Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

DAWN JWST Archive: Morphology from profile fitting of over 340 000 galaxies in major fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper builds a uniform JWST morphology catalog for over 340,000 galaxies and shows that bulge-dominated galaxies are predominantly quiescent and increasingly compact at high redshift.

desk verdict A large and useful JWST morphology catalog, but the field-dependent wavelength baseline from the shared-shape constraint needs quantifying before I would call it uniform. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21622 v2 pith:TZWXQ6JE submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.GA

Aurélien Genin , Marko Shuntov , Gabe Brammer , Natalie Allen , Kei Ito , Georgios Magdis , Jasleen Matharu , Pascal A. Oesch
show 2 more authors
Sune Toft Francesco Valentino
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:structureevolutioncatalogstechniques:imageprocessingSérsicprofilebulge-diskdecompositionJWSTNIRCamgalaxyquenching
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 builds the kind of dataset that was missing: a single, uniformly processed morphological catalog for more than 340,000 galaxies detected by JWST across four major extragalactic fields, spanning $03$. Quiescent galaxies are more compact, with stellar mass surface densities nearly an order of magnitude higher at $z\sim4$ than at $z\sim1$. If the catalog is as accurate as claimed, it turns the JWST archive from a set of images into a statistical resource for studying how galaxy structure evolves and how quenching connects to bulge growth.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is dual-model surface brightness fitting inside SourceXtractor++: every galaxy is modeled both as a single Sérsic profile and as a bulge-plus-disk composite, with all shape parameters forced to be identical across NIRCam bands so that the fitted values are a weighted average over wavelength. Accurate fits depend on empirical point-spread functions built with PSFEx from point sources selected along the 'starline' in the magnitude-versus-peak-surface-brightness plane, and the resulting catalogs are cross-matched to the archive's SExtractor and eazy catalogs to attach photometric redshifts, stellar masses, and rest-frame colors. The consistency between the independently fitted Sérsic index and bulge-to-total ratio is what lets the paper classify galaxies as bulge- or disk-dominated and connect morphology to the $UVJ$ diagram.

What would settle it

Inject synthetic galaxies with known Sérsic parameters and realistic fluxes into the DJA mosaics, run the same SourceXtractor++ pipeline, and compare recovered $R_e$ and $n_S$ with the inputs; a systematic offset larger than the quoted uncertainties at S/N>10 would disprove the catalog's stated accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a uniform, flux-limited sample of over 340,000 JWST-detected galaxies in CEERS, PRIMER-UDS, PRIMER-COSMOS, and GOODS can be reliably characterized by two-dimensional profile fitting, yielding consistent structural parameters across two independent models. For each source, SourceXtractor++ fits both a single Sérsic profile and a bulge-plus-disk decomposition in which the bulge follows a de Vaucouleurs profile and the disk is exponential; the effective radii, Sérsic index, axis ratio, and position angle are constrained to be identical across all NIRCam bands, so the reported values represent a wavelength-averaged morphology over roughly 0.8--5\,µm. Using these measurements together with the archive's photometric redshifts and physical parameters, the paper reports that bulge-dominated galaxies (high $n_S$ and $B/T$) occupy the quiescent $UVJ$ region, that a minority population of quiescent disks and star-forming bulge-dominated galaxies persists beyond $z\sim3$, and that quiescent galaxies are markedly more compact, with $\Sigma_e$ roughly an order of magnitude higher at $z\sim4$ than at $z\sim1$. The paper interprets these trends as evidence that bulge growth and quenching are closely connected, with compact star-forming phases preceding quiescence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the empirical PSF models built from starline-selected point sources are accurate and that each galaxy's morphology is the same in every NIRCam band; if either fails, the fitted effective radii and Sérsic indices shift systematically and every Section 4 trend inherits that shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users of the archive can now select galaxies by $R_e$, $n_S$, $B/T$, or axis ratio across four major fields without reprocessing the images, enabling statistical studies of rare populations such as quiescent galaxies at $z>3$.
  • The observed bimodality, with quiescent disks and compact star-forming bulge-dominated galaxies coexisting beyond $z\sim3$, implies that morphology alone does not determine star formation state at early times.
  • The order-of-magnitude increase in stellar mass surface density of quiescent galaxies from $z\sim1$ to $z\sim4$ constrains models in which high-redshift quenching happens in very dense stellar cores.
  • The size evolution fits $r_e = R(1+z)^a$ for disk-, bulge-, and all-dominated samples provide direct quantitative targets for simulations of galaxy growth.
  • Because the catalog supplies both total and component sizes, it allows separate evolution of bulges and disks to be tracked, showing bulge sizes are established early while disks keep growing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: forcing morphology to be identical across all NIRCam bands suppresses genuine color gradients; a band-by-band release of the same fits would show how much of the reported size evolution is a wavelength-averaging artifact.
  • Editorial inference: the pipeline could be run on mock galaxies with known input profiles to map the bias and scatter of $R_e$ and $n_S$ as a function of signal-to-noise, providing corrections the current catalog does not include.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same fitting to separate bands, or to rest-frame-optical-selected samples, could test whether the claimed quiescent disk population at $z>3$ is genuinely gas-poor or merely dust-reddened.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a JWST/NIRCam morphological catalog for over 340,000 galaxies spanning 0<z<12 in the CEERS/EGS, GOODS, and PRIMER fields, built from DJA v7 mosaics. SourceXtractor++ is used to fit both a single-Sérsic model and a bulge+disk (B+D) model, with morphological parameters constrained to be identical across all NIRCam bands. Completeness is quantified relative to the DJA catalogs (80.4% of S/N>3, magnitude-limited sources have both fits), and the Sérsic effective radii are validated against van der Wel et al. (2012) for 3,263 early-type galaxies. The science demonstrations link Sérsic index and B/T to UVJ colors, present size-redshift trends for bulge/disk and quiescent/star-forming galaxies, and show that quiescent galaxies have higher stellar mass surface densities at high redshift.

