Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The mass-dependent UVJ diagram at cosmic noon: A challenge for galaxy evolution models and dust radiative transfer

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At cosmic noon, dust models make massive galaxies 0.9 mag too blue in V−J

desk verdict A robust negative result on dust models at cosmic noon, with one untested intrinsic-color assumption the authors flag but don't close. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12008 v2 pith:KX45N2BC submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.GA

Andrea Gebek , Benedikt Diemer , Marco Martorano , Arjen van der Wel , Lara Pantoni , Maarten Baes , Austen Gabrielpillai , Anand Utsav Kapoor
show 4 more authors
Calvin Osinga Angelos Nersesian Kosei Matsumoto Karl Gordon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords mass-resolvedUVJdiagramdustradiativetransferSKIRTTNG100cosmicnoonattenuationmassivestar-forminggalaxiesJWST/NIRCam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether current galaxy formation simulations can reproduce the observed mass trend in the UVJ color-color diagram at redshift $z\approx2$. The authors post-process TNG100 galaxies with the SKIRT dust radiative transfer code and find that massive ($M_\star\gtrsim10^{11}\,M_\odot$) star-forming galaxies come out too blue in $V-J$ by about 0.9 mag and too bright in the V band by about 1.6 mag compared with JWST/NIRCam data. They show the discrepancy is robust to SED templates, dust models, dust-to-metal ratios, and to comparisons with other simulations. To match the data, an attenuation-reddening relation as steep as a dust screen is required; in their toy model this means dust screens obscuring stellar populations with ages below about 1 Gyr. The paper thereby makes the case that the reddening of massive dusty star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon is a star-to-dust geometry problem that conventional dust radiative transfer does not yet capture.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the mass-resolved UVJ diagram—rest-frame $U-V$ versus $V-J$ colors split by stellar mass—together with the attenuation-reddening relation $A_V$ versus $A_V-A_J$. The UVJ diagram isolates the red sequence of massive dusty star-forming galaxies, and the $A_V$ versus $A_V-A_J$ plane distinguishes a dust screen (steep, linear, slope 0.664 with the THEMIS extinction curve) from mixed star-dust geometries (flatter, saturating relations). The paper uses SKIRT radiative transfer on TNG100 as the standard machinery, and then replaces it with a two-component toy model in which star particles younger than $t_\mathrm{split}$ are dimmed through a THEMIS screen of optical depth $\tau_V$, with screen optical depths at U and J set by the THEMIS extinction ratios. That toy model is what identifies the requirement that screens must cover stellar populations up to $\approx1$ Gyr.

