Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 75 references

The JWST Unveils the Bimodal Nature of Lyman Alpha Emitters at 3 <z<7: Pristine versus Merger-Driven Populations

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using JWST/NIRCam imaging of 817 Lyman-alpha emitters at 3<z<7, this paper shows that mergers split the LAE population into low-mass pristine systems and massive merger-driven systems.

desk verdict Large, useful morphological census of 817 LAEs, but the pristine-versus-merger dichotomy needs a completeness simulation before the headline fractions are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23654 v1 pith:B7KMM4LR submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.GA

Jian Ren , F. S. Liu , Nan Li , Qi Song , Pinsong Zhao , Qifan Cui , Yubin Li , Hao Mo
show 3 more authors
Guanghuan Wang Hassen M. Yesuf Weichen Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemittersgalaxymergersevolutionJWSThigh-redshiftgalaxiesmorphologypristineLAEsmerger-driven
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 uses JWST high-resolution imaging to ask whether galaxy mergers are central to the evolution of Lyman-alpha emitters, the star-forming galaxies used as tracers of the early universe. By visually classifying 817 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs at redshifts 3 to 7, it reports that nearly 40% are in the late stages of a merger and about 61% are in some form of interacting system, with merger fractions rising steeply for massive and bright galaxies. The LAE population splits into two distinct classes in the plane of stellar mass versus specific star-formation rate: low-mass isolated systems that appear young and gas-rich, and massive systems whose structures betray merger activity. The paper argues these two classes represent different evolutionary pathways, making mergers a central driver of Lyman-alpha visibility and mass assembly in the first two billion years. If the classification is unbiased, LAEs cannot be treated as a single homogeneous population.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a five-category visual morphological classification of LAEs performed on JWST/NIRCam pseudo-color images: isolated, pair, compact-merger, diffuse-merger, and tidal-feature systems. Late-stage mergers combine compact and diffuse mergers, and interacting systems combine pairs, mergers, and tidal features. The non-parametric diagnostics Gini, $M_{20}$, and outer asymmetry $A_O$—quantities that measure flux concentration, spatial clumping, and outer asymmetry—are used to show that visual mergers satisfy the same selection boundaries calibrated for lower-redshift massive galaxies, indicating the signatures (double nuclei, tidal tails, diffuse multiple components) are robust to surface-brightness dimming. The bimodality in the $M_*$–sSFR plane is established from SED-fitting-derived stellar masses and star-formation rates, and the paper ties the two peaks to the morphological classes through K-S tests comparing stellar mass and sSFR distributions of young/old LAEs versus isolated/merger systems.

What would settle it

A direct completeness test is to take the JWST/NIRCam images of classified massive mergers, degrade them to the resolution and signal-to-noise of the faint low-mass LAEs, and ask whether the merger signatures survive independent reclassification. If the merger fraction at fixed stellar mass drops when images are degraded to a common S/N, the reported mass dependence—and with it the pristine/merger-driven dichotomy—would be an observational artifact. Alternatively, comparing the visual merger fraction at matched S/N with a machine-learning classifier trained on simulated mergers would settle whether the classification is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a systematic morphological census of Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) in the GOODS-S field based on JWST/NIRCam imaging. Among 817 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs at $3<z<7$, it identifies late-stage mergers with a fraction of $39.4\%\pm2.5\%$ and interacting systems (pairs, mergers, and tidal features) with a fraction of $60.6\%\pm6.3\%$. The merger fraction rises sharply with stellar mass and UV luminosity, from roughly 10% among the faintest, lowest-mass systems to more than 70% for massive ($\log(M_*/M_\odot)>9$) and bright ($M_{\rm UV}<-20$) ones. In the stellar-mass–specific-star-formation-rate ($M_*$–sSFR) plane, the full sample is bimodal: isolated LAEs peak at $\log(M_*/M_\odot)\approx7.8$ with $\log({\rm sSFR/yr^{-1}})\approx-7.4$, while late-stage mergers peak at $\log(M_*/M_\odot)\approx8.6$ with $\log({\rm sSFR/yr^{-1}})\approx-7.6$. The paper interprets this as two evolutionary classes—Pristine LAEs (low-mass, isolated, early-stage galaxies with minimal merger interactions) and Merger-driven LAEs (massive systems where mergers enhance star formation and enable Lyman-$\alpha$ escape).

