pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11942 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The role of small-scale environments in the quenching of massive galaxies at 1<z<5

Takumi Kakimoto , Masayuki Tanaka , Makoto Ando , Kei Ito , Ken Mawatari , Masato Onodera , Rhythm Shimakawa , Francesco Valentino
show 5 more authors
Po-Feng Wu Kiyoto Yabe Shuowen Jin Mariko Kubo Sune Toft
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords quiescent galaxiesenvironmental quenchinghigh-redshift galaxiesgalaxy overdensitiesmergersstar formation shutdown
0
0 comments X

The pith

Massive galaxies that stop forming stars are more common in small-scale overdensities at redshifts above 2, showing that mergers and interactions drive early quenching.

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

The paper investigates how local galaxy environments influence the shutdown of star formation in massive systems from redshift 1 to 5. It presents spectroscopic confirmation of a compact group containing a quiescent galaxy at z=4.53 along with nearby star-forming members. A broader statistical sample reveals that the fraction of quiescent galaxies increases in denser regions, with the strongest signal appearing on scales below a few hundred physical kiloparsecs at the highest redshifts. This pattern implies that physical associations with other galaxies, rather than large-scale structure alone, are important for regulating star formation at early times.

Core claim

Using star-formation-rate criteria to identify quiescent galaxies, the fraction of such objects is elevated in group- or cluster-like environments across 1<z<5, and the excess is particularly pronounced within small-scale overdensities of less than 100-300 pkpc at z>2, indicating that environmental quenching driven primarily by galaxy mergers and interactions plays a major role in the formation of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshifts.

What carries the argument

SFR-based classification of quiescent versus star-forming galaxies combined with counts of neighboring galaxies on small physical scales to quantify local overdensities.

Load-bearing premise

The star-formation-rate selection cleanly identifies galaxies that have truly stopped forming stars without significant misclassification, and the observed small-scale overdensities correspond to real physical associations rather than chance line-of-sight alignments.

