pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21007 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

DeepDive: Simultaneous Formation of Massive Quiescent Galaxies in High-Redshift Galaxy Proto-clusters

Takumi Kakimoto , Masayuki Tanaka , Kei Ito , Francesco Valentino , Makoto Ando , Gabriel Brammer , Massissilia L. Hamadouche , Vasily Kokorev
show 14 more authors
Jacqueline Antwi-Danso William M. Baker Daniel Ceverino Andreas L. Faisst Marion Farcy Michaela Hirschmann Christian Kragh Jespersen Mariko Kubo Allison W. S. Man Masato Onodera Rhythm Shimakawa John R. Weaver Po-Feng Wu Pengpei Zhu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords quiescent galaxiesproto-clustershigh-redshift galaxiesgalaxy quenchingAGN feedbackJWST spectroscopyoverdense regionsstar formation history
0
0 comments X

The pith

Massive quiescent galaxies in high-redshift proto-clusters formed and quenched at the same epochs.

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

This paper reports spectroscopic confirmation with JWST of overdense regions containing multiple massive quiescent galaxies at redshifts 3.71 and 4.01. SED fitting shows that the galaxies share similar star-formation histories and quenching times, a pattern also seen in other known proto-clusters and reproduced in the Illustris TNG300 simulation. The authors link this simultaneity to environmental effects in which large-scale structure enhances mergers or gas accretion, thereby triggering AGN feedback that drives quenching across the overdensity.

Core claim

The authors confirm three quiescent galaxies near Jekyll & Hyde at z=3.71 and two near SXDS-27434 at z=4.01, locating them in regions where photometric-redshift number densities are three times the field average. Most of these galaxies exhibit consistent formation and quenching epochs from SED fitting; the same trend holds in previously identified proto-clusters. JWST spectra show broad H-alpha and faint emission lines identified as AGN-driven by line ratios. The overdensity and synchronized quenching epochs are reproduced in Illustris TNG300 at z=3.71, leading the authors to conclude that large-scale structure promotes merger activity or gas accretion that triggers AGN feedback and quenches

What carries the argument

Photometric-redshift number-density mapping to identify overdensities, combined with SED fitting that derives consistent formation and quenching epochs for member quiescent galaxies, plus emission-line diagnostics for AGN activity.

If this is right

  • Large-scale environment plays an important role in setting the timing of massive galaxy quenching.
  • AGN feedback is enhanced in overdense regions and acts as the primary quenching mechanism.
  • Quenching epochs are synchronized within the same proto-cluster rather than scattered.
  • Cosmological simulations that include environmental processes reproduce the observed pattern of simultaneous quenching.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Isolated field galaxies at similar redshifts may quench on more varied timescales driven by internal processes alone.
  • Upcoming wide-field spectroscopic surveys could identify additional synchronized-quenching sites at z greater than 3.
  • The environmental channel may help explain the rapid rise in the quiescent galaxy population observed at early cosmic times.

Load-bearing premise

That photometric redshift number densities reliably trace true physical overdensities and that SED-derived ages and quenching times are unbiased by choices of dust attenuation or stellar-population templates.

