Survival of dust in super-dusty galaxies at redshifts $z \approx 5-8$

Biman B. Nath (RRI); Yuri A. Shchekinov (RRI)

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Survival of dust in super-dusty galaxies at redshifts $z \approx 5-8$

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 Freshly nucleated supernova dust can survive reverse-shock sputtering at $z \approx 5$--$8$ because dust-driven radiative cooling triggers thermal instability that shields grains.

desk verdict Novel dust-cooling TI shielding mechanism, but survival claim rests on an unsupported timing coincidence; deserves review with a required RS-trajectory calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05591 v2 pith:YUHZ6TEH submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Yuri A. Shchekinov (RRI) , Biman B. Nath (RRI) This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO

keywords supernovadustreverseshocksputteringcoolingthermalinstabilitybudgetcrisishigh-redshiftgalaxiesdust-to-stellarmassratio

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 argues that supernova dust can survive the reverse shock that was thought to destroy it, provided the dust itself cools the shocked gas faster than sputtering erodes the grains. In 3D simulations, dust-driven radiative cooling makes the post-shock gas thermally unstable, and cold dense clumps form within roughly one cooling time, sheltering grains from the hot plasma. Before the remnant enters the Sedov-Taylor stage, when the post-shock temperature is about $10^7$ K, up to half of the grains larger than $0.05\,\mu$m can survive, with higher survival for higher initial dust-to-gas ratios. This offers a way out of the dust budget crisis at $z \approx 5$--$8$, where galaxies show dust masses around $1$--$3\%$ of stellar mass and would otherwise require nearly one solar mass of dust per supernova.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is dust cooling: inelastic collisions of hot electrons and ions with dust grains convert plasma thermal energy into infrared radiation, giving a cooling rate that dominates gas line cooling above $3 \times 10^5$ K and stays nearly constant across $3 \times 10^6$--$3 \times 10^7$ K. Because the cooling function is flat, small temperature perturbations grow hyperbolically through thermal instability, governed by the Field length criterion. The controlling ratio is $\tau_c/\tau_{\mathrm{sp}}(a)$: when the cooling time is shorter than the sputtering time, the gas cools and clumps before grains are eroded. The numerical model treats dust as a collisionally coupled fluid and updates the cooling function as grains are destroyed, which is what reveals the destructive high-temperature regime.

What would settle it

Time-resolved mid-infrared observations of a young nearby supernova remnant as the reverse shock crosses the freshly nucleated dust zone would settle it: if the mechanism works, the gas just behind the shock should cool below about $10^5$ K within roughly one cooling time and leave surviving grains above $0.05\,\mu$m in cold dense clumps, whereas if the post-shock gas stays hot for months and the dust mass drops sharply as the shock advances, the shield fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that radiative cooling from the dust grains themselves can inhibit reverse-shock sputtering in freshly nucleated supernova ejecta. Behind the reverse shock, hot electrons and ions collide with dust and lose energy to infrared emission; this dust cooling function is nearly flat at $3 \times 10^6$--$3 \times 10^7$ K, so the cooling time can be shorter than the sputtering time for grains larger than roughly $0.05\,\mu$m when the ejecta dust-to-gas ratio is about $0.03$ or higher. The rapid cooling drives thermal instability: isobaric perturbations grow into dense cold clumps that shield the grains. In the pre-Sedov-Taylor regime, with post-shock temperature $T_{\mathrm{rs}} \lesssim 10^7$ K, up to about half of grains larger than $0.05\,\mu$m survive. The paper also finds the hostile regime: at $T_{\mathrm{rs}} = 3 \times 10^7$ to $10^8$ K, self-consistent cooling is weakened as small grains die, and even large grains are mostly destroyed.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism works only if the reverse shock arrives while the shocked gas is still near ten million kelvin, before the remnant enters its later Sedov-Taylor blast-wave stage, and only if the freshly made dust makes up at least about three percent of the gas mass; otherwise the paper's own calculation destroys even large grains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, net supernova dust yields of order $0.3$--$0.5\,M_\odot$ per supernova are plausible at $z \approx 5$--$8$, because roughly half of the large-grain mass can survive the reverse shock.
Dust-to-stellar mass ratios should be bimodal: galaxies with sufficiently high initial dust content become super-dusty with $\zeta_\ast \sim 0.01$, while those below the threshold remain dust-poor.
The surviving grain size distribution is flatter than the initial MRN-like $a^{-3.5}$ distribution, providing an observational fingerprint for the mechanism.
Reverse-shock dust destruction is environment- and timing-dependent: shielding operates only for shocks that arrive before the Sedov-Taylor stage with $T_{\mathrm{rs}} \lesssim 10^7$ K, so the net dust yield depends on the ambient density and progenitor wind history.
Dust destruction is self-limiting in the favorable regime: the more dust that nucleates, the faster the post-shock gas cools, and the larger the surviving fraction.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not develop is that the same self-shielding loop should operate when any dust-rich gas is overrun by a fast shock, so the effect could be searched for in radiative interstellar shocks at lower redshift.
The model's sharp dependence on initial dust-to-gas ratio implies a threshold behavior in galaxy evolution calculations that follow dust: small changes in the supernova dust yield could abruptly switch a galaxy between the super-dusty and dust-poor branches.
The predicted flattening of the surviving grain-size distribution is an observable signature for young supernova remnants; measuring dust emission slope at mid-infrared wavelengths could distinguish this mechanism from pre-existing clump shielding.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read on arXiv:2506.05591. The genuinely new thing is the mechanism: instead of pre-existing clumps shielding SN dust from the reverse shock (Kirchschlager et al.), this paper shows that dust itself can cool the post-shock gas fast enough to trigger thermal instability, which then forms the dense clumps that shield the grains. That's a real conceptual step. The analytic treatment in Sec 3.1.4 is clean, the timescale arguments are internally consistent, and the paper is unusually honest about the failure modes: the self-consistent cooling run at 1e8 K (Fig 9) destroys even 0.1–0.3 micron grains within a few cooling times. That's not a paper trying to hide its weak case.

