Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 111 references

A full account of non-thermal physics—radiative transfer, cosmic rays, and magnetic fields—produces compact, self-regulated galaxies that match JWST size–mass observations from z=12 to z=3, while simpler feedback models fail in opposite dir

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:34 UTC pith:SEV73DDW

load-bearing objection A careful, honest forward-modeling comparison whose central claim is credible in resolved regimes, but whose external match to JWST rests on a single zoom-in volume and marginally resolved compact starbursts. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15357 v1 pith:SEV73DDW submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Non-Thermal Physics Drives Compact, Self-Regulated Galaxy Morphologies at Cosmic Dawn

Michelle S. Park , Sergio Martin-Alvarez , Risa H. Wechsler This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy formationhigh-redshift galaxiessize-mass relationradiative transfercosmic raysmagnetic fieldsJWSTstarburst galaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the bright, compact galaxies JWST sees in the first billion years are not anomalies but the expected outcome when galaxy formation simulations include non-thermal physics: radiative transfer, cosmic rays, and magnetic fields. Comparing three otherwise identical simulation models, it finds that a full-physics model reproduces the observed F444W size–mass relation from z≈12 to z≈3, including extrapolations to lower masses. Standard hydrodynamics produces overly compact, concentrated galaxies, while a model with four times stronger supernova feedback produces galaxies nearly twice as large as observed. The paper also shows that the full-physics model's bright end is dominated by compact, bursty starbursts, naturally explaining why flux-limited JWST surveys detect more luminous z>10 galaxies than older models expected. A further prediction is that many fainter, lower-surface-brightness galaxies remain undetected by current surveys.

Core claim

The central claim is that a galaxy formation model incorporating radiative transfer, cosmic ray pressure, and magnetic fields (the 'Full-Physics' model) yields compact, self-regulated galaxies whose sizes match observed JWST F444W half-light radii as a function of stellar mass and redshift from z≈12 to z≈3. The same model produces a broad distribution of UV surface brightnesses, with the brightest galaxies being the smallest (half-light radii roughly 200–500 pc at z>10) and most bursty in star formation. This compact-starburst scenario provides a natural explanation for the abundance of luminous galaxies found by JWST at z>10 within standard cosmology. In contrast, standard hydrodynamics yie

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a controlled three-way comparison within the same high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations: standard hydrodynamics (HD), a model with supernova energy boosted by a factor of four and calibrated to the z=3 stellar mass function (HD-Boost), and a full-physics model that adds on-the-fly Lyman-continuum radiative transfer, cosmic rays injected by supernovae, and magnetic fields. Galaxies are converted into synthetic JWST/NIRCam images including dust absorption and PSF convolution, and sizes are measured in the same way observers measure them. The size–mass relation and the surface-brightness distribution are the central quantitative objects that carry the argument,

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the single zoom-in region, containing a few hundred to roughly a thousand galaxies per model, is representative of the broader galaxy population at z=3–12, and that the numerical resolution (stellar particles of about 4e4 solar masses and 23.8 pc cells) is sufficient to resolve the compact starbursts whose sizes drive the main conclusion.

