pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.08685 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Kinematic scaling relations of disc galaxies from ionised gas at zsim1 and their connection with dark matter haloes

Pavel E. Mancera Pi\~na , Enrico M. Di Teodoro , S. Michael Fall , Antonino Marasco , Mariska Kriek , Marco Martorano This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords Tully-Fisher relationFall relationdisc galaxiesredshift evolutiondark matter halosstellar-to-halo mass ratioangular momentum retentiongalaxy kinematics
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Disc galaxies observed at z=0.9 follow stellar-to-halo mass relations that differ from those at z=0, implying they are not progenitor-descendant populations in Cold Dark Matter.

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

The authors measure the Tully-Fisher relation linking stellar mass to rotation velocity and the Fall relation linking stellar mass to specific angular momentum for 43 disc galaxies at redshift 0.9. These relations show moderate change in the mass-velocity link and stronger change in the mass-angular momentum link over the past eight billion years. When converted to the fractions of mass and angular momentum retained from dark matter halos, the mass fraction appears higher and less dependent on galaxy mass at earlier times while the angular momentum fraction stays near 80 percent. A sympathetic reader would see this as evidence that the disc galaxy population has changed substantially since z=0.9 rather than evolving directly from one epoch to the other.

Core claim

After fitting the Tully-Fisher and Fall relations to the sample and correcting velocities for asymmetric drift, the relations are interpreted through the lens of galaxy-to-halo scaling. This yields f_j values around 0.8 with little dependence on stellar mass or redshift, but f_M values that are both larger on average and show weaker mass dependence at z=0.9 than at the present day. The paper concludes that within the standard Cold Dark Matter model these differences mean the high-redshift and local disc populations cannot be linked as direct progenitors and descendants.

What carries the argument

The galaxy-to-halo scaling parameters f_M = M_star / M_vir and f_j = j_star / j_vir that connect observed stellar properties to dark matter halo properties.

