Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A Compact Proto-group at $z \sim 5$: A Massive Galaxy Caught in Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A six-galaxy compact proto-group at z=4.97 is caught mid-assembly, before coalescence into a massive galaxy.

desk verdict Solid JWST discovery of a fully Hα-confirmed compact group at z=4.97 with resolved maps; the Heisler mass is a soft number, not a load-bearing failure of the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11182 v1 pith:OSLEBVVR submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.GA

Ronaldo Laishram , Yusei Koyama , Fengwu Sun , Takahiro Morishita , Yoshinobu Fudamoto , Haruka Kusakabe , Jakob M. Helton , Xiaojing Lin
show 6 more authors
Tadayuki Kodama Eiichi Egami Kosuke Takahashi Ryo Albert Sutanto Novan Saputra Haryana Zhengyi Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords starformationinteractinggalaxiesgalaxyevolutiongroupshigh-redshiftproto-groupcompact
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports SCGG-z5, a compact galaxy proto-group at redshift 4.97 whose six members are all spectroscopically confirmed by H-alpha emission and lie within a projected diameter of about 16 physical kiloparsecs. Their combined stellar mass is roughly 10 billion solar masses; three members sit on or above the star-forming main sequence at that epoch, while pixel-by-pixel fitting shows mixed internal growth modes—inside-out growth in three galaxies and a tentative central slowdown in the most massive one. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion and projected-mass estimator imply a dark-matter-dominated group halo of order 10^12 solar masses. By analogy with hydrodynamical simulations of similar compact groups, the system is expected to merge into a single galaxy by redshift 3–4 and to exceed 100 billion solar masses by redshift 1. The discovery therefore supplies a rare, fully confirmed snapshot of the short-lived pre-coalescence phase that may produce today’s brightest group or cluster galaxies.

What carries the argument

The projected mass estimator of Heisler et al. (1985) applied to the six confirmed members, together with the EAGLE-based coalescence timeline for structurally analogous compact groups; these convert the observed kinematics and stellar masses into a dynamical-halo mass and a concrete future assembly path.

What would settle it

Spatially resolved kinematics (for example JWST/NIRSpec IFS velocity fields of all six members) that show the system is unbound or that the true three-dimensional mass is well below 10^12 solar masses would overturn the dark-matter-dominated group-halo claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCGG-z5 is a genuine compact proto-group at z=4.97: six H-alpha-confirmed members packed inside ~16 pkpc, total stellar mass log(M*/M☉)=10.07, velocity dispersion ~375 km s⁻¹, and projected dynamical mass log(MPM/M☉)≈12.3, consistent with a dark-matter-dominated group halo that simulations predict will fully coalesce into a massive galaxy (log M*>11 by z~1).

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical mass is derived from a projected-mass formula that assumes the system is already near dynamical equilibrium, even though the paper itself describes the group as still actively assembling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compact multi-galaxy systems of this scale are a recurring, short-lived stage in the hierarchical build-up of massive galaxies at z>4.
  • Environmental differentiation of star-formation histories already operates inside ~16 pkpc structures less than 1.2 Gyr after the Big Bang.
  • The same evolutionary track that links SCGG-z5 to later compact groups can be used to forecast the abundance of massive quiescent galaxies at z~3–4.
  • Future ALMA [C II] maps of the cold-gas bridges among the six members can test whether tidal gas redistribution drives the observed diversity of radial sSFR profiles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If similar compact groups are common, they may supply the missing pre-coalescence channel that helps close the tension between observed and simulated numbers of massive quiescent galaxies at z>4.
  • The inverted central sSFR of the most massive member may be an early, mini-quenching analogue of the inside-out quenching later seen in lower-redshift protocluster cores.
  • Once fully coalesced, the remnant is a natural progenitor for a brightest-group or brightest-cluster galaxy already in place by z~1.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of SCGG-z5 (the Shirui Group), a compact galaxy proto-group at z=4.97 in the MACS0416 field from SAPPHIRES Early Data Release. Six members are spectroscopically confirmed via Hα emission within a projected diameter of ~16 pkpc, with individual stellar masses 8.4–9.8 in log(M*/M⊙) and total log(M*/M⊙)=10.07±0.04. Three members lie on or above the z~5 Hα SFMS. Pixel-by-pixel SED fitting shows diverse radial sSFR profiles (inside-out growth in three members; a tentative inverted profile in the most massive member). The line-of-sight velocity dispersion is σ_v=375^{+55}_{-195} km s^{-1}; the Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator yields log(M_PM/M⊙)≈12.30, interpreted as a dark-matter-dominated group halo. By analogy with EAGLE simulations of similar systems, the group is argued to be a rare pre-coalescence phase that will merge into a single massive galaxy by z~3–4.

