arxiv: 2604.06314 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Dust and Grain Size Evolution in Galaxy Simulations: What Matters and What Does Not

Massimiliano Parente , Desika Narayanan , Paul Torrey

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

keywords dust grain size distributiongalaxy evolutionsemi-analytic modelsextinction curvesinterstellar dustdust accretionshatteringdust destruction

0 comments

The pith

Stars supply the first large dust grains, after which shattering and gas accretion grow the small grains that shape galaxy extinction curves.

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

The paper builds the first evolving grain size distribution into a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation. It follows dust production by stars, grain shattering, coagulation, metal accretion from the gas, and destruction by shocks and hot gas. The distribution starts large-grain dominated at high redshift and flattens toward the standard MRN shape by low redshift, with the change happening earlier in massive galaxies once a threshold metallicity set by the depletion time is reached. Numerical tests show that, after the initial stellar reservoir of large grains is in place, shattering and accretion are the dominant channels for building small grains. With accretion active, the model matches observed z approximately 0 dust masses across a wide range of grain-physics assumptions.

Core claim

Once stars provide the initial reservoir of large grains, shattering and ISM accretion become the principal mechanisms that grow the small-grain population; when accretion is included, the model reproduces the observed z approximately 0 dust masses and Milky Way-like extinction properties largely independent of the precise grain-size prescriptions.

What carries the argument

An evolving dust grain size distribution (GSD) evolved self-consistently inside a semi-analytic cosmological galaxy model, with separate channels for stellar production, shattering, coagulation, gas-phase metal accretion, and supernova/hot-gas destruction.

If this is right

The shift from large-grain to MRN-like distributions occurs earlier in massive galaxies at a metallicity fixed by the galaxy depletion time.
Extinction curves develop a steeper UV/optical slope and a stronger 2175 angstrom bump toward lower redshift.
Observed present-day dust masses are reproduced once accretion is active, regardless of many details in the grain physics.
Milky Way-like extinction properties are recovered except when grain velocities are assumed independent of size.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Global dust-mass predictions may be insensitive to fine details of grain microphysics provided accretion is modeled.
High-redshift galaxies should show systematically different extinction laws because their grain populations remain large-grain dominated for longer.
The same framework could be used to predict how extinction properties scale with galaxy mass and environment at fixed redshift.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytic prescriptions for grain velocities in turbulence, shattering and coagulation efficiencies, and accretion rates accurately represent conditions in the real interstellar medium.

What would settle it

High-redshift galaxies that already exhibit a flat, MRN-like extinction curve or small-grain-dominated size distribution instead of the predicted large-grain dominance would falsify the evolutionary sequence.

read the original abstract

We present the first implementation of an evolving dust grain size distribution (GSD) within a semi-analytic cosmological model (SAM) of galaxy evolution. This flexible model self-consistently accounts for stellar dust production, shattering, coagulation, accretion of gas-phase metals, and destruction in supernova-driven shocks and hot gas, successfully reproducing key observational constraints. The purpose of this paper is to present the key physical elements of this novel dust implementation in a SAM and to explore controlled numerical experiments to identify the mechanisms shaping the GSD and extinction law in galaxies. Our results show that the GSD evolves from a large-grain-dominated regime at high redshift to a flatter, MRN-like shape at low redshift. This transition occurs earlier for massive galaxies, at a characteristic metallicity determined by the galaxy depletion time. The resulting extinction curves show an increase of the UV/optical slope and a pronounced $2175$ A bump toward lower redshift, in good agreement with the extinction properties of the MW. Through numerical experiments, we find that once stars provide the initial reservoir of large grains, shattering and ISM accretion are the principal mechanisms driving the growth of small grains. When accretion is included, the model robustly reproduces the observed $z \approx 0$ dust masses, largely independent of the specific assumptions adopted for grain-size physics. The extinction properties of MW-like galaxies are also generally recovered, except in extreme cases, such as when grain velocities in turbulent media are assumed to be independent of grain size.