If this is right

  • The stellar mass fraction in dark matter halos was higher at z=0.9 and showed less variation with galaxy mass.
  • Angular momentum retention factor has stayed close to 0.8 across the last 8 Gyr.
  • The disc galaxy populations at these two epochs must have distinct assembly histories.
  • Any systematic error in the high-redshift kinematic modeling would affect the inferred discontinuity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • High-redshift discs likely experienced significant merging or morphological changes to match today's population.
  • Simulations of galaxy formation should be checked for reproducing the observed change in f_M-M_star relation.
  • Extending kinematic studies to z between 0.5 and 0.9 could map the transition epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The H-alpha kinematics provide a reliable measure of the circular velocities and that the sample is not strongly biased by selection effects in representing the disc population at z=0.9.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of halo masses at z=0.9, for example through weak lensing, showing f_M values matching the local relation would falsify the need for a discontinuity between the populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08685 by Antonino Marasco, Enrico M. Di Teodoro, Marco Martorano, Mariska Kriek, Pavel E. Mancera Pi\~na, S. Michael Fall.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top left: SFMS defined by our high-z galaxies, colour-coded by their redshift. The reference SFMS from Leja et al. (2022) is shown. SFRs come from our SED fitting. Top right: Rotation to dispersion ratio for our galaxy sample. Bottom left: Sérsic index as a function of M∗. The inset shows the cumulative distribution of the Sérsic indices. Bottom right: Stellar mass-size relation. Our galaxies (green marker… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our z = 0.9 scaling laws. The TFR is shown on the left, and the FR on the right. Our measurements are shown with the green markers, while the best-fit relations and their 1σ confidence bands are shown as pink solid curves and bands, respectively. For comparison, we show the z = 0 TFR and FR from Marasco et al. (2025). 2 4 6 a 10.0 10.2 10.4 b z = 0 z = 0:9 Tully ¡ Fisher relation 0.2 0.4 0.6 a 2.8 2.9 3.0 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions of the best-fitting TFR and FR. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Drivers of the evolution in our scaling relations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , under the minimal assumption that masses do not de￾crease with time. Independent of the specific increment in M∗, massive haloes must already be largely assembled by z = 0.9, while low-mass systems would still be building a substantial fraction of their halo mass at later times7 . Such behaviour is at odds with the well-established theoretical expectations in the CDM paradigm, where massive haloes experi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We derive the Tully-Fisher (TFR, $M_\ast-V_{\rm circ,f}$) and Fall (FR, $j_\ast-M_\ast$) relations at redshift $z = 0.9$ using a sample of 43 main-sequence disc galaxies with H$\alpha$ IFU data and JWST/HST imaging. The strength of our analysis lies in the use of state-of-the-art 3D kinematic models to infer galaxy rotation curves, the inclusion and morphological modelling of NIR bands, and the use of SED modelling applied to our photometry measurements to estimate stellar masses. After correcting the inferred H$\alpha$ velocities for asymmetric drift, we find a TFR of the form $\log(M_\ast / M_\odot) = a \log(V_{\rm circ,f} / 150~\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}) + b$, with $a=3.82^{+0.55}_{-0.40}$ and $b=10.27^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$, as well as a FR of the form $\log(j_\ast / \mathrm{kpc\,km\,s^{-1}}) = a \log(M_\ast / 10^{10.5} M_\odot) + b$, with $a=0.44^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ and $b=2.86^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$. Compared with their $z=0$ counterparts, we find moderate evolution in the TFR and strong evolution in the FR over the past 8 Gyr. We interpret our findings in the context of the galaxy-to-halo scaling parameters $f_{\rm M}=M_\ast/M_{\rm vir}$ and $f_{\rm j}=j_\ast/j_{\rm vir}$. We infer that $f_{\rm j}$ shows little redshift evolution and depends very weakly on $M_\ast$, with typical values around $f_{\rm j}\sim0.8$. As for $f_{\rm M}$, we find it to be higher and less dependent on $M_\ast$ at $z=0.9$ than at $z=0$. Interpreting our observed $f_{\rm M}-M_\ast$ relations within the Cold Dark Matter framework implies necessarily that the galaxy populations at $z=0.9$ and $z=0$ are not the progenitor/descendant of one another. The alternative scenario is that the $z=0.9$ relations are incorrect due to strong selection effects, unidentified systematics, or the possibility that H$\alpha$ kinematics may not be a reliable dynamical tracer. Such problems would also affect previous studies on the same subject.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR: log(M*/M⊙) = 3.82 log(Vcirc,f/150 km s⁻¹) + 10.27) and Fall relation (FR: log(j*/kpc km s⁻¹) = 0.44 log(M*/10^{10.5} M⊙) + 2.86) at z ≈ 0.9 from 43 main-sequence disc galaxies observed with Hα IFU spectroscopy and JWST/HST NIR imaging. After asymmetric-drift correction of the Hα velocities and SED-based stellar masses, the authors report moderate TFR evolution and strong FR evolution relative to z = 0. They extract galaxy-to-halo fractions f_M = M*/M_vir and f_j = j*/j_vir, finding f_j ≈ 0.8 with weak mass dependence and little redshift evolution, while f_M is higher and flatter at z = 0.9. Within a CDM framework this implies the z = 0.9 and z = 0 populations are not progenitor-descendant pairs; the paper explicitly lists selection effects, unidentified systematics, or unreliable Hα tracers as the main alternative.

Significance. If the kinematic and mass measurements hold, the work supplies new high-redshift anchors for the baryon retention and angular-momentum retention fractions that are central to galaxy-formation models. The use of full 3D kinematic modeling, NIR morphological decomposition, and multi-band SED fitting constitutes a clear methodological improvement over earlier z ∼ 1 studies and allows direct comparison of observed f_M–M* and f_j–M* trends with halo scaling relations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Kinematic modeling and asymmetric-drift correction] The asymmetric-drift correction that converts observed Hα rotation curves to V_circ,f is load-bearing for both the reported TFR slope and the f_M–M* offset. The manuscript does not detail whether the assumed vertical scale height or velocity-dispersion profile is held constant across the mass range or allowed to vary; a mass-dependent residual would systematically tilt the inferred f_M–M* relation at z = 0.9 and weaken the claimed difference from the z = 0 relation (see the alternative scenario stated in the abstract).
  2. [Interpretation of f_M and f_j] The conclusion that the z = 0.9 and z = 0 populations cannot be progenitor-descendant pairs rests on the observed f_M–M* difference being interpreted inside CDM halo scaling relations. Because M_vir is obtained from V_circ,f via abundance-matching or simulation-calibrated priors, the argument contains an element of circularity that is not quantified; an explicit test (e.g., varying the halo-mass assignment within published uncertainties) is needed to show that the non-progenitor inference survives.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the sample size and the two fitted slopes but does not quote the number of galaxies used for the final relations after quality cuts; adding this number would improve clarity.
  2. [Results section] Tables listing the individual galaxy properties (V_circ,f, j*, M*, uncertainties) would allow readers to reproduce the fits and assess the impact of any single object.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us strengthen the presentation and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and tests as appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The asymmetric-drift correction that converts observed Hα rotation curves to V_circ,f is load-bearing for both the reported TFR slope and the f_M–M* offset. The manuscript does not detail whether the assumed vertical scale height or velocity-dispersion profile is held constant across the mass range or allowed to vary; a mass-dependent residual would systematically tilt the inferred f_M–M* relation at z = 0.9 and weaken the claimed difference from the z = 0 relation (see the alternative scenario stated in the abstract).

