A Review of Galaxy Quenching -- Part I: Defining the Problem and Observational Results

Asa F. L. Bluck

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references

A Review of Galaxy Quenching -- Part I: Defining the Problem and Observational Results

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxy quenching—the long-term shutdown of star formation—is the unifying process behind three major failures of ΛCDM galaxy formation, and this review's observational synthesis identifies central velocity dispersion as the fundamental…

desk verdict A solid, self-aware review that is worth reading for newcomers, but its central claim that velocity dispersion is the unique driver rests on random-forest rankings that the paper itself admits are conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07221 v1 pith:G4FMOR2B submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.GA

Asa F. L. Bluck This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxyquenchingstarformationbimodalitycentralvelocitydispersionenvironmentΛCDMstar-formingmainsequenceJWSThigh-redshiftgalaxies

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

This review argues that galaxy quenching—the long-term suppression of star formation below what is typical at the same mass and epoch—is not one phenomenon among many but the central process needed to reconcile the observed galaxy population with ΛCDM. Three failures motivate it: too few baryons end up in stars at both low and high halo masses, hot gas haloes in clusters should cool and collapse but do not, and galaxies split into two distinct red and blue populations. Drawing on two decades of survey data, the review's observational synthesis places central velocity dispersion (and closely tied bulge mass) as the fundamental intrinsic correlator of quenching in central galaxies, with environment—halo mass, local density, and position within the halo—dominating for satellites. If this hierarchy is right, then stellar mass, morphology, and halo mass are proxies, and the field's next step is to find the physics that ties star formation to the central, disordered kinematics of a galaxy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the random forest classification analysis applied to SDSS and MaNGA samples: parameters compete to reduce impurity in separating star-forming from quenched galaxies, so a parameter's importance score measures whether it adds predictive power after controlling for everything else. This machine identified central velocity dispersion as the dominant predictor for centrals and environment for satellites, and also showed, at resolved scales, that global galaxy properties predict the quenched or star-forming state of a region while local surface density predicts the actual star formation rate in star-forming regions. Central velocity dispersion, defined as the luminosity-weighted line-of-sight velocity dispersion within the central kiloparsec, is a dynamical proxy for the depth of the galaxy's potential well and, via the $M_{\rm BH}$–$\sigma_c$ relation, for black hole mass.

What would settle it

Take central galaxies matched in $\sigma_c$ and bulge mass and split them by local overdensity or halo mass: if quenched fraction differs significantly across the split, the claim that centrals quench independently of environment fails. Alternatively, rerun the random forest with cold gas mass and black-hole accretion luminosity among the predictors; if $\sigma_c$ loses importance, the primacy ranking is an artifact of omitted variables.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that quenching is the process whose mass- and environment-dependent action explains the shape of the stellar mass function, the stability of hot cluster atmospheres, and the red sequence-blue cloud bimodality. Observational results assembled here single out central velocity dispersion as the one galaxy property that survives control of nuisance variables in predicting whether a central galaxy is quenched: bulge mass and central density correlate strongly, while stellar mass, morphology, disc properties, halo mass, and local density lose predictive power once dispersion is known. For satellite galaxies the same data identify environment as the dominant driver, with quenched fraction rising toward the centers of massive haloes. The review therefore proposes that the longstanding 'mass versus environment' dichotomy maps onto a deeper distinction: intrinsic, core-regulated quenching for centrals versus externally imposed quenching for satellites, with the two producing opposite radial signatures (inside-out for centrals, outside-in for low-mass satellites).

Load-bearing premise

The entire ranking of central velocity dispersion as the fundamental driver rests on which parameters are put into the random forest; the review itself notes that the analyses are conditional on included observables and sample selection, so if cold gas content or current black-hole activity were added, the importance scores could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If central velocity dispersion is fundamental, surveys should prioritize kinematic measurements (e.g., $\sigma_c$) over morphology or stellar mass for predicting quiescence.
Quenching of centrals and satellites are distinct channels: any simulation must reproduce environment-independence for centrals and environment-dominance for satellites, with opposite radial signatures during transition.
Observed quenched-fraction mass relations and the shape of the stellar mass function can be reinterpreted as consequences of a quenching threshold set by central potential rather than total mass.
If quenching is a global process, spatially resolved studies should find that regions in quenched systems are quiescent everywhere, while star formation in star-forming systems is regulated locally.
At high redshift, JWST's massive quiescent galaxies provide a test: their $\sigma_c$ (or bulge mass) should predict quenching as at low redshift, and environment effects should be weak for centrals.

