Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Episodic Star Formation -- I. Overview and Scatter of the Star-Forming Main Sequence

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the scatter of the star-forming main sequence is mostly time-variation within each galaxy, not permanent differences between galaxies, and identifies a two-branch, inward-retreating star-formation cycle as the mechani

desk verdict A careful TNG100 analysis of episodic star formation with a genuinely new two-branch spatial/chemical picture, but the headline scatter accounting is approximate rather than a formal variance decomposition. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.00151 v3 pith:H3A5BUYL submitted 2025-11-28 astro-ph.GA

Yuqian Gui , Dandan Xu , Haoyi Wang , Xuelun Mei , Enci Wang , Cheng Li , Stijn Wuyts This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords episodicstarformationstar-formingmainsequencemain-sequencescattergalaxysimulationsgas-phasemetallicitystellardiskevolutionhistory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that the observed scatter of the star-forming main sequence—the roughly 0.25 dex spread in star-formation rates among galaxies of the same stellar mass—is not mainly a permanent difference between galaxies. Following 5,051 simulated present-day star-forming central galaxies backward over 7–8 Gyr, it finds that each galaxy's star-formation rate swings around its own long-term trend by about 0.2 dex, while the historical mean rates of different galaxies differ by about 0.15 dex; these combine to match the observed scatter. The underlying mechanism is an episodic cycle with two branches: an always-on central branch in metal-rich gas, and an outer branch in fresh, metal-poor gas that starts at the outskirts and retreats inward as the episode peaks. If correct, the main sequence is a time-average of asynchronous cycles, and instantaneous star-formation rate is a phase within a cycle rather than a stable galaxy property.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-branch episodic star-formation cycle, with cold gas split into a non-star-forming reservoir and a star-forming pool by a density threshold. The key quantitative identity is the additive decomposition of main-sequence scatter into a temporal fluctuation within each galaxy (σ about 0.2 dex) and a historical offset between galaxies (about 0.15 dex). The cycle is driven by delayed replenishment: the cold non-star-forming reservoir builds up roughly 0.6–0.8 Gyr before SFR rises, then compaction converts it into star-forming gas; feedback eventually depletes the reservoir and tips SFR over. The outward-to-inward retreating branch is the spatial signature that connects

