attenuation among 67 star-forming galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the adopted dust model—a fixed birth-cloud slope and a UV-bump strength tied to the ISM slope—describes real attenuation laws, since a different but plausible geometry would change the fitted optical attenuation and with it the size-gradient conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Size-mass relations in the rest-optical and rest-NIR differ: the rest-optical relation has a positive slope at $1.7<z<3$ that flattens at the massive end, while the rest-NIR relation is nearly flat across $1.7<z<3.5$.
  • Dust attenuation correlates more strongly with stellar-mass and SFR surface densities than with the global stellar mass and SFR, implying that the concentration of mass and star formation sets the dust column.
  • The 2175 Å UV-bump strength in the effective attenuation law is weaker than Milky Way/LMC values and cannot lie above the relation built into the model, because birth-cloud dust with no bump dilutes it; this is a modelling consequence, not a direct grain-composition measurement.
  • Nebular attenuation measured from the Balmer decrement correlates with stellar-continuum $A_V$ (Spearman rank $r\simeq0.66$), supporting a common dust geometry for stars and gas in highly star-forming systems.
  • No significant correlation is found between $A_V$ and axis ratio at $1.7<z<3.5$, consistent with clumpy star-dust geometry rather than inclination-driven attenuation at cosmic noon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the size gradient is really produced by central dust, single-band rest-optical sizes systematically overestimate the effective radii of massive dusty galaxies; evolutionary size-mass relations built from such bands would then need dust corrections before being read as structural growth.
  • Because the fitted attenuation law enforces a fixed birth-cloud slope and a tied bump-slope relation, part of the reported correlation between attenuation-law shape and star formation rate is imposed by the model; a testable next step is to fit steeper or decoupled dust laws and see whether the ~30% size excess survives.
  • Spatially resolved dust maps (for example Balmer-decrement gradients) for a subset of these galaxies could directly confirm the central dust gradient: if it is real, the dust-corrected optical light profile should recover the flatter, more extended shape that the attenuation model predicts.
  • The wide optical-to-NIR size ratios of lower-mass galaxies, interpreted as inside-out growth or central starbursts, could be separated by measuring rest-UV/optical colour gradients; this would distinguish dust-free structural differences from the dust-driven signal seen at high mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a study of 141 Blue Jay galaxies at 1.7<z<3.5, combining JWST/NIRSpec R~1000 spectroscopy, NIRCam photometry, and HST photometry. Stellar populations and dust attenuation are modeled with Prospector using non-parametric SFHs and a two-component dust model: a birth-cloud power-law with fixed slope n1=-1 (Eq. 1) and an ISM attenuation law with a UV-bump strength tied to the ISM slope via Eb=0.85-1.9n2 (Eq. 4). The authors derive effective attenuation laws, report correlations between attenuation parameters and stellar mass, SFR, and surface densities, and compare stellar-continuum attenuation with Balmer-decrement nebular attenuation. Morphological fits with Pysersic in F150W, F356W, and F444W yield size-mass relations and a wavelength-dependent size ratio RF150W/RF444W; the central claim is that massive galaxies (M* >~1e10 Msun) appear about 30% larger in the rest-optical than in the rest-NIR because central dust flattens the optical light profile (Section 6.4, Figure 11).

