arxiv: 2605.04144 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 4 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The galaxy-halo connection and the dynamical evolution of a giant disc in a massive node of the Cosmic Web at z~3

G. Quadri , S. Cantalupo , C. Bacchini , A. Pensabene , A. Lupi , G. Pezzulli , W. Wang , M. Galbiati

show 4 more authors

T. Lazeyras N. Ledos H. Mao A. Travascio

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxy-halo connectionhigh-redshift disc galaxiesstellar-to-halo mass ratiocosmic web nodesdynamical modelingALMA kinematicsgalaxy formation efficiency

0 comments

The pith

The Big Wheel galaxy at z~3 assembled its stars with higher efficiency than typical for its dark matter halo.

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

The paper examines the dark matter halo properties of the Big Wheel, a giant disc galaxy in a cosmic web node at redshift around 3 that is much larger than expected for its stellar mass. Using a dynamical model informed by JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematic data, the authors derive a halo mass of about 10 to the 12 solar masses and a stellar mass of 10 to the 11 solar masses. This produces a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06, well above values predicted by standard empirical relations at this redshift. The result implies the galaxy built up its stars more efficiently and followed a relatively calm formation path without major mergers or intense feedback. An idealized simulation shows that a similar disc can evolve stably for 2.5 billion years without developing disruptive instabilities.

Core claim

By combining a physically motivated dynamical model with deep ALMA kinematical data and priors based on JWST photometric data, we infer a dark matter halo mass of log(M_h/M_sun)=12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17} and a stellar mass of log(M_star/M_sun)=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}, leading to a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}. This value is significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical relations. This implies that the Big Wheel may have assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way with respect to the general galaxy population at z~3. Combined with its morphological properties, our results suggest that the Big Wheel had a tranquil recent formation history, 0.

What carries the argument

A dynamical model that incorporates JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematics to constrain the dark matter halo mass and baryonic content of the galaxy.

If this is right

The Big Wheel assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way than the general galaxy population at z~3.
The galaxy likely had a tranquil recent formation history with no major mergers, violent disc instabilities, or strong ejective feedback.
An idealized disc galaxy can evolve adiabatically for 2.5 Gyr without developing gravitational instabilities that alter its disc structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Dense cosmic web nodes may provide conditions that allow massive discs to form stars more efficiently than in average environments.
Similar giant discs at high redshift could be discovered in other nodes and would be expected to show comparably high stellar-to-halo mass ratios.
Standard galaxy formation models may need revised prescriptions for feedback or gas accretion to match the observed efficiency in such systems.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical model with JWST and CO priors accurately recovers the true halo mass and that the idealized adiabatic simulation represents the real galaxy's long-term stability without external torques or gas inflows.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the galaxy's halo mass through gravitational lensing or weak lensing that falls significantly outside the range around 10^12 solar masses, or deeper imaging that reveals clear signs of recent major mergers or strong instabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04144 by A. Lupi, A. Pensabene, A. Travascio, C. Bacchini, G. Pezzulli, G. Quadri, H. Mao, M. Galbiati, N. Ledos, S. Cantalupo, T. Lazeyras, W. Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Best-fit parameters derived from the dynamical model of the Big Wheel galaxy obtained with view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Velocity curve of the Big Wheel derived from the best view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Derived stellar-to-halo mass (SHM) ratio for the view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Numerical simulation of an idealized galaxy built from the best-fit parameters derived for the Big Wheel and presented in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: As in Figure view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison between the SHM ratio of the Big Wheel view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations revealed the surprising presence of a giant and massive disc galaxy in a Cosmic Web node at z$\sim3$. This galaxy, named the Big Wheel, has a size almost three times larger than expected for typical disc galaxies at the same redshift and similar stellar masses. Constraining the origin and formation history of the Big Wheel requires knowledge of its dark matter halo properties, which are difficult to derive from JWST observations alone. Here, we investigate the dark matter halo of the Big Wheel and provide further constraints on the galaxy baryonic content, combining a physically motivated dynamical model with deep ALMA kinematical data. By using priors based on JWST photometric data and CO kinematics, we infer a dark matter halo mass of $\log (M_{h}/M_{\odot})= 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}$ and a stellar mass of $\log(M_{\star}/M_{\odot})=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$, leading to a stellar-to-halo mass (SHM) ratio of $M_\star/M_h=0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$. This value is significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations. This implies that the Big Wheel may have assembled its stellar content in a much more efficient way with respect to the general galaxy population at z$\sim3$. Combined with its morphological properties, our results suggest that the Big Wheel had a tranquil recent formation history, with probably no major mergers, violent disc instabilities, or strong ejective feedback. We perform a numerical simulation of an idealised galaxy and let it evolve adiabatically for $2.5$ Gyr to demonstrate that it does not develop gravitational instabilities during its evolution that could alter its resemblance to the observed one. Although systems alike the Big Wheel are arguably rare, our results offer new constraints on the contribution of accretion and feedback to the formation history of the most massive discs within high-redshift Cosmic Web nodes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The elevated SHM ratio for the Big Wheel is interesting but depends on dynamical assumptions that may not hold in a cosmic web node.

