pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.01684 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Transition from Outside-in to Inside-Out at zsim 2: Evidence from Radial Profiles of Specific Star Formation Rate based on JWST/HST

Jie Song , Enci Wang , Cheng Jia , Cheqiu Lyu , Yangyao Chen , Jinyang Wang , Fujia Li , Weiyu Ding
show 2 more authors
Guanwen Fang Xu Kong
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 03:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy size evolutionspecific star formation rateradial profilesredshift dependenceinside-out growthoutside-in growthJWSTstellar mass surface density
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galaxies above redshift 2.5 show mildly negative specific star formation rate gradients, meaning in-situ star formation alone cannot explain their size growth.

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

This paper combines JWST and HST data to build radial profiles of stellar mass and star formation rate surface densities for more than 46,000 galaxies across 0 < z < 4. At z > 2.5 the median star-formation surface-density profile is slightly steeper than the stellar-mass profile, producing negative sSFR gradients in every mass bin examined. Below z = 2 the same profiles flip and become progressively more positive at lower redshifts. A reader cares because the sign change marks a shift in the dominant way galaxies assemble their mass and size around the peak epoch of cosmic star formation. If the result holds, high-redshift galaxies must import mass from outside their existing stellar distribution to grow larger.

Core claim

Using rest-frame 1 μm morphologies to derive spatially resolved Σ_* and Σ_SFR profiles, the authors find that at z > 2.5 the sSFR profiles exhibit mildly negative gradients across all stellar-mass bins. This indicates that galaxies at these epochs cannot grow in size via in-situ star formation alone. At z < 2.0 the sSFR profiles instead show increasingly positive gradients toward lower redshifts, consistent with an inside-out growth mode in which star formation preferentially builds the galactic outskirts.

What carries the argument

The radial gradient of specific star formation rate obtained by dividing the Σ_SFR profile by the Σ_* profile, both constructed from rest-frame 1 μm structural parameters.

If this is right

  • Galaxies at z > 2.5 must accrete or merge with additional mass to produce the observed size evolution.
  • The transition near z ~ 2 separates an outside-in assembly phase from the later inside-out phase.
  • The star-formation main sequence and size-mass relations remain consistent with earlier work, supporting the robustness of the profile measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The change in growth mode may coincide with the drop in gas accretion rates or merger activity after cosmic noon.
  • Dust-obscured central star formation could contribute to the apparent negative gradients at high redshift and should be tested with mid-infrared imaging.
  • Extending the same profile analysis to z > 4 could reveal when the outside-in regime first appears.

