Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

PANORAMIC: Discovery of an Ultra-Massive Grand-Design Spiral Galaxy at $z\sim5.2$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the discovery of Zhúlóng, an ultra-massive grand-design spiral galaxy at photometric redshift ~5.2, making it the most distant bulge+disk spiral candidate known and evidence that Milky Way-mass galaxies can form within…

desk verdict A careful, honest discovery paper for a spectacular candidate; the photometric redshift is the one load-bearing caveat and the authors say so themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13264 v2 pith:N3AYF7XD submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.GA

Mengyuan Xiao , Christina C. Williams , Pascal A. Oesch , David Elbaz , Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky , Rui Marques-Chaves , Longji Bing , Zhiyuan Ji
show 21 more authors
Andrea Weibel Rachel Bezanson Gabriel Brammer Caitlin Casey Aidan P. Cloonan Emanuele Daddi Pratika Dayal Andreas L. Faisst Marijn Franx Karl Glazebrook Anne Hutter Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Ivo Labbe Guilaine Lagache Seunghwan Lim Benjamin Magnelli Felix Martinez Michael V. Maseda Themiya Nanayakkara Daniel Schaerer Katherine E. Whitaker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesgrand-designspiralJWSTNIRCamimagingphotometricredshiftsgalaxystellarmassesbulge-diskdecompositioninside-outgrowthstarformationmainsequence
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 paper reports the discovery of Zhúlóng, an ultra-massive galaxy that appears to be a grand-design spiral at photometric redshift $z\sim5.2$, seen when the universe was about one billion years old. If the redshift holds, Zhúlóng is the most distant bulge-plus-disk galaxy with spiral arms known, with a stellar mass $\log(M_\star/M_\odot)=11.03$, a large face-on disk ($R_{\rm e}=3.7$ kpc), and spiral arms spanning 19 kpc. The paper argues that the galaxy assembled through rapid inside-out growth: a red, quiescent classical bulge with extremely high stellar-mass surface density sits inside a star-forming disk, and the whole system has a modest star formation rate of about $66~M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, below the main sequence at this redshift. A sympathetic reading is that mature, ordered galaxies like the Milky Way can form within the first billion years, roughly ten times faster than the local assembly time of such disks, and with a baryon-to-star efficiency near $\epsilon\sim0.3$ that exceeds the most efficient galaxies at later epochs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the galaxy itself, named Zhúlóng — a "grand-design spiral," meaning two prominent arms that start at opposite sides of the nucleus and wind across the full disk. The argument is carried by three measurements in combination: a photometric redshift anchored on the strong Balmer/4000 Å break in the core and fitted with EAZY and Bagpipes; a two-component Sérsic decomposition of the deep JWST images using PySersic, which separates a concentrated bulge from a large face-on disk and leaves the spiral arms visible in the residual map; and annular SED fitting that traces the stellar-population gradient from the red quiescent core to the blue star-forming outer disk. The morphological decomposition and the stellar-population gradient together establish the inside-out growth picture that connects the quiescent bulge, the active disk, and the extreme total mass.