Significance. If the size-gradient result holds, it is a valuable JWST-era measurement linking dust geometry to observed morphology at cosmic noon. The paper has real strengths: the size ratios are directly measured on 87-93 galaxies, the comparison with Balmer-decrement attenuation provides an independent dust tracer, and the authors are unusually candid about which trends are imposed by the model rather than required by the data (Section 5). The attenuation-law diversity and the mass-dust relation are interesting and well-contextualized with the literature. However, the headline causal claim that dust drives the 30% size excess is not yet backed by a controlled statistical analysis, and several quantitative statements rest on correlation coefficients reported without uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.4, Figure 11] The central size-gradient claim is not supported by a controlled statistical analysis. Figure 11 pools galaxies over the full range 1.7<z<3.5, while the rest-frame coverage of F150W and F444W shifts by a factor of about 1.7 across this range: F150W probes ~0.55 micron at z=1.7 but ~0.33 micron at z=3.5, and F444W probes ~1.6 micron at z=1.7 but ~1.0 micron at z=3.5. Because dust attenuation is stronger at bluer rest-frame wavelengths, and because stellar population gradients across the Balmer/4000 A break can also produce wavelength-dependent sizes, a trend of RF150W/RF444W with Av could arise partly from redshift-dependent wavelength sampling even with no change in central dust geometry. The paper reports no Spearman coefficient, fit, or significance for Figure 11, and the '~30%' statement is based on a visual trend. Please add redshift-binned versions of Figure 11 or a partial-correlation analysis controlling for redshift, quote correlation statistics with bootstrap uncertainties, check whether the massive high-Av galaxies preferentially lie at high z, and, if possible, use the Balmer-decrement attenuation as an independent dust indicator for the 67 galaxies with reliable measurements.
  2. [Section 5, Eqs. (1) and (4)] The paper explicitly states in Section 5 that the trends of attenuation-law slope and UV-bump strength with SFR are 'by construction': the birth-cloud slope is fixed at n1=-1, and the ISM bump strength is tied to the ISM slope by Eb=0.85-1.9n2. Nevertheless, the abstract and conclusions (item i) present these as empirical findings of diversity in the attenuation law. As written, this portion of the headline result is a property of the fitting assumptions rather than an independent measurement. Please state this model-imposed nature in the abstract and conclusions, and perform a robustness check, for example leaving n1 free in a subset of galaxies or fitting the bump strength independently, to show whether the data actually require the reported variation. This matters for the derived Av values that are used in the size-gradient interpretation.
  3. [Section 6.4] The causal attribution of the size ratio trend to central dust is not unique. Stellar population gradients (old centres with young outskirts) produce the same sign of wavelength-dependent size ratio without any dust, and the paper invokes exactly this mechanism for low-mass galaxies in the same section. Since high-Av massive galaxies likely have different SFHs from low-Av systems, the observed correlation could be partly due to stellar population gradients that correlate with Av. A quantitative test would be to compare rest-optical and rest-NIR Sersic indices or to use spatially resolved SED information to separate dust from stellar population effects; at minimum, the discussion should quantify how much of the 30% effect could be explained by stellar population gradients alone.
  4. [Sections 5, 6.1, and 7] Many Spearman rank coefficients are quoted without uncertainties (e.g., r=0.532 and r=0.667 in Figure 6; the r values in Figures 7, 12, and 13), and claims such as 'the surface densities correlate more strongly than the global quantities' are based on comparing coefficients from 16-36 galaxies per bin without error bars. Please provide bootstrap or posterior uncertainties for all quoted correlation coefficients and temper comparative statements unless the difference is statistically significant. This is partly a presentation issue, but it affects the quantitative conclusions about which galaxy properties best predict dust attenuation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] In the description of the Drude profile, 'Delta lambda is is the FWHM' contains a duplicated 'is'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption appears to print 'n1 = 1' and 'n2 = 0.7' without the minus signs that the text and the panel labels use (n1=-1, n2=-0.7). Please correct the caption typography.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'star dust geometry' should be 'star-dust geometry' for consistency with the main text.
  4. [Section 7] The word 'anomolous' is a typo for 'anomalous'.
  5. [Figure 3] The SFR-bin labels in Figure 3 are garbled in the text version (e.g., '10 2.3<SFR [yr 1]<100.6'); please ensure the rendered labels display the intended powers of ten.
  6. [Sections 2 and 3.5] The sample-flow numbers (141 total, 137 with attenuation laws, 104/98 with morphological fits, 93/87 star-forming with morphology, 67 with Balmer decrements) are scattered across the text; a single sample-selection table or flowchart would make the analysis much easier to follow.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Slope/bump vs SFR trends are model-imposed by construction; the size-gradient and Balmer-decrement results remain independent observational correlations.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Figure 6 and accompanying text; Eqs. (1), (4), (5)]
    "This relationship is by construction, since the birth cloud dust is modelled to have a fixed, shallow slope. When the birth cloud dust contributes significantly to the attenuation law (namely in highly star-forming galaxies), the overall attenuation law will have a shallow slope."

    The effective attenuation law is defined by Eq. (5) as a luminosity-weighted sum of a birth-cloud law with fixed slope n1=-1 (Eq. 1) and an ISM law whose bump strength is locked to its slope by Eb=0.85-1.9n2 (Eq. 4). High-SFR galaxies have a large young-star flux fraction f_L(<10 Myr), so the algebra forces the combined law toward the fixed shallow, bump-free birth-cloud component. Hence the paper's 'finding' that high-SFR galaxies have shallower UV-optical slopes is a restatement of the model construction, not an independent empirical discovery. The paper is transparent about this, but the abstract and conclusions still present the SFR dependence of attenuation-law shape as a principal result.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.3, Figure 5 discussion; Eqs. (4) and (5)]
    "Therefore, by construction, no galaxy can lie above the purple curve since the ISM dust would put it exactly on the purple curve, and the birth cloud dust will pull it down further to weaker bump strengths. Because of this, our dust attenuation laws are typically unable to reach bump strengths as strong as the MW or the LMC."

