pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08682 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The Hubble sequence in JWST CEERS from unbiased galaxy morphologies

Elizaveta Sazonova , Cameron R. Morgan , Michael Balogh
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy morphologyHubble sequencehigh-redshift galaxiesJWST CEERSstructural parametersUMAPgalaxy progenitorsmorphological evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

A continuous Hubble-like sequence from late-type to early-type galaxies exists by redshift 4 with no redshift gradient.

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

The paper builds absolute images of galaxies from HST CANDELS and JWST CEERS data by matching effective resolution, surface brightness limits, and correcting for cosmological dimming along with assumed size and mass-to-light evolution. Structural parameters are measured for 2825 galaxies spanning 0.15 < z < 4.5 and 8 < log M* < 11, then mapped with UMAP to examine the morphological phase space. A continuous sequence appears across late-type to early-type galaxies with no redshift dependence, indicating the Hubble sequence is established by z ~ 4. This method yields cleaner early-late separation than visual classifications. Progenitor tracing via empirical mass assembly histories shows low-mass galaxies as star-forming disks at all epochs while massive galaxies follow either stable disk paths or rapid compaction from irregulars to quenched early-types.

Core claim

By constructing absolute images that equalize observational biases across redshifts, the structural parameters of galaxies reveal a continuous morphological sequence from late-type to early-type systems with no gradient in redshift up to z ~ 4.5. This indicates that a Hubble-like ordering of galaxy types is already in place early in cosmic time. Progenitors of low-mass galaxies remain predominantly star-forming disks throughout, whereas massive galaxy progenitors split into a stable star-forming disk population and an early-type population that assembles rapidly from irregulars before quenching within a few Gyr, consistent with compaction-driven quenching.

What carries the argument

Absolute images that match effective resolution and surface brightness limits while accounting for cosmological dimming plus assumed size and mass-to-light ratio evolution, analyzed via UMAP on measured structural parameters to map the morphological phase space.

If this is right

  • Progenitors of low-mass galaxies remain star-forming disks at every epoch examined.
  • Massive galaxies follow two distinct progenitor paths: stable star-forming disks with little structural change, or irregular systems that build up rapidly and quench within a few Gyr.
  • The absolute-image method recovers a sharper separation between early- and late-type galaxies than visual classifications do.
  • The observed rapid assembly and quenching of the early-type population aligns with a compaction-driven quenching scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy formation models must generate morphological diversity by z ~ 4 without relying on later-time transformations to establish the sequence.
  • The two-path progenitor behavior for massive galaxies suggests that merger or gas-rich compaction events operate similarly at high and low redshift.
  • Extending the same absolute-image technique to z > 4.5 with future deeper surveys could test whether the sequence persists or emerges even earlier.
  • Simulations that reproduce the observed lack of redshift gradient in the morphological phase space would need to match both the structural continuity and the distinct assembly histories.

Load-bearing premise

That constructing absolute images by matching resolution, surface brightness limits, and correcting for cosmological dimming along with assumed size and mass-to-light evolution produces unbiased morphological comparisons across redshifts.