Reading between the lines

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

Not in the paper, but if the argument holds: gas content should be downstream of $\sigma_c$, so one could predict the molecular-gas depletion time and star-forming efficiency profile of a central galaxy from $\sigma_c$ alone.
Not in the paper, but if the argument holds: compact, high-$\sigma_c$ satellites in low-density environments should remain star forming, which would distinguish core-driven from environment-driven quenching in a way the assembled data do not explicitly isolate.
Not in the paper, but if the argument holds: galaxy-formation models could decouple the two processes—a single halo-wide throttle plus local ISM regulation may reproduce both the bimodality and the resolved star-forming main sequence without sub-kpc quenching recipes.
Not in the paper, but if the argument holds: massive quiescent galaxies at $z\gtrsim4$ should have high $\sigma_c$ at fixed mass, and their quenched fraction should be independent of environment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a review, explicitly, so judge it as one. It does a genuinely good job of organizing a sprawling literature: the three-problems framing (§1.2) is useful for teaching, the definition of quenching in §1.3 is sensible and standard, and the coverage of SFR tracers, the SFMS, morphology, environment, resolved IFU work, gas physics, and JWST results is broad and mostly accurate. The figures are well chosen and the caveats about random forests are stated openly in the text. As a synthesis and entry point, it serves a real purpose.

What is new is organizational, not scientific. There are no new measurements, derivations, or predictions, which is fine for a review but means the paper cannot resolve the questions it frames. Its weakest load-bearing section is §4.4–§4.6, where the claim that central velocity dispersion is the only fundamental intrinsic correlator rests on random-forest feature importances from the author's own prior work and Brownson et al. The paper does caution that RF results are conditional on included observables, but then draws a categorical conclusion: halo mass and stellar mass receive zero importance. This is exactly the collinearity trap that impurity-based importances are known to suffer (Strobl et al. 2008). The stress-test worry is legitimate: the three-problems narrative hangs on that synthesis, and the synthesis is correlational, not causal. I would not call it fatal — the paper is upfront about its own limits and the broader literature (e.g., Woo et al. 2013) disagrees on halo mass — but the reader should treat that central claim as an interpretation of one statistical method, not a settled result.

Citation pattern is heavy on self-citations, but those are published and relevant. The math checks out against standard references. The writing is clear, if long.

Who gets value: graduate students and researchers entering quenching who want a map of the field and a bibliography. It deserves a serious referee because it will be widely read and cited, and a referee can flag the over-interpretation of RF importance before it hardens into consensus. I would send it out, with the expectation of minor revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is Part I of a two-part review series on galaxy quenching, aimed at answering why galaxies cease forming stars. It defines quenching as a significant, long-duration reduction in star formation relative to typical star-forming systems at the same mass and epoch, and frames the problem through three purported fundamental issues with ΛCDM: inefficient star formation, the stability of hot gas haloes in clusters, and galaxy bimodality. The review then synthesizes observational results on identifying quenched galaxies, the star-forming main sequence, intrinsic and environmental correlators of quiescence, spatially resolved quenching, gas physics, and high-redshift JWST results. The central narrative is that central velocity dispersion and bulge mass are the fundamental intrinsic drivers of central galaxy quenching, with environment dominating for satellites, based largely on random forest feature-importance analyses from Bluck et al. (2022) and Brownson et al. (2022).