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

This is the first evolving grain size distribution inside a cosmological SAM, with experiments showing that shattering plus accretion dominate small-grain growth once stars supply large grains and that accretion makes z=0 dust masses largely insensitive to grain-physics details.

read the letter

The paper's real advance is getting a flexible, evolving grain size distribution working inside a semi-analytic model for the first time. They include stellar production, shattering, coagulation, accretion, and destruction, then run numerical experiments to isolate which processes set the distribution and the extinction curve. The main result is that after stars inject the initial large grains, shattering and ISM accretion take over for building small grains; turning on accretion lets the model match local dust masses across most grain-physics choices, and the extinction properties move toward Milky Way values at low redshift. The distribution itself shifts from large-grain dominated at high z to a flatter MRN-like shape later, with the transition tied to metallicity and depletion time. They do a clean job laying out the physical modules and using the experiments to show what actually drives the evolution rather than just tuning to data. The SAM framework keeps the calculation cheap enough to run across cosmic time and galaxy masses, which is useful. The main limitation is the averaging inherent to SAMs. Shattering and accretion rates depend on local density, turbulence, and metallicity, but the model uses galaxy-wide mean values for velocities and efficiencies. That works for broad trends, yet it leaves open whether the claimed robustness would survive once environment-dependent fluctuations are resolved in hydro simulations. They check the extreme case of size-independent velocities, but the paper does not quantify how much the averaged rates deviate from resolved ISM conditions. Calibration details for the free parameters are also not spelled out in the abstract, though the full text presumably covers them. This is worth a serious referee for anyone working on dust in galaxy evolution models, especially SAM users who need a self-consistent GSD rather than fixed sizes or post-processing. It is specialized, so I would bring it to a reading group only if the group focuses on dust or ISM physics. I would cite it if I needed a reference for evolving GSD implementations in semi-analytic work. Send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first implementation of an evolving dust grain size distribution (GSD) in a semi-analytic cosmological model (SAM) of galaxy evolution. It self-consistently incorporates stellar dust production, shattering, coagulation, accretion of gas-phase metals, and destruction processes, and uses controlled numerical experiments to show that the GSD evolves from large-grain dominated at high redshift to an MRN-like shape at low redshift. The central claim is that, once stars supply the initial large grains, shattering and ISM accretion are the dominant mechanisms for small-grain growth; when accretion is included, the model reproduces observed z≈0 dust masses largely independent of specific grain-size physics assumptions, while also recovering Milky Way-like extinction curves except in extreme cases such as size-independent grain velocities.

Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant as the first detailed GSD implementation in a SAM framework, enabling systematic exploration of dust physics across cosmic time and its effects on extinction laws. The controlled numerical experiments to isolate dominant mechanisms (shattering plus accretion) represent a clear strength, as does the reproduction of key constraints like the 2175 Å bump and UV/optical slope evolution. However, the lack of quantitative fits, error bars, or direct comparisons to resolved hydrodynamical simulations limits the immediate broader impact on the field.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'when accretion is included, the model robustly reproduces the observed z ≈ 0 dust masses, largely independent of the specific assumptions adopted for grain-size physics' is load-bearing for the central result but is not supported by any quantitative metrics (e.g., variation in dust mass across tested assumptions, χ² values, or ranges of free parameters like shattering/coagulation coefficients); the numerical experiments must be shown with explicit results to substantiate 'robustly' and 'largely independent'.
[Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments (as described in the abstract and implied throughout): the SAM employs volume-averaged prescriptions for turbulent grain velocities, shattering/coagulation kernels, and accretion rates that assume uniform or mean ISM properties; this averaging cannot capture the highly nonlinear dependence of these rates on local density, metallicity, and velocity dispersion in a multi-phase ISM, raising a correctness risk for the claimed dominance of shattering/accretion and the independence from grain-size assumptions (the paper only notes sensitivity to the extreme size-independent velocity case but does not quantify deviations from resolved hydrodynamics).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: 'successfully reproducing key observational constraints' is stated without naming the constraints or providing any quantitative agreement measures (e.g., dust mass functions, extinction curve parameters).
[Model description] The list of free parameters (shattering/coagulation rate coefficients, accretion efficiency/timescale parameters, grain velocity scaling) should be explicitly tabulated with their adopted values and calibration procedure to observations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'when accretion is included, the model robustly reproduces the observed z ≈ 0 dust masses, largely independent of the specific assumptions adopted for grain-size physics' is load-bearing for the central result but is not supported by any quantitative metrics (e.g., variation in dust mass across tested assumptions, χ² values, or ranges of free parameters like shattering/coagulation coefficients); the numerical experiments must be shown with explicit results to substantiate 'robustly' and 'largely independent'.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics would better substantiate the claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated table (or supplementary figure panel) that reports the z≈0 dust masses obtained under each tested grain-size physics assumption (varying shattering/coagulation efficiencies, size-dependent vs. size-independent velocities, etc.). The table will include the mean dust mass, the full range across runs, the standard deviation, and the fractional variation relative to the fiducial case. Where observational dust-mass data are available we will also report a simple χ² measure. These additions will make the robustness and limited sensitivity to specific assumptions fully transparent. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments (as described in the abstract and implied throughout): the SAM employs volume-averaged prescriptions for turbulent grain velocities, shattering/coagulation kernels, and accretion rates that assume uniform or mean ISM properties; this averaging cannot capture the highly nonlinear dependence of these rates on local density, metallicity, and velocity dispersion in a multi-phase ISM, raising a correctness risk for the claimed dominance of shattering/accretion and the independence from grain-size assumptions (the paper only notes sensitivity to the extreme size-independent velocity case but does not quantify deviations from resolved hydrodynamics).