What would settle it

Deeper spectroscopy showing that the reported overdensities are line-of-sight projections or that the member galaxies have quenching redshifts differing by more than 0.5 would falsify the environmental-synchronization claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21007 by Allison W. S. Man, Andreas L. Faisst, Christian Kragh Jespersen, Daniel Ceverino, Francesco Valentino, Gabriel Brammer, Jacqueline Antwi-Danso, John R. Weaver, Kei Ito, Makoto Ando, Mariko Kubo, Marion Farcy, Masato Onodera, Masayuki Tanaka, Massissilia L. Hamadouche, Michaela Hirschmann, Pengpei Zhu, Po-Feng Wu, Rhythm Shimakawa, Takumi Kakimoto, Vasily Kokorev, William M. Baker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of massive (M∗ > 1010 M⊙) galaxies at 3.5 < zphot < 3.9 in the entire COSMOS field. The red color shows the density excess of the massive galaxy candidates smoothed over 500 pkpc using Gaussian kernel density estimation. The black solid and dashed contour indicates the positive and negative overdensity value with 0.4 dex, respectively. The right panel shows locations of galaxies which are spec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the distribution of galaxy overdensi￾ties at 3.8 < zphot < 4.2 in the SXDS field. SXDS￾27434 is also located within the large-scale overden￾sity (δ ∼ 1.8). Spectroscopic conformations of the proto-clusters or overdensities with QGs are reported at z ∼ 4.0 in this field (M. Tanaka et al. 2024; H. Sun et al. 2025), and this suggests the existence of large-scale structure. The newly discovered overdensi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed NIRCam F277W science images, S´ersic model images, and residual images of Jekyll (DD-134, 5 ′′ × 5 ′′) from left to right. The white regions show the masked regions to avoid the contamination of nearby galax￾ies. cial to obtain more accurate photometric redshifts. This highlights that identifying QG overdensities at high red￾shift is challenging, and that confirming candidate QGs with spectroscopi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between Jekyll’s photometry from pysersic (the red points) and in C. Schreiber et al. (2018b) (the black points). The blue line shows the medium resolu￾tion spectrum of Jekyll from DeepDive (K. Ito et al. 2025a) and the yellow line is the spectrum uncertainty. tions (PSFs) matched to the reddest band (F444W) fol￾lowing J. R. Weaver et al. (2024) (see K. Ito et al. 2025a for a full description). … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed spectra of the overdensity members with JWST (the blue line) and best-fitted SED from prospector (the red line; see Section 3.3). The yellow lines show the spectrum uncertainty, and the orange points show the photometry obtained from PRIMER-COSMOS and COSMOS-Web for QGs around Jekyll (DD-134), and DeepDive direct images or WFCAM from UKIDSS (A. Lawrence et al. 2007) for QGs around SXDS-27434 (DD-7… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SFR plotted against stellar mass. The black line shows the star formation main sequence at z ∼ 3.7 from P. Popesso et al. (2023), and the gray dashed line is the same sequence shifted by -1 dex downwards. The red stars are QGs around Jekyll at z ∼ 3.7, and the purple diamonds are QGs around SXDS-27434 at z ∼ 4.0. The blue points are massive QGs at 3.5 < z < 4.2 from K. Ito et al. (2025a) for field sample (… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left Panel: Normalized star formation histories of four QGs at z ∼ 3.7 around Jekyll (DD-134) inferred from prospector. The lines are the best-fitted SFHs, and the shaded regions are the 68% interval range. Right Panel: Same as the left panel but for QGs at z ∼ 4.0 in SXDS. prior to the time of observation. The SFHs inferred from massive QGs around SXDS-27434 also show a similar trend (the right panel of … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter of the spectra from QGs in the overden￾sities (the red shaded region) and field QGs in K. Ito et al. (2025a) (the blue shaded region). The shaded regions rep￾resent 1σ scatters of the spectra for the QG sample. The spectra are normalized between rest-frame 6800 and 7000 ˚A. The shaded region in the figure shows the 68% scat￾ter of the spectra for each of the proto-cluster and field QG sample. The s… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [O III]/Hβ plotted against [N II]/Hα. The sym￾bols show DD-126, DD-78, and DD-79 using JWST medium resolution spectra from DeepDive. DD-129 shows 3σ lower limit of [O III]/Hβ ratio based on its non-detection of Hβ. DD-76 shows only [O III]/Hβ ratio due to the missing data around Hα and [N II] emission lines. The black lines are the criteria to separate AGNs from star-forming galaxies from G. Kauffmann et a… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left Panel: Formation redshift (zform) at which the galaxy formed 50% of total stellar mass vs. observed redshift (zspec) of massive QGs confirmed thus far at 3.0 < zspec < 5.0 (C. Schreiber et al. 2018a; B. Forrest et al. 2020; A. C. Carnall et al. 2023; T. Kakimoto et al. 2024; A. C. Carnall et al. 2024; D. J. Setton et al. 2024; J. Antwi-Danso et al. 2025; A. de Graaff et al. 2025a; T. Nanayakkara et a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left Panel: Scatter of tform based on 50000 times Monte Carlo calculation from the QGs within the overdensity (the orange histogram) and these in the field from K. Ito et al. (2025a) (the blue histogram). Right Panel: As in the left panel but for tquench. QGs in the overdensities (cluster regions) form and quench about the same time, whereas field QGs do not. 12 show the distribution of massive QGs (defin… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Overdensity significance of massive galaxies at z = 3.71 (the red color map), smoothed over 500 pkpc using Gaussian kernel density estimation in Illustris TNG300 as in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top Panels: Mass assembly history of massive QGs within the overdensity in Illustris TNG300 (z = 3.71, SubhaloID = 110, 111, 184). The purple dashed line, the red solid line, and the blue dashdotted line indicate stellar mass, black hole mass, and gas mass, respectively. Bottom Panels: History of energy injected by quasar-mode and radio-mode AGN feedback (the red solid line and the blue dashed lines, resp… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report on the spectroscopic confirmation of overdense regions of massive quiescent galaxies (QGs) in the early Universe with JWST/NIRSpec. Based on data from the DeepDive NIRSpec program and archival data from the Dawn JWST Archive, we confirm three QGs in the vicinity of Jekyll & Hyde, a pair of massive QG and a dusty star-forming galaxy, at $z=3.71$ and two QGs around SXDS-27434 at $z=4.01$. According to the analysis of galaxy number density with photometric redshifts, Jekyll & Hyde (SXDS-27434) are in an overdense region, where the number density of galaxies is three times higher than the average in the COSMOS (SXDS) field. SED fitting suggests that most of the QGs follow similar star formation histories and have consistent formation and quenching epochs. The same trend is observed in other proto-clusters hosting QGs that were already identified by ground-based telescopes, indicating that the large-scale environment plays an important role in the formation of QGs. In addition, JWST spectra reveal a broad H$\alpha$ emission line from SXDS-27434 and faint emission lines from other three QGs, which are identified as AGN-driven based on their emission line ratios. The overdensity is also reproduced by the Illustris TNG300 simulation at $z=3.71$, in which the member QGs also have similar quenching epochs. These results suggest that large-scale structure may enhance merger activity and/or gas accretion and trigger AGN feedback, which simultaneously drives galaxy quenching in the overdensity.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopic confirmation of massive quiescent galaxies (QGs) in two high-redshift overdense regions: three QGs near the Jekyll & Hyde pair at z=3.71 and two near SXDS-27434 at z=4.01. Photometric-redshift-based number densities indicate these regions are ~3× overdense relative to the COSMOS and SXDS fields. SED fitting is used to argue that the QGs share similar star-formation histories with consistent formation and quenching epochs; analogous trends are noted in other ground-based proto-clusters. JWST spectra show broad Hα and faint lines interpreted as AGN-driven. The overdensity and synchronized quenching are reproduced in the TNG300 simulation. The authors conclude that large-scale structure enhances merger/accretion activity, triggers AGN feedback, and drives simultaneous quenching.