What would settle it

A spectrum of the core and the neighboring clumps would settle it: if strong emission lines place the system at redshift ~1.6 instead of ~5.2, the mass, size, and efficiency claims collapse. If deep resolved imaging or IFU kinematics show the spiral arms are artifacts of PSF subtraction, or tidal debris rather than a rotating disk, the grand-design claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Zhúlóng is presented as an ultra-massive, red, grand-design spiral galaxy at $z_{\rm phot}=5.2^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$, discovered in JWST imaging. Its key properties are a classical bulge (Sérsic index $n\approx3.7$, bulge-to-total mass ratio about 0.5) centered in a face-on exponential disk with half-light radius $R_{\rm e}=3.7\pm0.1$ kpc, and two high-contrast spiral arms extending to a 19 kpc diameter seen in the residuals after the smooth components are subtracted. Spatially resolved SED fitting shows a clear radial transition: the core is quiescent with a strong Balmer/4000 Å break and one of the highest stellar mass surface densities measured among quiescent galaxies, while the outer disk is star-forming, indicating inside-out growth. The integrated stellar mass is $\log(M_\star/M_\odot)=11.03^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$, and the star formation rate is $66^{+89}_{-46}~M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, placing the galaxy more than 0.5 dex below the star-forming main sequence at $z\sim5.2$. The paper concludes that Zhúlóng demonstrates mature galaxies can emerge within the first billion years through rapid, efficient formation and morphological evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation rests on the galaxy being at redshift 5.2, an estimate from broadband colors rather than a spectrum, with a lower-redshift solution near 1.6 appearing when a larger aperture is used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the redshift is confirmed, Zhúlóng is the most distant stellar spiral galaxy known, showing that ordered disks and spiral arms can form within about one billion years of cosmic time.
  • Ultra-massive galaxies at $z>5$ are not all compact: at least some build large disks, so formation models must accommodate diverse morphologies and inside-out assembly.
  • The implied baryon-to-star efficiency of roughly 0.3 exceeds the maximum efficiency inferred from abundance matching at lower redshift, implying more efficient early star formation than standard models allow.
  • Because the galaxy sits below the main sequence, it appears to be in a transition from star-forming to quiescent at $z\sim5$, providing a direct glimpse of early quenching in a massive disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave a decisive, inexpensive test open: a single NIRSpec/IFU spectrum of the core and the neighboring clump would resolve the $z\approx1.6$ versus $z\approx5.2$ ambiguity, since the lower-redshift solution appears only when a larger aperture including a possible foreground clump is used.
  • If the spiral structure is real, it suggests density-wave or disk-instability mechanisms can operate in the dense early universe; a concrete observable is ordered rotation in ALMA [C II] or CO kinematics matching a $\sim10^{12}~M_\odot$ halo.
  • The efficiency estimate assumes the galaxy occupies the most massive halo available in the survey volume; if the true halo is less massive, the required efficiency would be even higher, sharpening the tension with standard galaxy formation models.
  • Red massive spirals may be undercounted in current surveys because their red colors make them look quiescent and their extended arms are faint; wide-area infrared surveys could test how common this population is.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the serendipitous discovery, in JWST NIRCam imaging from the PANORAMIC survey, of an extended red galaxy ('Zhúlóng') claimed to be an ultra-massive grand-design spiral galaxy at photometric redshift z_phot = 5.2+0.3/-0.2. Single- and double-Sérsic fits to F277W+F356W+F444W imaging yield a classical bulge (n=3.7, R_e=0.9 kpc) embedded in a large exponential disk (R_e=3.7 kpc, b/a~1), with grand-design spiral arms visible in the fit residuals. Spatially resolved SED fitting with Bagpipes shows a red, apparently quiescent core and bluer outer annuli, interpreted as inside-out growth. Global SED fitting (Bagpipes, cross-checked with CIGALE) gives log(M*/M_sun)=11.03 (+0.10/-0.08) and SFR=66 (+89/-46) M_sun/yr, and comparison with the maximum halo mass available in the survey volume implies a baryon-to-star efficiency ε~0.3. The paper concludes that Zhúlóng is the most distant spiral galaxy discovered so far and that Milky-Way-mass, morphologically mature galaxies can form within ~1 Gyr of the Big Bang.

