pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10116 · v1 · pith:FJNSGRQHnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Importance of Galaxy-Wide Star Formation in Driving Winds at z~1

Weichen Wang , Susan A. Kassin , S. M. Faber , David C. Koo , Timothy M. Heckman , Xinfeng Xu , Hassen M. Yesuf , Alexander de la Vega
show 6 more authors
Emily C. Cunningham Puragra Guhathakurta Yicheng Guo Camilla Pacifici John Pharo Ying Qin
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic windsstar-forming galaxiesoutflowsz~1star formation rateMg II absorptiongalaxy evolutionstar-formation surface density
0
0 comments X

The pith

At z~1, galactic winds are driven by star formation spread across entire galaxies, not just their compact regions.

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

The study measures Mg II absorption in deep spectra of 86 star-forming galaxies at redshift around 1, detecting winds in 58 percent of them. Wind speeds correlate with total star-formation rate following the same scaling found in local starbursts, and this relation holds across a wide range in SFR. The correlation with star-formation surface density does not strengthen when the density is measured only in the densest clumps instead of the full galaxy, which leads to the conclusion that the entire galaxy's star formation contributes to driving the outflows. This picture matters because it affects how gas is removed from galaxies at the peak of cosmic star formation, altering their mass growth and the enrichment of surrounding gas.

Core claim

In 86 star-forming galaxies at z~1, winds traced by Mg II are found in 50 systems. Wind velocity follows log v_wind = 0.16 log SFR + 2.4, matching local starbursts over more than four orders of magnitude in SFR. The relation of v_wind to galaxy-wide Σ_SFR is not weaker than its relation to Σ_SFR measured only in compact regions, indicating that star formation throughout the galaxy drives the winds as bubbles from many sites combine their momentum to lift gas outward.

What carries the argument

Comparison of correlation strength between wind velocity and star-formation surface density Σ_SFR when the density is computed over the whole galaxy versus only the most compact star-forming regions.

If this is right

  • Wind velocity scales with total SFR in a single relation that applies from local starbursts through z~1 galaxies.
  • Wind detection rate falls gradually near Σ_SFR of 0.1 solar masses per year per square kiloparsec rather than showing a sharp threshold.
  • Winds tie more closely to total SFR than to stellar mass, specific SFR, or Σ_SFR alone.
  • Momentum supplied by star-forming regions distributed across the galaxy can collectively lift entrained gas out of the system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution models at high redshift may need to treat feedback as arising from distributed star formation rather than localized events to reproduce observed wind speeds.
  • The spatial spread of star-forming regions could set an additional factor in how efficiently gas is expelled beyond what total SFR predicts.
  • Combining high-resolution imaging with spectroscopy on individual galaxies could test whether more clumpy systems launch winds differently than smoother ones.

Load-bearing premise

The surface density of star formation measured in compact regions is determined accurately enough and can be compared directly to the galaxy-wide value to distinguish between driving mechanisms.