Significance. If the catalog is as uniform as claimed, it is a valuable community resource: it is one of the largest JWST morphology catalogs to date, with public code and catalog release, dual model fits, quantified completeness, and an external HST-based validation. The paper also makes testable claims about the morphology-star formation bimodality out to z>3 and about the high compactness of early quiescent galaxies. However, the headline uniformity claim is not yet fully supported: the band-averaging construction and the limited external validation leave open the possibility of field-dependent and wavelength-dependent systematics in the published sizes and Sérsic indices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The shared-shape constraint (R_eff, n_S, (a/b), and theta identical across all NIRCam bands) turns the published morphology into a weighted average over 0.8-5 micron whose effective rest-frame wavelength depends on the field's filter set and on each source's SED. EGS includes F182M, F210M, and F410M while GOODS and PRIMER do not, so a given galaxy type is not measured at the same rest-frame wavelength in all fields; this can create field-dependent offsets in R_eff and n_S that propagate into every comparison in Sect. 4. The external check in Sect. 3.5 is restricted to 3,263 early-type galaxies and rescales with a fixed slope (Eq. 1), so it does not test the wavelength-independence assumption for star-forming galaxies, for B+D parameters, or across fields. The paper should quantify this, for example by fitting short- and long-wavelength bands as separate groups and showing parameter stability, or by reporting a per-source effective wavelength and demonstrating that the science results are unchanged when the filter-dependent averaging is accounted for.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Sect. 4.1] The Bulge+Disk results are used as a primary morphology indicator (B/T) for the bulge/disk classification and for the UVJ bimodality claims, but they are not validated against any external two-component measurements. The B/T prior is described only as a 'bell curve' with a wavelength-dependent mean and spread, which is not enough to judge whether the recovered B/T values are prior-dominated for faint or low-surface-brightness galaxies. The internal consistency between n_S and B/T (Figs. 4-6) is expected from the same imaging and is not an independent check. Please add an external or simulated validation of B/T, or at minimum a prior-sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the classifications and the z>3 star-forming bulge population do not depend on the adopted prior.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The redshift-independent UVJ cut is applied out to z=6 although the authors note that the criteria change with redshift. Because this selection defines the quiescent and star-forming samples used for the size evolution (Sect. 4.2) and Sigma_e trends (Sect. 4.3), the paper should show how many sources move across the boundary when a redshift-dependent UVJ criterion is used, particularly at z>3 where the quiescent sample is small. If the conclusions are robust to this choice, state that explicitly; if not, soften the wording of the claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Fig. 3] The comparison with van der Wel et al. (2012) is reported only qualitatively; please provide median offset, scatter, and outlier fraction for R_eff and n_S, and state whether the comparison changes if the more complex redshift- and mass-dependent scaling from van der Wel et al. is used.
  2. [Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4] The 0.3 arcsec cross-match radius and the flag thresholds are set manually; a brief test showing that nearby alternative choices do not change the completeness or parameter distributions would strengthen the catalog description.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'There evolution is modeled' should read 'Their evolution is modeled'.
  4. [Appendix B, Fig. B.1] The priors should be described numerically in the text or with explicit axis labels and values, since the current description does not allow the reader to reproduce the adopted priors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the morphological catalog is measured directly from JWST imaging, and the science analysis is descriptive rather than predictive.

