pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.18292 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Contrasting evolutionary pathways of fast- and slow-rotating galaxies in the green valley

Shuang Zhou , Angela Iovino , Marcella Longhetti , Francesco La Barbera , Luca Costantin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 07:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords green valley galaxiesstellar rotationmetallicitychemical evolutiongalaxy mergersoutflowsinflowsMaNGA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Slow-rotating green valley galaxies show lower metallicities than fast-rotating ones from stronger gas removal during mergers.

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

The paper splits green valley galaxies from the MaNGA survey into fast- and slow-rotating groups using stellar spin and compares their metallicities. Fast rotators display higher gas-phase and stellar metallicities, with the gas difference clearest at low stellar masses. A chemical evolution model is tuned to match both the metallicities and stellar spectra, then used to recover each galaxy's gas inflow, outflow, and star-formation history. The model indicates that slow rotators suffered stronger outflows at low masses and reduced gas inflow plus more efficient removal at high masses. These patterns point to separate routes by which galaxies cross the green valley and stop forming stars.

Core claim

Slow-rotating galaxies in the green valley experienced more mergers that drove strong gas removal, producing lower metallicities in both gas and stars than fast-rotating galaxies. At low stellar masses the offset arises from stronger supernova-driven outflows that lower chemical content while leaving star-formation timescales similar. At high masses the combination of reduced pristine gas inflow and efficient gas removal yields gas-phase metallicities close to those of fast rotators but systematically lower stellar metallicities and shorter star-formation timescales.

What carries the argument

A simple chemical evolution model optimized to jointly fit gas-phase metallicities and integrated stellar spectra, used to reconstruct inflow, outflow, and star-formation timescales for individual galaxies.

If this is right

  • Slow-rotating green valley galaxies experienced more mergers than fast-rotating ones.
  • At low masses, stronger supernova-driven outflows reduce the chemical content of slow rotators while star-formation timescales stay comparable.
  • At high masses, merger-triggered AGN feedback depletes gas and suppresses infall in slow rotators, shortening their star-formation timescales.
  • Distinct evolutionary pathways exist for green valley galaxies that depend on their stellar rotation.
  • Environmental and assembly-driven effects may also contribute to the observed metallicity differences.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Stellar spin could act as a proxy for past merger activity among green valley galaxies.
  • Surveys that measure merger fractions or AGN activity in fast versus slow rotators could directly test the proposed pathways.
  • Applying the same chemical model to other integral-field surveys would show whether the rotation-metallicity pattern is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The simple chemical evolution model accurately recovers the true gas inflow, outflow, and star-formation timescales without major degeneracies when fitted to the observed metallicities and spectra.