Significance. If its central synthesis holds, this review would provide a valuable unified observational framework for galaxy quenching, connecting central structure and kinematics to the three cosmological problems and offering a well-organized reference for the field. The manuscript is particularly strong in its breadth of literature coverage, clear definitions, and explicit caveats in several sections, and it reproduces many key figures from the primary literature. However, the load-bearing claim—that central velocity dispersion is uniquely fundamental among strongly correlated galaxy properties—rests on random forest feature-importance results whose interpretation under collinearity is fragile. The review's usefulness as a definitive synthesis therefore depends on how convincingly this methodological concern is addressed.

major comments (3)

[§4.4, §4.6, and §4 summary] The central claim that central velocity dispersion, and not halo mass or stellar mass, is the fundamental intrinsic driver of central galaxy quenching rests on random forest feature-importance analyses (Fig. 14 bottom-right; Fig. 18). The manuscript itself correctly states that random forest results are 'conditional on the included observables, sample selection, and central-galaxy focus here, rather than as a universal causal proof,' yet the §4 summary asserts categorically that 'the only parameter to survive rigorous control of nuisance variables is that of central velocity dispersion.' Impurity-based feature importance is known to split importance arbitrarily among strongly collinear predictors (e.g., Strobl et al. 2008), and halo mass, stellar mass, bulge mass, and sigma are all tightly correlated in SDSS-like samples. Because the paper's entire observational synthesis passes through this result, the categorical wording overstates the evidence. Please soften the summary, or better, add a discussion of the collinearity limitation and cite corroborating evidence from methods not based on impurity importance (e.g., partial correlations, direct tests, or permutation-based approaches).
[§1.2.1, p.7] The statement 'If one cannot rectify the shapes of the mass functions in Fig. 2, then (despite all of its successes) ΛCDM cannot be an accurate description of the Universe' is too strong as written. The discrepancy in Fig. 2 is between the observed stellar mass function and the scaled halo mass function in the absence of baryonic feedback; within ΛCDM, baryonic feedback is part of the theory. The paper itself immediately explains that SN and AGN feedback can rectify the discrepancy, so the quoted sentence appears to conflate 'ΛCDM with no feedback' with 'ΛCDM.' Please rephrase to avoid a straw-man framing, e.g., 'in the absence of baryonic feedback processes, ΛCDM cannot account for the observed mass functions.'
[§5.4 and §4.4] The review dismisses the halo-mass quenching narrative of Woo et al. (2013) (Fig. 21) by appealing to the same random forest analysis that assigns zero importance to halo mass once central velocity dispersion is included (Fig. 14 bottom-right). This is internally consistent only if one fully accepts the random forest feature-importance ranking. Since that ranking is the very point at issue, the dismissal is circular in practice. The manuscript should either present independent evidence against halo mass as a fundamental driver (e.g., direct comparisons of quenching fractions at fixed sigma across halo mass, or causal-inference analyses) or frame the §5.4 discussion as an open tension rather than a resolved one.

minor comments (5)

[§1.1] Typo: 'image form the LSST' should be 'image from the LSST.'
[§4.4] Typo: 'casual links' should be 'causal links.'
[§4.6] Typo: 'it’s central, disordered kinematics' should be 'its central, disordered kinematics.'
[§1.6] Typo: 'spacially flat' should be 'spatially flat.'
[§4.5.1] The sentence 'However, the best tests of the dependence of quenching on structure come from kinematics' is a strong assertion; consider adding a citation or softening it, since the preceding discussion is about photometric structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review makes no new derivation, and its central synthesis is openly inherited from cited prior analyses with stated caveats.

full rationale

This is a literature review, not a derivation paper. Its central claims—that central velocity dispersion is the most fundamental intrinsic correlator of central galaxy quenching and that environment dominates for satellites—are presented as syntheses of previously published random-forest analyses (Bluck et al. 2022; Brownson et al. 2022; Piotrowska et al. 2022). No equation in the paper is constructed so that a fitted input is later reported as a prediction. The definitional identity in Eqs. (23)–(24) is explicitly a factorization of the star-formation efficiency, and the SFRD ansatz in Eq. (19) is a bookkeeping framework rather than a derived result. The paper repeatedly cautions that random-forest results are conditional on included observables and sample selection, and it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or an author-derived theorem to forbid alternatives. Heavy self-citation is present, but it is the normal evidentiary practice of a review and is not used to bootstrap a new result. The strongest concern—collinearity among sigma_c, M_*, and M_halo affecting feature importances—is a correctness/robustness risk external to circularity; it is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation of the random-forest approach. Score 1 reflects minor self-citation weight in the central narrative, not circular derivation.