Significance. If the association and evolutionary interpretation hold, this is a valuable JWST discovery: a rare, fully spectroscopically confirmed compact multi-galaxy system at z~5 with 13-band photometry enabling both integrated and resolved SED analysis. The 7.1σ overdensity, mass-completeness argument, multi-component morphological decompositions, and carefully caveated radial-profile classifications are concrete observational strengths. The system supplies a useful pre-coalescence benchmark for hierarchical assembly of massive galaxies and for comparison with CGG-z5, CGG-z7, CGG-z4 and related compact structures. The EAGLE-based coalescence forecast is presented as a consistency check rather than a new simulation result, which is appropriate.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.4 Eq. (1) and §4.1: the quantitative claim of a dark-matter-dominated group halo (log M_PM/M⊙≈12.30, f*≈0.57%) rests on the Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator with f_PM=32/π and α=1.5. The paper correctly notes that the estimator assumes dynamical steady state and that this cannot be verified for a still-assembling system; the Evrard et al. (2008) scaling applied to the same σ_v yields a factor-of-four higher mass. The abstract and summary still present log M_PM≈12.30 as the primary dynamical mass without equal weight on the non-equilibrium caveat. Soften the abstract/summary language to 'characteristic dynamical mass of an assembling system' and report the isotropic-to-radial and Evrard ranges side-by-side so the dark-matter-dominated conclusion is not overstated.
  2. §3.1 and Table 1: five of six members have single-line (Hα) redshifts with zconf=1–2; only SCGGb has a second line ([S II]). Membership of the compact core therefore relies on spatial proximity plus line-centroid coincidence. The paper should quantify the chance-alignment probability more explicitly (e.g., using the field Hα surface density and the 3'' selection aperture) and state how sensitive the σ_v and M_PM values are to dropping any one single-line member. A short robustness paragraph would secure the 'all six confirmed' claim.
  3. §3.3 and Fig. 5: the inverted sSFR profile of SCGGe is correctly labelled tentative (Spearman p=0.07 at S/N≥3; p=0.30 at S/N≥5). The abstract and §5 still elevate it to a parallel result with the three clear inside-out cases. Given the multi-component morphology of SCGGe (arc-like western structure and secondary component), the profile may be a superposition rather than an internal gradient. Restrict the abstract claim to the three robust declining profiles and move the SCGGe interpretation fully into the discussion as a tentative possibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1 footnote a: for SCGGf, r_1/2 and n refer to the secondary component; the primary-component values should also be listed for consistency with the other multi-component fits.
  2. §2.2: the adaptive binning requires S/N≥3 (or 5) in F444W; state the typical number of bins retained per galaxy and the fraction of segmentation-mask pixels discarded, so the radial-profile sampling can be assessed.
  3. Fig. 3: SFRs are lower limits (no Balmer decrement). Add an explicit note in the figure caption that the plotted points are lower limits, matching the text in §3.1.
  4. §4.1: the mean stellar age ⟨t_gal⟩≈0.39 Gyr and the ~0.8 Gyr assembly timescale are model-dependent (delayed-τ SFH). The paper already notes this; a single sentence quantifying the age–metallicity–dust degeneracy range would strengthen the caveat.
  5. Introduction and §4.3: CGG-z5 (Jin et al. 2023) is the closest analogue; a short quantitative side-by-side table (N_members, confirmation method, projected size, σ_v if available, total M*) would help the reader place SCGG-z5 among the known systems.
  6. Typographical: abstract and title use both 'proto-group' and 'Compact Proto-group'; pick one hyphenation consistently. Also, 'Shirui Group' is introduced only in a footnote; consider a brief mention in the main text when the name is first used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: discovery and properties are direct measurements from JWST spectra/photometry; dynamical mass uses an external estimator with stated caveats, and EAGLE analogy is a non-fitted consistency check.

full rationale

The paper is an observational discovery report. Spectroscopic membership, redshifts, and velocity dispersion are measured from independent NIRCam grism Hα lines (Section 3.1, Figure 2). Stellar masses, SFRs, ages, and resolved sSFR/age maps come from Bagpipes SED fits to 13-band photometry (Section 2.2, Table 1, Figures 4–5), compared to an external SFMS (Di Cesare et al. 2026). Morphology uses PySersic on F200W. The projected mass M_PM (Eq. 1, Section 3.4) applies the published Heisler et al. (1985) estimator to the measured velocities and projected radii; the paper explicitly flags that the equilibrium assumption is unverified for an assembling system (Section 4.1) and reports the statistical range, so the dark-matter-dominated conclusion is an application of an external formula, not a self-derived identity. The EAGLE coalescence forecast (Section 4.1, citing Jin et al. 2023) is presented only as analogy/consistency for structurally similar systems, not as a fit to these data or a forced prediction. Self-citations (e.g., prior SAPPHIRES or Laishram works) supply context or data reduction, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansätze that close the central claims. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs or definitions by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central discovery rests on standard cosmological parameters, published SED and dynamical-mass recipes, and the assumption that single-line H-alpha redshifts plus spatial proximity establish physical membership. No new physical constants or particles are introduced; free choices are limited to conventional analysis settings (orbit factor, binning thresholds, SFH parametrization).