What would settle it

Measure the dust-free (attenuation-corrected) V−J colors of massive star-forming galaxies at $z\approx2$, for example from Balmer-decrement-selected samples with spatially resolved spectroscopy; if the intrinsic colors already match the observed colors, the inferred screen reddening disappears. Alternatively, resolved HST/JWST imaging of dusty star-forming galaxies that finds no dust screens with $\tau_V\approx3$ covering populations up to ~1 Gyr would falsify the toy model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no dust radiative transfer setup explored here can produce the observed V−J colors of massive star-forming galaxies at $z\approx2$, because the attenuation-reddening relation of simulated galaxies is too flat. With TNG100 stellar populations, BPASS SEDs, TODDLERS for young regions, and THEMIS diffuse dust, the simulated galaxies reach median V−J colors still $\approx0.9$ mag bluer than the JWST/NIRCam distribution, and their V-band magnitudes are $\approx1.6$ mag too bright. Reverse-engineering the needed attenuation gives 1.11 mag of V−J reddening, 0.41 mag of U−V reddening, and $A_V\approx2.05$ mag, while the simulated massive star-forming galaxies have median $A_V\approx0.35$ mag. A thin dust screen has a steep, linear relation between $A_V$ and $A_V-A_J$, with slope 0.664 for THEMIS, and only such a steep relation reaches the observed colors; the simulated relation flattens at high optical depth because stars and dust are mixed. The paper's positive result is a toy model in which each stellar population younger than $t_\mathrm{split}$ is attenuated by an isolated screen, which matches the data for $t_\mathrm{split}\approx1.6$ Gyr and screen optical depth $\tau_V\approx3.2$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the simulated dust-free V−J colors of massive galaxies at $z\approx2$, set by TNG100 stellar ages and metallicities through the BPASS templates, are realistic; if the intrinsic colors are too blue, the required dust reddening is overestimated and the discrepancy may be a stellar-population problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reproducing the JWST/NIRCam UVJ data requires an attenuation-reddening relation as steep as a dust screen, which none of the explored radiative transfer models delivers.
  • Massive star-forming TNG100 galaxies would need $A_V \approx 2.05$ mag and 1.11 mag of V−J reddening, far above the simulated median $A_V \approx 0.35$ mag.
  • In the toy model, dust screens must cover stellar populations up to $\gtrsim1$ Gyr; at $t_\mathrm{split}=1.6$ Gyr about 73% of stellar mass is obscured.
  • A constant dust-to-metal ratio cannot reproduce the observed mass trend: low-mass star-forming TNG100 galaxies are too red while massive ones are too blue.
  • The failure persists across TNG100, SIMBA, and EAGLE and across SED-template and dust-model variations, pointing to a systematic gap in current modeling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the screen-like geometry is correct, dust radiative transfer codes need a subgrid prescription that binds dust to stellar populations up to ~1 Gyr old, not only to <30 Myr birth clouds.
  • The paper implies the tension should peak at the epoch and mass range where dusty star-forming galaxies dominate, so applying the same mass-resolved comparison at $z<1.5$ and $z>3$ would map where the missing reddening begins and ends.
  • Part of the observed red V−J sequence may be template-dependent: the paper shows that updating EAZY templates moves CANDELS/3D-HST massive galaxies from a pile-up at $V-J\approx1.8$ to redder colors, so the same comparison with even newer SED libraries is worth running.
  • Stacked rest-frame UV-to-mid-IR SEDs of massive $z\approx2$ star-forming galaxies could test whether their integrated attenuation curves are as steep as a screen, as the toy model predicts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the rest-frame UVJ colors of galaxies at z≈2 in the TNG100 cosmological simulation, post-processed with the SKIRT dust radiative transfer code, and compares them to JWST/NIRCam photometry from the DAWN JWST Archive. The authors report that massive (M_star>10^11 M_sun) star-forming galaxies in TNG100 are too blue in V−J by ≈0.9 mag and too bright in the V band by ≈1.6 mag relative to observations, across a broad range of dust models, SED libraries, dust-to-metal ratios, and dust assignment schemes. They infer that reproducing the observed colors would require an attenuation-reddening relation (AV versus AV−AJ) as steep as a dust screen, and they show that a toy model in which dust screens obscure stellar populations younger than ≈1 Gyr reproduces the data. The central claim is that conventional dust radiative transfer with dust tracing metals fails to reproduce the mass-dependent UVJ diagram at cosmic noon.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an important challenge to the standard assumption that diffuse ISM dust tracing metals can reproduce the UVJ colors of massive dusty star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon. The paper merits attention for its extensive robustness testing: multiple SED libraries (BPASS, FSPS-MILES, BC03, TODDLERS), three dust models (THEMIS, Draine & Li, Zubko), fdust variations up to 5, alternative dust assignment criteria, alternative observational catalogs (CANDELS/3D-HST with updated EAZY templates), and cross-simulation comparisons with SIMBA and EAGLE. The authors also make their catalogs and analysis scripts publicly available, which strengthens reproducibility. The main conclusion would have broad implications for SED fitting and for subgrid dust modeling in cosmological simulations, provided the dependence on the assumed intrinsic stellar populations is adequately addressed.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1; footnote 10; Section 5.1] The quantitative conclusion that the attenuation-reddening relation must be 'as steep as a dust screen' is obtained by subtracting the simulated dust-free V−J (TNG100+BPASS) from the observed V−J. The authors correctly flag this assumption in footnote 10 and in Section 5.1, but they do not directly test it. The comparison to SIMBA/EAGLE in Section 5.1 shows only a ~0.17 mag spread in intrinsic V−J among hydrodynamical simulations that share similar stellar physics, and the Appendix B SED-template comparison is conservative (BPASS gives the reddest V−J) without probing the underlying age–metallicity distribution. If the true intrinsic V−J of massive z≈2 star-forming galaxies were ~0.3–0.5 mag redder than TNG100+BPASS, the required V−J reddening would drop from 1.11 mag to roughly 0.6–0.8 mag, lowering the required slope in Fig. 6 from ~0.66 toward ~0.4, which could bring it within reach of the clumpy or mixed star-to-dust geometries the paper argues are excluded. I request a sensitivity analysis that re-derives the required AV versus AV−AJ point under plausible redder intrinsic V−J offsets (e.g., +0.2, +0.3, +0.5 mag), and a direct comparison of the massive TNG100 stellar populations to observational constraints (e.g., rest-frame optical spectral indices or dust-free colors from SED fitting with flexible SFH priors).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The text 'for stellar ages above ≈300 Gyr' should read 'above ≈300 Myr' (or another value within the plotted range 10^7–10^9.5 yr); 300 Gyr exceeds the age of the Universe and is inconsistent with the plotted grid.
  2. [Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) uses t⋆>tsplit for the unattenuated component and t⋆<tsplit for the attenuated component; since tsplit is described as a threshold, the boundary t⋆=tsplit should be assigned explicitly (e.g., t⋆≥tsplit for one component) to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'we find a good agreement' should be 'we find good agreement' or 'agreement is good'; throughout the text, several words contain spurious spaces (e.g., 'e ffective', 'di fference') that should be cleaned in production.
  4. [Section 4.2] The statement that homogeneous shell models reproduce the observed star-forming sequence at t⋆∼10 Myr is not accompanied by a quantitative closeness measure; reporting the median V−J offset for those models would help the reader judge the match.
  5. [Section 4.1] The median differences quoted for Fig. 5 and the required attenuation point in Fig. 6 would benefit from bootstrap uncertainties, since the histograms are broad and the observational sample size is modest.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UVJ comparison uses external JWST/NIRCam data, and the toy model is explicitly fitted rather than presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The central comparison is anchored to external JWST/NIRCam photometry (DJA/CANDELS/3D-HST), so the failure of TNG100+SKIRT to reproduce the observed UVJ colors is an empirical falsification, not a consequence of the chosen inputs. The reverse-engineered attenuation values in Sect. 4.1 are derived as observed minus simulated dust-free colors and are explicitly conditional on the assumption that TNG100+BPASS intrinsic colors are realistic (footnote 10; Sect. 5.1); this is a transparent caveat, not a circular reduction, and the paper tests the main alternatives (other SED libraries, dust models, dust assignment, and the SIMBA/EAGLE simulations) without changing the qualitative conclusion. The toy model in Sect. 4.3 is admittedly a fit: its two parameters (tsplit and tau_screen_V) are tuned to match the observed UVJ locus and are not presented as predictions, so the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern does not apply. Self-citations (SKIRT, TODDLERS, Gebek et al. 2024, Baes et al. 2024) are tooling/methodology references whose validity is anchored to external data (GAMA, local calibrations) or to public, reproducible code; they do not supply the target result. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the screen conclusion. Accordingly, the derivation is self-contained against an external benchmark, with no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's core comparison rests on standard inputs (Planck cosmology, TNG subgrid model, public SED and dust libraries) plus a small number of user-chosen parameters (fdust, sSFR threshold, and the toy model parameters tsplit and tauV_screen). No new physical entities are introduced; the dust screen toy model is an analytic construction, not a claimed new component of reality.