What would settle it

A larger sample in which wind velocity correlates significantly more strongly with compact-region Σ_SFR than with galaxy-wide Σ_SFR would undermine the claim that galaxy-wide star formation is the main driver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10116 by Alexander de la Vega, Camilla Pacifici, David C. Koo, Emily C. Cunningham, Hassen M. Yesuf, John Pharo, Puragra Guhathakurta, S. M. Faber, Susan A. Kassin, Timothy M. Heckman, Weichen Wang, Xinfeng Xu, Yicheng Guo, Ying Qin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The galaxy sample studied in this paper is representative of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) at z ∼ 1. We compare our sample (large black points) with galaxies in the CANDELS survey (small gray points) spanning the photometric redshift and stllar mass ranges of our sample: 0.7 < z < 1.5 and M⋆ > 109 M⊙. We also compare with the galaxies in HALO7D which meet our selection criteria except that they do not pass … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our galaxy sample is similar in mass but includes somewhat more low-mass galaxies than previous studies of galactic winds at z ∼ 1: Prusinski et al. (2021), Rubin et al. (2014), and Kornei et al. (2012). Our sample (black) includes 13 SFGs with stellar masses below 109.5 M⊙, two times as many as the galaxies (6 in total) in the same mass range from three previous works. Regarding the literature studies, on… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example fits to the Mg II doublet for two galaxies are shown, one which prefers the absorption-only model (top, ∆BIC=5) and one which prefers the absorption+emission model (bottom, ∆BIC=-48). Fits for all the galaxies in the sample are in Figures 10–25. Both spectra have S/N values of ∼ 5 which is typical of the sample galaxies. The observed spectra are plotted as gray lines and the best-fit models are ove… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of galaxies with and without Mg II emission differ. From left to right, the SFR versus M⋆ diagram, U − V versus V − J diagram, and UV dust attenuation (ANUV) versus M⋆ diagram are shown. Galaxies with emission, which correspond to those with ∆BIC ≥ −10, generally have lower stellar masses and SFRs (left panel), bluer U − V and V − J colors (middle panel), and lower ANUV (right panel) than the re… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distributions of properties of galaxies with and without winds are shown as clear and filled histograms, respectively. The histograms in each panel are compared via a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Values of the resulting D and p statistics are indicated in each panel. Statistically distinct histograms(p < 0.05) are in the top row and those which are indistinguishable (p ≥ 0.05) are in the bottom row. Whethe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The wind detection rate of z ∼ 1 SFGs is shown as a function of ΣSFR, avg. The SFGs do not show a distinct threshold in SFR density below which no galaxies have winds, whereas such a threshold exists for local starbursts at 0.1 M⊙/yr/kpc2 (vertical line; Heckman et al. 2015). Instead, for the SFGs, the detection rate shows a gradual decline at this value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The wind velocities (vwind) of our z ∼ 1 SFGs (filled black circles) are shown as a function of SFR (top), stellar mass (middle), and sSFR (bottom). The vwind of the z ∼ 1 galaxies shows weak correlations (1.7-σ and 1.6-σ significance) with SFR and mass and no correlation with sSFR. The best-fit relations are shown as solid black lines and are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The wind velocities (vwind) of z ∼ 1 SFGs (filled circles) are shown as a function of ΣSFR, avg (top panel) and ΣSFR, max, the latter of which is measured in two ways (middle and bottom panels; §4.2.3). The vwind of our z ∼ 1 SFGs show a significant positive correlation with ΣSFR, avg (3.0-σ significance), which is stronger than with the correlation with ΣSFR, max in the middle panel (2.5-σ significance). … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In this paper we use SFRs measured from rest-frame NUV luminosities and corrected for dust. Here we compare them with SFRs measured in two other ways and find them to be consistent: SFRs measured from rest-frame UV + IR luminosities (left) and SFRs measured from SED fitting to rest-frame UV-to-optical photometry (right; de la Vega et al. 2025). For SFRs measured from UV+IR, only galaxies with reliable 24 µ… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our sample of z ∼ 1 SFGs (filled circles) and the z ∼ 0 starbursts (open diamonds; Berg et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2022) are compared on the SFR–M⋆ diagram, re–M⋆ diagram, and SFR–ΣSFR diagram, from left to right. The z ∼ 1 SFGs in general have higher SFRs, larger sizes, and lower integrated SFR densities than the z ∼ 0 starbursts. Left: In the mass range where the two types of galaxies overlap, the SFGs have… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Images and Mg II line profile fits of the 50 SFGs at z ∼ 1 with detected winds. For each galaxy, the galaxy ID and properties, RGB image, F435W image (if available), the top 10 brightest pixels of the F435W image (if available), and the Mg II line profiles are shown from left to right. The images are all 3.′′6 on a side, corresponding to 29 kpc at z=1. The RGB images are made using HST images in the F160W… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds. Refer to the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with no detected winds (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Images and Mg II line profiles of the SFGs in the z ∼ 1 sample with potentially problematic Mg II line fittings. Four galaxies are flagged, which only account for less than 5% of the total sample, and they are not included for wind velocity measurements. Refer to the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_26.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we study winds for a representative sample of 86 star-forming galaxies (SFGs) at z~1 with $M_\star = 10^{9.0}-10^{11.5} M_\odot$, by measuring the Mg II line profiles in deep Keck spectra. A total of 50 (58\%) are found to have winds. Unlike local starburst galaxies, the wind detection rate does not exhibit a threshold in star-formation rate (SFR) density $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$ at 0.1 Msun/yr/kpc$^2$, but shows a gradual decline around this value. We find correlations between wind velocity $v_\mathrm{wind}$ and SFR, $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$, and stellar mass, as per previous studies. Intriguingly, the z~1 SFGs appear to follow the same $v_\mathrm{wind}$-SFR relation as local starbursts. A combined fit gives: log $v_\mathrm{wind}$ = 0.16 log SFR + 2.4 (3-sigma significance). This unified relation spans over 4 dex in SFR and agrees with Illustris-TNG. No unified relation is found between $v_\mathrm{wind}$ and stellar mass, sSFR, or $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$. This suggests winds might be most closely associated with SFR. We examine whether winds in z~1 SFGs are driven by their most compact star-forming regions. To do so, we consider whether the relation between $v_\mathrm{wind}$ and the $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$ measured from only these regions is stronger than that for the galaxy-wide $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$. We do not find a stronger correlation, suggesting that winds are most related to $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$ of the entire galaxy. Collectively, these findings suggest a picture in which galaxy-wide star formation plays an important role in driving winds at z~1. Wind bubbles from all star-forming regions could combine momentum and help lift their entrained gas out of the galaxy.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes Mg II absorption-line profiles in deep Keck spectra of 86 star-forming galaxies at z~1 (M⋆ = 10^9.0–10^11.5 M⊙), detecting winds in 50 objects (58%). It reports correlations of wind velocity v_wind with SFR, Σ_SFR, and stellar mass; a unified v_wind–SFR relation with local starbursts (log v_wind = 0.16 log SFR + 2.4 at 3σ); and no stronger correlation of v_wind with Σ_SFR measured only in the most compact star-forming regions than with the galaxy-wide value. The central conclusion is that galaxy-wide star formation drives the winds, with momentum from distributed regions combining to lift gas.

