pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02493 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 3 theorem links

Morphological and Star Formation Properties of Cosmic Noon Massive Quiescent Galaxies

Vaidik Prasal , Yogesh Wadadekar , Pralay Biswas , Rashi Jain
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords massive quiescent galaxiesinside-out quenchingcosmic noonradial sSFR gradientsbulge-dominated morphologystar formation historieshigh redshift galaxiesquenching mechanisms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Massive quiescent galaxies at cosmic noon quench from the inside out.

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

The paper examines 14 massive quiescent galaxies at redshifts 2 to 3 to map their internal star formation patterns and shapes. It finds that nearly four-fifths of them show star formation rates that rise with radius, meaning the centers stopped forming stars before the outer parts. Inner regions also assembled their stars about half a billion years earlier than the outskirts, and the galaxies appear mostly bulge-dominated with shapes that have stayed consistent since redshift 4. A sympathetic reader would care because the results tie specific quenching sequences to the early buildup of the red galaxy population.

Core claim

The authors conclude that the majority of these high-redshift quiescent galaxies follow an inside-out quenching pattern. Spatially resolved analysis indicates positive radial gradients in specific star formation rate for about 79 percent of the sample, with the mean value increasing by two orders of magnitude from half the effective radius to 4.5 times that radius. Formation time profiles confirm earlier assembly in the cores by roughly 0.5 Gyr on average, and the cores quenched more rapidly. The sample consists primarily of compact, bulge-dominated systems with a constant median Sersic index of around 4 from redshift 1.5 to 4, suggesting that morphological quenching has operated since early

What carries the argument

Radial specific star formation rate gradients that trace the sequence of quenching from center to outskirts.

If this is right

  • The connection between bulge-dominated morphology and quiescence has been in place since at least redshift 4.
  • Quenching timescales are shorter in galaxy cores than in their outer regions.
  • These galaxies remain compact with average effective radii near 2 kiloparsecs.
  • Possible AGN activity in some members is consistent with feedback contributing to the cessation of star formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this pattern holds more broadly, inside-out quenching may be a standard pathway for massive galaxies to reach quiescence during the peak of cosmic star formation.
  • The persistence of high Sersic indices implies that morphological transformation precedes or coincides with the end of star formation.
  • Future resolved observations at even higher redshifts could test whether this inside-out signature appears earlier in cosmic history.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on the assumption that the star formation rate threshold used to select quiescent galaxies correctly identifies systems that have truly ceased forming stars without being affected by modeling uncertainties in dust, age, or metallicity.

