pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29344 · v1 · pith:HFMA2KONnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

ODIN: Rest-frame Optical Morphologies and Star Formation Activity of Ly{α} Emitters at z=2.4, 3.1, and 4.5

Sang Hyeok Im , Ho Seong Hwang , Jeong Hwan Lee , Robin Ciardullo , Eric Gawiser , Caryl Gronwall , Lucia Guaita , Woong-Seob Jeong
show 14 more authors
Ankit Kumar Kyoung-Soo Lee Changbom Park Vandana Ramakrishnan Akriti Singh Hyunmi Song Sungryong Hong Juhan Kim Jaehyun Lee Christophe Pichon Caitlin M. Casey Maximilien Franco Santosh Harish Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyα emittersgalaxy morphologystar formation rateshigh-redshift galaxiesJWST observationsCOSMOS fieldsize-mass relation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lyα emitters at z=2.4, 3.1, and 4.5 are smaller and form stars more intensely than typical star-forming galaxies at the same epochs.

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

The paper uses JWST NIRCam images to measure rest-frame optical sizes and Sersic indices for Lyα emitters identified in the ODIN survey. It compares these to a mass- and redshift-matched sample of typical star-forming galaxies drawn from COSMOS2025. LAEs show smaller sizes at all three redshifts, with the offset shrinking toward higher redshift, along with higher star formation rates. Lyα equivalent width anticorrelates with size but correlates positively with Sersic index and with the ratio of instantaneous to 100-Myr-averaged star formation rate. These patterns appear in the Horizon Run 5 simulation as well.

Core claim

LAEs at z=2.4, 3.1, and 4.5 have smaller rest-frame optical sizes than typical SFGs, with the size difference decreasing at higher redshifts; they exhibit higher star formation rates; and the rest-frame Lyα equivalent width correlates negatively with size, positively with Sersic index, and positively with SFR_inst/SFR_100Myr.

What carries the argument

The size-mass relation together with direct correlations between Lyα equivalent width and structural plus star-formation parameters.

If this is right

  • LAEs represent a compact, starbursting subset of the high-redshift galaxy population.
  • Stronger Lyα emission traces galaxies that are both smaller and experiencing a recent upturn in star formation.
  • The weakening size offset at z=4.5 implies that the distinction between LAEs and typical SFGs narrows at earlier cosmic times.
  • Hydrodynamical simulations qualitatively recover the same structural and star-formation trends.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If LAEs dominate the ionizing photon budget, their measured compactness and burstiness set lower limits on the escape fraction needed for reionization.
  • The observed REW–SFR ratio correlation predicts that bursty star-formation histories are required for detectable Lyα at these redshifts.
  • Extending the same size and SFR measurements to z>5 with JWST could test whether the size offset continues to shrink.

Load-bearing premise

The COSMOS2025 comparison sample accurately represents the typical star-forming galaxy population at the same redshifts and stellar masses without significant selection biases in size or SFR measurements.

