Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 151 references

The star-forming main sequence required by the evolving stellar mass function matches JWST spectroscopy and theory, not older concordance relations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 15:02 UTC pith:JUARF7FI

load-bearing objection Solid, public SMF-to-MS re-derivation that matches JWST spectroscopy better than Speagle/Popesso; the Behroozi α extrapolation is the real soft spot but does not sink the low-z result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09848 v1 pith:JUARF7FI submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.GA

Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?

Sahil Hegde , Steven R. Furlanetto , Smadar Naoz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords star-forming main sequencestellar mass functiongalaxy evolutionJWSTstar formation rate densitygalaxy-halo connectionquenchingmergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks what star formation rates galaxies must have had if the observed buildup of stellar mass over cosmic time is to be self-consistent. Using a continuous fit to star-forming and quiescent stellar mass functions from z = 0.1 to 9, and tracing galaxy growth while accounting for mergers and quenching, the authors invert the continuity equation to recover the average star-forming main sequence from 10^8 to 10^11 solar masses. That inferred sequence agrees with independent JWST spectroscopic SFR measurements from z ~ 2-7 and with non-parametric SED-fitting results at lower redshift, and it tracks the redshift evolution expected from dark-matter halo accretion. It differs systematically from the widely used Speagle and Popesso concordance compilations, which over-predict the growth of the mass function when integrated forward. The result supplies a phenomenological check on measured star formation rates and cautions that applications of older compilations need to confront these systematic offsets.

Core claim

The star formation rates required by the redshift evolution of the stellar mass function, once mergers and quenching are included, produce a main sequence that matches JWST/NIRSpec and non-parametric SED results while lying below and evolving more gently than the Speagle+14 and Popesso+23 concordance relations.

What carries the argument

A continuity equation for the star-forming stellar mass function that includes star-formation-driven mass growth, merger-driven absorption parameterized by Behroozi-style number-density evolution, and quenching measured from the growth of the quiescent mass function; solved by backward-tracking progenitor abundances.

Load-bearing premise

The merger correction uses a number-density evolution calibrated only for the progenitors of present-day galaxies and is applied unchanged out to z = 9, even though forward and backward tracks are known to differ.

What would settle it

If new high-redshift mass functions or independent merger-rate measurements require a substantially different progenitor number-density evolution than the adopted alpha, the inferred high-z main sequence will shift and lose agreement with JWST spectroscopy.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Analyses that adopt Speagle or Popesso main sequences as ground truth for galaxy ages or star-formation histories will systematically mis-estimate early and intermediate SFRs.
  • The gentler redshift evolution of the inferred sequence brings the long-term SFMS into closer alignment with mean dark-matter halo accretion rates.
  • The integral of the new sequence over the mass function under-predicts the peak of the cosmic star-formation-rate density relative to UV-luminosity compilations, reopening that classic tension.
  • Star-formation efficiency as a function of halo mass shows a low-mass slope that flattens from near unity at z greater than 7 toward the energy-regulated value of 2/3 by z = 0.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The residual SFRD peak mismatch implies that either dust corrections in UV-based densities or the high-mass end of the mass function still carry unaccounted systematics.
  • Because the procedure is mass-complete wherever the SMF is measured, it can forecast the low-mass SFMS that future wide-field surveys will test once they reach 10^8 solar masses at high z.
  • If the Behroozi alpha itself evolves with redshift or with star-formation rate, the present inference would need a second iteration that couples the SFMS and the merger tracks self-consistently.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper infers the star-forming main sequence (MS) from the redshift evolution of compiled star-forming and quiescent stellar mass functions (SMFs) over 0.1 < z < 9, rather than from direct SFR indicators. After fitting continuous Schechter forms (with Eddington bias) to multi-survey SMF data, the authors solve a continuity equation that includes star formation, quenching, and merger-driven mass growth and number-density absorption (Eqs. 7–14), then fit the resulting SFR–mass grid with a double power-law plus high-mass cutoff (Eq. 19). The inferred MS agrees with JWST/NIRSpec Hα/UV measurements (Clarke+25) at z ∼ 2–7 and with Prospector-based SED results (Leja+22; Simmonds+25) at z ≲ 3, while lying below the Speagle+14 and Popesso+23 concordance compilations and closer to theoretical models driven by halo accretion. Forward evolution of the SMF with literature MS relations (App. A) is used as a consistency check, and implications for SFE and the cosmic SFRD are discussed.