    The observed weakness of the 2175 Å bump is a necessary consequence of the adopted parameterization: the ISM component is constrained to lie on the Kriek & Conroy (2013) bump-slope relation by Eq. (4), and the birth-cloud component is modelled with no bump at all. Therefore the distribution of measured bump strengths below the purple curve, and the statement that strong Milky-Way-like bumps are unattainable, follow from the model's definitions rather than from the data being able to explore alternative attenuation laws. This is an openly acknowledged model limitation, but it is still listed as an empirical property of the sample's attenuation laws.

full rationale

The paper is unusually explicit about two places where its headline attenuation-law trends are dictated by the model rather than measured independently. In Section 5 it states that the SFR-vs-slope relation is 'by construction' because the birth-cloud slope is fixed to n1=-1, and in Section 4.3 it states that no galaxy can lie above the Kriek & Conroy (2013) bump-slope relation 'by construction' because Eb is tied to n2 and the birth cloud has no bump. These are genuine self-definitional constraints: Eq. (5) combines a fixed-shape birth-cloud law with an ISM law whose bump is locked to its slope, so the SFR trends and the weak-bump distribution are algebraic consequences of the adopted dust model. The abstract and conclusions nevertheless present the SFR dependence of attenuation-law shape as a finding, so part of the central attenuation-law claim reduces by construction. The size-gradient result in Section 6.4 is not circular: the ratio R_F150W/R_F444W comes from imaging, Av comes from SED fitting, and no equation ties the two together; it is an empirical correlation, although the reviewer's redshift-wavelength concern is a legitimate confound for the causal attribution. The Balmer-decrement comparison provides an independent nebular check because the emission lines were marginalized during SED fitting, and the size-mass relations are compared with external literature. Self-citations (Park et al. 2024, Bugiani et al. 2024) are data provenance rather than load-bearing circular arguments. Overall, the partial circularity lies in the model-imposed attenuation-law-shape correlations, while the independent size-gradient core prevents a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the adopted dust model family and SED fitting choices. The paper is explicit about the by-construction nature of several attenuation-law trends, but readers cannot recover the galaxy parameters without the Blue Jay data and Prospector configuration.

free parameters (3)
  • Birth cloud attenuation law slope n1 = -1 (fixed by hand)
    Fixed in Section 3.2; sets the birth cloud dust law to a shallow power law, which forces the overall attenuation law to flatten as the young-star fraction rises.
  • ISM UV-bump slope coupling coefficients (0.85, -1.9) = 0.85 and -1.9 (fixed from Kriek & Conroy 2013)
    Equation 4 ties the 2175 Angstrom bump strength to the ISM slope n2, limiting the measured bump strength and coupling slope and bump by construction.
  • Per-galaxy dust parameters tau_1, tau_2, n2 = Per-galaxy posteriors (not tabulated in paper)
    These are fit to each galaxy's SED in Prospector; the paper's attenuation laws and Av values are derived from them, so the correlations with mass and SFR are partly correlations between fitted parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-component Charlot & Fall (2000) dust geometry: birth clouds attenuate stars younger than 10 Myr and nebular emission; diffuse ISM attenuates all stars.
    Adopted in Section 3.2, Eq. 5; the effective attenuation law and its variations are defined through this split.
  • domain assumption Noll et al. (2009) parameterization of the ISM attenuation law, including the fixed Drude profile for the 2175 Angstrom bump and the Eb-n2 coupling (Eqs. 2-4).
    This shape family restricts the attenuation laws the fit can produce, and the paper's bump-strength analysis is bounded by it.
  • domain assumption Dust absorption and re-emission are in energy balance in Prospector.
    Section 3.1; this couples the dust attenuation to infrared re-emission, which is not observed here.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination with T = 10^4 K and ne = 10^2 cm^-3 gives the intrinsic Balmer decrement of 2.86.
    Section 3.3; used to interpret H-alpha/H-beta as nebular attenuation.
  • domain assumption A single Sersic profile describes the surface brightness of galaxies retained in the morphological sample.
    Section 3.4; complex, merging, AGN, and low-S/N systems are visually discarded, so the size measurements assume the one-component model applies to the kept galaxies.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (FSPS, MIST, C3K) and the Chabrier IMF describe the stellar emission.
    Section 3.1; all stellar mass and SFR estimates inherit these model assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Big, Dusty Galaxies in Blue Jay: Insights into the Relationship Between Morphology and Dust Attenuation at Cosmic Noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3QS3KCS

@misc{pith2026250415346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Big, Dusty Galaxies in Blue Jay: Insights into the Relationship Between Morphology and Dust Attenuation at Cosmic Noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3QS3KCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15346}
}
abstract