Significance. If the z~5.2 identification holds, this is a significant discovery: it would be the first grand-design spiral with a massive classical bulge and a large disk at z>5, and it would strengthen the JWST-based case that massive galaxies assemble quickly, efficiently, and in an ordered inside-out fashion. The paper's internal consistency checks are strong and deserve credit: EAZY and Bagpipes agree on the core redshift; two star-formation-history parameterizations give consistent properties; CIGALE cross-checks the integrated values; a neighboring clump has a narrow z_phot=5.15; the fixed-z=1.6 core fit is poor (chi^2=46); and the ALMA 1.2 mm non-detection is consistent with the low SFR. The object makes a clean falsifiable prediction that NIRSpec/IFU spectroscopy can test. The authors are appropriately cautious about the photometric-redshift limitation, but the quantitative support for excluding the low-redshift alternative is thinner than the weight of the headline claims, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 and Appendix A] The exclusion of the z~1.6 alternative rests on a single quoted statistic (χ²=46 for the fixed-z=1.6 fit of the 0.16″ core), but the paper does not report the corresponding goodness-of-fit for the adopted z=5.2 solution, the number of degrees of freedom, or a model comparison that accounts for the different apertures. Because every headline quantity (M*, SFR, R_e, ε) scales with redshift, I ask that the authors report χ², the degrees of freedom, and the best-fit physical properties for both the z=5.2 and z=1.6 solutions for the core, for the 0.5″ aperture used for global properties, and for the full galaxy. Without this, the reader cannot quantitatively assess the residual risk that a significant fraction of the disk and arm light is at z~1.6 rather than z~5.2.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A] Clump 2 sits at the center of both the redshift story and the inside-out growth claim, but its treatment is incomplete. Its photometric redshift (z_phot=1.65+2.11/-0.02) is essentially uninformative for separating z~1.6 from z~5.2 (the 68% upper limit is only z<3.76), so the statement that the large-aperture z~1.6 peak 'is likely due to contamination from clump 2' is not quantitatively established; a two-component fit of the large-aperture photometry (a z~5.2 galaxy plus a free-redshift clump) and a quantitative Lyman-break argument based on the F606W/F814W detections would test this directly. Second, the paper asserts that the inside-out growth conclusions remain unchanged when the clump-2-contaminated 0.5″-0.7″ annulus is excluded, but the supporting fits are not shown; because this annulus is the primary evidence for the star-forming outer disk, the annular SED fits with clump 2 masked should be presented with the resulting ΣM* and ΣSFR values. Finally, the description of the global photometry is internally inconsistent: Sec. 2.1 states that total fluxes come from the SExtractor Kron AUTO aperture, while Appendix A states that global properties use a 0.5″ radius aperture with aperture corrections; this must be reconciled because it determines whether clump 2 can enter the global mass and SFR.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 4] The ε~0.3 inference is presented as a measured property, but it is a minimum required efficiency under the assumption that Zhúlóng occupies the most massive halo available in the PANORAMIC survey volume: if the actual halo is less massive the required ε is larger, and if the survey volume or the Δz=1 redshift window (both of which inherit the photometric-redshift uncertainty) is mis-estimated, the value changes. The most-massive-halo estimate also carries cosmic variance in a 432 arcmin² area and depends on the poorly constrained high-mass tail of the halo mass function at z~5.2. I ask that these dependencies be stated explicitly. In addition, the comparison value ε_max,obs=0.2 from the cited abundance-matching and halo-occupation models should be justified, because published calibrations of the peak stellar-to-halo mass ratio differ at the ~50% level and some reach ε~0.3 at z=0; the '1.5 times higher' phrasing is only as robust as that calibration.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 2] The 'grand-design spiral' classification, which is central to the title and abstract, is based on visual inspection of residuals after subtracting analytic Sérsic models. The multi-band consistency shown in Appendix B and the arm-masking tests are good evidence against gross fitting artifacts, but a quantitative measure (for example, the m=2 Fourier amplitude or a pitch-angle measurement, together with fits of the same model to simulated PSFs to bound residual-systematic artifacts) would materially strengthen the claim. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly that the spiral classification is qualitative and based on visual morphology, and the conclusions should carry the same 'candidate' qualification as the abstract.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The central core's log(sSFR/yr^-1) = -15.76(+5.86/-36.12) is formally unconstrained, so the 'quiescent core' classification rests on the UVJ colors and the strong Balmer/4000 Å break rather than on a measured sSFR; the text should say so, and the extreme asymmetry of this and the β_UV error bars suggests a poorly behaved posterior that deserves a brief comment.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 vs Sec. 4.1] The quoted sizes are presented inconsistently: the text reports a single-Sérsic R_e=2.9±0.1 kpc and a disk R_e=3.7±0.1 kpc, while Sec. 4.1 refers to '~3 and 3.9 kpc (for each model)'; the 3.9 kpc effective radius of the two-component model is not defined earlier and should be defined or removed.
  3. [Sec. 1] The paper states that it assumes Planck cosmology (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020) but adopts (Ωm, ΩΛ, h, σ8) = (0.3, 0.7, 0.7, 0.81), which is not the Planck 2020 set (Ωm≈0.31, h≈0.67); the authors should either adopt the actual Planck values or describe the parameters as assumed rather than Planck.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A] The bright neighboring foreground galaxy at z~1.59 that is masked in the morphological fits and clump 2 (z_phot=1.65+2.11/-0.02) are introduced separately, and the close agreement of the two redshifts invites confusion; the authors should state clearly whether these are the same source or two distinct objects, since both are invoked to explain different kinds of contamination.
  5. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.3] Please state explicitly whether the HST non-detections of Zhúlóng enter the SED fits as upper limits (and at what significance), and whether the 0.7″-aperture HST photometry that produces the z~1.6 peak in Fig. A.1-b includes clump 2 flux, so that the reader can trace the contamination history of each aperture.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 3.4] With SFR=66(+89/-46) M_sun/yr, the galaxy's location relative to the z~5.2 main sequence ranges from roughly 1 dex below (Schreiber et al. 2015) to near the sequence at the upper error bar; the abstract's '>0.5 dex below' statement should be qualified by this uncertainty, and the adopted main-sequence definition should be stated there.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: photometry -> photo-z -> SED fitting -> halo-mass comparison is a self-contained chain, with the photo-z limitation explicitly disclosed.