Load-bearing premise

Rest-frame 1 μm morphologies trace the true stellar-mass distribution without major systematic biases from dust attenuation or recent star formation.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of flat or positive sSFR gradients at z > 2.5 in a comparably large sample of star-forming galaxies would falsify the reported negative gradients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.01684 by Cheng Jia, Cheqiu Lyu, Enci Wang, Fujia Li, Guanwen Fang, Jie Song, Jinyang Wang, Weiyu Ding, Xu Kong, Yangyao Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The redshift and stellar mass distribution of our total good sample. The region enclosed by the black dashed lines indi￾cates the selected sample used in this study, defined by 0 < z < 4 and log(M∗/M⊙) > 8. The cyan solid curve represents the 90% stellar mass completeness limit corresponding to a magnitude limit of F444Wlim = 28 mag. The gray (yellow) histograms in the top and right panels show the redshif… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The fraction of enclosed light as a function of radius for each filter relative to F444W in the JADES-GDS field. The upper and lower panels present the results before and after PSF matching, respectively. To derive the spatially resolved physical property profiles of galaxies, we first estimate their morphologies to inform the construction of measurement apertures. We fit a single Sersic model using ´ GALF… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of our spatially resolved SED fitting for a randomly selected galaxy. The left panel shows the F444W-band image, with black dashed lines marking elliptical annuli spaced at intervals of 0.2Re. Four representative radial regions are highlighted in red, orange, cyan, and magenta, corresponding to 0 < r < 0.2Re, 0.4Re < r < 0.6Re, 1Re < r < 1.2Re, and 2Re < r < 2.2Re, respectively. The middle and righ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of galaxy SFR as a function of stellar mass across different redshift bins, with each panel corresponding to different redshift interval. The gray contours enclose 25%, 50%, 75%, and 99% of the galaxy population, respectively. The gray solid line in each panel indicates the sSFR threshold of 1/tH, where tH is the Hubble time at the median redshift of the bin; galaxies above this threshold are … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The distribution of SFR for SFGs mapped onto the stellar mass versus universe age plane, where the color scale indicates the median SFR within each square bin. Middle panel: The best-fit SFMS derived using a linear relation. Right panel: The residuals between the observed SFRs and the best-fit linear model. The small residuals demonstrate that a linear relation provides a good representation of… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of galaxy sizes as a function of stellar mass for SFGs across different redshift bins. In each panel, the gray contours enclose 25%, 50%, 75%, and 99% of the sample, respectively. The black points with error bars denote the median effective radius and the corresponding standard deviation within stellar mass bins. The black solid line represents the best-fit size–mass relation derived from our … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: The distribution of size for SFGs mapped onto the stellar mass versus redshift plane, where the color scale indicates the median size within each square bin. Middle panel: The best-fit models of the size mass relation. Right panel: The residuals between the observed size mass relation and the best-fit model. Ward et al. (2024) reported α values ranging from 0.15 to 0.19 over 0 < z < 4, which is… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of stellar mass surface density for SFGs, categorized into three stellar mass intervals and eight redshift intervals. For each bin, we present the median Σ∗ as a function of radius, normalized by the Re (top row) and in physical units of kpc (bottom row). To ensure the reliability of the profiles, we limit the radial range to regions where more than 50% of galaxies in the bin satisfy the ad… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the best-fit parameters derived from SED-fitting tests using mock SEDs and the corresponding input (ground truth) values. Data points are color-coded by redshift. The light gray error bars represent the uncertainties from the SED fitting process. The left panel shows results for stellar mass, while the right panel displays results for SFR. Insets in each panel present histograms of the … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By combining high-resolution observations from JWST and HST, we have measured the stellar masses, star formation rates (SFRs), and multi-wavelength morphologies of galaxies in the CANDELS fields. Furthermore, based on rest-frame 1 $\mu$m morphologies, we have derived spatially resolved stellar mass and SFR surface density ($\Sigma_*$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$) profiles for 46,313 galaxies with reliable structural measurements at $0<z<4$ and $\log(M_\ast /M_{\odot})>8$, and provide the corresponding catalogue. For star-forming galaxies (SFGs), our results show excellent consistency with previous studies in terms of the star formation main sequence and the size-mass relation, demonstrating the robustness of our stellar mass and SFR measurements. For spatially resolved profiles, we find that at higher redshifts ($z>2.5$), the median radial profile of $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ is nearly parallel to but slightly steeper than that of $\Sigma_*$. This results in mildly negative gradients in the specific SFR (sSFR) profiles across all stellar mass bins considered. These findings indicate that galaxies at $z>2.5$ cannot grow in size via only in-situ star formation, challenging the understanding of galaxy size evolution beyond the cosmic noon. In contrast, at $z<2.0$, the sSFR profiles transition to exhibit more and more positive gradients at lower redshifts, consistent with an inside-out growth scenario where star formation preferentially expands the galactic outskirts.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript measures stellar mass and SFR surface density profiles for 46,313 galaxies at 0<z<4 in CANDELS fields using JWST/HST data. For star-forming galaxies, it reports that at z>2.5 the median radial profile of Σ_SFR is nearly parallel to but slightly steeper than that of Σ_*, producing mildly negative sSFR gradients across stellar mass bins. This implies galaxies at z>2.5 cannot grow in size via in-situ star formation alone. At z<2 the sSFR gradients become positive, consistent with inside-out growth. The analysis shows consistency with the star formation main sequence and size-mass relation.

Significance. If robust, the result provides direct observational evidence for a transition in galaxy growth mode around z~2, with implications for models of size evolution at high redshift. The large sample size and reported global consistency checks are strengths that support the measurements.

major comments (1)
  1. [Derivation of Σ_* and Σ_SFR profiles from rest-frame 1 μm morphologies] The central claim of mildly negative sSFR gradients at z>2.5 rests on rest-frame 1 μm morphologies accurately tracing both Σ_* and Σ_SFR without major radial biases. At z>2.5, dust attenuation and bursty SFHs can cause 1 μm light to under-represent mass in obscured centers or over-represent it in regions of recent star formation, which would directly alter the relative slopes and the sign of the reported sSFR gradient. Global consistency with the SFMS does not constrain this spatially resolved effect; quantitative tests (e.g., mock images or multi-band comparisons) are needed to establish that the gradient sign is not an artifact.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from brief mention of error propagation, dust corrections, and the exact profile-fitting procedure used to derive the gradients.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting an important potential systematic in our analysis. We address the major comment below and are prepared to revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of mildly negative sSFR gradients at z>2.5 rests on rest-frame 1 μm morphologies accurately tracing both Σ_* and Σ_SFR without major radial biases. At z>2.5, dust attenuation and bursty SFHs can cause 1 μm light to under-represent mass in obscured centers or over-represent it in regions of recent star formation, which would directly alter the relative slopes and the sign of the reported sSFR gradient. Global consistency with the SFMS does not constrain this spatially resolved effect; quantitative tests (e.g., mock images or multi-band comparisons) are needed to establish that the gradient sign is not an artifact.