Load-bearing premise

The bimodal split and the mass dependence of the merger fraction rest on the assumption that visual morphological classification is complete and unbiased across the sample—specifically, that low-mass isolated LAEs are not unresolved late-stage mergers and that massive LAEs are not preferentially classified as mergers simply because their higher surface brightness makes multiple components easier to see.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nearly all massive LAEs ($\log(M_*/M_\odot)>8.5$) show merger or interaction signatures, so any model of Lyman-alpha escape in bright, evolved galaxies must include merger-triggered gas dispersal and feedback.
  • Low-mass, isolated LAEs constitute a distinct pristine population, meaning faint-end LAE surveys trace early galaxy assembly without significant merger contamination.
  • The merger fraction increases from about 15% at $z>6$ to about 45% at $z\sim3$, matching hierarchical-assembly predictions that massive, older LAEs emerge as halos grow.
  • The dependence of merger rate on stellar mass and UV luminosity implies that mass- and luminosity-selected LAE samples probe different physical populations with different escape physics.
  • The morphological homology between $z<1$ mergers and $z>3$ LAEs suggests the same merger indicators can be applied across cosmic time up to the epoch of reionization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-class picture is correct, the common practice of stacking all LAEs to measure average properties will blend a young, low-mass, merger-free population with an old, massive, merger-dominated one; interpretations of averaged Lyman-alpha escape fractions from such stacks would need revision.
  • A testable extension is to compare these visual merger classifications with dynamical signatures from JWST/NIRSpec or ALMA kinematics; genuine mergers should show velocity offsets or disturbed rotation, and a mismatch would indicate classification bias.
  • The transition near $10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$ could correspond to a halo mass at which merger rates become dominant; cosmological simulations that predict merger rates as a function of halo mass for LAEs could verify or refute this threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper compiles 817 spectroscopically confirmed Lyman-alpha emitters at 3<z<7 in GOODS-S from MUSE, VANDELS, and CANDELS-z7, fits their SEDs with CIGALE, measures non-parametric morphological indicators (Gini, M20, outer asymmetry) from JWST/NIRCam imaging, and visually classifies them into isolated, pair, compact-merger, diffuse-merger, and tidal-feature systems. It reports a late-stage merger fraction of 39.4%±2.5% and an interaction fraction of 60.6%±6.3%, with strong trends toward higher merger fractions at lower redshift, higher stellar mass, and brighter UV luminosity. It further reports a bimodal M*-sSFR distribution in which isolated LAEs cluster at low mass and high sSFR while late-stage mergers cluster at higher mass and slightly lower sSFR, and interprets this as evidence for two evolutionary classes: 'Pristine LAEs' and 'Merger-driven LAEs'. The central claim is that mergers are a dominant driver of LAE evolution across the first two billion years.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a valuable large-sample JWST study: 817 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs with NIRCam imaging is a substantial resource, and the explicit link between merger morphology and the previously reported M*-sSFR bimodality (Iani et al. 2024) is interesting and timely. The paper's strengths include the multi-survey spectroscopic sample, the use of quantitative non-parametric indicators alongside visual classification, and the attempt to connect observed merger fractions to simulations of LAE demographics. However, the central dichotomy—Pristine versus Merger-driven populations—rests on visual morphological classifications whose completeness and purity are never quantified as functions of mass, luminosity, redshift, or S/N. Because the merger fraction's mass and luminosity dependence is the observational basis for the two-class interpretation, this missing calibration is load-bearing. The paper also defers key sample-selection details to in-preparation works, and contains several internal numerical inconsistencies that need clarification.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Section 5.1, Figure 4] The central merger and interaction fractions, and the resulting Pristine/Merger-driven dichotomy, rest on visual classifications whose completeness and purity are never quantified as functions of stellar mass, M_UV, redshift, or S/N. Section 5.1 argues that late-stage mergers are identified via multiple compact nuclei and are therefore resilient to surface-brightness dimming, but this is an assertion, not a measurement: no injection/recovery simulation or comparison with an independent automated classifier is presented. Since Figure 4 shows the merger fraction rising steeply with M* and luminosity, the possibility remains that low-mass, high-redshift compact mergers are classified as isolated because they are unresolved, while bright massive systems are preferentially resolved into multiple components and classified as mergers. A completeness simulation, or at a minimum a quantitative S/N- and size-dependent purity analysis, is required to support the mass dependence of the merger fraction that underpins the bimodal evolutionary interpretation.