What would settle it

Direct sub-100 pc imaging at z>10 that resolves individual galaxies would settle the claim: if their half-light radii turn out to be systematically larger than about 0.5 kpc, or if a simulation without non-thermal physics reproduces the observed size–mass relation equally well, the paper's central conclusion would be undermined.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the full-physics picture is correct, the bright z>10 galaxies detected by JWST are the compact, high-surface-brightness tail of a broader population, not the full population.
  • At stellar masses below about 10^8 solar masses, inferred galaxy sizes from current JWST data are PSF-dominated upper limits, so the intrinsic sizes of low-mass galaxies at z≳8 are likely smaller than reported.
  • The size–mass relation in the 10^7–10^8 solar-mass range discriminates most sharply between galaxy formation models, making it a key target for future surveys.
  • Extremely Large Telescopes, resolving about 100 pc scales at z~10, could directly test the predicted compact starbursts.
  • Calibrating supernova feedback strength alone is insufficient to reproduce observed high-redshift morphologies; non-thermal processes are needed to regulate galaxy sizes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the full-physics model's surface-brightness distribution is broad and bimodal in star-formation activity, deep JWST surveys may uncover a previously missed population of faint, extended, quiescent galaxies at z>10; this is implied by the model but not yet directly observed.
  • The finding suggests that many published high-redshift size measurements based on PSF-convolved images systematically overestimate intrinsic sizes for compact galaxies, potentially affecting current interpretations of early galaxy growth.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same mock-observation pipeline to other simulation suites; if the size–mass agreement depends more on numerical choices such as resolution and volume than on non-thermal physics, the conclusion would weaken.
  • The predicted burstiness could be cross-checked with rest-frame UV variability or nebular emission signatures in JWST spectra of the brightest z>10 candidates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses the Azahar cosmological zoom-in simulations to build synthetic JWST/NIRCam observations (F150W, F277W, F444W) for three galaxy-formation models: standard hydrodynamics (HD), enhanced supernova feedback (HD-Boost), and a model including radiative transfer, cosmic rays, and magnetic fields (Full-Physics). The authors measure half-light radii before and after PSF convolution from z=12 to z=3 and compare with F444W size–mass observations (EPOCHS, Allen et al., COSMOS-Web). They report that Full-Physics reproduces observed sizes, HD is overly compact and PSF-dominated, and HD-Boost is roughly twice as large as observed. They further analyze UV surface brightness distributions and argue that the bright z>10 JWST population is the compact, bursty, high-surface-brightness tail of a broader galaxy population. Appendices validate the Gaussian-PSF approximation, provide size–mass and size–redshift fits, and discuss mass-weighting and size definitions.