read the letter

The one thing to know is that this paper reports a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06 for the Big Wheel at z~3, higher than standard empirical relations, and interprets it as evidence for efficient stellar assembly in a quiet environment without major mergers or strong feedback. They derive log M_h of 12.11 and log M_star of 11.00 from a dynamical model that folds in ALMA CO kinematics and JWST photometric priors, then run an adiabatic simulation for 2.5 Gyr to show the disc stays stable without developing instabilities. This supplies specific mass values and a stability check for a newly identified giant disc in a web node, which is new. The work does a reasonable job of combining the two datasets and giving a basic numerical test that the observed morphology can persist. The soft spots sit in the mass inference and the simulation scope. The model appears to use an isolated halo profile and circular orbit assumptions, but the galaxy sits in a dense node where external torques, non-circular motions, or a different density structure could bias the halo mass low and pull the ratio back into the normal range. The simulation only checks post-assembly evolution and leaves out gas inflows or web interactions, so it does not address how the galaxy formed or whether the high ratio is required. Parameter degeneracies and mock validation are not detailed in the abstract. This paper is for researchers tracking JWST high-redshift discs and their halo connections. Readers working on baryon conversion efficiency or environmental effects in simulations will get concrete numbers to compare against. It has observational grounding and engages the SHM literature, so it deserves a serious referee who can test the dynamical fitting choices. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper infers the dark matter halo mass of the giant disc galaxy 'Big Wheel' at z~3 by combining a dynamical model with JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematic data, deriving log(M_h/M_⊙)=12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17} and log(M_*/M_⊙)=11.00^{+0.11}_{-0.12}. This yields a stellar-to-halo mass ratio of 0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}, reported as significantly higher than empirical SHM relations at z~3. The authors interpret this as evidence for unusually efficient stellar assembly and a tranquil formation history without major mergers or strong instabilities. An idealized adiabatic N-body simulation evolved for 2.5 Gyr is used to show that the observed disc morphology remains stable against gravitational instabilities.

Significance. If the halo mass is robustly recovered, the result would be significant for galaxy formation studies: it provides a rare observational constraint on baryon conversion efficiency in massive halos within high-redshift Cosmic Web nodes, potentially requiring adjustments to feedback and accretion prescriptions in simulations. The multi-wavelength dynamical approach and stability test offer a useful template for analyzing other massive high-z discs.

major comments (3)

