Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A six-galaxy compact proto-group at z=4.97 is caught mid-assembly, before coalescence into a massive galaxy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 06:25 UTC pith:OSLEBVVR

load-bearing objection Solid JWST discovery of a fully Hα-confirmed compact group at z=4.97 with resolved maps; the Heisler mass is a soft number, not a load-bearing failure of the paper. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11182 v1 pith:OSLEBVVR submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.GA

A Compact Proto-group at z sim 5: A Massive Galaxy Caught in Formation

Ronaldo Laishram , Yusei Koyama , Fengwu Sun , Takahiro Morishita , Yoshinobu Fudamoto , Haruka Kusakabe , Jakob M. Helton , Xiaojing Lin
show 6 more authors
Tadayuki Kodama Eiichi Egami Kosuke Takahashi Ryo Albert Sutanto Novan Saputra Haryana Zhengyi Chen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords star formationinteracting galaxiesgalaxy evolutiongalaxy formationgalaxy groupshigh-redshift galaxiesproto-groupcompact groups
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports SCGG-z5, a compact galaxy proto-group at redshift 4.97 whose six members are all spectroscopically confirmed by H-alpha emission and lie within a projected diameter of about 16 physical kiloparsecs. Their combined stellar mass is roughly 10 billion solar masses; three members sit on or above the star-forming main sequence at that epoch, while pixel-by-pixel fitting shows mixed internal growth modes—inside-out growth in three galaxies and a tentative central slowdown in the most massive one. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion and projected-mass estimator imply a dark-matter-dominated group halo of order 10^12 solar masses. By analogy with hydrodynamical simulations of similar compact groups, the system is expected to merge into a single galaxy by redshift 3–4 and to exceed 100 billion solar masses by redshift 1. The discovery therefore supplies a rare, fully confirmed snapshot of the short-lived pre-coalescence phase that may produce today’s brightest group or cluster galaxies.

Core claim

SCGG-z5 is a genuine compact proto-group at z=4.97: six H-alpha-confirmed members packed inside ~16 pkpc, total stellar mass log(M*/M☉)=10.07, velocity dispersion ~375 km s⁻¹, and projected dynamical mass log(MPM/M☉)≈12.3, consistent with a dark-matter-dominated group halo that simulations predict will fully coalesce into a massive galaxy (log M*>11 by z~1).

What carries the argument

The projected mass estimator of Heisler et al. (1985) applied to the six confirmed members, together with the EAGLE-based coalescence timeline for structurally analogous compact groups; these convert the observed kinematics and stellar masses into a dynamical-halo mass and a concrete future assembly path.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical mass is derived from a projected-mass formula that assumes the system is already near dynamical equilibrium, even though the paper itself describes the group as still actively assembling.

What would settle it

Spatially resolved kinematics (for example JWST/NIRSpec IFS velocity fields of all six members) that show the system is unbound or that the true three-dimensional mass is well below 10^12 solar masses would overturn the dark-matter-dominated group-halo claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Compact multi-galaxy systems of this scale are a recurring, short-lived stage in the hierarchical build-up of massive galaxies at z>4.
  • Environmental differentiation of star-formation histories already operates inside ~16 pkpc structures less than 1.2 Gyr after the Big Bang.
  • The same evolutionary track that links SCGG-z5 to later compact groups can be used to forecast the abundance of massive quiescent galaxies at z~3–4.
  • Future ALMA [C II] maps of the cold-gas bridges among the six members can test whether tidal gas redistribution drives the observed diversity of radial sSFR profiles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If similar compact groups are common, they may supply the missing pre-coalescence channel that helps close the tension between observed and simulated numbers of massive quiescent galaxies at z>4.
  • The inverted central sSFR of the most massive member may be an early, mini-quenching analogue of the inside-out quenching later seen in lower-redshift protocluster cores.
  • Once fully coalesced, the remnant is a natural progenitor for a brightest-group or brightest-cluster galaxy already in place by z~1.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of SCGG-z5 (the Shirui Group), a compact galaxy proto-group at z=4.97 in the MACS0416 field from SAPPHIRES Early Data Release. Six members are spectroscopically confirmed via Hα emission within a projected diameter of ~16 pkpc, with individual stellar masses 8.4–9.8 in log(M*/M⊙) and total log(M*/M⊙)=10.07±0.04. Three members lie on or above the z~5 Hα SFMS. Pixel-by-pixel SED fitting shows diverse radial sSFR profiles (inside-out growth in three members; a tentative inverted profile in the most massive member). The line-of-sight velocity dispersion is σ_v=375^{+55}_{-195} km s^{-1}; the Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator yields log(M_PM/M⊙)≈12.30, interpreted as a dark-matter-dominated group halo. By analogy with EAGLE simulations of similar systems, the group is argued to be a rare pre-coalescence phase that will merge into a single massive galaxy by z~3–4.