full rationale

Zhúlóng's headline quantities (z_phot, M*, SFR, Re, bulge/disk decomposition, epsilon) are obtained by fitting independent JWST/HST/ALMA photometry with standard public codes (EAZY, Bagpipes, CIGALE, PySersic) and comparing to external relations (halo mass function, SFMS, literature spirals). There is no equation in which the output is fed back as the input: the photometric redshift is measured first and then used as a fixed prior for SED fitting, which is a standard practice that propagates uncertainty but does not make M* equal to z_phot by construction. The baryon-to-star efficiency is not a fitted parameter; it is the ratio of the fitted M* to f_b times the maximum halo mass expected in the survey volume from an independent halo mass function, so it is an external comparison, not a self-derived constraint. The Appendix explicitly reports the alternative z~1.6 solution at larger apertures and attributes it to a foreground clump, and states that spectroscopy is required for confirmation; this is a disclosed limitation, not a circularity. Self-citations (Williams et al. 2025 for survey data, Xiao et al. 2024 for red monsters) provide data-release and comparison context rather than load-bearing proofs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from prior work by the same authors. Consequently, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted photometric quantities and standard modeling assumptions. The most fragile premises are the photometric redshift and the assumed purity of the core aperture; both are acknowledged in Appendix A. No new physical entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Photometric redshift z_phot = 5.2 (+0.3/-0.2)
    Fitted to JWST+HST photometry with EAZY and Bagpipes. All physical properties and the 'most distant spiral' claim scale with this value.
  • Stellar mass log(M*/M_sun) = 11.03 (+0.10/-0.08)
    SED fitting with Bagpipes/CIGALE; central to 'ultra-massive' and baryon efficiency claims.
  • Star formation rate SFR = 66 (+89/-46) M_sun/yr
    SED fitting; central to claim of being below the main sequence.
  • Dust attenuation A_V = 1.1 (+0.2/-0.2) mag
    SED fitting; affects mass and SFR estimates.
  • Sersic structural parameters (bulge n, Re, disk n, Re, b/a, B/T) = bulge n=3.7, Re=0.9 kpc; disk n=1.2, Re=3.7 kpc, b/a=0.99; B/T=0.44 light, 0.5 mass
    PySersic fits to NIRCam images; support the bulge+disk+spiral morphology claim.
  • Baryon-to-star efficiency epsilon = ~0.3
    Derived from M* and assumed maximum halo mass in the PANORAMIC volume; depends on the halo mass function and survey volume assumptions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Planck/LambdaCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, h=0.7, sigma8=0.81, and baryon fraction f_b=0.158.
    Used to convert redshifts to physical scales and to compute maximum halo masses.
  • domain assumption Chabrier IMF and Salpeter-to-Chabrier conversion factor of 1.7.
    SED-derived masses and SFRs depend on the assumed IMF.
  • domain assumption SED templates and star formation history priors: EAZY blue_sfhz_13; Bagpipes double-power-law and delayed; Bruzual and Charlot 2003; Calzetti reddening; Draine and Li 2007 dust emission.
    Photometric redshift, masses, and SFRs are all conditional on these modeling choices.
  • ad hoc to paper The central 0.16 arcsec aperture is uncontaminated by foreground clump 2 and the z~1.6 solution is ruled out by chi^2=46.
    The paper excludes clump 2 from the total flux but cannot confirm its redshift; the high-z solution for the core is key.
  • domain assumption Residual spiral-arm structure after Sersic subtraction is real stellar spiral structure, not artifacts or merger remnants.
    The grand-design morphology classification is based on visual inspection of residual maps without quantitative arm detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PANORAMIC: Discovery of an Ultra-Massive Grand-Design Spiral Galaxy at $z\sim5.2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3AYF7XD