What would settle it

Deep spectroscopic follow-up that either finds no increase in the quiescent fraction within small overdensities or reveals substantial contamination of the quiescent sample by still-star-forming galaxies would undermine the environmental-quenching interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11942 by Francesco Valentino, Kei Ito, Ken Mawatari, Kiyoto Yabe, Makoto Ando, Mariko Kubo, Masato Onodera, Masayuki Tanaka, Po-Feng Wu, Rhythm Shimakawa, Shuowen Jin, Sune Toft, Takumi Kakimoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A pseudo-color image of the area around the QG (COSMOS-1047519) at zspec = 4.53 (Red: VIRCAM/Ks-band, Green: VIRCAM/H-band, Blue: HSC/i-band; H. J. McCracken et al. 2012; H. Aihara et al. 2022). et al. 2024). The overdenisty around the QG is based on the photometric redshift estimates inferred from the COSMOS2020 catalog (J. R. Weaver et al. 2022), and the follow-up observation with spectrograph is neces￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed spectra of group members with Subaru/FOCAS (the blue line), error spectra (the yellow line), and best-fitted SED from prospector (the red line). The spatial pixels (vertical axes) of 2D spectra on the upper panel are rescaled with the factor of 2. The right panels show the probability distribution of photometric redshift (the black line) and spectrophotometric redshift inferred from prospector (th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stellar mass 70% completeness in COSMOS2020 (all galaxies: the pink line, QGs: the orange line; J. R. Weaver et al. 2023). The sky blue line shows the selected completeness limit for each redshift bin (Section 3.2). The dark color map shows the galaxy numbers at each redshift and stellar mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: compares the average and standard deviation of the galaxy number density around SFGs and QGs at 1 < z < 5 (where the average number density in COS￾MOS is δ = 0). We find that the average overdensity of QGs is 2–3σ higher than that of SFGs at z ≲ 3, suggest￾ing that they may preferentially be located in overden￾sity regions. The significance is decreased at higher red￾shifts, but there is two significant hi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left Panel: Fraction of QGs in overdensity bins (3rd nearest neighbor method). The uncertainty of the quiescent fraction is computed from (Bayesian) binomial confidence intervals (E. Cameron 2011). The fraction is shown only if there are more than four galaxies at each density bin. Right Panel: Fraction of QGs in overdensity bins (10th nearest neighbor method). 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 log10(M* [M ]) 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of QGs in stellar mass bins. The uncer￾tainty is as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: QG fraction as functions of stellar mass and envi￾ronment at 1 < z < 5. Environment is defined by three types (Overdensity: log (1 + δ) > 1, Field: 0 < log (1 + δ) < 1, and Underdensity: log (1 + δ) < 0). The rainbow color shows the quiescent fraction at each stellar mass bin and density bin. The gray region represents no galaxies due to our sam￾ple selection (Section 3.2). and environmental quenching (a2)… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left Panel: Environmental quenching efficiency of galaxies as a function of stellar mass. Right Panel: Mass quenching efficiency of galaxies as a function of overdensity value (3rd nearest neighbor method). where L is the likelihood, i represents over all galaxies in each redshift bin, and Pi = p(Yi = 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: compares the maximum likelihood estimates of the partial regression coefficients ( ˆa1, aˆ2) in the anal￾ysis. The results show positive correlations for all pa￾rameters even at high redshift. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the correlation with stellar mass is stronger than environment. However, even considering the mass corre￾lation by applying the multivariable logistic regression, correlation of environme… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Massive quiescent galaxies (QGs) at high redshifts are likely progenitors of massive elliptical galaxies in the local Universe. Recent observations, such as the discovery of QGs in overdensity (galaxy groups and proto-clusters) at high redshifts, have highlighted the importance of the relationship between star formation activity in galaxies and the surrounding environment. We spectroscopically confirm a galaxy group associated with a massive QG at $z_\mathrm{spec}=4.53$ from the Lyman break feature using Subaru/FOCAS. This group consists of at least three star-forming galaxies within 150 pkpc of the QG, which suggests the importance of physical association with other galaxies for galaxy quenching. In order to understand the role of the surrounding environment, we also perform a statistical analysis to characterize the typical environment of QGs at high redshifts. By selecting QGs using the SFR-based selection in the COSMOS field, we find that the fraction of QGs is higher in group or cluster-like environment at $1<z_\mathrm{phot}<5$. This means some of the processes that regulate galaxy quenching occurs more frequently in the overdensity regions. In particular, the elevated fraction of QGs within small-scale overdensities ($<100\mathrm{-}300$ pkpc) at $z>2$ demonstrates that environmental quenching (primarily driven by galaxy mergers and interactions) plays a major role in the formation and evolution of massive QGs at high redshifts.

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 manuscript spectroscopically confirms a galaxy group at z_spec=4.53 around a massive quiescent galaxy using Subaru/FOCAS, with at least three star-forming galaxies within 150 pkpc, and performs a statistical analysis of quiescent galaxy (QG) environments in the COSMOS field. Using SFR-based selection and photometric redshifts for 1<z_phot<5, it reports higher QG fractions in group/cluster-like overdensities, with an elevated signal at small scales (<100-300 pkpc) for z>2, concluding that environmental quenching (primarily mergers and interactions) plays a major role in massive QG formation and evolution at high redshift.