The soft spot is load-bearing. The big survival fractions (up to ~0.5 for grains >0.05 µm) appear only at T_rs = 1e7 K (Fig 10). At 3e7 K (Fig 11) survival is far worse, and at 1e8 K the grains are destroyed. The paper claims T_rs stays below ~1e7 K before the Sedov-Taylor transition (Eq A.9), but it never shows that the reverse shock has actually reached the dust-nucleation layer at that time. Appendix A gives the RS velocity law and the nucleation radius separately, but no t_cross is computed and compared to t_ST. The stress-test note is right: in standard McKee-Truelove/Chevalier evolution, the RS starts at the outer contact discontinuity and works inward through steeply stratified ejecta; the dense inner layers where n ~ 1e8 cm^-3 and dust formed at ~1 yr are plausibly reached only near or after the ST transition, when T_rs ~ 1e8 K. If so, Fig 9 is the relevant outcome, not Fig 10. This doesn't kill the idea—dust cooling could still help in lower-density outer layers—but it leaves the central claim hanging on an assumed coincidence.

Minor issues: no convergence study for the simulations, and the numerical Field length is an order of magnitude larger than the physical one, so the clump structure is not numerically settled. The net yield question (>=1 M_sun per SN) is also not closed; the paper makes the survival fraction bigger but doesn't show the total budget works.