What would settle it

Re-measuring the structural parameters on the same galaxies without the absolute-image corrections or with different assumptions for size and mass-to-light evolution and finding a clear redshift gradient in the UMAP distribution would falsify the claim of no redshift dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08682 by Cameron R. Morgan, Elizaveta Sazonova, Michael Balogh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: —: a) Redshift as a function of lookback time, showing our 1 Gyr bins that evenly sample lookback times from 2 to 13 Gyr. b) our choice of HST/JWST filters as a function of redshift to trace the rest-frame optical morphology. Each light region schematically represents the throughput and the pivot wavelength of each band. Dashed diagonals show the mapping of rest-frame 400, 500, and 600 nm to observed wavel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: —: Stellar mass history for a) low, b) intermediate, and c) high-mass galaxies at z = 0. We compiled mass history estimates from simulation-based and observational studies (colored lines) as well as from the star-forming main sequence (Ormerod et al. 2024), assuming purely in-situ growth (black dashed line). We use an approximation that averages between these studies (black solid line) in this work galaxy … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: —: The mass assembly history of galaxies with different final mass, M⋆,0, using the curves in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: —: Example of the redshift matching procedure for one z = 0.556 galaxy observed with HST F814W. a) A cutout of the CEERS field. We deblend and mask out any other sources in the cutout (purple contours). We then fit the galaxy with Galfit and petrofit (b) to derive the effective radii – R0.5 (white) and Rp (black). Finally, we augment the image: convolve with a PSF to achieve an effective PSF FWHM of 3.8Rp,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: —: The original HST/JWST images (left) and our augmented “absolute” images (right) for a subset of galaxies in our sample. Purple filled contours show masked and noise-filled sources. Each image spans 2Rp of the galaxy. The apparent decrease in the intrinsic size is a consequence of adding noise to match a uniform surface brightness limit, which affects the dim features of low-mass galaxies more. depends o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: —: (a) The distribution of the entire sample in the UMAP space (U1, U2). Each dot is a galaxy. Panels b), c), and d) show how three parameters – Gini-M20 bulge strength, asymmetry, and axis ratio – change across the UMAP space. U1 globally maps the Hubble sequence, with late-type galaxies on the left and early-type on the right. Galaxies on the edges of the U2 distribution are more disturbed with higher as… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: —: (a) The distribution of stellar mass across the UMAP space. Stellar mass increases along a parabolic curve defined in Eq. 1 (solid black line). Panels b) and c) show the same data, now projected onto the curve. The grey shaded region spans the 16th/84th quantiles of the distribution. We define this region as a mass-morphology “main sequence’. As seen in panel c), galaxies in the “irregular” region are p… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: —: Examples of galaxies along the “main sequence” (top), sorted by xproj, and outside the “main sequence” (bottom), sorted by their distance away from the “main sequence”. The top row shows a clear Hubble-like sequence from late- to early-type galaxies while the bottom row contains more disturbed galaxies and clear mergers. Violet regions show masked and noise-filled pixels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: —: a) Our classification of the UMAP phase space into morphological types – “late” (green), “early” (red), “intermediate” (red) and “irregular” (grey). b) The distribution of Sérsic indices for these categories. “Late” and “intermediate” groups have n < 2 and we collectively refer to them as Late-Type Galaxies (LTGs), while the “early” group has n > 2, and so we call them Early-Type Galaxies (ETGs). c) and… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: —: Example thumbnails of galaxies from each cluster in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: —: Evolution of galaxies in the UMAP plane at different lookback times. Each row represents a z = 0 mass bin, from lowest- to highest-mass descendants. The color shows the star-forming main sequence offset. The contour outlines the full UMAP space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: —: a) The fraction of “late” (green), “intermediate” (yellow), “early” (red), and “irregular” (grey) galaxies in the log M⋆,0 ∈ (9, 10) mass bin as a function of lookback time. The error bars are obtained by bootstrapping M⋆,0 with a 0.5 dex uncertainty. We consider both “late” and “intermediate” groups as LTGs. Galaxies in this final mass range have primarily late-type morphology at all cosmic times, wit… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — The large cluster of low-n galaxies consist of low ⟨SNR⟩ images, where the galaxies are only marginally detected. Although they lie off the “main sequence”, they form a distinct cluster in the irregular UMAP space, and so can be included in the “late-type” category (as we did in Sec. 3.1.2). Repeating the same steps with this new UMAP space as in the main body of the paper, we recover the same conclusio… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: shows the distributions of morphological parameters measured with statmorph-lsst as a function of stellar mass and lookback time for reference. Due to large dimensionality of this space, it is much more challenging to see trends in this data, justifying our use of the UMAP method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: —: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Whether the "Hubble sequence" of galaxy morphologies exists up to z~4 is still disputed, and one of the challenges is characterizing galaxy structure consistently across a wide range of redshifts. To enable a fair comparison across cosmic time, we constructed "absolute" images of galaxies spanning 0.15<z<4.5 and 8<log $M_{\star}$<11 from HST CANDELS and JWST CEERS surveys, by matching the effective resolution and surface brightness limit of galaxies, accounting for cosmological dimming and evolution in size and mass-to-light ratio. We measured the structural parameters of 2825 galaxies and used the UMAP technique to study the evolution of the morphological phase space. We find a continuous sequence spanning late-type to early-type galaxies, with no redshift gradient - indicating that a Hubble-like sequence is established by z~4. We show that our approach recovers a cleaner separation between early- and late-type galaxies than visual classifications. By tracing progenitors using empirical mass assembly histories, we find that progenitors of low-mass galaxies are predominantly star-forming disks at all epochs. Progenitors of massive galaxies follow two distinct paths: a stable star-forming disk population with little structural evolution, and an early-type population that builds up rapidly from irregular progenitors and quenches within a few Gyr, consistent with a compaction-driven quenching scenario.

