pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21361 · v1 · pith:NYJ7EWXKnew · submitted 2026-06-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Extended [CII] gas emission in and around a massive quiescent galaxy at z=7.3

F. Valentino , A. Pensabene , A. Weibel , A. de Graaff , D. J. Setton , P. Oesch , G. Brammer , W. M. Baker
show 11 more authors
R. Bezanson J. E. Greene K. E. Heintz K. Ito M. Lee J. Leja J. Matthee B. Wang K. E. Whitaker C. C. Williams P. Zhu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 13:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesquiescent galaxies[CII] emissiongas reservoirsgalaxy quenchingALMA observationscircumgalactic mediumoutflows
0
0 comments X

The pith

Extended [CII] emission shows a massive quiescent galaxy at z=7.3 retains a large cold gas reservoir extending far beyond its stars.

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

The paper reports ALMA detection of [CII] 158 micron emission around RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7, a massive quiescent galaxy at z=7.27, with the line extending over an effective radius of 8 kpc. Roughly 70 percent of the flux originates in a circumgalactic halo, while no dust continuum is seen at rest-frame 160 micron. Converting the [CII] luminosity yields a molecular gas mass around 10 to the 9.5 solar masses and atomic gas mass in a similar range, giving gas fractions above 20 percent and long depletion timescales. The halo shows a blueshifted velocity offset matching a prior tentative outflow signature in MgII absorption. These findings indicate that the mechanism keeping the galaxy quiescent maintains low star formation efficiency on 100 Myr timescales despite abundant fuel only 700 Myr after the Big Bang.

Core claim

The central claim is that the galaxy-scale [CII] emission converts to log(M_mol/Msun) = 9.53 and log(M_HI/Msun) between 9.46 and 10.34, with the extended halo carrying roughly twice that gas mass, while the blueshifted halo velocity is consistent with AGN-driven expulsion that may link to the suppression of star formation.

What carries the argument

The spatially extended [CII] 158 micron line emission, which traces cold molecular and atomic gas mass and reveals both the halo reservoir and the velocity offset of the circumgalactic component.

If this is right

  • The galaxy retains gas fractions above 20 percent and long depletion times across most calibration choices despite being roughly 10 times more gas-poor than typical star-forming systems at the same redshift and mass.
  • The circumgalactic halo contains about twice the gas mass of the galaxy itself.
  • The blueshifted velocity offset in the [CII] halo aligns with a past AGN-driven outflow that could be tied to quenching.
  • Whatever quenches star formation must operate effectively on 100 Myr timescales even when cold gas is abundant at early cosmic epochs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeated [CII] mapping of other high-redshift quiescent galaxies could reveal whether extended halos are a common feature of early quenching.
  • Models of galaxy formation may need to incorporate mechanisms that keep star formation efficiency low without rapidly removing all available gas.
  • Higher-resolution ALMA data on the same target could test whether the halo gas shows clear outflow kinematics or signs of ongoing accretion.

Load-bearing premise

Standard [CII]-to-gas-mass calibrations remain valid for this high-redshift quiescent system.

