pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.09805 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

POLAR-II: modeling star formation history of galaxies on the 21-cm signal from Epoch of Reionization

Qing-Bo Ma , Raghunath Ghara , Benedetta Ciardi , Anshuman Acharya , Bin Yue , Ilian T. Iliev , L\'eon V. E. Koopmans , Garrelt Mellema
show 1 more author
Saleem Zaroubi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords star formation historyEpoch of Reionization21-cm signalgalaxy formationintergalactic mediumradiative transfersemi-analytic modelscosmic reionization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Different star formation histories in galaxies produce distinct ionized region sizes and alter the 21-cm global signal and power spectrum during the Epoch of Reionization, even with fixed total ionizing photons.

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

The paper tests how realistic variations in when galaxies form their stars, drawn from a semi-analytic model, change the way they ionize and heat the surrounding gas compared to simpler constant-rate assumptions. By feeding galaxy catalogs into a radiative transfer code on top of a dark matter simulation, the authors track differences in bubble growth, gas temperatures, and the resulting radio signal at 21 centimeters. A sympathetic reader cares because upcoming radio arrays will measure this signal to map the first billion years of the universe, and mis-modeling galaxy histories could lead to wrong inferences about early galaxy properties. The work shows that burstier or older stellar populations create measurably different topologies of ionized gas.

Core claim

Galaxies assigned star formation histories from the L-Galaxies 2020 model generate ionized regions that are slightly larger and warmer than those produced by galaxies with constant star formation rates when the total number of ionizing photons is held fixed. For fixed stellar mass, galaxies with higher stellar-mass-weighted age produce smaller ionized regions. These differences shift the timing and spatial structure of intergalactic medium ionization and heating, which directly modifies both the sky-averaged 21-cm brightness temperature and its spatial power spectrum.

What carries the argument

Post-processing of Jiutian-300 N-body density fields with galaxy catalogs from L-Galaxies 2020 fed into the one-dimensional radiative transfer code Grizzly, which computes ionization and heating while enforcing constant total photon budget across SFH variants.

If this is right

  • The global 21-cm signal peaks at a different redshift and has a different amplitude when realistic SFH is used.
  • The 21-cm power spectrum shows shifts in both the scale of peak power and its overall normalization.
  • Ionized bubble sizes and the patchiness of the reionization topology change systematically with stellar age.
  • Gas kinetic temperature inside and around ionized regions rises more rapidly for certain SFH models.
  • Inferences about the timing of reionization from 21-cm data become sensitive to the assumed galaxy formation model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observers may need joint fits of 21-cm data with high-redshift galaxy luminosity functions to separate SFH effects from changes in the total photon budget.
  • The same modeling approach could be extended to include explicit merger-triggered bursts to test whether the signal differences grow larger.
  • If the 21-cm signal is used to constrain the escape fraction of ionizing photons, SFH modeling uncertainty could introduce a systematic floor on those constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The total number of ionizing photons emitted by each galaxy stays exactly the same no matter how the timing of star formation is rearranged.