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

This is a review article, so the ledger is short. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The synthesis rests on standard cosmology assumptions, literature null models, and previously published statistical analyses, including the author's own.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology is assumed for all distance and luminosity calculations.
Stated in §1.6: 'Throughout this review we assume a spacially flat ΛCDM cosmology'; this affects all derived distances, stellar masses, and star formation rates.
domain assumption The halo mass function scaled by the universal baryon fraction is the correct null model for the maximum possible stellar mass function.
Used in §1.2.1 and Fig. 2 to define the 'cosmological problem'; if this null model is not appropriate, the magnitude of the problem changes.
domain assumption Simple feedback-free galaxy formation models predict that most baryons end up in stars.
Invoked in §1.2.1 ('the vast majority of baryons should reside within stars by the present epoch') based on cited semi-analytic models; it is an upstream modeling result, not directly observed.
domain assumption The bimodality in galaxy color is a true division in stellar population age after correcting for dust and redshift.
Assumed throughout §2 and §5; the text argues this is well established, but it underpins the whole red/blue galaxy classification.
ad hoc to paper Random forest feature importance, as applied in Bluck et al. (2022) and Brownson et al. (2022), can rank causal relevance of quenching predictors.
The review's central conclusion that central velocity dispersion is the fundamental intrinsic driver relies on these analyses (§4.4, §4.6); the paper itself notes the results are conditional on included variables and not universal causal proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Review of Galaxy Quenching -- Part I: Defining the Problem and Observational Results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4FMOR2B

@misc{pith2026260807221,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Review of Galaxy Quenching -- Part I: Defining the Problem and Observational Results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4FMOR2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07221}
}

read the original abstract

The goal of this review article series is to provide a comprehensive overview of galactic star formation and quenching from both an observational and theoretical perspective. Drawing on a vast quantity of literature, we attempt to answer a deceptively simple question: why do galaxies cease forming stars? In Part I, we concentrate on observational results, especially from the past two decades, where there have been enormous advances made towards answering this fundamental question. In Part II we focus on theory and simulations, including discussion of direct observational tests thereof. Observationally, the advent of wide-field spectroscopic galaxy surveys, spatially resolved spectroscopy, high resolution sub-mm and radio observations, X-ray observations, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and most recently the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have all contributed significantly to our empirical knowledge of star formation and its demise in galaxy quenching. We discuss the fundamental problems which quenching aims to solve, various routes to identifying quiescent galaxies in observations, observational constraints on quenching from studies of galaxy populations, and the spatially resolved view of quenching. We end this part of the review with a detailed discussion of the latest results on galaxy quenching at the high redshift frontier from JWST observations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[3]

ApJ 800(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39, arXiv:1410.7398 [astro-ph.GA] G¨ uver T,¨Ozel F (2009) The relation between optical extinction and hydrogen col- umn density in the Galaxy. MNRAS 400(4):2050–2053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2009.15598.x, arXiv:0903.2057 [astro-ph.GA] Guzzo L, Scodeggio M, Garilli B, et al (2014) The VIM...

arXiv 2009
[5]

too massive

arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.08577. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.08577, arXiv:2508.08577 [astro-ph.GA] Zheng Z, Berlind AA, Weinberg DH, et al (2005) Theoretical Models of the Halo Occu- pation Distribution: Separating Central and Satellite Galaxies. ApJ 633(2):791–809. https://doi.org/10.1086/466510, arXiv:astro-ph/0408564 [astro-ph] Ziegler JJ, Free...

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.08577 2005
[131]

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x, arXiv:1006.0106 [astro- ph.CO] Guo Y, Ferguson HC, Bell EF, et al (2015) Clumpy Galaxies in CANDELS. I. The Definition of UV Clumps and the Fraction of Clumpy Galaxies at 0.5< z <

work page arXiv 2015
[246]

II: H I and H2 Column Densities

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x, arXiv:astro-ph/0009005 [astro-ph] Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009a) The Atomic-to-Molecular Transition in Galaxies. II: H I and H2 Column Densities. ApJ 693(1):216–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/216, arXiv:0811.0004 [astro-ph] Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009b) The Star Form...

work page arXiv 2009
[607]

