Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A massive galaxy has stayed nearly star-free for hundreds of millions of years while sitting at the center of a cool, gas-rich cosmic-web node — and the paper argues that a jet from a neighboring AGN is what keeps it that way.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:20 UTC pith:GNFS77NZ

load-bearing objection A well-supported discovery of a gas-poor quiescent galaxy inside a giant cool CGM at z~3.25, with a plausible but under-supported jet-feedback interpretation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.20473 v3 pith:GNFS77NZ submitted 2026-01-28 astro-ph.GA

A quiescent galaxy in a gas-rich cosmic web node at z~3

Weichen Wang , Sebastiano Cantalupo , Marta Galbiati , Andrea Travascio , Antonio Pensabene , Charles C. Steidel , Gabriele Pezzulli , Bingjie Wang
show 6 more authors
Xiaohan Wang Rajeshwari Dutta Titouan Lazeyras Nicolas Ledos Huiyang Mao Giada Quadri
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quiescent galaxiescircumgalactic mediumhigh-redshift galaxy evolutionAGN jet feedbackLyα emissionmolecular gas depletioncosmic web nodegalaxy quenching
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 the discovery of a massive, compact galaxy ("the Red Potato") at z≈3.25 that is quiescent — its star formation rate is at least 10 times below the main sequence and it has no detectable molecular gas — yet it sits at the center of an 80-kpc reservoir of cool gas glowing in Lyα and Hα. Because external gas accretion is thought to feed star formation, a quiet galaxy with a gas-rich circumgalactic medium is unexpected. The authors argue that the galaxy's star formation is suppressed not by its own outflows or its own AGN, but by turbulence injected into its CGM by a jet from a bright X-ray AGN in a neighboring galaxy 48 kpc away, which has reduced accretion over the last few hundred million years. The same AGN-rich environment also illuminates the cool gas, making the reservoir visible. If correct, this establishes an environmentally driven, external pathway for maintaining quiescence at high redshift, distinct from gas exhaustion or internal feedback.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a ~10^11 solar-mass galaxy at z=3.250, showing old stellar absorption lines, a strong 4000 Å break, compact morphology, SFR ≈ 4 solar masses per year (more than 1 dex below the star-forming main sequence), and a molecular gas fraction below 6%, sits inside an 80-kpc cool gas reservoir traced by bright, spectrally broad Lyα and Hα emission. The same data show no cold outflows and no evidence of an internal AGN. Around that galaxy, the authors find unusually high CGM velocity dispersion (400–500 km/s at 20–30 kpc), extended X-ray emission aligned from a neighboring X-ray AGN (ID2, 48 kpc away, z=3.251) toward the Red Potato, and a steep-spectrum 0.8

What carries the argument

The argument ties together three observations: (1) the quiescent galaxy itself, characterized through stellar absorption lines, SED fitting, CO non-detection, and Na D non-detection as old, massive, gas-poor, and outflow-free; (2) its CGM, traced by Lyα and Hα recombination emission, which is bright, extended to about 50 kpc radius, and kinematically hot (σ ≈ 400–500 km/s, several times higher than comparable QSO nebulae); and (3) the external jet candidate — an extended X-ray feature pointing from the neighbor AGN ID2 toward the galaxy, plus an unresolved steep-spectrum radio source in the 20-arcsec beam. The jet is the mechanism proposed to maintain turbulence; the high velocity dispersion

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the diffuse X-ray excess and the unresolved radio emission really are a jet launched by AGN ID2, and that this jet — not chance line-of-sight alignment or the galaxy's own past — is what keeps the CGM turbulent and star formation suppressed; the paper itself notes the X-ray photon count is low and the radio source is unresolved in the 20-arcsec ASKAP beam.

What would settle it

A high-resolution radio map of the 0.8 GHz source would largely settle it: if the radio emission breaks into a jet/lobe structure connecting AGN ID2 to the Red Potato, the proposed mechanism is supported; if it resolves into an unrelated background source or a compact core at the Red Potato itself, the causal chain fails. A second decisive check is deep integral-field spectroscopy of the CGM: if the 'broad' Lyα/Hα profiles decompose into several discrete velocity components from distinct gas clumps rather than a single turbulent medium, the inferred turbulence level would be an artifact.