Significance. If the result holds, it supplies an independent, SMF-driven MS that is self-consistent with the observed mass buildup and that can be used as a benchmark for both observations and models. The public Python implementation of the SMF and MS fits, the joint-posterior uncertainty propagation, and the explicit forward-evolution test in Appendix A are concrete strengths that make the result reusable and falsifiable. The claimed concordance with spectroscopic JWST SFRs and the caution against uncritical use of concordance MS compilations would affect a wide range of demographic and semi-empirical applications.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2–3.3, Eqs. (12)–(15): The merger absorption term A uses Behroozi+13 α(m⋆) calibrated only for backward tracking of z ∼ 0 progenitors, yet is applied over 0 < z < 9. The text itself notes that forward/backward evolution is asymmetric and that α depends on descendant SFR (Clauwens+16; Wang+23). Because high-z SFRs are obtained by integrating this term over large Δz, a systematic Δα ∼ 0.1–0.2 would shift the z ≳ 5 MS normalization by several tenths of a dex—comparable to the claimed offset from Popesso+23. A quantitative sensitivity test (varying α within the literature range, or restricting the comparison to z ≲ 3 where the calibration is safer) is needed before the z ∼ 2–7 spectroscopic agreement can be treated as robust.
  2. §4.1, Table 1 note c and Fig. 2: At z ≳ 6 the total SMF is treated as purely star-forming. While the quiescent fraction is expected to be small, the quiescent SMF is already poorly constrained above z ∼ 2.5, and any residual quiescent contribution would reduce the inferred star-forming growth rates. The paper should either (i) propagate a plausible high-z quiescent fraction as a systematic or (ii) show that the z ∼ 6–9 MS is insensitive to a few-percent quiescent contamination.
  3. §5.4, Eq. (20) and Fig. 5: Integrating the SMF-derived MS over the same SMF yields an SFRD whose peak at cosmic noon is lower by a factor of ∼2–3 than the Madau & Fragos (2017) luminosity-density compilation. Because the MS is constructed to reproduce the SMF evolution, this tension is not independent of the input data; it re-expresses the longstanding stellar-mass-density vs. SFRD discrepancy. The discussion should clarify what new information the SFRD comparison adds and whether the discrepancy is driven by the MS shape, the SMF faint-end slope, or the UV-to-SFR conversion assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. §2 and Fig. 1: The phrase “star-forming star-forming main sequence” in the section title is a typographical duplication.
  2. Eq. (6) and surrounding text: The return fraction R ≈ 0.36 is assumed constant and instantaneous; a short note on the sensitivity of the MS normalization to R (or to a time-dependent return fraction) would help readers compare with models that track integrated vs. surviving mass differently.
  3. Table 1 / §4.1: Systematic offsets between surveys (stellar-mass pipelines, cosmic variance) are acknowledged but not folded into the likelihood. Even a simple extra variance term or a leave-one-survey-out test would strengthen the uncertainty budget.
  4. Fig. 2 caption: The statement that the solid curves under-estimate the data at the massive end because they show the intrinsic SMF is correct but easy to miss; a parenthetical reminder in the main text would help.
  5. Appendix C / Fig. 7: The seven-parameter piecewise redshift evolution of the MS parameters is flexible; reporting the reduced χ² or residual scatter of the fit to the discrete MS grid would reassure readers that the functional form is not over-fitting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

MS is solved from SMF continuity by construction (self-consistent by design); central claims rest on independent external SFR comparisons, not forced by inputs.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3.1–3.3, Eqs. (5)–(8), (14); procedure steps 1–6; abstract]
    "we revisit the star-forming MS ... by asking what star formation rates are required by the stellar mass function to create a self-consistent picture of galaxies across time. ... Altogether, our Eulerian evolution equation for the star-forming stellar mass function can be summarized as ∂n_SF/∂t = 1/ln10 [Φ_SF ⟨ṁ_tot_⋆⟩ / m_⋆] − ∂n_Q/∂t − n_SF ln10 (dz/dt) α. ... infer the star-forming MS by tracing the growth histories of individual galaxies satisfying this evolution."

