Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Cold gas in a post-starburst pair at z ~ 1.4: major mergers as a pathway to quenching in the HeavyMetal survey

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At z~1.4, a merging pair of post-starburst galaxies retains molecular gas, suggesting mergers can quench galaxies without removing their cold fuel.

desk verdict Solid new ALMA detection in a z~1.4 post-starburst pair, but the 'no correlation' claim overreaches the data and rests on model-dependent ages. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14361 v1 pith:5IL4Q24X submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.GA

Katherine A. Suess , Aliza G. Beverage , Mariska Kriek , Justin S. Spilker , Rachel Bezanson , Vincenzo R. D'Onofrio , Jenny E. Greene , Jamie Lin
show 7 more authors
Yuanze Luo Desika Narayanan Imad Pasha Sedona H. Price David J. Setton Margaret E. Verrico Yunchong Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords post-starburstgalaxiesmoleculargasgalaxymergersquenchinghigh-redshiftALMACO(2-1)starformationefficiencyHeavyMetalsurvey
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 tries to establish that molecular gas can survive in quenched galaxies at the peak epoch of quenching, and that major mergers may be the reason. The authors present ALMA CO(2-1) observations of five spectroscopically confirmed post-starburst galaxies at $z\sim1.4$ from the HeavyMetal survey; four are undetected, but one system, a close pair of massive post-starburst galaxies, is detected with $M_{\rm H_2}\sim10^{9.7}\,M_\odot$. The pair shows no tidal features and is likely an early-stage major merger. The paper argues that this system is a case where merger-driven turbulence suppresses star formation while preserving cold gas, and reports that, unlike at $z<1$, there is no correlation between molecular gas mass and time since quenching. If correct, this points to mergers rather than post-burst age as the key factor controlling gas retention in high-redshift quiescent galaxies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the molecular gas reservoir traced by ALMA CO(2-1) emission, converted to $M_{\rm H_2}$ assuming thermalized emission and a Milky Way-like $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.0$. The argument is carried by comparing this gas mass against the post-burst age $t_{\rm quench}$ derived from full spectral energy distribution fitting with Prospector, using a non-parametric post-starburst star-formation history. The paper also uses UVJ colors as a light-weighted age indicator ($t_{50}$) and finds a discrepancy between the two age scales for the HeavyMetal and SQuIGGLE samples. The merger interpretation rests on HST imaging and the serendipitous Keck spectrum of UVISTA-214345, which establish a close pair with no tidal features and a small projected separation, and on the modeled star-formation history showing a recent burst that ended $\sim500$--$600$ Myr ago.