The dust attenuation of galaxies is highly diverse and closely linked to stellar population properties and the star dust geometry, yet its relationship to galaxy morphology remains poorly understood. We present a study of 141 galaxies ($9<\log(\rm M_{\star}/\rm M_{\odot})<11.5$) at $1.7<z<3.5$ from the Blue Jay survey combining deep JWST/NIRCam imaging and $R\sim1000$ JWST/NIRSpec spectra. Using \texttt{Prospector} to perform a joint analysis of these data with non-parametric star-formation histories and a two-component dust model with flexible attenuation laws, we constrain stellar and nebular properties. We find that the shape and strength of the attenuation law vary systematically with optical dust attenuation ($A_V$), stellar mass, and star formation rate (SFR). $A_V$ correlates strongly with stellar mass for starbursts, star-forming galaxies and quiescent galaxies. The inclusion of morphological information tightens these correlations: attenuation correlates more strongly with stellar mass and SFR surface densities than with the global quantities. The Balmer decrement-derived nebular attenuation for 67 of these galaxies shows consistent trends with the stellar continuum attenuation. We detect a wavelength-dependent size gradient: massive galaxies ($\rm M_{\star}\gtrsim 10^{10}~M_{\odot}$) appear $\sim30\%$ larger in the rest-optical than in the rest-NIR, driven by central dust attenuation that flattens optical light profiles. Lower-mass systems exhibit more diverse size ratios, consistent with either inside-out growth or central starbursts. These results demonstrate that dust attenuation significantly alters observed galaxy structure and highlight the necessity of flexible attenuation models for accurate physical and morphological inference at cosmic noon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The effective attenuation law of a toy model galaxy varying (left to right) the birth cloud optical depth, 𝜏1; the ISM optical depth, 𝜏2; the ISM dust attenuation law slope, 𝑛2, and the mass fraction of young stars (< 10 Myr), 𝑓10. As one parameter varies, all other parameters remain fixed to the fiducial values. In the first panel, as 𝜏1 increases, the slope of the overall attenuation law decreases towards the slop… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The observed and best-fit spectra and photometry for the galaxy with ID= 11142. The observed spectrum is fit over the range 4000 < 𝜆rest < 6700 Å and the residual of this fit is shown in the inset figure. The observed and model photometry are in good agreement. The dust-free spectrum is shown in blue, and the attenuation law for this galaxy is shown in green. an Affine Invariant Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) ensem… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The attenuation law, normalised by 𝐴V, for our sample of galaxies in bins of 𝐴V, stellar mass (M★) and star formation rate (SFR), from left to right. Dispersion of the attenuation laws is shown as the shaded regions. The attenuation law of local starbursts (Calzetti et al. 2000) and the Milky Way extinction law (Cardelli et al. 1989) are plotted as the black dashed-dot and green dashed lines, respectively. Large var… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 2175 Å UV-bump strength plotted against the UV-optical slope (𝐴UV/𝐴V) of the dust attenuation laws for our galaxies, colour-coded by the sSFR. The values of the slope and bump strength for the MW (Cardelli et al. 1989), LMC and SMC (Gordon et al. 2003) and Calzetti…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dust attenuation law parameters plotted against the stellar mass (M★) and star formation rate (SFR), all colour-coded by the sSFR. The Spearman rank coefficient 𝑟 is given in each panel, quantifying the strength of the correlation between the X and Y parameters. In…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The optical dust attenuation, 𝐴V, plotted against the surface density of stellar mass, ΣM★ in the top panel, and the surface density of SFR, ΣSFR in the bottome panel, in bins of redshift, colour coded by the sSFR. The sizes are measured in the F356W filter. The Spearm…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The optical dust attenuation, 𝐴V, plotted against the axis ratios measured in the F356W filter, b/aF356W, in bins of redshift, colour-coded by the stellar mass. There is negligible correlation between 𝐴V and the axis ratio except in the highest redshift bin, which is l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Size-mass relations for our sample of galaxies in the F150W and F444W filters, colour-coded by the sSFR. The F150W filter covers the rest￾frame optical, and the F444W filter covers the rest-frame NIR. Overplotted is the linear best fit of the size-mass relation as the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Size-mass relations for our sample of galaxies measured in the rest-optical with the F150W filter (top panel) and measured in the rest-NIR with the F444W filter (bottom panel), in bins of redshift, colour coded by 𝐴V. The linear best fit is plotted in purple in each p…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio of the effective radius measured in the F150W filter (RF150W) to that measured in the F444W filter (RF444W), plotted against the stellar mass, colour-coded by 𝐴V. The F150W filter measures the rest-frame optical here, and the F444W the rest-frame NIR, so RF150W/…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Balmer decrement (H𝛼/H𝛽), tracing the nebular attenuation, is plotted against the stellar mass (M★) and SFR in the top panel, colour-coded by the sSFR. The optical dust attenuation 𝐴V, probing the attenuation of the stellar continuum from SED fitting, is plotted a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The Balmer decrement (H𝛼/H𝛽), measuring the nebular dust attenuation, plotted against the optical dust attenuation (AV) from SED fitting, measuring the attenuation of the stellar continuum, colour coded by the sSFR. The Spearman rank coefficient is written on the figu…

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. The Thesan-Zoom project: bursty star formation is incompatible with prolonged dust survival

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In Thesan-Zoom, bursty star formation prevents prolonged survival of large dust reservoirs (M_dust/M_star ≳ 10^{-3}), so it can explain z≳10 UV-bright galaxies only if it settles by z∼8.