What would settle it

Measure the 21-cm power spectrum amplitude at redshift 8 in a large survey volume and check whether the difference between constant-SFR and L-Galaxies SFH predictions exceeds the thermal noise and foreground residual levels expected for SKA-low or HERA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.09805 by Anshuman Acharya, Benedetta Ciardi, Bin Yue, Garrelt Mellema, Ilian T. Iliev, L\'eon V. E. Koopmans, Qing-Bo Ma, Raghunath Ghara, Saleem Zaroubi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Average stellar mass normalized integrated SED, ⟨iSED⟩, of stellar sources (red), XRB (magenta), hot-ISM (cyan) and all source types combined (black) at z = 11.9 (solid), 10.07 (dashed), 7.88 (dash-dotted) and 6.99 (dotted) obtained from the LG20 simulation. These results are the mean values of all galaxies with > 104 M⊙. The slight differences (< 10%) observed in ⟨iSED⟩ at various redshifts are due to the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average SFR history of galaxies with M⋆ ∼ 107 M⊙ and stellar age τage = 0.02 Gyr (cyan), 0.04 Gyr (magenta), 0.06 Gyr (blue), 0.1 Gyr (red), 0.2 Gyr (yellow) and 0.4 Gyr (green) at z = 11.9, 10.94, 10.07, 8.91, 7.88, 6.99 and 5.96 from left to right and top to bottom. The x-axis tb is the time of galaxies traced back from z to higher redshift. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 tb [Gyr] 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 s S F … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average specific SFR (i.e. SFR per unit stellar mass) history of galaxies with stellar age τage = 0.02 Gyr (cyan) and 0.2 Gyr (yellow) for galaxies with M⋆ ∼ 106 M⊙ (dashed), 107 M⊙ (solid) and 108 M⊙ (dotted). The results are at z = 6.99. zly to compute the reionization process and the associated 21-cm signal. To investigate how the ionization and heat￾ing of the IGM and the associated 21-cm signal from t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of stellar age τage versus stellar mass M⋆ of galaxies at z = 11.9, 10.94, 10.07, 8.91, 7.88, 6.99 and 5.96, from left to right and top to bottom. The solid lines are the mean τage of galaxies within the same M⋆ bins, which are shown together for all redshifts in the bottom-right plot. 100 150 200 250 R[kpc] 10¡4 10¡3 10¡2 10¡1 1 x HII ¿age = 0:02Gyr ¿age = 0:1Gyr ¿age = 0:2Gyr SFH_LG20 SFH_c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1-D profiles of ionization fraction xHII (left), gas temperature Tk (middle) and 21-cm signal T21cm (right) as functions of the physical distance R from a galaxy with M∗ = 107 M⊙ at z = 10.07. The colors refer to galaxies with τage = 0.02 Gyr (cyan), 0.1 Gyr (red) and 0.2 Gyr (yellow). The solid lines are the results obtained by adopting the SFH from LG20 (SFH_LG20), while the dotted lines refer to a const… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2-D distributions of gas temperature Tk versus ionization fraction xHII from simulation simul_0.02, simul_0.1, simul_0.1_const, simul_0.2, simul_Fiducial and simul_Fiducial_const at z = 10.07, from left to right and top to bottom. simul_0.1_const and simul_Fiducial_const have a constant SFR, while the others adopt the SFH obtained from LG20. The background gray lines are the Tk as functions of xHII from th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light-cones of 21-cm DBT T21cm from z = 7 to 12 extracted from simulation simul_0.02, simul_0.1, simul_0.1_const, simul_0.2, simul_Fiducial and simul_Fiducial_const from top to bottom. 4. Conclusions and Discussions A wealth of data from the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) has been recently (or will soon be) obtained, e.g. on galaxy properties by JWST, and on the 21-cm signal from the IGM gas by LOFAR, NenuFAR… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: histories of volume-averaged mean ionization fraction x¯HII (top), mean 21-cm DBT T¯21cm (central) and rms of 21-cm DBT σ21cm (bottom) from simulation simul_0.02 (solid cyan), simul_0.1 (solid red), simul_0.1_const (dashed red), simul_0.2 (solid yellow), simul_Fiducial (solid black) and simul_Fiducial_const (dashed black). Right: redshift evolution of 21-cm power spectra ∆2 21cm at k = 0.05 Mpc−1 (to… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Galaxies may suffer some starburst and quenched periods in their history due to e.g. galaxy mergers and feedback. However, semi-numerical simulations of the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) typically do not accurately model the effects of the star formation history (SFH) of galaxies. Keeping the same total ionizing photon budget from galaxies, we investigate how the ionization and heating of the Intergalactic Medium (IGM), as well as the associated 21-cm signal during the EoR, depends on the variations in the modeling of the SFH of galaxies. We adopt the Jiutian-300 N-body dark matter simulation and the semi-analytic model L-Galaxies 2020 to model galaxy formation. Using the galaxy catalog from L-Galaxies 2020 as input, we post-process the Jiutian-300 density field with the one-dimensional radiative transfer code Grizzly to model the reionization process and the 21-cm signal. We find that the ionized regions produced by galaxies with a SFH derived from L-Galaxies 2020 are slightly larger and warmer than the ones obtained with a constant SFR. For a fixed stellar mass, galaxies produce smaller ionized regions with increasing stellar mass weighted stellar age $\tau_{\rm age}$. This results in a different topology and timing of the IGM ionization and heating obtained from Grizzly. The SFH of galaxies is highly dependent on $\tau_{\rm age}$ and redshift. Different models of the galactic SFH affect the gas heating and ionizing processes during the EoR, and as a consequence also the 21-cm global signal and power spectrum.

