Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 151 references

Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The star-forming main sequence required by the evolving stellar mass function matches JWST spectroscopy and theory, not older concordance relations.

desk verdict Solid, public SMF-to-MS re-derivation that matches JWST spectroscopy better than Speagle/Popesso; the Behroozi α extrapolation is the real soft spot but does not sink the low-z result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09848 v1 pith:JUARF7FI submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.GA

Sahil Hegde , Steven R. Furlanetto , Smadar Naoz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords star-formingmainsequencestellarmassfunctiongalaxyevolutionJWSTstarformationratedensitygalaxy-haloconnectionquenchingmergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks what star formation rates galaxies must have had if the observed buildup of stellar mass over cosmic time is to be self-consistent. Using a continuous fit to star-forming and quiescent stellar mass functions from z = 0.1 to 9, and tracing galaxy growth while accounting for mergers and quenching, the authors invert the continuity equation to recover the average star-forming main sequence from 10^8 to 10^11 solar masses. That inferred sequence agrees with independent JWST spectroscopic SFR measurements from z ~ 2-7 and with non-parametric SED-fitting results at lower redshift, and it tracks the redshift evolution expected from dark-matter halo accretion. It differs systematically from the widely used Speagle and Popesso concordance compilations, which over-predict the growth of the mass function when integrated forward. The result supplies a phenomenological check on measured star formation rates and cautions that applications of older compilations need to confront these systematic offsets.

What carries the argument

A continuity equation for the star-forming stellar mass function that includes star-formation-driven mass growth, merger-driven absorption parameterized by Behroozi-style number-density evolution, and quenching measured from the growth of the quiescent mass function; solved by backward-tracking progenitor abundances.

What would settle it

If new high-redshift mass functions or independent merger-rate measurements require a substantially different progenitor number-density evolution than the adopted alpha, the inferred high-z main sequence will shift and lose agreement with JWST spectroscopy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The star formation rates required by the redshift evolution of the stellar mass function, once mergers and quenching are included, produce a main sequence that matches JWST/NIRSpec and non-parametric SED results while lying below and evolving more gently than the Speagle+14 and Popesso+23 concordance relations.

Load-bearing premise

The merger correction uses a number-density evolution calibrated only for the progenitors of present-day galaxies and is applied unchanged out to z = 9, even though forward and backward tracks are known to differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Analyses that adopt Speagle or Popesso main sequences as ground truth for galaxy ages or star-formation histories will systematically mis-estimate early and intermediate SFRs.
  • The gentler redshift evolution of the inferred sequence brings the long-term SFMS into closer alignment with mean dark-matter halo accretion rates.
  • The integral of the new sequence over the mass function under-predicts the peak of the cosmic star-formation-rate density relative to UV-luminosity compilations, reopening that classic tension.
  • Star-formation efficiency as a function of halo mass shows a low-mass slope that flattens from near unity at z greater than 7 toward the energy-regulated value of 2/3 by z = 0.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The residual SFRD peak mismatch implies that either dust corrections in UV-based densities or the high-mass end of the mass function still carry unaccounted systematics.
  • Because the procedure is mass-complete wherever the SMF is measured, it can forecast the low-mass SFMS that future wide-field surveys will test once they reach 10^8 solar masses at high z.
  • If the Behroozi alpha itself evolves with redshift or with star-formation rate, the present inference would need a second iteration that couples the SFMS and the merger tracks self-consistently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper infers the star-forming main sequence (MS) from the redshift evolution of compiled star-forming and quiescent stellar mass functions (SMFs) over 0.1 < z < 9, rather than from direct SFR indicators. After fitting continuous Schechter forms (with Eddington bias) to multi-survey SMF data, the authors solve a continuity equation that includes star formation, quenching, and merger-driven mass growth and number-density absorption (Eqs. 7–14), then fit the resulting SFR–mass grid with a double power-law plus high-mass cutoff (Eq. 19). The inferred MS agrees with JWST/NIRSpec Hα/UV measurements (Clarke+25) at z ∼ 2–7 and with Prospector-based SED results (Leja+22; Simmonds+25) at z ≲ 3, while lying below the Speagle+14 and Popesso+23 concordance compilations and closer to theoretical models driven by halo accretion. Forward evolution of the SMF with literature MS relations (App. A) is used as a consistency check, and implications for SFE and the cosmic SFRD are discussed.

