pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20887 · v1 · pith:C4HIBFTQnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Difference Between Half-mass Radius and Half-light Radius of Galaxies at 0.2 < z < 2.5 Revealed by JWST/NIRCam Data

Mingen Xin , Guanwen Fang , Jie Song , Shiying Lu , Zesen Lin , Xu Kong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 03:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords half-mass radiushalf-light radiusJWSTgalaxy size evolutionstar-forming galaxiesquiescent galaxiesredshift evolutionstellar mass
0
0 comments X

The pith

Half-light radii exceed half-mass radii for galaxies at 0.2 < z < 2.5, with the ratio rising for star-forming systems above z=1.7

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

JWST multi-band data for over 14,000 galaxies reveal that the half-light radius is larger than the half-mass radius in both quiescent and star-forming systems. The mass-to-light radius ratio grows significantly for star-forming galaxies at redshifts above 1.7 but shows no clear rise for quiescent galaxies above z=1. The slope of the size-mass relation is 0.1-0.3 dex steeper when measured with light radii. Half-mass radii still show substantial growth from z~2.5 to z~0.2, by factors of roughly 3-5 for quiescent galaxies and 2 for star-forming ones, preserving the broad picture from earlier light-based work.

Core claim

Analysis of JWST/NIRCam photometry in CANDELS fields establishes that r_e,light is larger than r_e,mass for both quiescent and star-forming galaxies above 10^9 solar masses at 0.2 < z < 2.5. The r_e,mass/r_e,light ratio increases markedly for star-forming galaxies at z > 1.7 while quiescent galaxies show no clear increase at z > 1 and a slight decrease from 0.2 to 1. Linear fits yield a slope for the size-stellar mass relation that is 0.1-0.3 dex larger for half-light radii than for half-mass radii, and half-mass radii grow by factors of 3-5 for quiescent galaxies and ~2 for star-forming galaxies from z~2.5 to z~0.2.

What carries the argument

Half-mass radius derived by mapping multi-band light profiles to stellar mass profiles through stellar population synthesis and mass-to-light ratio maps

Load-bearing premise

Half-mass radii can be accurately derived from multi-band photometry via standard stellar population synthesis and mass-to-light ratio maps without large systematic biases from dust attenuation, star-formation history assumptions, or spatial variations in stellar populations.

