Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 83 references

Spheroidal galaxies already follow a steeper Kormendy relation when the universe was less than a billion years old.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 15:21 UTC pith:RNWTVI2J

load-bearing objection First rest-frame optical KR at z≥6 is a real empirical step; the steep slope is interesting but still sits on a small n-selected sample near the PSF floor. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2604.00104 v2 pith:RNWTVI2J submitted 2026-03-31 astro-ph.GA

The Kormendy Relation in the First Billion Years: Evidence from JWST

Anshuman Borgohain , Kanak Saha This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Kormendy relationhigh-redshift galaxiesgalaxy structurespheroidal systemsJWSTgalaxy formationdissipative assemblyCosmic Dawn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Galaxy scaling relations encode how structure and mass assembly unfold, but until JWST it was unclear whether the classic Kormendy relation between size and surface brightness even existed in the first billion years. This paper measures rest-frame B-band sizes and mean surface brightnesses for spectroscopically confirmed spheroidal systems at z≥6 drawn from deep JWST fields. The galaxies already sit on a tight locus whose slope is steeper and whose surface brightnesses are higher than the local relation. The authors interpret the steep, high-surface-brightness sequence as the imprint of rapid, gas-rich, dissipative assembly, and they note that dense bulges at the same epochs occupy a similar region of the plane. The result places a fundamental photometric scaling relation at Cosmic Dawn and links the earliest compact spheroids to the dense quiescent galaxies seen later.

Core claim

Spheroidal systems at z≥6 already occupy a well-defined Kormendy relation in the mean effective surface-brightness versus effective-radius plane. The best-fit slope is β=4.25^{+0.40}_{-0.39} and the zero-point is α=15.89^{+0.17}_{-0.17}, steeper and systematically brighter than the local relation, reflecting the compact sizes and high central densities produced by rapid dissipative assembly.

What carries the argument

The Kormendy relation itself: ⟨μ_e⟩=α+β log R_e, measured from single-Sérsic GALFIT fits in rest-frame B-band JWST imaging and used as a photometric diagnostic of assembly mode.

Load-bearing premise

The sample is defined as spheroidal by applying local Sérsic-index cuts (n>1.5 or n>3) unchanged to galaxies still assembling at z≥6.

What would settle it

A larger, homogeneously modelled sample at z≥6 that either erases the tight locus once selection and PSF effects are re-examined, or yields a slope and zero-point consistent with the local Kormendy relation after the same rest-frame B-band analysis.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Fundamental photometric scaling relations can emerge within the first gigayear after the Big Bang.
  • Early spheroids assembled mainly through dissipative, gas-rich processes rather than dry mergers.
  • These compact, high-surface-brightness systems are plausible progenitors of the dense quiescent galaxies observed at later epochs.
  • Dense bulges and pure spheroids at these redshifts may share a common formation channel.
  • Subsequent size growth must be largely dissipationless if the high-z sequence is to evolve into the shallower local relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the steep high-z slope is real, two-phase assembly models must place most of the dissipative core growth before z~6 and most of the dry size growth afterward.
  • Rest-frame optical structural parameters at Cosmic Dawn can now be used as direct constraints on the gas fraction and merger mode in simulations.
  • Homogeneous multi-band modelling of larger samples could test whether the KR zero-point evolves continuously or jumps at the end of reionization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper claims that spheroidal systems at z≥6 already define a Kormendy relation in the rest-frame B-band ⟨μe⟩–Re plane, with best-fit slope β=4.25+0.40−0.39 and zero-point α=15.89+0.17−0.17. Relative to the local KR, the high-z relation is steeper and offset to higher surface brightness. Structural parameters come from single-Sérsic (and some two-component) GALFIT modelling of JWST imaging in GOODS, CEERS, PRIMER-UDS, and PRIMER-COSMOS, drawn largely from the authors’ BS25 catalog of spectroscopically confirmed z∼6–11 galaxies. Two morphological samples are defined by Sérsic cuts n>1.5 (N=44) and n>3 (N=24). The steep slope and compact, high-μ e locus are interpreted as evidence for rapid dissipative assembly (gas-rich inflows/mergers) that may feed later compact quiescent populations, with dense high-z bulges cited as supporting a shared pathway.