What would settle it

An independent CO line detection or dust-based gas mass measurement that yields a depletion timescale much shorter than the ~100 Myr values inferred here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21361 by A. de Graaff, A. Pensabene, A. Weibel, B. Wang, C. C. Williams, D. J. Setton, F. Valentino, G. Brammer, J. E. Greene, J. Leja, J. Matthee, K. E. Heintz, K. E. Whitaker, K. Ito, M. Lee, P. Oesch, P. Zhu, R. Bezanson, W. M. Baker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ALMA band 6 spectrum of RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Extended [CII] emission around RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7. Left panel: the [CII] emission is indicated by sets of contours: thick dashed yellow lines indicate the total moment-0 map within ±2σ ≈ ±390 km s−1 around the total [C II] line centroid, while solid red and blue lines indicate the emission redward ([0, 250] km s−1 ) and blueward ([−250, 0] km s−1 ) of the systemic redshift. The contours are spaced as multipl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Morphological modeling of RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maps of the [CII] emission and best-fit model of RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7 in the image plane. From left to right: untapered and tapered (HWHMuv ≈ 114 kλ) moment-0 dirty maps (±390 km s−1 ), the best-fit Gaussian model, and residuals with data contours superimposed. White contours indicate ±[2 + n]σ levels, where σ is the noise RMS and n ≥ 0 is an integer. The synthesized beam FWHM is shown in the bottom left corne… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: L[CII]–total SFR relation. The gray line and shaded area show the L[CII]–SFR relation and its scatter from Schaerer et al. (2020). Large filled symbols indicate the SFR estimates for RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7: stars mark the values for SFR100 from the low- and high-Z solutions of the spectrophotometric model￾ing in Weibel et al. (2025); the leftward triangle shows the upper limit from rest-frame optical lines emiss… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [CII], dust, and UV emission of high-redshift galax￾ies. Top panel: [CII] luminosity as a function of rest-frame UV magnitude. Bottom panel: ratio of [C II] luminosity to the un￾derlying dust continuum at 160 µm rest-frame, as a function of rest-frame UV magnitude. In both panels, the filled and empty stars indicate the [CII] emission associated with the RUBIES￾UDS-QG-z7 galaxy and the total emission inclu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gas fractions of quenched systems as a function of redshift. Purple, blue, and orange symbols indicate estimates based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of [CII] 158 micron emission in and around the most distant known massive quiescent galaxy RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7 at z = 7.27. Observed with ALMA in band 6, the [CII] line independently confirms the spectroscopic redshift from JWST/NIRSpec spectra at low and medium resolution. The emission extends over an effective radius R_eff,[CII] = 8 +/- 3 kpc, well beyond the compact stellar body traced by JWST/NIRCam (R_eff = 209 (+33/-24) pc), with a significant fraction of approximately 70% of the flux arising from a circumgalactic halo. No dust continuum is detected at rest-frame ~160 micron, setting an upper limit on the infrared luminosity of L_IR < 1.4 x 10^11 Lsun, overall consistent with expectations from rest-frame UV to near-infrared SED modeling under energy balance. Converting the galaxy-scale [CII] emission into cold gas mass, we find log(M_mol/Msun) = 9.53 (+0.32/-0.31) and log(M_HI/Msun) = 9.46-10.34, depending on the assumed calibration and metallicity. Despite being approximately 10x more gas-poor than typical star-forming galaxies at fixed redshift, stellar mass, and [CII] to gas mass conversion, RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7 retains a substantial cold gas reservoir with fractions f_gas >~ 20% and long depletion timescales across most assumptions. The extended [CII] halo carries approximately twice as much gas as the galaxy alone and shows a blueshifted velocity offset consistent with the tentative gas outflow detected in MgII absorption in previous work, suggesting a past episode of AGN-driven gas expulsion possibly linked to the suppression of star formation. The presence of a large gas reservoir in and around a massive quiescent galaxy just 700 Myr after the Big Bang implies that whatever mechanism is suppressing star formation must be remarkably effective at maintaining a low star formation efficiency on ~100 Myr timescales, even in the presence of abundant fuel.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an ALMA Band 6 detection of [CII] 158μm emission associated with the z=7.27 massive quiescent galaxy RUBIES-UDS-QG-z7. The line emission is spatially extended (R_eff,[CII]=8±3 kpc) with ~70% of the flux arising from a circumgalactic halo; no dust continuum is detected (L_IR <1.4×10^11 L_⊙). Galaxy-scale [CII] flux is converted to molecular and atomic gas masses (log M_mol/M_⊙=9.53^{+0.32}_{-0.31}; log M_HI/M_⊙=9.46–10.34) that imply f_gas≳20% and long depletion times under standard calibrations. The halo shows a blueshifted velocity offset interpreted as possible AGN-driven outflow. The central implication is that star-formation suppression at z~7 must maintain low efficiency despite abundant cold gas.

Significance. If the [CII]-to-gas conversion remains valid, the result would be significant for high-redshift galaxy evolution: it supplies direct evidence that massive quiescent systems at <700 Myr after the Big Bang can retain substantial cold-gas reservoirs (f_gas>20%) while maintaining low star-formation efficiency, thereby constraining the timescales and physical mechanisms of quenching.

major comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract (gas-mass conversion paragraph): The headline claim that the system retains a 'substantial cold gas reservoir with fractions f_gas ≳20%' and that suppression must therefore be 'remarkably effective' rests on the adopted [CII]-to-M_mol and [CII]-to-M_HI conversions. No quantitative exploration is provided of how plausible variations in these factors (e.g., lower emissivity in low-SFR or AGN-influenced ISM) would shift f_gas below 10% and remove the reported tension with suppression models.
  2. [abstract] Abstract (velocity-offset paragraph): The interpretation that the blueshifted halo velocity offset traces an AGN-driven outflow 'possibly linked to the suppression of star formation' is presented without supporting kinematic modeling, comparison to the MgII absorption profile, or tests against alternative origins (e.g., inflow or merger). This link is load-bearing for the proposed quenching scenario.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript should supply the ALMA data-reduction steps, beam parameters, and error-propagation details for the line flux and size measurements so that the reported R_eff,[CII] and flux fractions can be reproduced.
  2. Clarify whether the non-detection of continuum is used to place an independent upper limit on obscured SFR or is only compared to the UV-to-NIR SED; the two uses have different implications for energy balance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting areas where the abstract claims require additional context or qualification. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract] Abstract (gas-mass conversion paragraph): The headline claim that the system retains a 'substantial cold gas reservoir with fractions f_gas ≳20%' and that suppression must therefore be 'remarkably effective' rests on the adopted [CII]-to-M_mol and [CII]-to-M_HI conversions. No quantitative exploration is provided of how plausible variations in these factors (e.g., lower emissivity in low-SFR or AGN-influenced ISM) would shift f_gas below 10% and remove the reported tension with suppression models.