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 describes the construction of 'absolute' galaxy images from HST CANDELS and JWST CEERS data spanning 0.15 < z < 4.5 by matching resolution, surface brightness limits, and applying corrections for cosmological dimming and evolution in size and mass-to-light ratio. Structural parameters are measured for 2825 galaxies, and UMAP is applied to the morphological phase space. The central result is a continuous sequence from late-type to early-type galaxies with no redshift gradient, implying the Hubble sequence is established by z ~ 4. Progenitor tracing using empirical mass assembly histories reveals distinct paths for low-mass (stable star-forming disks) and high-mass galaxies (stable disks or rapid buildup from irregulars with quenching).

Significance. If the unbiased nature of the morphological comparison holds, this result would be of high significance for galaxy evolution studies, as it provides evidence against strong morphological evolution with redshift and supports early formation of the Hubble sequence. The data-driven UMAP approach offers an improvement over visual classifications in separating galaxy types. The progenitor analysis lends support to compaction-driven quenching scenarios for massive galaxies. The work benefits from a large, multi-wavelength sample combining HST and JWST observations.

major comments (2)
  1. The corrections for evolution in galaxy size and mass-to-light ratio are applied uniformly based on prior literature. However, as these may be morphology-dependent, they risk introducing or removing redshift gradients in the UMAP embedding by construction. A quantitative test of the sensitivity of the no-gradient result to variations in these assumed evolutionary trends (e.g., different size evolution for disks vs. spheroids) is needed to confirm the claim is not an artifact of the preprocessing.
  2. The impact of UMAP hyperparameters on the claimed continuous sequence and lack of redshift gradient is not quantified. Since these are free parameters, robustness checks (e.g., varying n_neighbors, min_dist) should be presented to show the result is stable.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract mentions 'cleaner separation' than visual classifications; provide quantitative metrics (e.g., silhouette scores or classification accuracy) in the main text for this comparison.
  2. Clarify the exact number of galaxies in each redshift bin and mass range to allow reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive assessment of the significance of our work. We address each major comment in detail below, providing clarifications and committing to revisions where appropriate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The corrections for evolution in galaxy size and mass-to-light ratio are applied uniformly based on prior literature. However, as these may be morphology-dependent, they risk introducing or removing redshift gradients in the UMAP embedding by construction. A quantitative test of the sensitivity of the no-gradient result to variations in these assumed evolutionary trends (e.g., different size evolution for disks vs. spheroids) is needed to confirm the claim is not an artifact of the preprocessing.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the size and mass-to-light ratio corrections were applied using average evolutionary trends from the literature (e.g., size evolution relations from van der Wel et al. 2014 and typical M/L evolution from multi-wavelength SED studies), as morphology-specific corrections at high redshift are not yet robustly constrained without potential circularity. These averages were chosen to enable a fair, redshift-independent comparison. To directly address the concern, we will add quantitative sensitivity tests in the revised manuscript: we will re-derive the absolute images using alternative size evolution slopes separately for disk-dominated and spheroid-dominated populations (drawing from literature ranges for each), re-measure structural parameters, and re-embed in UMAP. We will demonstrate that the continuous morphological sequence and lack of redshift gradient persist across these variations, with only minor shifts in the embedding that do not alter the main conclusions. This analysis will be included in Section 4 and/or a new appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The impact of UMAP hyperparameters on the claimed continuous sequence and lack of redshift gradient is not quantified. Since these are free parameters, robustness checks (e.g., varying n_neighbors, min_dist) should be presented to show the result is stable.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of UMAP hyperparameter sensitivity is valuable for demonstrating robustness. Our primary analysis used standard default values (n_neighbors = 15, min_dist = 0.1) appropriate for the sample size and dimensionality. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) with robustness tests, including UMAP embeddings recomputed over a grid of n_neighbors (5–50) and min_dist (0.01–0.5). We will show that the continuous late-to-early type sequence and absence of any redshift gradient remain stable across this range, with only quantitative changes in cluster tightness but no qualitative impact on the key results. A summary figure will illustrate the consistency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the morphological sequence derivation