full rationale

The paper's central product, the morphological catalog, is derived by fitting Sersic and Bulge+Disk models directly to the JWST NIRCam images with SourceXtractor++. The morphological parameters are not obtained from the DJA photometric redshifts, masses, or rest-frame colors; those DJA products are used only afterward for the science analysis in Sect. 4. The size evolution fit r_e = R(1+z)^a in Sect. 4.2 is a descriptive least-squares fit to the authors' own measurements, not a prediction, and it is explicitly compared against external JWST-based studies. External validation in Sect. 3.5 uses van der Wel et al. (2012), an independent HST-based catalog, so that validation does not reduce to the paper's own inputs. Self-citations to DJA/DAWN papers and to co-authored JWST morphology studies are present but not load-bearing: the morphological measurements themselves do not depend on those cited results being true. The shared-shape constraint across bands (Sect. 3.2) and the empirical PSF reconstruction are potential sources of systematic error, and the wavelength-averaging caveat is acknowledged in Sect. 4.2, but these are accuracy concerns rather than circular reasoning. No step in the derivation chain equates a prediction to an input by construction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to force a conclusion. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for its main deliverable.

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

The central catalog rests on standard but unverified assumptions about PSF fidelity, wavelength-independent morphology, and the reliability of DJA redshifts and masses. The paper introduces no new physical entities; its free parameters are fitting or threshold choices that affect the measurements.

free parameters (5)
  • Size evolution fit normalization R = 3.66±0.04 kpc (all galaxies); 4.02±0.04 (disk-dominated); 3.34±0.10 (bulge-dominated)
    Fitted in Sect. 4.2 to the binned r_e versus (1+z) data to characterize size evolution; used only descriptively.
  • Size evolution slope alpha = -0.59±0.01 (all); -0.61±0.01 (disk); -0.87±0.04 (bulge)
    Power-law exponent from the same fit; these are the main quantitative outputs of the size evolution analysis.
  • B/T prior mean and width = not given numerically; mean and spread increase with wavelength
    Chosen in Sect. 3.2 to define the bulge-to-total ratio prior in SourceXtractor++; this choice can systematically affect B/T estimates.
  • PSF starline selection threshold and width = not specified
    Selected empirically in Sect. 2.3; determines which sources are used to build the PSF, affecting all morphology measurements.
  • Cross-match radius and flag artifact thresholds = 0.3 arcsec; n_S>8.35, a/b>0.99, etc.
    Set manually in Sects. 3.3.1 and 3.4 to define the sample; they affect completeness and which fits are considered reliable.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=67.4, Omega_m=0.315
    Adopted in the introduction for converting angular sizes to physical kpc; standard assumption in extragalactic astronomy.
  • domain assumption Sérsic and Bulge+Disk profiles adequately model galaxy light distributions
    Used throughout Sect. 3.2; if the models are poor descriptions, the derived parameters are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Morphological parameters are identical across all NIRCam bands (0.8-5 micron)
    Stated in Sect. 3.2: 'we constrain the morphological parameters ... to be identical across all bands'; this ignores known wavelength-dependent morphology and could bias sizes.
  • domain assumption PSFEx accurately models the NIRCam PSF
    Relied on in Sect. 2.3, citing Berman et al. (2024); an inaccurate PSF directly corrupts all fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption The DJA eazy photometric redshifts and stellar masses are reliable
    Used as inputs in Sect. 4 without independent validation; errors in z or M* propagate to sizes and surface densities.
  • ad hoc to paper The redshift-independent UVJ selection remains valid at z up to 6
    Eq. (2) is taken from Schreiber et al. (2016) for 0.7<z<1.3 and applied at all redshifts; the authors acknowledge this limitation in Sect. 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAWN JWST Archive: Morphology from profile fitting of over 340 000 galaxies in major fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZWXQ6JE

@misc{pith2026250521622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAWN JWST Archive: Morphology from profile fitting of over 340 000 galaxies in major fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZWXQ6JE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21622}
}
abstract

