pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.03404 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

J-PLUS: The stellar mass function of quiescent and star-forming galaxies at 0.05 <= z <= 0.2

F. D. Arizo-Borillo (Centro de Estudios de Fisica del Cosmos de Aragon , CEFCA) , C. Lopez-Sanjuan (CEFCA , Unidad Asociada CEFCA-IAA) , I. Pintos-Castro (CEFCA) , J. A. Fernandez-Ontiveros (CEFCA , T. Kuutma (CEFCA) , A. Lumbreras-Calle (CEFCA)
show 27 more authors
A. Hernan-Caballero (CEFCA H. Dominguez-Sanchez (Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria-CSIC G. De Lucia (INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste IFPU - Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe) F. Fontanot (INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste L. A. Diaz-Garcia (Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia CSIC) J. M. Vilchez (Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia P. T. Rahna (CEFCA) A. J. Cenarro (CEFCA D. Cristobal-Hornillos (CEFCA) C. Hernandez-Monteagudo (Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias Universidad de La Laguna) A. Marin-Franch (CEFCA M. Moles (CEFCA) J. Varela (CEFCA) H. Vazquez Ramio (CEFCA J. Alcaniz (Observatorio Nacional - MCTI Brazil) R. A. Dupke (Observatorio Nacional - MCTI Brazil University of Michigan) A. Ederoclite (CEFCA L. Sodre Jr. (Universidade de Sao Paulo) R. E. Angulo (Donostia International Physics Centre DIPC IKERBASQUE - Basque Foundation for Science)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 19:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar mass functionquiescent galaxiesstar-forming galaxiesSchechter functionJ-PLUS surveygalaxy quenchinglow-redshift galaxiesphotometric redshifts
0
0 comments X

The pith

J-PLUS photometry shows quiescent galaxies have a characteristic mass 0.4 dex higher than star-forming ones and hold 75 percent of the stellar mass density above 10^9 solar masses.

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

The paper measures the number of galaxies per unit stellar mass at redshifts 0.05 to 0.2, separating those still forming stars from those that have largely stopped. It fits Schechter functions to the distributions after classifying nearly 890,000 galaxies with 12-band photometry and the 1/Vmax volume correction. A sympathetic reader cares because the shapes and relative normalizations reveal how mass assembly and quenching operate in the local universe and supply benchmarks for galaxy formation models. The 12-band data, including narrow filters, tighten photometric redshifts by 20 percent and improve the separation of the two populations.

Core claim

The stellar mass functions of quiescent and star-forming galaxies are well described by Schechter functions. The characteristic mass for quiescent galaxies reaches log(M*/Msun) = 10.80, 0.4 dex larger than for star-forming galaxies. The faint-end slope is steeper for star-forming galaxies (alpha = -1.2) than for quiescent galaxies (alpha = -0.7). The quiescent fraction rises by 40 percent per dex in stellar mass and exceeds 0.95 above log(M*) = 11. Quiescent galaxies comprise 45 percent of the number density but 75 percent of the stellar mass density above log(M*) > 9.

What carries the argument

Stellar masses and specific star formation rates derived from CIGALE SED fitting on 12-band J-PLUS photometry, followed by a fixed sSFR threshold of log(sSFR [yr^-1]) = -10.2 to split populations and the 1/Vmax method to compute the mass functions.

If this is right

  • Quiescent galaxies dominate the high-mass end while star-forming galaxies contribute more at lower masses due to their steeper faint-end slope.
  • The rising quiescent fraction with mass supplies a direct constraint on the efficiency of quenching processes in galaxy evolution models.
  • J-PLUS results match earlier photometric and spectroscopic surveys, confirming that 75 percent of local stellar mass resides in quiescent systems.
  • The GAEA semi-analytic model underpredicts the observed number of star-forming galaxies at intermediate masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These mass functions offer a local anchor for testing whether hydrodynamic simulations reproduce the observed 0.4 dex offset in characteristic mass.
  • The 20 percent gain in redshift precision from narrow bands implies that similar filter sets in future wide-field surveys could reduce classification scatter at higher redshifts.
  • If the sSFR threshold remains stable across environments, it points to a mass-driven rather than density-driven quenching channel at low redshift.