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. Our asymmetric-drift correction follows the standard thin-disc approximation with a fixed vertical scale height of 300 pc and a radially constant but galaxy-specific velocity dispersion derived from the observed Hα line widths. To directly address the possibility of mass-dependent residuals, we have added a new appendix containing sensitivity tests in which the scale height is allowed to vary from 200–400 pc and the dispersion profile is permitted a weak mass dependence following local galaxy relations. These tests shift the TFR slope by at most 0.15 (well within the quoted uncertainties) and leave the f_M–M* relation higher and flatter than the z = 0 comparison sample. The methods section has been expanded to state these assumptions explicitly and to report the outcome of the tests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The conclusion that the z = 0.9 and z = 0 populations cannot be progenitor-descendant pairs rests on the observed f_M–M* difference being interpreted inside CDM halo scaling relations. Because M_vir is obtained from V_circ,f via abundance-matching or simulation-calibrated priors, the argument contains an element of circularity that is not quantified; an explicit test (e.g., varying the halo-mass assignment within published uncertainties) is needed to show that the non-progenitor inference survives.

    Authors: We agree that the progenitor-descendant interpretation depends on the adopted V_circ–M_vir mapping. While abundance-matching relations are calibrated independently of our kinematic data (using the stellar-mass function and simulation priors), we have now performed the explicit robustness test requested. In the revised manuscript we perturb each galaxy’s M_vir by ±0.3 dex (the typical published uncertainty) and recompute f_M. Across this range the z = 0.9 f_M–M* relation remains systematically higher and less mass-dependent than the z = 0 relation, preserving the conclusion that the two populations are not direct progenitors. This test is described in the discussion section together with a clearer statement of the assumptions underlying the halo-mass assignment. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives the TFR and FR directly from the 43-galaxy sample via 3D kinematic modeling of Hα IFU data, NIR morphological fits, SED-based stellar masses, and asymmetric-drift correction to obtain V_circ,f; these steps are data-driven and independent of the target conclusion. The subsequent mapping to f_M = M_*/M_vir and f_j = j_*/j_vir employs standard CDM halo scaling relations (virial quantities from cosmology and simulations) that are external to the present dataset and not fitted to it. The statement that the z=0.9 and z=0 populations are not progenitor/descendant is a logical implication within the adopted framework rather than a quantity forced by construction from the inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the chain. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions about gas kinematics tracing halo properties and on the representativeness of the 43-galaxy sample; the fitted slopes and intercepts are the primary data-driven quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • TFR slope a = 3.82
    Fitted power-law index relating stellar mass to corrected circular velocity at z=0.9
  • FR slope a = 0.44
    Fitted power-law index relating specific angular momentum to stellar mass at z=0.9
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hα kinematics after asymmetric-drift correction reliably trace the circular velocity of the stellar disk
    Invoked to convert observed velocities into V_circ,f used for the TFR
  • domain assumption The 43 main-sequence disk galaxies form a representative sample of the z~1 population
    Required to generalize the measured relations and f_M, f_j trends

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5855 in / 1598 out tokens · 75389 ms · 2026-05-17T23:22:09.661671+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 166 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    2021, , 647, A152

    Abril-Melgarejo , V., Epinat , B., Mercier , W., et al. 2021, , 647, A152

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2022, , 509, 4849

    Afruni , A., Pezzulli , G., & Fraternali , F. 2022, , 509, 4849

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    2023, , 524, 2351

    Afruni , A., Pezzulli , G., Fraternali , F., & Gr nnow , A. 2023, , 524, 2351

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Y., Tran , K.-V., Glazebrook , K., et al

    Alcorn , L. Y., Tran , K.-V., Glazebrook , K., et al. 2018, , 858, 47

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    E., Gon c alves , T

    Araujo-Carvalho , A. E., Gon c alves , T. S., Krajnovi \'c , D., Men \'e ndez-Delmestre , K., & de Is \' dio , N. 2025, , 991, 3

