Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 207 references

Most photometrically selected 'post-starburst' galaxies are still forming stars.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Most photometrically selected post-starburst galaxies in the FIREbox simulation are star-forming impostors, implying that AGN feedback is required to explain a long-lived quenched post-starburst population.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid simulation result on photometric PSB impostors, but the headline AGN-feedback claim rests on a broken Bayesian calculation that should not be cited as is. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.00146 v2 pith:N374TDH5 submitted 2025-08-29 astro-ph.GA

The Nature of Post-Starburst Galaxies: Real Deal or Masquerading Impostors?

Elia Cenci , Robert Feldmann , Sarah Wellons , Jindra Gensior , Luigi Bassini , Mauro Bernardini , Rachel Bezanson , Jorge Moreno
show 2 more authors
David J. Setton Lucas Tortora
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords post-starburst galaxiesgalaxy quenchingstar formationmolecular gasgalaxy mergersAGN feedbackcosmological simulationphotometric selection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper uses the FIREbox cosmological simulation to ask whether galaxies picked out by standard photometric post-starburst (PSB) colour criteria really are recently quenched galaxies. It finds that about 92 per cent of PSB-selected galaxies in FIREbox are impostors: they have star-formation rates and molecular gas fractions like normal star-forming galaxies, and only about 8 per cent show both low star formation and low gas content. The paper then feeds these selection rates into a Bayesian decomposition of the galaxy population, combined with observed PSB and quenched fractions. The result is that about 73 per cent of true PSBs would need an extra quenching mechanism beyond stellar feedback, most plausibly feedback from a massive black hole. This matters because it changes how observed PSB samples should be read: gas-rich, infrared-bright PSB candidates are probably contaminants, not transitional quenched galaxies.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, photometrically selected post-starburst galaxies in FIREbox at z = 0.7 and z = 1 are mostly star-forming galaxies masquerading as recently quenched systems. Only about 8 per cent of selected PSBs have both star-formation rates and molecular gas fractions below the star-forming main sequence, and about 92 per cent fail the physical definition of a true PSB, which the paper takes to be a quenched after-starburst galaxy. Among galaxies that genuinely are temporarily quenched after a starburst, only about 33 per cent would be picked out by the photometric criteria. Combining the simulated selection rates with observed fractions of PSBs and quenched galaxies in a three-p

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a Bayesian decomposition of the galaxy population into three exhaustive classes: star-forming galaxies (SF), true PSBs in the green valley (GV), and long-term quiescent galaxies (Q). The paper derives an expression for the impostor fraction F_Im = P(Im|PSB), using FIREbox to supply P(PSB|SF) = 0.087, the chance that a star-forming galaxy is photometrically selected as a PSB, and using observed PSB and quenched fractions for P(PSB) and P(Q). The assumption P(PSB|GV) = 1, together with the FIREbox-derived value P(PSB|q-ASB) = 0.328, carries the inference that most selected PSBs are contaminants and that the residual true PSB population must be quenched mostly by non-st

Load-bearing premise

The chain of inference assumes that every true post-starburst galaxy in the real Universe would be caught by the photometric selection, and that the selection and contamination rates measured in FIREbox, especially P(PSB|SF) = 0.087 and the quenched-after-starburst fraction 0.023, match reality.