  2. Even redder than we knew: color and $A_{\mathrm{V}}$ evolution up to $z=2.5$ from JWST/NIRCam photometry

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive star-forming galaxies at z~2 have dust attenuation A_V of 2-3 (sometimes 4), far higher than pre-JWST surveys found, because the new NIRCam photometry fixes the photometric redshifts of the reddest galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Allen N., et al., 2024, Galaxy Size and Mass Build -up in the First 2 Gyrs of Cosmic History from Multi - Wavelength JWST NIRCam Imaging , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241016354A

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16354 2024

  2. [2]

    V., Leistedt B., Mortlock D., Leja J., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 , 274, 12

    Alsing J., Thorp S., Deger S., Peiris H. V., Leistedt B., Mortlock D., Leja J., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 , 274, 12

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 2024

  3. [3]

    M., Maiolino R., Bluck A

    Baker W. M., Maiolino R., Bluck A. F. L., Lin L., Ellison S. L., Belfiore F., Pan H.-A., Thorp M., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3672 , 510, 3622

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3672 2022

  4. [4]

    Belli S., et al., 2023, Massive and Multiphase Gas Outflow in a Quenching Galaxy at z=2.445, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2308.05795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230805795B

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.05795 2023

  5. [5]

    Belli S., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 , 630, 54

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 2024

  6. [6]

    H., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/157968 , 238, 148

    Blitz L., Shu F. H., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/157968 , 238, 148

    doi:10.1086/157968 1980

  7. [7]

    Bluck A. F. L., Maiolino R., Sánchez S. F., Ellison S. L., Thorp M. D., Piotrowska J. M., Teimoorinia H., Bundy K. A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3264 , 492, 96

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3264 2020

  8. [8]

    Bradley L., et al., 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.13989456 , https://zenodo.org/records/13989456

    arXiv 2024

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , 351, 1151

    2004

  2. [10]

    Bugiani L., et al., 2024, AGN Feedback in Quiescent Galaxies at Cosmic Noon Traced by Ionized Gas Emission , http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08547

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    L., Storchi-Bergmann T., 1994, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/174346 , 429, 582

    Calzetti D., Kinney A. L., Storchi-Bergmann T., 1994, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/174346 , 429, 582

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/308692 , 533, 682

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/167900 , 345, 245

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Cargile P. A., Conroy C., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Bonaca A., Dotter A., Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba43b , 900, 28

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Cebrián M., Trujillo I., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1375 , 444, 682

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376392 , 115, 763

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Chatzikos M., Guzmán F., Su Y., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abed4a , 912, 26

    Chakraborty P., Ferland G. J., Chatzikos M., Guzmán F., Su Y., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abed4a , 912, 26

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    M., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/309250 , 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/309250 , 539, 718

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    Chevallard J., Charlot S., Wandelt B., Wild V., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt523 , 432, 2061

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    Chevance M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3525 , 493, 2872

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    D., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , 823, 102

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , 712, 833

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , 699, 486

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae327 , 528, 4976

    Davies R. L., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae327 , 528, 4976

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    T., 2003, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , 41, 241

    Draine B. T., 2003, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , 41, 241

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011piim.book.....D

    2011

  19. [27]

    Dubois Y., Peirani S., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Gavazzi R., Welker C., Volonteri M., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2265 , 463, 3948

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    N., O'Connell R

    Fanelli M. N., O'Connell R. W., Thuan T. X., 1988, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/166869 , 334, 665

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    Ferruit P., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673 , 661, A81

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Frankel N., Sanders J., Rix H.-W., Ting Y.-S., Ness M., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254 , 884, 99

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/45 , 739, 45

    Förster Schreiber N. M., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/45 , 739, 45

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    C., 2011, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-011-0043-7 , 19, 43

    Gall C., Hjorth J., Andersen A. C., 2011, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-011-0043-7 , 19, 43

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Gallerani S., et al., 2010, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014721 , 523, A85

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    C., Jones T

    Gillett F. C., Jones T. W., Merrill K. M., Stein W. A., 1975, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 45, 77

    1975

  28. [37]

    D., Calzetti D., Witt A

    Gordon K. D., Calzetti D., Witt A. N., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/304654 , 487, 625

    1997 doi

  29. [38]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Misselt K. A., Landolt A. U., Wolff M. J., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/376774 , 594, 279