MNRAS 451(3):3021–3033

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03335, arXiv:astro-ph/0502199 [astro-ph] Di Teodoro EM, Fraternali F (2015) 3D BAROLO: a new 3D algorithm to derive rota- tion curves of galaxies. MNRAS 451(3):3021–3033. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stv1213, arXiv:1505.07834 [astro-ph.GA] Dimauro P, Huertas-Company M, Daddi E, et al (2018) A catalog of polychromatic bulge-...

arXiv 2015
[1220]

ApJ 955(1):L12

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3144, arXiv:2207.12338 [astro-ph.GA] Baggen JFW, van Dokkum P, Labb´ e I, et al (2023) Sizes and Mass Profiles of Can- didate Massive Galaxies Discovered by JWST at 7< z <9: Evidence for Very Early Formation of the Central 100 pc of Present-day Ellipticals. ApJ 955(1):L12. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef, arXiv:2...

arXiv 2023
[1240]

PASA 38:e035

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15548.x, arXiv:0908.3564 [astro- ph.CO] 114 Cortese, L., Catinella, et al (2021) The Dawes Review 9: The role of cold gas stripping on the star formation quenching of satellite galaxies. PASA 38:e035. https://doi. org/10.1017/pasa.2021.18, arXiv:2104.02193 [astro-ph.GA] Couch WJ, Sharples RM (1987) A spectroscopic ...

work page arXiv 2021
[1285]

The SAMI Galaxy Survey: Revising the Fraction of Slow Rotators in IFS Galaxy Surveys

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1751, arXiv:1707.03402 [astro-ph.GA] van de Sande J, Bland-Hawthorn J, Fogarty LMR, et al (2017b) The SAMI Galaxy Survey: Revisiting Galaxy Classification through High-order Stellar Kinematics. ApJ 835(1):104. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/104, arXiv:1611.07039 [astro-ph.GA] van der Wel, A., Franx, et al (2014) 3...

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 17 references

[1699]

top-down

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18244.x, arXiv:1012.4426 [astro- ph.CO] Ciesla, L., Charmandaris, et al (2015) Constraining the properties of AGN host galax- ies with spectral energy distribution modelling. A&A 576:A10. https://doi.org/10. 1051/0004-6361/201425252, ar...

2015
[1802]

Main Sequence

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13525.x, arXiv:0802.0198 [astro-ph] Nelson D, Springel V, Pakmor R, et al (2018) The IllustrisTNG Simulations: Public Data Release. MNRAS 475(1):624. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx3040 Newman AB, Ellis RS, Bundy K, et al (2012) Can M...

2018
[2003]

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897

MNRAS 344(4):1000–1028. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897. x, arXiv:astro-ph/0309134 [astro-ph] Bruzual A. G (1983) Spectral evolution of galaxies. I. Early-type systems. ApJ 273:105–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/161352 Bryant JJ, Owers MS, Robotham ASG, et al (201...

1983
[2353]

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv740, arXiv:1412.4783 [astro-ph.GA] 156

arXiv
[3603]

MNRAS 531(3):3551–3578

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2440, arXiv:1807.11180 [astro-ph.GA] Lagos CdP, Bravo M, Tobar R, et al (2024) Quenching massive galaxies across cosmic time with the semi-analytic model SHARK V2.0. MNRAS 531(3):3551–3578. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1024, arXiv:2309.02...

2024 arXiv
[4016]

ApJ 791(1):52

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2113, arXiv:1804.03150 [astro-ph.GA] Barro, G., Faber SM, et al (2014) CANDELS+3D-HST: Compact SFGs atz∼2–3, the Progenitors of the First Quiescent Galaxies. ApJ 791(1):52. https://doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/791/1/52, arXiv:1311.5559 [astro-ph....

2014 arXiv
[5426]

MNRAS 527(2):2139–2151

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1379, arXiv:1803.10234 [astro-ph.GA] Dome T, Tacchella S, Fialkov A, et al (2024) Mini-quenching of z = 4-8 galaxies by bursty star formation. MNRAS 527(2):2139–2151. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stad3239, arXiv:2305.07066 [astro-ph.GA] Dom ´...