What would settle it

A complete observational census of a large photometrically selected PSB sample with deep mid-infrared or radio star-formation tracers and CO measurements could settle the claim: if most selected PSBs turn out to be genuinely quenched, with an impostor fraction far below the predicted 80-90 per cent, or if the measured rate at which star-forming galaxies appear as PSBs is far below 9 per cent, the Bayesian inference collapses. Finding that gas-rich PSBs are overwhelmingly star-forming would support it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Photometric PSB samples contain a large contamination by star-forming galaxies; gas-rich PSBs detected in CO are almost exclusively impostors.
  • True PSBs should have molecular gas masses below typical ALMA CO detection limits, with longer depletion times, about 1.2 Gyr versus about 600 Myr for impostors.
  • The near-to-mid infrared luminosity ratio can separate true PSBs from impostors, with an optimal rest-frame ratio of about 3.85 x 10^3.
  • At high stellar mass, PSBs are preferentially interacting or major-merger systems; at low stellar mass, temporary quenching driven by stellar feedback dominates.
  • Stellar feedback alone cannot produce the observed long-lived quenched PSB population; about 73 per cent of true PSBs are predicted to require black hole or AGN feedback.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's Bayesian estimate assumes perfect selection of true PSBs, P(PSB|GV) = 1; if real photometric surveys miss a sizable fraction of true PSBs, the predicted AGN fraction could fall, so this completeness is the swing factor.
  • A direct observational census of the rate at which star-forming galaxies are selected as PSBs, P(PSB|SF), would provide an independent test of the contamination rate that drives the argument.
  • The same decomposition could be applied to spectroscopically selected PSB samples; FIREbox PSBs have H-alpha emission too strong for spectroscopic PSB cuts, suggesting spectroscopy alone may not remove impostors.
  • Simulations that include black hole feedback should produce a longer-lived, hydrogen-poor PSB population than FIREbox; checking that prediction is a natural next step beyond this paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the FIREbox cosmological simulation at z=0.7 and z=1, with SKIRT radiative transfer and cloudy emission-line modelling, to select post-starburst galaxies (PSBs) via the Kriek et al. (2010) photometric criteria. The authors find that PSBs represent about 9.2 per cent of galaxies with Mstar > 5e9 Msun, but only about 8 per cent of the photometrically selected PSBs are 'true' PSBs in the sense of being currently quenched after-starburst galaxies (q-ASBs); most selected PSBs are star-forming 'impostors'. They characterise gas fractions, star-formation histories, infrared colours, and interaction fractions, and conclude that low-mass PSBs can be temporarily quenched by stellar feedback while high-mass PSBs are preferentially merger-driven. Combining FIREbox's P(PSB|SF) with observational estimates of the impostor fraction and quenched-galaxy fraction in a Bayesian framework, the paper claims that more than 70 per cent of true PSBs in the Universe require an additional quenching channel, most likely AGN feedback.