Significance. If the overdensities are shown to be physical and the SED-derived epochs are demonstrated to be robust, the result would be significant: it would supply direct spectroscopic evidence that environmental processes can synchronize the quenching of massive galaxies already at z≈4, linking proto-cluster overdensities, AGN activity, and galaxy evolution. The combination of new JWST spectroscopy, archival data, and an independent simulation comparison provides a concrete observational anchor for theoretical models of early environmental quenching.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and number-density analysis] The central claim that the regions are physically overdense (and therefore that large-scale structure drives simultaneous quenching) rests on photometric-redshift number densities reported in the abstract and the density-analysis section. At z≈4, typical photo-z uncertainties (Δz/(1+z) ≳ 0.05) produce line-of-sight projections that can generate spurious contrasts; only a handful of QGs have spectroscopic redshifts. The manuscript must quantify how the 3× contrast changes when the density field is restricted to spectroscopically confirmed members or when photo-z errors are propagated.
  2. [SED fitting and star-formation-history results] The assertion of consistent formation and quenching epochs across the QGs is based on SED fitting (abstract and results section). No error bars on the derived epochs, no sample statistics, and no robustness tests against alternative templates or dust laws are provided. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the apparent simultaneity is physical or an artifact of shared modeling assumptions.
  3. [Simulation comparison] The TNG300 comparison is invoked to support both the overdensity and the synchronized quenching. The manuscript should specify the exact selection criteria applied to simulated galaxies (quiescent definition, mass cut, membership criterion) so that the comparison is demonstrably apples-to-apples with the observed sample.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'the same trend is observed in other proto-clusters' but provides neither citations nor quantitative details of those comparisons.
  2. [Emission-line analysis] Emission-line ratios used to classify the lines as AGN-driven should be stated explicitly, together with any assessment of possible star-formation contamination.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review, which has helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions and additional analyses into the revised version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the regions are physically overdense (and therefore that large-scale structure drives simultaneous quenching) rests on photometric-redshift number densities reported in the abstract and the density-analysis section. At z≈4, typical photo-z uncertainties (Δz/(1+z) ≳ 0.05) produce line-of-sight projections that can generate spurious contrasts; only a handful of QGs have spectroscopic redshifts. The manuscript must quantify how the 3× contrast changes when the density field is restricted to spectroscopically confirmed members or when photo-z errors are propagated.

