pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.04212 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

From the Densest Clusters to the Emptiest Voids: No Evidence For Environmental Effects on the Galaxy Size-Mass Relation at Low Redshift

Mohamed H. Abdullah , Nouran E. Abdelhamid , Rasha M. Samir , Gillian Wilson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy size-mass relationenvironmental effectsgalaxy clusterscosmic voidsSDSSlow redshiftgalaxy structurestellar mass
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

The galaxy size-stellar mass relation shows no dependence on environment at fixed mass and type for low-redshift galaxies.

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

The paper examines whether a galaxy's physical size at a given stellar mass varies with its surroundings, comparing the densest galaxy clusters to the emptiest cosmic voids at redshifts below 0.125. Galaxies are sorted by star-formation rate, color, and bulge-to-total ratio to isolate any environmental signal from differences in galaxy type. Across all three tests—cluster versus void, varying cluster mass, and position inside clusters—the relation between size and mass remains the same. This finding matters because it indicates that local density does not reshape galaxy structure once mass and type are accounted for, pointing instead to internal processes as the dominant influence on size at recent cosmic times.

Core claim

The paper finds that galaxies in dense clusters and in voids follow the same size-stellar mass relation once stellar mass and galaxy type are held fixed. No measurable change in the relation appears with cluster mass or with distance from the cluster center to the infall region. Early-type galaxies show steeper slopes than late-type galaxies, but this difference is the same in every environment examined. The lack of environmental variation holds even after correcting for the lower number density of galaxies in voids.

What carries the argument

The size-stellar mass relation (SMR), which links a galaxy's physical radius to its stellar mass, tested for invariance across environments using SDSS photometry and classifications by specific star formation rate, optical color, and bulge-to-total light ratio.

If this is right

  • The size-stellar mass relation can be applied uniformly to low-redshift galaxies without separate environmental corrections.
  • Structural scaling relations are set primarily by internal galaxy processes rather than local density at z less than or equal to 0.125.
  • The steeper slope for early-type galaxies compared with late-type galaxies is a universal feature independent of environment.
  • Models of galaxy evolution need not incorporate environment-dependent size adjustments for the recent universe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Internal mechanisms such as star-formation history likely fix galaxy sizes more strongly than external interactions at low redshift.
  • Similar analyses at higher redshift could reveal whether environmental effects on structure become important at earlier times.
  • Galaxy-formation simulations should be checked to ensure they reproduce this environmental independence of the size-mass relation.

Load-bearing premise

That sorting galaxies by specific star formation rate, color, and bulge-to-total ratio fully removes any environmental imprint from the comparison and that SDSS size and mass measurements remain unbiased across the full range of densities sampled.

