pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.10117 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Impact of stochastic star-formation histories and dust on selecting quiescent galaxies with JWST photometry

K. Lisiecki , D. Donevski , A. W. S. Man , I. Damjanov , M. Romano , S. Belli , A. Long , G. Lorenzon
show 11 more authors
K. Ma{\l}ek Junais C. C. Lovell A. Nanni C. Bertemes W. Pearson O. Ryzhov M. Koprowski A. Pollo S. Dey H. Thuruthipilly
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords quiescent galaxiesstar formation historiesdust attenuationJWST photometryspectral energy distribution fittinggalaxy evolutionmid-infrared observationshigh redshift galaxies
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Assumptions about star-formation histories cause the number of photometrically selected quiescent galaxies to vary from 171 to 224 out of 13000, rising by up to 45 percent when mid-infrared data are added.

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

The paper tests how different models for star-formation histories affect the identification of quiescent galaxy candidates in photometric data from the James Webb Space Telescope. Across three models, the number of selected candidates ranges from 171 to 224 among 13000 galaxies at redshifts under 6. Adding mid-infrared measurements increases the selected count by as much as 45 percent, because they tighten the estimates of dust obscuration and total stellar mass. About 13 percent of the candidates show notable dust attenuation in all models, and more massive galaxies appear more obscured than lower-mass ones.

Core claim

When three different star-formation history models are applied to spectral energy distribution fitting of galaxies observed with the James Webb Space Telescope, the count of quiescent galaxy candidates selected by color, specific star-formation rate, and offset from the main sequence ranges from 171 to 224. This count rises to between 222 and 327 when mid-infrared photometry is included. Roughly 13 percent of these candidates have dust attenuation greater than 0.5 magnitudes, and a clear trend links higher stellar mass to stronger attenuation.

What carries the argument

Comparison of three star-formation history prescriptions—flexible delayed, nonparametric, and extended regulator—applied with and without mid-infrared data to determine how they alter quiescence criteria based on rest-frame colors and star-formation rates.

If this is right

  • Different assumptions about star-formation histories lead to different sizes of the quiescent galaxy population at early cosmic times.
  • Mid-infrared observations help reduce uncertainties from dust, resulting in more robust selection of quiescent candidates.
  • A substantial fraction of photometrically selected quiescent galaxies are affected by dust obscuration.
  • Stellar mass correlates positively with the amount of dust attenuation in quiescent systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Surveys relying on a single star-formation history model may under- or over-estimate the true number of quiescent galaxies.
  • The presence of dust in some quiescent candidates implies that dust removal or heating processes operate even after star formation has largely ceased.
  • Extending the analysis to higher redshifts could reveal whether the mass-attenuation relation strengthens or weakens over time.

Load-bearing premise

The three star-formation history models together with the chosen dust emission prescriptions are enough to represent the actual variety of star-formation and dust properties present in galaxies at these redshifts.