Significance. If the result holds, it supplies an independent, SMF-driven MS that is self-consistent with the observed mass buildup and that can be used as a benchmark for both observations and models. The public Python implementation of the SMF and MS fits, the joint-posterior uncertainty propagation, and the explicit forward-evolution test in Appendix A are concrete strengths that make the result reusable and falsifiable. The claimed concordance with spectroscopic JWST SFRs and the caution against uncritical use of concordance MS compilations would affect a wide range of demographic and semi-empirical applications.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2–3.3, Eqs. (12)–(15): The merger absorption term A uses Behroozi+13 α(m⋆) calibrated only for backward tracking of z ∼ 0 progenitors, yet is applied over 0 < z < 9. The text itself notes that forward/backward evolution is asymmetric and that α depends on descendant SFR (Clauwens+16; Wang+23). Because high-z SFRs are obtained by integrating this term over large Δz, a systematic Δα ∼ 0.1–0.2 would shift the z ≳ 5 MS normalization by several tenths of a dex—comparable to the claimed offset from Popesso+23. A quantitative sensitivity test (varying α within the literature range, or restricting the comparison to z ≲ 3 where the calibration is safer) is needed before the z ∼ 2–7 spectroscopic agreement can be treated as robust.
  2. §4.1, Table 1 note c and Fig. 2: At z ≳ 6 the total SMF is treated as purely star-forming. While the quiescent fraction is expected to be small, the quiescent SMF is already poorly constrained above z ∼ 2.5, and any residual quiescent contribution would reduce the inferred star-forming growth rates. The paper should either (i) propagate a plausible high-z quiescent fraction as a systematic or (ii) show that the z ∼ 6–9 MS is insensitive to a few-percent quiescent contamination.
  3. §5.4, Eq. (20) and Fig. 5: Integrating the SMF-derived MS over the same SMF yields an SFRD whose peak at cosmic noon is lower by a factor of ∼2–3 than the Madau & Fragos (2017) luminosity-density compilation. Because the MS is constructed to reproduce the SMF evolution, this tension is not independent of the input data; it re-expresses the longstanding stellar-mass-density vs. SFRD discrepancy. The discussion should clarify what new information the SFRD comparison adds and whether the discrepancy is driven by the MS shape, the SMF faint-end slope, or the UV-to-SFR conversion assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. §2 and Fig. 1: The phrase “star-forming star-forming main sequence” in the section title is a typographical duplication.
  2. Eq. (6) and surrounding text: The return fraction R ≈ 0.36 is assumed constant and instantaneous; a short note on the sensitivity of the MS normalization to R (or to a time-dependent return fraction) would help readers compare with models that track integrated vs. surviving mass differently.
  3. Table 1 / §4.1: Systematic offsets between surveys (stellar-mass pipelines, cosmic variance) are acknowledged but not folded into the likelihood. Even a simple extra variance term or a leave-one-survey-out test would strengthen the uncertainty budget.
  4. Fig. 2 caption: The statement that the solid curves under-estimate the data at the massive end because they show the intrinsic SMF is correct but easy to miss; a parenthetical reminder in the main text would help.
  5. Appendix C / Fig. 7: The seven-parameter piecewise redshift evolution of the MS parameters is flexible; reporting the reduced χ² or residual scatter of the fit to the discrete MS grid would reassure readers that the functional form is not over-fitting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

MS is solved from SMF continuity by construction (self-consistent by design); central claims rest on independent external SFR comparisons, not forced by inputs.

  1. self definitional [§3.1–3.3, Eqs. (5)–(8), (14); procedure steps 1–6; abstract]
    "we revisit the star-forming MS ... by asking what star formation rates are required by the stellar mass function to create a self-consistent picture of galaxies across time. ... Altogether, our Eulerian evolution equation for the star-forming stellar mass function can be summarized as ∂n_SF/∂t = 1/ln10 [Φ_SF ⟨ṁ_tot_⋆⟩ / m_⋆] − ∂n_Q/∂t − n_SF ln10 (dz/dt) α. ... infer the star-forming MS by tracing the growth histories of individual galaxies satisfying this evolution."