Significance. If the external comparison is robust, the paper makes a strong case that non-thermal feedback regulates high-redshift galaxy structure and provides a falsifiable prediction: a population of unresolved compact galaxies at z>10, testable with ELT-class resolution. The mock-observation pipeline is a particular strength: PSF convolution, deblending, neighbor truncation, filter consistency, and a Gaussian-PSF cross-check in Appendix A are all described carefully. The Full-Physics model is not calibrated to the size–mass relation, and the controlled three-model comparison is a useful experiment in itself. The main external-validity risk is statistical rather than circular: the results come from a single zoom-in volume, and cosmic variance could plausibly shift sizes at fixed mass by an amount comparable to the model differences. The manuscript also deserves credit for stating limitations, including the limited volume in Appendix D and the resolution caveat in the Conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, 3.3, Appendix D] The external claim that Full-Physics matches JWST sizes depends on one zoom-in region: a convex hull of ~8 cMpc within a 25 cMpc box, selected around a rare ~2.5e12 Msun halo (Section 2.1), with roughly 100 galaxies at z~12 and up to ~1000 at z=3. Cosmic variance in such a patch can shift median sizes at fixed mass and the bright surface-brightness tail by amounts comparable to the differences between HD, HD-Boost, and Full-Physics in Figures 3, 4, and 6. The EPOCHS mass-weighting in Section 3.3 rescales the mass distribution but cannot correct for environment/assembly-history dependence of size at fixed mass. Appendix D itself states that differences are 'most pronounced at higher redshift ... reflecting our limited volume.' This is an internal flag. The controlled model comparison remains valid, but the title-level claim of agreement with observations needs either additional independen
  2. [3.2, Figure 3, Figure 4] At z=8 (and partly z=5), the statement that Full-Physics 'matches' observations is not uniquely supported by the comparisons as presented. HD matches the EPOCHS R_obs relation because its compact galaxies are PSF-dominated, while Full-Physics agrees better with the extrapolated R_half-light relation of Allen et al. The text in Section 3.2 acknowledges this split, but the abstract and conclusion present a single narrative of Full-Physics agreement. Since Section 2.4 states that observational forward-modeling sizes should lie between R_half-light and R_obs, the paper should perform a quantitative comparison using each model's predicted R_obs or R_half-light against the corresponding survey size definition, with residuals or a goodness-of-fit metric. As written, the 'excellent agreement' claim is a qualitative reading of mixed size definitions.
  3. [3.4, Figure 7] The 'cumulative detection fraction' in Figure 7 is computed as a function of surface-brightness threshold using a PSF-blurred radius, but the mock observations include no background noise, pixel response, source detection, or segmentation (Section 2.3). A bright compact source can still be undetected if its total flux is below the survey depth, and a low-surface-brightness source can be detected if luminous enough. The conclusion that Full-Physics dominates the detectable bright population at z=12, which is central to explaining JWST's bright z>10 galaxies, should be tested with a full signal-to-noise-limited mock catalog or replaced with a more guarded statement about surface-brightness selection rather than detection fraction.
  4. [2.1, Section 4] The compact-starburst scenario hinges on galaxies with R_half-light = 200–500 pc at z>=10, only ~10–20 times the 23.8 pc cell size. With stellar particle mass 4e4 Msun, the low-mass systems in this regime consist of relatively few stellar particles, and Appendix E shows that PSF effects change observed sizes by factors of order unity for these systems. The paper's own Conclusion notes that real effective radii may be even smaller, indicating an admitted resolution sensitivity. Since the compact sizes are load-bearing for both the size–mass match and the bright-surface-brightness interpretation, a resolution study (e.g., re-simulating one or two representative systems at higher resolution) or an explicit size-convergence test is needed to establish that the predicted compactness is physical rather than a resolution artifact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [2.2] The phrase 'M_halo > 10^8 Msun (v4.7)' appears to contain an undefined version tag; either define it or remove it.
  2. [3.3] The choice to adopt the z=7 EPOCHS mass distribution for all z<7 is described but not justified. Since the EPOCHS mass distribution evolves with redshift, this approximation should be motivated or tested explicitly beyond the convergence statement in Appendix D.
  3. [2.3] The notation 'R_v ~ 3.1' should be 'R_V' (V-band extinction parameter). Also 'eta_D/M' is used without a formal definition of the ionization dependence beyond the inline formula; a short sentence or equation reference would help.
  4. [2.4 / Appendix E] The three radius definitions R_stellar, R_half-light, and R_obs are used throughout, but Figure E.1's 1σ/2σ KDE contours are not described in terms of the number of galaxies per redshift bin. A brief statement of sample sizes in the appendix would make the contours easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model predictions are not fitted to the target sizes.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the uncalibrated Full-Physics model reproduces JWST size observations from z=12 to z=3, while HD is too compact and HD-Boost too extended. The Full-Physics model is explicitly 'not calibrated' (Section 2.1), and its non-thermal parameters come from independent prior work (e.g., Rosdahl & Teyssier 2015; Dubois et al. 2016; Salem et al. 2016; Pakmor et al. 2016). The only calibrated model, HD-Boost, is calibrated to the z=3 stellar mass function, not to galaxy sizes, so its size prediction is a genuine output rather than a fit disguised as a prediction. The comparison to observations uses external F444W size measurements from EPOCHS, Allen et al. 2025, and Yang et al. 2025, with forward-modeled PSF convolution; no step defines predicted sizes as a function of observed sizes. The EPOCHS mass-weighting in Section 3.3 and Appendix D only rescales the model mass distribution to match the survey's selection function; it does not fit the size-mass or size-redshift relations. The acknowledgment in Appendix D that differences are 'most pronounced at higher redshift ... reflecting our limited volume' identifies a cosmic-variance limitation, not a circular construction. Self-citations to Martin-Alvarez et al. (under review) describe the simulation and tracker methodology, but they do not invoke the paper's own conclusions as evidence, so the derivation chain is not circular. The cosmic-variance and resolution concerns are threats to external validity rather than to logical independence of the prediction. No circular step can be exhibited in which an equation reduces to its own inputs or a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new physical entities. Its load-bearing inputs are: a single zoom-in cosmological volume; adopted subgrid/feedback parameters (CR diffusion, energy fractions, dust prescription); and a methods paper under review (galaxy trackers, simulation details) that the reader cannot currently audit. The strongest comparison is at M*>1e8 Msun where the Full-Physics model is well-resolved; the low-mass predictions rest on galaxies with <300 stellar particles.

