pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25022 · v1 · pith:U7OVSVVMnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A massive barred spiral galaxy at z = 5.102 discovered by JWST

Xiaohan Wang , Fengwu Sun , Yoshihisa Asada , Yunjing Wu , Xiaojing Lin , Shude Mao , Sijia Cai , Zheng Cai
show 16 more authors
Chian-Chou Chen Wenlei Chen Cheng Cheng Christopher J. Conselice Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky Daneil Espada Brenda L. Frye Jean-Baptiste Jolly Anton M. Koekemoer Kotaro Kohno Mingyu Li Nicholas Martis Hideki Umehata Weichen Wang Rogier A. Windhorst Adi Zitrin
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesbarred spiral galaxiesJWST observationsgalaxy morphologystar-forming galaxiesactive galactic nucleigalaxy interactions
5
0 comments X

The pith

A barred spiral galaxy exists at redshift 5.102, the highest-redshift example identified so far.

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

The paper reports the identification of M1149-BSG-z5 as a barred spiral galaxy at z = 5.102 in JWST and HST imaging. Isophote fitting and structural modeling show a stellar bar roughly 4.5 kpc long together with extended spiral arms. The object is a massive main-sequence star-forming galaxy that also contains a broad-line AGN and sits in an overdense region with a companion. These features together indicate that a large, chemically evolved disk galaxy with a bar had already assembled within the first 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang.

Core claim

M1149-BSG-z5 is a barred spiral galaxy at z = 5.102 with a stellar bar of length a_bar ≈ 4.5 kpc and spiral arms peaking at r ≈ 5.5 kpc, embedded in an extended disk with global Sérsic index n = 2.37 and effective radius R_e = 2.61 kpc; the galaxy has stellar mass 10^10.45 M_⊙, star-formation rate 144 M_⊙ yr^−1, and hosts a broad-line AGN with M_BH/M_* ∼ 10^−3.

What carries the argument

Isophote ellipse fitting and two-dimensional structural modeling that together extract the bar length, disk scale, and spiral-arm locations from the observed light distribution.

If this is right

  • Complex galactic structures such as bars and spiral arms can form and remain stable by z = 5.102.
  • Interaction with a nearby companion in an overdense environment can trigger bar formation at early times.
  • Baryon-dominated, gas-rich conditions enable gravitational instabilities that accelerate bar growth on short timescales.
  • The galaxy's size and Sérsic index are already comparable to barred systems observed at 2 < z < 4, implying rapid structural maturation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this single detection is representative, the epoch when bars first appear may need to be pushed earlier in galaxy-formation models.
  • Targeted JWST surveys of other overdense fields at z > 5 could test whether interaction-driven bars are common at these redshifts.
  • Future integral-field spectroscopy could measure the bar's pattern speed and confirm dynamical stability directly.