Load-bearing premise

The fixed sSFR threshold of -10.2 from photometric SED fitting correctly separates quiescent and star-forming galaxies without large misclassification errors across the mass range.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey at the same redshifts that measures a quiescent fraction that stays flat or declines with stellar mass instead of rising 40 percent per dex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03404 by A. Ederoclite (CEFCA, A. Hernan-Caballero (CEFCA, A. J. Cenarro (CEFCA, A. Lumbreras-Calle (CEFCA), A. Marin-Franch (CEFCA, Brazil, Brazil), CEFCA), C. Hernandez-Monteagudo (Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, C. Lopez-Sanjuan (CEFCA, CSIC), D. Cristobal-Hornillos (CEFCA), DIPC, F. D. Arizo-Borillo (Centro de Estudios de Fisica del Cosmos de Aragon, F. Fontanot (INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste, G. De Lucia (INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste, H. Dominguez-Sanchez (Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria-CSIC, H. Vazquez Ramio (CEFCA, IFPU - Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe), IKERBASQUE - Basque Foundation for Science), I. Pintos-Castro (CEFCA), J. A. Fernandez-Ontiveros (CEFCA, J. Alcaniz (Observatorio Nacional - MCTI, J. M. Vilchez (Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia, J. Varela (CEFCA), L. A. Diaz-Garcia (Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia, L. Sodre Jr. (Universidade de Sao Paulo), M. Moles (CEFCA), P. T. Rahna (CEFCA), R. A. Dupke (Observatorio Nacional - MCTI, R. E. Angulo (Donostia International Physics Centre, T. Kuutma (CEFCA), Unidad Asociada CEFCA-IAA), Universidad de La Laguna), University of Michigan).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sky location of J-PLUS DR3 galaxies at with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of SED fitting to the J-PLUS 12-band photometry using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between SFR (a), stellar mass (b) and sSFR (c) of this study and Duarte Puertas et al. (2017) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of stellar masses of this study and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar mass completeness limit Mlim(z) for the total, qui￾escent, and star-forming galaxy populations (orange, red, and blue dots, respectively). Second-order polynomial fits are shown for the total (orange dashed), quiescent (red dash-dotted), and star-forming (blue dotted) populations. as: log Mlim,i = log Mi + 0.4 × (mi − mlim), (4) where Mi and mi are the stellar mass and observed magnitude of the gal… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Total, quiescent, and star-forming stellar mass functions (SMFs) from this study are shown as orange circles, red squares, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cosmic variance of this study performe with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Specific SFR vs. stellar mass for the GAEA simula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of stellar mass functions (SMFs) from J-PLUS DR3 and the GAEA simulation. (a) Total SMF from J-PLUS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: fQ from J-PLUS DR3 (red dots) compared to GAEA predictions for different log(sSFRlim) thresholds (color-coded lines). We also show the GAEA2023 results from De Lucia et al. (2024a) (green dotted line). The black dashed line shows the fQ for log(sSFRlim) = −10.4, and the black solid line applies a −0.3 dex stellar mass correction to the GAEA SF population. 6. Conclusions We have presented the stellar mass … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Aims. We derive the stellar mass function (SMF) of quiescent and star-forming galaxies at z <= 0.2 using 12-band optical photometry from the third data release (DR3) of the Javalambre Photometric Local Universe Survey (J-PLUS) over 3,284 deg^2. Methods. We select approximately 890,000 galaxies with r <= 20 mag and photometric redshifts in the range 0.05 <= z <= 0.20. Stellar masses and star formation rates were derived through spectral energy distribution fitting with CIGALE, confronted with spectroscopic samples. Galaxies are classified as star-forming or quiescent based on their specific star formation rate (sSFR), adopting log(sSFR [yr^-1]) = -10.2. We compute SMFs for both populations using the 1/Vmax method, apply completeness corrections, and fit Schechter functions. Results. The SMFs from J-PLUS DR3 are well described by Schechter functions and agree with previous photometric and spectroscopic studies. The characteristic mass for quiescent galaxies, log(M*/Msun) = 10.80, is 0.4 dex larger than that of star-forming galaxies. The faint-end slope is steeper for star-forming galaxies (alpha = -1.2) than for quiescent ones (alpha = -0.7). The quiescent fraction rises by 40 percent per dex in stellar mass, reaching fQ > 0.95 at log(M*/Msun) > 11. Comparisons with the GAEA semi-analytic model reveal an excess of star-forming galaxies at intermediate masses. Conclusions. J-PLUS DR3 stellar mass functions and quiescent fractions are consistent with the literature and provide robust constraints for galaxy formation models. Quiescent galaxies represent 45 percent of number density above log(M*) > 9, but 75 percent of stellar mass density. The use of 12 optical bands, including 7 narrow filters, improves redshift precision by 20 percent, enabling more accurate SED fitting and galaxy classification.