To better understand how galaxies assemble their structure and evolve over cosmic time, we present a new catalog of morphological measurements for over 340,000 sources spanning $0 < z < 12$, derived from deep JWST NIRCam imaging across four major extragalactic fields (CEERS, PRIMER-UDS, PRIMER-COSMOS, GOODS) compiled in the DAWN JWST Archive (DJA). We perform two-dimensional surface brightness fitting for all galaxies in a uniform, flux-limited sample. Each galaxy is modeled with both a S\'ersic profile and a two-component (bulge and disk) decomposition, yielding consistent structural parameters - including effective radius, S\'ersic index, axis ratio, and bulge-to-total ratio ($B/T$). To demonstrate the scientific application of our morphology catalogs, we combined these measurements with DJA photometric redshifts, physical parameters and rest-frame colors, and investigated the relation between total, bulge and disk sizes, S\'ersic index ($n_S$), star formation activity, and redshift. Bulge-dominated galaxies (high $n_S$ and $B/T$) predominantly occupy the quiescent region of the $UVJ$ diagram, while disk-dominated galaxies are mostly star-forming. A significant bimodality persists, with quiescent disks and compact, bulge-dominated star-forming galaxies observed out to $z > 3$. Quiescent galaxies also show significantly higher stellar mass surface densities, nearly an order of magnitude greater at $z \sim 4$ than at $z \sim 1$. Our results confirm a strong and evolving link between morphology and star formation activity, and support a scenario in which bulge growth and quenching are closely connected. This work is a highly valuable addition to the DJA, adding a morphological dimension to this rich dataset and thus enabling a wider scientific application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ), the point-like sources follow a line of slope equal to one (referred to in this paper as the "starline"), and extended sources form a distinctive cloud above it. We added thresh￾olds for MAG_AUTO: a minimal value to avoid selecting saturated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of the flag values for the full catalogs. The percent￾ages are relative to the total number of sources in the DJA catalogs. Two distinctive histograms for the Sérsic and Bulge+Disk models are shown because their fitting success rates differ. The figure shows a vast major￾ity (70-80%) of sources are correctly fitted and provides science-ready morphological data. was performed independently for the Sérsic an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the one-to-one comparisons between the two works for Reff (top middle panel) and the Sérsic index nS (top right panel), as well as the histograms of Reff, nS, and the axis ratio (a/b) (bottom panels). In general, there is good agreement in the effective radii, with a slight trend toward larger radii from our measurements. One reason for the slight offset could be the scaling using Eq. 1 that we applied. Withou… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Sérsic indices, nS , in the UV J color space for different redshift ranges, for galaxies with log M⋆/M⊙ > 10. The color of each hexagonal bin represents the median value of nS , as indicated by the colorbar. The dotted line shows the quiescent vs star-f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of B/T in the UV J color space for different redshift and B/T ranges, for galaxies with log M⋆/M⊙ > 10. Each point is colored by its B/T value in the F200W band. The dotted line shows the quiescent versus star-forming separation using Eq. 2. The contours i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UV J color diagram for bulge- and disk-dominated log M⋆/M⊙ > 10 galaxies. The classification combines criteria based on both nS and B/T, estimated independently. Contour lines show kernel density estimates corresponding to 25, 50, and 75% of the density [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of galaxy sizes as a function of redshift. The plots show the Sérsic e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the sizes of quiescent and star forming galaxies with log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the stellar mass surface density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Spatial decomposition of Little Red Dots with JWST/NIRSpec IFU into broad-line red cores and narrow-line blue host galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spatially resolved JWST/NIRSpec IFU spectroscopy of five z~5 Little Red Dots shows blue continuum and narrow lines from extended hosts and red continuum plus broad Balmer features from compact cores.

  2. Enhancing Galaxy Classification with U-Net Variational Autoencoders for Image Denoising

    astro-ph.IM 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Applying a U-Net VAE denoising step to galaxy images before classification is reported to improve accuracy, reaching 97.45% with a GCNN on Galaxy10 DECaLS, although no direct noisy baseline is presented.