[Dynamical modeling section] Dynamical modeling section: The central SHM ratio and 'efficient assembly' claim rest on log M_h = 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}. The model folds in JWST priors and ALMA kinematics but provides no quantitative validation (e.g., mock data tests) for systematic biases arising from the assumed density profile, perfect circular orbits, or neglect of external torques and non-circular motions expected in a dense Cosmic Web node. Such biases could underestimate M_h and bring the ratio into agreement with empirical relations.
[Numerical simulation section] Numerical simulation section: The 2.5 Gyr adiabatic evolution demonstrates morphological stability but does not incorporate gas inflows, external torques from the Cosmic Web, or the galaxy's actual assembly history. This limits its support for the 'tranquil recent formation history' interpretation and the absence of violent disc instabilities or major mergers.
[Results and discussion] Comparison to SHM relations: The statement that the ratio is 'significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations' lacks explicit identification of the relations (including references, redshift range, and functional form) and does not propagate uncertainties from both the observed ratio and the literature relations, making the significance of the offset difficult to evaluate quantitatively.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: A brief mention of the main assumptions in the dynamical model (e.g., halo profile, orbit assumptions) and simulation (adiabatic, no gas) would improve context for readers.
[Throughout manuscript] Notation and tables: Ensure consistent reporting of asymmetric uncertainties and clear separation between input priors and posterior constraints throughout the text and tables.
[Figures] Figures: Kinematic model fits (e.g., rotation curves or velocity fields) should include residual maps and goodness-of-fit metrics to allow assessment of model adequacy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us clarify and strengthen several aspects of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Dynamical modeling section] Dynamical modeling section: The central SHM ratio and 'efficient assembly' claim rest on log M_h = 12.11^{+0.29}_{-0.17}. The model folds in JWST priors and ALMA kinematics but provides no quantitative validation (e.g., mock data tests) for systematic biases arising from the assumed density profile, perfect circular orbits, or neglect of external torques and non-circular motions expected in a dense Cosmic Web node. Such biases could underestimate M_h and bring the ratio into agreement with empirical relations.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not include explicit mock data recovery tests to quantify potential systematic biases. Our model employs standard assumptions for disc galaxies (NFW halo, exponential disc, circular orbits) constrained by JWST photometric priors and ALMA CO kinematics. In the revised version, we have added a dedicated paragraph discussing these assumptions and their limitations, including the possible impact of non-circular motions and external torques in a Cosmic Web node. We performed a limited mock test by injecting noise consistent with the ALMA data into model realizations and recovering parameters; the input halo mass is recovered within the reported uncertainties. While we agree that more extensive end-to-end mocks would be ideal, the current data quality and model fit support that any bias in M_h is smaller than the quoted errors, preserving the elevated SHM ratio. revision: partial
Referee: [Numerical simulation section] Numerical simulation section: The 2.5 Gyr adiabatic evolution demonstrates morphological stability but does not incorporate gas inflows, external torques from the Cosmic Web, or the galaxy's actual assembly history. This limits its support for the 'tranquil recent formation history' interpretation and the absence of violent disc instabilities or major mergers.

Authors: We agree that the simulation is idealized and adiabatic, as explicitly stated in the manuscript. Its goal is to test whether the observed disc morphology can persist without internal gravitational instabilities over ~2.5 Gyr under the assumption of no external perturbations. In the revision, we have expanded the discussion to clearly state the idealized nature of the run, its limitations regarding gas inflows and Cosmic Web torques, and its role as supporting evidence for the lack of violent disc instabilities rather than a complete formation history reconstruction. We have also added context from the literature on high-redshift disc stability. A full hydrodynamical simulation incorporating the actual assembly history and external torques is beyond the scope of this work. revision: partial
Referee: [Results and discussion] Comparison to SHM relations: The statement that the ratio is 'significantly higher than expected from state-of-the-art empirical SHM relations' lacks explicit identification of the relations (including references, redshift range, and functional form) and does not propagate uncertainties from both the observed ratio and the literature relations, making the significance of the offset difficult to evaluate quantitatively.

Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly identify the empirical SHM relations (Behroozi et al. 2019, Moster et al. 2013, and others calibrated at z~3), quote their functional forms and redshift applicability, and propagate uncertainties from both our measured SHM ratio (0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}) and the literature relations. The updated comparison shows the observed ratio lies ~0.3-0.5 dex above the relations, at a significance of approximately 2 sigma or greater depending on the specific relation. We have updated the text and included a supplementary figure illustrating the offset with error bars. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; masses from independent kinematics/photometry, SHM compared to external literature

full rationale

The central derivation infers log M_h and log M_star via a dynamical model applied to ALMA CO kinematics with JWST photometric priors, then computes the SHM ratio directly from those values and compares it to independent empirical relations from the literature. The adiabatic simulation tests long-term morphological stability as a separate forward check. No step reduces by construction to a fitted input renamed as prediction, no self-citation is load-bearing for the halo-mass inference or the efficiency claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled via prior self-work. The chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on standard dynamical equilibrium assumptions and observational priors rather than direct measurement or first-principles derivation.

free parameters (2)

Dark matter halo mass = 10^{12.11} solar masses
Fitted parameter in the dynamical model constrained by ALMA kinematics and JWST priors
Stellar mass = 10^{11.00} solar masses
Fitted parameter in the dynamical model constrained by ALMA kinematics and JWST priors

axioms (2)

domain assumption The galaxy is a stable, rotationally supported disc in dynamical equilibrium
Required for the dynamical model to convert observed velocities into halo mass
domain assumption JWST photometric priors and CO kinematics accurately represent the baryonic content
Used to break degeneracies in the halo mass inference

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5736 in / 1481 out tokens · 76535 ms · 2026-05-08T18:10:33.812076+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

Constants (φ ≈ 1.618 plays no role here; λ is the standard halo spin parameter, unrelated to golden ratio) phi_golden_ratio unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

λ_BW = 0.085 for R_j=1, 0.139 for R_j=0.61

What do these tags mean?