What would settle it

Run the same peak–valley stacking and scatter decomposition in a cosmological simulation with substantially different subgrid feedback and star-formation prescriptions; if the roughly 0.2 dex intra-galaxy fluctuation and the outward-to-inward retreating branch do not appear, the claim is simulation-specific. Observationally, resolved metallicity maps of young stellar populations in z≈0 star-forming disks that show no bimodality and no phase dependence would contradict the two-branch mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that episodic star formation—not galaxy-to-galaxy variation—dominates the width of the z=0 star-forming main sequence, and that each episode has a specific spatial-chemical anatomy. Tracing the main progenitor of present-day star-forming disc galaxies back to z≈1, the authors report two star-formation branches per episode: one in heavily metal-enriched gas in galactic centers that can stay active even at global SFR minima, and a second in lower-metallicity gas at galaxy outskirts where fresh gas first arrives, which then retreats inward as the episode builds to peak and subsides. At SFR valleys the young-stellar and star-forming-gas metallicity distributions are bimodal,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated episodic cycle—its amplitude, timing, and outward-to-inward spatial pattern—faithfully represents real galaxies rather than being an artifact of the simulation's adopted feedback, cooling, and star-formation recipes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the decomposition holds, roughly four-fifths of the z≈0 main-sequence scatter is temporal: a galaxy moves up and down the sequence over roughly 1 Gyr episodes rather than being fixed above or below it.
  • Galaxies currently above the ridge have tended to live above it since z≈1, while the amplitude of a galaxy's fluctuation is not correlated with its historical offset.
  • Because the outer branch fluctuates more than the central one, measured scatter depends on the aperture or radius used, with outskirts showing substantially larger temporal variation.
  • Young-star disc sizes oscillate with the cycle—larger at valleys, smaller at peaks—so UV-selected galaxy sizes should inherit extra scatter from the phase of the star-formation episode.
  • Metallicity distributions of young stars and star-forming gas distinguish peaks from valleys, offering a phase indicator that could locate a galaxy within its episode observationally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cycle is universal, the star-forming main sequence is an ensemble average of asynchronous cycles, not a locus of equilibrium states; single-epoch SFR tracers then measure a phase, and gas fractions or depletion times should show cyclic covariances on Gyr timescales.
  • The inward-retreating outer branch predicts radial stellar population gradients within individual disks: stars born early in each episode should be more metal-poor and at larger radii than stars born later, which resolved young-stellar-population maps of nearby face-on disks could test.
  • The same cycle may explain why SFR indicators on different timescales (such as H-alpha versus UV versus infrared) disagree by order 0.2 dex; comparing short- and long-timescale indicators across many galaxies would provide an observational check of the scatter decomposition.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the TNG100 cosmological simulation to trace the main progenitor branches of z=0 star-forming central galaxies (M* ≥ 10^9.5 Msun) back to z≈1, and argues that the scatter of the star-forming main sequence is driven by episodic star formation. It identifies a two-branch pattern in each star-forming episode: a central, metal-enriched star-forming branch that is often continuously active, and an outer, lower-metallicity branch that starts at the galaxy outskirts and progressively retreats inward as the episode evolves. The paper further shows that young-star and cold-gas metallicity distributions differ between SFR peaks and valleys, with bimodal metallicities at valleys. The central quantitative claim is that the temporal SFR fluctuation within individual galaxies (σ_SFR,rel ~ 0.20 dex) together with the galaxy-to-galaxy differentiation in historical mean MS offset (avg(ΔMS) ~ 0.15 dex) can account for the z=0 SFMS scatter (~0.25 dex). Quantitative peak-valley stacking is based on a refined subsample of 191 of the 285 star-forming rotating disc galaxies, selected to have peak-valley SFR contrasts > 0.5 dex.