What would settle it

Direct measurements showing identical merger rates, gas inflow rates, and outflow strengths for fast- and slow-rotating galaxies yet the same metallicity offsets, or observations in which the metallicity difference vanishes after controlling for environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18292 by Angela Iovino, Francesco La Barbera, Luca Costantin, Marcella Longhetti, Shuang Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: the star formation rate as a function of stellar mass for MaNGA galaxies. Grey dots are individual MaNGA galaxies, with con￾tours enclosing 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of the data points. The solid line shows the SFMS obtained from Sánchez et al. (2019). Bottom: dis￾tribution of ∆SFMS for MaNGA galaxies. Orange histogram shows the entire sample, with blue and red lines showing the possible distribu￾tion of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The spin parameter λRe of MaNGA galaxies as a function of their ellipticity ε. Colours indicate the density of the sample galaxies, with contours enclosing 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of the data points. The black dash-dotted line represents the theoretically predicted locus for an axisymmetric galaxy with λRe,intr = 0.4 (assuming anisotropy δ = 0.7 × εintr) viewed over all inclinations, as proposed by Wang & Pe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The stellar (left) and gas phase (right) metallicities as a function of stellar mass for our sample galaxies. In each panel, fast-rotating galaxies are shown in blue, while slow-rotating galaxies are shown in red. The solid lines indicate the mean relation, with error bars representing the standard deviation of 1,000 bootstrap resamplings. ies become sufficiently passive. Specifically, although no such dif… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted star formation histories (left), chemical evolution histories (middle), and cumulative metallicity distribution functions (right) for three representative models, with key model parameters indicated in the middle panel. In the right panel, the labels indicate the light-weighted average stellar metallicity for each model. process during its evolution, characterised by a higher mass load￾ing factor… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the spectral fitting process to a green valley galaxy in our sample. The top-left panel shows the optical image of the galaxy, with its MaNGA plateifu ID indicated. The top-right panel shows the best-fit model to the observed data. In this panel, the orange line is the observed spectrum stacked within 1 Re of the galaxy, while the blue line shows the best-fit model spectrum. At the bottom, a gre… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average cumulative SFH of our sample galaxies. Different panels show results for different stellar mass bins, as indicated. In each bin, the blue line shows the results for the faster population, while the red lines are for the slower population. Shaded regions around lines indicate the uncertainty obtained from the standard deviation of 1,000 bootstrap resamplings. mann et al. 2003; Heavens et al. 200… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The gas infall timescale obtained from the best-fit models. Fast￾rotating galaxies are shown as blue dots while slow-rotating galaxies are shown in red. The colour lines indicate the corresponding mean av￾erage values in four stellar mass bins, with uncertainty obtained from the standard deviation of 1,000 bootstrap resamplings. leading to a lower fraction of green valley slow-rotating galaxies relative to… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The average CMDF of our sample galaxies. Different panels show results for different stellar mass bins, as indicated. In each bin, the blue line shows the results for the faster population, while the red lines are for the slower population. Shaded regions around lines indicate the uncertainty obtained from the standard deviation of 1,000 bootstrap resamplings, while the labels indicate the light-weighted a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The outflow strength characterising using the mass-loading factor λ, obtained from the best-fit models. Fast-rotating galaxies are shown as blue dots while slow-rotating galaxies are shown in red. The colour lines indicates the corresponding mean average values in four stellar mass bins, with uncertainty obtained from the standard deviation of 1,000 bootstrap resamplings. By synthesising the results from o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This combined analysis of stellar and gas-phase metallici [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the evolutionary pathways of green valley (GV) galaxies drawn from the SDSS-IV/MaNGA survey. The GV sample is divided into fast- and slow-rotating galaxies based on stellar spin, and their stellar and gas-phase metallicities are compared. Fast-rotating galaxies exhibit systematically higher metallicities than slow-rotating galaxies in both gas and stars. However, the gas-phase difference is significant only at low stellar masses, while the stellar metallicity offset persists across the full mass range. Using a simple yet physically motivated chemical evolution model, optimised to jointly fit gas-phase metallicities and integrated stellar spectra, we reconstruct the star formation and chemical enrichment histories of individual galaxies and constrain gas inflow and outflow parameters. At low stellar masses, fast- and slow-rotating galaxies show similar gas-infall and star formation timescales, but the the slower population experienced stronger outflows which reduce their chemical content in both gas and stars. At high masses, the combination of reduced pristine gas inflow and more efficient gas removal in slow-rotating galaxies produce gas-phase metallicities comparable to fast-rotating galaxies but systematically lower stellar metallicities. These differences suggest distinct evolutionary pathways for GV galaxies. Slow-rotating galaxies likely experienced more mergers, usually associated with strong gas removal processes, leading to their systematically lower metallicities. At low masses, stronger supernova-driven outflows reduce their chemical content while leaving star-formation timescales similar to fast-rotating galaxies. At high masses, merger-triggered AGN feedback may rapidly deplete and suppress gas infall, producing the shorter star-formation timescales seen in slow-rotating galaxies. Alternative environmental and assembly-driven scenarios are also discussed.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper divides MaNGA green-valley galaxies into fast- and slow-rotating subsamples using stellar spin and reports that fast-rotators exhibit higher gas-phase and stellar metallicities, with the gas-phase offset significant only below a characteristic mass. A simple chemical-evolution model is jointly optimized to the observed gas-phase metallicities and integrated stellar spectra to reconstruct individual star-formation and enrichment histories, yielding distinct best-fit inflow timescales, outflow loading factors, and star-formation timescales between the two populations. These differences are interpreted as evidence for stronger supernova-driven outflows at low mass and reduced pristine inflow plus efficient removal (possibly merger-triggered AGN feedback) at high mass in slow-rotators, implying separate evolutionary pathways linked to merger history.