What would settle it

CO(2-1) observations of a larger sample of $z\sim1.4$ post-starburst galaxies with spectroscopically measured $t_{\rm quench}<150$ Myr would test the claim: if such young systems are uniformly gas-poor, the age-gas trend actually persists at high redshift; if they are gas-rich, the trend holds and the HeavyMetal non-detections reflect older ages.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is a single detection: the CO(2-1) line is detected at $\sim5\sigma$ in the HM1-214340/UVISTA-214345 system, a spectroscopically confirmed pair of massive ($M_*\sim10^{11.1-11.2}\,M_\odot$) post-starburst galaxies at $z=1.418$ and $1.421$ separated by $\sim15$ kpc and $\sim300$ km/s, with no clear tidal features. The inferred molecular gas mass is $\sim10^{9.74}\,M_\odot$, a gas fraction of about 4%, and the best two-component fit places at least $\sim80$% of the CO flux on UVISTA-214345. The paper interprets this as an early-stage major merger in which both members have already quenched, contrary to the usual picture that star formation is enhanced during the close-pair phase. It then uses the full five-galaxy sample to show that the low-redshift correlation between gas mass and time since quenching (Bezanson et al. 2022; French et al. 2018) is not reproduced at $z\sim1.4$: the detected pair has $t_{\rm quench}\sim600$ Myr, similar to the non-detected systems. This leads to the claim that at high redshift, mergers may be the primary driver of whether a quenched galaxy retains molecular gas, possibly by injecting turbulence that lowers star formation efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Prospector post-burst ages ($t_{\rm quench}$) are reliable and directly comparable across the SQuIGGLE and HeavyMetal samples; if those model ages shift, the claimed absence of a gas-age correlation at $z\sim1.4$ disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $z\sim1.4$, quenched galaxies can retain molecular gas fractions comparable to some star-forming galaxies, so quiescence does not require complete removal of cold gas.
  • The absence of a gas-age correlation at $z\sim1.4$ means the simple 'young and gas-rich, old and gas-poor' picture established at $z<1$ does not extend unchanged to the peak quenching epoch.
  • If mergers are the key retention channel, samples of post-starburst galaxies with merger features should show higher CO detection rates than isolated post-starbursts.
  • Young UVJ-selected samples may be systematically older in $t_{\rm quench}$ than their colors imply, which affects the interpretation of any UVJ-selected high-redshift quiescent sample.
  • The detected pair's depletion time of $\sim1$ Gyr is similar to star-forming galaxies, so the gas could reignite star formation as the merger proceeds, meaning this system may not end as a typical gas-poor remnant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The merger-turbulence explanation predicts that the CO line width of the detected system should be broader, or its star formation efficiency lower, than in isolated post-starbursts of the same mass; this could be tested by comparing high-resolution CO kinematics with SFR limits in a larger sample.
  • The $t_{50}/t_{\rm quench}$ discrepancy suggests that UVJ-color age estimates may systematically understate the true post-burst ages of dusty high-redshift galaxies; re-fitting existing $z>1$ quiescent samples with full spectroscopic modeling could change the inferred gas-age relation.
  • If mergers quench while preserving gas, some of the apparently quiescent massive galaxies at cosmic noon may have recently passed through a gas-rich, low-star-formation phase; deep ALMA observations of close pairs of quiescent galaxies could reveal more such systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ALMA CO(2-1) observations of five spectroscopically confirmed post-starburst galaxies at z~1.4 from the HeavyMetal survey. One system, HM1-214340, is detected at ~5σ with M_H2 ≈ 10^9.74 M_sun; this system is a close pair of two massive post-starburst galaxies (HM1-214340 and UVISTA-214345) separated by ~15 kpc and ~300 km/s, likely in the early stages of a major merger. The other four galaxies are undetected, with 3σ upper limits of log M_H2 < 9.6-10.0. The authors argue that, unlike at z<1, there is no correlation between molecular gas mass and time since quenching, possibly because the HeavyMetal galaxies have older post-burst ages (t_quench > 500 Myr) than typical gas-rich low-redshift post-starbursts. They suggest that major mergers may quench galaxies while allowing them to retain molecular gas, perhaps through turbulence-driven decreases in star formation efficiency.

