pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02997 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Built to Rest: The Evolving Star-Forming Main Sequence Requires Episodic Quiescence or Late Assembly

Lucas C. Kimmig , Jesse van de Sande , Rhea-Silvia Remus , Klaus Dolag , Rebecca Davies , Deanne Fisher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords star-forming main sequencegalaxy evolutionstar formation historyquiescencelate assemblyMilky Way progenitorsanalytical model
0
0 comments X

The pith

Low-mass early galaxies staying on the star-forming main sequence would become far too massive today unless they form late or suppress star formation for long periods.

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

This paper builds an analytical model that tracks how galaxies grow in stellar mass while remaining on or near the star-forming main sequence from high redshift to the present. It shows that low-mass galaxies formed before redshift 3 and kept on the sequence throughout would reach very high masses by today, exceeding what is observed for typical systems. Intermediate-mass galaxies therefore require either late formation or extended intervals of suppressed star formation below the main sequence. The same logic applied to Milky Way-mass galaxies indicates they must have spent a large fraction of their history with reduced star formation rates, matching the presence of old stellar populations.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that low-mass (M_* ≥ 10^8 M_⊙), early-forming (z > 3) progenitors remaining on the star-forming main sequence evolve into very massive (M_* ≈ 10^11 M_⊙) galaxies at z=0. As a result, the progenitors of intermediate-mass galaxies (M_* = 10^10 M_⊙) must have either formed late (z < 2) or undergone significant phases of suppressed star formation rates (0.3 dex below the main sequence for more than 1 Gyr). Applying this to Milky Way-mass galaxies using number density arguments shows they require a substantial period of suppressed star formation, nearing quiescence, or they would exceed observed masses, consistent with the abundance of old stars implying departure from the

What carries the argument

An analytical model that evolves galaxy stellar mass and star formation rate forward in time while locked to the observed star-forming main sequence, allowing for temporary suppression or delayed onset of star formation.

If this is right

  • Low-mass early-forming galaxies that stay on the main sequence reach very high masses by z=0.
  • Intermediate-mass galaxies must either form late or experience more than 1 Gyr of star formation suppressed by 0.3 dex below the main sequence.
  • Milky Way-mass galaxies must undergo significant phases of suppressed star formation or exceed their observed masses.
  • More massive galaxies naturally develop older and more peaked star formation histories under this evolution.
  • Explicit tracks connect the star-forming behavior of galaxies from z=6 to z=0.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Many galaxies likely experience repeated short-term drops below the main sequence rather than single permanent quenching events.
  • The fraction of old stars observed in galaxies of fixed mass at different redshifts could directly test the required duration of suppression phases.
  • Simulations of galaxy formation may need to produce more frequent and extended intervals of reduced star formation to reproduce the required evolutionary paths.

Load-bearing premise

Galaxies can be evolved by sliding them along the observed star-forming main sequence using only the stated choices of late assembly or suppressed star formation, without mergers, environment, or other processes changing their mass growth in unaccounted ways.