Load-bearing premise

The observed light profile at the available resolution and wavelength traces a true stellar bar in a stable disk rather than projection effects, merger remnants, or other morphological features.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution imaging or spatially resolved kinematics that show the elongated feature lacks the expected orbital support or rotation curve of a bar would falsify the identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25022 by Adi Zitrin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Brenda L. Frye, Cheng cheng, Chian-Chou Chen, Christopher J. Conselice, Daneil Espada, Fengwu Sun, Hideki Umehata, Jean-Baptiste Jolly, Kotaro Kohno, Mingyu Li, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Nicholas Martis, Rogier A. Windhorst, Shude Mao, Sijia Cai, Weichen Wang, Wenlei Chen, Xiaohan Wang, Xiaojing Lin, Yoshihisa Asada, Yunjing Wu, Zheng Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top left: composite false-color image of M1149-BSG-z5, created with JWST imaging data taken in F090W+F115W+F150W (blue), F200W+F277W+F300M (green), and F356W+F410M+F444W (red). Image size is 4. ′′35×4. ′′35 (north up, east left). Top right: HST and JWST images of M1149-BSG-z5 across 12 bands at 0.4–5.0 µm. The NIRSpec MSA coverage is shown with dashed squares in the image of F444W. Middle panel: best-fit S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ellipse isophote fitting and radial profiles of ellipticity and position angle for ellipse isophotes for JWST stacked images of F115W+F150W+F200W, and F277W+F356W+F444W. The southern clump and nearby galaxies are masked in ellipse fitting (black hatches). For short wavelengths (rest-frame UV), the ellipticity reaches maximum emax ∼ 0.50 at r ∼ 0. ′′33 = 2.10 kpc. For longer wavelengths (rest-frame optical)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Structural modeling of M1149-BSG-z5 stacked image, F277W+F356W+F444W. Top: best-fit model and residual for single Sersic ´ fit. Bottom: best-fit model, sub-component models and residual for bulge + exponential disk fit. The upper-right panel shows the observed and model surface-brightness profiles. The single-Sersic model (black dotted line) underestimates the central brightness, as seen in the residuals, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Location of M1149-BSG-z5 on the size-mass plane. The size-mass distribution of galaxies at similar redshifts, measured with F356W for TNG50 (L. Costantin et al. 2023b) and observations (R. G. Varadaraj et al. 2024; N. Allen et al. 2025) are included for reference. The size-mass for barred galaxies at 2 < z < 4 (Y. Guo et al. 2025) is also shown. M1149-BSG-z5 shows relatively larger galaxy size than g… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Location of M1149-BSG-z5 on the N2-BPT diagram. The dashed gray curve shows the AGN classification from G. Kauffmann et al. (2003), and the black solid curve shows the theoretical maximum-starburst boundary of L. J. Kewley et al. (2001). The green dashed line shows the classification of high redshift galaxies from J. Scholtz et al. (2025). The line ratios measured from stacked spectra of JADES AGNs a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Number density distribution of redshifts for galaxies within 1 arcmin around M1149-BSG-z5, compared with galaxies in GOODS-South (K. N. Hainline et al. 2024). Sources are selected with mF444W < 29 and (z84 − z16)/(1 + z50) < 10%. Photometric-redshift distribution for galaxies in the M1149 field around M1149-BSG-z5 is shown in shaded pink, with spectroscopic redshift confirmed galaxies shown in red, a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit CIGALE SED models and JWST photometry for the bulge and the two sides of the bar. The photometry is measured from the apertures shown in the inset, with all images PSF-matched to F480M. The bulge, east bar, and west bar are shown in red, blue, and orange. Observed photometries are shown in filler circles, and best-fit model fluxes for different filters are shown in squares. The east bar is slightl… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complementary to the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report M1149-BSG-z5, a barred spiral galaxy at $z = 5.102$, identified in the parallel field of MACS J1149+2223 with JWST and HST. M1149-BSG-z5 is the highest redshift barred galaxy candidate to date. Both isophote ellipse fitting and structural modeling support a stellar bar of length $a_\mathrm{bar} \approx 4.5$ kpc, and extended spiral arms peaking at $r \approx 5.5$ kpc. M1149-BSG-z5 is a massive main sequence star-forming galaxy, with a stellar mass of $10^{10.45}\rm M_\odot$ and a star-formation rate of $144\,\rm M_\odot/yr$. A concentrated bulge is embedded in an extended disk with a global S\'ersic index $n = 2.37$. With an effective radius of $R_{e} = 2.61\rm \ kpc$, M1149-BSG-z5 is larger than typical galaxies at $z \sim 5$ and comparable to barred galaxies at $2 < z < 4$. M1149-BSG-z5 also hosts a broad-line AGN, with a relatively low black-hole-to-stellar mass ratio of $\rm M_{\rm BH}/M_\ast\sim10^{-3}$. Its metal-enriched emission-line properties indicate that it is already chemically evolved. These properties imply M1149-BSG-z5 as an early-assembled and structurally evolved galaxy. We also find that M1149-BSG-z5 resides in an overdense region with a nearby companion galaxy, suggesting an interaction-driven bar formation mechanism. Its concentrated light, early assembly and main-sequence star formation also suggest baryon-dominated, gas-rich conditions, where gravitational instability can further accelerate the bar formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of M1149-BSG-z5, claimed as the highest-redshift barred spiral galaxy candidate at z=5.102, identified in JWST/HST imaging of the MACS J1149+2223 parallel field. The central claim rests on isophote ellipse fitting and structural (Sersic) modeling that yield a stellar bar of length a_bar ≈ 4.5 kpc and spiral arms peaking at r ≈ 5.5 kpc; the galaxy is further characterized as a massive main-sequence star-former (M_* = 10^{10.45} M_⊙, SFR = 144 M_⊙ yr^{-1}), with global Sersic index n=2.37, R_e=2.61 kpc, a broad-line AGN (M_BH/M_* ~ 10^{-3}), metal-enriched lines, and residence in an overdense region with a companion, implying early assembly and interaction-driven bar formation.