    2003 doi

  30. [39]

    Hahn C., Melchior P., 2024, Inhomogeneous Dust Biases Photometric Redshifts and Stellar Masses for LSST , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919054H

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Hayden-Pawson C., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac584 , 512, 2867

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Hou K.-C., Hirashita H., Nagamine K., Aoyama S., Shimizu I., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx877 , 469, 870

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Inami H., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1779 , 515, 3126

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Kaviraj S., Martin G., Devriendt J

    Jackson R. A., Kaviraj S., Martin G., Devriendt J. E. G., Noakes-Kettel E. A., Silk J., Ogle P., Dubois Y., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac058 , 511, 607

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    Ji Z., et al., 2023, JADES + JEMS : A Detailed Look at the Buildup of Central Stellar Cores and Suppression of Star Formation in Galaxies at Redshifts 3 z 4.5, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2305.18518 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18518

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

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

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , 254, 22

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 , 921, 38

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    J., Tielens A

    Kemper F., Vriend W. J., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/421339 , 609, 826

    2004 doi

  39. [48]

    Kriek M., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16 , 775, L16

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    Laporte N., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62aa , 837, L21

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    C., Johnson B

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , 876, 3

    doi

  42. [51]

    Leja J., et al., 2019b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a , 877, 140

    doi

  43. [52]

    Leja J., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d , 936, 165

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Lian J., Yan R., Blanton M., Kong X., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2216 , 472, 4679

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    J., Carollo C

    Lilly S. J., Carollo C. M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/1 , 833, 1

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    Lin L., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4815 , 884, L33

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Lin Q., Yang X., Li A., Witstok J., 2025, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452372 , 694, A84

    2025 doi

  48. [57]

    J., D'Eugenio F., Piotrowska J

    Looser T. J., D'Eugenio F., Piotrowska J. M., Belfiore F., Maiolino R., Cappellari M., Baker W. M., Tacchella S., 2024, The stellar Fundamental Metallicity Relation : the correlation between stellar mass, star-formation rate and stellar metallicity, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08769

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Lorenz B., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/accdd1 , 951, 29

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Lyu Y., et al., 2025, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451067 , 693, A313

    2025 doi

  51. [60]

    Maheson G., Maiolino R., Curti M., Sanders R., Tacchella S., Sandles L., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3685 , 527, 8213

    2024 doi

  52. [62]

    D., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723 , 679, A12

    Markov V., Gallerani S., Pallottini A., Sommovigo L., Carniani S., Ferrara A., Parlanti E., Mascia F. D., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723 , 679, A12

    2023 doi

  53. [63]

    Markov V., Gallerani S., Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Parlanti E., Di Mascia F., Sommovigo L., Kohandel M., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

    2024 doi

  54. [64]

    F., Brammer G., Franx M., Nersesian A., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a , 972, 134

    Martorano M., van der Wel A., Baes M., Bell E. F., Brammer G., Franx M., Nersesian A., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a , 972, 134

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    Mascia F. D., Gallerani S., Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Maiolino R., Carniani S., D'Odorico V., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1876 , 506, 3946

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    Matharu J., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1db , 949, L11

    2023 doi

  57. [67]

    McClymont W., et al., 2024, The density-bounded twilight of starbursts in the early Universe , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15859 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15859

    2024 doi

  58. [68]

    McClymont W., et al., 2025a, The THESAN - ZOOM project: Burst , quench, repeat -- unveiling the evolution of high-redshift galaxies along the star-forming main sequence, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250300106M

    doi

  59. [69]

    McClymont W., et al., 2025b, The THESAN - ZOOM project: central starbursts and inside-out quenching govern galaxy sizes in the early Universe , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04894 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04894

    doi

  60. [70]

    R., Matsuura M., Sarangi A., 2018, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-018-0484-7 , 214, 53

    Micelotta E. R., Matsuura M., Sarangi A., 2018, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-018-0484-7 , 214, 53

    2018 doi

  61. [71]

    B., et al., 2024, JWST UNCOVERs the Optical Size - Stellar Mass Relation at \ 4, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241206957M

    Miller T. B., et al., 2024, JWST UNCOVERs the Optical Size - Stellar Mass Relation at \ 4, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241206957M

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [72]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , 225, 27

    Momcheva I. G., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , 225, 27

    2016 doi

  63. [73]

    Z., Tacchella S., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc , 905, 170

    Mosleh M., Hosseinnejad S., Hosseini-ShahiSavandi S. Z., Tacchella S., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc , 905, 170

    2020 doi

  64. [74]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a , 880, 57

    Mowla L. A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a , 880, 57

    2019 doi

  65. [75]