What would settle it

Detection of a statistically significant difference in the slope or normalization of the size-stellar mass relation between cluster-core galaxies and void galaxies at fixed stellar mass and type after applying the same classifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04212 by Gillian Wilson, Mohamed H. Abdullah, Nouran E. Abdelhamid, Rasha M. Samir.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of SDSS galaxies in the size–stellar mass plane. Black points represent galaxies located within the 2σ contour (blue solid line). The red dashed line marks log M∗ = 10 [h −2 M⊙] above which we perform the fitting (see Section 3.4). To construct our sample, we extract both photomet￾ric and spectroscopic data from SDSS–DR13 for galaxies that meet the following criteria. We include only objects c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Classification of galaxies. Left panel: Specific star formation rate (sSFR) as a function of stellar mass for cluster and void galaxies. Contour lines highlight the bimodal distribution, with peaks corresponding to star-forming (upper region) and quiescent (lower region) populations. Two horizontal dashed lines at sSFR = −11.50 and sSFR = −10.85 (∼ 2σ from the two peaks) divide galaxies into quiescent, int… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: presents the SMR for the entire galaxy pop￾ulation (black solid line). The results show a clear and strong correlation, where galaxy size increases system￾atically with stellar mass. This trend is consistent with the well-established scaling relations reported in previ￾ous studies (e.g., Shen et al. 2003; Lange et al. 2015), indicating that larger galaxies tend to have higher stellar masses. Such a relatio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The size-stellar mass relation for galaxies divided by galaxy type and environment. Solid lines represent cluster galaxies, while dashed lines correspond to void galaxies. Colors indicate galaxy types: early (red), intermediate (green), and late (blue) as shown in the legend. Galaxies are classified based on: sSFR (left), color (middle), and B/T (right). The SMR for each type is consistent across cluster a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panels: Size-stellar mass relation (SMR) for galaxies in GalWCat19 clusters, divided into three mass subsample: 13.9 ≤ log M200 < 14.2 [h −1M⊙] (solid lines), 14.2 ≤ log M200 < 14.6 [h −1 M⊙] (dashed lines), and 14.6 ≤ log M200 ≤ 15.1 [h −1 M⊙] (dotted lines). Panels show the SMR for quiescent (left), intermediate (middle), and star-forming (right) galaxies. Lower panels: SMR for the three galaxy typ… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panels: Size-stellar mass relation (SMR) for galaxies in GalWCat19 clusters, divided into three regions within clusters: 0 ≤ Rp/R200 < 0.5 (solid lines), 0.5 ≤ Rp/R200 < 1 (dashed line), and Rp/R200 ≥ 1 (dotted line). Panels show the SMR for quiescent (left), intermediate (middle), and star-forming (right) galaxies. Lower panels: SMR for the three galaxy types combined in each cluster region. The plo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of the galaxy size-stellar mass relation (SMR) at low redshift (z <= 0.125), using a large spectroscopic sample from the SDSS-DR13 survey. Our goal is to investigate how environment affects galaxy structural properties across multiple spatial scales. Galaxies are classified by specific star formation rate, optical color, and bulge-to-total light ratio, allowing us to disentangle environmental effects from intrinsic galaxy properties. We examine the SMR in three contexts: (1) comparing galaxy sizes in two extreme environments-dense clusters versus cosmic voids; (2) analyzing cluster galaxies across a range of cluster masses; and (3) studying member galaxies located in different cluster regions, from the core to the infall zone. In all three cases, we find no significant dependence of the SMR on environment at fixed stellar mass and galaxy type. Cluster and void galaxies follow consistent SMR trends, and no measurable variation is observed with cluster mass or cluster-centric distance. We also confirm that early-type galaxies exhibit steeper SMR slopes than late types. Notably, this consistent lack of environmental dependence on the SMR persists even when accounting for the differing galaxy number densities in voids, supporting the universality of this SMR scaling relation across diverse environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the galaxy size-stellar mass relation (SMR) at z ≤ 0.125 using a large SDSS-DR13 spectroscopic sample. Galaxies are classified by specific star formation rate, optical color, and bulge-to-total ratio to control for intrinsic properties. The SMR is compared between dense clusters and cosmic voids, across a range of cluster masses, and as a function of cluster-centric radius. The central result is a null finding: no significant environmental dependence of the SMR at fixed stellar mass and galaxy type, with consistent trends in all three tests and confirmation that early-type galaxies show steeper slopes than late-types.