Significance. If the correlation comparison is robust after accounting for measurement precision, the result would strengthen the case for distributed (rather than centrally concentrated) wind driving at cosmic noon and provide an observational anchor for the v_wind–SFR scaling seen in Illustris-TNG across four decades in SFR.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract, final paragraph] Abstract, final paragraph: the inference that galaxy-wide Σ_SFR drives winds because the compact-region Σ_SFR correlation is not stronger rests on the assumption that the two Σ_SFR estimators have comparable uncertainties and dynamic range. No error budget, covariance analysis, or control test equalizing measurement precision is reported; if compact Σ_SFR uncertainties are systematically larger (z~1 resolution, smaller areas, subjective region selection), the observed correlation coefficient is biased low even if compact regions dominate the driving.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: individual v_wind and Σ_SFR measurements lack reported uncertainties; the 86-galaxy sample selection function and completeness are not quantified.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the wind detection rate shows a gradual decline around Σ_SFR = 0.1 M⊙ yr⁻¹ kpc⁻² would benefit from a quantitative threshold test or cumulative distribution comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which helps clarify the robustness of our conclusions regarding the role of galaxy-wide star formation in driving winds. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate revisions as noted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, final paragraph] Abstract, final paragraph: the inference that galaxy-wide Σ_SFR drives winds because the compact-region Σ_SFR correlation is not stronger rests on the assumption that the two Σ_SFR estimators have comparable uncertainties and dynamic range. No error budget, covariance analysis, or control test equalizing measurement precision is reported; if compact Σ_SFR uncertainties are systematically larger (z~1 resolution, smaller areas, subjective region selection), the observed correlation coefficient is biased low even if compact regions dominate the driving.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative comparison of uncertainties between the galaxy-wide and compact-region Σ_SFR measurements is necessary to fully support the inference. The compact Σ_SFR values are derived from the same HST imaging and ground-based spectra used for the global measurements, with regions selected via a consistent surface-brightness threshold; however, we did not include an explicit error budget, covariance analysis, or noise-equalization test in the submitted manuscript. To address this, we will add a dedicated subsection in the revised Methods and Results that (1) quantifies the measurement uncertainties for both estimators (including contributions from resolution, area, and selection), (2) reports the dynamic ranges, and (3) performs a control test by injecting additional noise into the galaxy-wide Σ_SFR values to match the estimated precision of the compact measurements before recomputing the correlation coefficients. This will allow readers to assess whether the lack of a stronger compact correlation persists under equalized precision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; relations are direct empirical measurements