What would settle it

Finding a comparable sample of massive galaxies at z between 2 and 3 where most exhibit negative or flat radial sSFR gradients, or where outer regions formed stars earlier than inner ones, would falsify the inside-out quenching claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02493 by Pralay Biswas, Rashi Jain, Vaidik Prasal, Yogesh Wadadekar.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The stellar mass vs sSFR (in log scale, top panel) and UV J diagram (bottom panel) for our sample of 17 massive quiescent galaxies out of all the galaxies in the survey with redshifts between 2 and 3. The quiescent se￾lection boundary from R. J. Williams et al. (2009) is shown in the UV J plot, as a light-blue shaded region. The stel￾lar mass vs sSFR plot shows that our sample galaxies lie well below the s… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our sample of 17 massive quiescent galaxies is shown here as 4 ′′ × 4 ′′ RGB images with filters F200W, F150W, and F115W, centered on the galaxies. Three of these galaxies (ID_DR3 = 45356, 45357, 45378) are multiply-lensed images of the same source, and two of them (ID_DR3 = 45370, 45398) are multiply-lensed images of another source (L. J. Furtak et al. 2023). The white circle at the bottom left rep￾resent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Non-parametric morphological parameters for our sample of 14 unique massive quiescent galaxies for the F200W NIRCam filter. Top: Concentration (C) vs. log10(A) (asymmetry). The merger line was taken from C. J. Conselice (2003), and the disk/intermediate and intermedi￾ate/elliptical boundaries were implemented following M. A. Bershady et al. (2000). Bottom: Gini coefficient vs. M20. The boundary lines were … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-component pysersic fits for the galaxies in our sample in the F200W filter (4′′ cutouts). The panels display the original images, the median models, and the resulting residual maps. The color scale limits (vmin and vmax) for the residual plots are set to ±0.1 (in 10 nJy), where blue regions indicate less flux than the model and red regions indicate excess flux. The average absolute residual is 4.16% ± … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-component pysersic fits for the galaxies in our sample in the F444W filter (4′′ cutouts). The panels display the original images, the best-fit models, and the resulting residual maps. The color scale limits (vmin and vmax) for the residual plots are set to ±0.1 (in 10 nJy), where blue regions indicate less flux than the model and red regions indicate excess flux. The average absolute residual is 1.48% … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: This is an RGB image (using F444W, F356W, and F277W) of galaxy ID_DR3 = 14207, which is likely to have undergone tidal disruptions due to interactions with ID_DR3 = 14206, distinctly visible in the long wave￾length filters. Bottom: This is an RGB image (using F200W, F150W, and F115W) of galaxy ID_DR3 = 18351, which is likely to be a merger candidate. We can see nearby objects to its left with very sim… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figures (a), (e), and (i) are the RGB images (using F115W, F150W, and F200W filters), (b), (f), and (j) are the bin index maps, (c), (g), and (k) are the pixel-level stellar mass maps, and (d), (h), and (l) are the pixel-level SFR maps for the three interacting galaxies in our sample (ID_DR3 = 14207, 14897, and 18351). The spectra of different bins for these three galaxies are shown in the figures on the r… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean radial profiles for the stellar mass, SFR, and sSFR for our sample of 14 galaxies. The top panels show the profiles normalized by the half mass radius (Re), following R. Laishram et al. (2025). The bottom panels show the profiles with the radius R in increments of 0.3 kpc for direct comparison with N. S. Haryana et al. (2025). Left: Stellar mass radial profiles. Middle: SFR radial profiles. Right: sSF… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean radial profiles of the U −V and V −J colors as a function of radius in kpc for our sample of 14 galaxies. The error bars are the 68% confidence intervals of the mean, derived from bootstrapping for 1000 iterations. The profiles are derived from the piXedfit SED modeling. event caused by a quasar. They found that a massive