Significance. If the two-branch, retreating star-formation picture is correct, it provides a concrete physical mechanism for episodic star formation and yields testable predictions: bimodal metallicity PDFs at SFR minima, phase-dependent size variations of young stellar populations, and a dominant temporal contribution to the SFMS scatter. The paper builds on a public, widely used simulation, presents a clear example galaxy, documents the pair-search algorithm, and includes threshold sensitivity tests in Appendix B. It also explicitly acknowledges that the conclusions are tied to TNG100's subgrid feedback model. However, the headline quantitative claim about the scatter decomposition is not currently demonstrated; it requires a formal variance decomposition rather than a comparison of percentile widths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 4, first paragraph] The central claim that ~0.2 dex temporal and ~0.15 dex intrinsic fluctuations 'well account' for the ~0.25 dex SFMS scatter is not established. The paper only compares 16–84 percentile widths of ΔMS_z=0, avg(ΔMS), and σ_SFR,rel; percentile widths do not add in quadrature in general, and no formal variance decomposition is presented. To support the claim, the authors need to verify an identity such as Var(ΔMS_z=0) ≈ Var(avg(ΔMS)) + E[σ_SFR,rel²] + 2Cov(avg(ΔMS), σ_SFR,rel), with all terms defined on the same galaxies and time window. This is not guaranteed by construction: σ_SFR,rel is the RMS residual around a per-galaxy linear fit to log SFR–log(1+z), not around the historical mean MS offset, and ΔMS_z=0 is one time point, so its variance involves the autocorrelation function. The quadrature agreement may be coincidental.
  2. [Section 2.3, 3.3, and Appendix B] The two-branch star-formation pattern is presented as typical/universal, but all quantitative stacked peak–valley results use the 191/285 galaxies selected with a >0.5 dex peak-to-valley threshold, i.e., episodes twice as large as the typical 0.25 dex scatter. The universality claim rests on 'visual inspection' of the remaining galaxies (last sentence of Appendix B), which is not a reproducible metric. The Appendix B threshold tests show how pair counts and timescales depend on the threshold, but they do not test whether the two-branch morphology and the metallicity bimodality survive at lower thresholds. Either a quantitative pattern-recognition test should be applied to all 285 galaxies, or the text should explicitly restrict the morphological claims to the high-amplitude sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] Please clarify whether the MS ridge at z<1 is fit using only star-forming progenitors or all main-branch galaxies, and specify the fitting method (e.g., treatment of outliers and quenched objects).
  2. [Section 5, conclusions bullet] In the bullet list, 'the 1σ of temporal fluctuation within each galaxy is ΔMS is 0.200...' should read 'σ_SFR,rel is 0.200...'.
  3. [Section 4 and Fig. 9] The statement that the historical main-sequence offset among all progenitors since z~1 is 0.006+0.245−0.272 dex pools snapshots across time and redshift; this is not the same statistic as ΔMS_z=0 and should be labelled as a snapshot-pooled scatter to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption and Section 3.3] The plotted quantity is a difference between snapshot i+1 and i−1, not a derivative; the caption should state that it measures a change over ~0.4 Gyr.
  5. [Appendix A] The stop ratio 0.7 in the pair-search algorithm is a tuning parameter; the statement that values >0.5 do not change results would be more convincing if supported by a brief test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scatter decomposition is descriptive and not fitted to its target; self-citations are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that the temporal SFR fluctuation within galaxies (~0.2 dex) plus the galaxy-to-galaxy differentiation in historical mean offset (~0.15 dex) can account for the z=0 SFMS scatter (~0.25 dex). These numbers are not predictions obtained by fitting a parameter to the 0.25 dex scatter; they are independently measured summary statistics of the same TNG100 SFR histories. The approximate quadrature agreement is nontrivial: sigma_SFR,rel is defined as the RMS scatter around a per-galaxy linear fit to log SFR versus log(1+z), not around avg(DeltaMS), and no equation in the paper forces sqrt(0.15^2 + 0.20^2) = 0.25. If the measured components had been inconsistent with the total width, the claim would have failed. The lack of a formal variance decomposition (e.g., Var(DeltaMS_z=0) vs Var(avg(DeltaMS)) + E[sigma_SFR,rel^2]) is a support gap or presentation weakness, but it is not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The self-citations (Wang et al. 2022; Lu et al. 2021, 2022) are used for motivation and sample construction, while the physical findings — two star-formation branches, metallicity bimodality at peaks/valleys, and the scatter decomposition — are derived from TNG100 data and are externally checkable. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work as a load-bearing premise. The paper explicitly states in Section 5 that the conclusions are entirely based on TNG100 and that details are subject to the adopted feedback models, an honest limitation rather than a circular step. Overall, I find no step where a prediction reduces by definition to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The 'two branches' are descriptive labels for star-formation locations, not new forces or particles. The SF and non-SF cold gas components are operational splits of the simulated gas, and the free parameters are analysis thresholds and cuts that affect the quantitative results.

free parameters (4)
  • Peak-valley amplitude threshold = 0.5 dex
    Used in Section 2.3 to select 191 of 285 disk galaxies for peak-valley stacking; directly affects the number of episodes, the peak-valley timescale (~1.25 Gyr), and the metallicity/size distributions.
  • Pair-search stop ratio = 0.7
    Appendix A: a peak-valley pair is accepted when the remaining drop is >0.7 of the peak-valley rise. The authors note that values >0.5 do not change results qualitatively, but the choice still shapes which pairs are counted.
  • sSFR star-forming cut = log sSFR >= -1.5 Gyr^-1
    Defines the SFMS sample in Section 2.2, yielding 5051 galaxies; the cut is taken from prior literature and affects the measured scatter and the sample composition.
  • Young-star age threshold = 100 Myr
    Defines 'young stars' in Figures 5-7 for size and metallicity statistics; changing this threshold would change the inferred radial and metallicity distributions at peaks and valleys.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TNG100 with its subgrid feedback, star-formation, and chemical enrichment prescriptions adequately models the episodic star-formation behavior of real galaxies.
    All results are computed from TNG100 (Section 2.1), and Section 5 explicitly acknowledges the conclusions are entirely based on this simulation and subject to its adopted feedback models.
  • domain assumption The main progenitor branch identified by SUBFIND merger trees from z=1 to z=0 represents each galaxy's true evolutionary path.
    Section 2.2 relies on tracing the main progenitor branch; if merger-tree branch switching or misidentification occurs, the reconstructed SFR histories and peak-valley pairs would be affected.
  • domain assumption A linear relation in log SFR versus log(1+z) is an adequate long-term baseline for each galaxy, so residuals measure temporal fluctuation rather than secular evolution.
    Section 2.2 defines sigma_SFR,rel by fitting this line; curvature, breaks, or mass-dependent evolution in the baseline would change the residual scatter.
  • domain assumption The observed SFMS scatter at z=0 is approximately 0.25 dex, as cited from the literature.
    The comparison target in Section 4 is taken from observational surveys (Speagle et al. 2014, Pearson et al. 2018, etc.) and is not re-measured or scrutinized in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Episodic Star Formation -- I. Overview and Scatter of the Star-Forming Main Sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3A5BUYL

