pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08342 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Satellite Metallicity Enhancement I: Suppressed Star Formation, Stellar Mass Loss, and Enriched Inflow of DESI and EAGLE Galaxies around Massive Clusters

Yuanye Lin , Ying Zu , Jessica Nicole Aguilar , Steven Ahlen , David Brooks , Todd Claybaugh , Andrei Cuceu , Axel de la Macorra
show 21 more authors
Andreu Font-Ribera Jaime E. Forero-Romero Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Gaston Gutierrez Dick Joyce Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Will J. Percival Francisco Prada Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez David Schlegel Joseph Harry Silber David Sprayberry Gregory Tarl\'e Benjamin Alan Weaver Hu Zou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords satellite metallicity enhancementintracluster mediumgalaxy quenchingstar formation suppressionchemical evolutionDESI surveyEAGLE simulationcluster environment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Enriched intracluster gas inflow sustains the metallicity plateau in satellite galaxies out to the cluster virial radius while quenching drives the central drop.

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

This paper maps the average gas-phase metallicity of satellite galaxies as a function of projected distance from massive clusters using DESI Data Release 1. The resulting profile shows a steep decline near the center, a flat plateau around the virial radius, and a gradual outer decline. The same shape appears in the EAGLE cosmological simulation, which the authors use to build a chemical evolution model that isolates three environmental drivers. The model attributes the plateau mainly to ongoing accretion of already-enriched gas from the intracluster medium and the central drop to the combined action of suppressed star formation and stellar mass loss. This decomposition offers a concrete way to quantify how cluster environments reshape galaxy chemistry without relying on single-process assumptions.

Core claim

The complex observed satellite metallicity enhancement profile is reproduced in EAGLE, and a new satellite chemical evolution model decomposes it to show that continuous accretion of enriched intracluster medium dominates the plateau within the cluster virial radius while mass loss and quenching together produce the rapid central decline.

What carries the argument

The novel satellite chemical evolution model that decomposes the observed SME profile into additive contributions from suppressed star formation, stellar mass loss, and enriched gas inflow.

If this is right

  • Continuous accretion of enriched intracluster medium dominates the SME plateau within the cluster virial radius.
  • Mass loss and quenching jointly drive the rapid metallicity decline in the cluster core.
  • The decomposition separates the impacts of three environmental processes on galactic chemical enrichment for use with current and future spectroscopic surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same model framework could be applied to lower-mass groups to test whether the relative importance of inflow versus quenching changes with halo mass.
  • Incorporating time-dependent inflow metallicity from the surrounding large-scale structure might explain the outer downturn beyond several virial radii.

Load-bearing premise

The satellite chemical evolution model can separate the effects of suppressed star formation, stellar mass loss, and enriched inflow on the metallicity profile without significant degeneracies or missing processes.