free parameters (4)
  • fdust (dust-to-metal ratio) = 0.5 (fiducial; varied 0, 0.1, 1, 5)
    Sets the total amount of resolved ISM dust. The paper shows reddening saturates with increasing fdust, so the central result is robust to this parameter, but its fiducial value affects the low-mass galaxy reddening comparison.
  • sSFR threshold for star-forming TNG100 galaxies = 10^-10.6 yr^-1
    Chosen by subtracting 0.5 dex from the mode of the TNG100 sSFR distribution in the highest-mass bin. Robustness to ±0.2 dex changes median colors by <0.05 mag, but it is an internal calibration.
  • tsplit (age threshold in two-component dust screen toy model) = 1.6 Gyr (best match; grid 1, 1.6, 2.2 Gyr)
    Free parameter of the toy model, tuned to match the JWST/NIRCam UVJ constraints. The best match obscures all stellar populations younger than 1.6 Gyr.
  • tauV_screen (V-band optical depth of dust screens in toy model) = ~3.2 (best match; grid 10^0 to 10^1.5)
    Free parameter of the toy model, tuned to match the JWST/NIRCam UVJ data. Best match at intermediate optical depth, consistent with EAZY-derived AV≈2.7 mag.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2016 parameters
    Adopted cosmology, consistent with IllustrisTNG; used for redshifts and distances. Standard background assumption.
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG subgrid model produces realistic galaxy populations at z=2
    The simulated stellar ages, metallicities, and spatial distributions are taken as representative of real galaxies. Section 2.2.1 and throughout.
  • domain assumption Stellar population SED templates (BPASS, FSPS-MILES, BC03, TODDLERS) accurately represent simulated starlight
    The choice of template library affects V−J by up to ~0.4 mag (Appendix B). The authors rely on these libraries to compute dust-free and attenuated fluxes.
  • domain assumption Dust models calibrated to the Milky Way (THEMIS, Draine & Li, Zubko) are applicable at z≈2
    The paper notes all dust models are anchored to local observations, and extrapolation to cosmic noon is uncertain (Section 4.1, Appendix B).
  • domain assumption Constant dust-to-metal ratio in ISM gas cells (fdust = 0.5)
    Assumes dust follows metals in the diffuse ISM; authors flag this as overly simplistic (footnote 4). The paper varies fdust to bracket the uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Torrey et al. (2012, 2019) criterion identifies the dust-containing ISM gas phase
    Used to assign dust only to cold, dense gas cells. Variations (assigning dust to all gas cells) change colors by <0.08 mag (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption EAZY photometric redshifts and stellar masses for observed galaxies are reliable
    The paper notes results hinge on reliable photo-z (Section 2.1) and compares with 3D-HST-based catalogs to check systematics, but no spectroscopic verification is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The mass-dependent UVJ diagram at cosmic noon: A challenge for galaxy evolution models and dust radiative transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KX45N2BC

@misc{pith2026250112008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The mass-dependent UVJ diagram at cosmic noon: A challenge for galaxy evolution models and dust radiative transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KX45N2BC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12008}
}
abstract