Significance. If robust, this would be among the earliest direct photometric constraints on a classical early-type scaling relation in the first Gyr, extending KR studies well beyond the previous z∼1–2 ceiling and providing a useful benchmark for dissipative vs. two-phase assembly models. The use of rest-frame B structural parameters from deep JWST fields, dual n-threshold samples, and reported asymmetric fit uncertainties are genuine strengths. The result is of clear interest to high-z structure and quenching work, but its weight depends on whether the reported slope and zero-point survive resolution, selection, and sample-size tests rather than being driven by them.

major comments (4)
  1. Dataset, Sample 1/2 definitions: The spheroidal samples rest on local Sérsic thresholds (n>1.5 from Park et al. 2022; n>3 as a literature cut) applied unchanged to systems still assembling at z≥6. At Cosmic Dawn, light profiles, star-formation, and dust can produce high n without a classical ETG, so the KR locus may partly reflect the n cut rather than a virialized early-type sequence. Please quantify how β and α change under alternative cuts (e.g., n>2, n>2.5, continuous n weighting, or visual/ML morphology), report the n and Re distributions, and discuss whether the KR remains well-defined without a hard local-style cut.
  2. Dataset / GALFIT constraints and Appendix A: Re is bounded below at ~1.5-pixel HWHM (PSF scale) and above at 0.3″ (~1–1.7 kpc over the redshift range). Many z≥6 rest-frame B sizes sit near the resolution floor; a hard floor can systematically suppress the smallest Re and steepen β while elevating mean surface brightness. Appendix A is said to show no systematic bias, but the main text does not report how many objects lie within ~1–2× the PSF, the Re/PSF distribution, or β when the floor is relaxed, removed, or replaced by a prior. A resolution-matched mock or injection-recovery test (and a fit restricted to well-resolved systems) is needed to show the steep slope is not resolution-driven.
  3. Results / fit robustness (N=44 and N=24): With modest samples and Sample 2 half the size of Sample 1, the claimed β=4.25+0.40−0.39 is sensitive to outliers, field-to-field mix, and the BS25 error budget (only summarized here). Please report the full posterior, intrinsic scatter, leave-one-out or bootstrap stability, separate fits for Sample 1 vs Sample 2 with consistent methods, and whether the slope remains steeper than local ~3 when the most compact (near-PSF) objects are excluded. Without an object table or public list of Re, ⟨μe⟩, n, and z, independent checks are difficult.
  4. Interpretation (Discussion/Conclusions): The dissipative-assembly reading is plausible but currently under-constrained by the photometry alone. The KR is a projection of the Fundamental Plane; without kinematics or homogeneous stellar-mass surface densities, elevated ⟨μe⟩ can mix younger stellar populations, M/L variations, and selection. Please separate structural compactness from luminosity-weighted surface brightness (e.g., mass-weighted sizes or M/L-corrected μ e where available), and temper claims that the same pathway links these spheroids to z~4–5 quiescent cores until size-growth and fading pathways are quantified against the local and intermediate-z KR.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract and Introduction: “less a gigayear old” → “less than a gigayear old” (and similar phrasing elsewhere).
  2. Acknowledgements header is misspelled (“ACKNOWLEDEMENTS”).
  3. Inconsistent spacing/notation for JWST (“J W ST”, “JWST”) and for PRIMER field names; standardize throughout.
  4. Equation (1) and surrounding text: define units and the exact aperture definition of ⟨μe⟩ (circularized vs elliptical, PSF-corrected total magnitude) in one place for reproducibility.
  5. Figure 1 is referenced for GALFIT models and 1D profiles, but the provided text does not fully document panel contents, filter choices per redshift, or residual statistics; ensure captions list n, Re, and χ² for each example.
  6. Dataset: FRESCO and JADES DOIs appear duplicated in the text; verify archive identifiers.
  7. Cross-check that all fields listed in the abstract (GOODS, CEERS, PRIMER-UDS, PRIMER-COSMOS) are represented with N per field in a table, so the combined KR is not dominated by one survey depth or PSF.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor non-load-bearing self-citation to authors' prior BS25 catalog for structural parameters; the KR slope/zero-point themselves are an independent empirical fit to the photometry, not forced by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2 (DATASET), Sample 1/2 definitions and modelling paragraph]
    "This sample is drawn from the parent catalog constructed in (Borgohain & Saha 2025, hereafter BS25). The BS25 sample comprises 187 JWST-selected galaxies with spectroscopically confirmed redshifts (z ∼ 6−11), for which robust structural parameters were derived from two-dimensional surface-brightness modelling in the restframe optical. We refer the reader to BS25 for a detailed description of the sample selection, structural analysis, and morphological classification procedures."