    C., Gil de Paz A., Boissier S., Zamorano J., Jarrett T., Gallego J., Madore B

    Muñoz-Mateos J. C., Gil de Paz A., Boissier S., Zamorano J., Jarrett T., Gallego J., Madore B. F., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/511812 , 658, 1006

    2007 doi

  66. [76]

    H., Ostriker J

    Naab T., Johansson P. H., Ostriker J. P., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178 , 699, L178

    2009 doi

  67. [77]

    C., Leja J., Foreman-Mackey D., Hayward C

    Nagaraj G., Forbes J. C., Leja J., Foreman-Mackey D., Hayward C. C., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c80 , 932, 54

    2022 doi

  68. [78]

    D., Popping G., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed25 , 869, 70

    Narayanan D., Conroy C., Davé R., Johnson B. D., Popping G., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed25 , 869, 70

    2018 doi

  69. [79]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede , 970, 188

    Nedkova K. V., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede , 970, 188

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    J., et al., 2016a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L9 , 817, L9

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2016a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L9 , 817, L9

    doi

  71. [81]

    J., et al., 2016b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27 , 828, 27

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2016b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27 , 828, 27

    doi

  72. [82]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2131 , 508, 219

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2131 , 508, 219

    2021 doi

  73. [83]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1e1 , 948, L18

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1e1 , 948, L18

    2023 doi

  74. [84]

    C., 2009, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 , 507, 1793

    Noll S., Burgarella D., Giovannoli E., Buat V., Marcillac D., Muñoz-Mateos J. C., 2009, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 , 507, 1793

    2009 doi

  75. [85]

    Orellana G., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629009 , 602, A68

    2017 doi

  76. [86]

    D., Strauss M

    Padilla N. D., Strauss M. A., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13480.x , 388, 1321

    2008

  77. [87]

    J., Papoular R., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14484.x , 394, 2175

    Papoular R. J., Papoular R., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14484.x , 394, 2175

    2009

  78. [88]

    C., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/322412 , 559, 620

    Papovich C., Dickinson M., Ferguson H. C., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/322412 , 559, 620

    2001 doi

  79. [89]

    Park M., et al., 2024, Widespread rapid quenching at cosmic noon revealed by JWST deep spectroscopy, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240417945P

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [90]

    Pasha I., Miller T. B., 2023, pysersic: A Python package for determining galaxy structural properties via Bayesian inference, accelerated with jax, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05454 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05454

    2023 doi arXiv

  81. [91]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan A., Lajoie C.-P., Elliott E., Pueyo L., Ravindranath S., Albert L., 2014

    Perrin M. D., Sivaramakrishnan A., Lajoie C.-P., Elliott E., Pueyo L., Ravindranath S., Albert L., 2014. p. 91433X, @doi 10.1117/12.2056689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SPIE.9143E..3XP

    2014 doi

  82. [92]

    C., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1077 , 451, 2324

    Pezzulli G., Fraternali F., Boissier S., Muñoz-Mateos J. C., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1077 , 451, 2324

    2015 doi

  83. [93]

    S., Galametz M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1545 , 471, 3152

    Popping G., Somerville R. S., Galametz M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1545 , 471, 3152

    2017 doi

  84. [94]

    Popping G., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3312 , 510, 3321

    2022 doi

  85. [95]

    H., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/86 , 788, 86

    Price S. H., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/86 , 788, 86

    2014 doi

  86. [96]

    Puglisi A., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526782 , 586, A83

    2016 doi

  87. [97]

    D., et al., 2022, In-flight performance of the NIRSpec Micro Shutter Array , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2208.04673 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.04673

    Rawle T. D., et al., 2022, In-flight performance of the NIRSpec Micro Shutter Array , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2208.04673 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.04673

    2022 doi

  88. [98]

    A., Pettini M., Steidel C

    Reddy N. A., Pettini M., Steidel C. C., Shapley A. E., Erb D. K., Law D. R., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/25 , 754, 25

    2012 doi

  89. [99]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/259 , 806, 259

    Reddy N. A., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/259 , 806, 259

    2015 doi

  90. [100]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb674 , 902, 123

    Reddy N. A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb674 , 902, 123

    2020 doi

  91. [101]

    Salim S., Narayanan D., 2020, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021933 , 58, 529

    2020 doi

  92. [102]

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

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

    2018 doi

  93. [103]

    Salmon B., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/20 , 827, 20

    2016 doi

  94. [104]

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2024, The AURORA Survey : The Nebular Attenuation Curve of a Galaxy at z=4.41 from Ultraviolet to Near - Infrared Wavelengths , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05273 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05273

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [105]

    Sandles L., et al., 2024, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347119 , 691, A305

    2024 doi

  96. [106]

    R., 2018, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-018-0492-7 , 214, 63