What would settle it

Obtaining spectroscopic measurements of star-formation rates or independent estimates of dust content for the same galaxies to check whether the photometrically selected quiescent candidates are truly quiescent and how dusty they are.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10117 by A. Long, A. Nanni, A. Pollo, A. W. S. Man, C. Bertemes, C. C. Lovell, D. Donevski, G. Lorenzon, H. Thuruthipilly, I. Damjanov, Junais, K. Lisiecki, K. Ma{\l}ek, M. Koprowski, M. Romano, O. Ryzhov, S. Belli, S. Dey, W. Pearson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of different specific star formation histories (sSFHs) for an exemplary QGC from the MIRI run. The red solid, orange dashed, and blue dash-dotted lines show the Regulator, NonParametric and DelayedBQ sSFH, respectively. The black dotted line shows the criterion for QGs, while the dashed line displays the criterion for SFG (Pacifici et al. 2016). With black arrows, we mark the variables derived f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The density plots presenting the comparison of distributions of main physical properties of studied galaxies in redshift for final sample. Panels from top to bottom: AV , age, SFR and M⋆. Panels from left to right: DelayedBQ, NonParametric and Regulator. The blue, filled con￾tours present the distribution of the MIRI run, while the red contours show the distribution of no-MIRI run. Both contours are logari… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Difference in estimated physical properties of galaxies from final sample using different SFH models within MIRI run as a func￾tion of redshift. Panels from left to right: DelayedBQ-NonParametric, NonParametric-Regulator and Regulator-DelayedBQ. Panels from top to down show distribution of difference for: AV in mag, age in Myr, SFR in M⊙/yr and the M⋆ in M⊙. The blue dashed line presents the me￾dian of dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the QGCs sample size depending on the selec￾tion criterion and SFH model for the MIRI and no-MIRI runs. The col￾ors of the points represent SFH models: red – Regulator, orange – De￾layedBQ, blue – NonParametric. The markers represent selection cri￾terion, stars – Koprowski et al. (2024), triangles – sSFR criterion, cir￾cles – Béthermin et al. (2015) and squares – Schreiber et al. (2015). The … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of UVJ diagrams for galaxies with z < 2.5 (top 6 panels) and 2.5 ≤ z < 6 (bottom 6 panels) for mass-complete sample (M∗ ≥ 108M⊙) from different runs. The squares are sized logarithmically according to the number of galaxies in the bin. We colour-code the median attenuation in V-band (AV ) as the histogram in the background. The grey crosses represent the QGCs selected with sSFR criterion. The bl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relation between time since quenching (∆T) and the AV of the mass-complete QGCs at z ≤ 2.5. The columns show different SFH models used in the run, from left DelayedBQ, NonParametric, and Regulator, while the rows show MIRI vs no-MIRI runs. The colours represent the median M⋆ of each bins. The arrows on the left of each panel show the weighted mean for the corresponding M⋆ bin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) now allows identifying quiescent galaxies (QGs) out to early epochs, the photometric selection of quiescent galaxy candidates (QGCs) and the derivation of key physical quantities are highly sensitive to the assumed star-formation histories (SFHs). We aim to quantify how the inclusion of JWST/MIRI data and different SFH models impacts the selection and characterisation of QGCs. We test the robustness of the physical properties inferred from the spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting, such as M*, age, star formation rate (SFR), and AV, and study how they impact the quiescence criteria of the galaxies across cosmic time. We perform SED fitting for ~13000 galaxies at z<6 from the CEERS/MIRI fields with up to 20 optical-mid infrared (MIR) broadband coverage. We implement three SFH prescriptions: flexible delayed, NonParametric, and extended Regulator. For each model, we compare results obtained with and without MIRI photometry and dust emission models. We evaluate the impact of these configurations on the number of candidate QGCs, selected based on rest UVJ colours, sSFR and main-sequence offset, and on their key physical properties such as M*, AV, and stellar ages. The number of QGCs selected varies significantly with the choice of SFH from 171 to 224 out of 13000 galaxies, depending on the model. This number increases to 222-327 when MIRI data are used (up to ~45% more QGCs). This enhancement is driven by improved constraints on dust attenuation and M*. We find a strong correlation between AV and M*, with massive galaxies (M*~10^11 M\odot) being 1.5-4.2 times more attenuated in magnitude than low-mass systems (M*~10^9 M\odot), depending on SFH. Regardless of the SFH assumption, ~13% of QGCs exhibit significant attenuation (AV > 0.5) in support of recent JWST studies challenging the notion that quiescent galaxies are uniformly dust-free.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs SED fitting on ~13,000 galaxies at z<6 from CEERS/MIRI fields using up to 20-band photometry to quantify the effects of three SFH prescriptions (flexible delayed, NonParametric, extended Regulator) and the inclusion/exclusion of MIRI data plus dust emission models on the selection of quiescent galaxy candidates (QGCs) via UVJ colors, sSFR, and main-sequence offset. It reports that QGC counts range from 171–224 depending on SFH, rise to 222–327 (up to ~45% increase) with MIRI data, show a strong A_V–M* correlation, and that ~13% of QGCs have A_V > 0.5 irrespective of the SFH model adopted.