Context. The UVJ color-color diagram is a widely used diagnostic to separate star-forming and quiescent galaxies. Observational data from photometric surveys reveal a strong stellar mass trend, with higher-mass star-forming galaxies being systematically more dust-reddened. Aims. We analyze the UVJ diagram in the TNG100 cosmological simulation at cosmic noon ($z\approx2$). Specifically, we focus on the trend between UVJ colors and mass which has not been reproduced in any cosmological simulation thus far. Methods. We applied the SKIRT dust radiative transfer code to the TNG100 simulation to generate rest-frame UVJ fluxes. These UVJ colors were then compared to observational data from several well-studied extragalactic fields from the CANDELS/3D-HST programs, augmented by recent JWST/NIRCam photometry. Results. Quiescent and low-mass ($M_\star\lesssim10^{10.5}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$) galaxies at cosmic noon do not require significant levels of dust reddening, as opposed to massive ($M_\star\gtrsim10^{11}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$) star-forming galaxies. An extensive range of possible dust models fall short of the required dust reddening in V-J color for massive star-forming galaxies, with the simulated galaxies being too blue by $\approx0.9\,\mathrm{mag}$. Conclusions. We find that only variations in the star-to-dust geometries of the simulated galaxies can yield V-J colors that are red enough to match the observations. A toy model with isolated dust screens around younger stellar populations (with ages below $\sim1\,\mathrm{Gyr}$) can reproduce the observational data, while all conventional dust radiative transfer models (where the dust distribution follows the metals in the interstellar medium) fail to achieve the required V-J colors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12008 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rest-frame SED for an example TNG100 galaxy at z = 2 (sub￾halo ID: 63990, M⋆ ≈ 1011.2 M⊙, SFR ≈ 140 M⊙yr−1 ), recorded at a distance of 10 Mpc. The blue line indicates the dust-free SED, i.e., us￾ing BPASS for all stellar populations and neglecting the diffuse dust in the ISM. Using only the evolved stellar populations (with ages above 30 Myr) leads to the red SED. The addition of younger stellar popula￾tions with T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UVJ diagram in bins of stellar mass, for dust-free TNG100 fluxes (blue contours) and observational JWST/NIRCam data (with 1.8 ≤ z ≤ 2.2, grey contours), which are dust-attenuated. The dashed line indicates the demarcation between quiescent and star-forming galaxies from Williams et al. 2009 in their highest redshift bin (1 ≤ z ≤ 2). Here, and in all other figures, the contours are estimated from a two-dimensional (2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of dust attenuation on the UVJ colors of TNG100 galaxies. The blue contours show dust-free fluxes, while the red contours incorporate dust attenuation from unresolved dust (using the TODDLERS templates for star-forming regions) and resolved dust (adopting a dust￾to-metal ratio of 50 % in the ISM). The arrow in the first panel indicates the reddening in V − J and U − V according to the THEMIS dust model with a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of TNG100 galaxies as a function of sSFR and spe￾cific dust mass, adopting our fiducial dust-to-metal ratio of 0.5. Colored lines indicate running medians in different stellar mass bins. To guide the eye we also show observational data (medians and 16th-84…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of massive star-forming galaxies in the JWST/NIRCam and TNG100 datasets. Shown are for all galaxy samples the V−J and U − V color distributions (left and center panels, respectively) as well as the absolute V-band magnitudes (right panel). All samples are…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between galaxy V-band attenuation (AV) and V − J reddening (AV −AJ). The straight line shows the expected relation for a thin dust screen with a THEMIS-like extinction curve. The red cir￾cles correspond to the attenuation and reddening values in our fiduci…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: UVJ diagram sampling the parameter space of the DirtyGrid geometrical models. The JWST/NIRCam distribution for massive galaxies (M⋆ ≥ 1011 M⊙) is also shown in each panel by the grey contours. The different columns correspond to different DirtyGrid geometries, which ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Application of the two-component dust attenuation toy model to a single TNG100 galaxy (subhalo ID: 63990, M⋆ ≈ 1011.2 M⊙, SFR ≈ 140 M⊙yr−1 ). Shown are the V − J color (upper panel), U − V color (center panel), and V-band attenuation (lower panel) as a function of the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of our toy model for TNG100 galaxies with two-component dust attenuation. We show the UVJ diagram of massive, star-forming TNG100 galaxies for various combinations of the free parameters tsplit and τ screen V in our toy model. The color-coding corresponds to th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: sSFR distribution in different stellar mass bins at redshift two, for various cosmological simulations (TNG100, SIMBA, and EAGLE) and the observational JWST/NIRCam data (derived with EAZY). The vertical orange line in the highest-mass bin marks our threshold to select…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the dust-free TNG100 colors (blue contours) to the results from Akins et al. (2022) for the SIMBA simulation (green contours). For both simulations, the colors are obtained with FSPS-MILES such that all differences in the UVJ distributions reflect variat…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of dust-attenuated TNG100 UVJ colors to various simulation datasets. In all rows, our TNG100 colors (red contours) correspond to our fiducial SKIRT post-processing including dust, but varying the SED templates (either using Bruzual & Charlot 2003 or FSPS￾MI…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The COLIBRE-SKIRT pipeline: Calibration-free dust radiative transfer postprocessing for cosmological simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The COLIBRE-SKIRT pipeline reproduces the observed low-redshift cosmic SED without calibrating the post-processing, using live dust from the simulation and a new 'split & scale' grain-size mapping.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

172 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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 ...

  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....

