arxiv: 2510.08997 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Galaxy Metallicity Gradients in the Reionization Epoch from the FIRE-2 Simulations

Xunda Sun , Xin Wang , Fangzhou Jiang , Houjun Mo , Luis C. Ho , Qianqiao Zhou , Xiangcheng Ma , Hu Zhan

show 5 more authors

Andrew Wetzel Russell L. Graf Philip F. Hopkins Dusan Keres Jonathan Stern

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords metallicity gradientsreionization epochFIRE-2 simulationsgas-phase metallicityhigh-redshift galaxiesstar formation ratechemical enrichmentgalaxy kinematics

0 comments

The pith

Simulations show reionization-era galaxies have negative metallicity gradients that flatten from z=10 to z=6.

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

The paper applies the FIRE-2 cosmological hydrodynamic simulations to map gas-phase metallicity as a function of radius across 22 galaxies from redshift 10 down to 5. It finds that the typical gradient starts at -0.15 dex per kiloparsec at the earliest times and becomes shallower by z approximately 6, while also showing clear ties to galaxy mass, star-formation intensity, and a kinematic indicator of gas flows. A sympathetic reader cares because these patterns trace how the first generations of stars chemically enrich their host galaxies from the inside out, setting the initial conditions for all later galaxy growth that telescopes can now observe directly.

Core claim

In the high-redshift FIRE-2 suite, galaxies at z~10 display a median gas-phase metallicity gradient of -0.15 dex kpc^{-1} with large scatter that gradually flattens to -0.1 dex kpc^{-1} at z~6 with reduced scatter. At fixed stellar mass the gradients correlate positively with stellar mass and with the ratio Δv/2σ, while they anticorrelate with specific star-formation rate; galaxies with steeper gradients also show higher central star-formation-rate surface densities. Because the simulated systems lack strong rotational support, Δv/2σ is adopted as a proxy for gas-flow strength, linking weaker flows to steeper gradients and therefore to more localized, inefficiently mixed star formation that,

What carries the argument

The radial slope of gas-phase metallicity (dex kpc^{-1}) and its correlation with the kinematic ratio Δv/2σ used as a proxy for the strength of gas flows in dispersion-dominated systems.

If this is right

More massive galaxies in the epoch of reionization exhibit flatter metallicity gradients and smaller scatter around the median relation.
At fixed stellar mass, systems with elevated star-formation rates develop steeper negative gradients.
Lower values of Δv/2σ, interpreted as weaker gas flows, correspond to steeper gradients and therefore more inside-out enrichment.
Galaxies with the steepest gradients also maintain the highest central star-formation-rate surface densities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the simulated trends are realized in nature, resolved JWST spectroscopy should recover a clear stellar-mass dependence in metallicity gradients at z greater than 6.
The same inside-out enrichment picture may explain abundance variations observed in even higher-redshift systems once comparable data become available.
Direct kinematic maps that independently constrain gas-flow velocities would provide an external test of whether Δv/2σ continues to serve as a useful proxy.

Load-bearing premise

That the ratio of peak-to-peak velocity shear to twice the velocity dispersion reliably tracks the strength of gas flows inside these early, dispersion-supported galaxies.