Significance. If the association and evolutionary interpretation hold, this is a valuable JWST discovery: a rare, fully spectroscopically confirmed compact multi-galaxy system at z~5 with 13-band photometry enabling both integrated and resolved SED analysis. The 7.1σ overdensity, mass-completeness argument, multi-component morphological decompositions, and carefully caveated radial-profile classifications are concrete observational strengths. The system supplies a useful pre-coalescence benchmark for hierarchical assembly of massive galaxies and for comparison with CGG-z5, CGG-z7, CGG-z4 and related compact structures. The EAGLE-based coalescence forecast is presented as a consistency check rather than a new simulation result, which is appropriate.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.4 Eq. (1) and §4.1: the quantitative claim of a dark-matter-dominated group halo (log M_PM/M⊙≈12.30, f*≈0.57%) rests on the Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator with f_PM=32/π and α=1.5. The paper correctly notes that the estimator assumes dynamical steady state and that this cannot be verified for a still-assembling system; the Evrard et al. (2008) scaling applied to the same σ_v yields a factor-of-four higher mass. The abstract and summary still present log M_PM≈12.30 as the primary dynamical mass without equal weight on the non-equilibrium caveat. Soften the abstract/summary language to 'characteristic dynamical mass of an assembling system' and report the isotropic-to-radial and Evrard ranges side-by-side so the dark-matter-dominated conclusion is not overstated.
  2. §3.1 and Table 1: five of six members have single-line (Hα) redshifts with zconf=1–2; only SCGGb has a second line ([S II]). Membership of the compact core therefore relies on spatial proximity plus line-centroid coincidence. The paper should quantify the chance-alignment probability more explicitly (e.g., using the field Hα surface density and the 3'' selection aperture) and state how sensitive the σ_v and M_PM values are to dropping any one single-line member. A short robustness paragraph would secure the 'all six confirmed' claim.
  3. §3.3 and Fig. 5: the inverted sSFR profile of SCGGe is correctly labelled tentative (Spearman p=0.07 at S/N≥3; p=0.30 at S/N≥5). The abstract and §5 still elevate it to a parallel result with the three clear inside-out cases. Given the multi-component morphology of SCGGe (arc-like western structure and secondary component), the profile may be a superposition rather than an internal gradient. Restrict the abstract claim to the three robust declining profiles and move the SCGGe interpretation fully into the discussion as a tentative possibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1 footnote a: for SCGGf, r_1/2 and n refer to the secondary component; the primary-component values should also be listed for consistency with the other multi-component fits.
  2. §2.2: the adaptive binning requires S/N≥3 (or 5) in F444W; state the typical number of bins retained per galaxy and the fraction of segmentation-mask pixels discarded, so the radial-profile sampling can be assessed.
  3. Fig. 3: SFRs are lower limits (no Balmer decrement). Add an explicit note in the figure caption that the plotted points are lower limits, matching the text in §3.1.
  4. §4.1: the mean stellar age ⟨t_gal⟩≈0.39 Gyr and the ~0.8 Gyr assembly timescale are model-dependent (delayed-τ SFH). The paper already notes this; a single sentence quantifying the age–metallicity–dust degeneracy range would strengthen the caveat.
  5. Introduction and §4.3: CGG-z5 (Jin et al. 2023) is the closest analogue; a short quantitative side-by-side table (N_members, confirmation method, projected size, σ_v if available, total M*) would help the reader place SCGG-z5 among the known systems.
  6. Typographical: abstract and title use both 'proto-group' and 'Compact Proto-group'; pick one hyphenation consistently. Also, 'Shirui Group' is introduced only in a footnote; consider a brief mention in the main text when the name is first used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: discovery and properties are direct measurements from JWST spectra/photometry; dynamical mass uses an external estimator with stated caveats, and EAGLE analogy is a non-fitted consistency check.