Significance. If the central numerical results hold, the work provides a useful systematic quantification of modeling sensitivity in JWST-based QG selection at z<6 and supplies concrete evidence that a non-negligible fraction of photometrically selected quiescent systems are dust-attenuated, consistent with other recent JWST studies. The explicit comparison of three SFH families with and without MIRI data is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results on A_V statistics): the claim that '~13% of QGCs exhibit significant attenuation (A_V > 0.5) regardless of the SFH assumption' is load-bearing for the paper's interpretation yet rests only on the three tested prescriptions. If these models share limitations in reproducing highly stochastic or burst-dominated SFHs (increasingly indicated by JWST spectroscopy at z~2–6), the derived A_V distribution and the 13% fraction could shift systematically; an explicit test against at least one additional bursty or non-parametric SFH with higher time-resolution would directly address this.
  2. [§3] §3 (methods, data selection): the robustness of the reported 45% increase in QGC counts when MIRI is added depends on the precise definition of the quiescence criteria (UVJ, sSFR, MS offset) and on how photometric uncertainties and upper limits are propagated; without tabulated error budgets or jackknife tests on the selection thresholds it is difficult to judge whether the count variation is dominated by improved dust constraints or by changes in the underlying galaxy sample.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table listing the exact number of QGCs, median A_V, and median stellar age for each of the six configurations (3 SFH × with/without MIRI) would improve readability and allow direct comparison of the reported ranges.
  2. The paper should clarify whether the dust emission models are held fixed across all SFH runs or allowed to vary, as this choice directly affects the A_V–M* correlation strength quoted in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results on A_V statistics): the claim that '~13% of QGCs exhibit significant attenuation (A_V > 0.5) regardless of the SFH assumption' is load-bearing for the paper's interpretation yet rests only on the three tested prescriptions. If these models share limitations in reproducing highly stochastic or burst-dominated SFHs (increasingly indicated by JWST spectroscopy at z~2–6), the derived A_V distribution and the 13% fraction could shift systematically; an explicit test against at least one additional bursty or non-parametric SFH with higher time-resolution would directly address this.

    Authors: We selected the three SFH prescriptions to span a range of modeling approaches, with the NonParametric model already permitting multiple discrete star-formation episodes and the extended Regulator model incorporating stochastic variations in the star-formation rate. The fact that the ~13% fraction with A_V > 0.5 remains consistent across these models is the central result we report. We nevertheless agree that more bursty histories with finer time resolution could in principle alter the A_V distribution. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion in §4 (and the corresponding abstract sentence) to explicitly acknowledge this potential systematic uncertainty, reference recent JWST spectroscopic indications of burstiness at z~2–6, and note that the present photometric analysis cannot fully exclude such effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (methods, data selection): the robustness of the reported 45% increase in QGC counts when MIRI is added depends on the precise definition of the quiescence criteria (UVJ, sSFR, MS offset) and on how photometric uncertainties and upper limits are propagated; without tabulated error budgets or jackknife tests on the selection thresholds it is difficult to judge whether the count variation is dominated by improved dust constraints or by changes in the underlying galaxy sample.

    Authors: We agree that additional documentation of uncertainty propagation and threshold sensitivity would strengthen the methods section. In the revised version we will add a table in §3 that tabulates the adopted photometric uncertainties, describes the treatment of upper limits in the SED fits, and reports the resulting error budgets on sSFR and UVJ colors. We will also include a brief jackknife test that varies the quiescence thresholds within their uncertainties and shows that the ~45% increase in QGC counts persists and is driven primarily by the tighter constraints on dust attenuation and stellar mass provided by the MIRI bands. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Performing a complete re-analysis of the full ~13,000-galaxy sample with an additional high-time-resolution bursty SFH model, which would require substantial new computational resources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct outputs from SED fits to independent photometry

full rationale

The paper performs SED fitting on ~13000 galaxies using three SFH prescriptions (flexible delayed, NonParametric, extended Regulator) and reports empirical counts of QGCs (171-224 without MIRI, 222-327 with MIRI) plus the ~13% fraction with AV>0.5. These quantities are computed directly from the posterior distributions of the fits to external JWST photometry; no equation reduces the reported numbers or AV values to a quantity defined by the selection criteria themselves, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the outcomes. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the photometric data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the adequacy of the three SFH prescriptions and dust models for high-redshift galaxies plus the assumption that the CEERS/MIRI photometry is representative.

free parameters (1)
  • SFH model parameters
    Parameters within each of the flexible delayed, NonParametric, and extended Regulator models are adjusted to match the observed photometry.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The chosen SFH prescriptions and dust emission models are adequate representations of real high-redshift galaxy properties.
    Invoked when comparing results across the three models and when interpreting the AV-M* correlation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6028 in / 1346 out tokens · 50677 ms · 2026-05-18T17:47:36.074437+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Massive Galaxies Form Early and Gray: Stellar Assembly and Dust Attenuation at $\mathbf{z>3.5}$ from CAPERS

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Massive galaxies at z>3.5 assembled stars earlier than theoretical models predict and exhibit gray dust attenuation, especially at the highest masses.