Authors: We acknowledge that the volume-averaged framework of SAMs cannot resolve the full nonlinear dependence of shattering, coagulation and accretion on local multi-phase ISM conditions. Our controlled experiments are performed within this averaged description and demonstrate that, once large grains are supplied by stars, shattering plus accretion dominate small-grain production under standard assumptions; the extreme size-independent velocity case is shown to be an outlier. A quantitative assessment of how these averaged rates deviate from those in resolved hydrodynamical simulations lies outside the scope of the present work and would require a separate comparative study. In the revision we will expand the discussion section to state this limitation explicitly and to clarify the regime in which the SAM results remain informative. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Direct quantitative comparison of the SAM results against resolved hydrodynamical simulations to measure the impact of volume averaging on the nonlinear dust processes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model implements independent physical processes tested via experiments

full rationale

The paper constructs a SAM with explicit, separate prescriptions for stellar dust production, shattering, coagulation, accretion, and destruction. Numerical experiments vary grain-size assumptions and report outcomes on GSD evolution and dust masses as results of those variations, not as identities or refits of the inputs. No equations are shown reducing a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation of an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The reproduction of z≈0 dust masses when accretion is included is presented as an emergent numerical outcome across varied assumptions, keeping the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on multiple rate parameters for shattering, coagulation, accretion, and destruction that are not independently measured but chosen to reproduce observations; the SAM framework itself rests on standard but simplified galaxy evolution assumptions.

free parameters (3)

shattering and coagulation rate coefficients
Control the efficiency of grain collisions and sticking; must be set to produce the observed transition to MRN-like distribution.
accretion efficiency and timescale parameters
Determine how quickly gas-phase metals grow grains; critical for matching z=0 dust masses.
grain velocity scaling in turbulence
Affects shattering rates; the abstract notes results are sensitive to whether velocity depends on grain size.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Semi-analytic model prescriptions for galaxy assembly, star formation, and metal enrichment are sufficiently accurate to host the dust module.
The entire dust evolution is embedded inside the SAM; any inaccuracy in the host model propagates to GSD and extinction results.
domain assumption Grain processing rates (shattering, accretion, destruction) can be parameterized with environment-averaged efficiencies that do not require full hydrodynamic resolution.
Core modeling choice that enables the SAM implementation but may miss local variations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1457 out tokens · 47477 ms · 2026-05-10T19:39:27.804046+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

once stars provide the initial reservoir of large grains, shattering and ISM accretion are the principal mechanisms driving the growth of small grains... largely independent of the specific assumptions adopted for grain-size physics
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

v_gr = 1.1 (a/0.1µm)^0.5 (T_gas/10^4 K)^0.25 (n_H/1 cm^{-3})^{-0.25} ...

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

104 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

E., & Hilbert, S

Angulo, R. E., & Hilbert, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 364, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv050

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv050 2015
[2]

2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

Angulo, R. E., & White, S. D. M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16459.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16459.x 2010
[3]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253

Aoyama, S., Hirashita, H., & Nagamine, K. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253 2020
[4]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431

Aoyama, S., Hou, K.-C., Hirashita, H., Nagamine, K., & Shimizu, I. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431 2018
[5]

S., Takeuchi, T

Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Inoue, A. K. 2013a, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213, doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014

work page doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 2012
[6]

S., Takeuchi, T

Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Nozawa, T. 2013b, MNRAS, 432, 637, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt506

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt506
[7]

J., Cunha, E

Battisti, A. J., Cunha, E. d., Shivaei, I., & Calzetti, D. 2020, ApJ, 888, 108, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdd 2020
[8]