full rationale

The paper is an observational discovery report. Spectroscopic membership, redshifts, and velocity dispersion are measured from independent NIRCam grism Hα lines (Section 3.1, Figure 2). Stellar masses, SFRs, ages, and resolved sSFR/age maps come from Bagpipes SED fits to 13-band photometry (Section 2.2, Table 1, Figures 4–5), compared to an external SFMS (Di Cesare et al. 2026). Morphology uses PySersic on F200W. The projected mass M_PM (Eq. 1, Section 3.4) applies the published Heisler et al. (1985) estimator to the measured velocities and projected radii; the paper explicitly flags that the equilibrium assumption is unverified for an assembling system (Section 4.1) and reports the statistical range, so the dark-matter-dominated conclusion is an application of an external formula, not a self-derived identity. The EAGLE coalescence forecast (Section 4.1, citing Jin et al. 2023) is presented only as analogy/consistency for structurally similar systems, not as a fit to these data or a forced prediction. Self-citations (e.g., prior SAPPHIRES or Laishram works) supply context or data reduction, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that close the central claims. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs or definitions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central discovery rests on standard cosmological parameters, published SED and dynamical-mass recipes, and the assumption that single-line H-alpha redshifts plus spatial proximity establish physical membership. No new physical constants or particles are introduced; free choices are limited to conventional analysis settings (orbit factor, binning thresholds, SFH parametrization).