  3. Morphologies of SAGAbg low-mass galaxies in Legacy Survey multi-band imaging: dependence on stellar masses, star-formation rates and low-redshift evolution

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Low-mass star-forming galaxies are disk-dominated; their light concentration increases with stellar mass and decreases with sSFR, with bulges emerging near log(M*/M_sun) ~ 9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  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]

    A., Toft , S., et al

    Allen , N., Oesch , P. A., Toft , S., et al. 2025, , 698, A30

    2025

  4. [4]

    M., Koo , D

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., Koo , D. C., et al. 2017, , 840, 47

    2017

  5. [5]

    M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., et al. 2013, , 765, 104

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., et al. 2014, , 791, 52

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    B., & Ellis , R

    Belli , S., Newman , A. B., & Ellis , R. S. 2015, , 799, 206

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    B., & Ellis , R

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

    2019

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    M., McCleary, J

    Berman, E. M., McCleary, J. E., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 174

    2024

  2. [10]

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

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

    2011

  3. [11]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393

    1996

  4. [12]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E., Schefer , M., Apostolakos , N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo , E. R. Deul , J. D. Mol , J. de Plaa , & H. Verkouter , 461

    2020

  5. [13]

    V., & Coppi, P

    Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. V., & Coppi, P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 1503

    2008

  6. [14]

    C., McLure , R

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

    2023

  7. [15]

    M., Bschorr , T

    Carollo , C. M., Bschorr , T. J., Renzini , A., et al. 2013, , 773, 112

    2013

  8. [16]

    Conselice , C. J. 2003, , 147, 1

    2003

  9. [17]

    Conselice , C. J. 2014, , 52, 291

    2014

  10. [18]

    2021, , 38, e035

    Cortese , L., Catinella , B., & Smith , R. 2021, , 38, e035

    2021

  11. [19]

    2005, , 626, 680

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

    2005

  12. [20]

    J., Abraham , R

    Damjanov , I., McCarthy , P. J., Abraham , R. G., et al. 2009, , 695, 101

    2009

  13. [21]

    J., Brammer , G., et al

    de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2404.05683 ]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    de Vaucouleurs , G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    1959

  15. [23]

    & Burkert , A

    Dekel , A. & Burkert , A. 2014, , 438, 1870

    2014

  16. [24]

    G., Maiolino , R., et al

    D'Eugenio , F., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1443

    2024

  17. [25]

    T., McLure , R

    Donnan , C. T., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2403.03171 ]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., Willott , C., Alberts , S., et al

    Eisenstein , D. J., Willott , C., Alberts , S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    1996, in Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'96)

    Ester , M., Kriegel , H.-P., Sander , J., & Xu , X. 1996, in Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'96). Proceedings of a conference held August 2-4, 226--331

    1996

  20. [28]

    Fall , S. M. & Efstathiou , G. 1980, , 193, 189

    1980

  21. [29]

    L., Bagley , M

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

    2023

  22. [30]

    & Bolles, R

    Fischler, M. & Bolles, R. 1981, Communications of the ACM, 24, 381

    1981

  23. [31]

    A., Kocevski , D

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

    2011

  24. [32]

    Gunn , J. E. & Gott , III, J. R. 1972, , 176, 1

    1972

  25. [33]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz , K. E., Brammer , G. B., Watson , D., et al. 2025, , 693, A60

    2025

  26. [34]

    Hubble , E. P. 1936, Realm of the Nebulae

    1936

  27. [35]

    2024, , 964, 192

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

    2024

  28. [36]

    D., Ding , X., et al

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

    2021

  29. [37]

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

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

    2007

  30. [38]

    M., Faber , S

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

    2011

  31. [39]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    K \"u mmel , M., Bertin , E., Schefer , M., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo , E. R. Deul , J. D. Mol , J. de Plaa , & H. Verkouter , 29

    2020

  32. [40]

    B., Tinsley , B

    Larson , R. B., Tinsley , B. M., & Caldwell , C. N. 1980, , 237, 692

    1980

  33. [41]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 219

    Leauthaud , A., Massey , R., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 219

    2007

  34. [42]

    J., Schawinski , K., Slosar , A., et al

    Lintott , C. J., Schawinski , K., Slosar , A., et al. 2008, , 389, 1179

    2008

  35. [43]

    M., Primack , J., & Madau , P

    Lotz , J. M., Primack , J., & Madau , P. 2004, , 128, 163

    2004

  36. [44]

    J., Brammer , G., et al

    Matharu , J., Nelson , E. J., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 690, A64

    2024

  37. [45]

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

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

    1998

  38. [46]

    1996, , 379, 613

    Moore , B., Katz , N., Lake , G., Dressler , A., & Oemler , A. 1996, , 379, 613

    1996

  39. [47]