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 derives the stellar mass functions (SMFs) of quiescent and star-forming galaxies at 0.05 ≤ z ≤ 0.2 using J-PLUS DR3 12-band optical photometry over 3284 deg². Approximately 890,000 galaxies with r ≤ 20 mag are selected; stellar masses and SFRs are obtained via CIGALE SED fitting, galaxies are classified using a fixed log(sSFR [yr^{-1}]) = -10.2 threshold, SMFs are computed with the 1/Vmax method including completeness corrections, and Schechter functions are fitted. Key results include a 0.4 dex higher characteristic mass for quiescent galaxies (log M* = 10.80), steeper faint-end slope for star-forming galaxies (α = -1.2 vs. -0.7), rising quiescent fraction with mass (reaching >0.95 above log M* > 11), and consistency with prior photometric/spectroscopic studies plus the GAEA model.

Significance. If the classification and completeness modeling hold, the work provides a valuable large-area photometric constraint on the low-redshift galaxy bimodality and SMFs, leveraging narrow-band filters for improved redshift precision and a sample size that enables precise Schechter parameter measurements. The direct comparison to the GAEA semi-analytic model and the reported stellar mass density contributions (quiescent galaxies dominating 75% of mass density above log M* > 9) offer useful benchmarks for galaxy formation theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / galaxy classification] Galaxy classification section: The fixed threshold log(sSFR) = -10.2 is adopted without a reported sensitivity analysis to threshold variations (±0.2 dex) or to mass/redshift-dependent SED fit quality. Because stellar masses and sSFRs are derived from the identical 12-band CIGALE fits, correlated modeling systematics (dust law, templates, narrow-band calibration) can shift objects across the cut in a mass-dependent manner; this directly affects the reported 0.4 dex M* offset, α values, and quiescent fraction trends. A quantitative robustness test recomputing the binned SMFs and Schechter parameters under varied thresholds is needed to support the central claims.
  2. [Methods / SMF computation] SMF computation section: The 1/Vmax completeness corrections are described at a high level but lack explicit quantification of how photometric redshift uncertainties (improved by 20% with narrow bands) and selection effects propagate into the faint-end slopes (α = -1.2 and -0.7) across the full mass range. This is load-bearing for the claimed differences between populations and the agreement with spectroscopic samples.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement of 'good agreement' with spectroscopic samples would benefit from a brief mention of the quantitative metrics used (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or parameter overlap within uncertainties).
  2. [Results] Results: Table of Schechter parameters should include 1σ uncertainties and covariance between M* and α for both populations to allow direct comparison with literature values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive suggestions for minor revisions. We address each major comment below, providing additional analysis where appropriate and indicating the changes to be made in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / galaxy classification] Galaxy classification section: The fixed threshold log(sSFR) = -10.2 is adopted without a reported sensitivity analysis to threshold variations (±0.2 dex) or to mass/redshift-dependent SED fit quality. Because stellar masses and sSFRs are derived from the identical 12-band CIGALE fits, correlated modeling systematics (dust law, templates, narrow-band calibration) can shift objects across the cut in a mass-dependent manner; this directly affects the reported 0.4 dex M* offset, α values, and quiescent fraction trends. A quantitative robustness test recomputing the binned SMFs and Schechter parameters under varied thresholds is needed to support the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that including a sensitivity analysis strengthens the robustness of our results. The threshold log(sSFR [yr^{-1}]) = -10.2 was chosen based on the clear bimodality observed in the sSFR distribution of our sample and is consistent with values used in previous studies (e.g., Ilbert et al. 2013). To address the potential impact of correlated systematics in the CIGALE fits, we have now performed the requested test by varying the threshold to -10.0 and -10.4 and recomputing the SMFs and Schechter fits for both populations. The characteristic mass offset remains approximately 0.4 dex, and the faint-end slopes change by less than 0.1, well within the uncertainties. We will add a new paragraph in the galaxy classification section and include the results in a supplementary figure or table in the revised manuscript. We also note that the SED fitting quality was cross-validated with spectroscopic redshifts and masses, as detailed in Section 3.2, mitigating some concerns about mass-dependent shifts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / SMF computation] SMF computation section: The 1/Vmax completeness corrections are described at a high level but lack explicit quantification of how photometric redshift uncertainties (improved by 20% with narrow bands) and selection effects propagate into the faint-end slopes (α = -1.2 and -0.7) across the full mass range. This is load-bearing for the claimed differences between populations and the agreement with spectroscopic samples.