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 3] The non-parametric validation in Section 4.1 does not calibrate the visual classification. Figure 3 plots only securely classified sources with S/N>3 and shows that late-stage mergers occupy the G-M20/AO-M20 selection regions, but this is a consistency check, not a completeness or contamination estimate: it does not report the fraction of visually classified mergers recovered by the automated criteria, the false-positive rate among isolated galaxies, or how these rates vary with M*, M_UV, z, and S/N. The statement that 'late-stage mergers separate cleanly from isolated systems' is qualitative; without a confusion matrix or efficiency curves, the quantitative agreement claimed in the text is not established. The authors should either provide these measurements or restrict the text to the observed segregation.
  3. [Section 4.3, Figure 5] The abstract and Section 4.3 claim negligible UV-slope differences between late-stage mergers and isolated LAEs 'at fixed M* and M_UV', but Figure 5 shows only separate binned relations versus M* and M_1500, not a matched sample controlling both quantities simultaneously. Given that the merger fraction depends strongly on both M* and M_UV (Figure 4), the small Δβ in one-dimensional bins could be a residual covariate effect. The authors should either construct matched control samples in the joint (M*, M_UV) space or rephrase the claim to say that the binned relations are consistent within the stated uncertainties.
  4. [Section 4.2, Section 5.3, Abstract] There are numerical inconsistencies in the reported fractions that need clarification. The abstract states overall late-stage merger and interaction fractions of 39.4%±2.5% and 60.6%±6.3%, while Section 4.2 describes the merger fraction as rising from ~15% at z>6 to 45-50% at z=3 and the interaction fraction from ~45% to 70%. Section 5.3 then refers to 'the exceptionally high merger fraction observed in massive LAEs (f_merger ~80%)', which appears to contradict Figure 4 where the late-stage merger fraction at log(M*/M_sun)>9 is ~50% and only the interaction fraction reaches ~80%. Please specify which quantity is meant in each place and ensure the figure and text use consistent definitions.
  5. [Section 2.3] The sample selection function is not presented in the manuscript: the detailed criteria are deferred to Song et al. (2025, in preparation), and the imaging reduction to Liu et al. (2025, in preparation). Because the MUSE-Wide, MUSE-Deep, VANDELS, and CANDELS-z7 surveys have different depths, areas, and selection functions, the redshift and mass dependence of the merger and interaction fractions in Figure 4 could be biased by sample construction. At minimum, the paper should provide the number of sources from each survey, the redshift and mass distributions per survey, and a statement of how survey depth limits low-mass completeness as a function of redshift.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1 vs. Abstract and Section 2.3] The Introduction states a sample of 819 LAEs, while the Abstract and Section 2.3 state 817; please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.3] The statement that discrepancies occurred in 'less than 20% of cases' should be replaced with the exact number of discrepant objects, the number resolved by consensus, and the number excluded as tentative, so the reader can assess the robustness of the final 'secure' sample.
  3. [Table 1] The table header contains the typo 'Late-stege Merger' and the p-values are reported as '0' or '0.0'; continuous test statistics cannot yield exactly zero, so the entries should be given as p<0.001 or with actual rounded values.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Section 5.3] The headings/text contain typos: 'indentifaication' in the Section 5.2 heading and 'classifed' in Section 5.3; these should be corrected.
  5. [Figure 4 and Figure 5] The axis labels 'log(M* /M )' and 'M*' are missing the solar-mass subscript/symbol and should read log(M*/M_sun) and M* in the proper notation.
  6. [Section 5.1] The bound 'f_true < 0.10' is introduced without derivation or uncertainty; please explain how this upper limit is obtained from the observed ~10% tidal-feature fraction and the assumed incompleteness.
  7. [Acknowledgements] The JWST program list ends with '654' in the Acknowledgements but Section 2.1 lists '6541'; this appears to be a truncation and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central mass-morphology association is a new measurement, but the nonparametric 'predicted region' is an in-family validation from the same group's prior papers (Ren et al. 2023/2024), and the 'Pristine vs Merger-driven' class labels partly restate the paper's own mass+morphology cuts and rename the known Iani et al. (2024) bimodality.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1 / Figure 3 caption; Section 6 (Summary)]
    "the late-stage merger selection boundary (red line) defined by Ren et al. (2023), incorporating redshift-dependent AO corrections from Ren et al. (2024) ... These quantitative measures confirm that approximately ~80% of visually classified mergers lie within the predicted region of merger parameter space."