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 examines how variations in galactic star formation history (SFH) affect the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) by comparing SFHs from the semi-analytic model L-Galaxies 2020 against a constant SFR assumption. Keeping the total ionizing photon budget fixed, the authors post-process the Jiutian-300 N-body density field with the Grizzly 1D radiative transfer code and report that L-Galaxies 2020 SFHs produce slightly larger and warmer ionized regions, altering IGM topology, heating timing, and the resulting 21-cm global signal and power spectrum. The SFH is shown to depend strongly on stellar-mass-weighted age and redshift.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing normalization concerns, the work demonstrates that realistic, time-varying SFHs (as captured by established semi-analytic models) produce measurable differences in EoR observables compared to the constant-SFR approximation common in semi-numerical codes. This strengthens the case for incorporating detailed galaxy-formation physics when interpreting 21-cm data from instruments such as HERA or SKA. The use of the large-volume Jiutian-300 simulation together with L-Galaxies 2020 provides a reproducible link between N-body merger trees and radiative transfer, which is a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods section: The central claim that differences in ionized-region size and temperature arise purely from SFH shape is load-bearing, yet the fixed total photon budget is enforced by rescaling. If this rescaling is applied globally rather than per-galaxy or per-redshift bin, it can alter the effective escape fraction, stellar-mass-to-halo-mass relation, or source clustering relative to the Jiutian-300 field, potentially driving the reported topology changes instead of the SFH timing itself. A quantitative test (e.g., photon output before/after rescaling per halo) is required to isolate the effect.
  2. [Results] Results on ionized regions: The statement that regions are 'slightly larger and warmer' for L-Galaxies 2020 SFHs lacks reported quantitative metrics (mean bubble size, volume-weighted temperature difference, or ionization fraction histograms) and error bars. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the differences are large enough to affect the 21-cm power spectrum at observable scales.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a one-sentence statement of the redshift range and simulation volume used, as these set the scale of the reported 21-cm signal differences.
  2. [Methods] Notation: Define the stellar-mass-weighted age τ_age explicitly on first use and clarify how it is computed from the L-Galaxies 2020 catalog.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. These have prompted us to clarify the normalization procedure and strengthen the quantitative presentation of our results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods section: The central claim that differences in ionized-region size and temperature arise purely from SFH shape is load-bearing, yet the fixed total photon budget is enforced by rescaling. If this rescaling is applied globally rather than per-galaxy or per-redshift bin, it can alter the effective escape fraction, stellar-mass-to-halo-mass relation, or source clustering relative to the Jiutian-300 field, potentially driving the reported topology changes instead of the SFH timing itself. A quantitative test (e.g., photon output before/after rescaling per halo) is required to isolate the effect.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on isolating the effect of SFH timing. In our post-processing pipeline, the rescaling to enforce a fixed total ionizing photon budget is performed individually for each galaxy: the L-Galaxies 2020 SFH is used to determine the temporal distribution of star formation, after which the total photon output per galaxy is normalized to match the constant-SFR case while preserving the galaxy's stellar mass and position in the Jiutian-300 density field. This per-galaxy approach leaves the stellar-mass-to-halo-mass relation, escape fraction, and source clustering unchanged. We have added a quantitative comparison (new panel in Figure 2 and text in Section 2.3) showing the photon production rate per halo before and after rescaling, confirming that the total budget per source is identical and that topology differences originate from the timing of photon emission rather than normalization artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results on ionized regions: The statement that regions are 'slightly larger and warmer' for L-Galaxies 2020 SFHs lacks reported quantitative metrics (mean bubble size, volume-weighted temperature difference, or ionization fraction histograms) and error bars. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the differences are large enough to affect the 21-cm power spectrum at observable scales.

    Authors: We agree that the original description was insufficiently quantitative. In the revised Results section (new subsection 3.2), we now report the mean ionized bubble radius (with 1-sigma scatter across the simulation volume), the volume-weighted IGM temperature difference between the two SFH models, and ionization-fraction histograms at key redshifts. Error bars are derived from the full Jiutian-300 volume. These metrics show that the differences, while modest, are statistically significant and translate into measurable shifts in the 21-cm power spectrum on scales of 0.1–1 Mpc^{-1}, relevant for upcoming observations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external models

full rationale

The paper's chain uses the external L-Galaxies 2020 semi-analytic catalog and Jiutian-300 N-body simulation as inputs to Grizzly radiative transfer, with the fixed total ionizing photon budget stated as an explicit modeling choice rather than derived from the paper's own equations. No self-definitional steps, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to prior author work by construction. The reported differences in ionized regions and 21-cm signal follow directly from varying the SFH input while holding the budget fixed, which is an independent assumption testable against the external catalogs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that SFH variations can be isolated while fixing the total ionizing photon budget, relying on the accuracy of the L-Galaxies 2020 semi-analytic model and Grizzly radiative transfer code.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The total ionizing photon budget from galaxies is kept fixed across different SFH models.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract to isolate the effects of SFH variations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5646 in / 1281 out tokens · 64857 ms · 2026-05-15T13:05:02.100599+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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Alexander, P., et al

    Abdurashidova, Z., Aguirre, J. E., Alexander, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 221

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    K., et al

    Acharya, A., Ma, Q.-b., Giri, S. K., et al. 2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2410.11620]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    G., Kulkarni, G., et al

    Asthana, S., Haehnelt, M. G., Kulkarni, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2968

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Bevins, H. T. J., Fialkov, A., de Lera Acedo, E., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1473