Who should read it: anyone working on SN dust yields, the dust budget crisis, or reverse-shock processing. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The referee should ask for a reverse-shock trajectory calculation (or a McKee-Truelove-style estimate) that shows when the RS meets the dust-bearing layers, plus a convergence test. I'd accept it for review on that condition.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a mechanism by which dust formed in supernova ejecta can survive the reverse shock (RS), alleviating the 'dust budget crisis' in super-dusty galaxies at z ≈ 5–8. The key idea is that freshly nucleated dust grains enhance radiative cooling of the post-shock gas, triggering thermal instability that produces cold, dense clumps shielding the grains from thermal sputtering. The authors support this with an analytic thermal-instability analysis (Sec. 3.1.4), a series of 3D numerical experiments of cooling isobaric perturbations (Sec. 3.2), and timescale comparisons showing that at post-shock temperatures Trs ~ 10^7 K the cooling time can be shorter than the sputtering time. The self-consistent cooling model (Sec. 3.2.6, Fig. 9) is honest in showing that at Trs = 10^8 K even 0.1–0.3 μm grains are destroyed within one to two cooling times. The survival claim is therefore restricted to the pre-Sedov-Taylor regime (Trs ~ 10^7 K, Sec. 3.2.7, Fig. 10), where up to about half of grains larger than 0.05 μm can survive for a dust-to-gas ratio ζd,0 = 0.03. The paper explicitly states that hotter regions with Trs > 3 × 10^7 K destroy dust more efficiently, and the summary carefully reports both regimes.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism operates, it would substantially change estimates of the net supernova dust yield, potentially explaining the observed dust-to-stellar mass ratios of order 10^-2 in z > 5 galaxies without invoking extreme yields. The paper's strengths include: (i) a physically motivated cooling function based on standard dust-heating rates (Dwek 1987), (ii) an honest presentation of the destructive cases, including the self-consistent cooling model that erodes the optimistic early conclusions, and (iii) clearly stated parameter dependencies (Trs, ζd,0, perturbation amplitude) that make the claim falsifiable. The analytic thermal-instability criterion and the numerical experiments are internally consistent. However, the central positive result is conditional on a timing assumption—that the reverse shock encounters the dust-bearing ejecta while the post-shock temperature is still near 10^7 K—which is not demonstrated in the manuscript. This is a load-bearing gap, not merely a presentation issue, because the paper's own Fig. 9 shows that at Trs = 10^8 K the shielding mechanism fails.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 3.2.7, Appendix A] The survival result in Fig. 10 assumes an initial post-shock temperature Trs = 10^7 K, but no calculation shows that the reverse shock actually reaches the dust-formation radius (Rnuc, Eq. A.5) while Trs is still ~ 10^7 K. Equations A.7 and A.8 give the reverse-shock velocity as a function of time, but the paper never integrates these to find the crossing time t_cross at which R_RS(t) = Rnuc, nor compares t_cross with the Sedov-Taylor time t_ST. In the standard McKee-Truelove evolution for a uniform ambient medium, the reverse shock starts at the outer contact discontinuity and propagates inward through steeply stratified ejecta; the dense inner layers where n ~ 10^8 cm^-3 may be reached near or after the Sedov-Taylor transition, when Trs ~ 10^8 K. In that case the self-consistent model of Sec. 3.2.6 (Fig. 9) is the relevant one, and the survival fraction is essentially zero. The authors should add an explicit trajectory calculation (or a quantitative reference) demonstrating t_cross < t_ST and Trs < a few × 10^7 K for the nucleated layer, as a function of ambient density n0.
[Sec. 3.2.2, Eqs. (3.12), (A.4)] The initial gas density n = 10^8 cm^-3 used in the cooling-time estimates and simulations is taken from Eq. A.4, which gives the density at the time of dust nucleation (T ~ 3000 K, t ~ 400–600 days). If the reverse shock reaches that layer at a later time t_cross > t_nuc, the pre-shock density is lower by roughly (t_nuc/t_cross)^3. For example, if t_cross ~ 3 yr, the density at crossing is an order of magnitude lower, which lengthens τc ∝ n^-1 and therefore reduces the survival fraction. The analysis should use the density at the actual crossing time, not the nucleation-time density, or explicitly justify why the ejecta layer maintains n ~ 10^8 cm^-3 when the RS arrives.
[Sec. 3.2.7, Eq. (2.1)] The mapping between the initial dust-to-gas ratio ζd,0 and the supernova dust yield ysn is inconsistent. With Mej = 10 M⊙ fixed in Sec. 3.2.1, the value ζd,0 = 0.03 corresponds to ysn = ζd,0 × Mej = 0.3 M⊙, not ysn ≳ 0.6 M⊙ as stated in Sec. 3.2.7. Since the super-dusty galaxies discussed in Sec. 2 require ysn ≳ 1 M⊙ (e.g., A1689-zD1), the high-survival case in Fig. 10 may fall short of the needed yield. The authors should clarify the assumed Mej for the ζd,0 = 0.03 case, or present results for ζd,0 = 0.1 (ysn = 1 M⊙) if such a high dust-to-gas ratio is considered plausible.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A.7)] The expression for the reverse-shock velocity appears to have a typographical error and is inconsistent with the subsequent bound. Equation (A.7) as printed reads ˜vr ≃ 5.43/2 (1 + 2.95 t^{3/2})^{-5/3}; if this is meant to be 5.4^{3/2}, then at t = 0 it gives u_r ≈ 12.55 v_ch, which through Eq. (A.6) yields Trs ~ 10^9–10^10 K for standard parameters, in direct conflict with the quoted bound Trs < 10^7 K at t < t_ST (Eq. A.9). This is not merely a typo: the entire survival regime for Fig. 10 rests on the low-temperature branch. The authors should correct the expression and provide a derivation showing explicitly how Eq. (A.9) follows from Eqs. (A.6)–(A.8).

minor comments (8)