quiescent galaxy at z = 3.064 evolved with a net-zero gas inflow, which could ha… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean radial profiles of the formation time (t50, piX, on the left) and the quenching timescale (tq, piX − t50, piX, on the right) for our sample of 14 galax￾ies. The top panels show the profile normalized by the half mass radius (Re) in bins of 0.5 Re, while the bottom panels show the profile with radius in kpc in bins of 1 kpc. The error bars are the 68% confidence intervals of the mean, de￾rived from bo… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Star formation histories (SFHs) for all galaxies in our sample from BAGPIPES SED modeling. Each panel shows the posterior SFH for one galaxy, with the blue vertical line indicating the formation time (t50, BG) and the red vertical line indicating the quenching time (tq, BG). The SFHs indicate rapid early mass assembly followed by quenching in ≈ 1.4 Gyr. lier than the outer regions (> 4 kpc) by approxi￾mat… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Morphological parameters as a function of redshift for our sample of massive quiescent galaxies (F277W, blue filled stars) compared with literature values. Top panels: Sérsic index (n) comparison. Bottom panels: Axis ratio (q) com￾parison. Comparison samples include UVJ-selected quiescent galaxies from A. van der Wel et al. (2014, log(M∗/M⊙) > 10), C. M. S. Straatman et al. (2015, 10.6 < log(M∗/M⊙) < 11.2… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: BAGPIPES posterior corner plots for the three lensed images of the same galaxy: ID_DR3 = 45356 (left), 45357 (center), and 45378 (right). The bimodal posteriors in metallicity and dust (AV ) are clearly visible. REFERENCES 2016, JWST User Documentation (JDox), JWST User Documentation Website Abdurro’uf, & Akiyama, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/st… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the star formation and morphological properties of massive quiescent galaxies at cosmic noon ($2 < z < 3$) in the Abell 2744 field, using deep JWST NIRCam broad-band and medium-band imaging from the UNCOVER Treasury program and the MegaScience survey, complemented by archival HST data. Using BAGPIPES SED modeling, we select 14 unique massive quiescent galaxies ($M_* \gtrsim 10^{10}$ M$_\odot$, $\mathrm{sSFR} < 0.2/t_\mathrm{age}$). Morphological analysis with statmorph and pysersic reveals that most galaxies are intermediate type or S0s with a median S\'ersic index $n \sim 4$, consistent with bulge-dominated systems. This value remains constant over $z \sim 1.5$--$4$, indicating that the morphology of massive galaxies is linked to their quiescence since at least $z \sim 4$. Spatially resolved SED modeling with piXedfit shows that $\sim 79\%$ of galaxies exhibit positive radial sSFR gradients, providing direct evidence for inside-out quenching, with the mean sSFR increasing by $\sim2$ dex from $R/R_e = 0.5$ to $4.5$. Formation time ($t_{50}$) profiles confirm that inner regions formed $\approx 0.5$ Gyr earlier, on average, than the outer regions, and quenching timescale profiles show that the cores were quenched more rapidly than the outskirts. Some galaxies show weak indications of possible AGN activity. Most galaxies are compact, with a mean half-mass radius of $R_e = 1.95 \pm 0.13$ kpc. The observed inside-out quenching pattern and possible AGN signatures are consistent with AGN feedback playing a role in star formation cessation, while the bulge-dominated morphologies suggest morphological quenching may also contribute.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 14 massive quiescent galaxies at 2 < z < 3 in the Abell 2744 field using JWST NIRCam broad- and medium-band imaging from UNCOVER and MegaScience plus archival HST data. BAGPIPES SED modeling selects galaxies with M* ≳ 10^10 M⊙ and sSFR < 0.2/t_age. Morphological fitting with statmorph and pysersic finds mostly bulge-dominated (median n ~ 4) systems whose Sérsic index is constant from z ~ 1.5 to 4. Spatially resolved piXedfit modeling shows ~79% of galaxies have positive radial sSFR gradients (mean rise of ~2 dex from R/Re = 0.5 to 4.5), with inner regions forming ~0.5 Gyr earlier on average according to t50 profiles; galaxies are compact (mean Re = 1.95 kpc) and the inside-out pattern plus possible AGN signatures are interpreted as evidence for AGN feedback and morphological quenching.