@misc{pith2026241213264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PANORAMIC: Discovery of an Ultra-Massive Grand-Design Spiral Galaxy at $z\sim5.2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3AYF7XD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13264}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of an ultra-massive grand-design red spiral galaxy, named Zh\'ul\'ong (Torch Dragon), at $z_{\rm phot} = 5.2^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ in the JWST PANORAMIC survey, identified as the most distant bulge+disk galaxy candidate with spiral arms known to date. Zh\'ul\'ong displays an extraordinary combination of properties: 1) a classical bulge centered in a large, face-on exponential stellar disk (half-light radius of $R_{\rm e} = 3.7 \pm 0.1 \, \mathrm{kpc}$), with spiral arms extending across 19 kpc; 2) a clear transition from the red, quiescent core ($F150W-F444W=3.1$ mag) with high stellar mass surface density ($\log(\Sigma M_{\star}/M_{\odot} \, \mathrm{kpc}^{-2}) = 9.91_{-0.09}^{+0.11}$) to the star-forming outer regions, as revealed by spatially resolved SED analysis, which indicates significant inside-out galaxy growth; 3) an extremely high stellar mass at its redshift, with $\log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot})=11.03_{-0.08}^{+0.10}$ comparable to the Milky Way, and an implied baryon-to-star conversion efficiency ($\epsilon \sim 0.3$) that is 1.5 times higher than even the most efficient galaxies at later epochs; 4) despite an active disk, a relatively modest overall star formation rate ($\mathrm{SFR} =66_{-46}^{+89} ~M_{\odot} \, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), which is $>$0.5 dex below the star formation main sequence at $z \sim 5.2$ and $>$10 times lower than ultra-massive dusty galaxies at $z=5-6$. Altogether, Zh\'ul\'ong shows that mature galaxies emerged much earlier than expected in the first billion years after the Big Bang through rapid galaxy formation and morphological evolution. Our finding offers key constraints for models of massive galaxy formation and the origin of spiral structures in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The morphology and photo-z of Zhúlóng. The left panel shows a 4′′×4 ′′stacked image (F277W+F356W+F444W) with contour maps (start from 3σ). The top right panels show these same stamps in different filters. The central core’s SED (measured in 0.16′′ radius; circled in red) has a clear post-starburst shape, which is shown in the right middle panels. The first panel shows the EAZY SED fit together with the photometric p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Morphological modeling of Zhúlóng. The stacked image (4′′ × 4 ′′; F277W+F356W+F444W) is modeled using PySersic with: 1) a single Sérsic profile (top row) and 2) double Sérsic profiles (bottom row). Panels from left to right show: the stacked image, the best-fit model, the model-subtracted residuals, and the surface brightness profile. The grey-shaded area in the profile indicates the 1σ noise level of the image. Not… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar population gradient from core to outer region. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar mass of Zhúlóng (orange star) compared to other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Location of Zhúlóng (orange star) compared to the SFMS in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. EPOCHS XI: The Structure and Morphology of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization to z ~ 12.5

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Galaxy half-light radii continue to shrink with increasing redshift out to z~12.5, and small high-redshift galaxies are preferentially round, with a merger fraction of about 12%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.21054

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16354

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 166

    Antwi-Danso, J., Papovich, C., Leja, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 166

    2023

  4. [4]

    A core in a star-forming disc as evidence of inside-out growth in the early Universe

    Baker, W. M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2306.02472]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689

    2022

  6. [6]

    & Arnouts, S

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

    1996

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 677, A66

    Bing, L., Béthermin, M., Lagache, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A66

    2023

  8. [8]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

  2. [10]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  3. [11]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Bovy, J. & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115