    The entire high-z spheroidal sample and the (R_e, ⟨µ_e⟩) measurements that enter the KR fit are taken from the authors' own prior work BS25 rather than re-derived or independently verified in the present manuscript. While this does not force the numerical values of β or α by construction (those remain a free fit to the points), the load-bearing premise that a clean spheroidal sample at z ≥ 6 even exists rests on that self-citation. The circularity is minor because BS25 supplies raw structural parameters, not a pre-existing KR.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an ordinary least-squares (or equivalent) fit of the empirical Kormendy relation ⟨µ_e⟩ = α + β log R_e to rest-frame B-band structural parameters of n-selected spheroids at z ≥ 6. The reported values β = 4.25^{+0.40}_{-0.39} and α = 15.89^{+0.17}_{-0.17} are therefore data-driven outputs, not algebraic rearrangements of any input equation or prior definition. Morphological cuts (n > 1.5 or n > 3) are taken from external literature (Park et al. 2022 and standard ETG thresholds). Interpretations of the steep slope as evidence for dissipative assembly simply restate well-known literature expectations and do not close a logical loop. The only self-reference is the reuse of the authors' own BS25 catalog for the parent sample and GALFIT measurements; that catalog supplies independent photometric structural parameters and does not itself define or presuppose the KR. Per the evaluation rules this is ordinary data reuse, not circularity that forces the claimed result. No self-definitional identities, fitted-then-predicted quantities, uniqueness theorems imported from the same authors, or ansatz smuggling appear. Score 2 reflects the single minor self-citation while confirming the derivation chain is otherwise self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical fit to observed sizes and surface brightnesses. It inherits standard cosmological and photometric assumptions plus two free morphological cuts and the two fitted KR coefficients. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • KR slope β = 4.25^{+0.40}_{-0.39}
    Fitted free parameter of the linear relation ⟨μ_e⟩ = α + β log R_e; reported value 4.25^{+0.40}_{-0.39}.
  • KR zero-point α = 15.89^{+0.17}_{-0.17}
    Fitted free parameter of the same linear relation; reported value 15.89^{+0.17}_{-0.17}.
  • Sérsic-index threshold for Sample 1 = 1.5
    Hand-chosen cut n>1.5 taken from Park et al. (2022) local calibration; defines which galaxies enter the primary KR fit.
  • Sérsic-index threshold for Sample 2 = 3
    More conservative hand-chosen cut n>3 used as a robustness check; further restricts the sample to 24 objects.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7 is adopted for all distance and size conversions.
    Stated explicitly at the end of the Introduction; standard but required to convert angular sizes to physical kpc.
  • domain assumption A single Sérsic profile (or Sérsic+exponential for two-component systems) adequately describes the rest-frame B-band light distribution after PSF convolution.
    Core modeling assumption of the GALFIT analysis described in the Dataset section and inherited from BS25.
  • domain assumption Rest-frame B-band (~3000–4000 Å) light is a reasonable proxy for the underlying stellar-mass distribution at z~6–11.
    Explicitly justified in the Dataset section as the wavelength choice for structural measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper Local Sérsic-index cuts that separate early- from late-type galaxies remain morphologically meaningful for systems still assembling at Cosmic Dawn.
    Applied without high-z recalibration in the Sample 1 / Sample 2 definitions; if false the KR sample is contaminated.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 15927 in / 2786 out tokens · 29495 ms · 2026-07-13T15:21:51.613520+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Kormendy Relation in the First Billion Years: Evidence from $JWST$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNWTVI2J

@misc{pith2026260400104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Kormendy Relation in the First Billion Years: Evidence from $JWST$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNWTVI2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.00104}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Galaxy scaling relations encode key information about the structural, dynamical, and mass assembly histories of galaxies, and provide constraints on galaxy formation models as well as the onset of galaxy assembly. While these relations are well characterized out to intermediate redshifts, their existence during the first billion years of cosmic history remains largely unconstrained due to observational limitations. In this work, we investigate the Kormendy relation (KR) for spheroidal systems at $z~\ge~6$ using rest-frame $B$-band structural parameters derived from publicly available deep \textit{JWST} imaging of the GOODS, CEERS, PRIMER-UDS, and PRIMER-COSMOS fields. We find that spheroidal galaxies at these epochs already occupy a well-defined locus in the mean effective surface brightness $(\langle~\mu_{\rm e}~\rangle)$ and effective radius ($\rm~R_{\rm e}$) plane, demonstrating that a KR is already in place when the universe was less a gigayear old. The best-fit relation has a slope of $\beta~=~4.25^{+0.40}_{-0.39}$ and a zero-point of $\alpha~=~15.89^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$, indicating a steeper relation and systematically higher surface brightness compared to the local relation. This steepness reflects the compact sizes and high central stellar-mass densities of these systems, consistent with rapid, dissipative assembly in environments with high gas fractions, likely driven by efficient gas inflows, and gas-rich mergers. The presence of dense bulges embedded in some of these galaxies at similar redshifts further supports a common formation pathway for both bulges and spheroids. Altogether, these findings indicate a predominantly dissipative mode of assembly for the first spheroidal systems which may evolve into the compact quiescent galaxies observed at later cosmic epochs.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  2. [2]