What would settle it

A mass-matched sample of LAEs and SFGs drawn from an independent deep field that shows no size or SFR difference at any of the three redshifts would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29344 by Akriti Singh, Ankit Kumar, Caitlin M. Casey, Caryl Gronwall, Changbom Park, Christophe Pichon, Eric Gawiser, Ho Seong Hwang, Hyunmi Song, Jaehyun Lee, Jeong Hwan Lee, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Juhan Kim, Kyoung-Soo Lee, Lucia Guaita, Maximilien Franco, Robin Ciardullo, Sang Hyeok Im, Santosh Harish, Sungryong Hong, Vandana Ramakrishnan, Woong-Seob Jeong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative results of the GALFIT fitting for ODIN LAEs at z = 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. Each row represents a case for each redshift, showing (from left to right) the masked science image (i.e., data), the modeled image with a single S´ersic profile, the residual image, and the surface brightness profile along the semi-major axis. The best-fit parameters and the residual flux fraction (RFF; see Section 3.2) a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rest-frame optical (∼ 8, 000 ˚A) size-mass relations of LAEs and typical SFGs at z = 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. LAEs are shown as data points with error bars, while typical SFGs are represented by the background color map. The best-fit power-law relation for typical SFGs at each redshift is presented as a blue dashed line in each panel. Some of the sample galaxies have Re smaller than the PSF size (i.e., Re < 0.5×… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of the size difference (∆ log Re) between each galaxy and the best-fit size-mass relations. The median values for LAEs and typical SFGs at each redshift are shown as solid and dashed lines, respectively. We also present the p-values from the KS- and AD tests for the distributions at each redshift. LAEs tend to have smaller sizes than typical SFGs at z = 2.4 and 3.1, while there is weaker diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of S´ersic indices of ODIN LAEs and the typical SFGs from COSMOS2025 catalog. The median S´ersic indices of LAEs and typical SFGs at each redshift are represented as solid and dashed lines, respectively. The p-values from the KS- and AD tests for each redshift are available in the upper right corner of each panel. LAEs at z = 2.4 and 3.1 shows larger S´ersic index than typical SFGs at similar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relations between stellar mass and star-formation rate of ODIN LAEs and the star-forming galaxies from COS￾MOS2025 catalog at z = 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. The best-fit relations from our MCMC fitting along with those from C. Schreiber et al. (2015) for each redshift is presented in each panel. LAEs tend to be located above this line. 1 0 1 log(RSB) 0 1 2 3 PDF z 2.4 pKS < 0.001 pAD < 0.001 SFGs LAEs 1 0 1 log(RS… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of starburstiness (RSB) for ODIN LAEs and the typical SFGs at z = 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. The RSB is defined by Equation (4). LAEs have higher RSB at all three redshifts, indicating they are preferentially in a starburst phase. compare the SFRs by removing the stellar mass effects, we calculate the starburstiness (RSB; D. Elbaz et al. 2011) of each LAE and SFG using the following equa￾tion: RSB = … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlations between the rest-frame equivalent width (REW) of Lyα emission line and galaxy properties for ODIN LAEs. From top to bottom, the panels show the relations with rest-frame optical sizes, S´ersic indices, and the ratio of the instantaneous SFR to the SFR averaged over the last 100 Myr (i.e., SFRinst/SFR100 Myr). We also present the Pearson correlation coefficient and the corresponding p-value in … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Size-mass relations of LAEs (red contours) and typical SFGs (background color map) in the Horizon Run 5 cosmolog￾ical hydrodynamical simulation. The blue dashed line in each panel represents the best-fit power-law relation for typical SFGs at each redshift. For comparison, we also present the best-fit size-mass relations for the typical SFG samples from COSMOS2025 catalog (see Section 4.1.1). 0.2 0.0 0.2 l… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histogram of the size difference (∆ log Re) between each galaxy and the best-fit size-mass relations in the Horizon Run 5 simulation. The meanings of the vertical lines and the texts in each panel are similar to those of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of the S´ersic index of LAEs and typical SFGs in Horizon Run 5 simulation. The meanings of the vertical lines and the texts in each panel are similar to those of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Upper panel) Redshift evolution of the median S´ersic index for ODIN LAEs and typical SFGs from the COS￾MOS2025 catalog. The errorbars represent 1σ uncertainties obtained from bootstrap resampling with 1000 times. (Lower panels) Redshift evolution of the sizes of the samples at a fixed stellar mass of 5 × 1010 M⊙. The vertical axis represents the best-fit values of the parameter A in Equation (2). The er… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relation between the half-light radius (rh) and the magnitude in F277W. The green dotted line denotes the location of the tight relation for the point sources. We ex￾clude the sources with rh similar to or smaller than that of the point sources (i.e., below the green dashed line) from our sample. The gray shaded region indicates the magnitude cut for faint sources (> 27.5; see Section 3.2). A. POINT SOURC… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Relation of Lyα REW with stellar mass (upper panels), and with the size excess relative to the size-mass relation (lower panels) for ODIN LAEs at z = 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. While Lyα REW has strong correlations with stellar mass, there are only weak relations between the Lyα REW and ∆ log Re at z = 2.4 and 4.5. Dijkstra, M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03416, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.03416 Dijkstra, M., &… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the rest-frame optical (~8000 {\AA}) morphologies and star formation activity of Ly{\alpha} emitters (LAEs) at redshifts $2.4$, $3.1$, and $4.5$, identified in the ODIN survey. To compare their physical properties with those of other galaxies, we construct a comparison sample of typical star-forming galaxies (SFGs) at similar redshifts from the COSMOS2025 catalog. Using the \textit{JWST}/NIRCam images from the COSMOS-Web survey, we measure the rest-frame optical sizes and S\'ersic indices. We first examine their size-mass relations and find that LAEs at all three redshifts have smaller sizes than typical SFGs, with the size difference decreasing at higher redshifts. We also find that LAEs tend to have larger S\'ersic indices at $z=2.4$ and $3.1$ than typical SFGs, but the difference becomes weaker at $z=4.5$. These trends are qualitatively reproduced in the Horizon Run 5 cosmological hydrodynamical simulation. We then investigate star formation activity and find that LAEs exhibit higher star formation rates than typical SFGs at all redshifts considered. Finally, we examine the connection between Ly{\alpha} emission and galaxy structure, finding that the rest-frame equivalent width (REW) of the Ly{\alpha} emission line has negative and positive correlations with size and S\'ersic index, respectively. In addition, we find a strong positive correlation between the Ly{\alpha} REW and the ratio of the instantaneous star formation rate to that averaged over the last $100\;\mathrm{Myr}$ (i.e., $\mathrm{SFR_{inst}}/\mathrm{SFR_{100 Myr}}$). These results suggest the compact and starbursting nature of LAEs, and provide important constraints on the physical mechanism for the Ly{\alpha} photon escape from galaxies.