[Sec. 3.2.4] The sentence 'This difference is illustrated Fig. in 7' should read 'in Fig. 7'.
[Sec. 3.2.1] In the definition of the initial ejecta radius, 'Rej,0 = 10^3 R⊙ cm' should be '10^3 R⊙' (remove the extraneous 'cm').
[Sec. 3.2.3] There is an unmatched parenthesis after 'τc (Eq. 3.12' in the sentence defining τcr; the closing parenthesis is missing.
[Sec. 3.2.7] The phrase 'initial metallicity of ejecta' in the discussion of ζd,0 should be 'initial dust-to-gas mass ratio', as the quantity ζd,0 is not a metallicity.
[Fig. 12 caption] The caption refers to the mass distribution m(a) ∝ a^3 n(a), but the y-axis label reads ζ(a)/ζd,0(a); please clarify whether the plotted quantity is the surviving mass fraction or the normalized size distribution.
[Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'the value ysn ∼ 0.1 M⊙ would be a too optimistic' should be 'would be too optimistic'.
[Eq. (3.19)] Please state explicitly that the grain radius a in Eq. (3.19) is in centimeters, since earlier expressions use a0.1 = a/0.1 μm.
[Sec. 3.2.6] The opening sentence says 'small dust particles a <~ 0.3 μm are destroyed within t ~ τc', but Fig. 8 shows that at t ~ τc the 0.3 μm grains retain a substantial fraction; consider changing to 'a <~ 0.1 μm' for consistency with the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survival fraction is a computed model output, and the key timing premise is openly conditional rather than hidden or fitted to the target data.

full rationale

The paper's central scenario is that dust formed in SN ejecta can cool the post-reverse-shock gas faster than sputtering destroys it, allowing thermal-instability clumps to shield grains. This is implemented as a numerical integration of coupled equations for gas temperature and grain size (Eqs. 3.16-3.18), using sputtering rates from Draine & Salpeter (1979) and dust cooling from Dwek (1987). The survival fractions in Figs. 8-12 are outputs of that integration for specified initial temperatures and dust-to-gas ratios, not results enforced by construction. The target observation A1689-zD1 is used only to motivate the required SN dust yield (Sec. 2.1); no parameter is fitted to that galaxy or to the z>5 super-dusty sample. The paper explicitly recognizes the conditional nature of its result: Sec. 3.2.7 states that survival 'critically depends on the initial thermal state of the gas', and Sec. 4 reports survival only for the early pre-Sedov-Taylor regime with T_ps ~ 10^7 K, while noting that hotter reverse-shock regions with T_rs > 3x10^7 K destroy dust more efficiently. The timing premise (T_rs <~ 10^7 K before the Sedov-Taylor stage) is taken from McKee & Truelove and Truelove & McKee (refs. [65,101]), not from a self-citation, and the absence of a full reverse-shock propagation calculation is a robustness gap rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations such as [104]-[106] are used for the numerical method and for prior simulations, not as the load-bearing justification of the central claim. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed prediction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no significant circularity.

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

The model's inputs are standard dust cooling (Dwek 1987), sputtering rates (Draine and Salpeter), and textbook thermal-instability theory, but the survival outcome is controlled by chosen initial conditions: post-shock temperature Trs (10^7 to 10^8 K), dust-to-gas ratio zeta_d,0 (1 to 5 times the Milky Way value), density n0 = 10^8 cm^-3, perturbation amplitude and spectrum, and grain size distribution. No new physical entities are introduced. The stated mapping zeta_d,0 = ysn/Mej is internally inconsistent by a factor of two for the quoted 0.6 solar mass example, since zeta_d,0 = 0.03 with Mej = 10 solar masses gives ysn = 0.3 solar masses.

free parameters (5)