Significance. The simulation-side result that photometrically selected PSBs in FIREbox are predominantly star-forming contaminants is valuable and has direct implications for interpreting CO and mid-IR observations of PSB candidates. The comparison with the SQuIGGLE sample and the use of full radiative transfer plus emission-line modelling in a cosmological volume are notable strengths. The proposed near-to-mid infrared ratio as a separator of true PSBs from impostors is a useful, testable prediction. However, the distinctive Universe-level claim that >70 per cent of true PSBs require AGN feedback is currently not reproducible from the equations and inputs given in Section 4, owing to a reciprocal error in Eq. (10), a contradictory treatment of P(PSB|GV), and inconsistent quoted values in Section 4.2. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract and conclusions, so the paper should undergo a major revision even though the core simulation analysis is sound.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) is not consistent with the derivation in Appendix A. From Eqs. (A1)-(A5) and F_Im = P(PSB|SF)P(SF)/P(PSB), one obtains P(GV) = (1-P(Q)) / [1 + (P(PSB|GV)/P(PSB|SF)) * F_Im/(1-F_Im)]. The printed Eq. (10) has (1-F_Im)/F_Im. With the stated inputs F_Im=0.27, P(Q)=0.5, P(PSB|SF)=0.087, the printed formula gives P(GV)=0.016 for P(PSB|GV)=1; the corrected formula gives P(GV)=0.095. The text's quoted P(GV)=0.084 is not obtained from either formula with these inputs; it corresponds instead to F_Im=0.30 with P(PSB|GV)=1. Since P(GV) feeds directly into Eq. (12), the '73 per cent' AGN figure is not reproducible as printed.
  2. [§4.1, text near Eqs. (9)-(10)] The framework assumes 'true PSBs are always observationally identified as PSBs, i.e. P(PSB|GV)=1', but the numerical evaluation immediately uses P(PSB|GV)=P(PSB|q-ASB)=0.328. These are mutually incompatible assumptions. The simulation value 0.328 is the measured completeness of the Kriek selection for q-ASBs; if it is used, the P(PSB|GV)=1 assumption must be dropped. With the corrected Eq. (10), P(GV) changes from 0.095 (P(PSB|GV)=1) to 0.209 (P(PSB|GV)=0.328), and P(AGN|GV) changes from about 0.76 to 0.89. The paper cannot quote 8.4 per cent and 73 per cent as derived quantities while using two contradictory values of P(PSB|GV).
  3. [§4.2, first and second paragraphs] The text first states that for F_Im=0.27, about 63 per cent of true PSBs must be quenched by additional mechanisms, and then, a few sentences later, says 'Plugging these numbers into Equation (12), we obtain that about 73 per cent'. The same stated inputs cannot yield both numbers. The 63 per cent has no derivation in the text; the 73 per cent requires P(GV)=0.084, which is not a valid result of Eq. (10) with the stated inputs (see Major Comment 1). The authors should recompute P(AGN|GV) with a consistent set of inputs and state which equation and parameter values produce the final number.
  4. [§4.2 and Table 1] The Bayesian inputs P(q-ASB)=0.023 and P(PSB|q-ASB)=0.328 are estimated from roughly 6 q-ASB galaxies among the 266 galaxies in the sample, yet they enter Eq. (12) directly through P(GV∩TQ). No uncertainty is propagated to the quoted AGN fraction. Given the small count, the point estimate is fragile: for example, with P(GV)=0.095, a factor-of-2 increase in P(q-ASB) changes P(AGN|GV) from about 0.76 to 0.52. The paper should report bootstrapped or posterior intervals for the AGN fraction, and the abstract/conclusion should be worded accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5 and §2.2] The summary states the sample is Mstar > 3e9 Msun, while the methods and Table 1 use Mstar >= 5e9 Msun. Please harmonise the mass threshold throughout.
  2. [§5, item (vi)] Item (vi) says interactions are especially important for Mstar < 3e10 Msun, which appears reversed relative to the Abstract and Section 3.3, where the high-mass bin shows the stronger PSB versus non-PSB contrast. Please check whether the inequality should be reversed.
  3. [Figure 15 caption] The caption uses 'P(GV|TQ)P(TQ) = P(GV∩TQ)'. This notation is confusing: the expression should simply be P(GV∩TQ). Please make the notation for the joint probability consistent across the text and figures.
  4. [Eq. (9)] The numerator of Eq. (9) has an ambiguous layout: '1 - P(PSB)/P(PSB|GV) - P(Q)' should be typeset with explicit parentheses to distinguish it from '1 - P(PSB)/(P(PSB|GV)-P(Q))'. As written, the equation is difficult to parse and appears inconsistent with the derivation in Appendix A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central FIREbox measurement and Bayesian extrapolation are self-contained, though the printed AGN-feedback number is not reproducible from the stated equations.

full rationale

The paper's core simulation result — that ~92% of photometrically selected PSBs in FIREbox are impostors — is a direct measurement from the simulation, not derived from fitting or from a cited result. The Bayesian extrapolation to the Universe is a forward calculation using FIREbox-derived inputs (P(PSB|SF)=0.087, P(q-ASB)=0.023), observed inputs (F_Im=0.27 from Baron et al. 2023, P(Q)=0.5), and an explicitly stated assumption (P(PSB|GV)=1). The quoted 73% AGN-feedback fraction is a computed output, not an input or a renamed known quantity, so no step reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper does contain internal numerical inconsistencies: Eq. (10) appears to invert the F_Im/(1-F_Im) factor compared to a re-derivation from Eq. (9) and Appendix A; the text simultaneously quotes P(PSB|GV)=0.328 and assumes P(PSB|GV)=1; and the quoted P(GV)=0.084 matches F_Im=0.30 rather than the stated 0.27. These are arithmetic/typographical correctness issues, not circularity. Self-citations (Feldmann et al. 2023, Cenci et al. 2024a,b) are used for simulation validation and supporting statements, but the central claim does not rest on an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or on a self-citation chain. Therefore no substantial circularity is present; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inference depends on the fidelity of the FIREbox simulation and mock observations, on the choice of thresholds that separate 'true' from 'impostor' PSBs, and on a Bayesian framework whose key assumption (P(PSB|GV)=1) is not satisfied by the simulation's own q-ASB selection rate (0.328). The ledger lists these choices as free parameters or axioms.