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 analyzes rest-frame optical morphologies and star formation activity of Lyα emitters (LAEs) at z=2.4, 3.1, and 4.5 from the ODIN survey using JWST/NIRCam imaging. It constructs a comparison sample of typical star-forming galaxies (SFGs) from COSMOS2025 at similar redshifts, reports that LAEs have smaller sizes (with the offset decreasing at higher z), higher SFRs, and larger Sersic indices at lower z; it also finds negative correlation of Lyα REW with size and positive correlations with Sersic index and SFR_inst/SFR_100Myr. Trends are compared to the Horizon Run 5 simulation.

Significance. If the comparison sample is shown to be unbiased, the results would provide useful observational constraints on the compact, starbursting conditions associated with strong Lyα emission and photon escape at these redshifts. The JWST-based rest-frame optical size measurements and the simulation comparison are positive features that strengthen the work's contribution to high-z galaxy evolution studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2] §2.2 (or equivalent section on sample construction): The COSMOS2025 comparison sample is described only as selected at 'similar redshifts' without explicit details on the stellar-mass matching procedure, UV or mass completeness cuts, or quantitative tests for systematic differences in size or SFR measurements relative to the LAE sample; this selection is load-bearing for the size-mass relation offsets and SFR comparisons reported in §4.1 and §4.2.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (size-mass relations): The reported decrease in size offset with redshift and the Sersic index trends at z=2.4/3.1 vs. z=4.5 rest on the assumption that the COSMOS2025 SFGs accurately represent the parent population at fixed mass; without bias tests or alternative matching (e.g., UV-selected vs. mass-selected), the intrinsic vs. selection-driven nature of the differences cannot be distinguished.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent size-mass plot): Axis labels and legend should explicitly state the mass range and redshift bins used for the comparison to improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract and §1 use 'typical SFGs' without a concise definition; a one-sentence operational definition would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of sample construction that require clarification to strengthen the robustness of our comparisons. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2.2] §2.2 (or equivalent section on sample construction): The COSMOS2025 comparison sample is described only as selected at 'similar redshifts' without explicit details on the stellar-mass matching procedure, UV or mass completeness cuts, or quantitative tests for systematic differences in size or SFR measurements relative to the LAE sample; this selection is load-bearing for the size-mass relation offsets and SFR comparisons reported in §4.1 and §4.2.

    Authors: We agree that the description in §2.2 is insufficiently detailed for a load-bearing aspect of the analysis. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to specify the stellar-mass matching procedure (galaxies selected within 0.3 dex in log M⋆ at the same redshift), the UV magnitude and stellar-mass completeness cuts applied to ensure both samples probe comparable populations, and quantitative tests (e.g., distribution comparisons of sizes and SFRs) demonstrating no systematic offsets between the LAE and COSMOS2025 samples beyond the intended physical differences. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (size-mass relations): The reported decrease in size offset with redshift and the Sersic index trends at z=2.4/3.1 vs. z=4.5 rest on the assumption that the COSMOS2025 SFGs accurately represent the parent population at fixed mass; without bias tests or alternative matching (e.g., UV-selected vs. mass-selected), the intrinsic vs. selection-driven nature of the differences cannot be distinguished.