Significance. If the morphological classification is robust, the result would be significant for galaxy evolution studies, extending the observed epoch of bar formation by ~1 Gyr and providing a concrete example of a structurally mature, baryon-dominated disk at z>5. The combination of size, mass, and environment offers a falsifiable benchmark for simulations of early bar instability under gas-rich conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [morphological analysis / structural modeling] Morphological analysis (ellipse fitting and Sersic modeling): the central claim that the observed isophotal twists and ellipticity profile indicate a true stellar bar of a_bar ≈ 4.5 kpc is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides insufficient quantitative validation against degeneracies from the broad-line AGN point-source contribution, limited JWST resolution at z=5.1, or line-of-sight projection/merger effects; no alternative models (e.g., pure disk+bulge or merger remnant) or Monte-Carlo robustness tests are reported.
  2. [observations and data reduction] Data reduction and error propagation: the abstract states that ellipse fitting and Sersic modeling support the bar, but the text lacks explicit description of PSF modeling, background subtraction, multi-band consistency checks, or how uncertainties in a_bar and spiral-arm radii are propagated from the imaging data.
  3. [environment and discussion] Environmental and interaction context: the suggestion of interaction-driven bar formation relies on the presence of a companion and overdensity, but no quantitative measure of tidal strength, relative velocity, or comparison to control samples is given to distinguish this from secular bar formation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Notation: the abstract uses both a_bar and R_e without defining the exact radial range over which the bar length is measured or how the Sersic fit separates bar from disk.
  2. [figures] Figure clarity: the isophote and residual maps should include explicit scale bars in kpc and indicate the JWST PSF FWHM to allow readers to assess resolution relative to the claimed 4.5 kpc bar.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive report. We address each major comment below, agreeing where additional analysis or clarification is warranted and providing our strongest honest defense on points of interpretation. We plan to submit a revised manuscript incorporating the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [morphological analysis / structural modeling] Morphological analysis (ellipse fitting and Sersic modeling): the central claim that the observed isophotal twists and ellipticity profile indicate a true stellar bar of a_bar ≈ 4.5 kpc is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides insufficient quantitative validation against degeneracies from the broad-line AGN point-source contribution, limited JWST resolution at z=5.1, or line-of-sight projection/merger effects; no alternative models (e.g., pure disk+bulge or merger remnant) or Monte-Carlo robustness tests are reported.

    Authors: We agree that more explicit validation against these degeneracies would strengthen the morphological claim. In the revised manuscript we will add Monte Carlo noise realizations of the ellipse fitting and GALFIT modeling, explicit subtraction of the broad-line AGN point-source contribution using the available multi-band constraints, and direct comparisons to alternative pure-disk+bulge and merger-remnant models. These additions will quantify the robustness of a_bar ≈ 4.5 kpc and the isophotal twist signature. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [observations and data reduction] Data reduction and error propagation: the abstract states that ellipse fitting and Sersic modeling support the bar, but the text lacks explicit description of PSF modeling, background subtraction, multi-band consistency checks, or how uncertainties in a_bar and spiral-arm radii are propagated from the imaging data.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the methods section would benefit from greater detail on these procedures. The revised version will include a dedicated subsection describing the JWST PSF construction and convolution, background estimation and subtraction steps, consistency checks across the available NIRCam and HST bands, and the propagation of photometric uncertainties into the derived bar length and spiral-arm radii via both analytic error estimates and bootstrap resampling. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [environment and interaction context] Environmental and interaction context: the suggestion of interaction-driven bar formation relies on the presence of a companion and overdensity, but no quantitative measure of tidal strength, relative velocity, or comparison to control samples is given to distinguish this from secular bar formation.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative tidal-strength metrics would be desirable. However, the current imaging dataset does not provide the spectroscopic redshifts or velocity information needed for precise relative-velocity or tidal-force calculations. We will expand the discussion to include a statistical comparison with control samples drawn from the literature at similar redshifts and environments, and we will clarify that the interaction-driven interpretation remains a plausible but not uniquely proven scenario given the observed proximity and local overdensity. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative tidal strength and relative velocity measurements for the companion require spectroscopic follow-up data that are not available in the present imaging-only dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational measurements from imaging data

full rationale

The paper is an observational discovery report identifying morphological features in JWST/HST imaging of a high-redshift galaxy. Bar length, spiral arm radii, Sersic index, effective radius, stellar mass, and SFR are all extracted directly from the observed light profile via standard ellipse fitting and GALFIT-style modeling. No equations or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to the fitted inputs themselves; the central claim is a measurement, not a derivation. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps in any chain. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological conversions and photometric/spectral interpretation assumptions rather than new free parameters or invented entities; measurements such as stellar mass and bar length are derived from data fitting under those assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • bar length a_bar
    Fitted value from isophote ellipse fitting and structural modeling of JWST imaging
  • stellar mass
    Derived from spectral energy distribution fitting to photometry
  • star-formation rate
    Derived from emission-line or UV continuum measurements
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for converting redshift to physical distances and sizes
    Invoked to report physical bar length in kpc and effective radius
  • domain assumption Sersic profile and ellipse fitting accurately recover intrinsic galaxy morphology from observed surface brightness
    Central to identifying the bar and disk components