    Authors: We agree that the f_gas estimate is sensitive to the choice of conversion factors and that the abstract does not explicitly test variations such as reduced [CII] emissivity in low-SFR or AGN-influenced gas. The manuscript already reports a range for M_HI (log M_HI/M_⊙ = 9.46–10.34) arising from different calibrations and metallicities, and states that f_gas ≳20% holds across most assumptions. To directly address the concern, we will add a quantitative sensitivity analysis (new subsection or appendix) that explores plausible downward revisions to the [CII]-to-gas conversion (e.g., factors of 2–5 lower emissivity) and shows the resulting f_gas distribution, including cases below 10%. This will clarify the robustness of the tension with quenching models. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [abstract] Abstract (velocity-offset paragraph): The interpretation that the blueshifted halo velocity offset traces an AGN-driven outflow 'possibly linked to the suppression of star formation' is presented without supporting kinematic modeling, comparison to the MgII absorption profile, or tests against alternative origins (e.g., inflow or merger). This link is load-bearing for the proposed quenching scenario.

    Authors: The abstract phrasing is indeed suggestive rather than definitive. The velocity offset is noted as consistent with the tentative MgII absorption outflow reported in prior work on the same object, but no new kinematic modeling or explicit comparison to inflow/merger scenarios is performed in the current data. We will revise the abstract to state that the offset is 'consistent with' the MgII feature and 'suggestive of' a past outflow, while adding a short discussion in the main text that lists alternative origins (inflow, merger) and notes the limited S/N precludes detailed modeling. The quenching link will be presented as one possible implication rather than a direct conclusion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct observational report using external [CII] calibrations; no circularity

full rationale

The paper measures [CII] flux and spatial extent directly from ALMA data, then converts luminosity to gas mass via standard external calibrations (with explicit dependence on assumed metallicity and calibration choice). No derivation reduces to a self-defined quantity, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The central implication follows from the observed flux and external conversion factors rather than internal redefinition. This matches the expected non-circular outcome for an observational detection paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard astrophysical conversions from [CII] luminosity to gas mass and assumptions about the physical origin of the extended emission; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • [CII]-to-molecular gas conversion factor
    Used to obtain log(M_mol/Msun) = 9.53; depends on assumed calibration and metallicity.
  • Metallicity for HI mass estimate
    Affects the range log(M_HI/Msun) = 9.46-10.34.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The [CII] 158 micron line primarily traces cold molecular and atomic gas in high-redshift galaxies under the adopted calibrations
    Invoked when converting observed flux to gas masses in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The non-detection of dust continuum at rest-frame 160 micron is consistent with energy-balance SED modeling for a quiescent system
    Used to support the quiescent classification and L_IR upper limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6031 in / 1773 out tokens · 45967 ms · 2026-06-26T13:49:02.703404+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

130 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    E., Leja , J., et al

    Akhshik , M., Whitaker , K. E., Leja , J., et al. 2023, , 943, 179

    2023

  2. [2]

    C., Helton , J

    Alberts , S., Williams , C. C., Helton , J. M., et al. 2024, , 975, 85

    2024

  3. [3]

    M., Lim , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al

    Baker , W. M., Lim , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2025 a , , 539, 557

    2025

  4. [4]

    M., Valentino , F., Lagos , C

    Baker , W. M., Valentino , F., Lagos , C. d. P., et al. 2025 b , , 702, A270

    2025

  5. [5]

    D., et al

    Baron , D., Netzer , H., French , K. D., et al. 2023, , 524, 2741

    2023

  6. [6]

    2021, , 909, L11

    Belli , S., Contursi , A., Genzel , R., et al. 2021, , 909, L11

    2021

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Belli , S., Park , M., Davies , R. L., et al. 2024, , 630, 54

    2024

  8. [8]