    Authors: We acknowledge that additional validation is needed to separate intrinsic differences from possible selection effects. In the revision we will add explicit bias tests, including construction of an alternative UV-selected comparison subsample, and will report whether the size-offset and Sersic trends persist under this alternative matching. We will also note the limitations of a purely mass-selected reference sample. The qualitative agreement with the Horizon Run 5 simulation already provides supporting evidence that the trends are not purely selection-driven, but we agree that the observational tests requested will improve the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational comparisons with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of rest-frame optical sizes, Sersic indices, and SFRs from JWST/NIRCam imaging and COSMOS2025 catalog data for LAEs and a comparison SFG sample at matching redshifts. No equations, fitted parameters, or model predictions are presented that reduce to inputs by construction. The qualitative mention of Horizon Run 5 trends is external reproduction, not a derivation chain internal to the paper. No self-citations are invoked for uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central claims rest on observational data and sample selection, which the skeptic correctly flags as a potential bias issue but which does not constitute circularity under the defined patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational study; no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are introduced or required by the abstract claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6019 in / 1205 out tokens · 21515 ms · 2026-06-29T06:52:57.018408+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

94 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ahn, S.-H., Lee, H.-W., & Lee, H. M. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 863, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06353.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06353.x 2003

  2. [2]

    C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al

    Arango-Toro, R. C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452519

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452519 2025

  3. [3]

    2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x 2002

  4. [4]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  5. [5]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    A., Gawiser, E., Gronwall, C., et al

    Bond, N. A., Gawiser, E., Gronwall, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 639, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/639

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/639 2009

  7. [7]

    A., Gawiser, E., Guaita, L., et al

    Bond, N. A., Gawiser, E., Guaita, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/95 2012

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

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

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

  9. [9]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 2019

  10. [10]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

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

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

  11. [11]

    C., Peng, C

    Davari, R., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., & Huang, S. 2014, ApJ, 787, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/69 19 Figure 13.Relation of LyαREW with stellar mass (upper panels), and with the size excess relative to the size-mass relation (lower panels) for ODIN LAEs atz= 2.4, 3.1, and 4.5. While LyαREW has strong correlations with stellar mass, there are only weak re...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/69 2014

  12. [12]

    Saas-Fee Lecture Notes: Physics of Lyman Alpha Radiative Transfer

    Dijkstra, M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03416, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.03416

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.03416 2017

  13. [13]

    E., & Quataert, E

    Dijkstra, M., & Westra, E. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2343, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15859.x 2010

  14. [14]

    Dijkstra, M., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19958.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19958.x 2012

  15. [15]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117239 2011

  16. [16]

    M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al

    Firestone, N. M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c9 2024

  17. [17]

    M., Gawiser, E., Iyer, K

    Firestone, N. M., Gawiser, E., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 986, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbf8c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbf8c 2025

  18. [18]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  19. [19]

    M., Koekemoer, A

    Franco, M., Casey, C. M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03256

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03256 2025

  20. [20]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 2023

  21. [21]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    work page doi:10.1086/522955 2007

  22. [22]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/123 2015

  23. [23]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 255, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    Guaita, L., Gawiser, E., Padilla, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 255, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/255 2010

  24. [24]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/114

    Guaita, L., Acquaviva, V., Padilla, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/114

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/114 2011

  25. [25]

    Hansen, M., & Oh, S. P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09870.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09870.x 2006

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80b

    Hao, C.-N., Huang, J.-S., Xia, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad80b 2018

  27. [27]

    W., Hsu, C.-C., Hathi, N., et al

    Holwerda, B. W., Hsu, C.-C., Hathi, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae316

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae316 2024

  28. [28]

    Gruppuso, F

    Hoyos, C., den Brok, M., Verdoes Kleijn, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x 20

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x 2011

  29. [29]

    D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P

    Hoyos, C., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., Gray, M. E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19918.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19918.x 2012

  30. [30]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  31. [31]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  32. [32]