What would settle it

A JWST sample of z~8-10 galaxies in which metallicity gradient slope shows no statistical dependence on measured Δv/2σ or on central star-formation surface density would directly contradict the reported correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08997 by Andrew Wetzel, Dusan Keres, Fangzhou Jiang, Houjun Mo, Hu Zhan, Jonathan Stern, Luis C. Ho, Philip F. Hopkins, Qianqiao Zhou, Russell L. Graf, Xiangcheng Ma, Xin Wang, Xunda Sun.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Example galaxy (z5m12d) from our sample. Left: For each sample, the left panel shows the face-on gas density map, the middle panel displays the stellar density map, and the right presents the gas-phase metallicity map. Here the white dashed circle indicates the radius R90, within which we measure the metallicity gradient, 5.8 kpc at z = 6.2, 5.1 kpc at z = 6, 4.6 kpc at z = 5.9. Right: Metallicity gradient… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The cosmic evolution of metallicity gradients. In general, the FIRE-2 simulations predict that galaxy metallicity gradients flatten from ∼ −0.15 dex · kpc−1 in the reionization epoch (i.e. z > 5) to ∼0 (flat radial gradient) during the cosmic noon (i.e. z ∼ 2), broadly consistent with other simulation results (Garcia et al. 2025). The red line and shaded region indicate the median and 1-σ spread of our mea… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Metallicity gradient versus stellar mass. The red line indicates the best-fit linear relation. We find a positive correlation between gas-phase metallicity gradient and stellar mass, consistent with recent observational results (Vallini et al. 2024; Venturi et al. 2024; Li et al. 2025c). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Metallicity gradient versus redshift at different stellar masses. Galaxies are divided into three stellar mass bins: M⋆ < 106 M⊙, 106 M⊙ < M⋆ < 108 M⊙, and M ⋆ > 108 M⊙. This binning allows us to examine how the redshift evolution of gas-phase metallicity gradients depends on galaxy stellar mass. Massive galaxies tend to show a more gradual evolution in their metallicity gradients with redshift, in contra… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Metallicity gradient versus SFR. SFR are measured as the young stars over the past 50 Myr. The color of each point shows the stellar mass of galaxy. The error-bar shows the means and 1 − σ of all samples. We also divide these galaxies into different stellar mass bins as linear fits in different color M⋆ < 106 M⊙, 106 M⊙ < M⋆ < 108 M⊙ and M⋆ > 108 M⊙. Across different mass bins, the metallicity gradie… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Metallicity gradient versus velocity dispersion σ and rotation support vc/σ for all gas particles. These EoR galaxies predominantly exhibit irregular morphologies. The red line represents the linear fit of our samples. The metallicity gradient exhibits basically no correlation with velocity dispersion and vc/σ. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 v/2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 [d e x k pc 1 ] los, r = 0.59, p = 0… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Metallicity gradient versus velocity deviation to dispersion ratio ∆v/2σ for all gas particles in three direction. The color of each point represents the galaxy’s sSFR. The big dots and error bars represent the median and 1 − σ uncertainty values measured in each ∆vlos/2σ bin, coloredcoded in the average sSFR. The metallicity gradient becomes steeper (i.e., more negative) with decreasing ∆vlos/2σ, sugge… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: SFR versus stellar mass. The color of each point show the redshift of all simulation galaxies in this work. The grey-scale 2D histogram represents the number density of galaxies at z > 5 observed with JWST. 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 [d e x k pc 1 ] z5m09b z5m10b 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 lo g(sSFR/yr 1 ) 10 9 8 7 6 5 z 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 [d e x k pc 1 ] z5m11e 10 9 8 7 6 5 z z5m12d 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Top: stellar mass M⋆, SFR and sSFR versus redshift. Bottom: velocity dispersion σmax, degree of rotational support vc/σ and deviation to dispersion ratio ∆vlos/2σ for all gas particles versus redshift. Stellar mass, SFR, and σmax exhibit strong positive evolution with redshift, whereas vc/σ shows a pronounced negative redshift evolution. In contrast, ∆vlos/2σ exhibits no significant evolution with reds… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We employ the high-redshift suite of FIRE-2 cosmological hydrodynamic zoom-in simulations to investigate the evolution of gas-phase metallicity radial gradients in galaxies in the epoch of reionization (EoR). Our sample consists of 22 galaxies spanning the redshift range $z \sim 10-5$. We find that galaxies at $z\sim10$ exhibit a median metallicity gradient of $-0.15\,\mathrm{dex\cdot kpc^{-1}}$ with substantial scatter, which gradually flatten to $-0.1\,\mathrm{dex\cdot kpc^{-1}}$ at $z\sim6$, accompanied by a reduction in scatter. In the EoR, metallicity gradients correlate positively with stellar mass: more massive galaxies display flatter gradients with smaller scatter, broadly consistent with recent JWST observations. At fixed stellar mass, galaxies with higher star formation rates (SFRs) exhibit steeper negative gradients, while sSFR shows a strong anti-correlation with gradient slope. Because EoR galaxies in FIRE-2 generally lack significant rotational support, we adopt the ratio of peak-to-peak velocity shear to twice the velocity dispersion ($\Delta v/2\sigma$) as a proxy for the strength of gas flows. We find a strong positive correlation between metallicity gradients and $\Delta v/2\sigma$: galaxies with lower $\Delta v/2\sigma$ (i.e., weaker gas flows) tend to exhibit steeper negative gradients. Furthermore, galaxies with steeper gradients display higher central SFR surface densities, suggesting localized star formation with inefficient interstellar medium mixing that drives inside-out chemical enrichment in galaxy evolution in the early Universe.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