Significance. The measurement is a valuable addition to the small sample of molecular gas observations in quiescent galaxies at z>1. The ~5σ CO(2-1) detection in a pair of massive post-starbursts is robust, and the upper limits are conservatively derived (800 km/s extraction, 3σ). The paper is careful in describing the data reduction and the model dependence of the ages, and it explicitly discusses the discrepancy between UVJ-based t50 and Prospector-based t_quench. The identification of a gas-rich, early-stage major merger among the quiescent population is interesting and will motivate follow-up work. However, the statistical and systematic limitations of the sample mean that the headline 'no correlation' and the 'older than typical' explanation are not firmly established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 / Figure 4 (right) and abstract] The statement in the abstract that 'we find no correlation between molecular gas mass and time since quenching' is not supported by the data. The sample consists of one detection and four upper limits, all at t_quench > 500 Myr, so the data cannot distinguish a correlation from its absence. The four non-detections are consistent with the low-redshift trend (gas-poor at t_quench > 150 Myr), and the only evidence against the trend is the single detection at t_quench ~ 600 Myr. Please rephrase the claim to reflect that the data are consistent with a lack of correlation but do not provide a meaningful correlation test, or that the detected system appears as an outlier rather than a demonstration of no correlation.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 4 (age scale)] The conclusion that the HeavyMetal galaxies are older than typical gas-rich low-redshift post-starbursts, and hence that the age-gas trend is absent at z~1.4, rests entirely on the Prospector-derived t_quench ages. The paper itself demonstrates that UVJ-based t50 ages are consistent between SQuIGGLE and HeavyMetal while the Prospector t_quench values differ by ~400 Myr, with the authors attributing the offset to differences in the old-star fraction. If the t_quench values are systematically overestimated by ~400 Myr, the detected system would have t_quench ~ 200 Myr, placing it in the gas-rich regime of the low-z trend and eliminating the reported discrepancy. Because the age scale is the load-bearing element for both the 'no correlation' and 'older than typical' statements, please explicitly test the robustness of the conclusion to the choice of age indicator (e.g., by showing the same relation with t50) or state clearly that this result is contingent on the Prospector model. As written, the abstract overstates the certainty of a result that depends on a model-dependent age scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'UVISTA-214340' but the text and labels use 'HM1-214340' for the primary target; please correct the caption to 'HM1-214340'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption lists 'HM2-57702' as one of the undetected targets; this should be 'HM2-25702'.
  3. [Section 4] The quantity A/(A+K)~0.6 is introduced without definition; please define the terms or rephrase the sentence for clarity.
  4. [References] Carnall et al. 2024b is listed with the same journal, volume, and page as Carnall et al. 2024a; please correct the bibliographic details.
  5. [Abstract and text] Expressions such as 'MH2 ∼10 9.7 M⊙' have spacing and superscript issues; please use consistent LaTeX notation (e.g., $M_{\rm H_2} \sim 10^{9.7}\,M_\odot$).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CO detection and gas masses are empirical, and the Prospector t_quench ages are independent model outputs that the paper explicitly scrutinizes.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an ALMA CO(2-1) measurement of five post-starburst galaxies, yielding one detection. Molecular gas masses are derived from measured line fluxes using standard assumptions (r21 = 1.0, alpha_CO = 4.0), not from any parameter fitted to the quenching hypothesis. The comparison between gas mass and time since quenching uses Prospector t_quench ages, but those ages are outputs of an SED fit with a non-parametric post-starburst prior from the authors' prior work; the gas-mass measurements are not constructed from those ages, and the paper openly discusses the t50/t_quench discrepancy and warns that UVJ colors and Prospector ages give different conclusions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no target result is assumed into the inputs, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own definition. The model dependence of t_quench flagged by the skeptic is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central conclusions rest on adopted conversion factors (alpha_CO, r21), on model assumptions in the SED fitting that set t_quench, and on the interpretation of the close pair as a merger with the CO flux coming mostly from one component. The paper states most of these assumptions explicitly, but none of them are independently verified for this specific sample.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_CO (Milky Way CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 4.0 solar masses per (K km/s pc^2)
    Adopted from Bolatto et al. 2013 to convert CO(2-1) flux to molecular gas mass; not measured for these galaxies. All reported M_H2 values scale linearly with this choice.
  • r21 (CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) line ratio) = 1.0
    Assumed thermalized emission following Combes et al. 2007 and others; directly sets the CO(2-1)-to-CO(1-0) conversion and thus M_H2.
  • Prospector SED model parameters (dust normalization, dust index, ionization parameter, SFH weights) = Posterior values not tabulated
    Fit to UltraVISTA photometry and Keck spectroscopy; the resulting t_quench values drive the age comparison that is central to the no-correlation claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CO(2-1) luminosity traces molecular gas mass with r21=1.0 and alpha_CO=4.0
    Conversion factors from the literature, not measured for these galaxies; all gas masses and fractions scale with them.
  • domain assumption Prospector non-parametric post-starburst SFH yields accurate t_quench ages
    The no-correlation result and the claim that HeavyMetal PSBs are older than SQuIGGLE PSBs rest on these model ages. The paper itself highlights that UVJ colors imply similar t50 ages, so the ages are model dependent.
  • domain assumption HM1-214340 and UVISTA-214345 are physically associated in an early-stage major merger
    Projected separation ~15 kpc, velocity separation ~300 km/s, and absence of tidal features are used to infer a merger; the paper acknowledges that unrelated quenching cannot be ruled out.
  • domain assumption The CO flux originates primarily from UVISTA-214345 rather than HM1-214340 or the F814W clumps
    Two-component Gaussian fit places ~80% on UVISTA-214345, but the 2.4 arcsec beam is larger than the 1.76 arcsec pair separation and small offset clumps are not conclusively ruled out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cold gas in a post-starburst pair at z ~ 1.4: major mergers as a pathway to quenching in the HeavyMetal survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IL4Q24X