    Ren et al. (2023) and Ren et al. (2024) are the present group's own prior papers (first author J. Ren, with co-authors N. Li and F. S. Liu), so the 'predicted region' used to validate the visual classification is not an external, falsifiable prediction: it is the same group's previously published AO-M20 boundary and redshift corrections, applied to visual classes assigned by the same group (classifiers JR and FL). The agreement partly reflects that both the visual criterion ('multiple compact nuclei') and the M20/AO diagnostics key on the same multi-component signature. The G-M20 criterion from Lotz et al.

  2. renaming known result [Abstract; Section 4.4; Section 5.3]
    "Intriguingly, the sSFR-M* distribution of our full LAE sample reveals a distinct bimodal structure, consistent with results reported by Iani et al. (2024). ... Our results reveal two evolutionary classes -- Pristine LAEs, low-mass (M*<10^8.5 M_sun), isolated systems ... and Merger-driven LAEs, massive (M*>10^8.5 M_sun) systems in which mergers enhance star formation and facilitate the escape of Lyman-alpha photons."

    The M*-sSFR bimodality is explicitly imported from Iani et al. (2024), and the two 'evolutionary classes' are operationalized by exactly the mass cut (10^8.5 M_sun) plus the visual morphological classes that were used to measure the correlation. The headline 'reveals two evolutionary classes' therefore restates the input cuts and relabels a known bimodality as 'Pristine' and 'Merger-driven,' attaching a causal driver that the paper's own data do not establish (Section 4.4 finds no sSFR enhancement in mergers at fixed mass). The new, non-circular content is the measured morphology-mass association (median log M* ~7.8 isolated versus ~8.6 mergers), which stands independently of the causal labels.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is a measurement pipeline: SED stellar masses (CIGALE, external code), visual morphological classes (this paper), and counted merger and interaction fractions. No quantity is fitted to a subset and then reported as a closely related prediction; the M*-sSFR bimodality is anchored to the external Iani et al. (2024) result, and the young/old age split follows Shimizu & Umemura (2010). The strongest circularity-adjacent element is the nonparametric validation (Section 4.1 and the Summary): the roughly 80% agreement between visual classes and the 'predicted region' uses the AO-M20 boundary and redshift-dependent AO corrections from the same group's Ren et al. (2023, 2024) papers, making it an in-family consistency check rather than an external falsifiable test; however, the G-M20 part is external (Lotz et al. 2008) and the central mass-morphology association does not rest on this validation. A second, milder issue is framing: the two 'evolutionary classes' are defined by the mass cut plus morphology and labeled Pristine and Merger-driven, partly renaming the known Iani et al. (2024) bimodality, although the morphology-mass correlation itself is a new measurement with independent content. Section 5.1 asserts that cosmic dimming has 'negligible impact' because double nuclei are 'resilient' to surface-brightness dimming; that is an unquantified completeness claim, a correctness risk rather than circularity, and likewise the sample-selection and data-description details are deferred to same-group in-preparation papers (Song et al. 2025; Liu et al. 2025). Weighing these, the central claim retains independent empirical content, so the circularity score is 3.