    H., Hwang, H

    Im, S. H., Hwang, H. S., Park, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d2 2024

  33. [33]

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

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

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

  34. [34]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

    Iyer, K., & Gawiser, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 2017

  35. [35]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 2019

  36. [36]

    C., Bunker, A

    Jones, G. C., Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2670 2025

  37. [37]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1339

    Jose, C., Srianand, R., & Subramanian, K. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1339

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1339 2014

  38. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2214

    Kakiichi, K., & Dijkstra, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2214

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2214 2018

  39. [39]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d9

    Kakiichi, K., & Gronke, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d9 2021

  40. [40]

    2022, A&A, 659, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141900

    Kerutt, J., Wisotzki, L., Verhamme, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141900

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141900 2022

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07548, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07548

    Kim, K., Alavi, A., Snapp-Kolas, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07548, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07548

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07548 2025

  42. [42]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/121 2014

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJL, 820, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L1

    Kurczynski, P., Gawiser, E., Acquaviva, V., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/l1 2016

  44. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3055

    Laigle, C., Pichon, C., Arnouts, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3055

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3055 2018

  45. [45]

    Laursen, P., Sommer-Larsen, J., & Andersen, A. C. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1640, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1640 2009

  46. [46]

    N., et al

    Lee, J., Shin, J., Snaith, O. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd08b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd08b 2021

  47. [47]

    H., Park, C., Hwang, H

    Lee, J. H., Park, C., Hwang, H. S., & Kwon, M. 2024, ApJ, 966, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3448

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3448 2024

  48. [48]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126

    Lee, K.-S., Dey, A., Hong, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/126 2014

  49. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    Lee, K.-S., Gawiser, E., Park, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e 2024

  50. [50]

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

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

  51. [51]

    S., Wuyts, S., Huang, J.-S., & Jiang, L

    Liu, Y., Dai, Y. S., Wuyts, S., Huang, J.-S., & Jiang, L. 2024, ApJ, 966, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3822

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3822 2024

  52. [52]

    E., Finkelstein, S

    Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/l36 2012

  53. [53]

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

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

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

  54. [54]

    A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al

    Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 2018

  55. [55]

    V., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H

    Nedkova, K. V., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede 2024

  56. [56]

    Neufeld, D. A. 1990, ApJ, 350, 216, doi: 10.1086/168375

    work page doi:10.1086/168375 1990

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad292f

    Ning, Y., Cai, Z., Lin, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad292f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad292f 2024

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    2005, ApJL, 620, L1, doi: 10.1086/428499

    Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Akiyama, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 620, L1, doi: 10.1086/428499

    work page doi:10.1086/428499 2005

  60. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2447

    Pacifici, C., da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2447

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2447 2015

  61. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5

    Park, C., Lee, J., Kim, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b5 2022

  62. [62]

    B., & Peebles, P

    Partridge, R. B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 868, doi: 10.1086/149079

    work page doi:10.1086/149079 1967

  63. [63]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty281

    Paulino-Afonso, A., Sobral, D., Ribeiro, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty281

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty281 2018

  64. [64]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  65. [65]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., Kodama, T., Koyama, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3805

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

  66. [66]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  67. [67]

    1976, ApJL, 210, L53, doi: 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJL, 210, L53, doi: 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 1976

  68. [68]

    C., et al

    Ramakrishnan, V., Lee, K.-S., Artale, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb 2024

  69. [69]

    A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/25 2012

  70. [70]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425017 2015

  71. [71]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

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

    work page doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  72. [72]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15825 21 S´ ersic, J

    Seo, E., Song, H., Guaita, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15825 21 S´ ersic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15825 2026

  73. [73]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv051 2015

  74. [74]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03242

    Shimizu, S., Kashikawa, N., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03242

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03242 2025

  75. [75]

    B., Paquereau, L., et al

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03243

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03243 2025

  76. [76]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1749

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1749

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1749 2023

  77. [77]

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Curtis-Lake, W. M. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1950 2025

  78. [78]

    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

  79. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3483

    Smith, A., Ma, X., Bromm, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3483 2019

  80. [80]

    2019, A&A, 623, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833075

    Sobral, D., & Matthee, J. 2019, A&A, 623, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833075

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833075 2019

Showing first 80 references.