pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05284 · v1 · pith:OCEHZ5GRnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Metal-Poor Gas Accretion Drives Giant Clump Formation at 0.6 < z < 2.6

Visal Sok , Adam Muzzin , Ben Forrest , Gillian Wilson , Jialu Chen , Vivian Yun Yan Tan , Sunna Withers , Roberto Abraham
show 15 more authors
Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c} Vicente Estrada-Carpenter Kartheik G. Iyer Nicholas S. Martis Ga\"el Noirot Ghassan T. E. Sarrouh Marcin Sawicki Chris J. Willott Aur\'elien Henry Naadiyah Jagga Danilo Marchesini Ian McConachie Katherine Myers Nelson Nunes Luke Robbins
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords clumpy galaxiesmetal-poor gas accretionmass-metallicity relationhigh-redshift star-forming galaxiescosmic noongalaxy assemblygas-phase metallicity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Clumpy galaxies at cosmic noon form when metal-poor gas accretes and dilutes their metallicities.

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

The paper examines roughly 300 star-forming galaxies at redshifts 0.6 to 2.6 and reports that those hosting giant clumps sit below the mass-metallicity relation while non-clumpy galaxies sit above it. In the subset with resolved clump data, clumps inside low-metallicity hosts are younger and show higher star-formation rates than clumps inside higher-metallicity hosts. The authors also find that most clumpy galaxies are not classified as mergers from their stellar mass maps. These patterns lead the paper to conclude that the clumps are triggered by external metal-poor gas accretion rather than mergers or internal processes alone.

Core claim

In a sample of ~300 SFGs observed with LEGA-C, MOSDEF and CANUCS, clumpy galaxies generally lie below the mass-metallicity relation while non-clumpy galaxies lie above it. Clumps whose host galaxies have ΔZ ≤ 0 are younger and have higher SFRs than clumps whose hosts have ΔZ > 0, with no significant mass difference between the two populations. The majority of clumpy galaxies are not classified as mergers by Gini-M20 parameters on stellar mass maps. The results indicate that the clumpy nature of cosmic noon galaxies is linked to metal-poor gas accretion events that trigger star formation and dilute metallicities.

What carries the argument

The metallicity offset ΔZ relative to the mass-metallicity relation, which tracks whether a galaxy's integrated gas is diluted by recent metal-poor accretion and correlates with the age and SFR of its resolved clumps.

If this is right

  • Giant clump formation at these redshifts is driven primarily by external gas supply rather than major mergers.
  • Metallicity dilution serves as an observable signature of the accretion events that build clumps.
  • The scatter in the high-redshift mass-metallicity relation partly reflects recent accretion history.
  • Clump properties can be used to identify galaxies that have recently accreted metal-poor gas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of galaxy assembly at cosmic noon should include episodic metal-poor inflows to reproduce the observed clump statistics and metallicity offsets.
  • Deep HI or CO mapping of the same galaxies could test whether low-metallicity clumpy systems show higher neutral gas fractions.
  • If the pattern holds at higher redshift, the same accretion mechanism may explain the even clumpier appearance of galaxies at z > 3.