free parameters (6)
  • HD-Boost SN energy boost factor = 4x
    Section 2.1: 'we increase supernova energy injection by a factor of four, calibrated to reproduce the galaxy stellar mass function at z=3.' The calibrated model is the paper's negative control for 'calibrated supernova feedback'.
  • Dust-to-metal ratio eta_D/M = 0.4
    Section 2.3: 'We set eta_D/M = 0.4 and f_ion = 0.01' for the mock-observation dust extinction model. This affects surface brightnesses and sizes and is adopted from prior work, not derived here.
  • Ionization-modulated dust scaling f_ion = 0.01
    Section 2.3: adopted from prior work (Martin-Alvarez et al. 2024); affects dust attenuation in the mock images.
  • CR diffusion coefficient = 3e28 cm2/s
    Section 2.1: assumed constant anisotropic diffusion coefficient taken from literature; not fitted here but a physical assumption influencing the Full-Physics outcome.
  • CR energy fraction from SN = 10%
    Section 2.1: adopted from Morlino & Caprioli 2012; affects the CR feedback strength.
  • Magnetic energy seed fraction from SN = 1%
    Section 2.1: injected through magnetized SN feedback; adopted value.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Azahar zoom-in region is representative of the z=3–12 galaxy population
    Section 2.1–2.2: single convex-hull zoom-in volume of ~8 cMpc in a 25 cMpc box. Cosmic variance and the presence of a single most-massive merger system at z~6.5 could bias size distributions; the paper mass-weights to EPOCHS but cannot remove cosmic variance.
  • domain assumption RAMSES subgrid prescriptions for star formation and SN feedback are adequate
    Section 2.1: magneto-thermoturbulent star formation (Federrath & Klessen 2012; Kimm et al. 2017) and mechanical SN feedback (Kimm & Cen 2014) with E_SN=1e51 erg and M_SN=10 Msun. The central conclusion compares models built on these subgrid models; different subgrid choices could change the 'HD too compact' conclusion.
  • domain assumption JWST PSF can be approximated as Gaussian for size measurement
    Section 2.3 and Appendix A: tested in Appendix A against a hex-aperture PSF with <5% size differences for Full-Physics, so this is a tested, mild assumption — but it is checked for convergence only within the Full-Physics model.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis and dust model inputs (Bruzual & Charlot 2003, Weingartner & Draine 2001) are correct
    Section 2.3: used to make mock fluxes. Errors in these models propagate into F444W half-light sizes and surface brightnesses, though comparisons are made consistently between models and observations.
  • domain assumption Galaxy trackers and the 50-particle threshold recover the relevant galaxy population
    Section 2.2: tracker algorithm (Martin-Alvarez et al., under review) with minimum 50 stellar particles. At M* < 1e8 Msun, the gray shaded region in Figures 3/5 marks galaxies with <300 particles; the central low-mass prediction rests on the least-resolved galaxies.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27379 in / 9431 out tokens · 75548 ms · 2026-08-01T23:34:27.131288+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has discovered unexpectedly bright, rapidly growing galaxies in the early universe, which were not predicted by most previously existing galaxy formation models. Using synthetic JWST observations of the Azahar simulation suite, we show that comprehensive non-thermal physics ("Full-Physics") produces compact, self-regulated galaxies that match observations from $z = 12$ to $z = 3$. This model also produces broad surface brightness distributions, where the bright end is dominated by compact sizes and bursty star formation. This compact starburst scenario naturally explains the detection of bright $z > 10$ galaxies in flux-limited surveys. By contrast, a model with standard hydrodynamics yields systems that are smaller and more concentrated than current data, while a model with calibrated supernova feedback produces unphysically large systems nearly twice the size of those observed. At lower masses ($\mathrm{M}_{*} < 10^{8}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$), the Full-Physics model predicts sizes that are smaller than can be resolved with JWST, consistent with extrapolations from observations of higher-mass systems. Future observations with higher resolution could resolve this population and elucidate the physics driving the formation of the first galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15357 by Michelle S. Park, Risa H. Wechsler, Sergio Martin-Alvarez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Synthetic observations of Azahar-a, the largest galaxy in our sample, in the JWST filters F150W (blue), F277W (green), and F444W (red). Columns show z = 10, 6, 5, 4, to 3 with panel aperture sizes of 2, 2, 2, 10, and 15 physical kpc, respectively. Scale bars indicate physical and angular sizes. Each row from top to bottom corresponds to the following models: standard hydrodynamics (HD), enhanced SN feedbac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Size–mass relation for the three Azahar models at z ∼ 3, with representative mock JWST galaxy images. Each median point is placed and proportionally scaled with the galaxy’s Rhalf-light. Synthetic observations use JWST filters F150W (blue), F277W (green), F444W (red). Each of the models are represented by points with differently colored marker edges: standard hydrodynamics (HD; blue), boosted SN feedback (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Size–mass relations for PSF-convolved half-light radii Robs (left column) and half-light radii before PSF convolution Rhalf-light (right column). From top to bottom, we show redshifts z = 8, 5, and 3 respectively. Colors indicate models: HD (blue), HD-Boost (yellow), and Full-Physics (red). Points show medians and error bars for the 16–84th percentile range. Dashed error bars denote bins with fewer than 20… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left panel) PSF-convolved galaxy half-light radius evolution (Robs) as a function of redshift for our three models: HD (blue), HD-Boost (yellow), and Full-Physics (red). Median galaxy sizes are weighted by the EPOCHS mass distribution. Error bars indicate the 16th and 84th percentiles. Colored solid lines show best-fit power-laws, provided in Appendix C. The black dotted line shows the physical full width… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the galaxy half-light radii (Rhalf-light) as a function of redshift under different galaxy selections. From left to right, columns display results from lower to higher mass bins. Rows correspond to different galaxy selection methods: fixed stellar mass bins (top), number-density selection (center), and tracker selection (bottom; see text for details). For each panel, we compare results across … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Top) Absolute UV magnitude versus apparent surface brightness Σ150W from our synthetic observations. (Bottom) UV half-light radius (Rhalf-light) versus apparent surface brightness. We compare our three models, with each column from left to right progressing from z = 12, 10, to 8. Solid lines show running medians computed in 20 uniform magnitude bins. Black dotted lines in the top row indicate the variatio… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distribution function of detectable galaxies as a function of peak apparent surface brightness detection threshold. From top to bottom, panels show our three physical models at z = 12, z = 10, and z = 8. At these redshifts, Full-Physics galaxies are more likely to be detected by JWST due to their higher surface brightnesses. ∼ 25 mag arcsec−2 for CEERS with a 0.1′′ radius aper￾ture (S. L. Finkel… view at source ↗