    The mean SFRs (i.e., the MS) are obtained by solving the continuity equation so that the observed SMF evolution is reproduced after the merger and quenching terms are subtracted. The resulting MS is therefore consistent with the input SMF by algebraic construction; that consistency is not an independent test. (The paper is transparent about this and does not claim otherwise; the external SFR comparisons remain independent.)

full rationale

The paper is explicit that it inverts the continuity equation to obtain the SFRs required by the observed SMF evolution (after subtracting modeled mergers and quenching). Consistency with the input SMF is therefore definitional and is not presented as an independent prediction or first-principles result. The load-bearing scientific claims are the subsequent comparisons of that derived MS to independent spectroscopic Hα/UV SFRs (Clarke+25), Prospector SED results (Leja+22/Simmonds+25), and theoretical models, plus the mismatch with Speagle/Popesso compilations and the SFRD cross-check against Madau & Fragos. Those external benchmarks are not fitted inputs and are not recovered by construction. Merger absorption α is taken from external literature (Behroozi+13) with acknowledged limitations; that is an assumption risk, not circularity. Self-citations to the authors’ own minimalist/abcd models appear only as comparison curves, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that force the result. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no known empirical pattern is merely re-labeled. Score 2 reflects the single transparent self-definitional step that is inherent to the method, without elevating it to partial circularity of the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a continuity equation plus literature calibrations for mergers, mass return, and stellar-mass uncertainties. The free parameters are the many Schechter coefficients and the four redshift-dependent MS shape parameters; no new physical entities are invented. Domain assumptions (Schechter form, constant R, Behroozi α, abundance matching) are standard but load-bearing.

free parameters (5)
  • Schechter parameters (M*, ϕ1*, α1, …) for SF and Q populations = see Table 2 MAP values
    Cubic/quadratic polynomials in redshift fitted by MCMC to the compiled SMF data (Table 2, App. B); the entire MS inference inherits their posterior.
  • MS shape parameters (α, β, ṁ_norm, m_turn) and their 7-parameter redshift evolution = see Table 3
    Fitted to the discrete SFR grid obtained from the continuity procedure (Eq. 19, Table 3, App. C).
  • stellar mass return fraction R = 0.36
    Fixed at 0.36 (instantaneous recycling) to convert surviving mass growth into integrated SFR (Eq. 6).
  • minimum merger mass ratio ξ_min = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 when integrating Fakhouri et al. (2010) merger rates for ṁ_merg (Eq. 10).
  • Behroozi α(m⋆) for number-density evolution = α(m⋆) from Behroozi+13
    Adopted from Behroozi et al. (2013) (α ≈ 0.16–0.22) to quantify merger absorption (Eq. 13); not re-fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Galaxy number density above an evolving mass threshold is conserved in the absence of mergers/quenching (continuity equation, Eqs. 3–5).
    Standard Eulerian description of the SMF; invoked throughout §3.
  • domain assumption Star-forming and quiescent SMFs are well-described by single and double Schechter functions whose parameters evolve as low-order polynomials in redshift.
    Enforced to guarantee continuous evolution (§4.1, App. B); common but not unique functional choice.
  • domain assumption Stellar-mass measurement errors are log-normal with redshift-dependent width given by Rodríguez-Puebla et al. (2025).
    Used for Eddington-bias convolution (Eq. 17).
  • ad hoc to paper At z ≳ 6 the total SMF may be treated as purely star-forming because the quiescent fraction is negligible.
    Explicitly stated in Table 1 notes; required because high-z surveys do not separate SF/Q.
  • standard math Chabrier (2003) IMF and Planck 2020 cosmology.
    Standard conversions applied uniformly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUARF7FI

@misc{pith2026260709848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUARF7FI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09848}
}
abstract