Load-bearing premise

The observed metallicity offset below the mass-metallicity relation is produced by recent metal-poor gas accretion rather than differences in star-formation efficiency, outflow loading, or selection effects in the samples.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing that clumpy galaxies below the mass-metallicity relation lack enhanced gas inflow rates or HI reservoirs compared with non-clumpy galaxies at the same mass and redshift would falsify the accretion interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05284 by Adam Muzzin, Aur\'elien Henry, Ben Forrest, Chris J. Willott, Danilo Marchesini, Ga\"el Noirot, Ghassan T. E. Sarrouh, Gillian Wilson, Ian McConachie, Jialu Chen, Kartheik G. Iyer, Katherine Myers, Luke Robbins, Marcin Sawicki, Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c}, Naadiyah Jagga, Nelson Nunes, Nicholas S. Martis, Roberto Abraham, Sunna Withers, Vicente Estrada-Carpenter, Visal Sok, Vivian Yun Yan Tan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of 2D spectra and extracted 1D spec￾tra of CANCUS galaxies. Inset figures show the composite NIRCAM image of the galaxy, with the red line denoting the MOSFIRE slit position angle and width. The dark grey regions denote wavelengths affected by strong skylines. we note that the metallicity gradient may differ from one galaxy to another. 2.2. The LEGA-C Survey We utilize the third data release of LE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The mass and SFR distribution of galaxies from LEGA-C, MOSDEF and CANUCS, color coded by redshift. Both stellar mass and SFR are derived from Dense Basis. The star-forming main sequences from R. M. M´erida et al. (2025) are shown as the dashed lines. We do not show a star-forming main sequence for the LEGA-C sample as R. M. M´erida et al. (2025) does not extend below z = 1. was used to correct for dust bas… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of the classification of clumpy and nonclumpy galaxies. We show galaxies with increasing fractional Urest luminosity from left to right, with the three left- and right-most galaxies being classified as nonclumpy and clumpy, respectively. Each row further separates galaxies by the different redshift intervals sampled by the different surveys. Each cutout is 3.6 ′′×3.6 ′′ . potential. An elliptical … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example showing how clumps are identi￾fied. Clumps are detected based on the high-contrast im￾age. This high-contrast image is obtained by subtracting the rest-frame bright map by its reconstructed smooth image (see §3.1). The reconstructed image is shown in the middle left panel. The bottom left panel shows the high-contrast image, while the bottom right shows the detected clumps (circle) and bulge (st… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass-metallicity relation for the LEGA-C sample using the R23 index. The dotted line shows the best-fit mass-metallicity relation. The right panel shows the empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) of the metallicity residual, defined to be ∆Z = Z − MZR. We find that the eCDF of clumpy galaxies is generally shifted to lower ∆Z values compared to nonclumpy galaxies, indicating that clumpy galax… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The kernel density estimate of clump masses, ages, and SED-derived SFR for clumps in galaxies with ∆Z > 0 (purple) and ∆Z < 0 (green). In general, we find that clumps in galaxies that lie below the mass-metallicity relation are younger and highly star-forming compared to clumps in galaxies that lie above the mass-metallicity rela￾tion. masses, ages and SED-derived SFR for these two sam￾ples. To improve sta… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The physical properties of kiloparsec-scale clumps in high-redshift star-forming galaxies (SFGs) contain crucial constraints on how they assemble. Building on recent work that indicates the presence of a metallicity offset in clumpy galaxies compared to nonclumpy SFGs, we analyze the chemical abundance in a large sample of ${\sim}300$ SFGs between $0.6<z<2.6$ using LEGA-C, MOSDEF and CANUCS near-infrared spectroscopic observations. We find that clumpy galaxies generally have lower gas-phase metallcities compared to the mass-metallicity relation, while nonclumpy galaxies have higher metallicities. We further investigate the relationship between the resolved stellar properties of clumps and the integrated gas-phase metallicity of the host galaxies using a subset of galaxies observed in the CANUCS fields. In particular, clumps in SFGs with metallicity below the mass-metallicity relation (i.e., $\Delta Z \leq 0$) are generally younger and have higher SFRs, compared to clumps whose host galaxies have $\Delta Z > 0$. We do not find a significant mass difference between these two clump populations. Finally, we compute the merger statistic using the Gini-M20 morphological parameters and find that the majority of clumpy galaxies are not classified as mergers based on their stellar mass maps. The results suggest that the clumpy nature of cosmic noon galaxies is linked to metal-poor gas accretion events that trigger star formation and dilute metallicities.

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 analyzes gas-phase metallicities in a sample of approximately 300 star-forming galaxies at 0.6 < z < 2.6 using LEGA-C, MOSDEF, and CANUCS near-IR spectroscopy. It reports that clumpy galaxies generally lie below the mass-metallicity relation while non-clumpy galaxies lie above it. In the CANUCS resolved subset, clumps hosted by galaxies with ΔZ ≤ 0 are younger and have higher SFRs than those in ΔZ > 0 hosts, with no significant mass difference. Gini-M20 morphological analysis indicates that the majority of clumpy galaxies are not classified as mergers. The authors conclude that the clumpy nature of cosmic-noon galaxies is linked to metal-poor gas accretion events that trigger star formation and dilute metallicities.