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

If this is right

  • Galaxy quenching at z≳3 does not require the quenched galaxy to be gas-poor on large scales: a galaxy can be starved of accretion while embedded in a cool, gas-rich CGM.
  • AGN jets can act as external, preventive feedback that suppresses star formation in a neighboring galaxy without necessarily quenching the jet's own host, which here remains on the main sequence.
  • High CGM velocity dispersion measured in Hα and Lyα can serve as an observational indicator of suppressed accretion, complementary to molecular-gas upper limits.
  • Quiescent galaxies in overdense regions may be preferentially found near AGN with jets; searches for such galaxies could exploit jet-illuminated CGM fluorescence as a discovery tool.
  • The observed quiescence timescale of a few hundred Myr is set by the jet's ability to keep the CGM turbulent, so the mechanism is a maintenance mechanism, not just an initiation one.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Reading beyond the paper: if this mechanism operates generally, the quenching of some high-redshift massive galaxies may be a local environmental accident — a function of who happens to host a jet nearby — rather than an intrinsic property of the galaxy; this would predict that quiescent galaxies at z≈3 cluster around radio/X-ray AGN more than around random density peaks.
  • A testable extension: high-resolution radio follow-up that resolves the 0.8 GHz source into a jet lobe pointing from ID2 to the Red Potato would convert the current circumstantial case into a direct one; conversely, resolving it into a background source would falsify the causal story without changing the quiescence or the gas-rich CGM.
  • The paper assumes the broad line profiles trace turbulence; an alternative reading, acknowledging its own caveat, is that several line-of-sight clouds within the cosmic-web node could mimic high dispersion. If so, the diagnostic power of 'turbulent CGM' for quiescence would need recalibration before use in larger samples.
  • If the fluorescence mechanism is right, the same AGN-overdensity illumination should make other gas-rich CGM around quiescent galaxies visible in Lyα; surveys for extended Lyα emission around AGN overdensities could be an efficient way to find more such systems.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the discovery and multi-wavelength characterization of a massive (M* ~ 10^11 Msun), quiescent galaxy at z=3.25, dubbed the 'Red Potato', located in the MQN01 overdense structure. The quiescence is supported by multiple independent indicators: Prospector SED fitting yielding SFR = 4^{+6}_{-2} Msun/yr (more than 1 dex below the main sequence), H-alpha and UV+IR upper limits (<16 and <7 Msun/yr), strong Balmer and metal absorption lines, a D4000 break, and non-detections of CO(4-3) and Na D, implying a molecular gas fraction <~6%. At the same time, the galaxy is embedded in an extended cool CGM traced by bright Ly-alpha, H-alpha and [O III] emission, with Ly-alpha velocity dispersions of 400-500 km/s at 20-30 kpc. The authors argue that a jet from a neighboring X-ray AGN (ID2, at 48 kpc projected separation) has turbulised this CGM and suppressed gas accretion onto the Red Potato over the last few hundred Myr, while the AGN overdensity illuminates the CGM and makes it visible in fluorescence.