The evolving relationship between a galaxy's mass and star formation rate -- the so-called `star-forming main sequence' (MS) -- provides a critical benchmark for understanding star formation across time. Despite its fundamental importance, the observed main sequence remains subject to substantial systematic uncertainties in normalization, shape, and redshift evolution, and a longstanding discrepancy persists between the main sequence and its integral, the stellar mass function. We revisit the star-forming MS in the era of the James Webb Space Telescope by asking what star formation rates are required by the stellar mass function to create a self-consistent picture of galaxies across time. We fit compiled ground- and space-based measurements of star-forming and quiescent mass functions from $z=0.1-9$. By tracing galaxy growth histories through these mass functions, we present a statistically-robust inference of the main sequence over $10^8 M_\odot \leq m_\star \leq 10^{11} M_\odot$, from the local universe to the first 500 Myr of cosmic history. Our procedure implies a main sequence that agrees with independent spectroscopic measurements of star formation rates from $z\sim 2-7$, is consistent with SED fitting-based analyses of photometric samples at $z\lesssim 3$, and aligns with theoretical models of galaxy evolution. However, we find that our MS differs from commonly-used `concordance' relations and thus caution against applications of these compilations without appropriately characterizing the underlying uncertainties. Finally, we explore the implications of our inferred main sequence for the galaxy-halo connection and star formation rate density, highlighting the need for further theoretical work to comprehensively understand the star formation history of the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST results straddle the divide between the star-forming MS inferred from a range of theoretical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The intrinsic best-fit star-forming (left) and quiescent (right) SMFs inferred from the compilation of data summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The SMF-based star-forming MS broadly agrees with the star-forming MS inferred from SED fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SFRD predicted by the SMF-derived main sequence is broadly consistent with indepen￾dent measurements (P. Madau & T. Fragos 2017), though the peak of cosmic star formation is smaller by a factor of a few at cosmic noon. The SFRD inferred by integrating the star-form…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Literature consensus estimates for the star-forming MS vastly overpredict the redshift evo￾lution of the SMF, though SED fitting-based mea￾surements perform better. The SMF at evolved from z = 3 to z = 1 using various estimates for the star-form￾ing MS to quantify the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The high mass slope of the star-forming MS is roughly constant to z ∼ 6 and the low mass slope deviation becomes more pronounced beyond this point as well. Redshift evolution of the fit parame￾ters for the SMF-based star-forming MS (Eqs. (19-C6; each parameter is shown…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fitting function (Eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 801, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L12

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l12 2015

  2. [2]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/7

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/7 2016

  3. [3]

    A., Cohen, S

    Acharya, T., Carleton, T., Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., & Honor, R. 2026, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 10, 42, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae4a14 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae4a14 2026

  4. [4]

    M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C

    Baker, W. M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 2025

  5. [5]

    M., Kuntschner, H., Maraston, C., & Conroy, C

    Baldwin, C., McDermid, R. M., Kuntschner, H., Maraston, C., & Conroy, C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2502

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2502 2018

  6. [6]

    A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf013 2025

  7. [7]

    S., Begley, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Dunlop, J. S., Begley, R., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag770

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag770 2026

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

Show all 151 references
  1. [9]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 379, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Marchesini, D., Wechsler, R

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

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Zheng, X

    Bell, E. F., Zheng, X. Z., Papovich, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 834, doi: 10.1086/518594 Bouch´ e, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Brown, M. J. I., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 858, doi: 10.1086/509652

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Brown, M. J. I., Zheng, Z., White, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 937, doi: 10.1086/589538

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    1978, ApJ, 219, 18, doi: 10.1086/155751

    Butcher, H., & Oemler, Jr., A. 1978, ApJ, 219, 18, doi: 10.1086/155751

    1978 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    Caplar, N., & Tacchella, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.01726, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.01726

    Chu, J., Xu, D., Wang, E., & Wuyts, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.01726, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.01726

    2026 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    E., Lam, N., et al

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Lam, N., et al. 2025, The Star-forming Main Sequence and Bursty Star-formation Histories at$z>1.4$in JADES and AURORA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06681

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Sanders, R

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw137

    Clauwens, B., Franx, M., & Schaye, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw137

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & White, M

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

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Conroy, C., White, M., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Brammer, G., Heintz, K

    Cooper, O. R., Brammer, G., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e1

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Corcho-Caballero, P., Ascasibar, Y., & L´ opez-S´ anchez, ´A. R. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2818 Dav´ e, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 147, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12866.x Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Sparre, M., & Capak, P

    Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., Faisst, A. L., Sparre, M., & Capak, P. L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa19e

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, A&A, 605, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al

    Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., Laigle, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557790

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2037

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2008, ApJ, 680, 41, doi: 10.1086/588006

    Drory, N., & Alvarez, M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 41, doi: 10.1086/588006

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    Eddington, A. S. 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 21 Euclid Collaboration, Enia, A., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 711, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554576