  3. [3]

    B., Narayanan , D., Whitaker , K

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    2024, , 683, A181

    Baes , M., Gebek , A., Tr c ka , A., et al. 2024, , 683, A181

    2024

  8. [8]

    2011, , 196, 22

    Baes , M., Verstappen , J., De Looze , I., et al. 2011, , 196, 22

    2011

Show all 172 references
  1. [9]

    K., Glazebrook , K., Brinkmann , J., et al

    Baldry , I. K., Glazebrook , K., Brinkmann , J., et al. 2004, , 600, 681

    2004

  2. [10]

    K., Liske , J., Brown , M

    Baldry , I. K., Liske , J., Brown , M. J. I., et al. 2018, , 474, 3875

    2018

  3. [11]

    A., Weibel , A., et al

    Barrufet , L., Oesch , P. A., Weibel , A., et al. 2023, , 522, 449

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Bagley , M

    Battisti , A. J., Bagley , M. B., Baronchelli , I., et al. 2022, , 513, 4431

    2022

  5. [13]

    B., van Dokkum , P

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

    2008

  6. [14]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., Franx , M., et al. 2012, , 200, 13

    2012

  7. [15]

    & Charlot , S

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

    2003

  8. [16]

    1995, , 98, 69

    Buzzoni , A. 1995, , 98, 69

    1995

  9. [17]

    2001, , 113, 1449

    Calzetti , D. 2001, , 113, 1449

    2001

  10. [18]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  11. [19]

    & Baes , M

    Camps , P. & Baes , M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20

    2015

  12. [20]

    & Baes , M

    Camps , P. & Baes , M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381

    2020

  13. [21]

    W., Baes , M., et al

    Camps , P., Trayford , J. W., Baes , M., et al. 2016, , 462, 1057

    2016

  14. [22]

    2018, , 234, 20

    Camps , P., Tr c ka , A., Trayford , J., et al. 2018, , 234, 20

    2018

  15. [23]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  16. [24]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  17. [25]

    & Fall , S

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

    2000

  18. [26]

    2013, , 432, 2061

    Chevallard , J., Charlot , S., Wandelt , B., & Wild , V. 2013, , 432, 2061

    2013

  19. [27]

    G., Baugh , C

    Cole , S., Lacey , C. G., Baugh , C. M., & Frenk , C. S. 2000, , 319, 168

    2000

  20. [28]

    2013, , 51, 393

    Conroy , C. 2013, , 51, 393

    2013

  21. [29]

    & Gunn , J

    Conroy , C. & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833

    2010

  22. [30]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy , C., Gunn , J. E., & White , M. 2009, , 699, 486

    2009

  23. [31]

    R., Brammer , G., Heintz , K

    Cooper , O. R., Brammer , G., Heintz , K. E., et al. 2024, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2410.08387

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A., Schaye , J., Bower , R

    Crain , R. A., Schaye , J., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 450, 1937

    2015

  25. [33]

    2019, , 486, 2827

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

    2019

  26. [34]

    H., & Thompson , R

    Dav \'e , R., Rafieferantsoa , M. H., & Thompson , R. J. 2017, , 471, 1671

    2017

  27. [35]

    2017, , 464, 4680

    De Vis , P., Dunne , L., Maddox , S., et al. 2017, , 464, 4680

    2017

  28. [36]

    2019, , 623, A5

    De Vis , P., Jones , A., Viaene , S., et al. 2019, , 623, A5

    2019

  29. [37]

    2023, , 678, A35

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    2020, , 644, A144

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

    2020

  31. [39]

    2019, , 485, 4817

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

    2019

  32. [40]

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

    2007

  33. [41]

    P., Bellstedt , S., Robotham , A

    Driver , S. P., Bellstedt , S., Robotham , A. S. G., et al. 2022, , 513, 439

    2022

  34. [42]

    P., Hill , D

    Driver , S. P., Hill , D. T., Kelvin , L. S., et al. 2011, , 413, 971

    2011

  35. [43]

    P., Norberg , P., Baldry , I

    Driver , S. P., Norberg , P., Baldry , I. K., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Geophysics, 50, 5.12

    2009

  36. [44]

    2024, , 687, A240

    Dubois , Y., Rodr \' guez Montero , F., Guerra , C., et al. 2024, , 687, A240

    2024

  37. [45]

    J., Stanway , E

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

    2017

  38. [46]

    J., Faber , S

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

    2018

  39. [47]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2023, , 946, L13

    2023

  40. [48]

    L., Dickinson , M., Ferguson , H

    Finkelstein , S. L., Dickinson , M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2017, The Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) Survey , JWST Proposal ID 1345. Cycle 0 Early Release Science

    2017

  41. [49]

    & Rocca-Volmerange , B

    Fioc , M. & Rocca-Volmerange , B. 1997, , 326, 950

    1997

  42. [50]

    & Rocca-Volmerange , B

    Fioc , M. & Rocca-Volmerange , B. 1999, arXiv e-prints, 9912179

    1999

  43. [51]

    M., Shapley , A

    F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Shapley , A. E., Erb , D. K., et al. 2011 a , , 731, 65