  2. From DES to KiDS: Domain adaptation for cross-survey detection of low-surface-brightness galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Domain adaptation with an ensemble of CNN and transformer models trained on DES detects 20,180 LSBGs and 434 UDGs in KiDS DR5, with structural parameters and environmental trends consistent with known samples.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    E., Leja , J., et al

    Akhshik , M., Whitaker , K. E., Leja , J., et al. 2023, , 943, 179

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    B., Narayanan , D., Whitaker , K

    Akins , H. B., Narayanan , D., Whitaker , K. E., et al. 2022, , 929, 94

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    2023, , 943, 166

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

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2020, , 494, 6053

    Appleby , S., Dav \'e , R., Kraljic , K., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., & Narayanan , D. 2020, , 494, 6053

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    2013, , 558, A67

    Arnouts , S., Le Floc'h , E., Chevallard , J., et al. 2013, , 558, A67

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Arnouts , S., Walcher , C. J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2007, , 476, 137

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Aufort , G., Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00795

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    L., Morris , S

    Balogh , M. L., Morris , S. L., Yee , H. K. C., Carlberg , R. G., & Ellingson , E. 1999, , 527, 54

    work page 1999

  11. [11]

    A., Rieke , M., Eisenstein , D., et al

    Beichman , C. A., Rieke , M., Eisenstein , D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. C. Clampin , G. G. Fazio , H. A. MacEwen , & J. M. Oschmann , Jr., 84422N

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    B., & Ellis , R

    Belli , S., Newman , A. B., & Ellis , R. S. 2019, , 874, 17

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    J-PAS: The Javalambre-Physics of the Accelerated Universe Astrophysical Survey

    Benitez , N., Dupke , R., Moles , M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans , A. Accomazzi , D. J. Mink , & A. H. Rots , 435

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    & Arnouts , S

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

    work page 1996

  16. [16]

    2015, , 573, A113

    B \'e thermin , M., Daddi , E., Magdis , G., et al. 2015, , 573, A113

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07291

    Bevacqua , D., Saracco , P., La Barbera , F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07291

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    S., Suess , K

    Bezanson , R., Spilker , J. S., Suess , K. A., et al. 2022, , 925, 153

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    2019, , 622, A103

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

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    O., et al

    Bouchet , P., Garc \' a-Mar \' n , M., Lagage , P. O., et al. 2015, , 127, 612

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.10.0

    Bradley , L., Sip o cz , B., Robitaille , T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.10.0

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    B., S \'a nchez-Janssen , R., Labb \'e , I., et al

    Brammer , G. B., S \'a nchez-Janssen , R., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2012, , 758, L17

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    & Charlot , S

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

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Bruzual A. , G. 1983, , 273, 105

    work page 1983

  25. [25]

    C., Leja , J., Johnson , B

    Carnall , A. C., Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., et al. 2019, , 873, 44

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    C., McLeod , D

    Carnall , A. C., McLeod , D. J., McLure , R. J., et al. 2023 a , , 520, 3974

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    C., McLure , R

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

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    & Fall , S

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

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    M., Kriek , M., Beverage , A

    Cheng , C. M., Kriek , M., Beverage , A. G., et al. 2025, , 540, 1527

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Chien , T. C. C., Ling , C.-T., Goto , T., et al. 2024, , 532, 719

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    2016, , 585, A43

    Ciesla , L., Boselli , A., Elbaz , D., et al. 2016, , 585, A43

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    2021, , 653, A6

    Ciesla , L., Buat , V., Boquien , M., et al. 2021, , 653, A6

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    2023, , 672, A191

    Ciesla , L., G \'o mez-Guijarro , C., Buat , V., et al. 2023, , 672, A191

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    2013, , 51, 393

    Conroy , C. 2013, , 51, 393

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    E., Whitaker , K

    Cutler , S. E., Whitaker , K. E., Weaver , J. R., et al. 2024, , 967, L23

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    2005, , 626, 680

    Daddi , E., Renzini , A., Pirzkal , N., et al. 2005, , 626, 680

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    2019, , 486, 2827

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Dav \'e , R., Thompson , R., & Hopkins , P. F. 2016, , 462, 3265