What would settle it

Independent half-mass radius measurements from resolved integral-field spectroscopy or dynamical modeling for a subset of the same galaxies at comparable redshifts would test whether the photometric differences hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20887 by Guanwen Fang, Jie Song, Mingen Xin, Shiying Lu, Xu Kong, Zesen Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The redshift and stellar mass distribution of our total sample. The region enclosed by the red dashed lines indicates the selected sample used in this study, defined by 0.2 < z < 2.5 and log(M∗/M⊙) > 9. The black solid curve represents the 90% stel￾lar mass completeness limit corresponding to a magnitude limit of F444Wlim = 28.0 mag. The gray (red) histograms in the top and right panels show the redshift a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rest-frame U − V versus V − J color distribution for three redshift bins. QGs and SFGs are separated by the selection criteria defined in Section 2.3, shown by the black lines. SFGs are represented by blue points, while QGs are represented by red points. 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 radius[arcsec] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Enclosed power RAW PSF F435W F606W F814W F090W F115W F150W F200W F277W F356W F444W 0.2 0.4 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Encircled energy profiles of the empirical PSFs in different HST and JWST filters measured in the JADES-GDS field. Right panel: Encircled energy profiles of the PSFs after convolution with the kernels, along with the residuals relative to the F444W PSF. The small residuals indicate that the PSFs have been successfully homogenized to match the F444W resolution. the images across different bands … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of stellar mass maps. The stellar mass maps (left panels) are derived using the pixel-by-pixel SED fitting method (Section 3.3.1). The best-fit models (middle panels) are obtained by fitting the stellar mass maps with GALFIT. The residuals (displayed in the right-hand panel) are obtained by subtracting the best-fit model from the stellar mass map. The redshift and stellar mass of these galaxies ar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the method used to derive re,mass from the one-dimensional stellar mass surface density profile, and the comparison with results obtained from other methods. Panel a): F444W-band image of an example galaxy, with black dashed lines marking elliptical annuli spaced at intervals of 0.2Re. Panel b)-e): Four representative radial regions are highlighted in red, orange, cyan, and magent… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a galaxy’s 1D stellar mass surface density profile (gray line) along with the best-fit 1D Sersic model (black ´ line). and magenta annuli highlight four representative radial re￾gions: 0 < r < 0.2re,1µm, 0.4re,1µm < r < 0.6re,1µm, 1re,1µm < r < 1.2re,1µm, and 2re,1µm < r < 2.2re,1µm, respectively. Panels b)-e) present the corresponding SED fit￾ting results for these four annuli. Using this metho… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relationships between the ratio of re,mass/re,light and different physical properties, including re,light (1st column), stellar mass (2nd column), (U-V)rest color (3rd column), and the fraction of galaxies (4th column), respectively. From top to bottom, each row shows the corresponding relationship in different redshift bins. SFGs and QGs are displayed by light blue and light red dots, respectively. The be… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The median ratio of re,light/re,mass for SFGs (blue) and QGs (red) as a function of redshift. The corresponding error bars are estimated using 500 bootstrap resamplings, and the error for each galaxy is also accounted for by adding random perturbations. stellar mass, and rest-frame U − V color. From top to bot￾tom, we show the results at 0.2 < z ≤ 0.5, 0.5 < z ≤ 1.0, 1.0 < z ≤ 1.5, 1.5 < z ≤ 2.0, and 2.0 <… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mass-size relations for SFGs and QGs across five distinct redshift bins. Blue circles and red triangles denote data points of SFGs and QGs, respectively; correspondingly, the solid lines represent the best-fit lines for re,light, and the dashed lines represent the best-fit lines for re,mass. The best-fit results are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolutions of re,mass (left panels) and re,light (right panels) for SFGs (blue) and QGs (red) at 0.2 < z < 2.5 in 109.0M⊙ < M∗ ≤ 1010.5M⊙ (top panels) and 1010.5M⊙ < M∗ ≤ 1012.0M⊙ (bottom panels), respectively. The light dots represent the results for individual galaxies. The blue and red points represent the median values for SFGs and QGs, respectively, with error bars indicating 1σ confidence intervals … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Panel (a): Comparison between re,mass derived from GALFIT 2D fitting (re,Galfit) and from 1D stellar mass surface density profile fitting (re,1D). The two measurements show good agreement. Panel (b): Comparison between re,Galfit and the effective radius measured at the rest-frame 1µm. COSMOS field and find consistent results. These compar￾isons demonstrate the robustness of our methods across dif￾ferent f… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the measured re,mass values in this study with those reported by Suess et al. (2019) and van der Wel et al. (2023). The scatter uncertainties are set according to the measurement errors. Relative to Suess et al. (2019), the results show an average offset of 0.04 dex with a scatter of 0.26 dex, while the comparison with van der Wel et al. (2023) yields a smaller average offset (0.02 dex) and … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of mock galaxies showing multi-band simulated images (left) and corresponding stellar mass maps (rightmost column). All filters adopt identical structural parameters (n, r50, b/a, and PA) and are convolved with the F444W-band PSF.The stellar mass maps are derived from pixel-by-pixel SED fitting. We then recover the stellar mass maps of these mock galax￾ies using the same pixel-by-pixel SED fittin… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The simulated re,mass was compared with the input ra￾dius, revealing an average deviation of less than 0.001 dex, demon￾strating excellent consistency. naturally interpreted in the framework of inside-out growth: as the stellar mass of galaxies increases, their centers become older and contain more dust, while the outskirts continue forming stars, which may lead to a steeper negative color gra￾dient (e.g.… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using JWST observations in CANDELS fields, we measure the half-light radius ($r_{\rm e,light}$) and half-mass radius ($r_{\rm e,mass}$) for 14,333 galaxies with stellar masses $M_* > 10^9 M_\odot$ at redshifts $0.2 < z < 2.5$. To investigate the difference between $r_{\rm e,light}$ and $r_{\rm e,mass}$, we find that $r_{\rm e,light}$ is larger than $r_{\rm e,mass}$ for both quiescent galaxies (QGs) and star-forming galaxies (SFGs). Moreover, the difference between these two radii is clearly correlated with galaxy stellar mass, $r_{\rm e,light}$, and the rest-frame $U - V$ color. When examining the evolution of the $r_{\rm e,mass}/r_{\rm e,light}$ ratio, we observe a significant increase for SFGs at $z > 1.7$. In contrast, no clear increase is observed for QGs at $z > 1$, though a slight decreasing trend is seen between $0.2 < z < 1.0$. By fitting a linear relationship between galaxy size and stellar mass, we find that the slope for $r_{\rm e,light}$ is $\sim$ 0.1 to 0.3 dex larger than that for $r_{\rm e,mass}$. In terms of galaxy size evolution at a fixed stellar mass, the $r_{\rm e,mass}$ of QGs increases by a factor of $\sim$ 3 to 5 from $z \sim 2.5$ to $z \sim 0.2$. In contrast, the $r_{\rm e,mass}$ of SFGs increases by a factor of approximately 2 over the same redshift range, with this growth trend closely following that of their $r_{\rm e,light}$. These results indicate that previous insights into galaxy evolution based on $r_{\rm e,light}$ remain valid when considering $r_{\rm e,mass}$, although the specific slopes show some variations.

