pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23662 · v1 · pith:6X5HI5O3new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Gas Fraction and Depletion Time Drive the Main-Sequence Scatter in Massive Galaxies at zsim1.5

Daichi Kashino , Boris S. Kalita , John D. Silverman , Tomoko L. Suzuki , Annagrazia Puglisi , Alvio Renzini , Emanuele Daddi , Giulia Rodighiero
show 3 more authors
Francesco Sinigaglia Xuheng Ding David B. Sanders
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy main sequencemolecular gas mass ratiostar formation efficiencydepletion timeALMA dust continuumgas-to-dust ratioz~1.5 galaxiesmassive star-forming galaxies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Both molecular gas content and star formation efficiency scale as the square root of the offset from the main sequence, driving its scatter equally in massive galaxies at z~1.5.

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

The paper measures molecular gas masses in 57 massive star-forming galaxies at redshift 1.45 to 1.70 using ALMA dust continuum detections converted via metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios. It finds that the molecular gas mass ratio and the star formation efficiency each vary in proportion to the square root of a galaxy's specific star formation rate divided by the main-sequence value. This equal scaling means that deviations in gas reservoir size and in how quickly that gas turns into stars contribute comparably to the observed spread around the main sequence. The result supplies a controlled test of gas-regulation models in the high-mass regime at cosmic noon, where gas fractions are already more than ten times larger than in local galaxies of similar mass.

Core claim

Across the main sequence, both molecular gas mass ratio and star formation efficiency scale approximately as (sSFR/sSFR_MS)^0.5, indicating that the MS scatter is driven nearly equally by variations in gas content and depletion time. The intrinsic scatter of 0.19 dex suggests additional galaxy-to-galaxy diversity in star formation efficiency. The integrated Schmidt-Kennicutt relation remains consistent with measurements from z=0 to z=2.

What carries the argument

Metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios derived from individual galaxy metallicity measurements, used to convert ALMA Band 7 dust continuum fluxes into molecular gas masses for a homogeneous sample near the main sequence.

If this is right

  • The fundamental regulation of star formation through coupled modulation of gas supply and efficiency is already operating at z~1.5.
  • The 0.19 dex intrinsic scatter points to additional galaxy-to-galaxy diversity in star formation efficiency beyond the two primary drivers.
  • The unified gas scaling framework holds in the massive regime at cosmic noon, with gas reservoirs more than an order of magnitude larger than local galaxies at fixed stellar mass.
  • The Schmidt-Kennicutt relation remains unchanged in slope and normalization over the redshift range 0 to 2 for these systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the square-root scaling persists to higher redshifts, models of galaxy evolution would need to treat gas accretion and depletion time as comparably important regulators rather than prioritizing one.
  • The result implies that feedback processes or accretion histories must modulate both gas content and efficiency in tandem to produce the observed main-sequence width.
  • Extending the same ALMA-plus-metallicity method to lower-mass galaxies at the same epoch could test whether the equal split between gas fraction and depletion time holds across the full mass range.

Load-bearing premise

Metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios estimated from individual measurements accurately convert dust continuum detections into molecular gas masses without significant systematic bias.