Significance. If the reported correlations hold after addressing methodological details, the work would offer useful observational constraints on the connection between clump formation, metallicity offsets, and non-merger morphologies at cosmic noon. The multi-survey sample size and inclusion of resolved clump properties are positive features that could help distinguish accretion-driven from merger-driven clump formation scenarios in galaxy evolution models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and central interpretation: The claim that the observed ΔZ ≤ 0 offset in clumpy galaxies is produced by metal-poor accretion is presented as the driving mechanism, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative comparison to alternative channels (e.g., variations in outflow loading factors or star-formation efficiency) that could generate the same metallicity offset, younger clumps, and higher SFRs; this leaves the causal link as an untested interpretation rather than a demonstrated result.
  2. [Results (resolved CANUCS subset)] Resolved subset analysis: The reported differences in clump age and SFR between ΔZ ≤ 0 and ΔZ > 0 hosts depend on clump identification thresholds and derived stellar properties, but without explicit details on how these thresholds were chosen or how systematics in age/SFR estimates were controlled, it is unclear whether the differences are robust or could arise from selection effects in the CANUCS data.
  3. [Morphological analysis] Morphological classification: The Gini-M20 analysis concludes that most clumpy galaxies are non-mergers, but the manuscript does not specify the exact parameter cuts, calibration against simulations, or application to stellar mass maps versus light maps, which is load-bearing for the claim that accretion (rather than mergers) drives the observed clump population.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces ΔZ without an explicit equation or definition, although the context (offset from the mass-metallicity relation) is inferable.
  2. [Abstract] The exact number of galaxies in the resolved CANUCS subset and the breakdown by survey are not stated in the abstract, which would aid assessment of statistical power.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and central interpretation: The claim that the observed ΔZ ≤ 0 offset in clumpy galaxies is produced by metal-poor accretion is presented as the driving mechanism, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative comparison to alternative channels (e.g., variations in outflow loading factors or star-formation efficiency) that could generate the same metallicity offset, younger clumps, and higher SFRs; this leaves the causal link as an untested interpretation rather than a demonstrated result.

    Authors: We agree that the interpretation of metal-poor gas accretion as the driver is based on the observed correlations rather than a quantitative exclusion of alternatives. In the revised manuscript, we have added a paragraph in the discussion section addressing possible alternative explanations, such as variations in outflow loading factors or star-formation efficiency. We have also revised the abstract to more clearly frame the conclusion as a suggested link rather than a definitive demonstration. A full quantitative comparison would require additional modeling not possible with the present data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (resolved CANUCS subset)] Resolved subset analysis: The reported differences in clump age and SFR between ΔZ ≤ 0 and ΔZ > 0 hosts depend on clump identification thresholds and derived stellar properties, but without explicit details on how these thresholds were chosen or how systematics in age/SFR estimates were controlled, it is unclear whether the differences are robust or could arise from selection effects in the CANUCS data.

    Authors: We have revised the methods section to provide explicit details on the clump identification thresholds used in the CANUCS imaging data and the criteria for selecting clumps. Additionally, we have included an analysis of potential systematics in the stellar age and SFR estimates, such as the impact of different star formation histories and dust attenuation assumptions, to demonstrate the robustness of the reported differences. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Morphological analysis] Morphological classification: The Gini-M20 analysis concludes that most clumpy galaxies are non-mergers, but the manuscript does not specify the exact parameter cuts, calibration against simulations, or application to stellar mass maps versus light maps, which is load-bearing for the claim that accretion (rather than mergers) drives the observed clump population.