full rationale

The paper constructs 'absolute' images via resolution and surface-brightness matching plus standard cosmological dimming corrections and evolutionary trends in size and mass-to-light ratio (drawn from prior literature). Structural parameters are measured directly on the corrected images, UMAP is applied to the resulting parameter space, and the continuous late-to-early sequence with no redshift gradient is reported as an observed feature of that space. Progenitor tracing uses separate empirical mass-assembly histories. None of these steps reduces by definition or self-citation to the target claim; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on domain assumptions about how galaxy size and mass-to-light ratio evolve with redshift to enable the absolute-image construction; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • UMAP hyperparameters
    Number of neighbors and minimum distance parameters control the embedding and could influence the apparent continuity of the sequence.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Models of cosmological surface-brightness dimming and redshift-dependent galaxy size and mass-to-light evolution are accurate enough for unbiased image matching
    Invoked to construct absolute images that permit fair morphological comparison across 0.15<z<4.5.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5549 in / 1293 out tokens · 43399 ms · 2026-05-10T17:11:22.118138+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

135 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/373919 , 588, 218

    Abraham R. G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/373919 , 588, 218

    work page doi:10.1086/373919 2003

  4. [4]

    Allen , P

    Allen N., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16354 , p. arXiv:2410.16354

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16354 2024

  5. [5]

    Almaini O., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1957 , 472, 1401

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  6. [6]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , 622, 707

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  9. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , 935, 167

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  10. [10]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/28 , 765, 28

    Atkinson A. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/28 , 765, 28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/28 2013

  11. [11]

    B., Finkelstein , S

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 , 946, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  12. [12]

    L., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , 527, 54

    Balogh M. L., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , 527, 54

    work page doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  13. [13]

    Barro G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/104 , 765, 104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/104 2013

  14. [14]

    Barro G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 , 243, 22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 2019

  15. [15]

    Behroozi P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , 488, 3143

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  16. [16]

    A., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301386 , 119, 2645

    Bershady M. A., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301386 , 119, 2645

    work page doi:10.1086/301386 2000

  17. [17]

    Bezanson R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/L21 , 779, L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/l21 2013

  18. [18]

    B \' lek M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2248 , 498, 2138

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2248 2020

  19. [19]

    Bottrell C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2934 , 490, 5390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2934 2019

  20. [20]

    Bournaud F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078010 , 476, 1179

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078010 2007

  21. [21]

    Bradley L., et al., 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.1, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.596036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020zndo....596036B

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.596036 2020

  22. [22]

    Chamberlain K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19d0 , 962, 162

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad19d0 2024

  23. [23]

    Chen C.-H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adee0a , 989, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adee0a 2025

  24. [24]

    Cid Fernandes R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x , 358, 363

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x 2005

  25. [25]

    Clarke L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 , 977, 133

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 2024

  26. [26]

    J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375001 , 147, 1

    Conselice C. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375001 , 147, 1

    work page doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  27. [27]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 1619, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11113.x 3I/ATLAS Observed by Tianwen-1 Orbiter17 Salazar Manzano, L

    Conselice C. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11114.x , 373, 1389

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11114.x 2006

  28. [28]

    J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308300 , 529, 886

    Conselice C. J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308300 , 529, 886

    work page doi:10.1086/308300 2000

  29. [29]

    J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426102 , 620, 564

    Conselice C. J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426102 , 620, 564

    work page doi:10.1086/426102 2005

  30. [30]

    Costantin L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451330 , 699, A360

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451330 2025

  31. [31]

    G., Kartaltepe, J

    Cox I. G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08743 , p. arXiv:2510.08743

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08743 2025

  32. [32]

    Dekel A., Burkert A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 , 438, 1870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2331 2013

  33. [33]

    Desmons A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1402 , 531, 4070

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1402 2024

  34. [34]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137 , 281, 50

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137 , 281, 50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137 2025

  35. [35]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison S. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 , 135, 1877

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 2008

  36. [36]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554725 , 700, A42

    Espejo Salcedo J. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554725 , 700, A42

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554725 2025

  37. [37]