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    2023, , 678, A35

    Donevski , D., Damjanov , I., Nanni , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A35

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    2020, , 644, A144

    Donevski , D., Lapi , A., Ma ek , K., et al. 2020, , 644, A144

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    2019, , 485, 4817

    Donnari , M., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2019, , 485, 4817

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al

    Draine , B. T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al. 2014, , 780, 172

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    S., et al

    Elbaz , D., Dickinson , M., Hwang , H. S., et al. 2011, , 533, A119

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    2018, , 616, A110

    Elbaz , D., Leiton , R., Nagar , N., et al. 2018, , 616, A110

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    M., Willmer , C

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

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    J., Faber , S

    Fang , J. J., Faber , S. M., Koo , D. C., et al. 2018, , 858, 100

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    & Mayer , L

    Feldmann , R. & Mayer , L. 2015, , 446, 1939

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Arrabal Haro , P., et al. 2022, , 940, L55

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Finlator , K., Dav \'e , R., & Oppenheimer , B. D. 2007, , 376, 1861

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    2007, , 465, 711

    Franzetti , P., Scodeggio , M., Garilli , B., et al. 2007, , 465, 711

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    G., et al

    Fumagalli , M., Labb \'e , I., Patel , S. G., et al. 2014, , 796, 35

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    2025, , 695, A90

    Gebek , A., Diemer , B., Martorano , M., et al. 2025, , 695, A90

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2017, , 544, 71

    Glazebrook , K., Schreiber , C., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2017, , 544, 71

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    Gobat , R., Daddi , E., Magdis , G., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Gould , K. M. L., Brammer , G., Valentino , F., et al. 2023, , 165, 248

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    P., Iovino , A., Krywult , J., et al

    Haines , C. P., Iovino , A., Krywult , J., et al. 2017, , 605, A4

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    H., & Pernet , E

    Iglesias-Navarro , P., Huertas-Company , M., Mart \' n-Navarro , I., Knapen , J. H., & Pernet , E. 2024, , 689, A58

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Ilbert , O., McCracken , H. J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2013, , 556, A55

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    & Gawiser , E

    Iyer , K. & Gawiser , E. 2017, , 838, 127

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    G., Gawiser , E., Faber , S

    Iyer , K. G., Gawiser , E., Faber , S. M., et al. 2019, , 879, 116

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    G., Speagle , J

    Iyer , K. G., Speagle , J. S., Caplar , N., et al. 2024, , 961, 53

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al

    Iyer , K. G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al. 2020 a , , 498, 430

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al

    Iyer , K. G., Tacchella , S., Genel , S., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 430

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

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

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

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    M., White , S

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 341, 33

    work page 2003

  68. [68]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1992, , 388, 310

    work page 1992

  69. [69]

    P., Wijesekera , J

    Koprowski , M. P., Wijesekera , J. V., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2024, , 691, A164

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    G., Franx , M., & Illingworth , G

    Kriek , M., van der Wel , A., van Dokkum , P. G., Franx , M., & Illingworth , G. D. 2008, , 682, 896

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    Krywult , J., Tasca , L. A. M., Pollo , A., et al. 2017, , 598, A120

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    M., Steidel , C

    Lee , M. M., Steidel , C. C., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 527, 9529

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    C., Johnson , B

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

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    2019 b , , 880, L9

    Leja , J., Tacchella , S., & Conroy , C. 2019 b , , 880, L9

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    2023, , 669, A95

    Lisiecki , K., Ma ek , K., Siudek , M., et al. 2023, , 669, A95

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

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

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

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

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

    Looser , T. J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, , 629, 53

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    2025, , 693, A118

    Lorenzon , G., Donevski , D., Lisiecki , K., et al. 2025, , 693, A118

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    C., Roper , W., Vijayan , A

    Lovell , C. C., Roper , W., Vijayan , A. P., et al. 2023, , 525, 5520

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    2020, , 904, 33

    Lower , S., Narayanan , D., Leja , J., et al. 2020, , 904, 33

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.