Post-shock gas temperature Trs = 10^7 K (favorable), 3x10^7 K, 10^8 K
Initial temperature behind the reverse shock; the survival regime (Sec. 3.2.7, Figs. 10-12) is obtained for the lowest value, while the self-consistent calculation at 10^8 K destroys most dust.
Ejecta dust-to-gas ratio zeta_d,0 = 0.01 to 0.05 (1 to 5 times the Milky Way value)
Normalizes the dust cooling function (Eq. 3.11) via zeta_d,0 = ysn/Mej; the survival fraction rises steeply with zeta_d,0 (Figs. 11-12), so the favorable outcome is tied to the largest adopted values.
Initial gas density n0 = 10^8 cm^-3
Set to the nucleation density nnuc (Eq. A.4); the cooling-to-sputtering timescale ratio scales with density, so this choice strongly influences the survival result.
Perturbation amplitude sigma = 0.1 to 0.2 (lognormal, isobaric)
Amplitude of the density and temperature perturbation field (Sec. 3.2.4); larger sigma keeps the gas hotter for longer and increases dust destruction.
Dust size distribution parameters (p, a1, a2) = p = 2.5 to 4.5, a = 0.0003 to 0.3 microns (MRN-like)
Controls the shape of the dust cooling function (Fig. 1) and which grain sizes survive (Fig. 8); steeper p gives faster cooling and faster destruction of small grains.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Dust cooling dominates gas cooling at T > 3x10^5 K, with the rate given by Dwek (1987).
The entire mechanism rests on the dust cooling function (Eq. 3.10, Fig. 1) being stronger than atomic line cooling at the relevant temperatures; taken from ref. [28] without re-derivation.
standard math Thermal instability criterion for isobaric perturbations in a medium with cooling index alpha < 2 (Eqs. 3.3-3.9).
Standard Field (1965) instability analysis applied with a power-law cooling function; this is the analytical backbone of the clump-formation argument.
domain assumption Dust grains are collisionally coupled to the gas, with stopping time tau_st ~ 10^3 s much shorter than the cooling and crossing times.
Used in Sec. 3.2.3 to justify treating dust as a co-moving fluid; the estimate applies to grains with a <= 0.3 microns in gas of density 10^8 cm^-3 and temperature 10^8 K.
domain assumption Before the Sedov-Taylor stage the reverse shock temperature is Trs <~ 10^7 K (Eq. A.9).
The favorable survival regime of Sec. 3.2.7 requires this early-phase value; at later times Trs >= 7x10^7 K (Eq. A.10) and the paper's own calculations show much stronger destruction.
ad hoc to paper The ejecta is a uniform medium with n ~ 10^8 cm^-3 when the reverse shock hits, with imposed isobaric perturbations.
The idealized box model of Sec. 3.2.2 neglects the density stratification and dynamics of the expanding ejecta and of the reverse shock itself, which are not modeled self-consistently.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survival of dust in super-dusty galaxies at redshifts $z \approx 5-8$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUHZ6TEH

@misc{pith2026250605591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survival of dust in super-dusty galaxies at redshifts $z \approx 5-8$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUHZ6TEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05591}
}

abstract

The presence of dust in galaxies at redshifts $z>5$ is commonly connected with core collapse supernovae (SN). Galaxies with exceptionally large dust mass, of order of $1 - 3$\% of the galaxy stellar mass, have been detected during the last decade. The required SN dust yield is $\gtrsim 1~M_\odot$ per supernova, which is comparable to the theoretically predicted maximum. However, the reverse shock (RS) penetrating the SN ejecta significantly destroy the dust particles nucleating there through sputtering. The resulting net dust mass injected into the interstellar gas after processing by the RS turns out to be $\lesssim 0.1~M_\odot$ per SN. This makes the explanation of the existence of $z>5$ galaxies with dust masses as high as $M_d\gtrsim (0.01-0.03)M_\ast$ a challenging one. In this paper we present arguments in favor of an efficient inhibition of the sputtering behind the RS, caused by a strong radiation cooling from the dust in the supernova ejecta.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

The influence of dust destruction on gas cooling
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Dust cooling can shorten post-shock gas cooling times by about a factor of two, but thermal sputtering destroys most grains above 3×10^6 K; survival reaches only ~20% for flat distributions at solar metallicity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

B., Casey, C

Akins H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al., 2023, ApJ, 956, 61

2023
[2]

T., Hewitt J

Andersen M., Rho J., Reach W. T., Hewitt J. W., Bernard J. P ., 2011, ApJ, 742, 7

2011
[3]

S., Takeuchi T

Asano R. S., Takeuchi T. T., Hirashita H., Inoue A. K., 201 3, Earth, Planets and Space , 65, 213
[4]

J., Williams I

Baines M. J., Williams I. P., Asebiomo A. S., 1965, MNRAS, 130, 63 – 25 –

1965
[5]

Bakx T. J. L. C., Tamura, Y., Hashimoto, T., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4294

2020
[6]

Bakx T. J. L. C., Sommovigo, L., Carniani, S., et al., 2021 , MNRAS, 508, L58

2021
[7]

Bianchi S., Schneider R., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 973

2007
[8]

Bocchio, M., Marassi S., Schneider R., 2022, A&A, 587, A157 Bocchio, M.; Marassi, S.; Schneider, R

2022

Show all 111 references

[9]

S., Stangl S

Brooker E. S., Stangl S. M., Mauney C. M., Fryer C. L., 2022 , ApJ, 931, 85

2022
[10]

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

2024
[11]

Ceccarelli C., Viti S., Balucani N., Taquet V., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1371

2018
[12]

2018, MNRAS, 483, 70

Chawner, H., Marsh, K., Matsuura, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 483, 70

2018
[13]

Chemerynska I., Atek, H., Dayal, P., et al., 2024, ApJ, 976, L15

2024
[14]