FIRE-2 supplies new median gradient values and correlations at z=5-10 but the Δv/2σ proxy for gas flows rests on indirect evidence.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper extracts concrete median metallicity gradients from the FIRE-2 high-redshift suite across 22 galaxies, reporting -0.15 dex kpc^{-1} at z~10 that flattens to -0.1 at z~6, plus positive correlations with stellar mass and Δv/2σ and an anti-correlation with sSFR. Those numbers are new for this simulation set at EoR redshifts and line up with the mass trend seen in early JWST data. The link between steeper gradients and higher central SFR surface density is a straightforward observational tie-in that supports the inside-out enrichment picture they sketch. The simulation framework itself is established, so the trends come from a reproducible code base rather than ad-hoc fitting. The softer spot is the causal reading of the Δv/2σ correlation. The galaxies lack rotational support, so the authors treat the ratio as a flow-strength proxy and conclude that weaker flows allow steeper gradients via inefficient mixing. Yet in dispersion-dominated systems that ratio can be set by random motions, minor mergers, or line-of-sight effects instead of net radial transport. The text does not appear to compare the proxy against actual gas particle trajectories or mass-flux measurements, leaving the mixing-efficiency claim plausible but not directly tested. Sample size is modest, so scatter remains large and a few more zoom-ins could shift the medians. This is useful for anyone building or testing models of early chemical evolution or planning JWST follow-up on gradient measurements. A reader who needs quantitative simulation benchmarks at these redshifts will get direct value. The work is coherent enough on its own terms to go to a serious referee rather than a desk reject, though the proxy interpretation will need tightening in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes gas-phase metallicity radial gradients in a sample of 22 galaxies drawn from the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations over z ≈ 5–10. It reports a median gradient of −0.15 dex kpc⁻¹ at z ∼ 10 that flattens to −0.1 dex kpc⁻¹ at z ∼ 6, with positive correlations to stellar mass and Δv/2σ (adopted as a proxy for gas-flow strength) and an anti-correlation with sSFR; steeper gradients are further linked to higher central SFR surface densities, supporting an inside-out enrichment picture driven by localized star formation and inefficient mixing.

Significance. If the reported trends hold, the work supplies simulation-based forecasts for metallicity gradients in the reionization epoch that can be directly compared with JWST observations. The use of an established, publicly documented simulation suite (FIRE-2) and the modest but well-defined sample of 22 galaxies constitute clear strengths; the results are falsifiable predictions rather than post-hoc fits to observational data.

major comments (2)

[Results (Δv/2σ correlation paragraph)] Results section (discussion of Δv/2σ correlation): the claim that lower Δv/2σ indicates weaker gas flows and therefore steeper gradients rests on an untested assumption. In dispersion-dominated EoR galaxies, peak-to-peak velocity shear can arise from random turbulent motions, minor mergers, or projection effects rather than net radial inflows/outflows; no comparison to simulated gas-particle trajectories or mass-flux measurements is presented to validate the proxy.
[Methods / Sample selection] Sample and measurement description: the precise radial range, weighting (mass- or luminosity-weighted), and error estimation used to derive the metallicity gradients are not stated with sufficient quantitative detail to allow independent reproduction or assessment of systematic uncertainties in the reported median values and scatter.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the radial fitting range and any aperture corrections applied to the gradients.
[Text] Notation: the symbol Δv is introduced without a clear definition of how the peak-to-peak shear is measured (e.g., from the rotation curve or from the velocity field).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments have identified areas where additional clarity will strengthen the manuscript. We respond point by point below and have prepared revisions to address both major concerns.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results (Δv/2σ correlation paragraph)] Results section (discussion of Δv/2σ correlation): the claim that lower Δv/2σ indicates weaker gas flows and therefore steeper gradients rests on an untested assumption. In dispersion-dominated EoR galaxies, peak-to-peak velocity shear can arise from random turbulent motions, minor mergers, or projection effects rather than net radial inflows/outflows; no comparison to simulated gas-particle trajectories or mass-flux measurements is presented to validate the proxy.

Authors: We agree that Δv/2σ functions as a proxy rather than a direct tracer of net radial gas flows, and that velocity shear in dispersion-supported systems can originate from turbulence, minor mergers, or projection. Our choice of this metric is motivated by prior FIRE-2 results showing that EoR galaxies lack significant rotational support. The reported correlations with central SFR surface density and the inside-out enrichment picture provide supporting context within the simulation. To address the referee’s concern, the revised manuscript will include an expanded discussion explicitly acknowledging these limitations and stating that direct particle-trajectory or mass-flux validation lies beyond the scope of the present study. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods / Sample selection] Sample and measurement description: the precise radial range, weighting (mass- or luminosity-weighted), and error estimation used to derive the metallicity gradients are not stated with sufficient quantitative detail to allow independent reproduction or assessment of systematic uncertainties in the reported median values and scatter.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current text lacks the quantitative detail required for full reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated methods subsection that specifies the exact radial range used for the linear fits, whether the metallicity profiles are mass-weighted or luminosity-weighted, and the procedure employed for uncertainty estimation (including any bootstrapping or least-squares fitting errors). These additions will allow readers to assess systematic uncertainties in the reported median gradients and scatter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct measurements from FIRE-2 simulation outputs show no circularity