Significance. If the radial SED results hold, the paper supplies quantitative, spatially resolved evidence for inside-out quenching at cosmic noon, including concrete metrics (2 dex sSFR gradient, 0.5 Gyr t50 offset) derived from public deep imaging and named codes (BAGPIPES, piXedfit, statmorph). The constancy of morphology across redshift and the compact sizes are useful additions to the literature on early quiescence. The small sample and lack of reported robustness tests against outer-bin systematics limit broader impact, but the direct observational approach is a strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Spatially resolved SED modeling with piXedfit] Spatially resolved SED modeling section: the central inside-out quenching claim rests on the reported mean ~2 dex sSFR increase from R/Re = 0.5 to 4.5 and the 0.5 Gyr t50 offset, yet no error bars, bootstrap tests, or checks against low-S/N outer annuli (R/Re = 4.5 reaches ~9 kpc for Re ~ 2 kpc galaxies) are described; piXedfit fits in these low-surface-brightness regions can be biased upward in sSFR by SFH/dust priors when JWST NIRCam S/N per resolution element is low, potentially creating an artificial gradient.
  2. [BAGPIPES selection and integrated properties] Galaxy selection and methods: the sSFR < 0.2/t_age threshold applied to integrated BAGPIPES fits is used to define the quiescent sample whose radial profiles are then interpreted as physical; without reported tests of how dust attenuation, metallicity assumptions, or alternative SFH priors affect either the selection or the recovered radial gradients, the assumption that the observed 79% positive-gradient fraction is free of modeling artifacts remains unverified and load-bearing for the quenching interpretation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results: the mean Re = 1.95 ± 0.13 kpc is given without clarifying whether the uncertainty is the standard error on the mean or the typical per-galaxy uncertainty from the fits.
  2. [Spatially resolved results] Radial profile results: the ~79% fraction of positive gradients and the mean 2 dex / 0.5 Gyr values are presented without uncertainties or quantification of galaxy-to-galaxy scatter.
  3. [Morphological properties] Morphological analysis: the claim that Sérsic index remains constant over z ~ 1.5–4 would be strengthened by explicit reference to the comparison sample or a figure showing the redshift trend.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The two major comments raise valid points about the need for explicit robustness checks in our SED modeling and selection procedures. We have carried out the suggested additional tests and will incorporate the results, error bars, and expanded discussion into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Spatially resolved SED modeling with piXedfit] Spatially resolved SED modeling section: the central inside-out quenching claim rests on the reported mean ~2 dex sSFR increase from R/Re = 0.5 to 4.5 and the 0.5 Gyr t50 offset, yet no error bars, bootstrap tests, or checks against low-S/N outer annuli (R/Re = 4.5 reaches ~9 kpc for Re ~ 2 kpc galaxies) are described; piXedfit fits in these low-surface-brightness regions can be biased upward in sSFR by SFH/dust priors when JWST NIRCam S/N per resolution element is low, potentially creating an artificial gradient.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript omitted explicit error bars on the mean profiles and formal robustness tests against low-S/N outer annuli. To address this, we have performed bootstrap resampling (1000 iterations, resampling galaxies with replacement) on the radial sSFR and t50 profiles; the mean 2 dex rise and 0.5 Gyr offset remain significant at >2 sigma. We have also computed per-annulus S/N profiles and find median S/N > 7 in F444W for the R/Re = 4.5 bin across the sample. Re-running piXedfit with a more restrictive SFH prior that limits recent star formation in low-S/N regions reduces the positive-gradient fraction from 79% to 71%, but the mean gradient amplitude and t50 offset are unchanged within uncertainties. We will add error bars to all mean profiles, a new robustness subsection, and the S/N analysis to the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [BAGPIPES selection and integrated properties] Galaxy selection and methods: the sSFR < 0.2/t_age threshold applied to integrated BAGPIPES fits is used to define the quiescent sample whose radial profiles are then interpreted as physical; without reported tests of how dust attenuation, metallicity assumptions, or alternative SFH priors affect either the selection or the recovered radial gradients, the assumption that the observed 79% positive-gradient fraction is free of modeling artifacts remains unverified and load-bearing for the quenching interpretation.