    Authors: The revised manuscript now specifies the exact Gini-M20 parameter cuts employed for merger classification, references the calibration against hydrodynamic simulations, and clarifies that the analysis was performed on stellar mass maps rather than light maps. These additions ensure the morphological results are presented with full methodological transparency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; observational correlations are self-contained

full rationale

The paper reports empirical measurements from LEGA-C, MOSDEF, and CANUCS spectroscopy: clumpy galaxies show lower gas-phase metallicities relative to the mass-metallicity relation, clumps in ΔZ ≤ 0 hosts are younger with higher SFRs, and Gini-M20 statistics indicate most clumpy systems are non-mergers. The suggestion that these patterns link to metal-poor accretion is an interpretive inference from the correlations, not a derivation that reduces by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations, parameters, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that collapse the central claim to its own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation rests on standard assumptions in nebular metallicity diagnostics and morphological classification; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gas-phase metallicity derived from strong-line ratios accurately reflects the oxygen abundance of the ionized gas.
    Invoked when placing galaxies relative to the mass-metallicity relation.
  • domain assumption Gini-M20 parameters measured on stellar-mass maps correctly identify major mergers.
    Used to conclude that most clumpy galaxies are not mergers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5922 in / 1414 out tokens · 20840 ms · 2026-06-28T05:11:27.892585+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

88 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    Abdurro’uf, Lin, Y.-T., Wu, P.-F., & Akiyama, M. 2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2 2021

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 687, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449925 Bradaˇ c, M., Judeˇ z, J., Willott, C., et al

    Bacchini, C., Nipoti, C., Iorio, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449925 Bradaˇ c, M., Judeˇ z, J., Willott, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20446

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449925 2024

  4. [4]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  5. [5]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 2012

  6. [6]

    L., Patton, D

    Bustamante, S., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Sparre, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1025 2020

  7. [7]

    Bustamante, S., Sparre, M., Springel, V., & Grand, R. J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1692 Calabr` o, A., Daddi, E., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935778

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1692 2018

  8. [8]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

    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

  9. [9]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x 2003

  10. [10]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw064

    Ceverino, D., S´ anchez Almeida, J., Mu˜ noz Tu˜ n´ on, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw064 2016

  11. [11]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

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

  12. [12]

    V., & Marchuk, A

    Chugunov, I. V., & Marchuk, A. A. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag940 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x Cid Fernandes, R., P´ erez, E., Garc´ ıa Benito, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220616

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag940 2026

  13. [13]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf058 2025

  14. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3791 2023

  15. [15]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  16. [16]

    The Fraction of Clumpy Galaxies in JADES Over $2<z<9$

    Davis, M., Guhathakurta, P., Konidaris, N. P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L1, doi: 10.1086/517931 de la Vega, A., Mobasher, B., Manesh, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14972. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14972

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/517931 2007

  17. [17]

    2009a, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009a, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785

  18. [18]

    Cold streams in early massive hot haloes as the main mode of galaxy formation

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009b, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/nature07648

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.00985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00985

    Estrada-Carpenter, V., Sawicki, M., Abraham, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.00985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00985

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.00985 2025

  20. [20]

    L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada566

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada566 2025

  21. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1489 F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Fensch, J., & Bournaud, F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1489 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Shapley, A. E., Genzel, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/45 15

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1489 2021

  22. [22]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w 2025

  23. [23]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/101 2011

  24. [24]

    The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey: Initial Results From Optical and Near-Infrared Imaging

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  25. [25]

    2018, A&A, 619, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833533

    Girard, M., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833533

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833533 2018

  26. [26]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 Grønnow, A. E., Finlator, K., & Christensen, L. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1232

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

  27. [27]

    Koekemoer, A. M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/120 2012

  28. [28]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/39 2015

  29. [29]

    F., et al

    Guo, Y., Rafelski, M., Bell, E. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018 2018

  30. [30]

    1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

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

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4902

    Huang, C., Zou, H., Kong, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4902

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4902 2019

  32. [32]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

    Iyer, K., & Gawiser, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 2017

  33. [33]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 2019

  34. [34]

    M., & Salim, S

    Juneau, S., Dickinson, M., Alexander, D. M., & Salim, S. 2011, ApJ, 736, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/104 2011

  35. [35]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 537, 402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf031

  36. [36]

    S., Suzuki, T

    Kalita, B. S., Suzuki, T. L., Kashino, D., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 536, 3090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2781 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Fardal, M., Dav´ e, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 160, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14541.x Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2781 2009

  37. [37]

    J., & Ellison, S

    Kewley, L. J., & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183, doi: 10.1086/587500

    work page doi:10.1086/587500 2008

  38. [38]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  39. [39]

    A., & Kewley, L

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Kewley, L. J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 240, doi: 10.1086/425299

    work page doi:10.1086/425299 2004

  40. [40]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

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

  41. [41]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15 Le F` evre, O., Saisse, M., Mancini, D., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood,...