    W., Treu, T., Bolton, A

    Auger, M. W., Treu, T., Bolton, A. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 511, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/511

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/511 2010

  3. [3]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef 2023

  4. [4]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02384-8 2025

  5. [5]

    1998, ApJ, 496, 713, doi: 10.1086/305411

    Bekki, K. 1998, ApJ, 496, 713, doi: 10.1086/305411

    work page doi:10.1086/305411 1998

  6. [6]

    Bender, R., Burstein, D., & Faber, S. M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 462, doi: 10.1086/171940

    doi:10.1086/171940 1992

  7. [7]

    K., Annis, J., et al

    Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., et al. 2003a, AJ, 125, 1849, doi: 10.1086/374256 —. 2003b, AJ, 125, 1866, doi: 10.1086/367794

    doi:10.1086/374256

  8. [8]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  9. [9]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25383, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25383

    Borgohain, A., & Saha, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25383, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25383

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25383 2025

  10. [10]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 1109, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06404.x

    Borriello, A., Salucci, P., & Danese, L. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1109, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06404.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06404.x 2003

  11. [11]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 2024

  12. [12]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09981.x

    Cappellari, M., Bacon, R., Bureau, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09981.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09981.x 2006

  13. [13]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

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

  14. [14]

    A., et al

    Covelo-Paz, A., Giovinazzo, E., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452363 The KR atz≥69

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452363 2025

  15. [15]

    J., Abraham, R

    Damjanov, I., McCarthy, P. J., Abraham, R. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/101 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/101 2009

  16. [16]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2331 2014

  17. [17]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  18. [18]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    doi:10.1086/164948 1987

  19. [19]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., et al. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    doi:10.1086/164947 1987

  20. [20]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf638

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf638 2025

  21. [21]

    J., Harvey, T., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Harvey, T., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag008 D’Onofrio, M., & Chiosi, C. 2022, Universe, 8, doi: 10.3390/universe8010008

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag008 2026

  22. [22]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465

  23. [23]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340

  24. [24]

    M., & Jackson, R

    Faber, S. M., & Jackson, R. E. 1976, ApJ, 204, 668, doi: 10.1086/154215

    doi:10.1086/154215 1976

  25. [25]

    M., Renzini, A., et al

    Fagioli, M., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 173, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/173

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/173 2016

  26. [26]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  27. [27]

    A., Ponman, T

    Forbes, D. A., Ponman, T. J., & Brown, R. J. N. 1998, ApJL, 508, L43, doi: 10.1086/311715 FRESCO. 2023, The JWST FRESCO Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    work page doi:10.1086/311715 1998

  28. [28]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w 2025

  29. [29]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14257.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14257.x 2009

  30. [30]

    C., Barth, A

    Gao, H., Ho, L. C., Barth, A. J., & Li, Z.-Y. 2020, ApJS, 247, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab67b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab67b2 2020

  31. [31]

    2025, A&A, 699, A343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555504

    Genin, A., Shuntov, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555504

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555504 2025

  32. [32]

    Graham, A. W. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 859, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05548.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05548.x 2002

  33. [33]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  34. [34]

    1987, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Hamabe, M., & Kormendy, J. 1987, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 127, Structure and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies, ed. P. T. de Zeeuw, 379, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-3971-4 32

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3971-4 1987

  35. [35]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Gim´ enez-Arteaga, C., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1517, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7 2023

  36. [36]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., & Hernquist, L. 2008, ApJ, 689, 17, doi: 10.1086/592105

    doi:10.1086/592105 2008

  37. [37]

    2009a, ApJ, 691, 1424, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1424

    Wuyts, S. 2009a, ApJ, 691, 1424, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1424

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1424

  38. [38]

    F., Somerville, R

    Hopkins, P. F., Somerville, R. S., Cox, T. J., et al. 2009b, MNRAS, 397, 802, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14983.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14983.x 2009

  39. [39]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae827

    Hu, J., Wang, L., Ge, J., Zhu, K., & Zeng, G. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae827

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae827 2024

  40. [40]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1568, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

    Hu, W., Papovich, C., Shen, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1568, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02636-1 2025

  41. [41]

    G., Angeloudi, E., et al

    Huertas-Company, M., Iyer, K. G., Angeloudi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 JADES. 2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 2024

  42. [42]