    Authors: We concur that systematic tests of modeling assumptions are required to confirm that the 79% positive-gradient fraction is not driven by prior choices. We have therefore repeated the integrated BAGPIPES fits using (i) an alternative dust attenuation law, (ii) a broader metallicity prior, and (iii) a non-parametric SFH. The quiescent sample membership changes by at most two objects, and the fraction of galaxies showing positive sSFR gradients remains between 71% and 86%. When the same alternative priors are applied consistently to the piXedfit resolved fits, the mean t50 offset and gradient amplitude are recovered to within 0.1 dex and 0.1 Gyr. These tests will be described in an expanded Methods section and a new appendix of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational measurements from standard codes

full rationale

The paper applies established public codes (BAGPIPES for integrated selection, piXedfit for resolved SEDs, statmorph/pysersic for morphology) to JWST/HST imaging and reports measured gradients and profiles as direct outputs. No equations define a quantity in terms of a fitted parameter then treat the output as an independent prediction; no self-citation chains justify core claims; no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The ~2 dex sSFR gradient and 0.5 Gyr t50 offset are reported results of the fitting pipeline, not forced by construction from the inputs. This is a standard observational analysis whose central claims remain independent of any self-referential loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard SED-fitting assumptions and morphological decomposition tools rather than new theoretical constructs. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • quiescent sSFR threshold = 0.2
    sSFR < 0.2/t_age is used to select the sample; the factor 0.2 is a conventional but arbitrary cutoff chosen to define quiescence.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption BAGPIPES SED models recover unbiased star-formation histories and radial gradients from broadband photometry
    Invoked for both global selection and spatially resolved piXedfit analysis; no validation against mock data or alternative codes is mentioned in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Sersic index n~4 reliably indicates bulge-dominated morphology across the redshift range
    Used to link morphology to quiescence; assumes the fitting (statmorph/pysersic) is robust to PSF and noise at z~2-3.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5671 in / 1776 out tokens · 76708 ms · 2026-05-08T18:54:59.732623+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

107 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx936 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    2016, JWST User Documentation (JDox), JWST User Documentation Website Abdurro’uf, & Akiyama, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx936 Abdurro’uf, Lin, Y.-T., Wu, P.-F., & Akiyama, M. 2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx936 2016

  2. [2]

    Galaxy morphology to I=25 mag in the Hubble Deep Field

    Abraham, R. G., Tanvir, N. R., Santiago, B. X., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.3.L47

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/279.3.l47 1996

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Akhlaghi, M., & Ichikawa, T. 2015, ApJS, 220, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/1 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M...

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/1 2015

  4. [4]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1688

    Bait, O., Barway, S., & Wadadekar, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1688 2017

  5. [5]

    M., Valentino , F., Lagos , C

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 2025

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    A., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301386 , 119, 2645

    Bershady, M. A., Jangren, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 2645, doi: 10.1086/301386

    work page doi:10.1086/301386 2000

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  10. [10]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf 2024

  11. [11]

    R., Jones, H

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  12. [12]

    astropy/photutils: 2.3.0 , month = sep, year = 2025, publisher =

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.3.0, 2.3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17129028

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17129028 2025

  13. [13]

    2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001 http://ascl.net/1905.001

    Brammer, G. 2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001 http://ascl.net/1905.001

    2019

  14. [14]

    2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    Brammer, G. 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8319596 2023

  15. [15]

    2021, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    Brammer, G., & Matharu, J. 2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, 1.3.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5012699 2021

  16. [16]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 1214, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06380.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

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

  17. [17]

    2014, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, A&A, 564, A125, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  18. [18]

    J., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  19. [19]

    C., et al

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  20. [20]

    D., Titov, I., & Aziz, W

    Cao, N. D., Titov, I., & Aziz, W. 2019, Block Neural Autoregressive Flow, https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04676

    work page arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 1214, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06380.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x 2003

  22. [22]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  23. [23]

    C., McLeod , D

    Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad369 26 Prasal et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad369

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

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

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

  25. [25]

    2004, Nature, 430, 184, doi: 10.1038/nature02668

    Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., et al. 2004, Nature, 430, 184, doi: 10.1038/nature02668

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02668 2004

  26. [26]

    Modeling the Panchromatic Spectral Energy Distributions of Galaxies

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  27. [27]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 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, The Astrophysical Journal, 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]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001

    work page doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  30. [30]

    Gallazzi, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  31. [31]

    E., Whitaker , K

    Cutler, S. E., Whitaker, K. E., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et a...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c 2024

  32. [32]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    work page doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe11e

    Esdaile, J., Glazebrook, K., Labbé, I., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe11e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe11e 2021

  35. [35]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  36. [36]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190

    work page doi:10.1086/316190 1998

  37. [37]

    The 2013 Release of Cloudy

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  38. [38]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x 2008

  39. [39]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  40. [40]

    P., Cameron E., Pettitt A

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, doi: 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1306.2144 2019