    2011

  44. [52]

    M., Shapley , A

    F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Shapley , A. E., Genzel , R., et al. 2011 b , , 739, 45

    2011

  45. [53]

    G., et al

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

    2014

  46. [54]

    2021, , 649, A18

    Galliano , F., Nersesian , A., Bianchi , S., et al. 2021, , 649, A18

    2021

  47. [55]

    2024, , 531, 3839

    Gebek , A., Tr c ka , A., Baes , M., et al. 2024, , 531, 3839

    2024

  48. [56]

    2023, , 943, 151

    Giulietti , M., Lapi , A., Massardi , M., et al. 2023, , 943, 151

    2023

  49. [57]

    D., Calzetti , D., & Witt , A

    Gordon , K. D., Calzetti , D., & Witt , A. N. 1997, , 487, 625

    1997

  50. [58]

    D., Misselt , K

    Gordon , K. D., Misselt , K. A., Witt , A. N., & Clayton , G. C. 2001, , 551, 269

    2001

  51. [59]

    C., Bell , E

    Guo , Y., Ferguson , H. C., Bell , E. F., et al. 2015, , 800, 39

    2015

  52. [60]

    F., et al

    Guo , Y., Rafelski , M., Bell , E. F., et al. 2018, , 853, 108

    2018

  53. [61]

    2023, , 674, A99

    Hamed , M., Ma ek , K., Buat , V., et al. 2023, , 674, A99

    2023

  54. [62]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  55. [63]

    2014, , 437, 1268

    Heinis , S., Buat , V., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2014, , 437, 1268

    2014

  56. [64]

    Hensley , B. S. & Draine , B. T. 2023, , 948, 55

    2023

  57. [65]

    Hodge , J. A. & da Cunha , E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556

    2020

  58. [66]

    A., da Cunha , E., Kendrew , S., et al

    Hodge , J. A., da Cunha , E., Kendrew , S., et al. 2025, , 978, 165

    2025

  59. [67]

    A., Smail , I., Walter , F., et al

    Hodge , J. A., Smail , I., Walter , F., et al. 2019, , 876, 130

    2019

  60. [68]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  61. [69]

    Inoue , A. K. 2005, , 359, 171

    2005

  62. [70]

    P., K \"o hler , M., Ysard , N., Bocchio , M., & Verstraete , L

    Jones , A. P., K \"o hler , M., Ysard , N., Bocchio , M., & Verstraete , L. 2017, , 602, A46

    2017

  63. [71]

    A., & Cox , T

    Jonsson , P., Groves , B. A., & Cox , T. J. 2010, , 403, 17

    2010

  64. [72]

    S., Silverman , J

    Kalita , B. S., Silverman , J. D., Daddi , E., et al. 2024, , 960, 25

    2024

  65. [73]

    U., Baes , M., van der Wel , A., et al

    Kapoor , A. U., Baes , M., van der Wel , A., et al. 2023, , 526, 3871

    2023

  66. [74]

    U., Baes , M., van der Wel , A., et al

    Kapoor , A. U., Baes , M., van der Wel , A., et al. 2024, , 692, A79

    2024

  67. [75]

    U., Camps , P., Baes , M., et al

    Kapoor , A. U., Camps , P., Baes , M., et al. 2021, , 506, 5703

    2021

  68. [76]

    M., Faber , S

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

    2011

  69. [77]

    E., Reddy , N

    Kriek , M., Shapley , A. E., Reddy , N. A., et al. 2015, , 218, 15

    2015

  70. [78]

    Kron , R. G. 1980, , 43, 305

    1980

  71. [79]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa , P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2002

  72. [80]

    2005, , 624, L81

    Labb \'e , I., Huang , J., Franx , M., et al. 2005, , 624, L81

    2005

  73. [81]

    D., & Misselt , K

    Law , K.-H., Gordon , K. D., & Misselt , K. A. 2018, , 236, 32

    2018

  74. [82]

    D., & Misselt , K

    Law , K.-H., Gordon , K. D., & Misselt , K. A. 2021, , 920, 96

    2021

  75. [83]

    2024, , 688, A53

    Le Bail , A., Daddi , E., Elbaz , D., et al. 2024, , 688, A53

    2024

  76. [84]

    2019, , 490, 1425

    Li , Q., Narayanan , D., & Dav \'e , R. 2019, , 490, 1425

    2019

  77. [85]

    K., Driver , S

    Liske , J., Baldry , I. K., Driver , S. P., et al. 2015, , 452, 2087

    2015

  78. [86]

    E., et al

    Lorenz , B., Kriek , M., Shapley , A. E., et al. 2023, , 951, 29

    2023

  79. [87]

    E., et al

    Lorenz , B., Kriek , M., Shapley , A. E., et al. 2024, , 975, 187

    2024

  80. [88]

    2018, , 480, 5113

    Marinacci , F., Vogelsberger , M., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 480, 5113

    2018

  81. [89]

    C., Schaller , M., et al

    McAlpine , S., Helly , J. C., Schaller , M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 72

    2016

  82. [90]

    J., Dunlop , J

    McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., Cullen , F., et al. 2018, , 476, 3991