    2020, , 643, A2

    B \'e thermin , M., Fudamoto , Y., Ginolfi , M., et al. 2020, , 643, A2

    2020

  9. [9]

    E., et al

    Bezanson , R., Labbe , I., Whitaker , K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026

    arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    E., et al

    Bl \'a nquez-Ses \'e , D., G \'o mez-Guijarro , C., Magdis , G. E., et al. 2023, , 674, A166

    2023

  11. [11]

    J., Smit , R., Schouws , S., et al

    Bouwens , R. J., Smit , R., Schouws , S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.13719

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    C., McLeod , D

    Carnall , A. C., McLeod , D. J., McLure , R. J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00986

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023, , 619, 716

    2023

  14. [14]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  15. [15]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.15207

    Chaikin , E., Schaye , J., Hu s ko , F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.15207

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Chandro-G \'o mez , \'A ., Lagos , C. d. P., Power , C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    2016, , 823, 102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

    2016

  18. [18]

    & Gunn , J

    Conroy , C. & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833

    2010

  19. [19]

    Cornwell , T. J. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 793

    2008

  20. [20]

    2013, , 766, 13

    da Cunha , E., Groves , B., Walter , F., et al. 2013, , 766, 13

    2013

  21. [21]

    L., Belli , S., Park , M., et al

    Davies , R. L., Belli , S., Park , M., et al. 2024, , 528, 4976

    2024

  22. [22]

    A., Alatalo , K., Sarzi , M., et al

    Davis , T. A., Alatalo , K., Sarzi , M., et al. 2011, , 417, 882

    2011

  23. [23]

    2025 a , , 697, A189

    de Graaff , A., Brammer , G., Weibel , A., et al. 2025 a , , 697, A189

    2025

  24. [24]

    J., Brammer , G., et al

    de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., Brammer , G., et al. 2025 b , Nature Astronomy, 9, 280

    2025

  25. [25]

    2014, , 568, A62

    De Looze , I., Cormier , D., Lebouteiller , V., et al. 2014, , 568, A62

    2014

  26. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01724

    De Lucia , G., Fontanot , F., Hirschmann , M., & Xie , L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01724

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    2024, , 687, A68

    De Lucia , G., Fontanot , F., Xie , L., & Hirschmann , M. 2024, , 687, A68

    2024

  28. [28]

    2019, , 623, A5

    De Vis , P., Jones , A., Viaene , S., et al. 2019, , 623, A5

    2019

  29. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09347

    D'Eugenio , C., Daddi , E., Gobat , R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    2023, , 678, L9

    D'Eugenio , C., Daddi , E., Liu , D., & Gobat , R. 2023, , 678, L9

    2023

  31. [31]

    2023, , 678, A35

    Donevski , D., Damjanov , I., Nanni , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A35

    2023

  32. [32]

    T., McLure , R

    Donnan , C. T., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2024, , 533, 3222

    2024

  33. [33]

    R., Spilker , J

    D'Onofrio , V. R., Spilker , J. S., Bezanson , R., et al. 2026, , 1003, 52

    2026

  34. [34]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 87

    Ellison , S., Huang , Q., Yang , D., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 87

    2025

  35. [35]

    L., Fudamoto , Y., Oesch , P

    Faisst , A. L., Fudamoto , Y., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2020, , 498, 4192

    2020

  36. [36]

    S., et al

    Farcy , M., Hirschmann , M., Somerville , R. S., et al. 2025, \ (submitted), arXiv:2504.08041

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15789

    Fontanot , F., Decarli , R., De Lucia , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15789

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  39. [39]

    D., Smercina , A., Rowlands , K., et al

    French , K. D., Smercina , A., Rowlands , K., et al. 2023, , 942, 25

    2023

  40. [40]

    D., Yang , Y., Zabludoff , A., et al

    French , K. D., Yang , Y., Zabludoff , A., et al. 2015, , 801, 1

    2015

  41. [41]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., Yoon , I., et al. 2018, , 861, 123

    2018

  42. [42]

    K., Bouwens , R., et al

    Fudamoto , Y., Inoue , A. K., Bouwens , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03831

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    D., Bethermin , M., et al

    Fujimoto , S., Silverman , J. D., Bethermin , M., et al. 2020, , 900, 1

    2020

  44. [44]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    Gobat , R., Daddi , E., Magdis , G., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    2018

  45. [45]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz , K. E., Brammer , G. B., Watson , D., et al. 2025 a , , 693, A60

    2025

  46. [46]

    E., De Cia , A., Th \"o ne , C

    Heintz , K. E., De Cia , A., Th \"o ne , C. C., et al. 2023, , 679, A91

    2023

  47. [47]