    2013

  4. [12]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    2023

  5. [13]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503

    2008

  6. [14]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  8. [16]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    2018

  9. [17]

    C., McLure, R

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

    2023

  10. [18]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Shuntov, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 98

    2024

  11. [19]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31

    2023

  12. [20]

    F., et al

    Ceverino, D., Mandelker, N., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3912

    2023

  13. [21]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10974

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10974

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    2023

  16. [24]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

    2014

  17. [25]

    G., Guo, Y ., et al

    Costantin, L., Pérez-González, P. G., Guo, Y ., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 499

    2023

  18. [26]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Cutler, S. E., Whitaker, K. E., Mowla, L. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 34 de Graa ff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05683

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4126

    Dekel, A., Ginzburg, O., Jiang, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4126

    2020

  20. [28]

    S., Asada, Y ., et al

    Desprez, G., Martis, N. S., Asada, Y ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2935

    2024

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 6222

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., Combes, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6222

    2023

  22. [30]

    2019, Nature Astron- omy, 3, 1115

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., Combes, F., et al. 2019, Nature Astron- omy, 3, 1115

    2019

  23. [31]

    & Baba, J

    Dobbs, C. & Baba, J. 2014, PASA, 31, e035

    2014

  24. [32]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011

    2023

  25. [33]

    Draine, B. T. & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810

    2007

  26. [34]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09472

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #1837

    2021

  28. [36]

    L., Brinch, M., Casey, C

    Faisst, A. L., Brinch, M., Casey, C. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09619

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    L., Capak, P

    Faisst, A. L., Capak, P. L., Yan, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 21

    2017

  30. [38]

    & Bournaud, F

    Fensch, J. & Bournaud, F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3579

    2021

  31. [39]

    J., et al

    Ferreira, L., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, L2

    2022

  32. [40]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94

    2023

  33. [41]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, L2

    2024

  34. [42]

    K., & Sugahara, Y

    Fudamoto, Y ., Inoue, A. K., & Sugahara, Y . 2022, ApJ, 938, L24

    2022

  35. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  37. [45]

    2024, Nature, 628, 277

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

    2024

  38. [46]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labbé, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71

    2017

  39. [47]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35

    2011

  40. [48]

    B., Stern, J., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

    Gurvich, A. B., Stern, J., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2598

    2023

  41. [49]

    G., Angeloudi, E., et al

    Huertas-Company, M., Iyer, K. G., Angeloudi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A48

    2024

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 192

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

    2024

  43. [51]

    2023, ApJ, 948, L13

    Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Calabrò, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, L13

    2023

  44. [52]

    & Wadadekar, Y

    Jain, R. & Wadadekar, Y . 2024, A grand-design spiral galaxy 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang with JWST

    2024

  45. [53]

    C., Rieke, G

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.17233

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    C., Suess, K

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Suess, K. A., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00934

  47. [55]

    2024, COSMOS-3D: A Legacy Spectro- scopic/Imaging Survey of the Early Universe, JWST Proposal

    Kakiichi, K., Egami, E., Fan, X., et al. 2024, COSMOS-3D: A Legacy Spectro- scopic/Imaging Survey of the Early Universe, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5893

    2024

  48. [56]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L15

    2023

  49. [57]

    D., Ding, X., et al

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Silverman, J. D., Ding, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 38

    2021

  50. [58]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196

    2007

  51. [59]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36

    2011

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 968, L15 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kuhn, V ., Guo, Y ., Martin, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, L15 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266

    2024

  53. [61]

    R., Shapley, A

    Law, D. R., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2012, Nature, 487, 338 Le Floc’h, E., Aussel, H., Ilbert, O., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 222

    2012

  54. [62]

    C., et al

    Lee, B., Giavalisco, M., Williams, C. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 47

    2013

  55. [63]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1302

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Chen, B., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1302

    2024

  56. [64]

    Licquia, T. C. & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96

    2015

  57. [65]

    S., Antwi-Danso, J., Lambrides, E

    Long, A. S., Antwi-Danso, J., Lambrides, E. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 68

    2024

  58. [66]

    C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y ., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S

    Lovell, C. C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y ., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2511

    2023

  59. [67]