@misc{pith2026251200151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Episodic Star Formation -- I. Overview and Scatter of the Star-Forming Main Sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3A5BUYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00151}
}
read the original abstract

Episodic star formation cycles in both high- and low-redshift galaxies have gained more and more evidence. This paper aims to understand the detailed physical processes behind such behaviors and investigate how such an episodic star-forming scenario can explain the scatter in star-formation rate (SFR) of star-forming main-sequence galaxies. This is achieved through tracing back in time the history of z=0 star-forming central galaxies in the TNG100 simulation over the past 7-8 Gyrs. As the first paper in this series, we provide an overview of the episodic star formation history. We find that two branches of star formation typically develop during each episode: while one branch happens in heavily metal-enriched gas in the centers of galaxies, a secondary branch starts in lower-metallicity regions at galaxy outskirts where fresh gas first arrives, and gradually progresses to inner regions of galaxies. Additionally, the temporal variation in the SFR at galaxy outskirts is more significant than that at centers. As a consequence, the metallicities in both gas and young stars exhibit remarkably different distributions between SFR peaks and valleys. The resulting temporal SFR fluctuation within individual galaxies has an average of ~ 0.2 dex, while the intrinsic differentiation between (the historical mean of) galaxies is ~ 0.15 dex. These two together can well account for the scatter in SFR of ~ 0.25 dex as observed for z=0 star-forming main-sequence galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The star formation history of one of our sample galaxies (ID at z = 0 is 504650). The red line represents the SFR of this galaxy evaluated within 2Rhsm. The green and blue upper triangles represent the valleys and peaks in the upward pairs. The blue and green hollow hexagons represent peaks and valleys in the downward pairs. valley pair. For the SFH of each galaxy, we search for valley-to-peak (upward) pairs and pea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The g − r color - log M∗ evolutionary track for one example galaxy (ID-433317). The contours indicate the distribution of color as a function of stellar mass M∗ of cen￾tral galaxies in today’s universe (red contour) and at z = 0.7 (green contour), respectively. The black solid line marks the evolutionary track of the galaxy, with circles color-coded by redshifts. galaxy-to-galaxy difference among the population can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The episodic star-formation history and prop￾erty evolution for one sample galaxy (ID-601819). The top panel presents the temporal variation of SFR⩽2Rhsm (global, in solid line) and SFR⩽0.5Rhsm (central, in dashed line). The second panel presents the evolution of cold gas mass within 2Rhsm for the star-forming gas (MSF, solid line) and the cold non-SF gas (Mcold, non−SF, dashed line). The third panel shows the metal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relative mass ∆ log M within 2Rhsm of both star-forming gas (blue) and cold non-SF gas (magenta) as a function of time offset around the nearest peak/valley moment. In both panels, the shaded regions represent the central 68th percentile distribution. For clarity o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The histograms of the increment in normalized half-stellar-mass radius of young stars Rhsm, <100 Myr/Rhsm from the (i − 1)th snapshot to the (i + 1)th snapshot, where i is a snapshot at either SFR valley or peak. The blue and red histograms represent the increment in n…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left Panel: The mass-weighted metallicity distribution of young stars, log Z∗, <100Myr, stacked at SFR peaks (blue) and valleys (red). The error bars represent the standard errors of the mean. The darker and lighter shaded regions represent the distributions of average…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a): The stacked histogram of average mass-weighted total cold gas metallicity, log Zcold, at SFR peaks (blue) and valleys (red) within 10Rhsm. The darker and lighter shaded regions represent the distributions calculated for star-forming and cold non-SF gas, respective…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The correlation between the main-sequence offset at z = 0 (∆MSz=0), the historically averaged main-sequence offset since z = 1 (avg(∆MS)) and the temporal fluctua￾tion of individual galaxies since z = 1 (σSFR,rel). The SFR is measured within 2Rhsm. The 16-50-84 percent…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left Panel: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left Panel: The number of pairs per galaxy as a function of ∆ log [SFR/M⊙Gyr−1 ] threshold. Blue triangles represent the upward pairs, and orange hexagons represent the downward pairs. At each threshold, the number of galaxies that possess such episodic star-forming f…