    The mean SFRs (i.e., the MS) are obtained by solving the continuity equation so that the observed SMF evolution is reproduced after the merger and quenching terms are subtracted. The resulting MS is therefore consistent with the input SMF by algebraic construction; that consistency is not an independent test. (The paper is transparent about this and does not claim otherwise; the external SFR comparisons remain independent.)

full rationale

The paper is explicit that it inverts the continuity equation to obtain the SFRs required by the observed SMF evolution (after subtracting modeled mergers and quenching). Consistency with the input SMF is therefore definitional and is not presented as an independent prediction or first-principles result. The load-bearing scientific claims are the subsequent comparisons of that derived MS to independent spectroscopic Hα/UV SFRs (Clarke+25), Prospector SED results (Leja+22/Simmonds+25), and theoretical models, plus the mismatch with Speagle/Popesso compilations and the SFRD cross-check against Madau & Fragos. Those external benchmarks are not fitted inputs and are not recovered by construction. Merger absorption α is taken from external literature (Behroozi+13) with acknowledged limitations; that is an assumption risk, not circularity. Self-citations to the authors’ own minimalist/abcd models appear only as comparison curves, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that force the result. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no known empirical pattern is merely re-labeled. Score 2 reflects the single transparent self-definitional step that is inherent to the method, without elevating it to partial circularity of the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a continuity equation plus literature calibrations for mergers, mass return, and stellar-mass uncertainties. The free parameters are the many Schechter coefficients and the four redshift-dependent MS shape parameters; no new physical entities are invented. Domain assumptions (Schechter form, constant R, Behroozi α, abundance matching) are standard but load-bearing.

free parameters (5)
  • Schechter parameters (M*, ϕ1*, α1, …) for SF and Q populations = see Table 2 MAP values
    Cubic/quadratic polynomials in redshift fitted by MCMC to the compiled SMF data (Table 2, App. B); the entire MS inference inherits their posterior.
  • MS shape parameters (α, β, ṁ_norm, m_turn) and their 7-parameter redshift evolution = see Table 3
    Fitted to the discrete SFR grid obtained from the continuity procedure (Eq. 19, Table 3, App. C).
  • stellar mass return fraction R = 0.36
    Fixed at 0.36 (instantaneous recycling) to convert surviving mass growth into integrated SFR (Eq. 6).
  • minimum merger mass ratio ξ_min = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 when integrating Fakhouri et al. (2010) merger rates for ṁ_merg (Eq. 10).
  • Behroozi α(m⋆) for number-density evolution = α(m⋆) from Behroozi+13
    Adopted from Behroozi et al. (2013) (α ≈ 0.16–0.22) to quantify merger absorption (Eq. 13); not re-fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Galaxy number density above an evolving mass threshold is conserved in the absence of mergers/quenching (continuity equation, Eqs. 3–5).
    Standard Eulerian description of the SMF; invoked throughout §3.
  • domain assumption Star-forming and quiescent SMFs are well-described by single and double Schechter functions whose parameters evolve as low-order polynomials in redshift.
    Enforced to guarantee continuous evolution (§4.1, App. B); common but not unique functional choice.
  • domain assumption Stellar-mass measurement errors are log-normal with redshift-dependent width given by Rodríguez-Puebla et al. (2025).
    Used for Eddington-bias convolution (Eq. 17).
  • ad hoc to paper At z ≳ 6 the total SMF may be treated as purely star-forming because the quiescent fraction is negligible.
    Explicitly stated in Table 1 notes; required because high-z surveys do not separate SF/Q.
  • standard math Chabrier (2003) IMF and Planck 2020 cosmology.
    Standard conversions applied uniformly.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 39269 in / 3357 out tokens · 37391 ms · 2026-07-14T15:02:57.105265+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUARF7FI