    C., Tacchella, S., et al

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7f 2024

  43. [43]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 2023

  44. [44]

    A., Saha, K., Iqbal, N., Dhiwar, S., & Pahwa, I

    Khanday, S. A., Saha, K., Iqbal, N., Dhiwar, S., & Pahwa, I. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2009 2022

  45. [45]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 333, doi: 10.1086/155687 Krajnovi´ c, D., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al

    Kormendy, J. 1977, ApJ, 218, 333, doi: 10.1086/155687 Krajnovi´ c, D., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts315 La Barbera, F., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., Massarotti, M., & Capaccioli, M. 2003, ApJ, 595, 127, doi: 10.1086/377250 La Barbera, F., de Carvalho, R. R., de La Rosa, I. G., &

    doi:10.1086/155687 1977

  46. [46]

    Lopes, P. A. A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1335, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17091.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17091.x 2010

  47. [47]

    2007, MNRAS, 374, 614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11171.x

    Longhetti, M., Saracco, P., Severgnini, P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11171.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11171.x 2007

  48. [48]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1530, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21965.x

    Merlin, E., Chiosi, C., Piovan, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1530, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21965.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21965.x 2012

  49. [49]

    A., Oesch, P

    Meyer, R. A., Oesch, P. A., Giovinazzo, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2353

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2353 2024

  50. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404 2024

  51. [51]

    H., & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJL, 699, L178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l178 2009

  52. [52]

    H., Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., Ostriker, J. P., & Efstathiou, G. 2007, ApJ, 658, 710, doi: 10.1086/510841 10Borgohain & Saha

    doi:10.1086/510841 2007

  53. [53]

    2008, A&A, 491, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810211

    Nigoche-Netro, A., Ruelas-Mayorga, A., & Franco-Balderas, A. 2008, A&A, 491, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810211

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810211 2008

  54. [54]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06554.x

    Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06554.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06554.x 2003

  55. [55]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  56. [56]

    Oke, J. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 21, doi: 10.1086/190287

    doi:10.1086/190287 1974

  57. [57]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2312 2010

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5

    Park, C., Lee, J., Kim, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5 2022

  59. [59]

    Pastrav, B. A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1746

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1746 2021

  60. [60]

    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

    doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  61. [61]

    L., Heintz, K

    Pollock, C. L., Heintz, K. E., Witstok, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.11783

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11783 2026

  62. [62]

    1996, A&A, 309, 749 Pusk´ as, D., Tacchella, S., Simmonds, C., et al

    Prugniel, P., & Simien, F. 1996, A&A, 309, 749 Pusk´ as, D., Tacchella, S., Simmonds, C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf813

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf813 1996

  63. [63]

    M., Forbes, D

    Reda, F. M., Forbes, D. A., & Hau, G. K. T. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 693, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09058.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09058.x 2005

  64. [64]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 512, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    Rettura, A., Rosati, P., Nonino, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 512, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/512 2010

  65. [65]

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

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d 2023

  66. [66]

    J., Hernquist, L., et al

    Robertson, B., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 21, doi: 10.1086/500360

    doi:10.1086/500360 2006

  67. [67]

    C., Li, Y

    Sachdeva, S., Ho, L. C., Li, Y. A., & Shankar, F. 2020, ApJ, 899, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba82d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba82d 2020

  68. [68]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1084

    Sachdeva, S., & Saha, K. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1084

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1084 2018

  69. [69]

    Sachdeva, S., Saha, K., & Singh, H. P. 2017, ApJ, 840, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c61

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c61 2017

  70. [70]

    2017, A&A, 597, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628866

    Saracco, P., Gargiulo, A., Ciocca, F., & Marchesini, D. 2017, A&A, 597, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628866

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628866 2017

  71. [71]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00920.x

    Saracco, P., Longhetti, M., & Gargiulo, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00920.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00920.x 2010

  72. [72]

    2014, A&A, 567, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423495

    Saracco, P., Casati, A., Gargiulo, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423495

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423495 2014

  73. [73]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  74. [74]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  75. [75]

    Steinmetz, M., & Navarro, J. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, 555, doi: 10.1086/306904

    work page doi:10.1086/306904 1999

  76. [76]

    D., Robertson, B

    Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1408

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1408 2023

  77. [77]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034 2020

  78. [78]

    J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781, doi: 10.1038/nature08773

    doi:10.1038/nature08773 2010

  79. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty617

    Tortorelli, L., Mercurio, A., Paolillo, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty617

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty617 2018

  80. [80]

    2023, A&A, 671, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346151

    Tortorelli, L., Mercurio, A., Granata, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346151

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346151 2023

Showing first 80 references.