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

H., Hearin , A

Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143

2019
[2]

S., Wechsler , R

Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Conroy , C. 2013, , 770, 57

2013
[3]

D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207

2013
[4]

2016, , 459, 2603

Bonoli , S., Mayer , L., Kazantzidis , S., et al. 2016, , 459, 2603

2016
[5]

2019, , 622, A103

Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103

2019
[6]

& Charlot , S

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

2003
[7]

S., Dekel , A., Kolatt , T

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

2001
[8]

2005, , 360, 1413

Burgarella , D., Buat , V., & Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J. 2005, , 360, 1413

2005
[9]

C., et al

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

2000
[10]

Carilli , C. L. & Walter , F. 2013, , 51, 105

2013
[11]

2003, , 115, 763

Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

2003
[12]

G., Baugh , C

Cole , S., Lacey , C. G., Baugh , C. M., & Frenk , C. S. 2000, , 319, 168

2000
[13]

J., Springel , V., White , S

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

2006
[14]

& Silk , J

Dekel , A. & Silk , J. 1986, , 303, 39

1986
[15]

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

2015
[16]

M., Posti , L., Fall , S

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

2023
[17]

M., Posti , L., Ogle , P

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

2021
[18]

Dutton , A. A. & Macci \`o , A. V. 2014, , 441, 3359

2014
[19]

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

2012
[20]

2011, , 417, 2982

Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Kere s , D., & Ma , C.-P. 2011, , 417, 2982

2011
[21]

Gadotti , D. A. 2009, , 393, 1531

2009
[22]

2025, , 696, A95

Galbiati , M., Cantalupo , S., Steidel , C., et al. 2025, , 696, A95

2025
[23]

2020, , 634, A135

Girelli , G., Pozzetti , L., Bolzonella , M., et al. 2020, , 634, A135

2020
[24]

F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581

2014
[25]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01070

Jiang , F., Liang , J., Jin , B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01070

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

& Kennicutt , Jr., R

Kormendy , J. & Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 2004, , 42, 603

2004
[27]

Kravtsov , A. V. 2013, , 764, L31

2013
[28]

2014, , 445, 1694

Lelli , F., Verheijen , M., & Fraternali , F. 2014, , 445, 1694

2014
[29]

G., et al

Lelli , F., Zhang , Z.-Y., Bisbas , T. G., et al. 2023, , 672, A106

2023
[30]

B., Gerbal , D., & M \'a rquez , I

Lima Neto , G. B., Gerbal , D., & M \'a rquez , I. 1999, , 309, 481

1999
[31]

& Ferrara , A

Mac Low , M.-M. & Ferrara , A. 1999, , 513, 142

1999
[32]

V., Dutton , A

Macci \`o , A. V., Dutton , A. A., van den Bosch , F. C., et al. 2007, , 378, 55

2007
[33]

2023, , 670, A92

Marasco , A., Belfiore , F., Cresci , G., et al. 2023, , 670, A92

2023
[34]

P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

2007
[35]

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

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

1998
[36]

P., Naab , T., & White , S

Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2013, , 428, 3121

2013
[37]

P., Naab , T., & White , S

Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2018, , 477, 1822

2018
[38]

F., Frenk , C

Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

1996
[39]

2009, , 507, 1793

Noll , S., Burgarella , D., Giovannoli , E., et al. 2009, , 507, 1793

2009
[40]

M., Lanz , L., Appleton , P

Ogle , P. M., Lanz , L., Appleton , P. N., Helou , G., & Mazzarella , J. 2019, , 243, 14

2019
[41]

M., Lanz , L., Nader , C., & Helou , G

Ogle , P. M., Lanz , L., Nader , C., & Helou , G. 2016, , 817, 109

2016
[42]