@misc{pith2026260709848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUARF7FI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09848}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The evolving relationship between a galaxy's mass and star formation rate -- the so-called `star-forming main sequence' (MS) -- provides a critical benchmark for understanding star formation across time. Despite its fundamental importance, the observed main sequence remains subject to substantial systematic uncertainties in normalization, shape, and redshift evolution, and a longstanding discrepancy persists between the main sequence and its integral, the stellar mass function. We revisit the star-forming MS in the era of the James Webb Space Telescope by asking what star formation rates are required by the stellar mass function to create a self-consistent picture of galaxies across time. We fit compiled ground- and space-based measurements of star-forming and quiescent mass functions from $z=0.1-9$. By tracing galaxy growth histories through these mass functions, we present a statistically-robust inference of the main sequence over $10^8 M_\odot \leq m_\star \leq 10^{11} M_\odot$, from the local universe to the first 500 Myr of cosmic history. Our procedure implies a main sequence that agrees with independent spectroscopic measurements of star formation rates from $z\sim 2-7$, is consistent with SED fitting-based analyses of photometric samples at $z\lesssim 3$, and aligns with theoretical models of galaxy evolution. However, we find that our MS differs from commonly-used `concordance' relations and thus caution against applications of these compilations without appropriately characterizing the underlying uncertainties. Finally, we explore the implications of our inferred main sequence for the galaxy-halo connection and star formation rate density, highlighting the need for further theoretical work to comprehensively understand the star formation history of the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09848 by Sahil Hegde, Smadar Naoz, Steven R. Furlanetto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST results straddle the divide between the star-forming MS inferred from a range of theoretical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The intrinsic best-fit star-forming (left) and quiescent (right) SMFs inferred from the compilation of data summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The SMF-based star-forming MS broadly agrees with the star-forming MS inferred from SED fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SFRD predicted by the SMF-derived main sequence is broadly consistent with indepen￾dent measurements (P. Madau & T. Fragos 2017), though the peak of cosmic star formation is smaller by a factor of a few at cosmic noon. The SFRD inferred by integrating the star-forming MS measurements described in Section 2 over the SMF compilation used in this work (Section 4.1), compared with the integrated P. Madau &… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Literature consensus estimates for the star-forming MS vastly overpredict the redshift evo￾lution of the SMF, though SED fitting-based mea￾surements perform better. The SMF at evolved from z = 3 to z = 1 using various estimates for the star-form￾ing MS to quantify the stellar mass ‘drift’ of galaxies over time. The true SMFs at the starting and ending redshift are shown in gray (dashed and solid, respectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The high mass slope of the star-forming MS is roughly constant to z ∼ 6 and the low mass slope deviation becomes more pronounced beyond this point as well. Redshift evolution of the fit parame￾ters for the SMF-based star-forming MS (Eqs. (19-C6; each parameter is shown in an individual panel). The points cor￾respond to the fit parameters computed at each redshift and the line shows our redshift-dependent f… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fitting function (Eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗

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

151 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 801, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L12

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l12 2015

  2. [2]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/7

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/7 2016

  3. [3]

    A., Cohen, S

    Acharya, T., Carleton, T., Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., & Honor, R. 2026, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 10, 42, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae4a14 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae4a14 2026

  4. [4]

    M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C

    Baker, W. M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 2025

  5. [5]

    M., Kuntschner, H., Maraston, C., & Conroy, C

    Baldwin, C., McDermid, R. M., Kuntschner, H., Maraston, C., & Conroy, C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2502

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2502 2018

  6. [6]

    A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf013 2025

  7. [7]

    S., Begley, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Dunlop, J. S., Begley, R., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag770

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag770 2026

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  9. [9]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 379, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  10. [10]

    S., Marchesini, D., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Marchesini, D., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L10

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l10 2013

  11. [11]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  12. [12]

    F., Zheng, X

    Bell, E. F., Zheng, X. Z., Papovich, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 834, doi: 10.1086/518594 Bouch´ e, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001

    work page doi:10.1086/518594 2007

  13. [13]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  14. [14]

    Brown, M. J. I., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 858, doi: 10.1086/509652

    doi:10.1086/509652 2007

  15. [15]

    Brown, M. J. I., Zheng, Z., White, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 937, doi: 10.1086/589538

    work page doi:10.1086/589538 2008

  16. [16]

    1978, ApJ, 219, 18, doi: 10.1086/155751

    Butcher, H., & Oemler, Jr., A. 1978, ApJ, 219, 18, doi: 10.1086/155751

    doi:10.1086/155751 1978

  17. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    Caplar, N., & Tacchella, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1449

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1449 2019

  18. [18]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  19. [19]

    The Galaxy Stellar Mass-SFR-Size Relation in EAGLE, TNG100, and Observations

    Chu, J., Xu, D., Wang, E., & Wuyts, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.01726, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.01726

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.01726 2026

  20. [20]

    E., Lam, N., et al

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Lam, N., et al. 2025, The Star-forming Main Sequence and Bursty Star-formation Histories at$z>1.4$in JADES and AURORA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06681

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06681 2025

  21. [21]

    E., Sanders, R

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 2024

  22. [22]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw137

    Clauwens, B., Franx, M., & Schaye, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw137

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw137 2016

  23. [23]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a 2025

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x 2001

  25. [25]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  26. [26]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  27. [27]

    Conroy, C., White, M., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/58 2010

  28. [28]

    R., Brammer, G., Heintz, K

    Cooper, O. R., Brammer, G., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e1 2025

  29. [29]

    Corcho-Caballero, P., Ascasibar, Y., & L´ opez-S´ anchez, ´A. R. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2818 Dav´ e, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 147, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12866.x Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x Dav´ e, R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P. F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2818 2020

  30. [30]

    L., Sparre, M., & Capak, P

    Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., Faisst, A. L., Sparre, M., & Capak, P. L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa19e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa19e 2018

  31. [31]

    2017, A&A, 605, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al

    Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., Laigle, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 2017