free parameters (6)
  • sSFR threshold for quenched classification = 3e-11 yr^-1
    Used in Section 2.9 to classify q-ASBs and star-forming galaxies; chosen by hand to mimic common observational boundaries. Directly sets which PSBs are 'true' vs impostor.
  • Fiducial aperture radius = 7 kpc
    Used for photometry in the fiducial PSB sample (Section 2.8); PSB fraction varies from 1% to 10% as aperture goes from 12 to 1 kpc (Figure 2).
  • Projection classification threshold = 1/3 of 16 projections (at least 6)
    A galaxy is counted as a PSB for average properties if selected in more than 1/3 of its 16 viewing angles (Section 2.8). Conclusions are said to be robust to 5-8 projections.
  • Interaction classification thresholds = qstar>1:4 major, qstar>1:10 minor; D<20, 50, 100 kpc
    Defines mergers, close passages, fly-bys in Section 2.6; sets the interaction fractions in Figure 12.
  • SFR averaging time = 20 Myr (also 5, 100 Myr)
    Adopted for sSFR thresholds and q-ASB definition (Section 2.9); affects which galaxies appear quenched.
  • Burst age window = 150 Myr around peak SFR
    Used to define burst mass fraction and burst age (Section 2.7); influences the comparison to observed burst mass fractions.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 physics with no AGN feedback is a faithful representation of star-forming galaxies and stellar feedback at z=0.7-1.
    The entire analysis uses FIREbox (Section 2.1) to represent the galaxy population; if FIRE-2 stellar feedback significantly mismatches real galaxies, the impostor fractions change.
  • domain assumption The Kriek et al. (2010) medium-band color criteria applied to mock SEDs identify the same galaxies as observational PSB selection.
    Mock photometry from SKIRT and CLOUDY (Sections 2.3-2.5) is used to select PSBs; any systematic offset in colors or dust treatment would alter the PSB sample.
  • ad hoc to paper The galaxy population is partitioned into three disjoint exhaustive classes: star-forming, green-valley (true PSB), and quiescent (Eq. A1).
    This simplification is introduced in Section 4 and Appendix A to enable the Bayesian estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper P(PSB|GV)=1, i.e., all true PSBs are photometrically selected as PSBs.
    Stated in Section 4: 'we will assume that "true" PSBs are always observationally identified as PSBs'. FIREbox itself gives P(PSB|q-ASB)=0.328, so this assumption may overestimate completeness.
  • ad hoc to paper P(AGN|SF)=0 and P(AGN|Q)=1, i.e., AGN feedback does not operate in star-forming galaxies and fully operates in quiescent galaxies.
    Used in Section 4.2 to derive P(AGN|GV) via Bayes' theorem; extreme simplifying assignments.
  • domain assumption Observational estimates P(PSB)=0.05, P(Q)=0.5, F_Im=0.27 are representative of the z~0.7-1 Universe.
    Adopted from literature (Wild et al. 2016, Leja et al. 2022, Baron et al. 2023) in Section 4.1; variations are shown in Figures 14-15, but the central values drive the 73% estimate.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Nature of Post-Starburst Galaxies: Real Deal or Masquerading Impostors?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N374TDH5