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. Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?

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

    Star formation rates required by the evolving stellar mass function yield a main sequence that agrees with JWST spectroscopy and theory but differs from prior concordance relations.

  2. The Galaxy Stellar Mass-SFR-Size Relation in EAGLE, TNG100, and Observations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EAGLE and TNG100 both reproduce the observed trend that galaxies at fixed stellar mass are more compact when their star formation deviates from the main sequence, though EAGLE predicts a stronger and TNG100 a weaker d...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 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/aabc...

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 2017

  2. [2]

    K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681, doi: 10.1086/380092

    doi:10.1086/380092 2004

  3. [3]

    L., Baldry, I

    Balogh, M. L., Baldry, I. K., Nichol, R., et al. 2004, ApJL, 615, L101, doi: 10.1086/426079

    doi:10.1086/426079 2004

  4. [4]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, ApJL, 370, L65, doi: 10.1086/185978

    doi:10.1086/185978 1991

  5. [5]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  6. [6]

    F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al

    Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752, doi: 10.1086/420778

    doi:10.1086/420778 2004

  7. [7]

    E., Macci` o, A

    Blank, M., Meier, L. E., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2670

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2670 2021

  8. [8]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x Budav´ ari, T., Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 595, 59, doi: 10.1086/377168

    arXiv 2004

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    Caplar, N., & Tacchella, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Binney, J., et al

    Cattaneo, A., Faber, S. M., Binney, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 213, doi: 10.1038/nature08135

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3709

    Cenci, E., Feldmann, R., Gensior, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3709

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    Ceverino, D., & Klypin, A. 2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, A&A, 588, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424514

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., & Marconi, A. 2016, A&A, 588, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424514

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, A&A, 686, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348091

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

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Ciotti, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1038, doi: 10.1086/519833

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    2003 doi

  10. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818 De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Fontanot, F., & Hirschmann, M

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818 De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Fontanot, F., & Hirschmann, M. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2556

    2007 doi

  11. [21]

    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

  12. [22]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    2014 doi

  13. [23]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  14. [24]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    2013 doi

  15. [25]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    2009 doi

  16. [27]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf006

    Sijacki, D. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf006

    2025 doi

  17. [28]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    2023 doi

  18. [29]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2037

    2024 doi

  19. [30]

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

    2011

  20. [32]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    2016 doi

  21. [33]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    2007 doi

  22. [34]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905 17

    Whitler, L. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905 17

    doi arXiv

  23. [35]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

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

    doi

  24. [36]

    M., Willmer, C

    Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265, doi: 10.1086/519294

    2007 doi

  25. [37]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  26. [38]

    A., Katz, N., Gardner, J

    Fardal, M. A., Katz, N., Gardner, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 605, doi: 10.1086/323519 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2595

    2001 doi

  27. [39]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1120

    2017 doi

  28. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    2023 doi

  29. [41]

    C., Krumholz, M

    Forbes, J. C., Krumholz, M. R., Burkert, A., & Dekel, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2294 Fortun´ e, Silvio amnd Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L. C.,