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

111 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, ApJ, 770, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  2. [2]

    I., et al

    Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2020

  3. [3]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 2025

  4. [4]

    2015, A&A, 578, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    Beck, R. 2015, A&A, 578, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425572 2015

  5. [5]

    S., Wechsler, R

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  6. [6]

    2025, A&A, 697, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451615

    Paladino, R. 2025, A&A, 697, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451615

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451615 2025

  7. [7]

    2008, Nature, 454, 302, doi: 10.1038/NATURE07105

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M. 2008, Nature, 454, 302, doi: 10.1038/NATURE07105

    doi:10.1038/nature07105 2008

  8. [8]

    J., Bradley, L., Zitrin, A., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Bradley, L., Zitrin, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/126

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/126 2014

  9. [9]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  10. [10]

    A., Jarvis, M

    Bowler, R. A., Jarvis, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAA313

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa313 2020

  11. [11]

    D., Trenti, M., Oesch, P

    Bradley, L. D., Trenti, M., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/108

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/108 2012

  12. [12]

    2016, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Brooks, A., & Christensen, C. 2016, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 418, Bulge Formation via Mergers in Cosmological Simulations, ed. E. Laurikainen, R. Peletier, & D. Gadotti, 317–353, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6 12

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6 2016

  13. [13]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    S., Fielding, D

    Butsky, I. S., Fielding, D. B., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ABBAD2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2 2020

  15. [15]

    E., Danhaive, A

    Carreira, C., Robertson, B. E., Danhaive, A. L., et al. 2026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15957

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15957 2026

  16. [16]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/AC94D0

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/AC94D0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 2022

  17. [17]

    M., Saintonge, A., et al

    Chamba, N., Marcum, P. M., Saintonge, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AD7377

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7377 2024

  18. [18]

    K., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3716, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STZ1895

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1895 2019

  19. [19]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, 1, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/staf2267

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2267 2026

  20. [20]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001

    doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  21. [21]

    J., Adams, N., Harvey, T., et al

    Conselice, C. J., Adams, N., Harvey, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ADA608

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada608 2025

  22. [22]

    Lacey, C. G. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2352, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STX2897

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2897 2018

  23. [23]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STV725

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ADAB72

    Lopez-Rodriguez, E. 2025, ApJ, 980, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ADAB72

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adab72 2025

  25. [25]

    2020, A&A, 638, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936339 Dav´ e, R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P

    Dashyan, G., & Dubois, Y. 2020, A&A, 638, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936339 Dav´ e, R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P. F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3265, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW1862

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936339 2020

  26. [26]

    2018, in Volume 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, doi: 10.1117/12.2311483 De Blok, W

    Davies, R., Alves, J., Cl´ enet, Y., et al. 2018, in Volume 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, doi: 10.1117/12.2311483 De Blok, W. J., J´ ozsa, G. I., Patterson, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322517

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2311483 2018

  27. [27]