@misc{pith2026250900146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Nature of Post-Starburst Galaxies: Real Deal or Masquerading Impostors?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N374TDH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00146}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Post-starburst galaxies (PSBs) are a population of galaxies with spectral and photometric features indicative of rapid quenching following a recent starburst. The origin and nature of PSBs are currently debated. For example, a number of observed PSBs unexpectedly host substantial molecular gas despite their low inferred star-formation activity. Furthermore, the relative roles of galaxy interactions and quenching mechanisms in PSBs remain unclear. We study PSBs at $z=0.7$ and $z=1$ in the FIREbox cosmological simulation, selecting them primarily via their rest-frame optical photometric properties. The fraction of PSBs in FIREbox broadly agrees with observations, although some candidates are clear impostors with star-formation rates comparable to star-forming galaxies of similar mass. Impostors are rich in molecular gas and have a larger near-to-mid infrared flux ratios compared to quenched PSBs in the sample. The role of galaxy interactions of PSBs in FIREbox depends on their stellar mass. At low stellar masses ($\lesssim 10^{10}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$), PSBs have interaction fractions comparable to those of non-PSBs in the simulation, consistent with a scenario in which stellar feedback and gas consumption drive temporary quenching of star formation. At higher stellar masses ($\gtrsim 10^{10}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$), PSBs are preferentially interacting systems compared to non-PSBs, with major mergers providing the dominant contribution. We conclude that stellar feedback and galaxy interactions in FIREbox can produce galaxies with observational properties akin to those of observed PSBs, many of which are actively forming stars. Additional quenching channels, such as massive black hole feedback, are likely required to explain a long-lived, quenched population of PSBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00146 by David J. Setton, Elia Cenci, Jindra Gensior, Jorge Moreno, Lucas Tortora, Luigi Bassini, Mauro Bernardini, Rachel Bezanson, Robert Feldmann, Sarah Wellons.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic summary of the fraction of z = 0.7, 1 galax￾ies in FIREbox with stellar mass Mstar > 5 × 109 M⊙, that are selected as PSBs, after-starburst galaxies (ASBs), and (temporar￾ily) quenched ASBs (q-ASBs). Left: Fraction of ASBs and q-ASBs, given that they are selected as PSBs in FIREbox. Among PSBs, about 52 per cent are ASBs and only about 8 per cent are q-ASBs. Therefore, about 92 per cent of select… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total stellar mass (Mstar) and specific star-formation rate (sSFR) of z = 0.7 (upper panels) and z = 1 (bottom panels) FIREbox galaxies with Mstar ≥ 5 × 109 M⊙. SFRs are computed using two different averaging times of 20 (left panels) and 100 Myr (right panels). The orange triangles show PSBs in our fiducial sample, that are selected as such in more than 1/3 of the available projections, following the crit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total stellar mass (Mstar), total gas mass (Mgas; left panel), and molecular gas mass (MH2 ; right panel) of z = 0.7 (upper panels) and z = 1 (lower panels) FIREbox galaxies with Mstar ≥ 5×109 M⊙. The orange triangles show PSBs in our fiducial sample, that are selected as such in more than 1/3 of the available projections, following the criterion of Kriek et al. (2010), and measuring photometry within an a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total molecular gas mass (MH2 ) and star-formation rate (SFR) of z = 0.7 and z = 1 galaxies in FIREbox with Mstar ≥ 5 × 109 M⊙. SFRs are computed using an averaging time of 20 Myr. The orange triangles show PSBs in our fidu￾cial sample, that are selected as such in more than 1/3 of the available projections, following the criterion of Kriek et al. (2010), and measuring photometry within an aperture of 7 kp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of star-formation histories (SFH) of z = 0.7, 1 galaxies in FIREbox with Mstar > 5 × 109 M⊙. From left to right panels, galaxies have increasing stellar masses. We show the evolution of both specific SFR (sSFR; with 20 Myr averaging time; solid lines; left y-axes) and molecular hydrogen gas mass fraction (MH2 /Mstar; dash-dotted lines; right y-axes), over the past Gyr, for galaxies selected among … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated probability density function (PDF) for the burst mass fractions (left panel) and burst ages (right panel) of PSBs (that are selected as such in at least 1/3 (6 out of 16) of their available projections; orange lines) and non-PSBs (black lines) in FIREbox (z = 0.7, 1; Mstar > 5 × 109 M⊙). Burst ages are defined as the time when these galaxies experienced their most recent major starburst event and… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total molecular hydrogen gas mass (MH2; left panel) and molecular hydrogen fraction (MH2/Mstar; right panel) of FIREbox galaxies as a function of the time when they assembled 90 per cent of the stellar mass they have formed in the past Gyr (tPSB,90). Mstar ≥ 5×109 M⊙. Grey, shaded contours show the 1-2σ 2D distribution of all FIREbox galaxies with Mstar ≥ 5×109 M⊙ at z = 0.7, 1. The orange triangles show P… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the median of the stacked spec￾tral energy distributions (SEDs; re-normalized) of PSBs from the SQuIGGL⃗E sample (0.5 < z < 1) of Suess et al. (2022, purple line) and in FIREbox (black line; 15 galaxies at z = 0.7, 1, selected with the Kriek et al. criterion), including out ‘true’ PSBs. Shaded areas represent the 16th to 84th percentiles bootstrapped variation of the median (solid line).… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mid-infrared (MIR) and near-infrared (NIR) luminosity (ν Lν) of FIREbox PSBs (orange triangles). The left panel shows the MIR luminosity at a rest-frame wavelength of 24 µm and NIR luminosity at a rest-frame wavelength of 2 µm. The right panel shows the luminosity at a observed-frame wavelength of 24 µm (rest-frame 12 − 14.1 µm, depending on the redshift of the sources) and NIR luminosity at a observed-fr… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Median (over the considered projections) Lick HδA and Dn4000 for z = 0.7 (left panel) and z = 1 (right panel) FIREbox galaxies with Mstar > 5 × 109 M⊙ in comparison to observations of PSBs at z ∼ 0 − 1. For FIREbox, we show the distribution of all galaxies within this plane (black, dotted 1-2σ contours) as well as the selected PSBs using different criteria: Kriek et al. (2010) (orange triangles), French e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Upper panel: fraction of FIREbox galaxies that experienced an interaction in the past Gyr, for two stellar mass bins (Mstar < 3 × 1010 M⊙ and Mstar > 3 × 1010 M⊙). We show the interacting fraction for non-PSBs (grey bars) and for PSBs (orange bars), selected with a fixed aperture of 7 kpc and using the photometry-based selection criterion by Kriek et al. (2010). Here, we only consider as PSBs those galaxi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fraction of galaxies that experienced a major interac￾tion (either major merger or major close passage; see Section 2.6) in the past Gyr, among impostor PSBs (orange triangles) and non￾PSBs (grey line) in FIREbox, as a function of their estimated time since they assembled > 90 per cent of the mass they formed in the last Gyr (tPSB,90; see Section 2.7). The shaded areas and error bars represent the bootstr… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Fraction of impostors among PSBs (i.e. P (Im|PSB) ≡ F Im ), as a function of the fraction of PSBs selected among star￾forming galaxies (i.e. P (PSB|SF)), according to Equation (9) and assuming P (PSB|GV) = 1. Different lines refer to differ￾ent values for the fraction of PSBs selected among all galaxies, P (PSB) = 0.02, 0.05, 0.1 (dotted, dashed, and solid lines, respec￾tively), for P (Q) = 0.3. Shaded ar… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Fraction of PSBs that are expected to be quenched primarily due to black hole feedback (i.e. P (AGN|GV)), as a function of the fraction of PSBs selected among star-forming galaxies (i.e. P (PSB|SF)), according to Equation (12). Different lines refer to different values for the fraction of ‘true’ PSBs that are temporarily quenched due to stellar feedback, P (GV|TQ) P (TQ) = P (GV ∩ TQ) = 0.02, 0.05, 0.1 (b… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