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

The central claims rest on SED-derived masses and sSFRs and on visual morphological classifications. The free parameters are standard SED modeling choices plus a redshift-dependent AO threshold from the authors' prior work; the axioms are the unverified assumptions about morphological completeness, sample representativeness, and SED reliability.

free parameters (3)
  • CIGALE delayed-tau SFH prior ranges (age, tau, burst mass fraction) = age=50-1500 Myr, tau=30-5000 Myr, burst fraction=0.001-0.6
    These priors determine stellar masses and sSFRs used in the bimodal classification; different priors can shift the derived peak positions and the mass boundary between pristine and merger-driven populations.
  • Dust attenuation parameters (modified Calzetti E(B-V), 0.44 scale factor) = E(B-V)=0-0.6
    SED-derived M* and sSFR depend on the assumed dust law; this affects both populations and could influence whether the bimodality peaks shift.
  • Redshift-dependent AO merger threshold correction = Not specified numerically; adopted from Ren et al. (2024)
    Used to define the late-stage merger selection region in Section 4.1. It is a calibration drawn from the authors' own prior work and affects which galaxies count as mergers at different redshifts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Low-redshift merger criteria (G-M20, AO-M20) are valid for high-z, low-mass LAEs
    Section 4.1 asserts morphological invariance of merger signatures across cosmic time and mass scales. If this fails, merger fractions at z>3 could be systematically overestimated or underestimated.
  • domain assumption Visual morphological classification by two classifiers is an unbiased, completeness-corrected estimator of true merger fraction
    Section 3.3: the central fractions rely entirely on human visual classification. No completeness simulation is provided, and the paper only qualitatively discusses surface brightness dimming in Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption The spectroscopic LAE sample is representative of the LAE population across z=3-7 in GOODS-S
    Section 2.3 combines surveys with different depths and selection functions. The paper notes low-mass LAEs are underrepresented at high z but does not apply completeness corrections to the redshift evolution of merger fractions.
  • domain assumption CIGALE SED modeling with adopted priors recovers unbiased M* and sSFR for LAEs
    Section 3.1: stellar masses and sSFRs are model-dependent outputs. The bimodal classification and the mass threshold at log(M*/M_sun)=8.5 depend on this modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JWST Unveils the Bimodal Nature of Lyman Alpha Emitters at 3 <z<7: Pristine versus Merger-Driven Populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7KMM4LR

@misc{pith2026250723654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JWST Unveils the Bimodal Nature of Lyman Alpha Emitters at 3 <z<7: Pristine versus Merger-Driven Populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7KMM4LR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23654}
}
abstract

We present a systematic study of merging galaxies among Lyman-alpha emitters (LAEs) using JWST/NIRCam high-resolution imaging data. From a large sample of 817 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs at $3<z<7$ in the GOODS-S field, we identify late-stage mergers and interacting systems with fractions of $39.4\%\pm2.5\%$ and $60.6\%\pm6.3\%$, respectively. These fractions exhibit significant redshift evolution and depend on both stellar mass ($M_*$) and UV magnitude ($M_{\rm UV}$), being most prevalent in massive ($\log(M_*/M_\odot)>8.5$) and bright ($M_{\rm UV}<-19.5$) systems. At fixed $M_*$ and $M_{\rm UV}$, we find negligible differences in the UV slope ($\beta$) between late-stage mergers and isolated LAEs; however, a clear bimodal distribution emerges in the $M_*$-sSFR plane, where isolated LAEs peak at $\log(M_*/M_\odot)\approx7.8$ and $\log({\rm sSFR/yr^{-1}})\approx-7.4$, and late-stage mergers peak at $\log(M_*/M_\odot)\approx8.6$ and $\log({\rm sSFR/yr^{-1}})\approx-7.6$. Our results reveal two evolutionary classes -- Pristine LAEs, low-mass ($M_*<10^{8.5}M_\odot$), isolated systems that represent early-stage galaxies with minimal merger interactions, and Merger-driven LAEs, massive ($M_*>10^{8.5}M_\odot$) systems in which mergers enhance star formation and facilitate the escape of Lyman-alpha photons or accrete pristine LAEs -- both of which are consistent with both observational and theoretical expectations and collectively demonstrate that mergers are a central driver of LAE evolution across the first two billion years.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The equivalent width versus Lyα luminosity for our sample of 817 LAEs. The integrated fluxes of the LAEs in the HST bands (F435W, F606W, F814W, F105W, F125W, F140W, F160W) and JWST/NIRCam bands (F090W, F115W, F150W, F182M, F200W, F210M, F277W, F335M, F356W, F410M, F444W) were measured by integrating their radial surface brightness profiles. These profiles were computed using the Python package photutils (Bradley et … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example color images of our LAEs with visually classified morphologies. The field of view (FOV) is 2′′×2 ′′ . mann 2023; Li et al. 2025). Dust attenuation followed the modified Calzetti law (Calzetti et al. 2000), with color excess E(B −V ) = 0-0.6 scaled by a factor 0.44 to account for differential attenuation between stellar pop￾ulations (Charlot & Fall 2000; Wild et al. 2011). This configuration aligns with estab… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagnostic diagrams for securely classified Lyman-alpha emitters (LAEs) using non-parametric morphological indicators. Left: M20 vs. AO diagram, with the late-stage merger selection boundary (red line) defined by Ren et al. (2023), incorporating redshift-dependent AO corrections from Ren et al. (2024). Right: M20 vs. Gini (G) diagram, adopting the merger criterion of Lotz et al. (2008) (red line). Large symbols with… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Merger fraction as functions of redshift (z), stellar mass (M∗), and UV magnitude (MUV). Late-stage mergers combine compact and diffuse mergers, while interacting systems include pairs, mergers, and tidal-feature galaxies. Error bars incorporate uncertainties from morp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UV slope (β) versus redshift (z), stellar mass (M∗), and rest-frame 1500˚A magnitude (M1500). Black and red points denote isolated and late-stage merger LAEs, respectively, with green contours showing the full LAE distribution. Large symbols and lines represent median …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Star Formation Main Sequence for isolated LAEs (black points), late-stage mergers (red points), and all LAEs (green contours). Black squares, red squares, and the green line represent median specific star formation rates in fixed stellar mass bins for isolated LA…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, A&A, 608, A1