@misc{pith2026250614361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cold gas in a post-starburst pair at z ~ 1.4: major mergers as a pathway to quenching in the HeavyMetal survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IL4Q24X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14361}
}
read the original abstract

Recent observations at low redshift have revealed that some post-starburst galaxies retain significant molecular gas reservoirs despite low ongoing star formation rates, challenging theoretical predictions for galaxy quenching. To test whether this finding holds during the peak epoch of quenching, here we present ALMA CO(2-1) observations of five spectroscopically confirmed post-starburst galaxies at z ~ 1.4 from the HeavyMetal survey. While four galaxies are undetected in CO emission, we detect M_H2 ~ 10^9.7 Msun of molecular gas in one system. The detected system is a close pair of massive (M* = 10^(11.1-11.2) Msun) post-starburst galaxies with no clear tidal features, likely caught in the early stages of a major merger. These results suggest that mergers may be a key factor in retaining molecular gas while simultaneously suppressing star formation in quenched galaxies at high redshift, possibly by driving increased turbulence that decreases star formation efficiency. Unlike previous studies at z < 1, we find no correlation between molecular gas mass and time since quenching. This may be explained by the fact that -- despite having similar UVJ colors -- all galaxies in our sample have post-burst ages older than typical gas-rich quenched systems at low redshift. Our results highlight the importance of major mergers in shaping the cold gas content of quiescent galaxies during the peak epoch of quenching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UVJ diagram for our sample of young post￾starburst galaxies at z ∼ 1.4 (red stars; red circle for HM1- 214340 and red circle with black outline for serendipitously￾observed UVISTA-214345) as well as existing measurements of molecular gas in quiescent galaxies at z > 1 (Williams et al. 2021; Bezanson et al. 2019; Belli et al. 2021; Sargent et al. 2015; Zanella et al. 2023) and z ∼ 0.7 (SQuIGGL⃗E; Bezanson et al. 2022… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top center/right: LRIS and MOSFIRE spectra of UVISTA-214340 (blue) and UVISTA-214345 (red). Left: SEDs and best-fit Prospector models to UVISTA-214340 and UVISTA-214345. Bottom center: CO(2-1) spectrum and moment 0 map of our detection. Bottom right: ALMA contours (3σ, 4σ, 5σ) overlaid on the F814W image of the region. Both galaxies are spectroscopically confirmed massive post-starburst galaxies at the same redshift… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Non-detections of our primary HeavyMetal targets. Left: ALMA CO(2-1) spectra extracted at the position and redshift of our target. Center: CO(2-1) line map; white “x” at the center shows the position of our target. Right: HST-F160W images with CO contours overlaid (3σ, 4σ, 5σ). No sources are detected in the cubes for HM2-23351 or HM2-57702. In the HM-213947 cube we serendipitously detect UVISTA-214044 at z ∼ 1.4; i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: star formation rate as a function of molecular gas mass for a sample of star-forming galaxies at z ∼ 0.5 − 1.5 (PHIBSS & PHIBSS-2; Tacconi et al. 2013; Freundlich et al. 2019; grey contours) and quiescent galaxies at z > 1 (colored points). SFRs for our sample ar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. ALMA reveals diverse dust-to-gas mass ratios and quenching modes in old quiescent galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA observations of 17 quiescent galaxies at z~0.4 show dust-to-molecular-gas ratios spanning roughly 1/700 to 1/40, implying independent dust and gas evolution after quenching.