207 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abazajian K., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....128..502A 128, 502

    doi:10.1086/421365 2004

  2. [2]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...88A 735, 88

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/88 2011

  3. [3]

    L., Appleton P

    Alatalo K., Cales S. L., Appleton P. N., Kewley L. J., Lacy M., Lisenfeld U., Nyland K., Rich J. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794L..13A 794, L13

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l13 2014

  4. [4]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...31A 798, 31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/31 2015

  5. [5]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224...38A 224, 38

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38

  6. [6]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..106A 827, 106

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/106

  7. [7]

    S., Lanz L., 2016c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..137A 830, 137

    Alatalo K., Aladro R., Nyland K., Aalto S., Bitsakis T., Gallagher J. S., Lanz L., 2016c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..137A 830, 137

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/137

  8. [8]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843....9A 843, 9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72eb 2017

  9. [9]

    Alves J., Combes F., Ferrara A., Forveille T., Shore S., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629543 , 594

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629543 2016

  10. [10]

    F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4698A 470, 4698

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4698A 470, 4698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 2017

  11. [11]

    Arnouts S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476..137A 476, 137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077632 2007

  12. [12]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250109070B p

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250109070B p. arXiv:2501.09070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09070 2025

  13. [13]

    K., Balogh M

    Baldry I. K., Balogh M. L., Bower R. G., Glazebrook K., Nichol R. C., Bamford S. P., Budavari T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373..469B 373, 469

    arXiv 2006

  14. [14]

    L., Morris S

    Balogh M. L., Morris S. L., Yee H. K. C., Carlberg R. G., Ellingson E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...527...54B 527, 54

    doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  15. [15]

    E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...331..699B 331, 699

    Barnes J. E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...331..699B 331, 699

    doi:10.1086/166593 1988

  16. [16]