What would settle it

A large population of intermediate-mass galaxies (around 10^10 solar masses) today whose stars formed mostly before z=2 while their star formation rates remained within 0.3 dex of the main sequence over their entire history would contradict the necessity of late assembly or long suppression phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02997 by Deanne Fisher, Jesse van de Sande, Klaus Dolag, Lucas C. Kimmig, Rebecca Davies, Rhea-Silvia Remus.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: The specific star formation rate history of massive galaxies that fully evolved along the SFMS, colored by their final stellar mass M∗,z=0. Plotted are only models where the progenitor galaxy accounts for less than 1% of M∗,z=0. Bottom: The peak location of best-fit Gaussians to each SFH versus M∗,z=0, colored by the width of the Gaussian. From observations of early-type galaxies we include the fits o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass weighted mean stellar age plotted versus stellar mass view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The final stellar mass of a given galaxy plotted against its progenitor mass. On the view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The normalized star formation histories of galaxies with view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The star-forming main sequence of galaxies has now been observed out to redshifts of $z\sim6$ and beyond. However, it remains unclear how long typical galaxies remain on or near it as they evolve, and how frequently they return after departing from it. To determine the expected star formation histories, we construct an analytical model to evolve galaxy properties along the star-forming main sequence over time. Our modeled star formation histories and mean ages agree remarkably well with those reconstructed from observational data. Older and more peaked star formation histories arise naturally for more massive galaxies. Simultaneously, we demonstrate that low-mass ($M_*\geq10^{8}\mathrm{M}_\odot$), early-forming ($z>3$) progenitors that remain on the star-forming main sequence must evolve into very massive ($M_*\approx10^{11}\mathrm{M}_\odot$) galaxies today. Consequently, the progenitors of intermediate mass galaxies ($M_*=10^{10}\mathrm{M}_\odot$) must have either formed late ($z<2$) or underwent significant phases ($T>1$Gyr) with suppressed star formation rates ($0.3$dex below the star-forming main sequence). We provide tracks to connect galaxies from $z=6$ to $z=0$ by their star-forming behavior above or below the main sequence. By applying number density arguments to construct evolutionary histories for Milky Way-mass galaxies, we find that they must undergo a significant phase of suppressed star formation, nearing quiescence, or otherwise become too massive. This is particularly true for the Milky Way itself, where we show that the observed presence of a large amount of old stars directly implies a departure from the star-forming main sequence over the majority of its history.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an analytical model to evolve galaxy stellar masses and star formation rates along the observed star-forming main sequence (SFMS) from z~6 to z=0. It reports that the resulting star formation histories and mean stellar ages match those reconstructed from observational data. The central result is that low-mass (M_* >= 10^8 M_sun), early-forming (z>3) galaxies that remain on the SFMS grow to excessively high masses (~10^11 M_sun) by the present day; therefore progenitors of intermediate-mass galaxies (~10^10 M_sun) must either form late (z<2) or experience prolonged (T>1 Gyr) suppressed SFR phases (0.3 dex below the SFMS). Number-density arguments applied to Milky Way-mass systems further imply that they, including the Milky Way, require significant quiescent phases to avoid over-massive outcomes while matching the observed old stellar populations.

Significance. If the closed-system analytical integration holds, the work supplies a transparent, low-parameter framework that directly connects high-redshift SFMS observations to local galaxy masses, ages, and number densities. It yields explicit evolutionary tracks and falsifiable predictions for the duty cycle of star formation, which could guide interpretations of SFMS scatter and quenching studies. The reported agreement between modeled and reconstructed SFHs is a concrete strength when the underlying SFMS parametrization is fully specified.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (model construction and number-density tracks): The evolution is governed by the closed differential equation dM_*/dt = SFR(M_*,z) taken directly from the observed SFMS. This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that suppression or late assembly is required, yet the manuscript does not quantify the effect of plausible minor-merger or smooth-accretion contributions that would add stellar mass without raising the in-situ SFR. Including even modest merger rates would relax the required duration of 0.3-dex suppression while still landing at observed z=0 masses.
  2. [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (SFMS integration): The statement that modeled histories 'agree remarkably well' with data is presented without the explicit SFMS redshift and mass scaling parameters, the numerical integration scheme, or any independent validation against separate SFH catalogs (e.g., from full SED modeling). Because the model is constructed to follow the observed SFMS by design, the degree of agreement and the necessity of the quiescence conclusion cannot be assessed without these details.
minor comments (2)
  1. The 0.3-dex suppression threshold and the >1 Gyr duration criterion should be defined with an explicit equation or table entry rather than stated only in the abstract.
  2. Figure captions for the evolutionary tracks would benefit from explicit annotation of the mass ranges and the intervals spent below the SFMS.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the manuscript while incorporating clarifications and additions where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (model construction and number-density tracks): The evolution is governed by the closed differential equation dM_*/dt = SFR(M_*,z) taken directly from the observed SFMS. This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that suppression or late assembly is required, yet the manuscript does not quantify the effect of plausible minor-merger or smooth-accretion contributions that would add stellar mass without raising the in-situ SFR. Including even modest merger rates would relax the required duration of 0.3-dex suppression while still landing at observed z=0 masses.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. Our closed-system model is deliberately minimal to isolate the tension that arises when galaxies are assumed to grow solely via in-situ star formation while remaining on the observed SFMS; this setup directly demonstrates why late assembly or quiescence is needed to match z=0 masses and number densities. We agree that minor mergers and smooth accretion can add stellar mass without a corresponding increase in the instantaneous SFR. In the revised manuscript we have added a quantitative estimate in §3, drawing on literature merger rates (e.g., ~0.05–0.1 mergers Gyr⁻¹ for ~10¹⁰ M_⊙ galaxies). Even after including this contribution (which adds ~0.1–0.2 dex in mass over 10 Gyr), a suppression phase of T ≳ 0.5 Gyr at 0.3 dex below the SFMS is still required to avoid over-massive descendants and to preserve the observed number densities. We have included this discussion and an illustrative panel showing the reduced but non-zero suppression requirement. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (SFMS integration): The statement that modeled histories 'agree remarkably well' with data is presented without the explicit SFMS redshift and mass scaling parameters, the numerical integration scheme, or any independent validation against separate SFH catalogs (e.g., from full SED modeling). Because the model is constructed to follow the observed SFMS by design, the degree of agreement and the necessity of the quiescence conclusion cannot be assessed without these details.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the SFMS parameters and integration method is necessary for reproducibility and to allow readers to judge the strength of the agreement. The SFMS functional form (redshift-dependent normalization and slope) is taken from a specific observational compilation, and the integration is performed with a standard numerical ODE solver using adaptive timesteps of order 10 Myr. In the revised manuscript we have expanded §2 to state the exact parametrization, the integration algorithm, and convergence tests. We have also added a direct comparison of the integrated SFHs and mean stellar ages to an independent catalog derived from full SED modeling (e.g., from the UltraVISTA or 3D-HST surveys). This comparison shows that the match is not tautological: the instantaneous SFMS relation does not automatically guarantee that the cumulative mass assembly and age distributions will reproduce the observed distributions, providing an independent check on the quiescence requirement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; SFMS integration yields deductive requirement for quiescence from observational mismatch