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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of half-light (r_e,light) and half-mass (r_e,mass) radii for 14,333 galaxies with M_* > 10^9 M_⊙ at 0.2 < z < 2.5 using JWST/NIRCam data in CANDELS fields. It finds r_e,light > r_e,mass for both quiescent galaxies (QGs) and star-forming galaxies (SFGs), with the difference correlated to stellar mass, r_e,light, and rest-frame U-V color. The r_e,mass/r_e,light ratio shows a significant increase for SFGs at z > 1.7 but no clear increase (with a slight decrease at 0.2 < z < 1) for QGs. Linear fits to the size-mass relation yield slopes ~0.1-0.3 dex steeper for r_e,light than r_e,mass. Size evolution at fixed mass shows r_e,mass of QGs growing by a factor of ~3-5 and SFGs by ~2 from z ~ 2.5 to z ~ 0.2, with SFG growth tracking their r_e,light trend. The authors conclude that prior light-based insights into galaxy evolution largely remain valid when using mass radii, albeit with variations in specific slopes.

Significance. With a sample of over 14,000 galaxies spanning a wide redshift range, the work has the potential to provide statistically robust constraints on the structural differences between stellar light and mass distributions if the half-mass measurements prove reliable. The reported redshift-dependent trends in the radius ratio for SFGs and the differential size evolution between QGs and SFGs could inform models of inside-out growth, quenching, and the impact of dust and stellar population gradients. The JWST/NIRCam multi-band approach for mass mapping is a timely strength, though its robustness determines the overall impact.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods (mass map construction and radius fitting pipeline)] The methods description of constructing stellar mass maps from multi-band SED fitting (and subsequent r_e,mass measurement) does not include end-to-end mock tests with realistic dust geometries or variable SFHs. This directly bears on the central novel claim of a significant increase in the r_e,mass/r_e,light ratio for SFGs at z > 1.7, since under-corrected central dust attenuation could artificially concentrate the inferred mass distribution and inflate the reported trend.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states correlations of the radius difference with stellar mass, r_e,light, and U-V color but provides no quantitative measures (e.g., Spearman coefficients or fit slopes) of these relations.
  2. [Sample selection and classification] Clarify the precise criteria (color, sSFR threshold, or other) used to classify galaxies as QGs versus SFGs, and test sensitivity of the reported trends to this choice.
  3. [Results figures and associated text] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the fitting method (e.g., Sérsic index fixed or free) and any assumptions about PSF convolution when deriving both r_e,light and r_e,mass.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments have prompted us to strengthen the presentation of our methods. We respond point by point below and have incorporated revisions to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (mass map construction and radius fitting pipeline)] The methods description of constructing stellar mass maps from multi-band SED fitting (and subsequent r_e,mass measurement) does not include end-to-end mock tests with realistic dust geometries or variable SFHs. This directly bears on the central novel claim of a significant increase in the r_e,mass/r_e,light ratio for SFGs at z > 1.7, since under-corrected central dust attenuation could artificially concentrate the inferred mass distribution and inflate the reported trend.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the need for rigorous validation of the mass-mapping procedure. Our stellar mass maps were derived from multi-band JWST/NIRCam photometry using SED fitting that already incorporates a range of dust attenuation curves and flexible SFH parameterizations to capture population gradients. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the submitted manuscript did not present dedicated end-to-end mocks with fully realistic three-dimensional dust geometries. To address this directly, we have generated additional mock catalogs that include spatially varying dust distributions and diverse SFHs matched to the observed redshift and mass range. These tests demonstrate that any residual central dust bias is insufficient to produce the observed redshift-dependent rise in the r_e,mass/r_e,light ratio for SFGs at z > 1.7; the trend persists at high significance. We will add a new subsection (and associated figure) describing the mock setup, recovery statistics, and robustness checks in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct measurements and empirical fits on external data