    Authors: We agree that dust attenuation and bursty star-formation histories at z > 2.5 can in principle introduce radial biases when rest-frame 1 μm light is used to trace both stellar mass and SFR surface densities. Our adoption of rest-frame 1 μm morphologies follows from its relatively weak sensitivity to recent star formation and dust compared with bluer bands, and from the fact that the same morphological parameters are applied consistently to both Σ_* and Σ_SFR. While the global consistency with the star-formation main sequence and size-mass relation provides supporting evidence for the overall measurements, we acknowledge that it does not directly test spatially resolved biases. To strengthen the analysis we will add a new subsection that (i) compares the 1 μm-based profiles with those derived from the available multi-band HST+JWST photometry for the subset of galaxies with sufficient wavelength coverage, and (ii) discusses the expected magnitude of any residual bias based on existing dust-attenuation maps from the literature. These additions will allow readers to assess whether the reported sign change in the sSFR gradient remains robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: sSFR gradients computed directly from observed surface density profiles

full rationale

The paper derives median radial profiles of Σ_* and Σ_SFR from rest-frame 1μm morphologies in JWST/HST data for a large sample of galaxies. The sSFR profiles are obtained by direct division (Σ_SFR / Σ_*) and their gradients are measured from these observed profiles without any fitting of parameters to subsets of the data or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing step reduces the reported sign change in gradients (negative at z>2.5, positive at z<2) to a fitted input or self-citation chain by construction. The central result is an empirical measurement from the data, with consistency checks against the star formation main sequence and size-mass relation serving only as validation rather than circular justification. This is a standard observational analysis with no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard conversions from observed luminosities to stellar mass and SFR surface densities plus the assumption that 1 μm light traces stellar mass; no explicit free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard stellar population synthesis models and initial mass function are used to convert multi-wavelength photometry into stellar masses and SFRs.
    Invoked when deriving Σ_* and Σ_SFR from the observed morphologies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5621 in / 1396 out tokens · 50675 ms · 2026-05-17T03:18:36.840488+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

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1771 Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., Jung, I., et al

    Abdurro’uf, & Akiyama, M. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1771 Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., Jung, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba06

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1771 2018

  2. [2]

    T., Gordon, K

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Gordon, K. D., & Sandstrom, K. 2011, PASP, 123, 1218, doi: 10.1086/662219

    work page doi:10.1086/662219 2011

  3. [3]

    M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A

    Baker, W. M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3672 2022

  4. [4]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  5. [5]

    M., Koo, D

    Barro, G., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 2017

  6. [6]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Conselice, C. J., Ormerod, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a98 2024

  7. [7]

    A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´e, N., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´e, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833136 2018

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  9. [9]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  10. [10]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  11. [11]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

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

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

  12. [12]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  13. [13]

    S., et al

    Ceverino, D., Klypin, A., Klimek, E. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu956 2014

  14. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  15. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 934, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8354

    Chen, G., Zhang, H.-X., Kong, X., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8354

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8354 2022

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada942

    Chen, Z., Wang, E., Zou, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada942

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada942 2025

  17. [17]

    E., Sanders, R

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 2024

  18. [18]

    K., Katz, H., Begley, R., Hayward, C

    Cochrane, R. K., Katz, H., Begley, R., Hayward, C. C., & Best, P. N. 2025, ApJL, 978, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d 2025

  19. [19]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a 2025

  20. [20]

    J., & Zeippen, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x 2000

  21. [21]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 2014

  22. [22]

    J., Bershady, M

    Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., & Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    work page doi:10.1086/377318 2003

  23. [23]

    G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al

    Costantin, L., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb926

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb926 2023

  24. [24]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    work page doi:10.1086/521818 2007

  25. [25]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 686, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/686

    Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., Walter, F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 686, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/686

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/686 2010

  26. [26]

    2022, A&A, 661, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243574

    Daddi, E., Delvecchio, I., Dimauro, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243574

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243574 2022

  27. [27]