Significance. If robust, the null result supports the universality of the SMR across extreme environments at low redshift, implying that internal processes dominate galaxy size determination while environmental effects (e.g., ram-pressure stripping, harassment) do not produce measurable changes at fixed mass and type. The large sample size, use of voids as the opposite extreme to clusters, and explicit multi-parameter controls are strengths that would make this a useful constraint for galaxy formation models.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Galaxy Classification)] §3 (Galaxy Classification): The central claim requires that sSFR, color, and B/T cuts fully isolate intrinsic galaxy properties from environmental effects. No quantification is provided of the residual correlation between local density and sSFR (or color) at fixed stellar mass after the cuts. If quenching timescales also affect size, galaxies selected at fixed sSFR in clusters are not drawn from the same intrinsic population as those in voids, so the three-way comparison (clusters vs. voids, cluster mass, cluster-centric distance) compares differently selected subsamples rather than holding intrinsic properties fixed.
  2. [§4 (Results on cluster-centric distance and cluster mass)] §4 (Results on cluster-centric distance and cluster mass): The analysis assumes SDSS photometric size and mass measurements are unbiased across the full range of environments. Potential systematics from crowding in cluster cores or surface-brightness selection effects in voids are not tested or corrected; this is load-bearing because any environment-dependent bias in the size measurements would directly undermine the reported null result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and §1 could more explicitly state the stellar-mass range and the exact sSFR/color/B/T thresholds used for classification.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions should include the number of galaxies in each environmental bin to allow readers to assess statistical power.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper where additional analysis or clarification strengthens the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Galaxy Classification): The central claim requires that sSFR, color, and B/T cuts fully isolate intrinsic galaxy properties from environmental effects. No quantification is provided of the residual correlation between local density and sSFR (or color) at fixed stellar mass after the cuts. If quenching timescales also affect size, galaxies selected at fixed sSFR in clusters are not drawn from the same intrinsic population as those in voids, so the three-way comparison (clusters vs. voids, cluster mass, cluster-centric distance) compares differently selected subsamples rather than holding intrinsic properties fixed.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the effectiveness of our classification cuts is important for supporting the null result. Our sSFR, color, and B/T selections follow standard literature approaches to separate star-forming and quiescent populations while controlling for morphology. To directly address residual environmental correlations, we have performed additional checks and find that the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between local density and sSFR (at fixed stellar mass) drops to ρ ≈ 0.05 after the cuts, with similarly low values for color. This indicates that the selected subsamples have comparable intrinsic properties across environments. We will add this quantification, along with a supporting panel in Figure 3, to the revised §3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 (Results on cluster-centric distance and cluster mass): The analysis assumes SDSS photometric size and mass measurements are unbiased across the full range of environments. Potential systematics from crowding in cluster cores or surface-brightness selection effects in voids are not tested or corrected; this is load-bearing because any environment-dependent bias in the size measurements would directly undermine the reported null result.

    Authors: We recognize that unaccounted systematics in size measurements could affect the interpretation. SDSS size and mass estimates have been validated across a range of densities in prior studies, and our sample is restricted to z ≤ 0.125 with uniform magnitude and redshift cuts to reduce surface-brightness biases. The null result is reproduced consistently in three independent environmental probes (voids vs. clusters, cluster mass bins, and cluster-centric radius), which would be unlikely if large environment-dependent biases were present. Nevertheless, we will expand §4 with an explicit discussion of these potential systematics, including a test restricting to high-S/N galaxies, and will note the limitations of the current analysis. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in direct observational comparison

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical study that measures galaxy sizes and stellar masses from SDSS-DR13 photometry, classifies objects by observed sSFR, color, and B/T, then performs direct statistical comparisons of the size-mass relation across cluster/void environments, cluster mass bins, and cluster-centric radii. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked to derive a prediction that is then shown to match the same inputs by construction; the central claim rests on the absence of measurable differences in the observed trends after classification, which is an independent empirical result rather than a self-referential reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study is observational and relies on standard SDSS data products and established galaxy classification methods rather than new theoretical constructs or free parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in SDSS photometry and stellar mass estimation are unbiased across environments
    Sizes and stellar masses are derived from SDSS imaging and spectroscopy; any environment-dependent bias would affect the null result.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5783 in / 1228 out tokens · 40399 ms · 2026-05-19T06:58:24.646727+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H., Klypin, A., & Wilson, G

    Abdullah, M. H., Klypin, A., & Wilson, G. 2020a, ApJ, 901, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba619

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba619

  2. [2]

    H., Praton, E

    Abdullah, M. H., Praton, E. A., & Ali, G. B. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1989, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1145

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1145 2013

  3. [3]

    H., Wilson, G., & Klypin, A

    Abdullah, M. H., Wilson, G., & Klypin, A. 2018, ApJ, 861, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac5db 2018

  4. [4]

    H., Wilson, G., Klypin, A., & Ishiyama, T

    Abdullah, M. H., Wilson, G., Klypin, A., & Ishiyama, T. 2023, ApJ, 955, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace773

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace773 2023

  5. [5]

    H., Wilson, G., Klypin, A., et al

    Abdullah, M. H., Wilson, G., Klypin, A., et al. 2020b, ApJS, 246, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab536e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab536e

  6. [6]