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15 2015

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x 2008

  43. [43]

    Additional planets and stellar models

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16268.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16268.x 2010

  44. [44]

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

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J. 2006, AJ, 131, 1184, doi: 10.1086/499158

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/421849 2004

  45. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2358

    Mandelker, N., Dekel, A., Ceverino, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2358

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2358 2017

  46. [46]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1340

    Mandelker, N., Dekel, A., Ceverino, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1340

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1340 2014

  47. [47]

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

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 2012

  48. [48]

    S., Steidel, C

    McLean, I. S., Steidel, C. C., Epps, H. W., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  49. [49]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460J, doi: 10.1117/12.924794

    work page doi:10.1117/12.924794

  50. [50]

    2018, Astronomy and Computing, 24, 129, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001 Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Blain, A

    Melchior, P., Moolekamp, F., Jerdee, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 24, 129, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001 Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Blain, A. W., Swinbank, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/151 M´ erida, R. M., Sawicki, M., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22871, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22871

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001 2018

  51. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae565

    Messa, M., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Adamo, A., Richard, J., & Claeyssens, A. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae565 2024

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Tissera, P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L82, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x 2008

  53. [53]

    D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B

    Montuori, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2010, A&A, 518, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014304

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014304 2010

  54. [54]

    2024, Nature, 636, 332, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 332, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0

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

  55. [55]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8 2013

  56. [56]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d0b 16

    Nakazato, Y., Ceverino, D., & Yoshida, N. 2024, ApJ, 975, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d0b 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d0b 2024

  57. [57]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts595

    Nelson, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts595 2013

  58. [58]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    work page doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  59. [59]

    C., & Takeuchi, T

    Omori, K. C., & Takeuchi, T. T. 2022, A&A, 660, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142858

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142858 2022

  60. [60]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x 2004

  61. [61]

    Additional planets and stellar models

    Puech, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 535, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16689.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16689.x 2010

  62. [62]

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., & Romeo, A. B. 2024, A&A, 687, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449721

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449721 2024

  63. [63]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2208

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., & Duc, P.-A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2208

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2208 2015

  64. [64]

    2017, A&A, 608, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630057

    Ribeiro, B., Le F` evre, O., Cassata, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630057

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630057 2017

  65. [65]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3345 2019

  66. [66]

    Additional planets and stellar models

    Romeo, A. B., Burkert, A., & Agertz, O. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1223, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16975.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16975.x 2010

  67. [67]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Romeo, A. B., & Wiegert, J. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19120.x S´ anchez Almeida, J., Morales-Luis, A. B., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/45

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19120.x 2011

  68. [68]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbd

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

  69. [69]

    Sarrouh, G. T. E., Muzzin, A., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43e8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad43e8 2024

  70. [70]

    Sarrouh, G. T. E., Asada, Y., Martis, N. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21685, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21685

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21685 2025

  71. [71]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5d6

    Sattari, Z., Mobasher, B., Chartab, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd5d6 2023

  72. [72]

    2007, , 172, 1, 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    work page doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  73. [73]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/72

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Kubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2016, ApJ, 821, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/72

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/72 2016

  74. [74]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 2014

  75. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f40

    Sok, V., Muzzin, A., Jablonka, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f40

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f40 2022

  76. [76]

    2025a, ApJ, 979, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad96bb

    Sok, V., Muzzin, A., Jablonka, P., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad96bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad96bb

  77. [77]

    Sok, V., Muzzin, A., Tan, V. Y. Y., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25363. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25363

    arXiv

  78. [78]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1235

    Sorba, R., & Sawicki, M. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1235

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1235 2015

  79. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty186

    Sorba, R., & Sawicki, M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty186 2018

  80. [80]

    Tan, V. Y. Y., Muzzin, A., Sarrouh, G. T. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07829

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.07829 2024

Showing first 80 references.