    1913 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    L., & Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Fortun´ e, S., Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L. C., Burkert, A., &

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, A&A, 704, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554805

    Dolag, K. 2025, A&A, 704, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554805

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.26209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.26209

    Fu, H., Shankar, F., Fontanot, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.26209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.26209

    2026 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    R., & Mirocha, J

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Mirocha, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac310

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Mirocha, J., Mebane, R

    Furlanetto, S. R., Mirocha, J., Mebane, R. H., & Sun, G. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2132

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc722

    Gelli, V., Pallottini, A., Salvadori, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc722

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2025, A&A, 697, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452461

    Gentile, F., Talia, M., Enia, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452461

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Koekemoer, A

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

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 499, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.002435

    1991 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al

    Gladders, M. D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/64

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    A., et al

    Gottumukkala, R., Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae754

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    A., & Thompson, L

    Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784, doi: 10.1086/156198

    1978 doi

  45. [53]

    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

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00151

    Gui, Y., Xu, D., Wang, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00151

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    E., et al

    Guo, Q., White, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts115

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa

    Han, Y., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJS, 240, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2308

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 147, doi: 10.33232/001c.145070

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    1983, ApJS, 52, 89, doi: 10.1086/190860

    Huchra, J., Davis, M., Latham, D., & Tonry, J. 1983, ApJS, 52, 89, doi: 10.1086/190860

    1983 doi

  52. [60]

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

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

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

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

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fa

    Iyer, K., Gawiser, E., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fa

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    G., Speagle, J

    Iyer, K. G., Speagle, J. S., Caplar, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff64

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al

    Iyer, K. G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2150

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    L., & Nagamine, K

    Jaacks, J., Finkelstein, S. L., & Nagamine, K. 2016, ApJ, 817, 174, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/174

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    Jain, S., Tacchella, S., & Mosleh, M. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

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

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

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Karthikeyan, S., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11338

    2026 doi

  64. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa157

    Katsianis, A., Gonzalez, V., Barrientos, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa157

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    C., van de Sande, J., Remus, R.-S., et al

    Kimmig, L. C., van de Sande, J., Remus, R.-S., et al. 2026, Built to Rest: The Evolving Star-Forming Main Sequence Requires Episodic Quiescence or Late Assembly, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.02997

    2026 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    P., Wijesekera, J

    Koprowski, M. P., Wijesekera, J. V., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449948

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    E., et al

    Lam, N., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.30513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.30513

    2026 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    B., Casey, C

    Lee, N., Sanders, D. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/80

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    Leitner, S. N. 2012, ApJ, 745, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/149

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    N., & Kravtsov, A

    Leitner, S. N., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/48

    2011 doi

  71. [79]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 22

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 22

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    S., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e27

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    G., Franx, M., & Whitaker, K

    Leja, J., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., & Whitaker, K. E. 2015, ApJ, 798, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/115

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    S., Ting, Y.-S., et al

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    2013 doi

  77. [85]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1660

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1660

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    J., McLure, R

    McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab731

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3150

    Mirocha, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3150

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    Mirocha, J., Mason, C., & Stark, D. P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2586

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    D., Lacey, C

    Mitchell, P. D., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Cole, S. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 87, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1280

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    D., Lacey, C

    Mitchell, P. D., Lacey, C. G., Cole, S., & Baugh, C. M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1639

    2014 doi

  85. [93]

    C., et al

    Mobasher, B., Dahlen, T., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/101

    2015 doi

  86. [94]

    L., Aird, J., et al

    Moustakas, J., Coil, A. L., Aird, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Chisholm, J., Sun, G., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag415

    2013 doi

  87. [95]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    2007 doi

  88. [96]

    R., Conselice, C

    Ownsworth, J. R., Conselice, C. J., Mortlock, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1802

    2014 doi

  89. [97]

    G., Mobasher, B., et al

    Pacifici, C., Iyer, K. G., Mobasher, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacff

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    W., Shapley, A., et al

    Pahl, A., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1ab

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    2023, A&A, 677, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    Pallottini, A., & Ferrara, A. 2023, A&A, 677, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    L., Ferguson, H

    Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., Ferguson, H. C., Lotz, J. M., & Giavalisco, M. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1123, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17965.x