Significance. If the model parameters can be shown to be uniquely recovered, the work supplies a concrete observational contrast between rotation-supported and dispersion-supported green-valley galaxies and ties it to plausible differences in gas-accretion and feedback efficiency. The direct metallicity comparison from MaNGA data is a clear empirical result; the model-based reconstruction, if validated, would add mechanistic insight into how angular-momentum content correlates with chemical evolution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract (model description) and associated methods/results sections] The central claim that slow-rotating galaxies experienced stronger outflows (low mass) or reduced inflow plus efficient removal (high mass) rests on the chemical-evolution model recovering distinct parameter values when jointly fit to gas-phase metallicities and stellar spectra. No degeneracy diagnostics, covariance matrices, prior ranges, or mock-data recovery tests are presented to demonstrate that the reported differences in inflow timescale, outflow loading factor, and star-formation timescale are unique rather than degenerate combinations that can produce identical final metallicities.
  2. [Results on parameter differences] Error propagation from the joint fit to the reconstructed histories and to the final parameter differences is not shown. Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the claimed offsets between fast- and slow-rotating populations are statistically significant once parameter uncertainties and covariances are taken into account.
  3. [Discussion/interpretation paragraph] The interpretation that the parameter differences arise from mergers or AGN feedback is plausible but not directly constrained by the model; the model only returns effective inflow/outflow timescales. Independent observables (e.g., HI content, kinematic merger signatures, or AGN indicators) that could test this scenario are not compared to the model predictions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Typo in the abstract: 'but the the slower population'.
  2. [Figure captions and results] Figures displaying model fits should include the best-fit parameters with 1-sigma uncertainties and any reported covariance information.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper to strengthen the presentation of the chemical-evolution model by adding degeneracy diagnostics, covariance information, and error propagation. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that slow-rotating galaxies experienced stronger outflows (low mass) or reduced inflow plus efficient removal (high mass) rests on the chemical-evolution model recovering distinct parameter values when jointly fit to gas-phase metallicities and stellar spectra. No degeneracy diagnostics, covariance matrices, prior ranges, or mock-data recovery tests are presented to demonstrate that the reported differences in inflow timescale, outflow loading factor, and star-formation timescale are unique rather than degenerate combinations that can produce identical final metallicities.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of parameter uniqueness is essential. In the revised manuscript we have added a new Methods subsection that specifies the adopted prior ranges, describes the MCMC sampling, and reports the full covariance matrices for the fitted parameters (inflow timescale, outflow loading factor, star-formation timescale). We also performed mock-data recovery tests on simulated galaxies with known input parameters; these tests recover the input values to within the quoted uncertainties and confirm that the reported differences between fast- and slow-rotating populations are not produced by degeneracies. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Error propagation from the joint fit to the reconstructed histories and to the final parameter differences is not shown. Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the claimed offsets between fast- and slow-rotating populations are statistically significant once parameter uncertainties and covariances are taken into account.

    Authors: We have now included full error propagation. Posterior samples from the joint fits are used to generate Monte-Carlo realizations of the star-formation and enrichment histories; the resulting uncertainties are propagated to the population-level parameter differences. The revised figures and text display median offsets with 16th–84th percentile ranges, demonstrating that the key differences (stronger outflows at low mass, reduced inflow at high mass) remain statistically significant. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The interpretation that the parameter differences arise from mergers or AGN feedback is plausible but not directly constrained by the model; the model only returns effective inflow/outflow timescales. Independent observables (e.g., HI content, kinematic merger signatures, or AGN indicators) that could test this scenario are not compared to the model predictions.

    Authors: We concur that the model yields effective parameters and does not directly constrain physical mechanisms. The revised Discussion explicitly states this limitation and clarifies that the merger/AGN interpretation is based on consistency with literature trends rather than direct model output. We have added a comparison to MaNGA AGN indicators, which shows a modest excess of AGN activity among high-mass slow-rotators, lending qualitative support to the scenario. A full statistical test involving HI content and kinematic merger signatures lies beyond the scope of the present work and is noted as future research. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Model optimization to observed metallicities and spectra produces the reconstructed histories presented as evidence for distinct pathways

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Using a simple yet physically motivated chemical evolution model, optimised to jointly fit gas-phase metallicities and integrated stellar spectra, we reconstruct the star formation and chemical enrichment histories of individual galaxies and constrain gas inflow and outflow parameters."

    The star-formation and enrichment histories (and the inferred inflow/outflow differences) are obtained by fitting model parameters directly to the metallicities and spectra whose differences are being explained. The reconstructed timelines are therefore determined by construction from the optimization to the input data rather than serving as independent predictions or tests.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that fast- and slow-rotating GV galaxies followed different evolutionary paths in gas inflow, outflow, and star-formation timescales—rests on a chemical evolution model whose parameters are optimized to reproduce the very gas-phase metallicities and integrated stellar spectra used as input. The abstract explicitly states that the model is 'optimised to jointly fit' these observables and then 'reconstruct' the histories and 'constrain' the parameters; the reported differences (stronger outflows at low mass, reduced inflow plus efficient removal at high mass) are therefore outputs of that fit rather than independent predictions. No equations, degeneracy tests, or mock-recovery results are supplied in the provided text to demonstrate that the parameter differences are uniquely recovered. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern but does not rise to full self-definitional equivalence or load-bearing self-citation, yielding a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on a standard chemical evolution framework whose free parameters are tuned to the data and on the assumption that stellar spin serves as a reliable proxy for merger-driven gas removal.

free parameters (3)
  • gas inflow timescale
    Adjusted to reproduce observed metallicities at different masses
  • outflow loading factor
    Fitted to explain the metallicity deficit in slow rotators
  • star formation timescale
    Jointly constrained with inflow and outflow to match spectra and metallicities
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Chemical evolution can be described by a leaky-box model with parameterized inflows and outflows
    Invoked to reconstruct histories from current metallicities
  • domain assumption Stellar spin parameter traces merger history and associated gas removal
    Used to interpret why slow rotators show lower metallicities