    Fang G., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2324 , 171, 59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae2324 2026

  38. [38]

    Ferreira L., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66ea , 931, 34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac66ea

  39. [39]

    Ferreira L., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c , 938, L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c 2041

  40. [40]

    Ferreira L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 , 955, 94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  41. [41]

    E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1016 , 434, 282

    Freeman P. E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1016 , 434, 282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1016 2013

  42. [42]

    Ge X., et al., 2024, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ad1c77 , 24, 035006

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad1c77 2024

  43. [43]

    Geda R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 , 163, 202

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 2022

  44. [44]

    W., Driver S

    Graham A. W., Driver S. P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS05001 , 22, 118

    work page doi:10.1071/as05001 2005

  45. [45]

    W., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323090 , 122, 1707

    Graham A. W., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323090 , 122, 1707

    work page doi:10.1086/323090 2001

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Grogin N. A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , 197, 35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  47. [47]

    Gully H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf635 , 539, 3058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf635 2025

  48. [48]

    Haggar R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1566 , 532, 1031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1566 2024

  49. [49]

    Hamilton D., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163537 , 297, 371

    work page doi:10.1086/163537 1985

  50. [50]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  51. [51]

    The K correction

    Hogg D. W., et al., 2002, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0210394 , pp astro--ph/0210394

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0210394 2002

  52. [52]

    W., & Ebeling, H

    Holwerda B. W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18938.x , 416, 2401

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18938.x 2011

  53. [53]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499298 , 163, 1

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  54. [54]

    A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: I. Galaxy Mergers & Quasar Activity

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524362 , 175, 356

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  55. [55]

    Huertas-Company M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfed , 858, 114

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfed 2018

  56. [56]

    Huertas-Company M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 , 685, A48

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 2024

  57. [57]

    Huertas-Company , M

    Huertas-Company M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03532 , p. arXiv:2502.03532

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03532 2025

  58. [58]

    Computing in Science & Engineering9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 , 9, 90

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  59. [59]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 , 946, L15

    Kartaltepe J. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 , 946, L15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 2023

  60. [60]

    M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191066 , 59, 115

    Kent S. M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191066 , 59, 115

    work page doi:10.1086/191066 1985

  61. [61]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer A. M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , 197, 36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  62. [62]

    Lapiner S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1263 , 522, 4515

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1263 2023

  63. [63]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1fe5 , 258, 10

    Lee J. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1fe5 , 258, 10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac1fe5 2022

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Lee J. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3448 , 966, 113

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3448 2024

  65. [65]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz J. M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421849 , 128, 163

    work page doi:10.1086/421849 2004

  66. [66]

    Lyu C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad036b , 959, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad036b 2023

  67. [67]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59e , 864, 123

    Mager V. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59e , 864, 123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad59e 2018

  68. [68]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3260 , 475, 1549

    Mantha K. B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3260 , 475, 1549

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3260 2018

  69. [69]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Masters K. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16503.x , 405, 783

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16503.x 2010

  70. [70]

    Matthee J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 , 963, 129

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  71. [71]

    J., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3da2 , 999, L6

    McGrath E. J., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3da2 , 999, L6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3da2 2026

  72. [72]

    UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction

    McInnes L., et al., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426 , p. arXiv:1802.03426

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.03426 2018

  73. [73]

    UNCOVER/MegaScience Finds Uni- form and Highly Bursty Star Formation at 3< z <9, con- sistent with the High-Redshift UV Luminosity Function

    Mitsuhashi I., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16284 , p. arXiv:2601.16284

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16284 2026

  74. [74]

    Mortlock A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt793 , 433, 1185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt793 2013

  75. [75]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Moster B. P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts261 , 428, 3121

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts261 2013

  76. [76]

    Mowla L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0 , 636, 332

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0 2024

  77. [77]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596 , p. arXiv:2503.16596

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16596 2025

  78. [78]

    Narayan S., Adhikari S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adec93 , 991, 119

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec93 2025

  79. [79]

    Nayyeri H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/7 , 228, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/7 2017

  80. [80]

    B., Sandage A., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149737 , 154, 21

    Oke J. B., Sandage A., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149737 , 154, 21

    work page doi:10.1086/149737 1968

Showing first 80 references.