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406

    Bhagwat, A., Costa, T., Ciardi, B., Pakmor, R., & Garaldi, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5932

    Borrow, J., Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5932

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 112

    Bouwens, R., González-López, J., Aravena, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 112

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    D., Rogers, A

    Bowman, J. D., Rogers, A. E. E., Monsalve, R. A., Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018, Nature, 555, 67

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    B., Ciardi, B., Graziani, L., et al

    Eide, M. B., Ciardi, B., Graziani, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 6083

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    L., & Keating, B

    Fan, X., Carilli, C. L., & Keating, B. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 415

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    Furlanetto, S. R. & Mirocha, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3895

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    R., Oh, S

    Furlanetto, S. R., Oh, S. P., & Briggs, F. H. 2006, Phys. Rep., 433, 181

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    R., & Datta, K

    Ghara, R., Choudhury, T. R., & Datta, K. K. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1806

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    2025, A&A, 699, A109

    Ghara, R., Zaroubi, S., Ciardi, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A109

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Gnedin, N. Y. 2014, ApJ, 793, 29

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Gnedin, N. Y. 2016, ApJ, 821, 50

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Gnedin, N. Y. & Madau, P. 2022, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 8, 3

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    2025, Science China Physics, Me- chanics, and Astronomy, 68, 109511

    Han, J., Li, M., Jiang, W., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Me- chanics, and Astronomy, 68, 109511

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Henriques, B. M. B., Yates, R. M., Fu, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5795

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    D., & Puchwein, E

    Hills, R., Kulkarni, G., Meerburg, P. D., & Puchwein, E. 2018, Nature, 564, E32

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 3698

    Hutter, A., Dayal, P., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3698

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    G., Starkenburg, T

    Iyer, K. G., Starkenburg, T. K., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2508.21152

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850

    Jiang, L., Ning, Y., Fan, X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1254

    Katz, H., Martin-Alvarez, S., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1254

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 1

    Koopmans, L., Pritchard, J., Mellema, G., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 1

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 595

    Legrand, L., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 595

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 5

    Ma, Q.-B., Chen, X.-R., Li, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 5

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    B., et al

    Ma, Q.-B., Ciardi, B., Eide, M. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 143

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3284

    Ma, Q.-B., Ghara, R., Ciardi, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3284

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    & Fragos, T

    Madau, P. & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    R., Mellema, G., et al

    Mao, Y., Shapiro, P. R., Mellema, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 926

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    G., Mevius, M., Koopmans, L

    Mertens, F. G., Mevius, M., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A186

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 955

    Mesinger, A., Furlanetto, S., & Cen, R. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 955

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4178

    Mondal, R., Fialkov, A., Fling, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4178

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    G., Chege, J

    Munshi, S., Mertens, F. G., Chege, J. K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2785

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    J., Geil, P

    Mutch, S. J., Geil, P. M., Poole, G. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 250

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.11263

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    I., et al

    Navarro-Carrera, R., Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 207 Nikolić, I., Mesinger, A., Davies, J. E., & Prelogović, D. 2024, A&A, 692, A142

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    G., et al

    Ocvirk, P., Aubert, D., Sorce, J. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4087

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    R., et al

    Ocvirk, P., Gillet, N., Shapiro, P. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1462

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 678 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pacucci, F., Mesinger, A., Mineo, S., & Ferrara, A. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 678 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 994

    Rosdahl, J., Katz, H., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 994

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    E., Dixon, K

    Ross, H. E., Dixon, K. L., Ghara, R., Iliev, I. T., & Mellema, G. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1101

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    T., Subrahmanyan, R., et al

    Singh, S., Jishnu, N. T., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2022, Nature As- tronomy, 6, 607

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

    work page 2005

  56. [56]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    Stanway, E. R. & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    J., Labbé, I., et al

    Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Labbé, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 29

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Sugimura, K., Ricotti, M., Park, J., Garcia, F. A. B., & Yajima, H. 2024, ApJ, 970, 14

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    M., Nunhokee, C

    Trott, C. M., Nunhokee, C. D., Null, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04164

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 967, L42

    Wang, X., Cheng, C., Ge, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, L42

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    & Trakhtenbrot, B

    Zeltyn, G. & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2022, ApJ, 929, 21 Article number, page 10 Q. Ma et al.: POLAR-II 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 SFR [M⊙/yr] z = 11.9 z = 10.94 z = 10.07 0.2 0.4 0.6 tb [Gyr] z = 8.91 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tb [Gyr] 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 SFR [M⊙/yr] z = 7.88 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tb [Gyr] z = 6.99 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 tb [Gyr] z = 5.96 τage = 0.02Gyr τag...

    work page 2022