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5994 in / 1509 out tokens · 33319 ms · 2026-06-25T23:37:07.946503+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452690

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 2025

  2. [2]

    Allingham, J. F. V ., Zitrin, A., Kokorev, V ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.14074, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.14074

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14074 2026

  3. [3]

    W., et al

    Amvrosiadis, A., Lange, S., Nightingale, J. W., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf048 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf048 2025

  4. [4]

    2002, ApJL, 569, L83, doi: 10.1086/340784

    Athanassoula, E. 2002, ApJL, 569, L83, doi: 10.1086/340784

    work page doi:10.1086/340784 2002

  5. [5]

    A., Peschken, N., & Lambert, J

    Athanassoula, E., Rodionov, S. A., Peschken, N., & Lambert, J. C. 2016, ApJ, 821, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/90 2016

  6. [6]

    Athanassoula, E., & Sellwood, J. A. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/221.2.213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/221.2.213 1986

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b

    Bi, D., Shlosman, I., & Romano-D´ıaz, E. 2022, ApJ, 934, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b 2022

  9. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., Agertz, O., & Federrath, C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118 2024

  10. [10]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc469

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., Agertz, O., & Freeman, K. 2023, ApJ, 947, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc469

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc469 2023

  11. [11]

    A stellar bar hidden in an extreme gas-rich disk galaxy at z=4.055

    Boogaard, L. A., Costantin, L., Tepper-Garc´ıa, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.15273, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.15273

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.15273 2026

  12. [12]

    CIGALE: a python Code Investigating GALaxy Emission

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  13. [13]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237, doi: 10.1086/522077

    work page doi:10.1086/522077 2007

  14. [14]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 2022

  15. [15]

    2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14889440 2025

  16. [16]

    2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.3 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    Brammer, G. 2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.3 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7299500 2022

  17. [17]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V ., & Iglesias-P´aramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x 2005

  20. [20]

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.11.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8140011 15 Table 3.Rest-optical emission line fluxes † Ion+Wavelength (Å) Flux (10 −19 erg s−1 cm−2) [Oii]λλ3726,3729 ‡ 62.7±11.0 Hβ15.5±2.0 [Oiii]λ5007 40.7±3.4 [Oi]λ6302 9.5±1.9 Hα(narrow) 57.7±4.6 Hα(broad) 106.3±9.4 [Nii]λ6584 39.1±3....

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8140011 2023

  21. [21]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 2015

  22. [22]

    , eprint =

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  23. [23]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Carilli, C. L., & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953 2013

  24. [24]

    2024, A&A, 685, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347230

    Carniani, S., Venturi, G., Parlanti, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347230

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347230 2024

  25. [25]

    Casteels, K. R. V ., Bamford, S. P., Skibba, R. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts391

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts391 2013

  26. [26]

    MNRAS , author =

    Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., & Bournaud, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16433.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16433.x 2010

  27. [27]

    Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  28. [28]

    B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bc 2025

  29. [29]

    L., et al

    Cheung, E., Athanassoula, E., Masters, K. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/162 2013

  30. [30]

    G., Guo, Y., et al

    Costantin, L., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Guo, Y ., et al. 2023a, Nature, 623, 499, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06636-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06636-x

  31. [31]

    G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al

    Costantin, L., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 946, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb926

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb926

  32. [32]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  33. [33]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b 2023

  34. [34]

    A JWST study of pair fractions, merger rates, and stellar mass accretion rates at z = 4.5─11.5

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf638

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf638 2025

  35. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3117 2018

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536, doi: 10.1086/301203 Espejo Salcedo, J. M., Pastras, S., V´acha, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554725

    work page doi:10.1086/301203 2000

  37. [37]

    L., Liu, L.-J., Dubois, Y ., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Liu, L.-J., Dubois, Y ., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6645

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6645 2026

  38. [38]

    MNRAS , author =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x 2010

  39. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2247

    Fanali, R., Dotti, M., Fiacconi, D., & Haardt, F. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2247 2015

  40. [40]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 661, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch´e, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  41. [41]

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf389 16

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf389 2025

  42. [42]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2866

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Merrifield, M., Arag´on-Salamanca, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2866