free parameters (4)
  • f_PM (projected-mass orbit factor) = 32/pi
    Set to 32/pi for isotropic orbits following Heisler et al. (1985); the radial-orbit alternative 64/pi is quoted only as upper bound. Directly scales the reported dynamical mass.
  • alpha (centroid correction) = 1.5
    Fixed at 1.5 in the Heisler projected-mass formula; affects MPM at the ~10 percent level.
  • Bagpipes delayed-tau SFH priors and 100-Myr SFR averaging window
    Uniform priors on age, tau, Z, U, AV and the 100-Myr averaging choice control the reported stellar masses and SFRs; standard but still free analysis choices.
  • KDE smoothing scale and overdensity aperture radii = 1 cMpc
    sigma_KDE=1 cMpc and test apertures 0.5–2 cMpc are chosen by hand to quantify the large-scale overdensity; they do not enter the compact-group membership list itself.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70, Om=0.3, OL=0.7
    Used throughout for proper distances, velocity conversions, and cosmic age; standard but untested at the precision of the paper.
  • domain assumption Heisler et al. (1985) projected-mass estimator remains a useful characteristic mass even for a non-equilibrium assembling system
    Explicitly invoked in Section 3.4 and caveated in 4.1; the dark-matter-dominated conclusion depends on it.
  • domain assumption Single H-alpha detections (zconf=1–2) plus spatial proximity establish physical group membership
    Five of six members lack a second line; the paper argues proximity in sky and wavelength makes chance alignment unlikely, but this remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption BPASS v2.2.1 + Calzetti dust + delayed-tau SFH adequately recover stellar masses and ages at z~5
    Adopted from the SAPPHIRES EDR pipeline; systematic SFH and dust uncertainties are acknowledged but not fully marginalized.
  • domain assumption EAGLE analogues of CGG-z5-like groups correctly predict coalescence by z~3–4
    Used in Section 4.1 to interpret SCGG-z5 as a pre-coalescence phase; the evolutionary forecast is not an independent measurement.
invented entities (1)
  • SCGG-z5 (Shirui Group) independent evidence
    purpose: Name given to the newly discovered compact structure of six spectroscopically confirmed galaxies
    The entity is the observational discovery itself, not a postulated physical mediator or force; independent evidence is the public JWST data set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Compact Proto-group at $z \sim 5$: A Massive Galaxy Caught in Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSLEBVVR

@misc{pith2026260711182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Compact Proto-group at $z \sim 5$: A Massive Galaxy Caught in Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSLEBVVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11182}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of SCGG-z5, a compact galaxy proto-group at $z = 4.97$ in the MACS0416 field, identified from the SAPPHIRES Early Data Release. Six members are spectroscopically confirmed via H$\alpha$ emission, spanning $4.96 \leq z_{\rm spec} \leq 4.98$ within a projected diameter of $\sim16$ pkpc. Spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting yields individual stellar masses $8.4 \leq \log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \leq 9.8$, a total group stellar mass of $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) = 10.07 \pm 0.04$; three of the six members lie above or on the star-forming main sequence at $z \sim 5$, by up to $0.5$ dex. Pixel-by-pixel analysis reveals diverse resolved radial star-formation profiles: three members show declining specific SFR radial profiles and outward-rising stellar age gradients, consistent with inside-out stellar mass growth, while the most massive member shows a tentative inverted sSFR profile suggestive of reduced central star formation. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion over all six members is $\sigma_v = 375^{+55}_{-195}$ km s$^{-1}$. The projected mass estimator yields $\log(M_{\rm PM}/M_{\odot}) \approx 12.30^{+0.30}_{-0.25}$, consistent with a dark-matter-dominated group halo. EAGLE simulations of structurally similar groups predict full coalescence by $z \sim 3$--$4$, with the merged remnant reaching $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) > 11$ by $z \sim 1$, consistent with SCGG-z5 representing a rare pre-coalescence phase of early massive galaxy formation, possibly tracing the assembly of a future brightest group or cluster galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Wide-field JWST NIRCam RGB image (F277W/F150W/F115W). Overlaid contours show the 2D Gaussian KDE overdensity δ = (ρ/⟨ρ⟩) − 1 of Hα emitters at 4.89 ≤ z ≤ 5.05, with levels at δ = 1 (gold dashed), 2 (orange), 3 (red), and 4 (dark red), computed with a fixed smoothing scale of σKDE = 1 cMpc. Open grey circles mark the 58 spectroscopic Hα emitters in the redshift slice; filled white circles indicate members… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NIRCam grism spectra of the six SCGG-z5 members, ordered as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hα-based SFRs (dust-corrected, R. L. Theios et al. 2019 calibration, Kroupa IMF) for the six proto-group members placed on the C. Di Cesare et al. (2026) Hα-based SFMS at z ∼ 4–5 (dashed green line; same calibration as our SFRs). The shaded green band shows the intrinsic scatter (±σint ≈ 0.32 dex) of the C. Di Cesare et al. (2026) relation. Points are colour-coded by galaxy ID. SFRs are lower limits as no Balmer dec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Morphological decomposition via multi-component S´ersic fitting in F200W. From left to right: science image, best-fit model, and normalised residual. Residual structure and bipolar patterns in three of the six members are suggestive of tidal perturbations; the oute…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthally averaged log sSFR radial profiles for the six proto-group members, derived from pixel-by-pixel Bagpipes SED fitting. Each galaxy is shown with a distinct colour (see legend); shaded bands indicate the 1σ bin-to-bin uncertainty. SCGGb (dashed line) has trunc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    Abdurro’uf, Lin, Y.-T., Wu, P.-F., & Akiyama, M. 2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2 2021