free parameters (4)
  • f_PM (projected-mass orbit factor) = 32/pi
    Set to 32/pi for isotropic orbits following Heisler et al. (1985); the radial-orbit alternative 64/pi is quoted only as upper bound. Directly scales the reported dynamical mass.
  • alpha (centroid correction) = 1.5
    Fixed at 1.5 in the Heisler projected-mass formula; affects MPM at the ~10 percent level.
  • Bagpipes delayed-tau SFH priors and 100-Myr SFR averaging window
    Uniform priors on age, tau, Z, U, AV and the 100-Myr averaging choice control the reported stellar masses and SFRs; standard but still free analysis choices.
  • KDE smoothing scale and overdensity aperture radii = 1 cMpc
    sigma_KDE=1 cMpc and test apertures 0.5–2 cMpc are chosen by hand to quantify the large-scale overdensity; they do not enter the compact-group membership list itself.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70, Om=0.3, OL=0.7
    Used throughout for proper distances, velocity conversions, and cosmic age; standard but untested at the precision of the paper.
  • domain assumption Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator remains a useful characteristic mass even for a non-equilibrium assembling system
    Explicitly invoked in Section 3.4 and caveated in 4.1; the dark-matter-dominated conclusion depends on it.
  • domain assumption Single H-alpha detections (zconf=1–2) plus spatial proximity establish physical group membership
    Five of six members lack a second line; the paper argues proximity in sky and wavelength makes chance alignment unlikely, but this remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption BPASS v2.2.1 + Calzetti dust + delayed-tau SFH adequately recover stellar masses and ages at z~5
    Adopted from the SAPPHIRES EDR pipeline; systematic SFH and dust uncertainties are acknowledged but not fully marginalized.
  • domain assumption EAGLE analogues of CGG-z5-like groups correctly predict coalescence by z~3–4
    Used in Section 4.1 to interpret SCGG-z5 as a pre-coalescence phase; the evolutionary forecast is not an independent measurement.
invented entities (1)
  • SCGG-z5 (Shirui Group) independent evidence
    purpose: Name given to the newly discovered compact structure of six spectroscopically confirmed galaxies
    The entity is the observational discovery itself, not a postulated physical mediator or force; independent evidence is the public JWST data set.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26748 in / 3548 out tokens · 36932 ms · 2026-07-14T06:25:54.747293+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of SCGG-z5, a compact galaxy proto-group at $z = 4.97$ in the MACS0416 field, identified from the SAPPHIRES Early Data Release. Six members are spectroscopically confirmed via H$\alpha$ emission, spanning $4.96 \leq z_{\rm spec} \leq 4.98$ within a projected diameter of $\sim16$ pkpc. Spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting yields individual stellar masses $8.4 \leq \log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \leq 9.8$, a total group stellar mass of $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) = 10.07 \pm 0.04$; three of the six members lie above or on the star-forming main sequence at $z \sim 5$, by up to $0.5$ dex. Pixel-by-pixel analysis reveals diverse resolved radial star-formation profiles: three members show declining specific SFR radial profiles and outward-rising stellar age gradients, consistent with inside-out stellar mass growth, while the most massive member shows a tentative inverted sSFR profile suggestive of reduced central star formation. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion over all six members is $\sigma_v = 375^{+55}_{-195}$ km s$^{-1}$. The projected mass estimator yields $\log(M_{\rm PM}/M_{\odot}) \approx 12.30^{+0.30}_{-0.25}$, consistent with a dark-matter-dominated group halo. EAGLE simulations of structurally similar groups predict full coalescence by $z \sim 3$--$4$, with the merged remnant reaching $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) > 11$ by $z \sim 1$, consistent with SCGG-z5 representing a rare pre-coalescence phase of early massive galaxy formation, possibly tracing the assembly of a future brightest group or cluster galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11182 by Eiichi Egami, Fengwu Sun, Haruka Kusakabe, Jakob M. Helton, Kosuke Takahashi, Novan Saputra Haryana, Ronaldo Laishram, Ryo Albert Sutanto, Tadayuki Kodama, Takahiro Morishita, Xiaojing Lin, Yoshinobu Fudamoto, Yusei Koyama, Zhengyi Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Wide-field JWST NIRCam RGB image (F277W/F150W/F115W). Overlaid contours show the 2D Gaussian KDE overdensity δ = (ρ/⟨ρ⟩) − 1 of Hα emitters at 4.89 ≤ z ≤ 5.05, with levels at δ = 1 (gold dashed), 2 (orange), 3 (red), and 4 (dark red), computed with a fixed smoothing scale of σKDE = 1 cMpc. Open grey circles mark the 58 spectroscopic Hα emitters in the redshift slice; filled white circles indica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: NIRCam grism spectra of the six SCGG-z5 members, ordered as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hα-based SFRs (dust-corrected, R. L. Theios et al. 2019 calibration, Kroupa IMF) for the six proto-group members placed on the C. Di Cesare et al. (2026) Hα-based SFMS at z ∼ 4–5 (dashed green line; same calibration as our SFRs). The shaded green band shows the intrinsic scatter (±σint ≈ 0.32 dex) of the C. Di Cesare et al. (2026) relation. Points are colour-coded by galaxy ID. SFRs are lower limits as no … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Morphological decomposition via multi-component S´ersic fitting in F200W. From left to right: science image, best-fit model, and normalised residual. Residual structure and bipolar patterns in three of the six members are suggestive of tidal perturbations; the outer-dominated residuals common to all members are suggestive of group-scale tidal perturbations. (b) Resolved stellar properties from pixel-by… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthally averaged log sSFR radial profiles for the six proto-group members, derived from pixel-by-pixel Bagpipes SED fitting. Each galaxy is shown with a distinct colour (see legend); shaded bands indicate the 1σ bin-to-bin uncertainty. SCGGb (dashed line) has truncated central bins (r < 0.85 kpc) due to its disturbed morphology. Three mem￾bers (SCGGf, SCGGd, SCGGa) show clearly declining sSFR with radi… view at source ↗

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

58 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2 2021

  2. [2]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1049

    Ando, M., Shimasaku, K., Momose, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1049 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    Arribas, S., Perna, M., Rodr´ ıguez Del Pino, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 2024

  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]

    K., S´ anchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez, S. F., Garc´ ıa-Lorenzo, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425397

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 2015

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 14Laishram et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 694, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451448

    Brinch, M., Jin, S., Gobat, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451448