2024 arXiv
[5436]

ApJ 943(2):L9

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2139, arXiv:2206.13521 [astro-ph.GA] Zavala JA, Buat V, Casey CM, et al (2023) Dusty Starbursts Masquerading as Ultra- high Redshift Galaxies in JWST CEERS Observations. ApJ 943(2):L9. https://doi. org/10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe, arXiv:2208.0181...

2023 arXiv
[5494]

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2149, arXiv:2207.14302 [astro-ph.GA] Begeman KG (1989) HI rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I. NGC 3198. A&A 223:47–60 Behroozi P, Silk J (2018) The most massive galaxies and black holes allowed by ΛCDM. MNRAS 477(4):5382–5387. https://doi.o...

1989 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

ApJ 800(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39, arXiv:1410.7398 [astro-ph.GA] G¨ uver T,¨Ozel F (2009) The relation between optical extinction and hydrogen col- umn density in the Galaxy. MNRAS 400(4):2050–2053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2009.15598.x, arXiv:0903.2057 [astro-ph.GA] Guzzo L, Scodeggio M, Garilli B, et al (2014) The VIM...

arXiv 2009

[2] [5]

too massive

arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.08577. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.08577, arXiv:2508.08577 [astro-ph.GA] Zheng Z, Berlind AA, Weinberg DH, et al (2005) Theoretical Models of the Halo Occu- pation Distribution: Separating Central and Satellite Galaxies. ApJ 633(2):791–809. https://doi.org/10.1086/466510, arXiv:astro-ph/0408564 [astro-ph] Ziegler JJ, Free...

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.08577 2005

[3] [131]

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x, arXiv:1006.0106 [astro- ph.CO] Guo Y, Ferguson HC, Bell EF, et al (2015) Clumpy Galaxies in CANDELS. I. The Definition of UV Clumps and the Fraction of Clumpy Galaxies at 0.5< z <

work page arXiv 2015

[4] [246]

II: H I and H2 Column Densities

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x, arXiv:astro-ph/0009005 [astro-ph] Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009a) The Atomic-to-Molecular Transition in Galaxies. II: H I and H2 Column Densities. ApJ 693(1):216–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/216, arXiv:0811.0004 [astro-ph] Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009b) The Star Form...

work page arXiv 2009

[5] [607]

MNRAS 451(3):3021–3033

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03335, arXiv:astro-ph/0502199 [astro-ph] Di Teodoro EM, Fraternali F (2015) 3D BAROLO: a new 3D algorithm to derive rota- tion curves of galaxies. MNRAS 451(3):3021–3033. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stv1213, arXiv:1505.07834 [astro-ph.GA] Dimauro P, Huertas-Company M, Daddi E, et al (2018) A catalog of polychromatic bulge-...

arXiv 2015

[6] [1220]

ApJ 955(1):L12

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3144, arXiv:2207.12338 [astro-ph.GA] Baggen JFW, van Dokkum P, Labb´ e I, et al (2023) Sizes and Mass Profiles of Can- didate Massive Galaxies Discovered by JWST at 7< z <9: Evidence for Very Early Formation of the Central 100 pc of Present-day Ellipticals. ApJ 955(1):L12. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef, arXiv:2...

arXiv 2023

[7] [1240]

PASA 38:e035

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15548.x, arXiv:0908.3564 [astro- ph.CO] 114 Cortese, L., Catinella, et al (2021) The Dawes Review 9: The role of cold gas stripping on the star formation quenching of satellite galaxies. PASA 38:e035. https://doi. org/10.1017/pasa.2021.18, arXiv:2104.02193 [astro-ph.GA] Couch WJ, Sharples RM (1987) A spectroscopic ...

work page arXiv 2021

[8] [1285]

The SAMI Galaxy Survey: Revising the Fraction of Slow Rotators in IFS Galaxy Surveys

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1751, arXiv:1707.03402 [astro-ph.GA] van de Sande J, Bland-Hawthorn J, Fogarty LMR, et al (2017b) The SAMI Galaxy Survey: Revisiting Galaxy Classification through High-order Stellar Kinematics. ApJ 835(1):104. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/104, arXiv:1611.07039 [astro-ph.GA] van der Wel, A., Franx, et al (2014) 3...

work page Pith review arXiv 2017