, keywords =

Beeston, R. A., Wright, A. H., Maddox, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1077, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1460

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1460 2018
[9]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07706, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.07706

Berta, S., Lagache, G., Beelen, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07706, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.07706

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.07706 2025
[10]

F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

Lemson, G. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1150, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15191.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15191.x 2009
[11]

R., & Silk, J

Burke, J. R., & Silk, J. 1974, ApJ, 190, 1, doi:10.1086/152840 Dust grain sizes in cosmological simulations17

work page doi:10.1086/152840 1974
[12]

and Clayton, Geoffrey C

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi:10.1086/167900

work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989
[13]

Galactic

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003
[14]

Sandstrom, K. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08504, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.08504

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08504 2026
[15]

Chokshi, A., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. 1993, ApJ, 407, 806, doi:10.1086/172562 De Vis, P., Jones, A., Viaene, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A5, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834444

work page doi:10.1086/172562 1993
[16]

Desert, F.-X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J. L. 1990, A&A, 237, 215

1990
[17]

Dominik, C., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1997, ApJ, 480, 647, doi:10.1086/303996

work page doi:10.1086/303996 1997
[18]

Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 2003
[19]

T., & Lee, H

Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi:10.1086/162480

work page doi:10.1086/162480 1984
[20]

2024, A&A, 687, A240, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., Swinbank, A

Dubois, Y., Rodr´ ıguez Montero, F., Guerra, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A240, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 500, 942, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3285

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 2024
[21]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Dunne, L., Gomez, H. L., da Cunha, E., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1510, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19363.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19363.x 2011
[22]

1998, ApJ, 501, 643, doi:10.1086/305829

Dwek, E. 1998, ApJ, 501, 643, doi:10.1086/305829

work page doi:10.1086/305829 1998
[23]

Dwek, E., & Scalo, J. M. 1980, ApJ, 239, 193, doi:10.1086/158100

work page doi:10.1086/158100 1980
[24]

Fisher, R., Bowler, R. A. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 109, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf485

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf485 2025
[25]

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

work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999
[26]

L., & Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 1990, ApJS, 72, 163, doi:10.1086/191413

work page doi:10.1086/191413 1990
[27]

L., & Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi:10.1086/518158

work page doi:10.1086/518158 2007
[28]

L., & Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1209, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1209

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1209 2009
[29]

2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 1531, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1117

Fu, J., Kauffmann, G., ling Huang, M., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 1531, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1117

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1117 2013
[30]

2017, MNRAS, 464, 985, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2343

Gioannini, L., Matteucci, F., Vladilo, G., & Calura, F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 985, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2343

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2343 2017
[31]

L., Murante, G., et al

Gjergo, E., Granato, G. L., Murante, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2588, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1564

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1564 2018
[32]

L., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Taverna, A., et al

Granato, G. L., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Taverna, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 511, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab362

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab362 2021
[33]

Guillet, V., Pineau Des Forˆ ets, G., & Jones, A. P. 2011, A&A, 527, A123, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015973

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015973 2011
[34]

2017, ApJ, 837, 78, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa602f

Harada, N., Hasegawa, Y., Aikawa, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 78, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa602f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa602f 2017
[35]

Henriques, B. M. B., Yates, R. M., Fu, J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5795, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3233

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3233 2020
[36]

S., & Draine, B

Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023
[37]

2012 , month = apr, journal =

Hirashita, H. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1263, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20702.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20702.x 2012
[38]

2015, MNRAS, 447, 2937, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2617

Hirashita, H. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2937, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2617

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2617 2015
[39]

2019, MNRAS, 482, 2555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2838

Hirashita, H., & Aoyama, S. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2555, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2838

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2838 2019
[40]

2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 1083, doi:10.5047/eps.2013.03.008

Hirashita, H., & Kobayashi, H. 2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 1083, doi:10.5047/eps.2013.03.008

work page doi:10.5047/eps.2013.03.008 2013
[41]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Hirashita, H., & Kuo, T.-M. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1340, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19131.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19131.x 2011
[42]

2013, MNRAS, 434, L70, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt081

Hirashita, H., & Li, Z.-Y. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L70, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt081

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt081 2013
[43]

F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

Hirashita, H., & Yan, H. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1061, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14405.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14405.x 2009
[44]

Hou, K.-C., Hirashita, H., & Micha lowski, M. J. 2016, PASJ, 68, 94, doi:10.1093/pasj/psw085