    E., Watson , D., Oesch , P

    Heintz , K. E., Watson , D., Oesch , P. A., Narayanan , D., & Madden , S. C. 2021, , 922, 147

    2021

  48. [48]

    E., Watson , D., Valentino , F., et al

    Heintz , K. E., Watson , D., Valentino , F., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.07936

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    2025, , 699, A80

    Herrera-Camus , R., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pez , J., F \"o rster Schreiber , N., et al. 2025, , 699, A80

    2025

  50. [50]

    2014, , 443, 1704

    Hirashita , H., Ferrara , A., Dayal , P., & Ouchi , M. 2014, , 443, 1704

    2014

  51. [51]

    R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2023, , 135, 074501

    2023

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22642

    Ito , K., Valentino , F., Brammer , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22642

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    2019, , 71, 111

    Izumi , T., Onoue , M., Matsuoka , Y., et al. 2019, , 71, 111

    2019

  54. [54]

    2018, , 70, 36

    Izumi , T., Onoue , M., Shirakata , H., et al. 2018, , 70, 36

    2018

  55. [55]

    C., Behroozi , P., et al

    Ji , Z., Williams , C. C., Behroozi , P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    C., Rieke , G

    Ji , Z., Williams , C. C., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2024, arXiv:2409.17233

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

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

    Johnson , B. D., Leja , J., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2021, , 254, 22

    2021

  58. [58]

    Kennicutt , R. C. & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531

    2012

  59. [59]

    C., Remus , R.-S., Seidel , B., et al

    Kimmig , L. C., Remus , R.-S., Seidel , B., et al. 2025, , 979, 15

    2025

  60. [60]

    & Conroy , C

    Kriek , M. & Conroy , C. 2013, , 775, L16

    2013

  61. [61]

    2021, , 919, 6

    Kubo , M., Umehata , H., Matsuda , Y., et al. 2021, , 919, 6

    2021

  62. [62]

    2022, , 935, 89

    Kubo , M., Umehata , H., Matsuda , Y., et al. 2022, , 935, 89

    2022

  63. [63]

    2016, , 455, 3333

    Kubo , M., Yamada , T., Ichikawa , T., et al. 2016, , 455, 3333

    2016

  64. [64]

    2024, , 534, 3974

    Kurinchi-Vendhan , S., Farcy , M., Hirschmann , M., & Valentino , F. 2024, , 534, 3974

    2024

  65. [65]

    Lagos , C. d. P., Bravo , M., Tobar , R., et al. 2024, , 531, 3551

    2024

  66. [66]

    Lagos , C. d. P., Valentino , F., Wright , R. J., et al. 2025, , 536, 2324

    2025

  67. [67]

    2020, , 643, A1

    Le F \`e vre , O., B \'e thermin , M., Faisst , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A1

    2020

  68. [68]

    M., Steidel , C

    Lee , M. M., Steidel , C. C., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 527, 9529

    2024

  69. [69]

    C., Johnson , B

    Leja , J., Carnall , A. C., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2019 a , , 876, 3

    2019

  70. [70]

    D., Conroy , C., et al

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., et al. 2019 b , , 877, 140

    2019

  71. [71]

    2019, , 887, 235

    Liu , D., Schinnerer , E., Groves , B., et al. 2019, , 887, 235

    2019

  72. [72]

    Lorenzon , G., Donevski , D., Man , A. W. S., et al. 2025, , 995, L63

    2025

  73. [73]

    C., Cormier , D., Hony , S., et al

    Madden , S. C., Cormier , D., Hony , S., et al. 2020, , 643, A141

    2020

  74. [74]

    E., Gobat , R., Valentino , F., et al

    Magdis , G. E., Gobat , R., Valentino , F., et al. 2021, , 647, A33

    2021

  75. [75]

    & Belli , S

    Man , A. & Belli , S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 695

    2018

  76. [76]

    Mart \' -Vidal , I., Vlemmings , W. H. T., Muller , S., & Casey , S. 2014, , 563, A136

    2014

  77. [77]

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

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, Vol. 376, 127

    2007

  78. [78]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, E170

    Merlin , E., Fortuni , F., Calabr \'o , A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, E170

    2025

  79. [79]

    J., Gall , C., Hjorth , J., et al

    Micha owski , M. J., Gall , C., Hjorth , J., et al. 2024, , 964, 129

    2024

  80. [80]

    J., Hjorth , J., Gall , C., et al

    Micha owski , M. J., Hjorth , J., Gall , C., et al. 2019, , 632, A43

    2019

Showing first 80 references.