Cherchneﬀ I., Dwek E., 2009, ApJ, 703, 642

2009
[15]

Cherchneﬀ I., Dwek E., 2010, ApJ, 713, 1

2010
[16]

R., Salim S., Kereš D., et al., 2024a, arXiv e-prints , p

Choban C. R., Salim S., Kereš D., et al., 2024a, arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2408.08962

arXiv
[17]

R., Kereš D., Sandstrom K

Choban C. R., Kereš D., Sandstrom K. M., et al., 2024b, MNRAS, 529, 2356
[18]

Clark C. J. R., Roman-Duval J. C., Gordon K. D., et al., 20 23, ApJ, 946, 42
[19]

373, Resolving the Rise and Fall of Star Formation in Galaxies

da Cunha E., 2023, in Wong T., Kim W.-T., eds, IAU Symposi um Vol. 373, Resolving the Rise and Fall of Star Formation in Galaxies. pp 215–224 ( arXiv:2211.00850), doi:10.1017/S1743921322003866

2023 arXiv
[20]

C., Birnboim Y., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201

Dekel A., Sarkar K. C., Birnboim Y., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201

2023
[21]

J., Swinyard B

De Looze I., Barlow M. J., Swinyard B. M., et al.., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3309

2017
[22]

Donevski D., Lapi, A., Małek, K., et al., 2020, A&A, 644, A144

2020
[23]

T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Inte rgalactic Medium

Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Inte rgalactic Medium. Princeton University Press

2011
[24]

T., Salpeter E

Draine B. T., Salpeter E. E., 1979, ApJ, 231, 77

1979
[25]

A., Edmunds M

Dunne L., Eales S. A., Edmunds M. G., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 589

2003
[26]

J., Ivison, R

Dunne L., Maddox, S. J., Ivison, R. J., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1307

2009
[27]

V., 2023, Galaxies, 11, 78

Dwarkadas V. V., 2023, Galaxies, 11, 78

2023
[28]

Dwek E., 1987, ApJ, 322, 812

1987
[29]

P., 2007, ApJ, 662, 927

Dwek E., Galliano F., Jones A. P., 2007, ApJ, 662, 927

2007
[30]

J., 2015, ApJ, 810, 75

Dwek E., Arendt R. J., 2015, ApJ, 810, 75

2015
[31]

G., 2019, ApJ, 871, L33

Dwek E., Sarangi A., Arendt R. G., 2019, ApJ, 871, L33

2019
[32]

Ferrara A., 2024, A&A, 689, A310

2024
[33]

Ferrara A., Shchekinov Y., 1993, ApJ, 417, 595

1993
[34]

Ferrara A., Viti S., Ceccarelli C., 2016, MNRAS, 463, L112

2016
[35]

Ferrara A., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 58

2022
[36]

B., 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

Field G. B., 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

1965
[37]

A., Schouws, S., et al., 2021, Nature, 597, 489

Fudamoto Y., Oesch, P. A., Schouws, S., et al., 2021, Nature, 597, 489

2021
[38]

C., 2011a, A&A Rev

Gall C., Hjorth J., Andersen A. C., 2011a, A&A Rev. , 19, 43
[39]

C., Hjorth J., 2011b, A&A, 528, A14 – 26 –

Gall C., Andersen A. C., Hjorth J., 2011b, A&A, 528, A14 – 26 –
[40]

P., 2018, ARA&A, 56, 673

Galliano F., Galametz M., Jones A. P., 2018, ARA&A, 56, 673

2018
[41]

L., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 531, 945

Glazer K., Bradˇ ac, M., Sanders, R. L., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 531, 945

2023
[42]

B., Sharma P., Shchekinov Y., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4532

Gupta S., Nath B. B., Sharma P., Shchekinov Y., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4532

2016
[43]

Haid S., Walch S., Seifried D., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799

2018
[44]

Hashimoto T., Inoue, Akio K., Mawatari, K., et al., 2019 , PASJ, 71, 71

2019
[45]

Hashimoto T., Álvarez-Márquez, J., Fudamoto, Y., et al ., 2023, ApJ, 955, L2

2023
[46]

Hirashita H., Ferrara A., Dayal P., Ouchi M., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1704

2014
[47]

Hosokawa T., Inutsuka S.-i., 2006, ApJ, 646, 240

2006
[48]

Killi M., Watson, D., Fujimoto, S., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2526

2023
[49]

D., Barlow, M

Kirchschlager, F., Schmidt, F. D., Barlow, M. J., et al. , 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4465