  2. [2]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1049

    Ando, M., Shimasaku, K., Momose, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1049 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    Arribas, S., Perna, M., Rodr´ ıguez Del Pino, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 2024

  4. [4]

    M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C

    Baker, W. M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 2025

  5. [5]

    K., S´ anchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez, S. F., Garc´ ıa-Lorenzo, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425397

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 2015

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 14Laishram et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 694, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451448

    Brinch, M., Jin, S., Gobat, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451448

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451448 2025

  8. [8]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269

    doi:10.1086/324269 2001

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Appleton, P

    Cluver, M. E., Appleton, P. N., Ogle, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/93

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331 Di Cesare, C., Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557790 D´ ıaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1034, doi: 10.1126/scie...

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Bialek, J., Busha, M., et al

    Evrard, A. E., Bialek, J., Busha, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 122, doi: 10.1086/521616

    2008 doi

  9. [18]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11770

    Fudamoto, Y., Nakazato, Y., Ceverino, D., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11770

    doi

  10. [19]

    C., B´ ethermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038284

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    2019, A&A, 632, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834547

    Girelli, G., Bolzonella, M., & Cimatti, A. 2019, A&A, 632, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834547

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

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

    Haryana, N. S., Akiyama, M., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03ad

    2025 doi

  13. [22]

    Heisler, J., Tremaine, S., & Bahcall, J. N. 1985, ApJ, 298, 8, doi: 10.1086/163584

    1985 doi

  14. [23]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 962, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da7

    doi

  15. [24]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    doi

  16. [25]

    S., Burkert, A., & Oser, L

    Hirschmann, M., Naab, T., Somerville, R. S., Burkert, A., & Oser, L. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3200, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19961.x

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 950, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19306.x

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245724

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545

    1993 doi

  23. [32]

    2026a, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y., Kusakabe, H., et al. 2026a, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    doi

  24. [33]

    2026b, ApJ, 998, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3003

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y., Naufal, A., et al. 2026b, ApJ, 998, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3003

    doi

  25. [34]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2441

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    Lin, X., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6565

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

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

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347102

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Spilker, J

    Marrone, D. P., Spilker, J. S., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature24629 Mendes de Oliveira, C., & Hickson, P. 1994, ApJ, 427, 684, doi: 10.1086/174175

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    Morishita, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    2025a, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    doi

  31. [40]

    2025b, ApJ, 985, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4c3

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Vanzella, E., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4c3

    doi

  32. [41]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    2010 doi

  33. [42]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    J., et al

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553828

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    Pasha, I., & Miller, T. B. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5703, doi: 10.21105/joss.05703

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    2010 doi

  37. [46]

    2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244661

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450760

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    S., Bezanson, R., Weiner, B

    Spilker, J. S., Bezanson, R., Weiner, B. J., Whitaker, K. E., & Williams, C. C. 2019, ApJ, 883, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3804

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 The Shirui Group: A Compact Proto-group atz∼5 15

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    M., Egami, E., et al

    Sun, F., Helton, J. M., Egami, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15587, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15587

    Sun, F., Fudamoto, Y., Lin, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15587, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15587

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    M., et al

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

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    M., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    S., Silverman, J

    Tanaka, T. S., Silverman, J. D., Nakazato, Y., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1323, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae091

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    L., Steidel, C

    Theios, R. L., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf386

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc

    Valentino, F., Tanaka, M., Davidzon, I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08066

    Wei, X., Cai, Z., Yu, F., Li, M., & Wu, Y. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08066, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08066

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.