What would settle it

A new observational dataset or simulation run that produces a different SME profile shape not reproducible by adjusting only the rates of enriched inflow, mass loss, and star-formation suppression would falsify the decomposition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08342 by Aaron Meisner, Andrei Cuceu, Andreu Font-Ribera, Axel de la Macorra, Benjamin Alan Weaver, David Brooks, David Schlegel, David Sprayberry, Dick Joyce, Eusebio Sanchez, Francisco Prada, Gaston Gutierrez, Graziano Rossi, Gregory Tarl\'e, Hu Zou, Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols, Jaime E. Forero-Romero, Jessica Nicole Aguilar, John Moustakas, Joseph Harry Silber, Laurent Le Guillou, Martin Landriau, Ramon Miquel, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, Steven Ahlen, Todd Claybaugh, Will J. Percival, Ying Zu, Yuanye Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between the average gas-phase metallicity (left) and SME (right) profiles measured in DESI DR1 and the EAGLE simulation. Left: Average metallicity of the satellite (black open circles with errorbars) and control (gray squares with errorbars) samples as functions of projected radius Rscale (scaled by halo radius) measured in DESI DR1. Black solid (gray dashed) curve with an uncertainty band is th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A cartoon version of Equation 20, decomposing the observed SME into contributions due to three different physical processes (annotated on the left). Each panel illus￾trates the typical evolutionary trajectory of a galaxy from one of the four samples in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The average stellar mass growth (left), star formation (middle), and mass loss (right) histories of relevant EAGLE galaxy samples at rscale=[0.2, 0.4]. Left: Colored curves indicate the stellar mass evolution of SAT (black), Fsfh (blue), Ffmd (red), and Fobs (orange) samples. Red and orange horizontal dashed lines denote the formed and observed stellar masses of the SAT sample at z=0.1, respectively. Middl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contributions to the overall SME profile (gray curve in each panel) due to suppressed SF (blue curve; left panel) and stellar mass loss (red curve; right panel), as functions of the 3D scaled radius rscale in EAGLE. The inset of the left panel shows the average SFHs of Fsfh (solid curves) and Ffmd (dashed curves) samples at rscale=0.18 (red) and 0.3 (green), respectively. The inset of the right panel shows… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Satellite metallicity enhancement due to en￾riched flow at rscale=[0.2, 0.4]. Top: The average chemical enrichment histories of SAT (green circles) and Fsfh (blue squares) galaxies measured from EAGLE. Green solid curve shows the prediction from our best-fitting satellite NE-CEM with τinfall=3.34 Gyr and f ICM inflow=0.23, and blue dashed curve is the best-fitting prediction from a field NE-CEM with f IGM … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contribution to the overall SME profile due to enriched inflow, as predicted by our satellite NE-CEM. Left: Oxygen fraction of the inflow (relative to the ISM) finflow as a function of rscale. Black curve with a gray uncertainty band indicate the direct measurement from EAGLE, while squares with errorbars are the constraints from our satellite NE-CEM. Middle: Similar to the left panel, but for the infall t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final decomposition of the 3D overall SME profile in EAGLE. Left: Blue, red, and green bands indicate the SME components due to suppressed SF, mass-loss, and enriched inflow, respectively, as functions of rscale. Right: Comparison between the overall SME profiles reconstructed (black curve) by stacking the three contributions (colored layers) and directly measured from EAGLE (open circles with errorbars). … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Environmental effects are a primary driver of elevated gas-phase metallicities in galaxies around massive clusters, but the underlying physical mechanisms for this satellite metallicity enhancement (SME) are still unclear. Using the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 1, we present the first measurement of the average SME as a function of projected cluster-centric distance. The resulting profile reveals three distinct regimes: a steep decline from the cluster center, a plateau near the cluster boundary, and an extended downturn across several cluster radii. Remarkably, the complex shape and amplitude of this observed SME profile are successfully reproduced in the EAGLE cosmological simulation. Drawing insights from EAGLE, we develop a novel satellite chemical evolution model to decompose the observed SME into physical contributions from suppressed star formation, stellar mass loss, and enriched gas inflow. Our analysis shows that continuous accretion of enriched intracluster medium dominates the SME plateau within the cluster virial radius, while mass loss and quenching jointly drive the rapid metallicity decline in the cluster core. Our method disentangles the impacts of three environmental processes on galactic chemical enrichment in the cosmic web, providing a powerful framework for understanding cluster galaxy evolution with current and future spectroscopic surveys.

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 reports the first measurement of the average satellite metallicity enhancement (SME) profile as a function of projected cluster-centric distance using DESI DR1 data around massive clusters. The observed profile exhibits a steep central decline, a plateau near the virial radius, and an extended outer downturn; this shape and amplitude are reproduced in the EAGLE simulation. A novel satellite chemical evolution model is introduced to decompose the profile into contributions from suppressed star formation, stellar mass loss, and enriched gas inflow, leading to the conclusion that continuous accretion of enriched intracluster medium dominates the plateau inside R_vir while mass loss and quenching drive the core decline.

Significance. If the model's decomposition is robust, the work provides a valuable new framework for disentangling environmental processes affecting galactic chemical enrichment, with direct applicability to ongoing and future spectroscopic surveys. The direct match between the DESI observational profile and EAGLE output is a clear strength, as is the attempt to move beyond qualitative interpretation to quantitative attribution of three distinct mechanisms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Satellite chemical evolution model and decomposition analysis] The central claim—that enriched ICM accretion dominates the SME plateau while mass loss and quenching drive the core decline—rests entirely on the novel satellite chemical evolution model's ability to uniquely decompose the profile. The model uses a small number of free parameters and functional forms for the three processes, yet the manuscript provides no explicit degeneracy tests (e.g., varying inflow metallicity against mass-loss efficiency while holding the plateau amplitude fixed) or alternative parameterizations. Without these, trade-offs could alter the dominance ranking, undermining the attribution.
  2. [Satellite chemical evolution model and decomposition analysis] The model is constructed from EAGLE insights and then applied to interpret EAGLE output, introducing moderate circularity. While the DESI profile supplies an independent observational anchor, the manuscript should quantify how much of the decomposition relies on simulation-derived priors versus data-driven constraints, and test robustness when those priors are relaxed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Satellite chemical evolution model] Clarify the exact functional forms and fitting procedure for the three-process model, including any regularization or priors applied during decomposition, to allow independent reproduction.
  2. [Comparison with EAGLE simulation] The abstract states the profile is 'successfully reproduced' in EAGLE; provide quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced chi-squared or residual profiles) for the simulation-observation comparison in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on the satellite chemical evolution model and its decomposition. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim—that enriched ICM accretion dominates the SME plateau while mass loss and quenching drive the core decline—rests entirely on the novel satellite chemical evolution model's ability to uniquely decompose the profile. The model uses a small number of free parameters and functional forms for the three processes, yet the manuscript provides no explicit degeneracy tests (e.g., varying inflow metallicity against mass-loss efficiency while holding the plateau amplitude fixed) or alternative parameterizations. Without these, trade-offs could alter the dominance ranking, undermining the attribution.