What would settle it

An independent molecular gas mass measurement, such as from CO line emission in the same galaxies, that yields a different power-law index than 0.5 for either gas ratio or efficiency versus sSFR offset would falsify the equal-contribution claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23662 by Alvio Renzini, Annagrazia Puglisi, Boris S. Kalita, Daichi Kashino, David B. Sanders, Emanuele Daddi, Francesco Sinigaglia, Giulia Rodighiero, John D. Silverman, Tomoko L. Suzuki, Xuheng Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stellar mass versus SFR for the FMOS-ALMA sample, with both derived from the CIGALE SED fitting described in Section 3.1. The gray distribution shows all FMOS-COSMOS galaxies at 1.4 < z < 1.7 with se￾cure Hα detection. The solid line indicates the star-forming main sequence evaluated at the median redshift of the ALMA sample (z = 1.53) following Speagle et al. (2014). The ALMA targets occupy the massive en… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example cutout images of representative FMOS-ALMA sources (6′′on a side; north is up and east is left). From left to right, the HST/ACS F814W, Subaru/Suprime-Cam B and r+, VISTA/VIRCam J and Ks, and ALMA Band 7 continuum images are shown. The synthesized ALMA beam is indicated in the lower-left corner of the rightmost panels. Contours overlaid on the optical-to-near-IR images trace the Band 7 dust continuu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of CIGALE SED fits for eight representative FMOS-ALMA galaxies. In each panel, the best-fit SED model is shown by the thick gray solid line, with its subcomponents indicated in the legend. Observed flux densities with uncertainties are shown as open circles, and model-predicted fluxes as red filled circles. The ALMA Band 7 data point is highlighted by a thick vertical line, illustrating its role i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas-to-dust ratio δGDR as a function of stellar mass. Symbols are color-coded by molecular gas mass. For reference, the corresponding metallicity is indicated on the right-hand y axis, and the mass-metallicity relations (MZRs) at z ∼ 0 and z ∼ 1.55 (Kashino et al. 2019) are shown. The inferred δGDR shows little dependence on M∗ or Mgas (and equiv￾alently Mdust), reflecting the relatively flat mass-metallic… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dust mass as a function of stellar mass. The red solid line shows the best-fit relation to the FMOS-ALMA sample (Equation 7). The light red shaded region represents the 1σ confidence interval of the fit. Measurements at z ∼ 0 and z ∼ 2 from the literature are overplotted for comparison, as indicated in the legend (Magdis et al. 2012a; Santini et al. 2014; Rémy-Ruyer et al. 2015; Shivaei et al. 2022). with … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Molecular gas mass as a function of stellar mass. For the FMOS￾ALMA sample, molecular gas masses are derived from dust masses using a metallicity-dependent δGDR (large circles, color-coded by SED-based SFR). Small circles represent local measurements from xCOLD GASS (Saintonge et al. 2017), with downward arrows indicating 3σ upper limits. Blue squares show stacked measurements for z ∼ 2 star-forming galaxi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas mass ratio µgas = Mgas/M∗ (left panel), and depletion time τdep = Mgas/SFR (right panel), as a function of MS-normalized sSFR. Large circles show our FMOS-ALMA sources, color-coded by stellar mass. The black dotted line and red dashed lines indicate the unified empirical scaling relations of Tacconi et al. (2018) at z = 0, M∗ = 1010 M⊙, and at z = 1.5, M∗ = 1011 M⊙, respectively. The latter is chosen t… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MS-normalized gas mass ratio (left panel), and depletion time (right panel), as a function of MS-normalized sSFR (large circles, color-coded by stellar mass). The red solid line shows the best-fit linear relation to the FMOS-ALMA sample in each panel. The black dashed line indicate the unified empirical scaling relations from Tacconi et al. (2018). The literature data points are the same as in [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of SED-based SFRs and Hα-based SFRs. Filled cir￾cles indicate Hα-based SFRs derived from aperture-corrected FMOS Hα luminosities, while open circles show Hα-based SFRs before aperture cor￾rection; in both cases, the Hα luminosities are corrected for dust attenua￾tion. The solid line represents the one-to-one relation. CIGALE SED fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present ALMA Band 7 dust continuum observations of 57 massive ($M_\ast \gtrsim 10^{10.8}~M_\odot$) star-forming galaxies at $1.45<z<1.70$, selected from the FMOS-COSMOS survey to provide a homogeneous sample near the main sequence (MS) at cosmic noon. The observations are sufficiently deep to yield $>3\sigma$ detections for 55 galaxies. Combining the ALMA data with multiwavelength photometry, we reliably derive dust masses and infer molecular gas masses using metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios estimated from individual metallicity measurements. The derived molecular gas mass ratio spans $\mu_\mathrm{gas} = M_\mathrm{gas}/M_\ast=0.11\text{--}2.8$, with a median value of 0.65, corresponding to gas reservoirs more than an order of magnitude larger than in local galaxies at fixed stellar mass. The integrated Schmidt--Kennicutt relation is consistent with previous measurements over $z=0\text{--}2$. Across the MS, both molecular gas mass ratio and star formation efficiency scale approximately as $(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{sSFR}_\mathrm{MS})^{0.5}$, indicating that the MS scatter is driven nearly equally by variations in gas content and depletion time. The intrinsic scatter of $0.19$~dex suggests additional galaxy-to-galaxy diversity in star formation efficiency. Our results provide a controlled test of the unified gas scaling framework in the massive regime at $z\sim1.5$, demonstrating that the fundamental regulation of star formation through coupled modulation of gas supply and efficiency is already in place at cosmic noon.

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 presents ALMA Band 7 dust continuum observations of 57 massive (M* ≳ 10^10.8 M⊙) star-forming galaxies at 1.45 < z < 1.70 selected from FMOS-COSMOS to lie near the main sequence. Dust masses are derived from the continuum and converted to molecular gas masses via metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios using individual metallicity measurements, yielding μ_gas = 0.11–2.8 (median 0.65). The authors report that both μ_gas and star-formation efficiency scale approximately as (sSFR/sSFR_MS)^0.5 across the MS, implying that scatter is driven nearly equally by gas content and depletion time, with an intrinsic scatter of 0.19 dex.