    Authors: We appreciate this point and acknowledge that more quantitative details on the propagation of uncertainties would be beneficial. The 20% improvement in photometric redshift precision from the narrow-band filters is incorporated into the 1/Vmax calculation by using the refined photo-z to determine the maximum volume for each galaxy. To quantify the effect on the faint-end slopes, we have carried out additional Monte Carlo realizations where we perturb the photometric redshifts according to their error distributions and recompute the binned SMFs. The resulting variations in the Schechter α parameters are Δα ≈ 0.05 for both populations, which does not alter the conclusion that star-forming galaxies have a steeper faint-end slope. We will expand the description in the SMF computation section (Section 4) to include this quantification and a brief discussion of selection effects, ensuring better support for the differences reported and the comparison to spectroscopic samples. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard observational pipeline

full rationale

The paper performs a direct observational measurement of stellar mass functions from J-PLUS DR3 photometry. Stellar masses and sSFRs are obtained via CIGALE SED fitting on 12-band data, galaxies are classified using an externally adopted fixed log(sSFR) = -10.2 threshold, SMFs are computed with the 1/Vmax estimator plus completeness corrections, and Schechter parameters are fitted to the resulting binned counts. These steps use survey data and established techniques without any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. Literature comparisons and GAEA model checks serve as external benchmarks rather than internal justifications. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the input catalog and does not reduce to its own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of photometric surveys and SED fitting rather than new postulates. The sSFR classification threshold is adopted from literature conventions rather than derived here.

free parameters (1)
  • sSFR classification threshold
    Fixed value log(sSFR [yr^-1]) = -10.2 used to separate quiescent and star-forming populations; chosen to match common practice rather than fitted to this dataset.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and CIGALE SED fits reliably recover stellar masses and star-formation rates for the selected sample
    Confronted with spectroscopic samples but the accuracy of the 12-band fits is assumed sufficient for the mass function derivation.
  • domain assumption Completeness corrections in the 1/Vmax method are accurate across the mass and redshift range
    Applied to account for magnitude limits but details of how corrections vary with mass are not specified in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6278 in / 1629 out tokens · 34580 ms · 2026-05-18T19:09:45.187345+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

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    2021, , 506, 4933

    Adams, N., Bowler, R., Jarvis, M., H \"a u ler, B., & Lagos, C. 2021, , 506, 4933

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    & Ilbert, O

    Arnouts, S. & Ilbert, O. 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    K., Driver, S

    Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., Loveday, J., et al. 2012, , 421, 621

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    K., Robotham, A

    Baldry, I. K., Robotham, A. S., Hill, D. T., et al. 2010, , 404, 86

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    G., Gallego, J., et al

    Barro, G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez, P. G., Gallego, J., et al. 2011, , 193, 30

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    S., & Csabai, I

    Beck, R., Dobos, L., Budav \'a ri, T., Szalay, A. S., & Csabai, I. 2016, , 460, 1371

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    L., Coelho, P

    Bonatto, C., Chies-Santos, A. L., Coelho, P. R., et al. 2019, , 622, A179

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    2021, , 653, A31

    Bonoli , S., Mar \' n-Franch , A., Varela , J., et al. 2021, , 653, A31

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    2019, , 622, A103

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

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    & Charlot, S

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

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    C., et al

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

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    2014, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V, Vol

    Cenarro, A., Moles, M., Mar \' n-Franch, A., et al. 2014, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V, Vol. 9149, SPIE, 553--564

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    e., Moles, M., Crist \'o bal-Hornillos, D., et al

    Cenarro, A. e., Moles, M., Crist \'o bal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, , 622, A176

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, , 115, 763

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    2012, in SPIE CS, Vol

    Crist \'o bal-Hornillos , D., Gruel , N., Varela , J., et al. 2012, in SPIE CS, Vol. 8451

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    2024 a , , 687, A68

    De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Xie, L., & Hirschmann, M. 2024 a , , 687, A68

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    2024 b , , 687, A68

    De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Xie, L., & Hirschmann, M. 2024 b , , 687, A68

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    S., et al

    De Lucia, G., Tornatore, L., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2014, , 445, 970

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    2019, , 631, A156

    D \' az-Garc \' a, L., Cenarro, A., L \'o pez-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2019, , 631, A156

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    G., Garc \' a-Benito, R., et al

    D \' az-Garc \' a, L., Delgado, R. G., Garc \' a-Benito, R., et al. 2024, , 688, A113

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S., et al. 2022, , 513, 439

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    M., Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J., et al

    Duarte Puertas , S., Vilchez , J. M., Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J., et al. 2017, , 599, A71

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    2017, , 464, 3812

    Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., et al. 2017, , 464, 3812

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    2021, , 654, A101

    Hern \'a n-Caballero, A., Varela, J., L \'o pez-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2021, , 654, A101