    Authors: We agree that explicit degeneracy tests are needed to confirm the uniqueness of the decomposition. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection with degeneracy tests, including variations of inflow metallicity versus mass-loss efficiency at fixed plateau amplitude, as well as explorations of alternative functional forms. These will demonstrate that the dominance ranking (enriched inflow for the plateau, mass loss and quenching for the core) remains stable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The model is constructed from EAGLE insights and then applied to interpret EAGLE output, introducing moderate circularity. While the DESI profile supplies an independent observational anchor, the manuscript should quantify how much of the decomposition relies on simulation-derived priors versus data-driven constraints, and test robustness when those priors are relaxed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the moderate circularity concern. The functional forms are informed by EAGLE, but final parameters are fit to the independent DESI profile. In revision, we will add a quantitative breakdown of simulation priors versus data constraints and include robustness tests with relaxed priors (e.g., broader or data-only constraints), confirming that the main conclusions are insensitive to these choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation anchored by independent DESI observations

full rationale

The paper first measures the SME profile directly from DESI DR1 data as a function of cluster-centric distance. It then notes that EAGLE reproduces the observed profile shape and amplitude. Insights from EAGLE are used to construct a satellite chemical evolution model, which is subsequently applied to decompose the DESI-observed profile into contributions from suppressed star formation, stellar mass loss, and enriched inflow. Because the load-bearing input is the independent DESI measurement and the model is used to interpret that external dataset rather than being fitted to and then re-applied to the same EAGLE run in a closed loop, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs. No self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations are required for the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the three listed processes dominate the metallicity changes and that the EAGLE simulation faithfully captures the relevant physics for model construction.

free parameters (1)
  • decomposition model parameters
    Parameters in the novel satellite chemical evolution model are adjusted to reproduce the observed profile shape and amplitude.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EAGLE simulation accurately represents the physical processes driving satellite metallicity in real clusters
    The model is developed by drawing insights from EAGLE and then used to interpret both simulation and DESI data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1286 out tokens · 35190 ms · 2026-05-14T21:09:16.363415+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

63 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028 2025

  2. [2]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  3. [3]

    1981 , month = feb, journal =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  5. [5]

    R., & Moustakas, J

    Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 2009

  6. [6]

    Environmental

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517, doi: 10.1086/500691 Bouch´ e, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001

    work page doi:10.1086/500691 2006

  7. [7]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    Wadsley, J. 2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/396 2009

  8. [8]

    and Clayton, Geoffrey C

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

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  9. [9]

    Galactic

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

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

  10. [10]

    L., Songaila, A., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu, E. M., & Cohen, J. G. 1996, AJ, 112, 839, doi: 10.1086/118058

    work page doi:10.1086/118058 1996

  11. [11]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  12. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x De Rossi, M. E., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., Schaye, J., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2737 2023

  14. [14]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Theuns, T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2158 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2158 2017

  15. [15]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  16. [16]

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

    Ellison, S. L., Simard, L., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1257, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14817.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14817.x 2009

  17. [17]

    K., Shapley, A

    Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813, doi: 10.1086/503623

    work page doi:10.1086/503623 2006

  18. [18]

    and Wilkinson, M

    Finlator, K., & Dav´ e, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12991.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12991.x 2008

  19. [19]

    2004, PASJ, 56, 29, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    Fujita, Y. 2004, PASJ, 56, 29, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/56.1.29 2004

  20. [20]

    G., Theuns, T., et al

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Theuns, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv852

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv852 2015

  21. [21]