Significance. The single spectroscopically confirmed group provides direct evidence of physical association at z>4. If the statistical small-scale overdensity signal survives rigorous checks for projection effects and selection biases, the result would add useful observational support for environmental contributions to quenching at 1<z<5, an area where current consensus is still developing. The paper's reliance on direct counts and fractions (rather than parameter-fitted models) is a methodological strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [COSMOS statistical analysis and abstract] The central claim that elevated QG fractions within <100-300 pkpc overdensities at z>2 demonstrate environmental quenching via mergers rests on interpreting these as physical associations. However, the statistical analysis (described in the abstract and the COSMOS results section) uses photometric redshifts without quantifying line-of-sight projection contamination. At z≈3, photo-z scatter σ_z/(1+z)≈0.02 corresponds to ~20 Mpc comoving uncertainty (using c/H(z)≈980 Mpc per unit redshift), while 100-300 pkpc physical is only 0.4-1.2 Mpc comoving; this scale mismatch means apparent small-scale overdensities are likely dominated by chance alignments rather than true environments.
  2. [Methods and results sections on statistical analysis] The manuscript lacks essential details on sample completeness, error bars or uncertainties on the reported QG fractions, definition of control samples for field versus overdense regions, and any robustness tests (e.g., varying photo-z cuts or mock catalogs) for the environmental trends. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate whether the reported elevation in overdense regions is statistically significant or driven by selection effects.
  3. [Sample selection and abstract] The SFR-based selection of QGs is assumed to cleanly separate quiescent from star-forming galaxies without significant contamination or bias from dust-obscured star formation or other effects, but no validation (e.g., via UVJ colors, specific SFR thresholds with uncertainties, or cross-checks with the spectroscopic subsample) is provided. This assumption is load-bearing for both the single-group interpretation and the population statistics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and text should more explicitly separate the single spectroscopically confirmed group (a strength) from the photometric statistical results to avoid conflating their reliability.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for physical versus comoving scales and redshift ranges should be used consistently (e.g., always specifying pkpc vs. ckpc and z_spec vs. z_phot).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have identified important areas for clarification and strengthening of our analysis. We address each major point below and will incorporate the suggested improvements into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [COSMOS statistical analysis and abstract] The central claim that elevated QG fractions within <100-300 pkpc overdensities at z>2 demonstrate environmental quenching via mergers rests on interpreting these as physical associations. However, the statistical analysis (described in the abstract and the COSMOS results section) uses photometric redshifts without quantifying line-of-sight projection contamination. At z≈3, photo-z scatter σ_z/(1+z)≈0.02 corresponds to ~20 Mpc comoving uncertainty (using c/H(z)≈980 Mpc per unit redshift), while 100-300 pkpc physical is only 0.4-1.2 Mpc comoving; this scale mismatch means apparent small-scale overdensities are likely dominated by chance alignments rather than true environments.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation on projection effects. The scale mismatch between photo-z uncertainties and the physical scales probed is a valid concern that could affect the interpretation of small-scale signals. While our analysis uses a redshift window matched to the expected environment size, we did not provide an explicit quantification of contamination. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection estimating the line-of-sight contamination fraction using the reported photo-z error distribution and will include a robustness test by cross-matching with available spectroscopic redshifts in the COSMOS field to assess the purity of the overdensity signal at <300 pkpc. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and results sections on statistical analysis] The manuscript lacks essential details on sample completeness, error bars or uncertainties on the reported QG fractions, definition of control samples for field versus overdense regions, and any robustness tests (e.g., varying photo-z cuts or mock catalogs) for the environmental trends. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate whether the reported elevation in overdense regions is statistically significant or driven by selection effects.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological details are essential for assessing the reliability of the results. The original submission emphasized the primary findings but did not fully document these aspects. In the revised version, we will expand the Methods section to include: (i) completeness estimates derived from the COSMOS catalog as a function of mass and redshift, (ii) binomial uncertainties on all reported QG fractions, (iii) an explicit definition of the control (field) sample using a density threshold below the median, and (iv) robustness tests including variations in photo-z quality cuts and a simple mock-catalog assessment of selection biases. These additions will be accompanied by updated figures and tables. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Sample selection and abstract] The SFR-based selection of QGs is assumed to cleanly separate quiescent from star-forming galaxies without significant contamination or bias from dust-obscured star formation or other effects, but no validation (e.g., via UVJ colors, specific SFR thresholds with uncertainties, or cross-checks with the spectroscopic subsample) is provided. This assumption is load-bearing for both the single-group interpretation and the population statistics.