    2011, A&A, 532, A90

    Lutz, D., Poglitsch, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A90

    2011

  60. [68]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 635

    Mandelker, N., Dekel, A., Ceverino, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 635

    2017

  61. [69]

    R., et al

    McCluskey, F., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6926

    2024

  62. [70]

    B., Suess, K

    Miller, T. B., Suess, K. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06957

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

    1998

  64. [72]

    G., van Dokkum, P

    Momcheva, I. G., van Dokkum, P. G., van der Wel, A., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 015004

    2017

  65. [73]

    J., Hartley, W

    Mortlock, A., Conselice, C. J., Hartley, W. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1185

    2013

  66. [74]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

    2013

  67. [75]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1822

    2018

  68. [76]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L14

    2022

  69. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 976, L27

    Nelson, E., Brammer, G., Giménez-Arteaga, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, L27

    2024

  70. [78]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  71. [79]

    J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al

    Oliver, S. J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1614

    2012

  72. [80]

    J., Adams, N

    Ormerod, K., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6110

    2024

  73. [81]

    & Miller, T

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

    2023

  74. [82]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Mil- limeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Cla...

    2014

  75. [83]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2018

  76. [84]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    2023

  77. [85]

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., & Romeo, A. B. 2024, A&A, 687, A91

    2024

  78. [86]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001

    2023

  79. [87]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L42

    2023

  80. [88]

    S., Rieke, G

    Rujopakarn, W., Dunlop, J. S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 12

    2016

  81. [89]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  82. [90]

    T., Bondi, M., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Sargent, M. T., Bondi, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 384

    2010

  83. [91]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

    2015

  84. [92]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Masters, K. L. 2022, ARA&A, 60 [arXiv:2110.05615]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00110

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 612

    Shimakawa, R., Tanaka, M., Bottrell, C., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 612

    2022

  87. [95]

    J., Gavazzi, R., et al

    Shuntov, M., McCracken, H. J., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A61 Smolˇci´c, V ., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A1

    2022

  88. [96]

    J., & Johnson, B

    Tacchella, S., Bose, S., Conroy, C., Eisenstein, D. J., & Johnson, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, 92

    2018

  89. [97]

    M., Renzini, A., et al

    Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314

    2015

  90. [98]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 2490

    Tamburello, V ., Mayer, L., Shen, S., & Wadsley, J. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2490

    2015

  91. [99]

    C., Smail, I., et al

    Umehata, H., Steidel, C. C., Smail, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22155 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28 van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., Kriek, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, L5 van Dokkum, P. G., Leja, J., Nelson, E. J., et al. ...

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    G., Bowler, R

    Varadaraj, R. G., Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3724

    2024

  93. [101]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 51

    Vega-Ferrero, J., Huertas-Company, M., Costantin, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 51

    2024

  94. [102]

    2019, Nature, 572, 211

    Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 211

    2019

  95. [103]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.17956

    Wang, W., Cantalupo, S., Pensabene, A., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.17956

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 176

    Ward, E., de la Vega, A., Mobasher, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 176

    2024

  97. [105]

    Wechsler, R. H. & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435 Article number, page 9 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    2018

  98. [106]

    J., et al

    Weibel, A., de Graa ff, A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03829

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

    1978

  100. [108]

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

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34

    2024

  101. [109]

    C., Labbe, I., Spilker, J., et al

    Williams, C. C., Labbe, I., Spilker, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 154

    2019

  102. [110]

    C., Oesch, P

    Williams, C. C., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 140

    2025

  103. [111]

    J., Quadri, R

    Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Labbé, I. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1879

    2009

  104. [112]

    2023, ApJ, 942, L1

    Wu, Y ., Cai, Z., Sun, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L1

    2023

  105. [113]

    A., Elbaz, D., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Elbaz, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 311

    2024

  106. [114]

    Y ., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al

    Xiao, M. Y ., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A18

    2023

  107. [115]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 44

    Yan, H., Sun, B., & Ling, C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 44

    2024

  108. [116]

    Yuan, T., Richard, J., Gupta, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 61 1 Department of Astronomy, University of Geneva, Chemin Pegasi 51, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland 2 NSF National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, 950 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA 3 Steward Obse...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.