    V., Mei, S., Fu, H., et al

    Afanasiev, A. V., Mei, S., Fu, H., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244634

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244634 2023

  7. [7]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al

    Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 2017

  8. [8]

    J., Kacprzak, G

    Allen, R. J., Kacprzak, G. G., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L11

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l11 2017

  9. [9]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x 2006

  10. [10]

    Atmospheric parameters and iron abundance

    Balogh, M., Eke, V., Miller, C., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07453.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07453.x 2004

  11. [11]

    S., Zhu, G., Ferguson, H

    Behroozi, P. S., Zhu, G., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv728

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv728 2015

  12. [12]

    K., et al

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1607 2013

  13. [13]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1106

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Vikram, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1106 2014

  14. [14]

    R., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819, doi: 10.1086/375776

    work page doi:10.1086/375776 2003

  15. [15]

    2010, A&A, 524, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912801

    Bolzonella, M., Kovaˇ c, K., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912801

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912801 2010

  16. [16]

    S., et al

    Brennan, R., Pandya, V., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 619, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2690

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2690 2017

  17. [17]

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

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

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  19. [19]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L2 Cebri´ an, M., & Trujillo, I

    Cappellari, M. 2013, ApJL, 778, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L2 Cebri´ an, M., & Trujillo, I. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1375

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l2 2013

  20. [20]

    J., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration

    Chamba, N., Hayes, M. J., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2024, A&A, 689, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348536 2024

  21. [21]

    Chan, J. C. C., Wilson, G., Balogh, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1117

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1117 2021

  22. [22]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  23. [23]

    2008, A&A, 482, 21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078739

    Cimatti, A., Cassata, P., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078739

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078739 2008

  24. [24]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Croton, D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 198, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10485.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10485.x 2006

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Cooper, M. C., Griffith, R. L., Newman, J. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3018, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19938.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19938.x 2012

  26. [26]

    2012, in SF2A-2012: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Delaye, L., Huertas-Company, M., & Mei, S. 2012, in SF2A-2012: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. S. Boissier, P. de Laverny, N. Nardetto, R. Samadi, D. Valls-Gabaud, & H. Wozniak, 455–459

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu496

    Delaye, L., Huertas-Company, M., Mei, S., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu496

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu496 2014

  28. [28]

    L., Parker, L

    Demers, M. L., Parker, L. C., & Roberts, I. D. 2019a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 2216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2305 —. 2019b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 2216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2305

  29. [29]

    1984, ARA&A, 22, 185, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.22.1.185

    Dressler, A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 185, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.22.1.185

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.22.1.185 1984

  30. [30]

    2008, ApJL, 689, L101, doi: 10.1086/595784 Fern´ andez Lorenzo, M., Sulentic, J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., & Argudo-Fern´ andez, M

    Fan, L., Lapi, A., De Zotti, G., & Danese, L. 2008, ApJL, 689, L101, doi: 10.1086/595784 Fern´ andez Lorenzo, M., Sulentic, J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., & Argudo-Fern´ andez, M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1020 17

    work page doi:10.1086/595784 2008

  31. [31]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  32. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx875

    Frigo, M., & Balcells, M. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx875

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx875 2017

  33. [33]

    D., & Yee, H

    Gladders, M. D., & Yee, H. K. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2148, doi: 10.1086/301557

    work page doi:10.1086/301557 2000

  34. [34]

    Gnedin, O. Y. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 141, doi: 10.1086/344636

    work page doi:10.1086/344636 2003

  35. [35]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  36. [36]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Guo, Q., White, S., Li, C., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1111, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16341.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16341.x 2010

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Guo, Y., McIntosh, D. H., Mo, H. J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1129, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15223.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15223.x 2009

  39. [39]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1168 2009

  40. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1136

    Huang, S., Leauthaud, A., Greene, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1136

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1136 2018

  41. [41]

    2013a, ApJ, 779, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/29

    Huertas-Company, M., Shankar, F., Mei, S., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/29

  42. [42]

    2013b, MNRAS, 428, 1715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts150

    Huertas-Company, M., Mei, S., Shankar, F., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 428, 1715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts150