full rationale

The paper performs an observational analysis of Mg II absorption in Keck spectra for 86 galaxies, reports wind detection rates, and measures correlations between v_wind and SFR/Σ_SFR/stellar mass directly from the data. The unified fit log v_wind = 0.16 log SFR + 2.4 is an empirical regression, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The key test (no stronger correlation with compact-region Σ_SFR) is a straightforward comparison of observed correlation coefficients. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are invoked to force the central conclusion that galaxy-wide star formation drives the winds. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about spectral-line interpretation and on the representativeness of the 86-galaxy sample; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mg II line profiles can be reliably decomposed into wind components without significant contamination from inflows, rotation, or instrumental effects.
    This underpins the identification of winds in 58% of the sample and all subsequent correlations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5991 in / 1362 out tokens · 29815 ms · 2026-06-27T15:41:02.670049+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

80 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, Towards a future space-based, highly scalable AI infrastructure system design,, Google Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    R., Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Avery, C. R., Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac190

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac190 2022

  3. [3]

    G., Cava, A., et al

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 2019

  4. [4]

    A., James , B

    Berg, D. A., James, B. L., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03 2022

  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]

    J., Knobel, C., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Lilly, S. J., Knobel, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/10 2011

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Bordoloi, R., Lilly, S. J., Hardmeier, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/130 2014

  8. [8]

    astropy/photutils: 1.0.0 , month = sep, year = 2020, publisher =

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744 2020

  9. [9]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503 Calabr` o, A., Pentericci, L., Talia, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244364

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244364 2008

  10. [10]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 128139, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    work page doi:10.1071/as10046 2011

  11. [11]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  12. [12]

    Y., Wel, A

    Chang, Y. Y., Wel, A. V. D., Cunha, E. D., & Rix, H. W. 2015, ApJS, 219, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8 2015

  13. [13]

    A., & Clegg, A

    Chevalier, R. A., & Clegg, A. W. 1985, Nature, 317, 44, doi: 10.1038/317044a0

    work page doi:10.1038/317044a0 1985

  14. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1756 2016

  15. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/62 2016

  16. [16]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf058 2025

  17. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1026

    Concas, A., Maiolino, R., Curti, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1026

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1026 2022

  18. [18]

    C., Newman, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Davis, M., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Gerke, B. F. 2012, spec2d: DEEP2 DEIMOS Spectral Pipeline. http://ascl.net/1203.003

    2012

  19. [19]

    C., Deason, A

    Cunningham, E. C., Deason, A. J., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cb

  20. [20]

    C., Deason, A

    Cunningham, E. C., Deason, A. J., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 879, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24cd de la Vega, A., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab24cd 2025

  21. [21]

    L., Koekemoer, A

    Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 142

    2012

  22. [22]

    K., Quider, A

    Erb, D. K., Quider, A. M., Henry, A. L., & Martin, C. L. 2012, ApJ, 759, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/26 2012

  23. [23]

    M., Phillips, A

    Faber, S. M., Phillips, A. C., Kibrick, R. I., et al. 2003, in SPIE Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1657–1669

    2003

  24. [24]

    2018, A&A, 617, A62

    Feltre, A., Bacon, R., Tresse, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A62

    2018

  25. [25]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    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

  26. [26]

    The Journal of Open Source Software , keywords =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01864 2019

  27. [27]

    The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey: Initial Results From Optical and Near-Infrared Imaging

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

    work page internal anchor 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

    2011

  29. [29]

    Koekemoer, A. M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/120 2012

  30. [30]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/39 2015

  31. [31]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/147

    Overzier, R., & Leitherer, C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/147 2015

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Heckman, T. M., Armus, L., & Miley, G. K. 1990, ApJS, 74, 833, doi: 10.1086/191522

    work page doi:10.1086/191522 1990

  33. [33]

    M., & Borthakur, S

    Heckman, T. M., & Borthakur, S. 2016, ApJ, 822, 9, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/9

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/9 2016

  34. [34]

    W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D

    Hogg, D. W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1008.4686. https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4686

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    E., Sanders, R

    Kehoe, E., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b3 2025

  36. [36]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  37. [37]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36

    2011

  38. [38]

    A., Shapley, A

    Kornei, K. A., Shapley, A. E., Martin, C. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/135 2012

  39. [39]

    A., Shapley, A

    Kornei, K. A., Shapley, A. E., Martin, C. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/50 2013