    2014 doi

  30. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20858

    Burkert, A., & Dolag, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20858

    2025 doi

  31. [43]

    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

  32. [44]

    C., & Hopkins, P

    Hayward, C. C., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2888

    2017 doi

  33. [45]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1023

    Hirschmann, M., Dolag, K., Saro, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1023

    2014 doi

  34. [46]

    W., Blanton, M

    Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2003, ApJL, 585, L5, doi: 10.1086/374238

    2003 doi

  35. [47]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014a, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 —. 2014b, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    doi

  36. [48]

    F., Somerville, R

    Hopkins, P. F., Somerville, R. S., Hernquist, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 864, doi: 10.1086/508503

    2006 doi

  37. [49]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  38. [50]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    2023 doi

  39. [51]

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

    2007 doi

  40. [52]

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

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

    2020 doi

  41. [53]

    Katz, N., & Gunn, J. E. 1991, ApJ, 377, 365, doi: 10.1086/170367

    1991 doi

  42. [55]

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

    Kravtsov, A., & Belokurov, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [56]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac959b

    Leethochawalit, N., Trenti, M., Santini, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac959b

    2023 doi

  44. [57]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al

    Leslie, S. K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba044

    2020 doi

  45. [58]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    2013 doi

  46. [59]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3228

    Lu, S., Xu, D., Wang, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3228

    2022 doi

  47. [60]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab497

    Lu, S., Xu, D., Wang, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab497

    2021 doi

  48. [61]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb4ed

    Lyu, C., Wang, E., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb4ed

    2025 doi

  49. [62]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  50. [63]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    2010

  51. [64]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  52. [65]

    C., et al

    Martizzi, D., Vogelsberger, M., Artale, M. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1106

    2019 doi

  53. [66]

    P., Patel, M

    Mason, J. P., Patel, M. R., Pajola, M., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 128, e2023JE008002, doi: 10.1029/2023JE008002

    2023 doi

  54. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz030

    Matthee, J., & Schaye, J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz030

    2019 doi

  55. [68]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.00106, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00106

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.00106, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00106

    2025 doi

  56. [69]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 721, 297, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/297 —. 2010b, ApJ, 724, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/49

    doi

  57. [70]

    J., Coil, A

    Mendez, A. J., Coil, A. L., Lotz, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/110

    2011 doi

  58. [71]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641, doi: 10.1086/177353

    1996 doi

  59. [72]

    J., Greene, J

    Mintz, A., Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16510, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16510

    2025 doi

  60. [73]

    2017, A&A, 597, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629409 Mu˜ noz L´ opez, C., Krajnovi´ c, D., Epinat, B., et al

    Morselli, L., Popesso, P., Erfanianfar, G., & Concas, A. 2017, A&A, 597, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629409 Mu˜ noz L´ opez, C., Krajnovi´ c, D., Epinat, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.01710, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.01710

    2017 doi arXiv

  61. [74]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2005, ApJ, 618, 569, doi: 10.1086/426067

    2005 doi

  62. [75]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618 18

    2018 doi

  63. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —. 2019a, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2018 doi

  64. [77]

    2019b, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019b, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    doi

  65. [78]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007a, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926 —. 2007b, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    doi

  66. [79]

    E., Hayward, C

    Orr, M. E., Hayward, C. C., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 849, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f93

    2017 doi

  67. [80]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/141

    Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/141

    2015 doi

  68. [81]

    J., Wang, L., Hurley, P

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Hurley, P. D., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832821

    2018 doi

  69. [82]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    Peng, Y., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    2015 doi

  70. [83]

    J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Costantin, L., Langeroodi, D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0

    2010 doi

  71. [84]

    N., Taylor, A

    Perry, M. N., Taylor, A. J., Chavez Ortiz, O. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05388, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05388

    2025 doi

  72. [85]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  73. [86]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi

  74. [87]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  75. [88]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

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

    2023 doi

  76. [89]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw066

    Renzini, A. 2016, MNRAS, 460, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw066