    2011 doi

  93. [101]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/26

    Papovich, C., Labb´ e, I., Quadri, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/26

    2015 doi

  94. [102]

    J., Wang, L., Hurley, P

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Hurley, P. D., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832821

    2018 doi

  95. [103]

    J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4

    2012 doi

  96. [105]

    J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M. 2014b, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/95

    doi

  97. [106]

    J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  98. [107]

    N., Taylor, A

    Perry, M. N., Taylor, A. J., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f

    2025 doi

  99. [108]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2018 doi

  100. [109]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 Rodr´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Avila-Reese, V., Primack, J

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 Rodr´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Avila-Reese, V., Primack, J. R., &

    2023 doi

  101. [110]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf544

    Cannarozzo, C. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf544

    2025 doi

  102. [111]

    1978, AJ, 83, 904, doi: 10.1086/112271

    Sandage, A. 1978, AJ, 83, 904, doi: 10.1086/112271

    1978 doi

  103. [112]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acedad

    2023 doi

  104. [113]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fc

    2024 doi

  105. [114]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae66e2

    2026 doi

  106. [115]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1999

    Maiolino, R. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1999

    2022 doi

  107. [116]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079 Scholz-D´ ıaz, L., Mart´ ın-Navarro, I., & Falc´ on-Barroso, J

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079 Scholz-D´ ıaz, L., Mart´ ın-Navarro, I., & Falc´ on-Barroso, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3422

    1976 doi

  108. [117]

    G., Aussel, H., et al

    Scoville, N., Abraham, R. G., Aussel, H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 38, doi: 10.1086/516580

    2007 doi

  109. [118]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 954, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea5a

    2023 doi

  110. [119]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adad68

    2025 doi

  111. [120]

    K., Mo, H

    Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x 23

    2001 doi

  112. [121]

    2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    2025 doi

  113. [122]

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558022

    2026 doi

  114. [123]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    2025 doi

  115. [124]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  116. [125]

    C., Springel, V., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Springel, V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2713

    2015 doi

  117. [126]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  118. [127]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  119. [128]

    J., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb6

    2021 doi

  120. [129]

    C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., & Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 1996a, AJ, 112, 352, doi: 10.1086/118019

    doi

  121. [130]

    Adelberger, K. L. 1996b, ApJL, 462, L17, doi: 10.1086/310029

    doi

  122. [131]

    A., & Willick, J

    Strauss, M. A., & Willick, J. A. 1995, PhR, 261, 271, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00013-7

    1995 doi

  123. [132]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0e

    Sun, F., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0e

    2025 doi

  124. [133]

    C., & Shen, X

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Shen, X. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  125. [134]

    Sun, G., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw980

    2016 doi

  126. [135]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw131

    2016 doi

  127. [136]

    C., & Caplar, N

    Tacchella, S., Forbes, J. C., & Caplar, N. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1838

    2020 doi

  128. [137]

    R., Quadri, R

    Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/118

    2016 doi

  129. [138]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx370

    Vogelsberger, M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx370

    2017 doi

  130. [139]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1986

    Torrey, P., Wellons, S., Machado, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1986

    2015 doi

  131. [140]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 van Dokkum, P. G., Whitaker, K. E., Brammer, G., et a...

    2004 doi

  132. [141]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  133. [142]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad262

    Wang, K., Mo, H., Li, C., & Chen, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad262

    2023 doi

  134. [143]

    R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    2023 doi

  135. [144]

    M., Pasquali, A., Oppenheimer, B

    Weinmann, S. M., Pasquali, A., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2797, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21931.x

    2012 doi

  136. [145]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx358

    Wellons, S., & Torrey, P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx358

    2017 doi

  137. [146]

    2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    Franx, M. 2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    2012 doi

  138. [147]

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

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/104

    2014 doi

  139. [148]

    E., Franx, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L12

    2015 doi

  140. [149]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    2024 doi

  141. [150]

    E., Blacker, B., Dickinson, M., et al

    Williams, R. E., Blacker, B., Dickinson, M., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 1335, doi: 10.1086/118105

    1996 doi

  142. [151]

    P., Cole, S., et al

    Xu, K., Jing, Y. P., Cole, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf782

    2025 doi

  143. [152]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.