  40. [40]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x 2007

  41. [41]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2 2017

  42. [42]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae48ee

    Lyu, C., Yu, H., Wang, E., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae48ee

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae48ee 2026

  43. [43]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

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

    2014

  44. [44]

    L., Shapley, A

    Martin, C. L., Shapley, A. E., Coil, A. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/127 Winds and Galaxy-Wide Star Formation atz∼1 35

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/127 2012

  45. [45]

    Probing quintessence: Reconstruction and parameter es- timation from supernovae

    McLure, R. J., & Jarvis, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 109, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05871.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05871.x 2002

  46. [46]

    C., et al

    Mobasher, B., Dahlen, T., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/101 2015

  47. [47]

    S., Aird, J

    Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., Aird, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/10 2015

  48. [48]

    First Results from the TNG50 Simulation: Galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306 2019

  49. [49]

    A., Cooper, M

    Newman, J. A., Cooper, M. C., Davis, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 5

    2013

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    work page doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  51. [51]

    D’Avanzo, et al., A complete sample of bright Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts: X-ray afterglow luminosity and its correlation with the prompt emission

    Pacifici, C., Charlot, S., Blaizot, J., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2002, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x 2012

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    A., Weiner, B

    Pacifici, C., Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/79

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

  54. [54]

    G., Mobasher, B., et al

    Pacifici, C., Iyer, K. G., Mobasher, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacff

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

  55. [55]

    R., & Reeder, K

    Peck, E. R., & Reeder, K. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 62, 958, doi: 10.1364/JOSA.62.000958

    work page doi:10.1364/josa.62.000958 1972

  56. [56]

    B., et al

    Pharo, J., Guo, Y., Calvo, G. B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6cdf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6cdf 2022

  57. [57]

    X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K

    Prochaska, J. X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K. 2011, ApJ, 734, 24

    2011

  58. [58]

    Z., Erb, D

    Prusinski, N. Z., Erb, D. K., & Martin, C. L. 2021, AJ, 161, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe85b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe85b 2021

  59. [59]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3345 2019

  60. [60]

    Rubin, K. H. R., Prochaska, J. X., Koo, D. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/156 2014

  61. [61]

    Rubin, K. H. R., Weiner, B. J., Koo, D. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1503

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1503 2010

  62. [62]

    C., Fontana, A., et al

    Santini, P., Ferguson, H. C., Fontana, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 97

    2015

  63. [63]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  64. [64]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  65. [65]

    doi:10.1002/9783527617722 , adsurl =

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617722 1978

  66. [66]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa956d

    Sugahara, Y., Ouchi, M., Lin, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa956d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa956d 2017

  67. [67]

    M., Harrison, C

    Swinbank, A. M., Harrison, C. M., Tiley, A. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1275

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1275 2019

  68. [68]

    A., & Heckman, T

    Thompson, T. A., & Heckman, T. M. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041224-011924 van der Wel, A., Bell, E. F., H¨ aussler, B., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 24 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-041224-011924 2024

  69. [69]

    M., Liu, F

    Wang, W., Faber, S. M., Liu, F. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1148 2017

  70. [70]

    A., Pacifici, C., et al

    Wang, W., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef79 2018

  71. [71]

    A., Faber, S

    Wang, W., Kassin, S. A., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6592

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6592 2022

  72. [72]

    I., Smith, B

    Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., Smith, B. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4ab 2025

  73. [73]

    J., Willmer, C

    Weiner, B. J., Willmer, C. N. A., Faber, S. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1049, doi: 10.1086/508922

    work page doi:10.1086/508922 2006

  74. [74]

    J., Coil, A

    Weiner, B. J., Coil, A. L., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 187

    2009

  75. [75]

    E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 104

    2014

  76. [76]

    J., Quadri, R

    Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Labb´ e, I. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1879

    2009

  77. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d56

    Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d56 2022

  78. [78]

    Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W

    Xue, Y. Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 15, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/15 —. 2011, ApJS, 195, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/10

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/15 2016

  79. [79]

    M., Koo, D

    Yesuf, H. M., Koo, D. C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 83

    2017

  80. [80]

    B., Comparat, J., Kneib, J

    Zhu, G. B., Comparat, J., Kneib, J. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/48

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/48 2015