    E., Hernquist L

    Barnes J. E., Hernquist L. E., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370L..65B 370, L65

    doi:10.1086/185978 1991

  17. [17]

    E., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..115B 471, 115

    Barnes J. E., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..115B 471, 115

    doi:10.1086/177957 1996

  18. [18]

    Baron D., Poznanski D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4530B 465, 4530

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3021 2017

  19. [19]

    X., F \"o rster Schreiber N

    Baron D., Netzer H., Poznanski D., Prochaska J. X., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1687B 470, 1687

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1329 2017

  20. [20]

    Baron D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3993B 480, 3993

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2113 2018

  21. [21]

    I., Xavier Prochaska J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5396B 494, 5396

    Baron D., Netzer H., Davies R. I., Xavier Prochaska J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5396B 494, 5396

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1018 2020

  22. [22]

    X., Davies R

    Baron D., Netzer H., Lutz D., Prochaska J. X., Davies R. I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4457B 509, 4457

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3232 2022

  23. [23]

    D., Lutz D., Davies R

    Baron D., Netzer H., French K. D., Lutz D., Davies R. I., Prochaska J. X., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2741B 524, 2741

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1792 2023

  24. [24]

    Barro G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..104B 765, 104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/104 2013

  25. [25]

    Barro G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...52B 791, 52

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/52 2014

  26. [26]

    C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Cenci E., Liang L., Bernardini M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5388B 525, 5388

    Bassini L., Feldmann R., Gensior J., Hayward C. C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Cenci E., Liang L., Bernardini M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5388B 525, 5388

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2617 2023

  27. [27]

    Inflow and outflow properties, not total gas fractions, drive the evolution of the mass-metallicity relation

    Bassini L., Feldmann R., Gensior J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Cenci E., Moreno J., Bernardini M., Liang L., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240113824B p. arXiv:2401.13824

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13824 2024

  28. [29]

    F., McIntosh D

    Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..149..289B 149, 289

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  29. [30]

    F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    Bell E. F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    doi:10.1086/420778 2004

  30. [31]

    B., Ellis R

    Belli S., Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...17B 874, 17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  31. [32]

    Belli S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909L..11B 909, L11

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6 2021

  32. [33]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1255B 5, 1255

    Benavides J. A., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1255B 5, 1255

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 2021

  33. [34]

    Bergvall N., Laurikainen E., Aalto S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...405...31B 405, 31

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030542 2003

  34. [35]

    Bernardini M., Feldmann R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J., Mayer L., Stadel J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1323B 509, 1323

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3088 2022

  35. [36]

    Bernardini M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1201B 538, 1201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf341 2025

  36. [37]

    Bezanson R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..153B 925, 153

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa 2022

  37. [39]

    R., Moustakas J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..159B 47, 159

    Blanton M. R., Moustakas J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..159B 47, 159

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 2009

  38. [40]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    doi:10.1086/375528 2003

  39. [41]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  40. [42]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.499..450B 499, 450

    Bolatto A. D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.499..450B 499, 450

    doi:10.1038/nature12351 2013

  41. [43]

    Brown M. J. I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..150B 703, 150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/150 2009

  42. [44]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305262 , 495, 80

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  43. [45]

    A., Franx M., Leonardi A

    Caldwell N., Rose J. A., Franx M., Leonardi A. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....111...78C 111, 78

    work page doi:10.1086/117762 1996

  44. [46]

    H., eds, , Secular Evolution of Galaxies

    Calzetti D., 2013, in Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Knapen J. H., eds, , Secular Evolution of Galaxies. Cambridge University Press, p. 419

    2013

  45. [47]

    Camps P., Baes M., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&C....3100381C 31, 100381

    arXiv 2020

  46. [48]

    R., Volonteri M., Dotti M., Bellovary J

    Capelo P. R., Volonteri M., Dotti M., Bellovary J. M., Mayer L., Governato F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2123C 447, 2123

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2500 2015

  47. [49]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  48. [50]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.619..716C 619, 716

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.619..716C 619, 716

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  49. [51]

    Cenci E., Feldmann R., Gensior J., Moreno J., Bassini L., Bernardini M., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7871C 527, 7871

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3709

  50. [52]