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557790

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1338 2013

  33. [33]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2037

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2037 2024

  34. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz712 2019

  35. [35]

    2008, ApJ, 680, 41, doi: 10.1086/588006

    Drory, N., & Alvarez, M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 41, doi: 10.1086/588006

    work page doi:10.1086/588006 2008

  36. [36]

    Eddington, A. S. 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 21 Euclid Collaboration, Enia, A., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 711, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554576

    doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  37. [37]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x

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

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

  38. [38]

    L., & Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb 2022

  39. [39]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 2024

  40. [40]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Fortun´ e, S., Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L. C., Burkert, A., &

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  41. [41]

    2025, A&A, 704, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554805

    Dolag, K. 2025, A&A, 704, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554805

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554805 2025

  42. [42]

    How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function

    Fu, H., Shankar, F., Fontanot, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.26209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.26209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26209 2026

  43. [43]

    R., & Mirocha, J

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Mirocha, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac310

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac310 2022

  44. [44]

    R., Mirocha, J., Mebane, R

    Furlanetto, S. R., Mirocha, J., Mebane, R. H., & Sun, G. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2132

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2132 2017

  45. [45]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36 2024

  46. [46]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc722

    Gelli, V., Pallottini, A., Salvadori, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc722

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc722 2025

  47. [47]

    2025, A&A, 697, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452461

    Gentile, F., Talia, M., Enia, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452461

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452461 2025

  48. [48]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  49. [49]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 499, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.002435

    doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.002435 1991

  50. [50]

    D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al

    Gladders, M. D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/64

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/64 2013

  51. [51]

    A., et al

    Gottumukkala, R., Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae754

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae754 2024

  52. [52]

    A., & Thompson, L

    Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784, doi: 10.1086/156198

    doi:10.1086/156198 1978

  53. [53]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  54. [54]

    Episodic Star Formation -- I. Overview and Scatter of the Star-Forming Main Sequence

    Gui, Y., Xu, D., Wang, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00151

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00151 2025

  55. [55]

    E., et al

    Guo, Q., White, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts115

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts115 2013

  56. [56]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa

    Han, Y., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJS, 240, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaeffa 2019

  57. [57]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2308

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2308 2023

  58. [58]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 147, doi: 10.33232/001c.145070

    doi:10.33232/001c.145070 2025

  59. [59]

    1983, ApJS, 52, 89, doi: 10.1086/190860

    Huchra, J., Davis, M., Latham, D., & Tonry, J. 1983, ApJS, 52, 89, doi: 10.1086/190860

    doi:10.1086/190860 1983

  60. [60]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  61. [61]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  62. [62]

    2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425176 2015

  63. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fa

    Iyer, K., Gawiser, E., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fa 2018

  64. [64]

    G., Speagle, J

    Iyer, K. G., Speagle, J. S., Caplar, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff64 2024

  65. [65]

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

    Iyer, K. G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2150

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2150 2020

  66. [66]

    L., & Nagamine, K

    Jaacks, J., Finkelstein, S. L., & Nagamine, K. 2016, ApJ, 817, 174, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/174

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/174 2016

  67. [67]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    Jain, S., Tacchella, S., & Mosleh, M. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    doi:10.33232/001c.126775 2024

  68. [68]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  69. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710 2022

  70. [70]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    doi:10.33232/001c.145804 2025

  71. [71]

    E., et al

    Karthikeyan, S., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11338

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11338 2026

  72. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa157

    Katsianis, A., Gonzalez, V., Barrientos, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa157

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa157 2020

  73. [73]

    Built to Rest: The Evolving Star-Forming Main Sequence Requires Episodic Quiescence or Late Assembly

    Kimmig, L. C., van de Sande, J., Remus, R.-S., et al. 2026, Built to Rest: The Evolving Star-Forming Main Sequence Requires Episodic Quiescence or Late Assembly, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.02997

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.02997 2026

  74. [74]

    P., Wijesekera, J

    Koprowski, M. P., Wijesekera, J. V., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449948

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449948 2024

  75. [75]

    E., et al

    Lam, N., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.30513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.30513

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30513 2026

  76. [76]

    B., Casey, C

    Lee, N., Sanders, D. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/80

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/80 2015

  77. [77]

    Leitner, S. N. 2012, ApJ, 745, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/149 2012

  78. [78]

    N., & Kravtsov, A

    Leitner, S. N., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/48

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/48 2011

  79. [79]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 22

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 22

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  80. [80]

    S., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e27 2020

Showing first 80 references.