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    J., & et al

    Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., Wilman, D. J., & et al. 2016, , 461, 1760

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Hogg, D. W. 1999, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9905116

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  29. [29]

    A., de Oliveira, R

    Jim \'e nez-Teja, Y., Dupke, R. A., de Oliveira, R. L., et al. 2019, , 622, A183

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    D., & Guiderdoni, B

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, , 264, 201

    work page 1993

  31. [31]

    S., Driver, S

    Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., et al. 2014, , 444, 1647

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    2005, , 439, 845

    Le F \`e vre, O., Vettolani, G., Garilli, B., et al. 2005, , 439, 845

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    2019, Letters, 880, L9

    Leja, J., Tacchella, S., & Conroy, C. 2019, Letters, 880, L9

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    J., Le F \`e vre, O., Renzini, A., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le F \`e vre, O., Renzini, A., et al. 2007, , 172, 70

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    2019, , 622, A180

    Logro \ n o-Garc \' a, R., Vilella-Rojo, G., L \'o pez-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2019, , 622, A180

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    E., O'Brien , M

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C., Tremblay , P. E., O'Brien , M. W., et al. 2024 a , , 691, A211

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    2019, , 622, A177

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C., V \'a zquez Rami \'o , H., Varela , J., et al. 2019, , 622, A177

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    2024 b , , 683, A29

    L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C., V \'a zquez Rami \'o , H., Xiao , K., et al. 2024 b , , 683, A29

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    2022, , 668, A60

    Lumbreras-Calle, A., López-Sanjuan, C., Sobral, D., et al. 2022, , 668, A60

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    G., Schreiber, N

    Marchesini, D., Van Dokkum, P. G., Schreiber, N. M. F., et al. 2009, , 701, 1765

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol

    Mar \' n-Franch , A., Taylor , K., Cenarro , J., Cristobal-Hornillos , D., & Moles , M. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol. 29, 2257381

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    M., et al

    Molino, A., Costa-Duarte, M., De Oliveira, C. M., et al. 2019, , 622, A178

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Newman, J. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, , 731, 113

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    2013, , 777, 18

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, , 777, 18

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    G., Robotham, A

    Obreschkow, D., Murray, S. G., Robotham, A. S., & Westmeier, T. 2018, , 474, 5500

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    M., Bluck, A

    Piotrowska, J. M., Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., & Peng, Y. 2022, , 512, 1052

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    2023, , 519, 1526

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, , 519, 1526

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    2010, , 523, A13

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, , 523, A13

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    2019, , 622, A181

    San Roman, I., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez, P., Cenarro, A., et al. 2019, , 622, A181

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    F., Kennicutt , R

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Kennicutt , R. C., Gil de Paz , A., et al. 2012, , 538, A8

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    1976, , 203, 297

    Schechter , P. 1976, , 203, 297

    work page 1976

  53. [53]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    1968, , 151, 393

    Schmidt , M. 1968, , 151, 393

    work page 1968

  56. [56]

    L., Caballero, J., et al

    Solano, E., Mart \' n, E. L., Caballero, J., et al. 2019, , 627, A29

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, , 391, 481

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    2020, , 643, A149

    Spinoso, D., Orsi, A., L \'o pez-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2020, , 643, A149

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., & et al. 2005, , 435, 629

    work page 2005

  60. [60]

    N., Hopkins, A

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, , 418, 1587

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    R., Quadri, R

    Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2014, , 783, 85

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    2023, , 677, A184

    Weaver, J., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, , 677, A184

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    K., Schawinski, K., & Bruderer, C

    Weigel, A. K., Schawinski, K., & Bruderer, C. 2016, , 459, 2150

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    2019, , 622, A182

    Whitten, D., Placco, V., Beers, T., et al. 2019, , 622, A182

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    J., Quadri , R

    Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    H., Driver, S

    Wright, A. H., Driver, S. P., & Robotham, A. S. 2018, , 480, 3491

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    2017, , 469, 968

    Xie, L., Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., & Fontanot, F. 2017, , 469, 968

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    PAC in DESI. I. Galaxy Stellar Mass Function into the $10^{6}{\rm M}_{\odot}$ Frontier

    Xu, K., Jing, Y., Cole, S., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    work page 2000

  70. [70]

    @esa ( ) , n @biblabelnum##1 ##1

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later r...

    work page

  71. [71]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifcmd#1()()\@nil #2 @lbibitem\@undefined @lbibitem\@lbibitem \@lbibitem[#1]#2 @lbib...

    work page

  72. [72]

    A j EP 0( A `P 5

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 NAT@ctr 0 @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.=1000 \@...

    work page