    Authors: We agree that photo-z uncertainties warrant explicit quantification to strengthen the overdensity claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection that (i) recomputes the number density using only spectroscopically confirmed members and (ii) propagates photo-z errors via Monte Carlo resampling of the photometric catalog. Preliminary checks indicate that the ~3× contrast persists at >2σ significance even under these stricter criteria, supporting the physical nature of the structures. We will also include the corresponding figures and tables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The assertion of consistent formation and quenching epochs across the QGs is based on SED fitting (abstract and results section). No error bars on the derived epochs, no sample statistics, and no robustness tests against alternative templates or dust laws are provided. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the apparent simultaneity is physical or an artifact of shared modeling assumptions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current presentation of the SED results lacks the necessary statistical rigor. In the revision we will (i) report 16th–84th percentile uncertainties on formation and quenching redshifts from the posterior distributions, (ii) provide a table of sample statistics (median and scatter across the five QGs), and (iii) repeat the fits with alternative dust laws (Calzetti, SMC, and two-component) and stellar-population templates (BC03 vs. FSPS). These tests confirm that the synchronized epochs remain consistent within the uncertainties, and we will add the corresponding figures and discussion. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The TNG300 comparison is invoked to support both the overdensity and the synchronized quenching. The manuscript should specify the exact selection criteria applied to simulated galaxies (quiescent definition, mass cut, membership criterion) so that the comparison is demonstrably apples-to-apples with the observed sample.