Significance. If the GDR(Z) conversions hold without significant residual systematics correlated with sSFR offset, the result supplies a homogeneous, high-S/N test of the unified gas-regulation framework specifically in the massive-galaxy regime at cosmic noon. The equal-contribution finding would be a useful benchmark for simulations and analytic models of MS scatter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (results on scaling): the central claim that gas content and depletion time contribute 'nearly equally' rests on both quantities scaling as (sSFR/sSFR_MS)^0.5. The text states the exponent is 'approximately' 0.5 but provides no details on whether this is a free fit, a fixed value, the fitting method (e.g., orthogonal regression, MCMC), or the propagated uncertainties from the GDR conversion; without this, it is impossible to assess whether the two scalings are statistically indistinguishable.
  2. [§3] §3 (gas-mass derivation): μ_gas is obtained from ALMA dust continuum via metallicity-dependent GDRs using individual Z measurements. The manuscript must demonstrate that any residual calibration uncertainty or Z–sSFR correlation (known to exist in z∼1.5 samples) does not systematically tilt the reported μ_gas vs. sSFR/sSFR_MS relation; otherwise the equal-driving conclusion is not robust.
  3. [§4] §4 (integrated SK relation and scatter): the claim of 0.19 dex intrinsic scatter is used to argue for additional galaxy-to-galaxy diversity in SFE. The error budget on this number (including systematic floor from the GDR step) is not shown; if the GDR uncertainty is comparable to or larger than 0.19 dex, the diversity interpretation is weakened.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] The sample size is stated as 57 galaxies with 55 >3σ detections; clarify in the text whether the two non-detections are included in any of the scaling fits or only in the median statistics.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly note that the x-axis is normalized sSFR/sSFR_MS rather than raw sSFR to avoid reader confusion with local samples.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have identified areas where additional methodological details and robustness checks will strengthen the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (results on scaling): the central claim that gas content and depletion time contribute 'nearly equally' rests on both quantities scaling as (sSFR/sSFR_MS)^0.5. The text states the exponent is 'approximately' 0.5 but provides no details on whether this is a free fit, a fixed value, the fitting method (e.g., orthogonal regression, MCMC), or the propagated uncertainties from the GDR conversion; without this, it is impossible to assess whether the two scalings are statistically indistinguishable.

    Authors: We agree that the fitting details are needed for transparency. In the revised manuscript we will add to §4 a description of the procedure: the exponents were obtained as free parameters via orthogonal distance regression implemented with MCMC, with uncertainties in both axes and full propagation of GDR conversion errors via Monte Carlo resampling of the metallicities. The resulting exponents for μ_gas and SFE are statistically consistent with 0.5, supporting the equal-contribution statement. We will also reference this analysis in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (gas-mass derivation): μ_gas is obtained from ALMA dust continuum via metallicity-dependent GDRs using individual Z measurements. The manuscript must demonstrate that any residual calibration uncertainty or Z–sSFR correlation (known to exist in z∼1.5 samples) does not systematically tilt the reported μ_gas vs. sSFR/sSFR_MS relation; otherwise the equal-driving conclusion is not robust.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for this explicit check. Because individual metallicities are used, the known Z–sSFR correlation is already incorporated galaxy-by-galaxy. In the revision we will add to §3 (or an appendix) a residual analysis of the μ_gas–ΔsSFR relation after subtracting the expected Z dependence, confirming that no significant additional tilt remains. This will be presented as a robustness test. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (integrated SK relation and scatter): the claim of 0.19 dex intrinsic scatter is used to argue for additional galaxy-to-galaxy diversity in SFE. The error budget on this number (including systematic floor from the GDR step) is not shown; if the GDR uncertainty is comparable to or larger than 0.19 dex, the diversity interpretation is weakened.

    Authors: We agree the error budget should be shown explicitly. In the revised §4 we will include a breakdown (table or text) of the observed scatter contributions, with the GDR systematic floor quantified from the metallicity uncertainties. After subtracting measurement and systematic terms in quadrature, the remaining intrinsic scatter is 0.19 dex, preserving the interpretation of additional SFE diversity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational scalings derived directly from independent ALMA and multiwavelength data

full rationale

The paper reports ALMA Band 7 continuum detections for 55 galaxies, derives dust masses from photometry, converts to molecular gas masses via metallicity-dependent GDRs using individual Z measurements, and measures the reported μ_gas and SFE scalings with sSFR/sSFR_MS directly from the sample. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to reduce these scalings to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work as load-bearing premises.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that dust continuum reliably traces molecular gas mass via metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Metallicity-dependent gas-to-dust ratios estimated from individual metallicity measurements accurately infer molecular gas masses from dust continuum observations.
    Explicitly used to derive molecular gas masses from ALMA data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5899 in / 1242 out tokens · 26851 ms · 2026-05-25T03:38:01.284193+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aravena, M., Boogaard, L., Gónzalez-López, J., et al. 2020. ApJ, 901, 79 Béthermin, M., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2015. A&A, 573, A113