Significance. The robust observational result—a massive quiescent galaxy embedded in a gas-rich, cool CGM at z~3.25—is significant and timely. It adds to the small sample of high-redshift quiescent galaxies with direct CGM probes, and it challenges the simple expectation that gas-rich environments inevitably sustain star formation. The paper makes good use of uniquely deep JWST, VLT, ALMA, Chandra and ASKAP data, and it is commendably transparent about the main uncertainties and limitations. If the jet-feedback interpretation is confirmed with higher-resolution data, the paper would provide a concrete environmental mechanism for maintaining quiescence. However, as presented, the causal chain from the unresolved radio/X-ray features to reduced accretion is not established, and the paper's central interpretive claim should be substantially softened or more rigorously qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Appendix C] The identification of the unresolved 0.8 GHz ASKAP source with a jet from AGN-ID2 is internally inconsistent and not supported by the data. Section 4.3 states that both the Red Potato and AGN-ID2 lie within the 20-arcsec ASKAP beam, while Appendix C states that the radio centroid 'overlaps with the location of the galaxy' (i.e., the Red Potato). After the astrometric corrections described in Section 2.3, the source could plausibly be centered on either object. The X-ray excess has too few photons for morphological or spectral analysis, as the paper itself acknowledges ('low photon count does not allow a detailed morphological and spectral analysis'). A steep spectral index alpha>2.8 does not uniquely imply an aged jet from ID2; many steep-spectrum radio sources exist. This issue is load-bearing because Section 5.1 and the Abstract use the putative ID2 jet to explain the reduced gas accre
  2. [§4.2 / Fig. 8] The claim of elevated CGM turbulence rests primarily on the Ly-alpha velocity dispersion of 400-500 km/s at 20-30 kpc and on the complex H-alpha profile in the NIRSpec slit. The authors note that the Ly-alpha broadness could be affected by resonant scattering or by multiple line-of-sight components, but the latter possibility is dismissed based on the absence of indications from the source distribution, without a quantitative analysis. The comparison sample (Gonzalez Lobos et al. 2025) is based on Ly-alpha only, and no H-alpha comparison sample at z>3 is available. The H-alpha complexity is detected in a narrow slit region (out to ~8 kpc), not at the 20-30 kpc annuli where the Ly-alpha dispersion is measured. Thus the inference that the CGM is genuinely turbulent rather than contaminated by unrelated components is not fully established. Please quantify the alternative interpretation (usi
  3. [§5.1] The causal step from jet-induced turbulence to reduced gas accretion onto the Red Potato is asserted without a quantitative physical model. The paper does not estimate the energy or momentum deposition rate of the putative jet at a projected distance of 48 kpc, nor does it compare this with the gravitational binding energy or the expected accretion rate of the galaxy. The statement that 'this external cause could be the most probable agent' (Section 5.1) goes beyond what the current data can support. I request an order-of-magnitude estimate of the jet's kinetic power and its coupling to the CGM, or, failing that, a clear rephrasing to 'one possible agent' that is not favored over internal quenching or line-of-sight contamination. This is particularly important because the Abstract presents the jet as the likely explanation for the observed inefficient accretion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] Typo: 'galaxyes' should be 'galaxies'.
  2. [§4.2] Typo: 'the the H-alpha kinematics' should be 'the H-alpha kinematics'.
  3. [Appendix C caption] The caption states that the 0.8 GHz radio counterpart indicates 'jet-mode feedback in action'. Given the unresolved nature and the internal inconsistency about the centroid, this phrasing should be changed to a more neutral description.
  4. [§3.2] The Prospector fit uses an 11th-order multiplicative polynomial to model the continuum. This is a high degree of flexibility and should be justified or at least checked for its effect on the inferred SFR and stellar mass—especially because the D4000 break is a key diagnostic of quiescence.
  5. [Fig. 8 / §4.1] In the left panel of Fig. 8 and in the text, the Ly-alpha profile of the Red Potato is noted to be flatter at r > 30 kpc partly because of the contribution from AGN-ID2. This potential contamination should be explicitly propagated into the comparison with the QSO nebula profiles, since it affects the inferred surface-brightness profile shape.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the galaxy's quiescence, gas-poor ISM, and gas-rich CGM are derived from independent observations; the jet-feedback scenario is an explicitly hedged interpretation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are observational, not derived by folding fitted values back into predictions. The quiescent nature of the Red Potato follows from direct evidence: strong Balmer and metal absorption lines and a D4000 break in the NIRSpec spectrum and photometry, a low SFR from prospector SED fitting, cross-checked with a parametric SFH, independent Hα and UV+IR SFR upper limits, CO(4-3) non-detection, and Na D non-detection. The molecular gas limit uses external literature calibrations (alpha_CO=4, r41=0.61), and the SFR limits use standard calibrations, so these are not renamed inputs of the same fit. The Lyα/Hα recombination interpretation compares measured line ratios to external models and predictions, not to a parameter fitted in this paper. Appendix A does use a photometry-only prospector model to correct the NIRSpec spectrum for slit loss before the joint SED fit, but the resulting SFR estimate is robust to SFH choice and corroborated by independent Hα and UV+IR limits, so the central result does not reduce to that intermediate calibration. The jet-feedback mechanism in Section 5.1 is explicitly phrased as 'could be caused' and 'most likely', and it is a physical hypothesis with acknowledged data limitations (unresolved ASKAP source, low X-ray photon counts, possible multiple line-of-sight components). Those are correctness or evidence-quality concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 9 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's central discovery rests on standard SED-fitting assumptions and literature calibrations (IMF, SFH prior, dust law, α_CO, r41). The novel causal entity — a jet from AGN-ID2 with accretion-suppressing effects — is an interpretation introduced to explain the observations, not an independently verified mechanism. The list above separates the well-established inputs from the ad hoc interpretive steps.