    S., Moreno J., Bassini L., Bernardini M., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ffb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L..40C 961, L40

    Cenci E., Feldmann R., Gensior J., Bullock J. S., Moreno J., Bassini L., Bernardini M., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ffb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L..40C 961, L40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ffb 2041

  51. [53]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  52. [54]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RMxAA..59..327C 59, 327

    doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 2023

  53. [55]

    Christensen C. R., Dav \'e R., Governato F., Pontzen A., Brooks A., Munshi F., Quinn T., Wadsley J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/5710.48550/arXiv.1508.00007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...57C 824, 57

    arXiv 2016

  54. [56]

    Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..393C 51, 393

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  55. [57]

    J., Sharples R

    Couch W. J., Sharples R. M., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/229.3.423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.229..423C 229, 423

    doi:10.1093/mnras/229.3.423 1987

  56. [59]

    D'Eugenio C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7a96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892L...2D 892, L2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7a96 2020

  57. [60]

    A., van de Voort F., Rowlands K., McAlpine S., Wild V., Crain R

    Davis T. A., van de Voort F., Rowlands K., McAlpine S., Wild V., Crain R. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.2447D 484, 2447

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz180 2019

  58. [61]

    De Propris R., Melnick J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2837D 439, 2837

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu141 2014

  59. [62]

    L., Semelin B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...61D 468, 61

    Di Matteo P., Combes F., Melchior A. L., Semelin B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...61D 468, 61

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 2007

  60. [63]

    L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    Di Matteo P., Bournaud F., Martig M., Combes F., Melchior A. L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 2008

  61. [64]

    H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.197D 635, A197

    D \' az-Garc \' a S., Knapen J. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.197D 635, A197

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937384 2020

  62. [65]

    Mini-quenching of $z=4-8$ galaxies by bursty star formation

    Dome T., Tacchella S., Fialkov A., Dekel A., Ginzburg O., Lapiner S., Looser T. J., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.07066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230507066D p. arXiv:2305.07066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.07066 2023

  63. [66]

    E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    Dressler A., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    doi:10.1086/161093 1983

  64. [67]

    Dupraz C., Casoli F., Combes F., Kazes I., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...228L...5D 228, L5

    1990

  65. [68]

    F., Kere s D., Chan T

    El-Badry K., Wetzel A., Geha M., Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., Chan T. K., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820..131E 820, 131

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/131 2016

  66. [71]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  67. [72]

    L., Mendel J

    Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3627E 435, 3627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1562 2013

  68. [73]

    Galaxy evolution in the post-merger regime. II -- Post-merger quenching peaks within 500 Myr of coalescence

    Ellison S. L., Ferreira L., Wild V., Wilkinson S., Rowlands K., Patton D. R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241006357E p. arXiv:2410.06357

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.06357 2024

  69. [74]

    M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..265F 665, 265

    Faber S. M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..265F 665, 265

    doi:10.1086/519294 2007

  70. [75]

    Feldmann R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3831F 522, 3831

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  71. [76]

    Fensch J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.1934F 465, 1934

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2920 2017

  72. [77]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4812F 501, 4812

    Flores Vel \'a zquez J. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4812F 501, 4812

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3893 2021

  73. [78]

    Forrest B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..131F 863, 131

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad232 2018

  74. [79]

    D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133g2001F 133, 072001

    French K. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133g2001F 133, 072001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 2021

  75. [80]

    D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A., Narayanan D., Shirley Y., Walter F., Smith J.-D., Tremonti C

    French K. D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A., Narayanan D., Shirley Y., Walter F., Smith J.-D., Tremonti C. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801....1F 801, 1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/1 2015

  76. [81]

    D., Zabludoff A

    French K. D., Zabludoff A. I., Yoon I., Shirley Y., Yang Y., Smercina A., Smith J. D., Narayanan D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..123F 861, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8de 2018

  77. [82]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca46e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...25F 942, 25

    French K. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca46e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...25F 942, 25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca46e 2023

  78. [83]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  79. [84]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.516...68G 516, 68

    Geach J. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.516...68G 516, 68

    doi:10.1038/nature14012 2014

  80. [85]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864L...1G 864, L1

    Geach J. E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864L...1G 864, L1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b6 2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.