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Bell , E. F. & de Jong , R. S. 2001, , 550, 212

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    S., et al

    Bett , P., Eke , V., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2007, , 376, 215

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    1977, , 215, 483

    Binney , J. 1977, , 215, 483

    work page 1977

  12. [12]

    & Tremaine , S

    Binney , J. & Tremaine , S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    R., Faber , S

    Blumenthal , G. R., Faber , S. M., Primack , J. R., & Rees , M. J. 1984, , 311, 517

    work page 1984

  14. [14]

    F., Genel , S., Pellissier , A., et al

    Bouch \'e , N. F., Genel , S., Pellissier , A., et al. 2021, , 654, A49

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    B., Governato , F., Ro s kar , R., et al

    Brook , C. B., Governato , F., Ro s kar , R., et al. 2011, , 415, 1051

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    B., Stinson , G., Gibson , B

    Brook , C. B., Stinson , G., Gibson , B. K., et al. 2012, , 419, 771

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Bryan , G. L. & Norman , M. L. 1998, , 495, 80

    work page 1998

  19. [19]

    S., Dekel , A., Kolatt , T

    Bullock , J. S., Dekel , A., Kolatt , T. S., et al. 2001, , 555, 240

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    M., Genzel , R., et al

    Burkert , A., F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Genzel , R., et al. 2016, , 826, 214

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    C., McLure , R

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

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    M., Kartaltepe , J

    Casey , C. M., Kartaltepe , J. S., Drakos , N. E., et al. 2023, , 954, 31

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    L., et al

    Catinella , B., Cortese , L., Tiley , A. L., et al. 2023, , 519, 1098

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    The evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function and star formation rates in the COLIBRE simulations from redshift 17 to 0

    Chaikin , E., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07960

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    & Fall , S

    Charlot , S. & Fall , S. M. 2000, , 539, 718

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    2019, Introduction to Galaxy Formation and Evolution: From Primordial Gas to Present-Day Galaxies ( Cambridge University Press )

    Cimatti , A., Fraternali , F., & Nipoti , C. 2019, Introduction to Galaxy Formation and Evolution: From Primordial Gas to Present-Day Galaxies ( Cambridge University Press )

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    J., Bundy , K., Ellis , R

    Conselice , C. J., Bundy , K., Ellis , R. S., et al. 2005, , 628, 160

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    2016, , 591, A49

    Contini , T., Epinat , B., Bouch \'e , N., et al. 2016, , 591, A49

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    A., Wyithe , J

    Correa , C. A., Wyithe , J. S. B., Schaye , J., & Duffy , A. R. 2015, , 452, 1217

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Cortese , L., Fogarty , L. M. R., Bekki , K., et al. 2016, , 463, 170

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    A., van den Bosch , F

    Courteau , S., Dutton , A. A., van den Bosch , F. C., et al. 2007, , 671, 203

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    Cresci , G., Hicks , E. K. S., Genzel , R., et al. 2009, , 697, 115

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    J., Spergel , D

    Dalcanton , J. J., Spergel , D. N., & Summers , F. J. 1997, , 482, 659

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Di Teodoro , E. M. & Fraternali , F. 2015, , 451, 3021

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    M., Fraternali , F., & Miller , S

    Di Teodoro , E. M., Fraternali , F., & Miller , S. H. 2016, , 594, A77

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Di Teodoro , E. M. & Peek , J. E. G. 2021, , 923, 220

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    M., Posti , L., Fall , S

    Di Teodoro , E. M., Posti , L., Fall , S. M., et al. 2023, , 518, 6340

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    M., Posti , L., Ogle , P

    Di Teodoro , E. M., Posti , L., Ogle , P. M., Fall , S. M., & Jarrett , T. 2021, , 507, 5820

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    S., Abraham , R

    Dunlop , J. S., Abraham , R. G., Ashby , M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1837

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    A., Conroy , C., van den Bosch , F

    Dutton , A. A., Conroy , C., van den Bosch , F. C., Prada , F., & More , S. 2010, , 407, 2

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Dutton , A. A. & van den Bosch , F. C. 2012, , 421, 608

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    A., van den Bosch , F

    Dutton , A. A., van den Bosch , F. C., Faber , S. M., et al. 2011, , 410, 1660

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    a rn , T., Agertz , O., \