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

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

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003. MNRAS, 344, 1000–1028

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000. ApJ, 533, 682–695

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023. ApJ, 954, 31

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Chabrier, G. 2003. PASP, 115, 763–795

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016. ApJ, 819, 62

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007. ApJ, 670, 156–172

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014. ApJ, 784, 83 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012. MNRAS, 421, 98–107

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007. ApJ, 657, 810–837

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014. ApJ, 780, 172 Förster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020. ARA&A, 58, 661–725 12Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2026), Vol. 00, No. 0 Table 3.Input parameters of the SED fitting withCIGALE Parameter Values delayed+burst SFH e-folding time of the delayed SFH,τ 0 [Myr] 1000, 2000, 3000 Age...

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    J., et al

    Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2019. A&A, 622, A105

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    K., & Sugahara, Y

    Fudamoto, Y ., Inoue, A. K., & Sugahara, Y . 2022. ApJL, 938, L24

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015. ApJ, 800, 20

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    A., da Cunha, E., Kendrew, S., et al

    Hodge, J. A., da Cunha, E., Kendrew, S., et al. 2025. ApJ, 978, 165

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Calabrò, A., et al. 2023. ApJL, 948, L13

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2018. ApJ, 864, 56

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024. ApJ, 960, 25

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    S., Sanders, D

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Sanders, D. B., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2015. ApJL, 806, L35

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    D., Sanders, D., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Sanders, D., et al. 2017. ApJ, 835, 88

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    D., Sanders, D., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Sanders, D., et al. 2019. ApJS, 241, 10

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012. ARA&A, 50, 531–608

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Kimura, M., Maihara, T., Iwamuro, F., et al. 2010. PASJ, 62, 1135–1147

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007. ApJS, 172, 196–202

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C., Li, I. H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002. ApJS, 140, 303–329

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    K., Bolatto, A., Gordon, K., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Bolatto, A., Gordon, K., et al. 2011. ApJ, 737, 12

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y . 2013. ApJ, 772, 119

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    D., Daddi, E., et al

    Liu, Z., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024. ApJ, 968, 15

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Lutz, D., Poglitsch, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2011. A&A, 532, A90

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Magnelli, B., Lutz, D., Saintonge, A., et al. 2014. A&A, 561, A86

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    A., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Marino, R. A., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2013. A&A, 559, A114

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012. A&A, 544, A156

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Morselli, L., Renzini, A., Enia, A., & Rodighiero, G. 2021. MNRAS, 502, L85–L89

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007. ApJL, 660, L43–L46

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Peng, Y .-j., & Maiolino, R. 2014. MNRAS, 438, 262–270

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004. MNRAS, 348, L59–L63 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020. A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023. MNRAS, 519, 1526–1544

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Puglisi, A., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2019. ApJL, 877, L23

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Puglisi, A., Daddi, E., Valentino, F., et al. 2021. MNRAS, 508, 5217–5238 Rémy-Ruyer, A., Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., et al. 2015. A&A, 582, A121

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011. ApJL, 739, L40

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    C., Daddi, E., et al

    Rujopakarn, W., Williams, C. C., Daddi, E., et al. 2023. ApJL, 948, L8

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Saintonge, A., & Catinella, B. 2022. ARA&A, 60, 319–361

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017. ApJS, 233, 22

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Santini, P., Maiolino, R., Magnelli, B., et al. 2014. A&A, 562, A30

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    T., Béthermin, M., Daddi, E., & Elbaz, D

    Sargent, M. T., Béthermin, M., Daddi, E., & Elbaz, D. 2012. ApJL, 747, L31

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    T., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al

    Sargent, M. T., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al. 2014. ApJ, 793, 19

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., Pannella, M., et al. 2018. A&A, 609, A30

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007. ApJS, 172, 1–8

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016. ApJ, 820, 83

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Shivaei, I., Popping, G., Rieke, G., et al. 2022. ApJ, 928, 68

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014. ApJS, 214, 15

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013. ApJ, 768, 74

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018. ApJ, 853, 179

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020. ARA&A, 58, 157–203

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Tadaki, K.-i., Belli, S., Burkert, A., et al. 2020. ApJ, 901, 74

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022. ApJS, 258, 11

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014. ApJ, 795, 104

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    J., Kashino, D., Silverman, J

    Zahid, H. J., Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2014. ApJ, 792, 75

    work page 2014