2019
[50]

D., Barlow, M

Kirchschlager, F., Schmidt, F. D., Barlow, M. J., et al. , 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5042

2023
[51]

S., De Looze, I., et al

Kirchschlager, F., Sartorio, N. S., De Looze, I., et al. , 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5364

2024
[52]

Konstantopoulou C., De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., et al., 2024 , A&A, 681, A64

2024
[53]

, 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5686

Kourniotis M., Wünsch R., Martínez-González S., et al. , 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5686

2023
[54]

S., Boone, F., et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, L21

Laporte N., Ellis, R. S., Boone, F., et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, L21

2017
[55]

Lazzati D., Heger A., 2016, ApJ, 817, 134

2016
[56]

J., 2019, A&A, 624, L13

Leśniewska A., Michałowski M. J., 2019, A&A, 624, L13

2019
[57]

M., Austin P

Lewis G. M., Austin P. H., 2002, in 11th Conference on Atm ospheric Radiation, American Meteorological Society Conference Series, eds. G. Smith, a nd J. Brodie, pp 1–4

2002
[58]

Liao C.-L., Chen, C.-C., Wang, W.-H., et al., 2024, ApJ, 961, 226

2024
[59]

J., 2001, ApJ, 555, 92

Madau P., Ferrara A., Rees M. J., 2001, ApJ, 555, 92

2001
[60]

Maiolino R., Schneider R., Oliva E., et al., 2004, Nature, 431, 533

2004
[61]

Marassi S., Schneider R., Limongi M., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4250

2015
[62]

Marassi S., Schneider R., Limongi M., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2587

2019
[63]

P., Spilker, J

Marrone D. P., Spilker, J. S., Hayward, C. C., et al., 201 8, Nature, 553, 51
[64]

J., et al., 2015, ApJ, 800, 50

Matsuura M., Dwek, E., Barlow, M. J., et al., 2015, ApJ, 800, 50

2015
[65]

F., Truelove J

McKee C. F., Truelove J. K., 1995, Phys. Rep. , 256, 157

1995
[66]

R., Matsuura M., Sarangi A., 2018, Space Sc

Micelotta E. R., Matsuura M., Sarangi A., 2018, Space Sc. Rev. , 214, 53

2018
[67]

J., Murphy E

Michałowski M. J., Murphy E. J., Hjorth J., et al., 2010, A&A, 522, A15

2010
[68]

A., 2013, ApJ, 772, 134

Milisavljevic, D., Fesen, R. A., 2013, ApJ, 772, 134

2013
[69]

Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al., 2024 , ApJ, 955, 27

2024
[70]

L., Edmunds M

Morgan H. L., Edmunds M. G., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 427

2003
[71]

arXiv:2312.15998

Nanni A., Cristallo S., Donevski D., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2312.15998

2023 arXiv
[72]

Narayanan D., Lower, S., Torrey, P., et al., 2024, ApJ, 961, 73

2024
[73]

B., Laskar T., Shull J

Nath B. B., Laskar T., Shull J. M., 2008, ApJ, 682, 1055

2008
[74]

J., Bevan, A., et al., 2 022, MNRAS, 515, 430

Niculescu-Duvaz, M., Barlow, M. J., Bevan, A., et al., 2 022, MNRAS, 515, 430
[75]

Nozawa T., Kozasa T., Habe A., et al., 2007, ApJ, 666, 955

2007
[76]

Palla M., De Looze, I., Relaño, M., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2407 – 27 –

2024
[77]

C., 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4852

Péroux C., De Cia A., Howk J. C., 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4852

2023
[78]

L., Garuda, N., et al., 2024, A&A, 690, A285

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

2024
[79]

S., Galametz M., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3152

Popping G., Somerville R. S., Galametz M., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3152

2017
[80]

L., et al., 2023, A&A, 670, A138

Popping G., Shivaei, I., Sanders, R. L., et al., 2023, A&A, 670, A138

2023
[81]

D., Arias, M

Priestley F. D., Arias, M. Barlow, M. J. De Looze, I., 202 3, MNRAS, 509, 3163
[82]

C., Galliano, F., et al., 2014 , A&A, 563, A31

Rémy-Ruyer A., Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., et al., 2014 , A&A, 563, A31

2014
[83]

Rho J., Park, S.-H., Arendt, R., et al., 2024, ApJ, 969, L9

2024
[84]

A., Bradford, C

Riechers D. A., Bradford, C. M., Clements, D. L., et al., 2013, Nature, 496, 329

2013
[85]