  2. SQuIGG$\vec{L}$E: Buried star formation cannot explain the rapidly fading CO(2-1) luminosity in massive, $z\sim0.7$ post-starburst galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Buried star formation cannot explain the rapid CO fading in z~0.7 post-starburst galaxies, so gas-rich recently quenched galaxies may rejuvenate instead of directly becoming quiescent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca294 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Antwi-Danso, J., Papovich, C., Leja, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca294 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca294 2023

  2. [2]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 660, doi: 10.1086/308392

    doi:10.1086/308392 2000

  3. [3]

    B., & Ellis, R

    Belli, S., Newman, A. B., & Ellis, R. S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  4. [4]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    Belli, S., Contursi, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6 2021

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Belli, S., Park, M., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 2024

  6. [6]

    The Heavy Metal Survey: The Evolution of Stellar Metallicities, Abundance Ratios, and Ages of Massive Quiescent Galaxies Since z~2

    Beverage, A. G., Kriek, M., Suess, K. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.05307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.05307

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.05307 2023

  7. [7]

    C., et al

    Bezanson, R., Spilker, J., Williams, C. C., et al. 2019, ApJL, 873, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9c 2019

  8. [8]

    S., Suess, K

    Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa 2022

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Kriek, M., Beverage, A

    Cheng, C. M., Kriek, M., Beverage, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08858

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Bureau, M

    Combes, F., Young, L. M., & Bureau, M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1795, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11759.x

    2007

  8. [16]

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

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    E., & White, M

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

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    A., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Daddi, E., Riechers, D. A., et al. 2009, ApJL, 698, L178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L178 Dav´ e, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., &

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    2006

  13. [22]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Wild, V., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    L., Huang, Q., Yang, D., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Huang, Q., Yang, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03066 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1120 10Suess et al

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    L., Patton, D

    Ferreira, L., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf004

    2025 doi

  19. [28]

    French, K. D. 2021, PASP, 133, 072001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/1

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A. I., & Tremonti, C. A. 2018, ApJ, 862, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    J., et al

    Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732223

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x

    2005

  24. [33]

    2024, Nature, 628, 277, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9

    Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Schreiber, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 277, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    2008 doi

  26. [35]

    F., Somerville, R

    Hopkins, P. F., Somerville, R. S., Hernquist, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 864, doi: 10.1086/508503

    2006 doi

  27. [36]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.01426. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.01426

    2020 arXiv

  28. [37]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    G., Price, S

    Kriek, M., Beverage, A. G., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df9

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2037

    Lotz, M., Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., & Burkert, A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2037

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G

    Mowla, L. A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    M., Taj Aldeen, L., Wild, V., et al

    Pawlik, M. M., Taj Aldeen, L., Wild, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty589

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    T., Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., et al

    Sargent, M. T., Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., et al. 2015, ApJL, 806, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L20

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7f

    Sazonova, E., Alatalo, K., Rowlands, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7f

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Khullar, G., Miller, T

    Setton, D. J., Khullar, G., Miller, T. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a18

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    C., Setton, D

    Siegel, J. C., Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b7

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    G., et al

    Slob, M., Kriek, M., Beverage, A. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ff

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    T., French, K

    Smercina, A., Smith, J.-D. T., French, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    S., Suess, K

    Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75ea

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    2005, ApJL, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJL, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772

    2005 doi

  49. [58]

    A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J

    Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dc

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Suess, K. A., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 935, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b0

    doi

  51. [60]

    A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 926, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac404a

    doi

  52. [61]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74 van de Voort, F., Davis, T. A., Matsushita, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty228

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    E., Setton, D

    Verrico, M. E., Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc38b

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    2017, Mwaskom/Seaborn: V0.8.1 (September 2017), v0.8.1,

    Waskom, M., Botvinnik, O., O’Kane, D., et al. 2017, Mwaskom/Seaborn: V0.8.1 (September 2017), v0.8.1,

    2017

  55. [64]

    Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.883859

    doi

  56. [65]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    Wellons, S., Torrey, P., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2012a, ApJ, 745, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/179

    doi

  58. [67]

    2012b, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    Franx, M. 2012b, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    doi

  59. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    Wild, V., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1962

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    C., Spilker, J

    Williams, C. C., Spilker, J. S., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcbf6

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Quadri, R

    Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Labb´ e, I. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1879, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879 HeavyMetal + ALMA11

    2009 doi

  63. [72]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    Wu, P.-F., Bezanson, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Bureau, M., Davis, T

    Young, L. M., Bureau, M., Davis, T. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18561.x

    2011

  65. [74]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.08120, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.08120

    Zanella, A., Valentino, F., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.08120, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.08120

    2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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