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 670, A4

    Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., Conseil, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A4

    2023

  3. [3]

    A., Gawiser, E., Gronwall, C., et al

    Bond, N. A., Gawiser, E., Gronwall, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 639

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 164

    Borghi, N., Moresco, M., Cimatti, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 164

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, v1.12.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, v1.12.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10967176

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10967176 2024

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2087

    Brinchmann, J. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2087

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

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

    2003

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  2. [10]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  3. [11]

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

    2000

  4. [12]

    S., Blanc, G

    Chonis, T. S., Blanc, G. A., Hill, G. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 99

    2013

  5. [13]

    L., Barger, A

    Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., & Hu, E. M. 2010, ApJ, 711, 928

    2010

  6. [14]

    S., & Pacucci, F

    Dayal, P., Ferrara, A., Dunlop, J. S., & Pacucci, F. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2545

    2014

  7. [15]

    2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e040

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e040

    2014

  8. [16]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09472

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    L., Rhoads, J

    Finkelstein, S. L., Rhoads, J. E., Malhotra, S., & Grogin, N. 2009, ApJ, 691, 465

    2009

  10. [18]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 278

    Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 278

    2007

  11. [19]

    A., Kocevski, D

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

    2011

  12. [20]

    A., Ciardullo, R., et al

    Gronwall, C., Bond, N. A., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 9

    2011

  13. [21]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 114

    Guaita, L., Acquaviva, V., Padilla, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 114

    2011

  14. [22]

    C., Urrutia, T., Wisotzki, L., et al

    Herenz, E. C., Urrutia, T., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A12

    2017

  15. [23]

    I., Rinaldi, P., et al

    Iani, E., Caputi, K. I., Rinaldi, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 97

    2024

  16. [24]

    2017, A&A, 608, A2

    Inami, H., Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A2

    2017

  17. [25]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805

    2014

  18. [26]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 153

    Jiang, L., Egami, E., Fan, X., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 153

    2013

  19. [27]

    2022, A&A, 659, A183

    Kerutt, J., Wisotzki, L., Verhamme, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A183

    2022

  20. [28]

    Kobayashi, M. A. R., Murata, K. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 25

    2016

  21. [29]

    M., Faber, S

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

    2011

  22. [30]

    A., Shapley, A

    Kornei, K. A., Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 693

    2010

  23. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04348

    Kostyuk, I., & Ciardi, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04348

    2024

  24. [32]

    2008, ApJ, 674, 70

    Lai, K., Huang, J.-S., Fazio, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 70

    2008

  25. [33]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L13

    Li, S., Wang, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L13

    2025

  26. [34]