A., Hodge, J

Riechers D. A., Hodge, J. A., Pavesi, R., et al., 2020, ApJ, 895, 81

2020
[86]

L., Dunne L., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1040

Rowlands K., Gomez H. L., Dunne L., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1040

2014
[87]

Sarangi A., Cherchneﬀ I., 2013, ApJ, 776, 107

2013
[88]

Sarangi A., Cherchneﬀ I., 2015, A&A, 575, A95

2015
[89]

Schneider R., Maiolino R., 2024, A&A Rev. , 32, 2

2024
[90]

Y., Koo B.-C., Hirashita H., 2015, ApJ, 807, 100

Seok J. Y., Koo B.-C., Hirashita H., 2015, ApJ, 807, 100

2015
[91]

D., Dwek E., Mac Low M.-M., Hill A

Slavin J. D., Dwek E., Mac Low M.-M., Hill A. S., 2020, ApJ, 902, 135

2020
[92]

H., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5580

Sluder A., Milosavljević M., Montgomery M. H., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5580

2018
[93]

K., Krzewina L

Smith R. K., Krzewina L. G., Cox D. P., et al., 1996, ApJ, 473, 864

1996
[94]

Sommovigo L., Ferrara A., Pallottini A., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 497, 956

2020
[95]

A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York: Wiley, doi:10.1002/9783527617722

Spitzer L., 1978, Physical processes in the interstell ar medium. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York: Wiley, doi:10.1002/9783527617722

1978 doi
[96]

Szalai T., Vinkó J., 2013, A&A, 549, A79

2013
[97]

L., Bagley, M., et al., 20 22, ApJ, 927, 170

Tacchella S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al., 20 22, ApJ, 927, 170
[98]

Tamura Y., Mawatari, K., Hashimoto, T., et al., 2019, ApJ, 874, 27

2019
[99]

M., Krafton, K., et al., 2019 , ApJ, 873, 127

Tinyanont S., Kasliwal, M. M., Krafton, K., et al., 2019 , ApJ, 873, 127

2019
[100]

Todini P., Ferrara A., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 726

2001
[101]

K., McKee C

Truelove J. K., McKee C. F., 1999, ApJS, 120, 299

1999
[102]

C., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1661

Valiante R., Schneider R., Bianchi S., Andersen A. C., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1661

2009
[103]

Valiante R., Schneider R., Salvadori S., Bianchi S., 2 011, MNRAS, 416, 1916

1916
[104]

O., Shchekinov Y

Vasiliev E. O., Shchekinov Y. A., 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8755

2024
[105]

O., Nath B

Vasiliev E. O., Nath B. B., Shchekinov Y., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1703

2015
[106]

O., Shchekinov Y

Vasiliev E. O., Shchekinov Y. A., Nath B. B., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2757

2017
[107]

Wang F., Wang R., Fan X., et al., 2019, ApJ, 880, 2

2019
[108]

K., et al., 2015, Nature, 519, 327

Watson D., Christensen L., Knudsen K. K., et al., 2015, Nature, 519, 327

2015
[109]

J., Matsuura, M

Wesson, R., Barlow, M. J., Matsuura, M. & Ercolano, B., 2015, ApJ, 446, 2089

2015
[110]

Witstok J., Shivaei, I., Smit, R., et al., 2023, Nature, 621, 267

2023
[111]

P., Trieloﬀ M., 2008, A&A, 479, 453 – 28 –

Zhukovska S., Gail H. P., Trieloﬀ M., 2008, A&A, 479, 453 – 28 –

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

B., Casey, C

Akins H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al., 2023, ApJ, 956, 61

2023

[2] [2]

T., Hewitt J

Andersen M., Rho J., Reach W. T., Hewitt J. W., Bernard J. P ., 2011, ApJ, 742, 7

2011

[3] [3]

S., Takeuchi T

Asano R. S., Takeuchi T. T., Hirashita H., Inoue A. K., 201 3, Earth, Planets and Space , 65, 213

[4] [4]

J., Williams I

Baines M. J., Williams I. P., Asebiomo A. S., 1965, MNRAS, 130, 63 – 25 –

1965

[5] [5]

Bakx T. J. L. C., Tamura, Y., Hashimoto, T., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4294

2020

[6] [6]

Bakx T. J. L. C., Sommovigo, L., Carniani, S., et al., 2021 , MNRAS, 508, L58

2021

[7] [7]

Bianchi S., Schneider R., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 973

2007

[8] [8]

Bocchio, M., Marassi S., Schneider R., 2022, A&A, 587, A157 Bocchio, M.; Marassi, S.; Schneider, R

2022