free parameters (4)
  • Stellar mass M* = 1.1e11 Msun (prospector SED fit)
    Central to the claim that the galaxy is massive; derived from photometry + spectroscopy with assumed priors.
  • SFR (100-Myr timescale) = 4^+6_-2 Msun/yr (prospector SED fit)
    Defines the galaxy as >1 dex below the main sequence; depends on SFH prior, dust law, and IMF.
  • alpha_CO = 4 Msun/(K km/s pc^2); alternative 0.8
    Adopted from Bolatto et al. (2013); directly scales the M_H2 upper limit and hence f_H2.
  • CO line ratio r41 = L'_CO(4-3)/L'_CO(1-0) = 0.61 ± 0.13
    Adopted from Boogaard et al. (2020) and Pensabene et al. (2024); converts the CO(4-3) non-detection into a molecular gas mass limit.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7
    Stated in the introduction; used for all physical scale conversions and rest-frame quantities.
  • domain assumption Chabrier (2003) IMF
    Assumed in the prospector SED fitting; affects stellar mass and SFR estimates.
  • domain assumption Non-parametric SFH with continuity prior (Leja et al. 2019)
    Adopted in the main SED fit; the inferred SFR and mass depend on this prior.
  • domain assumption Charlot & Fall (2000) dust attenuation law
    Used in prospector; affects the inferred SFR and stellar mass.
  • standard math Kennicutt & Evans (2012) Hα SFR calibration
    Used for the Hα-based SFR upper limit; standard empirical calibration.
  • domain assumption Kewley et al. (2001) BPT AGN classification boundaries
    Used to attribute the nebular emission lines to AGN radiation rather than star formation.
  • domain assumption The Lyα/Hα ratio of 6.8-9.8 indicates recombination radiation from a clumpy medium
    Interpretation of the CGM emission; relies on standard recombination physics and the assumed clumpiness.
  • ad hoc to paper The extended X-ray excess is a jet emanating from AGN-ID2
    The jet is inferred from low-photon-count X-ray morphology and an unresolved radio source; the paper itself states the photon count prevents detailed morphological/spectral analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Jet-induced CGM turbulence reduces gas accretion onto the Red Potato over a few hundred Myr
    The central causal scenario; motivated by local-universe jet-CGM interactions but not directly observed in this system.
invented entities (1)
  • AGN-ID2 jet no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the elevated CGM turbulence and the reduced gas accretion onto the Red Potato
    The jet is inferred from an extended X-ray excess with low photon counts and an unresolved 0.8 GHz ASKAP source. Both pieces of evidence are presented in this paper; there is no independent, high-resolution confirmation outside the paper, so the entity lacks an external falsifiable handle.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4301 in / 4589 out tokens · 189859 ms · 2026-08-03T07:20:48.436752+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations have unveiled a large number of quiescent galaxies at $z\gtrsim3$, bringing potential challenges to current galaxy formation models. Since star formation is expected to be fed by external gas accretion, the knowledge about the circumgalactic media (CGM) of these galaxies is essential to understanding how they quench. In this work, we present the discovery of a massive and passive galaxy ($M_\star\simeq10^{11}\,M_\odot$) within the MQN01 structure at z~3.25, containing one of the largest overdensities of galaxies and active galactic nuclei (AGN) found so far at $z\gtrsim3$. The passive galaxy has a star-formation rate of $4^{+6}_{-2}~M_\odot$/yr, placing it more than 1 dex below the star-forming main sequence, and has no detectable molecular gas ($M_\mathrm{H2}<7\times10^{9}\,M_\odot$). Surprisingly, it is located at the center of a large cool gas reservoir, as traced by bright Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ emission. By taking advantage of deep multi-wavelength information unique to this field, including deep Chandra X-ray data, we argue that the inefficient gas accretion from the CGM onto this galaxy over the last few hundreds of Myr, as suggested by the observations, could be caused by an AGN jet of a nearby star-forming galaxy located at a projected distance of 48 kpc. In particular, we argue that the jet feedback may have maintained a high level of CGM turbulence around the passive galaxy and thus caused a reduced gas accretion over the required time-scales. In addition, the elevated ionizing field provided by the AGN overdensity, including the nearby AGN, can illuminate the passive galaxy's cool CGM and make it visible through fluorescent emission. Our study demonstrates that the star formation rates of high-redshift galaxies could be substantially reduced and maintained at a low level even within gas-rich and overdense environments in particular situations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quiescent fractions in high-redshift galaxy groups reflect their hot-or-cold state of gas accretion