    2016 doi

  77. [90]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d

    2024 doi

  78. [91]

    2011, ApJL, 739, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L40

    Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011, ApJL, 739, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L40

    2011 doi

  79. [92]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545

    Saintonge, A., & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545

    2022 doi

  80. [93]

    2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ1489001S

    Salim, S. 2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ1489001S

    2014 doi

  81. [94]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267, doi: 10.1086/519218

    2007 doi

  82. [96]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    2015 doi

  83. [97]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

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

    2023 doi

  84. [98]

    Semenov, V. A. 2023, ApJ, 947, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc251

    2023 doi

  85. [99]

    J., Lintott, C

    Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv161

    2015 doi

  86. [100]

    E., et al

    Smith, D., Haberzettl, L., Porter, L. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2258

    2022 doi

  87. [101]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  88. [102]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3011

    2017 doi

  89. [103]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014a, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 —. 2014b, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    doi

  90. [104]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  91. [105]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  92. [106]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2003

  93. [107]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  94. [108]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  95. [109]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861, doi: 10.1086/323301

    2001 doi

  96. [110]

    C., & Shen, X

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Shen, X. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  97. [111]

    Johnson, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e0

    2018 doi

  98. [112]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw131

    2016 doi

  99. [113]

    C., & Caplar, N

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

    2020 doi

  100. [114]

    Tacchella, S., Trenti, M., & Carollo, C. M. 2013, ApJL, 768, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L37

    2013 doi

  101. [115]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Conroy, C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449b

    2022 doi

  102. [116]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650 19

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650 19

    2009 doi

  103. [117]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 5587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz243

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz243

    2019 doi

  104. [118]

    B., Mould, J

    Tully, R. B., Mould, J. R., & Aaronson, M. 1982, ApJ, 257, 527, doi: 10.1086/160009 van Loon, M. L., Mitchell, P. D., & Schaye, J. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1254

    1982 doi

  105. [119]

    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

  106. [120]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 3024, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21590.x

    Hernquist, L. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3024, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21590.x

    2012

  107. [121]

    T., Tacchella, S., D’Eugenio, F., Johnson, B

    Wan, J. T., Tacchella, S., D’Eugenio, F., Johnson, B. D., & van der Wel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf657

    2025 doi

  108. [122]

    T., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Wan, J. T., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1734

    2024 doi

  109. [123]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1325

    Wang, B., Cappellari, M., Peng, Y., & Graham, M. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1325

    2020 doi

  110. [124]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 165, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02376-8

    Wang, B., Peng, Y., & Cappellari, M. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 165, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02376-8

    2025 doi

  111. [125]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9e

    Wang, E., Kong, X., & Pan, Z. 2018, ApJ, 865, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9e

    2018 doi

  112. [126]

    Wang, E., & Lilly, S. J. 2020, ApJ, 892, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b7d —. 2021, ApJ, 910, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe413 —. 2022a, ApJ, 927, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac49ed —. 2022b, ApJ, 929, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e31 —. 2023a, ApJ, 944, 143, doi: 10.3847/1...

    2020 doi

  113. [127]

    J., Pezzulli, G., & Matthee, J

    Wang, E., Lilly, S. J., Pezzulli, G., & Matthee, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c5b

    2019 doi

  114. [128]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3167

    Wang, S., Xu, D., Lu, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3167

    2022 doi

  115. [129]

    R., Dalcanton, J

    Weisz, D. R., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/5

    2011 doi

  116. [130]

    2012a, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29 —

    Franx, M. 2012a, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29 —. 2012b, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    doi

  117. [131]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  118. [132]

    P., Topping, M

    Whitler, L., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.00984, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00984

    2025 doi

  119. [133]

    M., van der Wel, A., et al

    Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., van der Wel, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/96

    2011 doi

  120. [134]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa6b

    Yin, J., Shen, S., & Hao, L. 2023, ApJ, 958, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa6b

    2023 doi

  121. [135]

    E., et al

    Zhang, J., Wuyts, S., Cutler, S. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2066

    2023 doi

  122. [136]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.