    2018

  83. [91]

    B., Whitaker , K

    Miller , T. B., Whitaker , K. E., Nelson , E. J., et al. 2022, , 941, L37

    2022

  84. [92]

    A., Gordon , K

    Misselt , K. A., Gordon , K. D., Clayton , G. C., & Wolff , M. J. 2001, , 551, 277

    2001

  85. [93]

    G., Brammer , G

    Momcheva , I. G., Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2016, , 225, 27

    2016

  86. [94]

    2013, , 206, 8

    Muzzin , A., Marchesini , D., Stefanon , M., et al. 2013, , 206, 8

    2013

  87. [95]

    C., Leja , J., Foreman-Mackey , D., & Hayward , C

    Nagaraj , G., Forbes , J. C., Leja , J., Foreman-Mackey , D., & Hayward , C. C. 2022, , 939, 29

    2022

  88. [96]

    P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al

    Naiman , J. P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 477, 1206

    2018

  89. [97]

    D., & Popping , G

    Narayanan , D., Conroy , C., Dav \'e , R., Johnson , B. D., & Popping , G. 2018, , 869, 70

    2018

  90. [98]

    J., Robitaille , T., et al

    Narayanan , D., Turk , M. J., Robitaille , T., et al. 2021, , 252, 12

    2021

  91. [99]

    2018, , 475, 624

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 475, 624

    2018

  92. [100]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  93. [101]

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

    1983

  94. [102]

    G., Mobasher , B., et al

    Pacifici , C., Iyer , K. G., Mobasher , B., et al. 2023, , 944, 141

    2023

  95. [103]

    2015, , 807, 141

    Pannella , M., Elbaz , D., Daddi , E., et al. 2015, , 807, 141

    2015

  96. [104]

    2021 a , , 504, 928

    Pantoni , L., Lapi , A., Massardi , M., et al. 2021 a , , 504, 928

    2021

  97. [105]

    2021 b , , 507, 3998

    Pantoni , L., Massardi , M., Lapi , A., et al. 2021 b , , 507, 3998

    2021

  98. [106]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  99. [107]

    2013, , 208, 4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4

    2013

  100. [108]

    2015, , 220, 15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15

    2015

  101. [109]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193

    2010

  102. [110]

    D., Witt , A

    Pierini , D., Gordon , K. D., Witt , A. N., & Madsen , G. J. 2004, , 617, 1022

    2004

  103. [111]

    2018 a , , 475, 648

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Hernquist , L., et al. 2018 a , , 475, 648

    2018

  104. [112]

    2018 b , , 473, 4077

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018 b , , 473, 4077

    2018

  105. [113]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  106. [114]

    L., Garuda , N., et al

    Polletta , M., Frye , B. L., Garuda , N., et al. 2024, , 690, A285

    2024

  107. [115]

    2023, , 519, 1526

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

    2023

  108. [116]

    2022, , 510, 3321

    Popping , G., Pillepich , A., Calistro Rivera , G., et al. 2022, , 510, 3321

    2022

  109. [117]

    A., Shapley , A

    Reddy , N. A., Shapley , A. E., Kriek , M., et al. 2020, , 902, 123

    2020

  110. [118]

    C., Galliano , F., et al

    R \'e my-Ruyer , A., Madden , S. C., Galliano , F., et al. 2014, , 563, A31

    2014

  111. [119]

    2014, , 441, 1017

    Rowlands , K., Dunne , L., Dye , S., et al. 2014, , 441, 1017

    2014

  112. [120]

    H., et al

    Rujopakarn , W., Daddi , E., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2019, , 882, 107

    2019

  113. [121]

    2014, , 561, A77

    Saftly , W., Baes , M., & Camps , P. 2014, , 561, A77

    2014

  114. [122]

    2013, , 554, A10

    Saftly , W., Camps , P., Baes , M., et al. 2013, , 554, A10

    2013

  115. [123]

    Salim , S., Boquien , M., & Lee , J. C. 2018, , 859, 11

    2018

  116. [124]

    & Narayanan , D

    Salim , S. & Narayanan , D. 2020, , 58, 529

    2020

  117. [125]

    2016, , 827, 20

    Salmon , B., Papovich , C., Long , J., et al. 2016, , 827, 20

    2016

  118. [126]

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

    1955

  119. [127]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., Gorgas , J., Cardiel , N., & Gonz \'a lez , J. J. 2006 a , , 457, 809

    2006

  120. [128]

    F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente , J., et al

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., Peletier , R. F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente , J., et al. 2006 b , , 371, 703

    2006

  121. [129]

    A., Bower , R

    Schaye , J., Crain , R. A., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 446, 521

    2015

  122. [130]

    2020, , 495, 4747

    Shen , X., Vogelsberger , M., Nelson , D., et al. 2020, , 495, 4747

    2020

  123. [131]

    2024, , 690, A89

    Shivaei , I., Alberts , S., Florian , M., et al. 2024, , 690, A89

    2024

  124. [132]

    2020, , 899, 117

    Shivaei , I., Reddy , N., Rieke , G., et al. 2020, , 899, 117

    2020

  125. [133]