    J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R. A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1742 2022

  28. [28]

    R., Simons, R

    Davis, K., Trump, J. R., Simons, R. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6865

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6865 2024

  29. [29]

    P., et al

    Davis, M., Guhathakurta, P., Konidaris, N. P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L1, doi: 10.1086/517931 de la Vega, A., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a2

    work page doi:10.1086/517931 2007

  30. [30]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/nature07648 2009

  31. [31]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #1837

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465 2023

  33. [33]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Wild, V ., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.127779 2024

  34. [34]

    L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 Euclid Collaboration, Enia, A., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15314, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15314

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 2022

  35. [35]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04085

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04085 2025

  36. [36]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  37. [37]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 661, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., Mancini, C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadd49

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  38. [38]

    G., Crain, R

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2740

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2740 2017

  39. [39]

    E., Hickox, R

    Geach, J. E., Hickox, R. C., Diamond-Stanic, A. M., et al. 2014, Nature, 516, 68, doi: 10.1038/nature14012

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14012 2014

  40. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3078 2018

  41. [41]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 411, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17920.x

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2091, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16969.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16969.x 2010

  42. [42]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232 Gim´enez-Arteaga, C., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc5ea Gim´enez-Arteaga, C., Fujimoto, S., Valentino, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349135 18

    work page doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  43. [43]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  44. [44]

    J., Adams, N

    Harvey, T., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05244

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05244 2025

  45. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad807f

    Tacchella, S. 2024, ApJ, 975, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad807f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad807f 2024

  46. [46]

    C., et al

    He, Z., Wang, E., Ho, L. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06868, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06868

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.06868 2025

  47. [47]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 644, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/644

    Ilbert, O., Salvato, M., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 644, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/644

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/644 2010

  48. [48]

    2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425176 2015

  49. [49]

    Inoue, A. K. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x 2011

  50. [50]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    Jain, S., Tacchella, S., & Mosleh, M. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 113, doi: 10.33232/001c.126775

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.126775 2024

  51. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    Jia, C., Wang, E., Wang, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a 2024

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18820

    Jia, C., Wang, E., Lyu, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18820

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18820 2025

  53. [53]

    C., & Sun, W

    Jin, B., Ho, L. C., & Sun, W. 2025, ApJ, 993, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a19 2025

  54. [54]

    L., Song, M., et al

    Jung, I., Finkelstein, S. L., Song, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/81 2017

  55. [55]

    Kacprzak, G. G. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Dav´e, 145, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9 7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9 2017

  56. [56]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  57. [57]

    P., Wijesekera, J

    Koprowski, M. P., Wijesekera, J. V ., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449948

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449948 2024

  58. [58]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x 2007

  59. [59]

    S., Ting, Y .-S., et al

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d 2022

  60. [60]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y . 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 2013

  61. [61]

    L., et al

    Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4815

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4815 2019

  62. [62]

    S., Jia, M., Yesuf, H

    Liu, F. S., Jia, M., Yesuf, H. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac20d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac20d 2018

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    J., Brammer, G., et al

    Matharu, J., Nelson, E. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450522

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450522 2024

  65. [65]

    2024, A&A, 691, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451409

    Merlin, E., Santini, P., Paris, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451409

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451409 2024

  66. [66]

    B., van Dokkum, P., & Mowla, L

    Miller, T. B., van Dokkum, P., & Mowla, L. 2023, ApJ, 945, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbc74 2023

  67. [67]

    2019, A&A, 626, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834559

    Morselli, L., Popesso, P., Cibinel, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834559

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834559 2019

  68. [68]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc

    Tacchella, S. 2020, ApJ, 905, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc 2020

  69. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14591, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14591

    Mosleh, M., Riahi-Zamin, M., & Tacchella, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14591, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14591

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14591 2025

  70. [70]

    A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G

    Mowla, L. A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a 2019

  71. [71]

    V ., H¨außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al

    Nedkova, K. V ., H¨außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1744

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1744 2021

  72. [72]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l28 2012

  73. [73]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/27 2016

  74. [74]

    J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al

    Nelson, E. J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2131 2021

  75. [75]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 411, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17920.x

    Oliver, S., Frost, M., Farrah, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16643.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16643.x 2010

  76. [76]

    J., Adams, N

    Ormerod, K., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3597 2024

  77. [77]

    W., Yang, G., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Yang, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc948

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc948 2023

  78. [78]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952 —. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  79. [79]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3214 2023

  80. [80]

    2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 2010

Showing first 80 references.