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5611 in / 1440 out tokens · 48286 ms · 2026-05-15T07:59:56.716249+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12518

    Bacon, R., Maineiri, V ., Randich, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12518

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

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

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    F., van der Wel, A., Papovich, C., et al

    Bell, E. F., van der Wel, A., Papovich, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 167

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

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

    Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al

    Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    R., Drory, N., & Sheth, R

    Bernardi, M., Domínguez Sánchez, H., Brownstein, J. R., Drory, N., & Sheth, R. K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5633

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    G., Kriek, M., Conroy, C., et al

    Beverage, A. G., Kriek, M., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L1

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B

    Blanton, M. R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B. A., & Price-Whelan, A. 2011, AJ, 142, 31

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    & Charlot, S

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

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    P., Graham, A

    Cameron, E., Driver, S. P., Graham, A. W., & Liske, J. 2009, ApJ, 699, 105

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

    Cappellari, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    2007, MNRAS, 379, 418

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Bacon, R., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 418

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    M., Stiavelli, M., de Zeeuw, P

    Carollo, C. M., Stiavelli, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Mack, J. 1997, AJ, 114, 2366

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384 de Vaucouleurs, G

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

    Debuhr, J., Quataert, E., & Ma, C.-P. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Origin of the Golden Mass of Galaxies and Black Holes

    Dekel, A., Lapiner, S., & Dubois, Y . 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08431

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    & Silk, J

    Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Margalef, B., Bernardi, M., & Huertas-Company, M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4024

    work page 1986

  30. [30]

    A., et al

    Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2885

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2885

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    S., & Santini, P

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Monaco, P., Somerville, R. S., & Santini, P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1776

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    J., et al

    Gao, F., Wang, L., Pearson, W. J., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A94 García-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Usero, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A35

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    work page 2000

  39. [39]

    T., Cappellari, M., Li, H., et al

    Graham, M. T., Cappellari, M., Li, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4711

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

    work page 1972

  41. [41]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332 Häring, N. & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Hayward, C. C. & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    2004, Nature, 428, 625

    Heavens, A., Panter, B., Jimenez, R., & Dunlop, J. 2004, Nature, 428, 625

    work page 2004

  44. [44]

    1958, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Se- rie II, 136, 1

    Holmberg, E. 1958, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Se- rie II, 136, 1

    work page 1958

  45. [45]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    Hopkins, P. F. & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4565

    Hu, J., Wang, L., Ge, J., Zhu, K., & Zeng, G. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4565

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

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

    work page 1926

  49. [49]

    M., Mercurio, A., et al

    Iovino, A., Poggianti, B. M., Mercurio, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A87

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33

    work page 2003

  51. [51]

    Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    & Pounds, K

    King, A. & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115 Krajnovi´c, D., Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2923

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Schaye, J., Bahé, Y ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4327

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    S., et al

    Lang, P., Wuyts, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 11

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    R., Yan, R., Bershady, M

    Law, D. R., Yan, R., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 19

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 166 Martín-Navarro, I

    Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166 Martín-Navarro, I. & Mezcua, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, L20

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Mashchenko, S., Wadsley, J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, Science, 319, 174

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al

    McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3484

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    J., Coil, A

    Mendez, A. J., Coil, A. L., Lotz, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 110

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

    work page 1998

  63. [63]

    L., Kereš, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

    Muratov, A. L., Kereš, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2691

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 18

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    Naab, T., Oser, L., Emsellem, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa57564-25

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    F., & Jimenez, R

    Panter, B., Heavens, A. F., & Jimenez, R. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1145

    work page 2003

  68. [68]

    F., & Charlot, S

    Panter, B., Jimenez, R., Heavens, A. F., & Charlot, S. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1550

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

    Peng, Y ., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    P., Sijacki, D., & Genel, S

    Penoyre, Z., Moster, B. P., Sijacki, D., & Genel, S. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3883

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3387

    Peterken, T., Merrifield, M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3387

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 216

    Prieto, J., Escala, A., V olonteri, M., & Dubois, Y . 2017, ApJ, 836, 216

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    2021, A&A, 647, A95

    Pulsoni, C., Gerhard, O., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A95

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F

    Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F. 2010, A&A, 522, A32

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1

    Salim, S. 2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2 Sánchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V ., Rodríguez-Puebla, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1557 Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Lacerda, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 36 Sánchez, S. F., Pérez, E., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2016, Rev. Mexicana As- tron. Astrofis., 52, 171

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    J., Thomas, D., et al

    Schawinski, K., Lintott, C. J., Thomas, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1672

    work page 2009

  78. [78]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    K., Martin, D

    Schiminovich, D., Wyder, T. K., Martin, D. C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 315

    work page 2007

  80. [80]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    work page 1959

Showing first 80 references.