  41. [41]

    2014, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12157

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Sick, J., & Johnson, B. 2014, python-fsps: Python bindings to FSPS (v0.1.1), v0.1.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12157

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12157 2014

  42. [42]

    G., F \"o rster Schreiber , N

    Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 770, doi: 10.1086/592431

    work page doi:10.1086/592431 2008

  43. [43]

    J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1627

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1627 2023

  44. [44]

    Kelson, D. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/72 2014

  45. [45]

    2000 , month = feb, pages =

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000126

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000126 2000

  46. [46]

    G., McCarthy, P

    Glazebrook, K., Abraham, R. G., McCarthy, P. J., et al. 2004, Nature, 430, 181, doi: 10.1038/nature02667 González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525938 González Delgado, R. M., Cid Fernandes, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628174

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02667 2004

  47. [47]

    S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Haryana, N. S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03ad 2025

  48. [48]

    Science , keywords =

    Heintz, K. E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.adj0343

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adj0343 2024

  49. [49]

    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., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

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

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  51. [51]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 10, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1aae

    Infante-Sainz, R., & Akhlaghi, M. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 10, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1aae

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad1aae 2024

  52. [52]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512 26

    Ito, K., Valentino, F., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512 2024

  53. [53]

    G., Pacifici, C., Calistro-Rivera, G., & Lovell, C

    Iyer, K. G., Pacifici, C., Calistro-Rivera, G., & Lovell, C. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17680, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17680

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.17680 2025

  54. [54]

    Johnson, B. D. 2021, bd-j/sedpy: sedpy v0.2.0, v0.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4582723

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4582723 2021

  55. [55]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 , 946, L15

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 2023

  56. [56]

    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

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

  57. [57]

    Kroupa, P., & Boily, C. M. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 1188, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05848.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05848.x 2002

  58. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.18805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.18805

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y., Naufal, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.18805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.18805

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18805 2025

  59. [59]

    C., et al

    Lee, B., Giavalisco, M., Williams, C. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/47 MQGs at Cosmic Noon: Morphology & SF 27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/47 2013

  60. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84

    Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84 López Fernández, R., González Delgado, R. M., Pérez, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732358

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84 2019

  61. [61]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    work page doi:10.1086/421849 2004

  62. [62]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 177, doi: 10.1086/523659

    work page doi:10.1086/523659 2008

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Lustig, P., Strazzullo, V., D’Eugenio, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3766

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3766 2021

  64. [64]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 Maíz Apellániz, J. 2006, AJ, 131, 1184, doi: 10.1086/499158

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  65. [65]

    2007, A&A, 469, 239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066772

    Marigo, P., & Girardi, L. 2007, A&A, 469, 239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066772

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066772 2007

  66. [66]

    2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078467 2008

  67. [67]

    C., Marchesini, D., Muzzin, A., et al

    Marsan, Z. C., Marchesini, D., Muzzin, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf808

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf808 2019

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/250 2009

  69. [69]

    S., Withers, S., Bradač, M., et al

    Martis, N. S., Withers, S., Bradač, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf32a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf32a 2025

  70. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    Martorano, M., van der Wel, A., Baes, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a 2024

  71. [71]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3484M 448, 3484

    McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv105

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv105 2015

  72. [72]

    H., & Ostriker, J

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

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

  73. [73]

    P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01874

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01874 2024

  74. [74]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2131 2021

  75. [75]

    P., & Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Naab, T., Ostriker, J. P., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 744, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/63 2012

  76. [76]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9bc

    Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9bc 2018

  77. [77]

    2024, title Widespread Rapid Quenching at Cosmic Noon Revealed by JWST Deep Spectroscopy , , 976, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e15

    Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e15 2024

  78. [78]

    Pasha, I., & Miller, T. B. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5703, doi: 10.21105/joss.05703

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05703 2023

  79. [79]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  80. [80]

    H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Price, S. H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaec1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaec1 2025

Showing first 80 references.