full rationale

The paper reports direct post-processing measurements of gas-phase metallicity gradients and their correlations with stellar mass, SFR, sSFR, and Δv/2σ from the outputs of 22 FIRE-2 zoom-in galaxies at z~10-5. No equations or derivations reduce the reported median gradient values (-0.15 dex kpc^{-1} at z~10 flattening to -0.1 at z~6) or the observed correlations to quantities fitted against the target results themselves. The choice to adopt Δv/2σ as a flow proxy follows from the simulation finding of limited rotational support and is an interpretive step rather than a self-definitional or fitted-input reduction. The analysis chain is self-contained against the simulation snapshots and does not rely on load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes that collapse the central claims back to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of FIRE-2 subgrid physics for high-redshift conditions and the interpretation of Δv/2σ as a gas-flow strength indicator; no free parameters are explicitly fitted to the gradient results in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption FIRE-2 hydrodynamic zoom-in simulations accurately capture the relevant physics of gas flows, star formation, and chemical enrichment in EoR galaxies.
Invoked implicitly as the basis for all reported trends; the paper treats the simulation outputs as representative of real galaxies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5862 in / 1366 out tokens · 38308 ms · 2026-05-18T08:36:55.961175+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Radial redistribution of stellar orbits in FIRE simulations of Milky-Way-mass galaxies
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

FIRE-2 simulations show that stellar radial redistribution scatter saturates at ~2 kpc for stars older than ~3 Gyr, with net orbital changes depending on age and current radius, broadly matching Milky Way observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

S., Tumlinson, J., et al

Acharyya, A., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06613, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06613

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06613 2024
[2]

2005, ApJL, 620, L13, doi: 10.1086/428498

Aguirre, A., Schaye, J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2005, ApJL, 620, L13, doi: 10.1086/428498

work page doi:10.1086/428498 2005
[3]

L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A

Andalman, Z. L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf930

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf930 2025
[4]

H., & Martini, P

Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013
[5]

2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

Arribas, S., Perna, M., Rodr´ ıguez Del Pino, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 2024
[6]

M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

Baker, W. M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 141, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02384-8

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02384-8 2025
[7]

2023, MNRAS, 525, 5388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2617

Bassini, L., Feldmann, R., Gensior, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2617

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2617 2023
[8]

A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S

Bellardini, M. A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., & Bailin, J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1637

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1637 2022
[9]

A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S

Bellardini, M. A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1606

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1606 2021
[10]

S., Maiolino, R., Kennicutt, R., et al

Bothwell, M. S., Maiolino, R., Kennicutt, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt817

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt817 2013
[11]

J., & Franx, M

Broadhurst, T. J., & Franx, M. 2004, ApJL, 611, L1, doi: 10.1086/423786

work page doi:10.1086/423786 2004
[12]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 4293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1343

Carton, D., Brinchmann, J., Contini, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1343

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1343 2018
[13]

2024, MNRAS, 532, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1757 —

Chen, Y., Mo, H., & Wang, H. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1757 —. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf791

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1757 2024
[14]

M., P´ erez, E., et al

Cortijo-Ferrero, C., Gonz´ alez Delgado, R. M., P´ erez, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731217

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731217 2017
[15]

2010, Nature, 467, 811, doi: 10.1038/nature09451

Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 467, 811, doi: 10.1038/nature09451

work page doi:10.1038/nature09451 2010
[16]

2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 2024
[17]

L., Mendel, J

Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1562

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1562 2013
[18]

K., Shapley, A

Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813, doi: 10.1086/503623

work page doi:10.1086/503623 2006
[19]

N., et al

Escala, I., Wetzel, A., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2858

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2858 2018
[20]

J., et al

Ferreira, L., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c 2022
[21]

D., et al

Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1757

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1757 2017
[22]

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

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x 2005
[23]

M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al

Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03804

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03804 2025
[24]

K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C

Gibson, B. K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J. 2013, A&A, 554, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321239

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321239 2013
[25]

A., Fontana, A., et al

Girard, M., Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1907

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1907 2020
[26]