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psw085 2016
[45]

P., Tielens, A

Jones, A. P., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 740, doi:10.1086/177823

work page doi:10.1086/177823 1996
[46]

Kirchschlager, F., Mattsson, L., & Gent, F. A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3218, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3059

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3059 2022
[47]

2010, Icarus, 206, 735, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004

Kobayashi, H., & Tanaka, H. 2010, Icarus, 206, 735, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004 2010
[48]

R., McKee, C

Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Tumlinson, J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 216, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/1/216

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/1/216 2009
[49]

doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01338.x , Eprint =

Kuo, T.-M., & Hirashita, H. 2012, MNRAS, 424, L34, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01282.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01282.x 2012
[50]

Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441, doi:10.1086/172149

work page doi:10.1086/172149 1993
[51]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684

Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684 2019
[52]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 548, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2196

Li, Q., Narayanan, D., Torrey, P., Dav´ e, R., & Vogelsberger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 548, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2196

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2196 2021
[53]

2025, ApJ, 990, L37, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73

Lian, J., Wang, T., Feng, Q., Huang, Y., & Guo, H. 2025, ApJ, 990, L37, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73 2025
[54]

2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 458, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 458, doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1 2025
[55]

, keywords =

Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Pallottini, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A12, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346723

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346723 2023
[56]

S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi:10.1086/155591

work page doi:10.1086/155591 1977
[57]

2026, A&A, 705, A75, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555658

Matsumoto, K., Sommovigo, L., Gebek, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A75, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555658

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555658 2026
[58]

1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol

McKee, C. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 135, Interstellar Dust, ed. L. J. Allamandola & A. G. G. M. Tielens, 431

1989
[59]

F., & Krumholz, M

McKee, C. F., & Krumholz, M. R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 308, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/308

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/308 2009
[60]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1248

Kannan, R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1248

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1248 2018
[61]

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
[62]

S., et al

Narayanan, D., Smith, J.-D. T., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 100, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf8d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf8d 2023
[63]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18266, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18266

Narayanan, D., Torrey, P., Stark, D., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18266, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.18266

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18266
[64]

P., Finkelstein, S

Narayanan, D., Stark, D. P., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 982, 7, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb41c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb41c
[65]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Nataf, D. M., Gonzalez, O. A., Casagrande, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2692, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2843

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2843 2016
[66]

S., Hirashita, H., & Takeuchi, T

Nozawa, T., Asano, R. S., Hirashita, H., & Takeuchi, T. T. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L16, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu175

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu175 2015
[67]

2006, ApJ, 648, 435, doi:10.1086/505639

Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., & Habe, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, 435, doi:10.1086/505639

work page doi:10.1086/505639 2006
[68]

2007, ApJ, 666, 955, doi:10.1086/520621

Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Habe, A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 955, doi:10.1086/520621

work page doi:10.1086/520621 2007
[69]

, keywords =

Ormerod, K., Witstok, J., Smit, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 1136, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1228

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1228 2025
[70]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10585, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.10585

Parente, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10585, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.10585

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.10585 2025
[71]

L., et al.\ 2022, , 515, 2053

Parente, M., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2053, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1913

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1913 2022
[72]

L., & Lapi, A

Parente, M., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., & Lapi, A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6105, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad907

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad907 2023
[73]

L., et al

Parente, M., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A231, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452320

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452320 2025
[74]

2024, ApJ, 966, 154, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad320e Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

Parente, M., Ragone-Figueroa, C., L´ opez, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 154, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad320e Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad320e 2024
[75]

S., & Galametz, M

Popping, G., Somerville, R. S., & Galametz, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3152, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1545

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1545 2017
[76]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 5073, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2724

Pozzi, F., Calura, F., Zamorani, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5073, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2724

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2724 2020
[77]

L., Parente, M., et al

Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., Parente, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A200, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451344

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451344 2024
[78]

A., Oesch, P

Reddy, N. A., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 56, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e7 Rela˜ no, M., De Looze, I., Saintonge, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5306, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2108 R´ emy-Ruyer, A., Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A31, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322803 Rodr´ ıguez Montero, F., Dubois, Y., Katz, H., Sl...

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e7 2018
[79]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21790, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.21790

Devriendt, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21790, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.21790

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21790 2026
[80]

Romano, L. E. C., Nagamine, K., & Hirashita, H. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1441, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1385 18 Parente, Narayanan & Torrey

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1385 2022

Showing first 80 references.