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Quiescent fractions reach ~50% in hot-accretion high-z groups and ~0% in cold-accretion ones, supporting accretion-mode driven quenching via inside-out starvation.

  2. Satellite quenching by radio jets of central galaxies in galaxy groups

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Kinetic AGN feedback from central radio jets, particularly large FR-II lobes, quenches star formation in satellite galaxies of groups after matching halo mass, redshift, central stellar mass and SFR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2019, A&A, 625, A11

    Afruni, A., Fraternali, F., & Pezzulli, G. 2019, A&A, 625, A11

    2019

  2. [2]

    & Noble, A

    Alberts, S. & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554

    2022

  3. [3]

    C., Helton, J

    Alberts, S., Williams, C. C., Helton, J. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 85 Article number, page 12 Weichen Wang et al.: A Quiescent Galaxy in a Gas-Rich Cosmic Web Node at z∼3

    2024

  4. [4]

    & Leahy, J

    Alexander, P. & Leahy, J. P. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 1

    1987

  5. [5]

    R., Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N

    Avery, C. R., Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4223

    2022

  6. [6]

    M., Lim, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al

    Baker, W. M., Lim, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 557

    2025

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    X., & Davies, R

    Baron, D., Netzer, H., Lutz, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Davies, R. I. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4457

    2022

  9. [9]

    L., et al

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

    2024

  10. [10]

    & Arnouts, S

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  11. [11]

    G., Slob, M., Kriek, M., et al

    Beverage, A. G., Slob, M., Kriek, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 249

    2025

  12. [12]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    1984

  13. [13]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

    2013

  14. [14]

    A., van der Werf, P., Weiss, A., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., van der Werf, P., Weiss, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 109

    2020

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 831, 39

    2016

  16. [16]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    2024

  17. [17]

    2025, A&A, 696, A239

    Brienza, M., Rajpurohit, K., Churazov, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A239

    2025

  18. [18]

    W., De Gasperin, F., et al

    Brienza, M., Shimwell, T. W., De Gasperin, F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1261

    2021

  19. [19]

    2001, Publ

    Calzetti, D. 2001, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 113, 1449

    2001

  20. [20]

    2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Cantalupo, S. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Davé, 195

    2017

  21. [21]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63

    2014

  22. [22]

    J., et al

    Cantalupo, S., Pezzulli, G., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5188

    2019

  23. [23]

    J., & Miniati, F

    Cantalupo, S., Porciani, C., Lilly, S. J., & Miniati, F. 2005, ApJ, 628, 61

    2005

  24. [24]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    2023

  25. [25]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325

    2024

  26. [26]

    C., McLure, R

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

    2023

  27. [27]

    2003, Publ

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 115, 763

    2003

  28. [28]