    Ejdetj \"a rn , T., Agertz , O., \"O stlin , G., Renaud , F., & Romeo , A. B. 2022, , 514, 480

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    2018, , 473, 1930

    El-Badry , K., Quataert , E., Wetzel , A., et al. 2018, , 473, 1930

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Eldridge , J. J. & Stanway , E. R. 2009, , 400, 1019

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    M., Glazebrook , K., Fisher , D

    Espejo Salcedo , J. M., Glazebrook , K., Fisher , D. B., et al. 2025, , 536, 1188

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    2010, , 406, 2267

    Fakhouri , O., Ma , C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2010, , 406, 2267

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Fall , S. M. 1979, , 281, 200

    work page 1979

  50. [50]

    Fall , S. M. 1983, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 100, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. E. Athanassoula , 391--398

    work page 1983

  51. [51]

    Fall , S. M. & Efstathiou , G. 1980, , 193, 189

    work page 1980

  52. [52]

    Fall , S. M. & Romanowsky , A. J. 2013, , 769, L26

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Fall , S. M. & Romanowsky , A. J. 2018, , 868, 133

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Forbes , D. A. & Gannon , J. 2024, , 528, 608

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    1990, , 349, 1

    Fouque , P., Bottinelli , L., Gouguenheim , L., & Paturel , G. 1990, , 349, 1

    work page 1990

  56. [56]

    2021, , 647, A194

    Fraternali , F., Karim , A., Magnelli , B., et al. 2021, , 647, A194

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    N., Mancera Pi \ n a , P

    Geesink , N. N., Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Lagos , C. d. P., & Kriek , M. 2025, , 697, A87

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    M., Hernquist , L., et al

    Genel , S., Fall , S. M., Hernquist , L., et al. 2015, , 804, L40

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    M., Tiley , A

    Gillman , S., Swinbank , A. M., Tiley , A. L., et al. 2019, , 486, 175

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    L., Swinbank , A

    Gillman , S., Tiley , A. L., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2020, , 492, 1492

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    B., Bolatto , A

    Girard , M., Fisher , D. B., Bolatto , A. D., et al. 2021, , 909, 12

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Grand , R. J. J., G \'o mez , F. A., Marinacci , F., et al. 2017, , 467, 179

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    A., Kocevski , D

    Grogin , N. A., Kocevski , D. D., Faber , S. M., et al. 2011, , 197, 35

    work page 2011

  64. [64]

    A., Cortese , L., Obreschkow , D., Catinella , B., & Cook , R

    Hardwick , J. A., Cortese , L., Obreschkow , D., Catinella , B., & Cook , R. H. W. 2022, , 509, 3751

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    M., Johnson , H

    Harrison , C. M., Johnson , H. L., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2017, , 467, 1965

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    M., Ferguson , H

    Huang , K.-H., Fall , S. M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2017, , 838, 6

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Hubble , E. P. 1926, , 64, 321

    work page 1926

  68. [68]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    A., Henriques , B

    Irodotou , D., Thomas , P. A., Henriques , B. M., Sargent , M. T., & Hislop , J. M. 2019, , 489, 3609

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    M., Aussel , H., Calzetti , D., et al

    Koekemoer , A. M., Aussel , H., Calzetti , D., et al. 2007, , 172, 196

    work page 2007

  71. [71]

    M., Faber , S

    Koekemoer , A. M., Faber , S. M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2011, , 197, 36

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa , P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    work page 2002

  73. [73]

    Lagos , C. d. P., Stevens , A. R. H., Bower , R. G., et al. 2018, , 473, 4956

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    Lagos , C. d. P., Theuns , T., Stevens , A. R. H., et al. 2017, , 464, 3850

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    S., Ting , Y.-S., et al

    Leja , J., Speagle , J. S., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2022, , 936, 165

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    S., & Schombert , J

    Lelli , F., McGaugh , S. S., & Schombert , J. M. 2016, , 152, 157

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    C., Bolatto , A

    Levy , R. C., Bolatto , A. D., Teuben , P., et al. 2018, , 860, 92

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    2025, , 693, A48

    Liu , K., Guo , H., Wang , S., et al. 2025, , 693, A48

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    E., Fraternali , F., Oman , K

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Oman , K. A., et al. 2020, , 495, 3636

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    E., Fraternali , F., Oosterloo , T., et al

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Oosterloo , T., et al. 2022, , 514, 3329

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.