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2866 2020

  43. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1

    Fu, S., Sun, F., Jiang, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1 2025

  44. [44]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, A&A, 696, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452493

    Galbiati, M., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452493

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452493 2025

  46. [46]

    1990, A&A, 230, 37 G´eron, T., Smethurst, R

    Gerin, M., Combes, F., & Athanassoula, E. 1990, A&A, 230, 37 G´eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Dickinson, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add7d0 1990

  47. [47]

    L., et al

    Guo, Y ., Jogee, S., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R

    Guo, Y ., Jogee, S., Wise, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7 2025

  49. [49]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e 2023

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 2024

  52. [52]

    1971, ApJ, 168, 343, doi: 10.1086/151091

    Hohl, F. 1971, ApJ, 168, 343, doi: 10.1086/151091

    work page doi:10.1086/151091 1971

  53. [53]

    Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): Stellar Feedback Explains Cosmologically Inefficient Star Formation

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇs, D., O˜norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  54. [54]

    2025, Nature, 641, 861, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08914-2

    Huang, S., Kawabe, R., Umehata, H., et al. 2025, Nature, 641, 861, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08914-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08914-2 2025

  55. [55]

    2025, A&A, 704, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553782

    Huertas-Company, M., Shuntov, M., Dong, Y ., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553782

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553782 2025

  56. [56]

    2025, A&A, 703, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451689

    Jain, R., & Wadadekar, Y . 2025, A&A, 703, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451689

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451689 2025

  57. [57]

    2022, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  58. [58]

    D., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Jogee, S., Barazza, F. D., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2004, ApJL, 615, L105, doi: 10.1086/426138

    work page doi:10.1086/426138 2004

  59. [59]

    NOEMA3D: Resolving radial gas flows in disk galaxies at z~1.1-1.6 with high-resolution CO observations

    Jolly, J.-B., Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18503, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.18503 Juodˇzbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag086

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18503 2026

  60. [60]

    S., Ho, L

    Kalita, B. S., Ho, L. C., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2755

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2755 2026

  61. [61]

    A., Weiner, B

    Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/106 2012

  62. [62]

    V., & Jenkins, A

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  63. [63]

    J., Dopita, M

    Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  64. [64]

    H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R

    Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R. F. 2000, ApJ, 529, 93, doi: 10.1086/308266

    work page doi:10.1086/308266 2000

  65. [65]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/60

    Kraljic, K., Bournaud, F., & Martig, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/60 2012

  66. [66]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    work page doi:10.1086/190669 1980

  67. [67]

    H., Maseda, M

    Laseter, I. H., Maseda, M. V ., Curti, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 2024

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Vasylyev, S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08410.x Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae921 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2010, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2010

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08410.x 2004

  69. [69]

    M., Fraternali, F., et al

    Lelli, F., Di Teodoro, E. M., Fraternali, F., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 713, doi: 10.1126/science.abc1893

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abc1893 2021

  70. [70]

    Liang, X., Yu, S.-Y ., Fang, T., & Ho, L. C. 2024, A&A, 688, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348539

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348539 2024

  71. [71]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa657a Łokas, E

    Lin, L., Li, C., He, Y ., Xiao, T., & Wang, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa657a Łokas, E. L. 2025, ApJL, 991, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae07c2 Łokas, E. L., Ebrov ´a, I., del Pino, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 227, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/227

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa657a 2017

  72. [72]

    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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347102 2025

  73. [73]

    , year = 2017, volume =

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 2017

  74. [74]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  75. [75]

    2007, ApJ, 659, 1176, doi: 10.1086/512355

    Marinova, I., & Jogee, S. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1176, doi: 10.1086/512355

    work page doi:10.1086/512355 2007

  76. [76]

    , year = 2014, month = mar, volume =

    Melvin, T., Masters, K., Lintott, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2397 M´endez-Abreu, J., S´anchez-Janssen, R., Aguerri, J. A. L., Corsini, E. M., & Zarattini, S. 2012, ApJL, 761, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/761/1/L6 Men´endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 2007a, ApJ, 657, 790, doi: 10....

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2397 2014

  77. [77]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f 2025

  78. [78]

    , keywords =

    Nakajima, K., & Maiolino, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1242

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1242 2022

  79. [79]

    1996, ApJ, 469, 605, doi: 10.1086/177809

    Noguchi, M. 1996, ApJ, 469, 605, doi: 10.1086/177809

    work page doi:10.1086/177809 1996

  80. [80]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 2009

Showing first 80 references.