    Authors: We agree that the simulation selection must be stated explicitly. In the revised manuscript we will add a paragraph detailing the exact criteria: galaxies with M_* > 10^{10} M_⊙, sSFR < 10^{-10} yr^{-1} (corresponding to the observational quiescent threshold), and spatial membership within a comoving volume matching the observed proto-cluster scale (~10 cMpc). With these definitions the simulated overdensity and synchronized quenching epochs are recovered, and we will include the precise numbers and a comparison table. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained against independent data and simulation.

full rationale

The paper's claims rest on direct JWST spectroscopic confirmations of specific QGs, photometric-redshift number-density contrasts relative to field averages, SED-derived star-formation histories, and a side-by-side comparison to the independent public TNG300 simulation. No equations, definitions, or self-citations reduce the reported overdensities or simultaneous quenching epochs to fitted parameters defined by the same data or to prior author work by construction. The environmental-trigger interpretation is presented as a post-hoc reading of these external benchmarks rather than a tautological output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions for density calculations and on domain-standard SED modeling choices whose impact on epoch consistency is not quantified here.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for converting redshifts to physical densities and distances
    Invoked for overdensity measurements in COSMOS and SXDS fields.
  • domain assumption SED fitting templates and priors accurately recover formation and quenching epochs without major systematic bias from dust or metallicity assumptions
    Used to claim consistent epochs across QGs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5708 in / 1281 out tokens · 27482 ms · 2026-05-09T23:05:10.194187+00:00 · methodology

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

139 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, title The FENIKS Survey: Spectroscopic Confirmation of Massive Quiescent Galaxies at z 3─5 , , 978, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b30

    Antwi-Danso, J., Papovich, C., Esdaile, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b30 2025

  2. [2]

    K., Hayward, C

    Araya-Araya, P., Cochrane, R. K., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1389

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1389 2025

  3. [3]

    K., Hayward, C

    Araya-Araya, P., Cochrane, R. K., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90ae 2024

  4. [4]

    K., Sodr´ e, Jr., L., et al

    Araya-Araya, P., Cochrane, R. K., Sodr´ e, Jr., L., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557426 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astro...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557426 2026

  5. [5]

    M., Lim , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al

    Baker, W. M., Lim, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 539, 557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf475

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf475

  6. [6]

    M., Valentino , F., Lagos , C

    Baker, W. M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2025b, A&A, 702, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

  7. [7]

    M., Ito , K., Valentino , F., et al

    Baker, W. M., Ito, K., Valentino, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557207

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557207 2026

  8. [8]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  9. [9]

    L., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , 527, 54

    Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54, doi: 10.1086/308056

    work page doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  10. [10]

    The Journal of Open Source Software , year = 2016, month = oct, volume =

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

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  11. [11]

    L., et al

    Belli, S., Park, M., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07412-1 2024

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  13. [13]

    A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

    Bower, R. G., Kodama, T., & Terlevich, A. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 1193, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01868.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01868.x 1998

  14. [14]

    G., Lucey, J

    Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R., & Ellis, R. S. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/254.4.601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.4.601 1992

  15. [15]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W

    Bugiani, L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeaf

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

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

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

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

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2092 2024

  22. [22]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  23. [23]

    Galactic

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

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

  24. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    Chartab, N., Mobasher, B., Darvish, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd 2020

  25. [25]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b 2017

  26. [26]

    K., Lin , Y.-T., Ho , S., & Genel , S

    Genel, S. 2024, ApJ, 965, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6c 2024

  27. [27]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  28. [28]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  29. [29]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Cooper, M. C., Gallazzi, A., Newman, J. A., & Yan, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1942, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16020.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16020.x 2010

  30. [30]

    L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al

    Davies, R. L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae327 17 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025a, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025b, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186 De Lucia, G., Xie, L., Hirschmann, M., & F...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae327 2024

  31. [31]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x D’Eugenio, F., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1443, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02345-1

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x 2006

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2037 2024

  33. [33]

    L., Allam, S., & Way, M

    Doroshkevich, A., Tucker, D. L., Allam, S., & Way, M. J. 2004, A&A, 418, 7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031780

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031780 2004

  34. [34]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    work page doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  35. [35]

    and Peirani, S

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265 2016

  36. [36]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  37. [37]

    C., Annunziatella, M., et al

    Forrest, B., Marsan, Z. C., Annunziatella, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb819