    & Fall, S

    Charlot, S. & Fall, S. M. 2000, Astrophys. J., 539, 718

    2000

  29. [29]

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

    Chiang, Y .-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJ, 844, L23

    2017

  30. [30]

    & Gunn, J

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

    2010

  31. [31]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    2009

  32. [32]

    L., Tacchella, S., Übler, H., et al

    Danhaive, A. L., Tacchella, S., Übler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21863 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280 de la Vega, A., Babcock, M. D., Mobasher, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09066 D’Eugenio, C., Daddi, E., Gobat, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, L2 D’Eugenio, F., Pérez-González, P...

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    W., Grundy, J

    Duchesne, S. W., Grundy, J. A., Heald, G. H., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e003

    2024

  34. [34]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33

    2007

  35. [35]

    M., Willmer, C

    Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

    2007

  36. [36]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  37. [37]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 169

    2024

  38. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 109 Förster Schreiber, N

    Forrest, B., Wilson, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 109 Förster Schreiber, N. M. & Wuyts, S. 2020, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 58, 661

    2022

  39. [39]

    Fruchter, A. S. & Hook, R. N. 2002, PASP, 114, 144

    2002

  40. [40]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531

    2009

  41. [41]

    2025, A&A, 696, A95

    Galbiati, M., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A95

    2025

  42. [42]

    2024, Nature, 628, 277

    Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Schreiber, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 277

    2024

  43. [43]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71 González Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., et al

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labbé, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71 González Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16898

    arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01421

    Guo, S., Daddi, E., Gobat, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01421

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058

    2021

  46. [46]

    A., Kurk, J

    Hatch, N. A., Kurk, J. D., Pentericci, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2993

    2011

  47. [47]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55

    2013

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJ, 945, L9

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, L9

    2023

  49. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 192

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 192

    2024

  50. [50]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01070

    Jiang, F., Liang, J., Jin, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4

    2024

  52. [52]

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

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

    2021

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 49

    Kakimoto, T., Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 49

    2024

  54. [54]

    S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al

    Kalita, B. S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L17

    2021

  55. [55]

    2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2505.03089

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2505.03089

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531 Kereš, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Davé, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2

    2012

  57. [57]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, Astrophys. J., 556, 121

    2001

  58. [58]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551

    Koyama, Y ., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551

    2013

  59. [59]

    Krause, M. G. H. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 29

    2023

  60. [60]

    G., Price, S

    Kriek, M., Beverage, A. G., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 36

    2024

  61. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 6

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

    2021

  62. [62]

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

    2025

  63. [63]

    C., et al

    Langen, V ., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5099

    2023

  64. [64]

    N., Cantalupo, S., Holden, B

    Leibler, C. N., Cantalupo, S., Holden, B. P., & Madau, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2094

    2018

  65. [65]

    C., Johnson, B

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

    2019

  66. [66]

    D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., & Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170

    2017

  67. [67]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 494

    Mackenzie, R., Pezzulli, G., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 494

    2021

  68. [68]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  69. [69]

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

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

    2021

  70. [70]

    & Belli, S

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

    2018

  71. [71]

    Man, A. W. S., Zabl, J., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 20

    2021

  72. [72]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 17

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 17

    2025

  73. [73]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048 Michałowski, M., Hjorth, J., & Watson, D. 2010, A&A, 514, A67

    2020

  74. [74]

    K., Overzier, R

    Miley, G. K., Overzier, R. A., Zirm, A. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, L29

    2006

  75. [75]

    Myers, S. T. & Spangler, S. R. 1985, ApJ, 291, 52

    1985

  76. [76]

    2022, PASA, 39, e002

    Nanayakkara, T., Esdaile, J., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e002

    2022

  77. [77]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43

    2007

  78. [78]

    G., Mobasher, B., et al

    Pacifici, C., Iyer, K. G., Mobasher, B., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 141

    2023

  79. [79]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 72

    Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 72

    2024

  80. [80]

    & Miller, T

    Pasha, I. & Miller, T. B. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5703

    2023

Showing first 80 references.