    Sarangi A., Matsuura M., Micelotta E. R., 2018, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-018-0492-7 , 214, 63

    2018 doi

  97. [107]

    Schneider R., Maiolino R., 2024, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-024-00151-2 , 32, 2

    2024 doi

  98. [108]

    T., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/201 , 833, 201

    Seon K.-I., Draine B. T., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/201 , 833, 201

    2016 doi

  99. [109]

    Shen X., Vogelsberger M., Nelson D., Tacchella S., Hernquist L., Springel V., Marinacci F., Torrey P., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3794 , 510, 5560

    2022 doi

  100. [110]

    A., Steidel C

    Shivaei I., Reddy N. A., Steidel C. C., Shapley A. E., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/149 , 804, 149

    2015 doi

  101. [111]

    Shivaei I., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e , 899, 117

    2020 doi

  102. [112]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , 214, 24

    Skelton R. E., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , 214, 24

    2014 doi

  103. [113]

    Sommovigo L., et al., 2025, Learning the Universe : physically-motivated priors for dust attenuation curves, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13240 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13240

    2025 doi arXiv

  104. [114]

    P., Donn B., 1965, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/148461 , 142, 1681

    Stecher T. P., Donn B., 1965, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/148461 , 142, 1681

    1965 doi

  105. [115]

    Steglich M., Jäger C., Rouillé G., Huisken F., Mutschke H., Henning T., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L16 , 712, L16

    2010 doi

  106. [116]

    Stratta G., Gallerani S., Maiolino R., 2011, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016414 , 532, A45

    2011 doi

  107. [117]

    A., Kriek M., Price S

    Suess K. A., Kriek M., Price S. H., Barro G., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda , 877, 103

    2019 doi

  108. [118]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06 , 937, L33

    Suess K. A., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06 , 937, L33

    2022 doi

  109. [119]

    G., Trenti M., Illingworth G

    Szomoru D., Franx M., van Dokkum P. G., Trenti M., Illingworth G. D., Labbé I., Oesch P., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/73 , 763, 73

    2013 doi

  110. [120]

    M., Ceverino D., DeGraf C., Lapiner S., Mandelker N., Primack Joel R., 2016a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw131 , 457, 2790

    Tacchella S., Dekel A., Carollo C. M., Ceverino D., DeGraf C., Lapiner S., Mandelker N., Primack Joel R., 2016a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw131 , 457, 2790

    doi

  111. [121]

    M., Ceverino D., DeGraf C., Lapiner S., Mandelker N., Primack J

    Tacchella S., Dekel A., Carollo C. M., Ceverino D., DeGraf C., Lapiner S., Mandelker N., Primack J. R., 2016b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw303 , 458, 242

    doi

  112. [122]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b , 859, 56

    2018 doi

  113. [123]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac818 , 513, 2904

    doi

  114. [124]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449b , 926, 134

    doi

  115. [125]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cad , 927, 170

    doi

  116. [126]

    W., Lagos C

    Trayford J. W., Lagos C. d. P., Robotham A. S. G., Obreschkow D., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3234 , 491, 3937

    2020 doi

  117. [127]

    A., Ryden B

    Vincent R. A., Ryden B. S., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/428765 , 623, 137

    2005 doi

  118. [128]

    Wang F., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6 , 907, L1

    2021 doi

  119. [129]

    Ward E., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ed , 962, 176

    2024 doi

  120. [130]

    C., Draine B

    Weingartner J. C., Draine B. T., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/318651 , 548, 296

    2001 doi

  121. [131]

    Wild V., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., Heckman T., Vince O., Pacifici C., Chevallard J., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19367.x , 417, 1760

    2011

  122. [132]

    Witstok J., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-06413-w , 621, 267

    2023 doi

  123. [133]

    Wuyts S., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/114 , 753, 114

    2012 doi

  124. [134]

    Yang L., Roberts-Borsani G., Treu T., Birrer S., Morishita T., Bradač M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3713 , 501, 1028

    2021 doi

  125. [135]

    Yang L., et al., 2025, COSMOS - Web : Unraveling the Evolution of Galaxy Size and Related Properties at \ 2 z 10\ , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07185 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07185

    2025 doi arXiv

  126. [136]

    Zhang H., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz339 , 484, 5170

    2019 doi

  127. [137]

    Zhang J., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2066 , 524, 4128

    2023 doi

  128. [138]

    D., Belli S., Leja J., Tacchella S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3831 , 922, L32

    Zuckerman L. D., Belli S., Leja J., Tacchella S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3831 , 922, L32

    2021 doi

  129. [139]

    da Cunha E., Eminian C., Charlot S., Blaizot J., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16344.x , 403, 1894

    2010

  130. [140]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L6 , 792, L6

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.