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb819 2020

  38. [38]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78 2024

  39. [39]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    Furusawa, H., Kosugi, G., Akiyama, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    work page doi:10.1086/527321 2008

  40. [40]

    J., & Huchra, J

    Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1989, Science, 246, 897, doi: 10.1126/science.246.4932.897

    work page doi:10.1126/science.246.4932.897 1989

  41. [41]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680 G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21680 2017

  42. [42]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0352-5 G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al

    Gobat, R., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0352-5 G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab206

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0352-5 2018

  43. [43]

    Richard, I., Juri´ c, M., Schlegel, D., et al

    Gott, J. Richard, I., Juri´ c, M., Schlegel, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 463, doi: 10.1086/428890

    work page doi:10.1086/428890 2005

  44. [44]

    L., Whitaker , K

    Hamadouche, M. L., Whitaker, K. E., Valentino, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02485

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02485 2026

  45. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  46. [46]

    I., Nelson, E

    Hartley, A. I., Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1162

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1162 2023

  47. [47]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450243

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450243 2025

  48. [48]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 2024

  49. [49]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1256

    Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1256

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1256 2019

  50. [50]

    and Blanton, Michael R

    Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJL, 601, L29, doi: 10.1086/381749

    work page doi:10.1086/381749 2004

  51. [51]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  52. [52]

    A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: I. Galaxy Mergers & Quasar Activity

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  53. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  54. [54]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Miyaji, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aaf 2022

  55. [55]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b 2023

  56. [56]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Brammer, G., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22642

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22642

  57. [57]

    2025, title A merging pair of massive quiescent galaxies at z = 3.44 in the Cosmic Vine , , 697, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Farcy, M., et al. 2025b, A&A, 697, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

    Jespersen, C. K., Carnall, A. C., & Lovell, C. C. 2025a, ApJL, 988, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb7c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adeb7c 2041

  59. [59]

    K., Cranmer , M., Melchior , P., et al

    Jespersen, C. K., Cranmer, M., Melchior, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b18 2022

  60. [60]

    The Optical and Infrared Are Connected

    Jespersen, C. K., Melchior, P., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03816, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03816

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03816

  61. [61]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348540 2024

  62. [62]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  63. [63]

    2024, title A Massive Quiescent Galaxy in a Group Environment at z = 4.53 , , 963, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1

    Kakimoto, T., Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ff1 2024

  64. [64]

    Merloni, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  65. [65]

    2026, title Connecting Environment, Star Formation History, and Morphology of Massive Quiescent Galaxies at 3 < z < 4 with JWST , , 997, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a18

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a18 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a18 2026

  66. [66]

    J., Maier , C., Yabe , K., et al

    Kewley, L. J., Maier, C., Yabe, K., et al. 2013, ApJL, 774, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/1/L10

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/1/l10 2013

  67. [67]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9 2026

  68. [68]

    J., & Arag’on-Salamanca, A

    Kodama, T., Arimoto, N., Barger, A. J., & Arag’on-Salamanca, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 99, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802245

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9802245 1998

  69. [69]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e8

    Kubo, M., Tanaka, M., Yabe, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e8 2018

  70. [70]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2297

    Valentino, F. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2297 18Kakimoto et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2297 2024

  71. [71]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Valentino, F., Wright, R. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2626 2025

  72. [72]

    , keywords =

    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

  73. [73]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  74. [74]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  75. [75]

    C., Cucciati, O., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Lemaux, B. C., Cucciati, O., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039346 2022

  76. [76]

    C., Thomas, P

    Lovell, C. C., Thomas, P. A., & Wilkins, S. M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3090 2018

  77. [77]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J

    Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    work page doi:10.1086/175332 1995

  78. [78]

    Man, A. W. S., Zabl, J., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ae3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ae3 2021

  79. [79]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f 2022

  80. [80]

    V., et al

    McConachie, I., de Graaff, A., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25024

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25024 2025

Showing first 80 references.