A., et al

Gottumukkala, R., Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae754

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae754 2024
[27]

L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M

Graf, R. L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21377, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21377

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21377 2024
[28]

L., Wetzel, A., Bellardini, M

Graf, R. L., Wetzel, A., Bellardini, M. A., & Bailin, J. 2025, ApJ, 981, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adacd7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adacd7 2025
[29]

2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023
[30]

2024a, ApJL, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

He, X., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd 2041
[31]

Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 129512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2475-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2475-7
[32]

S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al

Hemler, Z. S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1803

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1803 2021
[33]

Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015
[34]

F., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt017

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt017 2013
[35]

F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018
[36]

2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

Hu, W., Papovich, C., Shen, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1 2025
[37]

C., & Sun, W

Jin, B., Ho, L. C., & Sun, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03455, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03455

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.03455 2024
[38]

B., et al

Jones, T., Wang, X., Schmidt, K. B., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/107

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/107 2015
[39]

Stark, D. P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1247, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16378.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16378.x 2010
[40]

2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

Ju, M., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada150 2025
[41]

A., Weiner, B

Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/106

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/106 2012
[42]

2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 15

King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 15

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015
[43]

N., Cohen, J

Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/102 2013
[44]

R., & Knebe, A

Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009
[45]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

Kravtsov, A., & Belokurov, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.04578 2024
[46]

S., White S

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

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001
[47]

D., Cannon, J

Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 970, doi: 10.1086/505573

work page doi:10.1086/505573 2006
[48]

A., Ellis, R

Leethochawalit, N., Jones, T. A., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/84

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/84 2016
[49]

D., et al

Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

work page doi:10.1086/313233 1999
[50]

2025a, ApJL, 979, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eac

Li, S., Wang, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 979, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eac

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eac 2041
[51]

2025b, A&A, 698, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452978

Li, T., Zhang, H.-X., Lyu, W., et al. 2025b, A&A, 698, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452978

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452978
[52]

2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12129, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12129

Li, Z., Cai, Z., Wang, X., et al. 2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12129, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12129

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12129
[53]

2025, MNRAS, 541, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf947

Liang, J., Jiang, F., Mo, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf947

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf947 2025
[54]

2024, ApJ, 966, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad392e

Luo, X., Wang, H., Cui, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad392e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad392e 2024
[55]

2025, ApJL, 981, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb4ed

Lyu, C., Wang, E., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb4ed

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb4ed 2025
[56]

F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2659

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2659 2016
[57]

F., Feldmann, R., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx034

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx034 2017
[58]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 2001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

Ma, X., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2404 2020
[59]

F., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 478, 1694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1024

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1024
[60]

F., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 477, 219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty684

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty684
[61]

C., Casey, C

Ma, X., Hayward, C. C., Casey, C. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1324

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1324 2019
[62]

2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

work page doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019
[63]

2008, A&A, 488, 463, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809678

Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809678

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809678 2008
[64]

T., Trundle, C., et al

Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x 2010
[65]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22712, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22712

Sun, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22712, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22712

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22712 2025
[66]

C., & Feldmann, R

Marszewski, A., Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Feldmann, R. 2024, ApJL, 967, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4cee

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4cee 2024
[67]

2024, MNRAS, 532, 3808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1727

Mo, H., Chen, Y., & Wang, H. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1727

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1727 2024
[68]

C., & White, S

Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807244

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807244 2010
[69]

2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556 —

Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04541, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04541

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd556 2023
[70]

2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 2013
[71]

E., Hayward, C

Orr, M. E., Hayward, C. C., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 849, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f93

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f93 2017
[72]

E., Hayward, C

Orr, M. E., Hayward, C. C., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1241

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1241 2018
[73]

E., Burkhart, B., Wetzel, A., et al

Orr, M. E., Burkhart, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad676

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad676 2023
[74]

Peng, Y.-C., Wang, J.-M., Zhao, Y., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 980, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada275

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada275 2025
[75]

E., Orr, M

Porter, L. E., Orr, M. E., Burkhart, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1958

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1958 2022
[76]

L., Shapley, A

Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/138

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/138 2015
[77]

L., Shapley, A

Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 2021
[78]

2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

Sarkar, A., Chakraborty, P., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32 2025
[79]

2025, A&A, 697, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348804

Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348804

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348804 2025
[80]

1971, ApJ, 168, 327, doi: 10.1086/151090

Searle, L. 1971, ApJ, 168, 327, doi: 10.1086/151090

work page doi:10.1086/151090 1971

Showing first 80 references.