    2022, , 926, 155

    Shu , X., Yang , L., Liu , D., et al. 2022, , 926, 155

    2022

  126. [134]

    E., Whitaker , K

    Skelton , R. E., Whitaker , K. E., Momcheva , I. G., et al. 2014, , 214, 24

    2014

  127. [135]

    2010, , 401, 791

    Springel , V. 2010, , 401, 791

    2010

  128. [136]

    & Hernquist , L

    Springel , V. & Hernquist , L. 2003, , 339, 289

    2003

  129. [137]

    2018, , 475, 676

    Springel , V., Pakmor , R., Pillepich , A., et al. 2018, , 475, 676

    2018

  130. [138]

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

    2001

  131. [139]

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

    2018

  132. [140]

    R., et al

    Strateva , I., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Knapp , G. R., et al. 2001, , 122, 1861

    2001

  133. [141]

    2020, , 901, 74

    Tadaki , K.-i., Belli , S., Burkert , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 74

    2020

  134. [142]

    2023, , 957, L15

    Tadaki , K.-i., Kodama , T., Koyama , Y., et al. 2023, , 957, L15

    2023

  135. [143]

    A., Dunlop , J

    Targett , T. A., Dunlop , J. S., Cirasuolo , M., et al. 2013, , 432, 2012

    2013

  136. [144]

    N., Hopkins , A

    Taylor , E. N., Hopkins , A. M., Baldry , I. K., et al. 2015, , 446, 2144

    2015

  137. [145]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  138. [146]

    2003, , 339, 897

    Thomas , D., Maraston , C., & Bender , R. 2003, , 339, 897

    2003

  139. [147]

    2019, , 484, 5587

    Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., Marinacci , F., et al. 2019, , 484, 5587

    2019

  140. [148]

    2012, , 427, 2224

    Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., Sijacki , D., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2012, , 427, 2224

    2012

  141. [149]

    W., Camps , P., Theuns , T., et al

    Trayford , J. W., Camps , P., Theuns , T., et al. 2017, , 470, 771

    2017

  142. [150]

    W., Lagos , C

    Trayford , J. W., Lagos , C. d. P., Robotham , A. S. G., & Obreschkow , D. 2020, , 491, 3937

    2020

  143. [151]

    2022, , 516, 3728

    Tr c ka , A., Baes , M., Camps , P., et al. 2022, , 516, 3728

    2022

  144. [152]

    Valentino , F., Brammer , G., Gould , K. M. L., et al. 2023, , 947, 20

    2023

  145. [153]

    P., Wilkins , S

    Vijayan , A. P., Wilkins , S. M., Lovell , C. C., et al. 2022, , 511, 4999

    2022

  146. [154]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  147. [155]

    2020, , 492, 5167

    Vogelsberger , M., Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., et al. 2020, , 492, 5167

    2020

  148. [156]

    2011, , 331, 1

    Walcher , J., Groves , B., Budav \'a ri , T., & Dale , D. 2011, , 331, 1

    2011

  149. [157]

    A., Barrufet , L., et al

    Weibel , A., Oesch , P. A., Barrufet , L., et al. 2024, , 533, 1808

    2024

  150. [158]

    2017, , 465, 3291

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Hernquist , L., et al. 2017, , 465, 3291

    2017

  151. [159]

    E., Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2011, , 735, 86

    2011

  152. [160]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., et al. 2010, , 719, 1715

    2010

  153. [161]

    J., Quadri , R

    Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879

    2009

  154. [162]

    Witt , A. N. & Gordon , K. D. 1996, , 463, 681

    1996

  155. [163]

    Witt , A. N. & Gordon , K. D. 2000, , 528, 799

    2000

  156. [164]

    N., Thronson , Harley A., J., & Capuano , John M., J

    Witt , A. N., Thronson , Harley A., J., & Capuano , John M., J. 1992, , 393, 611

    1992

  157. [165]

    1994, , 95, 107

    Worthey , G. 1994, , 95, 107

    1994

  158. [166]

    2007, , 655, 51

    Wuyts , S., Labb \'e , I., Franx , M., et al. 2007, , 655, 51

    2007

  159. [167]

    A., Smith , M

    Zabel , N., Davis , T. A., Smith , M. W. L., et al. 2021, , 502, 4723

    2021

  160. [168]

    2015, , 521, 54

    Zanella , A., Daddi , E., Le Floc'h , E., et al. 2015, , 521, 54

    2015

  161. [169]

    M., et al

    Zanella , A., Le Floc'h , E., Harrison , C. M., et al. 2019, , 489, 2792

    2019

  162. [170]

    E., et al

    Zhang , J., Wuyts , S., Cutler , S. E., et al. 2023, , 524, 4128

    2023

  163. [171]

    Zubko , V., Dwek , E., & Arendt , R. G. 2004, , 152, 211

    2004

  164. [172]

    D., Belli , S., Leja , J., & Tacchella , S

    Zuckerman , L. D., Belli , S., Leja , J., & Tacchella , S. 2021, , 922, L32

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.