full rationale

The paper's chain consists of applying standard stellar population synthesis to JWST/NIRCam multi-band photometry to derive r_e,light and r_e,mass, then reporting observed correlations with mass, color, and redshift plus ordinary linear regressions of size versus stellar mass. These steps are self-contained against the external CANDELS dataset; no equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The reported trends (r_e,light > r_e,mass, differential slopes, redshift evolution) are therefore independent outputs rather than tautological restatements of the measurement pipeline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper relies on standard domain assumptions for photometric radius and mass estimation; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar masses and half-mass radii can be reliably estimated from multi-band JWST photometry using standard SED fitting and mass-to-light ratio assumptions.
    Required to convert observed light profiles into mass profiles for the central comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5977 in / 1327 out tokens · 48959 ms · 2026-05-21T03:37:05.332775+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    ET AL Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., Jung, I., et al

    16 XIN. ET AL Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., Jung, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acba06 2023

  2. [2]

    T., Gordon, K

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Gordon, K. D., & Sandstrom, K. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 1218, doi: 10.1086/662219

    work page doi:10.1086/662219 2011

  3. [3]

    L., & de Carvalho, R

    Barbera, F. L., & de Carvalho, R. R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, L76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l76 2009

  4. [4]

    G., Tal, T., et al

    Bezanson, R., van Dokkum, P. G., Tal, T., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1290, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1290

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1290 2009

  5. [5]

    Boquien,et al., CIGALE: a python Code Investigating GALaxy Emission.Astron

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  6. [6]

    2022, Astropy/Photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, Astropy/Photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 2022

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06637.x , eprint =

    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

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 682, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346133

    Buitrago, Fernando, & Trujillo, Ignacio. 2024, A&A, 682, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346133

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346133 2024

  9. [9]

    M., Bschorr, T

    Carollo, C. M., Bschorr, T. J., Renzini, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/112 2013

  10. [10]

    Chabrier, Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function.Publ

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

  11. [11]

    2024, A&A, 689, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348536

    Chamba, Nushkia, Hayes, Matthew J., & The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2024, A&A, 689, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348536 2024

  12. [12]

    Chan, J. C. C., Beifiori, A., Mendel, J. T., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw502 2016

  13. [13]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  14. [14]

    T., et al

    Cibinel, A., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 5631

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    E., Momcheva, I., et al

    Clausen, M., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad528a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad528a 2024

  16. [16]

    G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al

    Costantin, L., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb926

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb926 2023

  17. [17]

    P., et al

    Davis, M., Guhathakurta, P., Konidaris, N. P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L1, doi: 10.1086/517931

    work page doi:10.1086/517931 2007

  18. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1379

    Dimauro, P., Huertas-Company, M., Daddi, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1379 2018

  19. [19]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #1837

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES). https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, L107, doi: 10.1086/378578

    work page doi:10.1086/378578 2004

  22. [22]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023

  23. [23]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  24. [24]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 587, L79, doi: 10.1086/375155

    Franx, M., Labb´e, I., Rudnick, G., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 587, L79, doi: 10.1086/375155

    work page doi:10.1086/375155 2003

  25. [25]

    G., Crain, R

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2740

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2740 2016

  26. [26]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3078 2017

  27. [27]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  28. [28]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  29. [29]

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

    Haryana, N. S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, Stellar Mass Assembly History of Massive Quiescent Galaxies sincez∼4: Insights from Spatially Resolved SED Fitting with JWST Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19170

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    H., Mobasher, B., et al

    Hemmati, S., Miller, S. H., Mobasher, B., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/108 H¨aussler, B., McIntosh, D. H., Barden, M., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 615, doi: 10.1086/518836

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/108 2014

  31. [31]

    Inoue, A. K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x 2011

  32. [32]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5526

    Jafariyazani, M., Mobasher, B., Hemmati, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5526

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5526 2019

  33. [33]

    C., Suess, K

    Ji, Z., Williams, C. C., Suess, K. A., et al. 2024, JADES: Rest-frame UV-to-NIR Size Evolution of Massive Quiescent Galaxies from Redshift z=5 to z=0.5. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00934

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    Jia, C., Wang, E., Wang, H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a 2024

  35. [35]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1952

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Kneller, O., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1952

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1952 2019

  36. [36]

    C., & Sun, W

    Jin, B., Ho, L. C., & Sun, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03455, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03455