    B., van den Bosch, F

    Green, S. B., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jiang, F. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab696 2021

  22. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, L35, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly037

    Gupta, A., Yuan, T., Torrey, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L35, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly037 2018

  23. [23]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 18

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 JUST Team, Liu, C., Zu, Y., et al. 2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 16, doi: 10.61977/ati2024008

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  25. [25]

    and Copin, Y

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  26. [26]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588 Lara-L´ opez, M. A., Cepa, J., Bongiovanni, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, L53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014803

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  27. [27]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692, doi: 10.1086/157917

    work page doi:10.1086/157917 1980

  28. [28]

    1979, A&A, 80, 155

    Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 80, 155

    1979

  29. [29]

    The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013

    Levi, M., Bebek, C., Beers, T., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.0847 2013

  30. [30]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 2013

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad502

    Lin, Y., & Zu, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad502 2023

  32. [32]

    L., Haines, C

    Maier, C., Ziegler, B. L., Haines, C. P., & Smith, G. P. 2019, A&A, 621, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834290

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834290 2019

  33. [33]

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

    Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x 2010

  34. [34]

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

    Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1915, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15185.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15185.x 2009

  35. [35]

    Manuwal, A., & Stevens, A. R. H. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1587 2023

  36. [36]

    1996, Nature, 379, 613, doi: 10.1038/379613a0

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613, doi: 10.1038/379613a0

    work page doi:10.1038/379613a0 1996

  37. [37]

    R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

    Mouhcine, M., Baldry, I. K., & Bamford, S. P. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 801, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12405.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12405.x 2007

  38. [38]

    2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005 http://ascl.net/2308.005

    Khederlarian, A. 2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005 http://ascl.net/2308.005

    2023

  39. [39]

    Pasquali, A., Gallazzi, A., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 273, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21454.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21454.x 2012

  40. [40]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    Peng, Y., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14439 2015

  41. [41]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2175

    Peng, Y.-j., & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2175 2014

  42. [42]

    2011, ApJ, 734, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/32 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Petropoulou, V., V´ ılchez, J., Iglesias-P´ aramo, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/32 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/32 2011

  43. [43]

    2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    Poppett, C., Tyas, L., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 2024

  44. [44]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 2021

  45. [45]

    2005, ApJ, 635, 260, doi: 10.1086/497331

    Savaglio, S., Glazebrook, K., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 260, doi: 10.1086/497331

    work page doi:10.1086/497331 2005

  46. [46]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  47. [47]

    2005, A&A, 435, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500107

    Schindler, S., Kapferer, W., Domainko, W., et al. 2005, A&A, 435, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500107

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500107 2005

  48. [48]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 2023

  49. [49]

    A., Skillman, E

    Shields, G. A., Skillman, E. D., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1991, ApJ, 371, 82, doi: 10.1086/169872

    work page doi:10.1086/169872 1991

  50. [50]

    1996, ApJ, 462, 147, doi: 10.1086/177138

    Zaritsky, D. 1996, ApJ, 462, 147, doi: 10.1086/177138

    work page doi:10.1086/177138 1996

  51. [51]

    A., P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, A

    Sotillo-Ramos, D., Lara-L´ opez, M. A., P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, A. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2641 2021

  52. [52]

    S., Chiba, M., et al

    Takada, M., Ellis, R. S., Chiba, M., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, R1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/pst019

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/pst019 2014

  53. [53]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Taylor, J. E., & Babul, A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 811, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07395.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07395.x 2004

  54. [54]

    W., Shapley, A

    Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1793

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1793 2021

  55. [55]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264

    work page doi:10.1086/423264 2004

  56. [56]

    A., Treu, T., et al

    Wang, X., Jones, T. A., Treu, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3861

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3861 2019

  57. [57]

    H., Andrews, B

    Weinberg, D. H., Andrews, B. H., & Freudenburg, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183 2017

  58. [58]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt469

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt469 2013

  59. [59]

    Williamson, D., Martel, H., & Romeo, A. B. 2016, ApJ, 831, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/1

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/1 2016

  60. [60]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2 2021

  61. [61]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    work page doi:10.1086/301513 2000

  62. [62]

    I., & Mulchaey, J

    Zabludoff, A. I., & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ, 496, 39, doi: 10.1086/305355

    work page doi:10.1086/305355 1998

  63. [63]

    C., & Huchra, J

    Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., & Huchra, J. P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 87, doi: 10.1086/173544

    work page doi:10.1086/173544 1994