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451448 2025

  8. [8]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269

    doi:10.1086/324269 2001

  9. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  10. [10]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  11. [11]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  12. [12]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b 2017

  13. [13]

    E., Appleton, P

    Cluver, M. E., Appleton, P. N., Ogle, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/93

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/93 2013

  14. [14]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557790 D´ ıaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1034, doi: 10.1126/science.aap7605

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2331 2014

  15. [15]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x 2011

  16. [16]

    E., Bialek, J., Busha, M., et al

    Evrard, A. E., Bialek, J., Busha, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 122, doi: 10.1086/521616

    doi:10.1086/521616 2008

  17. [18]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11770

    Fudamoto, Y., Nakazato, Y., Ceverino, D., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11770

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11770

  18. [19]

    C., B´ ethermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038284

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038284 2020

  19. [20]

    2019, A&A, 632, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834547

    Girelli, G., Bolzonella, M., & Cimatti, A. 2019, A&A, 632, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834547

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834547 2019

  20. [21]

    S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Haryana, N. S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03ad

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03ad 2025

  21. [22]

    Heisler, J., Tremaine, S., & Bahcall, J. N. 1985, ApJ, 298, 8, doi: 10.1086/163584

    doi:10.1086/163584 1985

  22. [23]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 962, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da7

  23. [24]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

  24. [25]

    S., Burkert, A., & Oser, L

    Hirschmann, M., Naab, T., Somerville, R. S., Burkert, A., & Oser, L. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3200, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19961.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19961.x 2012

  25. [26]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1168 2009

  26. [27]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 950, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19306.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19306.x 2011

  27. [28]

    Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b 2023

  28. [29]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245724

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245724 2023

  29. [30]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348540 2024

  30. [31]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545

    doi:10.1093/mnras/262.3.545 1993

  31. [32]

    2026a, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y., Kusakabe, H., et al. 2026a, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824 2041

  32. [33]

    2026b, ApJ, 998, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3003

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y., Naufal, A., et al. 2026b, ApJ, 998, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3003

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3003

  33. [34]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2441

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2441 2023

  34. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    Lin, X., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565 2024

  35. [36]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347102

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347102 2025

  36. [37]

    P., Spilker, J

    Marrone, D. P., Spilker, J. S., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature24629 Mendes de Oliveira, C., & Hickson, P. 1994, ApJ, 427, 684, doi: 10.1086/174175

    doi:10.1038/nature24629 2018

  37. [38]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    Morishita, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e 2023

  38. [39]

    2025a, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

  39. [40]

    2025b, ApJ, 985, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4c3

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Vanzella, E., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4c3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc4c3

  40. [41]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2312 2010

  41. [42]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 2016

  42. [43]

    J., et al

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553828

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553828 2025

  43. [44]

    Pasha, I., & Miller, T. B. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5703, doi: 10.21105/joss.05703

    doi:10.21105/joss.05703 2023

  44. [45]

    2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 2010

  45. [46]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452570 2025

  46. [47]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244661

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244661 2022

  47. [48]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450760

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450760 2024

  48. [49]

    S., Bezanson, R., Weiner, B

    Spilker, J. S., Bezanson, R., Weiner, B. J., Whitaker, K. E., & Williams, C. C. 2019, ApJ, 883, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3804

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3804 2019

  49. [50]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 The Shirui Group: A Compact Proto-group atz∼5 15

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1353 2018

  50. [51]

    M., Egami, E., et al

    Sun, F., Helton, J. M., Egami, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3 2024

  51. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15587, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15587

    Sun, F., Fudamoto, Y., Lin, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15587, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15587

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15587 2025

  52. [53]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw303

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw303 2016

  53. [54]

    M., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b 2018

  54. [55]

    S., Silverman, J

    Tanaka, T. S., Silverman, J. D., Nakazato, Y., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1323, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae091

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psae091 2024

  55. [56]

    L., Steidel, C

    Theios, R. L., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf386

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf386 2019

  56. [57]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc

    Valentino, F., Tanaka, M., Davidzon, I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc 2020

  57. [58]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa 2023

  58. [59]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08066

    Wei, X., Cai, Z., Yu, F., Li, M., & Wu, Y. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08066

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08066 2026