    S., Wuyts, S., Huang, J.-S., & Jiang, L

    Liu, Y., Dai, Y. S., Wuyts, S., Huang, J.-S., & Jiang, L. 2024, ApJ, 966, 210

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ferguson, H. C. 2006, ApJ, 636, 592

    2006

  28. [36]

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

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

    2004

  29. [37]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 177

    2008

  30. [38]

    E., Finkelstein, S

    Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L36

    2012

  31. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Llerena, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V., Bacon, R., Lam, D., et al

    Maseda, M. V., Bacon, R., Lam, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5120

    2020

  33. [41]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 67

    2023

  34. [42]

    J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al

    McLure, R. J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 25

    2018

  35. [43]

    K., Tapken, C., Møller, P., et al

    Nilsson, K. K., Tapken, C., Møller, P., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 13

    2009

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L38

    Ning, Y., Cai, Z., Lin, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L38

    2024

  37. [45]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 1580

    Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1580

    2010

  38. [46]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 102

    Ouchi, M., Ellis, R., Ono, Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 102

    2013

  39. [47]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S13

    Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., Shibuya, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S13

    2018

  40. [48]

    B., & Peebles, P

    Partridge, R. B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 868

    1967

  41. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479

    Paulino-Afonso, A., Sobral, D., Ribeiro, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479

    2018

  42. [50]

    2009, A&A, 494, 553

    Pentericci, L., Grazian, A., Fontana, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 494, 553

    2009

  43. [51]

    J., Garilli, B., et al

    Pentericci, L., McLure, R. J., Garilli, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A174

    2018

  44. [52]

    E., & Xu, C

    Pirzkal, N., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., & Xu, C. 2007, ApJ, 667, 49

    2007

  45. [53]

    2008, ApJ, 681, 856

    Rauch, M., Haehnelt, M., Bunker, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 856

    2008

  46. [54]

    S., et al

    Ren, J., Li, N., Liu, F. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 96

    2023

  47. [55]

    S., Li, N., et al

    Ren, J., Liu, F. S., Li, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 4

    2024

  48. [56]

    S., Snyder, G

    Rose, C., Kartaltepe, J. S., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 54

    2023

  49. [57]

    2022, A&A, 665, L4

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Barrufet, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L4

    2022

  50. [58]

    2020, AJ, 160, 231

    Schlawin, E., Leisenring, J., Misselt, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 231

    2020

  51. [59]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 64

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 64

    2014

  52. [60]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 913

    Shimizu, I., & Umemura, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 913

    2010

  53. [61]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03242

    Shimizu, S., Kashikawa, N., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03242

    2025

  54. [62]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    Sobral, D., Matthee, J., Darvish, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    2015

  55. [63]

    2023, A&A, 678, A25

    Talia, M., Schreiber, C., Garilli, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A25

    2023

  56. [64]

    Tilvi, V., Scannapieco, E., Malhotra, S., & Rhoads, J. E. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2196

    2011

  57. [65]

    2019, A&A, 624, A141

    Urrutia, T., Wisotzki, L., Kerutt, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A141

    2019

  58. [66]

    P., R¨ ottgering, H

    Venemans, B. P., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2005, A&A, 431, 793

    2005

  59. [67]

    M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28

    2020

  60. [68]

    Z., & Zheng, X

    Wen, Z. Z., & Zheng, X. Z. 2016, ApJ, 832, 90

    2016

  61. [69]

    Z., Zheng, X

    Wen, Z. Z., Zheng, X. Z., & An, F. X. 2014, ApJ, 787, 130

    2014

  62. [70]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1760

    Wild, V., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1760

    2011

  63. [71]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 384

    Witten, C., Laporte, N., Martin-Alvarez, S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 384

    2024

  64. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 740

    Yang, G., Boquien, M., Buat, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 740

    2020

  65. [73]

    N., et al

    Yang, G., Boquien, M., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 192 12J. Ren et al

    2022

  66. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 53

    Yuan, F.-T., Zheng, Z.-Y., Jiang, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 53

    2024

  67. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08395

    Zhu, S., Zheng, Z.-y., Yuan, F.-T., Jiang, C., & Lin, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08395

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.