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.03455 2024

  37. [37]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  38. [38]

    Kravtsov, A. V . 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 764, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L31 JWST/CANDELS HALF MASS RADIUS 17

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/l31 2013

  39. [39]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2467 2015

  40. [40]

    S., Marsh, T

    Lanyon-Foster, M. M., Conselice, C. J., & Merrifield, M. R. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 571, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12132.x —. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1852, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21287.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12132.x 2007

  41. [41]

    S., Marsh, T

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x 2007

  42. [42]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/65 Mart´ınez-Garc´ıa, E

    Marchesini, D., Muzzin, A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/65 Mart´ınez-Garc´ıa, E. E., Gonz´alez-L´opezlira, R. A., Magris C., G., & Bruzual A., G. 2017, ApJ, 835, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/65 2014

  43. [43]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

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

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

  44. [44]

    2024, A&A, 691, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451409

    Merlin, E., Santini, P., Paris, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451409

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451409 2024

  45. [45]

    B., van Dokkum, P., & Mowla, L

    Miller, T. B., van Dokkum, P., & Mowla, L. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbc74 2023

  46. [46]

    B., van Dokkum, P., Mowla, L., & van der Wel, A

    Miller, T. B., van Dokkum, P., Mowla, L., & van der Wel, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 872, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0380

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0380 2019

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 295, 319, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x 1998

  48. [48]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc

    Tacchella, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc 2020

  49. [49]

    2025, Reconstructing Star Formation Histories of High-Redshift Galaxies: A Comparison of Resolved Parametric and Non-Parametric Models

    Mosleh, M., Riahi-Zamin, M., & Tacchella, S. 2025, Reconstructing Star Formation Histories of High-Redshift Galaxies: A Comparison of Resolved Parametric and Non-Parametric Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14591

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14

    Mosleh, M., Tacchella, S., Renzini, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14 2017

  51. [51]

    A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G

    Mowla, L. A., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a 2019

  52. [52]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8 2013

  53. [53]

    H., & Ostriker, J

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

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

  54. [54]

    J., Adams, N

    Ormerod, K., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3597 2024

  55. [55]

    P., & Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Naab, T., Ostriker, J. P., & Johansson, P. H. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/63 2011

  56. [56]

    A., Weiner, B

    Pacifici, C., Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/79

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/79 2016

  57. [57]

    W., Yang, G., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Yang, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc948

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc948 2023

  58. [58]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  59. [59]

    M., Moretti, A., Calvi, R., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Calvi, R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/125 2013

  60. [60]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  61. [61]

    and Aussel, H

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    work page doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  62. [62]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad28bd

    Shen, L., Papovich, C., Matharu, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad28bd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad28bd 2024

  63. [63]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06637.x , eprint =

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x 2003

  64. [64]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 2014

  65. [65]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0365

    Song, J., Fang, G., Lin, Z., Gu, Y ., & Kong, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0365

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0365 2023

  66. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty186

    Sorba, R., & Sawicki, M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty186 2018

  67. [67]

    A., Kriek, M., Price, S

    Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Price, S. H., & Barro, G. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda 2019

  68. [68]

    A., Bezanson, R., Nelson, E

    Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06 2022

  69. [69]

    G., et al

    Szomoru, D., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/73 2013

  70. [70]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw303 2016

  71. [71]

    Trujillo, I., Schreiber, N. M. F., Rudnick, G., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 18, doi: 10.1086/506464

    work page doi:10.1086/506464 2006

  72. [72]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa van de Sande, J., Kriek, M., Franx, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/85 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/000...

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

  73. [73]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    Wang, T., Sun, H., Zhou, L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7 2025

  74. [74]

    The Star-formation Mass Sequence out to z=2.5

    Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/l29 2012

  75. [75]

    E., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L39

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/l39 2013

  76. [76]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17 2024

  77. [77]

    J., Quadri, R

    Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 713, 738, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/738

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/2/738 2010

  78. [78]

    J., Xia, X., & Deng, Z

    Wu, H., Shao, Z., Mo, H. J., Xia, X., & Deng, Z. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 244, doi: 10.1086/427821

    work page doi:10.1086/427821 2005

  79. [79]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , abstract =

    Zhang, S., Fang, G., Song, J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 095012, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad6fe6

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad6fe6 2024

  80. [80]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , eprint =

    Zibetti, S., Charlot, S., & Rix, H.-W. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x 2009