    C., Singh, K

    Dewangan, G. C., Singh, K. P., & Bhat, P. N. 1999, AJ, 118, 785, doi: 10.1086/300963

    work page doi:10.1086/300963 1999

  28. [28]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4554, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAD471

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad471 2023

  29. [29]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW2265

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW2265

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265 2016

  30. [30]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/131 2016

  31. [31]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Marcus, M. T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/306

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/306 2009

  32. [32]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  33. [33]

    1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190

    Ferland, G., Korista, K., Verner, D., et al. 1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190

    doi:10.1086/316190 1998

  34. [34]

    R., & Trevisan, M

    Ferrari, F., De Carvalho, R. R., & Trevisan, M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/55 2015

  35. [35]

    J., et al

    Ferreira, L., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/AC947C

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c 2022

  36. [36]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ACEC76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  37. [37]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ACADE4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023

  38. [38]

    E., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Doherty, M

    Geach, J. E., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Doherty, M. J., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 483, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06346-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06346-4 2023

  39. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stv251

    Geen, S., Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stv251

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv251 2015

  40. [40]

    2025, A&A, 699, A343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555504

    Genin, A., Shuntov, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555504

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555504 2025

  41. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STY1653

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., Hanasz, M., & Walch, S. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STY1653

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1653 2018

  42. [42]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ACAAA9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ACAAA9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023

  43. [43]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c 2025

  44. [44]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 61465, doi: 10.33232/001c.161465

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.161465 2026

  45. [45]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STU1738

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  46. [46]

    F., Quataert, E., Ponnada, S

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., Ponnada, S. B., & Silich, E. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 78, doi: 10.33232/001c.141293

    doi:10.33232/001c.141293 2025

  47. [47]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3465, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stz3321

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3321 2020

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ACCD6D

    Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Calabr` o, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ACCD6D

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d 2023

  49. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB3710

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710 2022

  50. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2594, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC3743

    Kannan, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2594, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC3743

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3743 2023

  51. [51]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ACAD01

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 2023

  52. [52]

    2023, Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023, Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/185

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/185 2013

  54. [54]

    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

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

  55. [55]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stx052 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kimm, T., Katz, H., Haehnelt, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stx052 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/S41586-023-05786-2

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx052 2017

  56. [56]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STU2467

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2467 2015

  57. [57]

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

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

  58. [58]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  59. [59]

    E., & Karpovich, K

    Clark, S. E., & Karpovich, K. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 031620, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.3.031620

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.3.031620 2025

  60. [60]

    2015, MNRAS: Letters, 456, L69, doi: 10.1093/MNRASL/SL V176

    Marinacci, F., & Vogelsberger, M. 2015, MNRAS: Letters, 456, L69, doi: 10.1093/MNRASL/SL V176

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sl 2015

  61. [61]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3326, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC1099

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3326, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC1099

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1099 2022

  62. [62]

    G., et al

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Sijacki, D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3806, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/stad2559

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2559 2023

  63. [63]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4475, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAA1438

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Slyz, A., Devriendt, J., & G´ omez-Guijarro, C. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4475, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAA1438

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1438 2020

  64. [64]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e9e

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Dacunha, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e9e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e9e 2024

  65. [65]

    G., et al

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Sijacki, D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, 1, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAF2106

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2106 2026

  66. [66]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/staf1861

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/staf1861

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1861 2025

  67. [67]

    B., Suess, K

    Miller, T. B., Suess, K. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ADE438

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade438 2025

  68. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AD1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AD1404

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404 2024

  69. [69]

    2012, A&A, 538, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    Morlino, G., & Caprioli, D. 2012, A&A, 538, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117855 2012

  70. [70]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Dokkum, P. v., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/AC9B22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 2022

  71. [71]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/110 2012

  72. [72]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/75 2013

  73. [73]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a 2023

  74. [74]

    2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 76, 219, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 76, 219, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psae004 2024

  75. [75]

    J., Adams, N

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3597 2024

  76. [76]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 2603, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW1761

    Springel, V. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2603, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW1761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1761 2016

  77. [77]

    Vecchia, C. D. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 960, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STW2869

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2869 2017

  78. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STX2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STX2656

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  79. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STZ2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STZ2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525821

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  80. [80]

    2026, Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, doi: 10.33232/001c.155306

    Robertson, A., & Benson, A. 2026, Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, doi: 10.33232/001c.155306

    doi:10.33232/001c.155306 2026

Showing first 80 references.