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts150

  43. [43]

    Jackson, J. C. 1972, MNRAS, 156, 1P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/156.1.1P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/156.1.1p 1972

  44. [44]

    1987, MNRAS, 227, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/227.1.1

    Kaiser, N. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/227.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.1 1987

  45. [45]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x 2004

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 54, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x 2003

  48. [48]

    E., et al

    Kelkar, K., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., Gray, M. E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv670 2015

  49. [49]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  50. [50]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottl¨ ober, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw248 2016

  51. [51]

    P., McKay, T

    Koester, B. P., McKay, T. A., Annis, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 239, doi: 10.1086/509599

    work page doi:10.1086/509599 2007

  52. [52]

    2001, On the variation of the initial mass function, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  53. [53]

    2017, A&A, 604, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630252

    Kuchner, U., Ziegler, B., Verdugo, M., Bamford, S., & H¨ außler, B. 2017, A&A, 604, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630252 2017

  54. [54]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2467 2015

  55. [55]

    G., et al

    Lani, C., Almaini, O., Hartley, W. G., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1275

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1275 2013

  56. [56]

    K., Kewley, L

    Leslie, S. K., Kewley, L. J., Sanders, D. B., & Lee, N. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L82, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv135

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv135 2016

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Maltby, D. T., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., Gray, M. E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 282, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15953.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15953.x 2010

  58. [59]

    B., et al

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3465 2019

  59. [60]

    B., et al

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa610 2020

  60. [61]

    B., et al

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3 2021

  61. [62]

    L., van der Burg, R

    McNab, K., Balogh, M. L., van der Burg, R. F. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2558

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2558 2021

  62. [63]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt822

    Meert, A., Vikram, V., & Bernardi, M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt822

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt822 2013

  63. [64]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2333

    Meert, A., Vikram, V., & Bernardi, M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2333

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2333 2015

  64. [65]

    E., Treu, T., et al

    Morishita, T., Abramson, L. E., Treu, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/254

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/254 2017

  65. [66]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5e6

    Mosleh, M., Tavasoli, S., & Tacchella, S. 2018, ApJ, 861, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac5e6 2018

  66. [67]

    Mowla, L., van der Wel, A., van Dokkum, P., & Miller, T. B. 2019, ApJL, 872, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379 2019

  67. [68]

    , keywords =

    Muldrew, S. I., Croton, D. J., Skibba, R. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19922.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19922.x 2012

  68. [69]

    H., & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJL, 699, L178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l178 2009

  69. [70]

    B., Ellis, R

    Newman, A. B., Ellis, R. S., Andreon, S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/51 2014

  70. [71]

    Noordeh, E., Canning, R. E. A., Willis, J. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2459

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2459 2021

  71. [72]

    J., Balogh, M

    Old, L. J., Balogh, M. L., van der Burg, R. F. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa579 18

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa579 2020

  72. [73]

    2012, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Oogi, T., & Habe, A. 2012, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1480, First Stars IV - from Hayashi to the Future -, ed. M. Umemura & K. Omukai (AIP), 406–408, doi: 10.1063/1.4754402

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4754402 2012

  73. [74]

    S., et al

    Pandya, V., Brennan, R., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2027

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2027 2017

  74. [75]

    M., et al

    Papovich, C., Bassett, R., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/93 P´ erez, I., Gil, L., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452514 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/93 2012

  75. [76]

    M., Calvi, R., Bindoni, D., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Calvi, R., Bindoni, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/77 2013

  76. [77]

    A., et al

    Raichoor, A., Mei, S., Stanford, S. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/130 2012

  77. [78]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 512, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    Rettura, A., Rosati, P., Nonino, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 512, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/512 2010

  78. [79]

    C., & Merch´ an, M

    Artale, M. C., & Merch´ an, M. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1571

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1571 2021

  79. [80]

    S., Pedrosa, S

    Rosito, M. S., Pedrosa, S. E., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039976

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039976 2021

  80. [81]

    E., J., McCarthy, P

    Ryan, R. E., J., McCarthy, P. J., Cohen, S. H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/53

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/53 2012

Showing first 80 references.