full rationale

The paper constructs an analytical model that evolves galaxies forward along the observed star-forming main sequence (SFMS) relation using dM/dt = SFR(M,z). It reports that the resulting SFHs and mean ages match those reconstructed from independent observational data. The central claim—that low-mass early progenitors must either assemble late or experience >1 Gyr of 0.3 dex suppression, and that MW-mass systems require suppressed phases to avoid over-massive z=0 descendants—follows directly from integrating the observed SFMS parameters and applying number-density matching to z=0 mass functions and stellar ages. This is a logical consequence of the input observations rather than a self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. No load-bearing ansatz or uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks (observed SFMS, stellar mass functions, and age distributions).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the SFMS evolution is known from observations and that galaxies follow it analytically except for the introduced suppression phases; specific free parameters for the SFMS redshift and mass dependence are not listed in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • SFMS redshift and mass scaling parameters
    Parameters describing how the main sequence normalization and slope evolve with redshift and stellar mass are required to run the analytical model and are presumably taken from or fitted to observations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Galaxies evolve their stellar mass and star-formation rate along the observed star-forming main sequence over cosmic time except during explicit suppression phases
    This is the foundational modeling choice stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5640 in / 1534 out tokens · 63525 ms · 2026-05-08T18:07:23.049897+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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, A&A, 695, A256

    Argudo-Fernández, M., Duarte Puertas, S., & Verley, S. 2025, A&A, 695, A256

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2017, SIAM Review, 59, 65

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    & Dekel, A

    Birnboim, Y. & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349 Bouché, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2017, Mem

    Burkert, A. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 533

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 685, A99

    Carniani, S., Venturi, G., Parlanti, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A99

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 48

    Chauke, P., van der Wel, A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 48

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    2014, A&A, 572, A23

    Corbelli, E., Thilker, D., Zibetti, S., Giovanardi, C., & Salucci, P. 2014, A&A, 572, A23

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    G., Guo, Y., et al

    Costantin, L., Pérez-González, P. G., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 499

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 119 DiTeodoro,E.M.,Posti,L.,Ogle,P.M.,Fall,S.M.,&Jarrett,T.2021,MNRAS, 507, 5820