    Authors: The SFR-based selection follows established criteria from the COSMOS literature. We acknowledge that dust-obscured star formation could introduce contamination and that explicit validation strengthens the claim. For the statistical sample, we will add a direct comparison between SFR-selected and UVJ-selected quiescent samples in the revised manuscript to demonstrate consistency. For the spectroscopically confirmed z=4.53 group, the central galaxy's quiescent nature is supported by its Lyman-break spectrum and absence of emission lines; we will include the specific sSFR threshold with associated uncertainties and note the limited size of the spectroscopic subsample for cross-checks. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational counts and fractions

full rationale

The paper reports a single spectroscopic confirmation plus direct statistical fractions of SFR-selected QGs in projected overdensities from COSMOS photometry. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are defined in terms of the target result; the central claim follows from counting galaxies in bins of local density and redshift. This is self-contained observational analysis with no load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard distance conversions in a flat Lambda-CDM cosmology and on the assumption that photometric redshifts and SFR estimates are sufficiently accurate for environment classification.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with standard parameters for converting redshifts to physical distances in pkpc
    Invoked when reporting physical scales such as 150 pkpc and 100-300 pkpc.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1214 out tokens · 58299 ms · 2026-05-10T16:06:23.283384+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

137 extracted references · 136 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122 14Kakimoto et al

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  3. [3]

    2022, Univ, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554 ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Colina, L., Crespo-Gomez, A., et al

    Alberts, S., & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  4. [4]

    2006, ApJL, 645, L9, doi: 10.1086/505652 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ando, M., Ohta, K., Iwata, I., et al. 2006, ApJL, 645, L9, doi: 10.1086/505652 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/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1086/505652 2006

  5. [5]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 373, 1195–1202

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x 2006

  6. [6]

    , year = 2000, month = sep, volume =

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113, doi: 10.1086/309323

    work page doi:10.1086/309323 2000

  7. [7]

    S., Marchesini, D., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Marchesini, D., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L10

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l10 2013

  8. [8]

    Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2620

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2620 2020

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  10. [10]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1500 2022

  11. [11]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Wilkinson, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad088

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad088 2023

  12. [12]

    R., & Berlind, A

    Blanton, M. R., & Berlind, A. A. 2007, ApJ, 664, 791, doi: 10.1086/512478

    work page doi:10.1086/512478 2007

  13. [13]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Bohlin, R. C., Gordon, K. D., & Tremblay, P. E. 2014, PASP, 126, 711, doi: 10.1086/677655

    work page doi:10.1086/677655 2014

  14. [14]

    2016, A&A, 596, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629221

    Boselli, A., Roehlly, Y., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629221

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629221 2016

  15. [15]

    G., Lucey, J

    Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R., & Ellis, R. S. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/254.4.601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.4.601 1992

  16. [16]

    A., Gonzalez, A

    Brodwin, M., Stanford, S. A., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/138

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/138 2013

  17. [17]

    and Copin, Y

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  18. [18]

    1984, ApJ, 285, 426, doi: 10.1086/162519

    Butcher, H., & Oemler, A., J. 1984, ApJ, 285, 426, doi: 10.1086/162519

    work page doi:10.1086/162519 1984

  19. [19]

    and Kinney, Anne L

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  20. [20]

    2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    work page doi:10.1071/as10046 2011

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023a, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

  22. [22]

    C., McLeod , D

    Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 520, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad369

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2092 2024

  24. [24]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  25. [25]

    Galactic

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  26. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    Chartab, N., Mobasher, B., Darvish, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd 2020

  27. [27]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/127 2013

  28. [28]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b 2017

  29. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  30. [30]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  31. [31]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  32. [32]

    T., Daddi, E., Sargent, M

    Coogan, R. T., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1446

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1446 2018

  33. [33]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113 de Graaff, A., Setton, D

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M., & Xie, L. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01724, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01724 De Lucia, G., Fon...