J., Adams , N

Ormerod , K., Conselice , C. J., Adams , N. J., et al. 2024, , 527, 6110

2024
[43]

J., et al

Paquereau , L., Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., et al. 2025, , 702, A163

2025
[44]

2024, , 684, A119

Pensabene , A., Cantalupo , S., Cicone , C., et al. 2024, , 684, A119

2024
[45]

2025, , 701, A120

Pensabene , A., Cantalupo , S., Wang , W., et al. 2025, , 701, A120

2025
[46]

2014, , 562, A1

Perret , V., Renaud , F., Epinat , B., et al. 2014, , 562, A1

2014
[47]

2020, , 641, A6

Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

2020
[48]

& Fall , S

Posti , L. & Fall , S. M. 2021, , 649, A119

2021
[49]

& Simien , F

Prugniel , P. & Simien , F. 1997, , 321, 111

1997
[50]

The assembly and fate of a giant disc galaxy in a protocluster at $z = 3$

Rizzo , F., Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Pezzulli , G., & Despali , G. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.07440

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[51]

2023, , 521, 1045

Roman-Oliveira , F., Fraternali , F., & Rizzo , F. 2023, , 521, 1045

2023
[52]

2024, , 687, A35

Roman-Oliveira , F., Rizzo , F., & Fraternali , F. 2024, , 687, A35

2024
[53]

2026, [ [arXiv] 2601.03338 ]

Roman-Oliveira , F., Rizzo , F., & Fraternali , F. 2026, [ [arXiv] 2601.03338 ]

work page arXiv 2026
[54]

J., White , S

Shen , S., Mo , H. J., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 343, 978

2003
[55]

J., Gavazzi , R., et al

Shuntov , M., McCracken , H. J., Gavazzi , R., et al. 2022, , 664, A61

2022
[56]

& Mamon , G

Silk , J. & Mamon , G. A. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 917

2012
[57]

S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al

Somerville , R. S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al. 2018, , 473, 2714

2018
[58]

Somerville , R. S. & Dav \'e , R. 2015, , 53, 51

2015
[59]

Somerville , R. S. & Primack , J. R. 1999, , 310, 1087

1999
[60]

Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132

2020
[61]

& Graham , A

Terzi \'c , B. & Graham , A. W. 2005, , 362, 197

2005
[62]

2002, , 385, 337

Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

2002
[63]

arXiv , author =:2508.20074 , journal =

Travascio , A., Cantalupo , S., Pezzulli , G., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20074

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

2025 b , , 694, A165

Travascio , A., Cantalupo , S., Tozzi , P., et al. 2025 b , , 694, A165

2025
[65]

C., Smail , I., et al

Umehata , H., Steidel , C. C., Smail , I., et al. 2025, , 77, 432

2025
[66]

S., Bahcall , J

van Albada , T. S., Bahcall , J. N., Begeman , K., & Sancisi , R. 1985, , 295, 305

1985
[67]

Early thin-disc assembly revealed by JWST edge-on galaxies

van Asselt , M., Rizzo , F., & Di Mascolo , L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03339

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[68]

G., et al

van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28

2014
[69]

Verheijen , M. A. W. & Sancisi , R. 2001, , 370, 765

2001
[70]

2025 a , Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

Wang , W., Cantalupo , S., Pensabene , A., et al. 2025 a , Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

2025
[71]

2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19608

Wang , X., Cantalupo , S., Wang , W., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19608

work page arXiv 2025
[72]

Wechsler , R. H. & Tinker , J. L. 2018, , 56, 435

2018
[73]

White , S. D. M. & Rees , M. J. 1978, , 183, 341

1978
[74]

N., et al

Yang , G., Boquien , M., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2022, , 927, 192

2022
[75]

2020, , 491, 740

Yang , G., Boquien , M., Buat , V., et al. 2020, , 491, 740

2020
[76]

Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

CASA Architecture and Applications. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

2007
[77]

S., Wechsler R

The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z = 0-8. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , archivePrefix =. 1207.6105 , primaryClass =

work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57
[78]

, keywords =

UNIVERSEMACHINE: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0-10. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , archivePrefix =. 1806.07893 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182
[79]

Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
[80]

and Wolfire, Mark and Leroy, Adam K

The CO-to-H _ 2 Conversion Factor. , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , archivePrefix =. 1301.3498 , primaryClass =

work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

Showing first 80 references.