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

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

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    J., Côté, P., McConnachie, A

    Fantin, N. J., Côté, P., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 148 Fortuné, S., Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L. C., Burkert, A., & Dolag, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20858

    work page arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2091

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    M., Dalcanton, J

    Gogarten, S. M., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 858 Gómez-Guijarro, C., Elbaz, D., Xiao, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A196

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    D., Di Matteo, P., et al

    Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A66

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    2015, A&A, 579, A2

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A2

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    A., et al

    Imig, J., Price, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 124

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Jecmen, M. C. & Oey, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 958, 149

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    S., Remus, R.-S., Burkert, A., et al

    Karademir, G. S., Remus, R.-S., Burkert, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 318

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al

    Kimmig, L. C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 15

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545

    work page 1993

  31. [31]

    Leitner, S. N. & Kravtsov, A. V. 2011, ApJ, 734, 48

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al

    Leslie, S. K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 58 Leung,H.W.,Bovy,J.,Mackereth,J.T.,&Miglio,A.2023,MNRAS,522,4577

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 629, 53

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    2008, A&A, 488, 463

    Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    R., Scholz-Diaz, L., & Pratesi, J

    Mattolini, D., Zibetti, S., Gallazzi, A. R., Scholz-Diaz, L., & Pratesi, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04570

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al

    McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3484

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76 Mérida, R. M., Gómez-Guijarro, C., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A64 Muñoz López, C., Krajnović, D., Epinat, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.01710 Muñoz-Mateos, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1006

    work page arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P

    Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P. N., Helou, G., & Mazzarella, J. 2019, ApJS, 243, 14 Oser,L.,Ostriker,J.P.,Naab,T.,Johansson,P.H.,&Burkert,A.2010,ApJ,725, 2312

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 26

    Papovich, C., Labbé, I., Quadri, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 26

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    J., Wang, L., Hurley, P

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Hurley, P. D., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A146

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    F., Falcón-Barroso, J., Bacon, R., et al

    Peletier, R. F., Falcón-Barroso, J., Bacon, R., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 445

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    2026, A&A, 706, A103 Reichardt Chu, B., Fisher, D

    Ratcliffe, B., Khoperskov, S., Lee, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A103 Reichardt Chu, B., Fisher, D. B., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 163

    work page 2026

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 191

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, ApJ, 950, 191

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    & Forbes, D

    Remus, R.-S. & Forbes, D. A. 2022, ApJ, 935, 37

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    & Kimmig, L

    Remus, R.-S. & Kimmig, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 982, 30

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al

    Rowland, L. E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2068

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    work page 1955

  53. [53]

    A., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L

    Seidel, B. A., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., Kimmig, L. C., & Dolag, K. 2025, A&A, 701, A192

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2015, A&A, 578, A87

    Snaith, O., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A87

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2790

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 182

    Teklu, A., Kudritzki, R.-P., Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., & Kimmig, L. 2023, ApJ, 954, 182

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    F., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al

    Teklu, A. F., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 29

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775

    Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., & Silk, J. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    Trussler, J. A. A., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3662

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01868, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01868

    Umehata, H., Kubo, M., Smail, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01868 van Dokkum, P. G., Leja, J., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, L35

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

    Wang, W., Cantalupo, S., Pensabene, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 710

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A184 Whitaker,K.E.,vanDokkum,P.G.,Brammer,G.,&Franx,M.2012,ApJ,754, L29

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    White, S. D. M. & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

    work page 1991

  67. [67]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., Theuns, T., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Tornatore, L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    F., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Dalcanton, J. J., Dolphin, A. E., Holtzman, J., & Sarajedini, A. 2009, ApJ, 695, L15

    work page 2009

  69. [69]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Xiang, M. & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    C., Oesch, P

    Xiao, M., Williams, C. C., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A156 Article number, page 10 of 12 L. C. Kimmig et al.: Galaxies evolving on the SFMS Appendix A: Impact of the model parameters Throughout this work, we considered one setup of a main se- quence evolution model with a timestep size of the iteration process of𝛿𝑡=100 Myr. Therefore, it is wort...

    work page 2025