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/113 2016

  34. [34]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1950 2021

  35. [35]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    work page doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  37. [37]

    and Peirani, S

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265 2016

  38. [38]

    H., Balogh, M

    Edward, A. H., Balogh, M. L., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3751

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3751 2024

  39. [39]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Wild, V., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.127779 2024

  40. [40]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, doi: 10.33232/001c.129235

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Bickley, R., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, doi: 10.33232/001c.129235

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.129235 2025

  41. [41]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 Euclid Collaboration, Moneti, A., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142361 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842 Environments of quiesc...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 2022

  42. [42]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  43. [43]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78 2024

  44. [44]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x 2005

  45. [45]

    LEGA-C stellar populations scaling relations. I: Chemo-archaeological downsizing trends at z~0.7

    Gallazzi, A. R., Zibetti, S., van der Wel, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.07952

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07952 2025

  46. [46]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680 G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680 G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab206

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21680 2017

  47. [47]

    Gould, K. M. L., Brammer, G., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accadc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accadc 2023

  48. [48]

    , year = 1972, month = aug, volume =

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  49. [49]

    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

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

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c

    Hashimoto, T., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Fudamoto, Y., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c 2023

  51. [51]

    J., Oesch, P

    Herard-Demanche, T., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf030

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf030 2025

  52. [52]

    L., et al

    Hewitt, G., Sarron, F., Balogh, M. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf932

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf932 2025

  53. [53]

    K., Geach, J

    Hine, N. K., Geach, J. E., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2448

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2448 2016

  54. [54]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  55. [55]

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

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

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

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  57. [57]

    2012, ApJS, 203, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23

    Hsieh, B.-C., Wang, W.-H., Hsieh, C.-C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23 2012

  58. [58]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1568, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

    Hu, W., Papovich, C., Shen, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1568, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1 2025

  59. [59]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  60. [60]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  61. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Miyaji, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf 2022

  62. [62]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b 2023

  63. [63]

    2025, title A merging pair of massive quiescent galaxies at z = 3.44 in the Cosmic Vine , , 697, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Farcy, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453211 2025

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Jespersen, C. K., Carnall, A. C., & Lovell, C. C. 2025, ApJL, 988, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb7c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adeb7c 2025

  65. [65]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348540 2024

  66. [66]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  67. [67]

    2024, title A Massive Quiescent Galaxy in a Group Environment at z = 4.53 , , 963, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1

    Kakimoto, T., Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1 2024

  68. [68]

    S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al

    Kalita, B. S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 917, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16dc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac16dc 2021

  69. [69]

    2002, PASJ, 54, 819, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.819

    Kashikawa, N., Aoki, K., Asai, R., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 819, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.819

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/54.6.819 2002

  70. [70]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x 2004

  71. [71]

    F., et al

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Papovich, C., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75 2017

  72. [72]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9 2026

  73. [73]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8

    Kubo, M., Umehata, H., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8 2021

  74. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2297

    Valentino, F. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2297 2024

  75. [75]

    2026, A&A, 705, A214, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555947

    Lagache, G., Xiao, M., Beelen, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A214, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555947

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555947 2026

  76. [76]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Bravo, M., Tobar, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1024

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1024 2024

  77. [77]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Valentino, F., Wright, R. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2626 2025

  78. [78]

    2008, ApJ, 674, 70, doi: 10.1086/524702

    Lai, K., Huang, J.-S., Fazio, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 70, doi: 10.1086/524702

    work page doi:10.1086/524702 2008

  79. [79]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692, doi: 10.1086/157917

    work page doi:10.1086/157917 1980

  80. [80]

    C., Cucciati, O., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Lemaux, B. C., Cucciati, O., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039346 2022

Showing first 80 references.