    1998, , 495, 139

    Moore , B., Lake , G., & Katz , N. 1998, , 495, 139

    1998

  40. [48]

    M., Ellis , R

    Moran , S. M., Ellis , R. S., Treu , T., et al. 2007, , 671, 1503

    2007

  41. [49]

    2014, , 785, 18

    Morishita , T., Ichikawa , T., & Kajisawa , M. 2014, , 785, 18

    2014

  42. [50]

    2018, , 479, 2147

    Moutard , T., Sawicki , M., Arnouts , S., et al. 2018, , 479, 2147

    2018

  43. [51]

    B., Ellis , R

    Newman , A. B., Ellis , R. S., Bundy , K., & Treu , T. 2012, , 746, 162

    2012

  44. [52]

    Oke, J. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 21

    1974

  45. [53]

    Omand , C. M. B., Balogh , M. L., & Poggianti , B. M. 2014, , 440, 843

    2014

  46. [54]

    J., Adams , N

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

    2024

  47. [55]

    G., Holden , B

    Patel , S. G., Holden , B. P., Kelson , D. D., et al. 2012, , 748, L27

    2012

  48. [56]

    J., Kovac, K., et al

    Peng, Y., Lilly, S. J., Kovac, K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, arXiv: 1003.4747

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  50. [58]

    & de Lapparent , V

    Quilley , L. & de Lapparent , V. 2022, , 666, A170

    2022

  51. [59]

    2005, in SPIE Optics + Photonics, Vol

    Rieke, M., Kelly, D., & Horner, S. 2005, in SPIE Optics + Photonics, Vol. 5904

    2005

  52. [60]

    Rix , H.-W., Barden , M., Beckwith , S. V. W., et al. 2004, , 152, 163

    2004

  53. [61]

    2018, reproject: astronomical image reprojection in Python

    Robitaille , T. 2018, reproject: astronomical image reprojection in Python

    2018

  54. [62]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 889, arXiv: 1402.4814

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    2016, , 589, A35

    Schreiber , C., Elbaz , D., Pannella , M., et al. 2016, , 589, A35

    2016

  56. [64]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  57. [65]

    J., White , S

    Shen , S., Mo , H. J., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 343, 978

    2003

  58. [66]

    2015, , 219, 15

    Shibuya , T., Ouchi , M., & Harikane , Y. 2015, , 219, 15

    2015

  59. [67]

    S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al

    Somerville , R. S., Behroozi , P., Pandya , V., et al. 2018, , 473, 2714

    2018

  60. [68]

    M., F \"o rster Schreiber , N

    Tacchella , S., Carollo , C. M., F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., et al. 2018, , 859, 56

    2018

  61. [69]

    M., Renzini , A., et al

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

    2015

  62. [70]

    M., et al

    Tacchella , S., Dekel , A., Carollo , C. M., et al. 2016, , 458, 242

    2016

  63. [71]

    2017, , 546, 510

    Toft , S., Zabl , J., Richard , J., et al. 2017, , 546, 510

    2017

  64. [72]

    J., Bundy , K., et al

    Trujillo , I., Conselice , C. J., Bundy , K., et al. 2007, , 382, 109

    2007

  65. [73]

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

    2023

  66. [74]

    F., H \"a ussler , B., et al

    van der Wel , A., Bell , E. F., H \"a ussler , B., et al. 2012, , 203, 24

    2012

  67. [75]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28

    2014

  68. [76]

    G., Nelson , E

    van Dokkum , P. G., Nelson , E. J., Franx , M., et al. 2015, , 813, 23

    2015

  69. [77]

    G., Bowler , R

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

    2024

  70. [78]

    A., Barrufet , L., et al

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

    2024

  71. [79]

    E., Bezanson , R., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., Bezanson , R., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2017, , 838, 19

    2017

  72. [80]

    J., Quadri , R

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

    2009

  73. [81]

    E., Weaver , J

    Wright , L., Whitaker , K. E., Weaver , J. R., et al. 2024, , 964, L10

    2024

  74. [82]

    S., Franco, M., et al

    Yang, L., Kartaltepe, J. S., Franco, M., et al. 2025, COSMOS-Web: Unraveling the Evolution of Galaxy Size and Related Properties at 2<z<10

    2025

  75. [83]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  76. [84]

    2015, , 450, 2327

    Zolotov , A., Dekel , A., Mandelker , N., et al. 2015, , 450, 2327

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.