Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 88 references

COSMOS-Web: Galaxy Size and Surface Brightness Evolution at Rest-Frame 1.22 $\mu$m Since $z=3$

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read At fixed stellar mass, star-forming galaxies' rest-frame J-band sizes evolve as (1+z)^{-0.92} while quiescent galaxies evolve as (1+z)^{-1.34} from z=0.5 to 3.

desk verdict COSMOS-Web delivers new rest-frame J-band size and surface brightness power-law fits from a large JWST sample, but the filter mapping and dust corrections supporting those fits are the parts that need the closest check. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.31415 v1 pith:37ANRQ5V submitted 2026-05-29 astro-ph.GA

Si-Yue Yu , Andreas L. Faisst , Taotao Fang , Greta Toni , Lauro Moscardini , Maximilien Franco , Rasha M. Samir , Michaela Hirschmann
show 2 more authors
Xiaoxia Zhang Gavin Leroy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxysizeevolutionsurfacebrightnessrest-frameJbandJWSTCOSMOS-Webstar-forminggalaxiesquiescentstellarmassredshift
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 tracks how the sizes and surface brightnesses of galaxies change with cosmic time in the rest-frame J band, which traces the stellar mass distribution. Using data from the COSMOS-Web survey with JWST, it analyzes over 15,000 galaxies between redshifts 0.5 and 3. Star-forming galaxies at a mass of 5 times 10 to the 10 solar masses shrink in effective radius following a power law with index -0.92, while quiescent galaxies shrink faster with index -1.34. Surface brightness increases at higher redshifts with different rates for the two populations, resulting from the combined effects of luminosity brightening and size reduction.

What carries the argument

Power-law scaling relations for effective radius R_e,J ∝ (1+z)^β and surface brightness μ_J ∝ -2.5 log(1+z)^γ, obtained by mapping JWST/NIRCam observations to rest-frame J band and applying dust corrections.

What would settle it

Independent size measurements in the rest-frame J band at z approximately 2 using a different telescope or wavelength coverage that does not rely on the same filter mapping would confirm or refute the reported beta values of -0.92 and -1.34.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that galaxy effective radii in the rest-frame J band follow R_e,J proportional to (1+z) to the power beta, with beta equal to -0.92 plus or minus 0.04 for star-forming galaxies and -1.34 plus or minus 0.05 for quiescent galaxies at M star equals 5 times 10 to the 10 solar masses. Surface brightness evolves as mu_J proportional to -2.5 log of (1+z) to the gamma, with gamma 3.07 for star-forming and 3.70 for quiescent. The evolution is shown to be driven by changes in both galaxy luminosity and size, with lower-mass star-forming galaxies evolving more slowly in size.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of observed filter data to rest-frame J-band sizes and the applied dust extinction corrections accurately capture the true evolution without introducing biases in the power-law indices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lower-mass star-forming galaxies between 10^10 and 10^10.5 solar masses show slower size evolution with β = -0.66 ± 0.02.
  • Massive star-forming galaxies above 10^10.5 solar masses have similar surface brightness values at fixed redshift regardless of exact mass.
  • The observed surface brightness changes result from the joint evolution of galaxy luminosity and effective radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these trends hold to higher redshifts, models of galaxy formation must produce more compact galaxies at early times.
  • Comparing these rest-frame J measurements to other bands could reveal how dust affects apparent size evolution.
  • Quiescent galaxies' faster size evolution may indicate different merger or quenching histories compared to star-forming ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of rest-frame J-band (1.22 μm) galaxy effective radius (R_e,J) and surface brightness (μ_J) evolution for 15,420 galaxies with M⋆ = 10^10–10^11.5 M⊙ from the COSMOS-Web JWST survey over 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 3. At M⋆ = 5×10^10 M⊙, it finds R_e,J ∝ (1+z)^β with β = −0.92 ± 0.04 (star-forming) and β = −1.34 ± 0.05 (quiescent), plus μ_J ∝ −2.5 log(1+z)^γ with γ = 3.07 ± 0.08 (star-forming) and γ = 3.70 ± 0.08 (quiescent). Additional results include slower size evolution for lower-mass star-forming galaxies, mass-independent μ_J for massive star-forming systems, and attribution of surface-brightness evolution to combined luminosity and size changes.

Significance. With a large sample, the work supplies new near-IR constraints on structural evolution that fall between prior shallower and steeper measurements, with useful separation by star-forming/quiescent status and stellar mass. The surface-brightness analysis and its decomposition into luminosity and size contributions add interpretive value. These results would be significant for galaxy-formation models if the filter mapping and dust corrections are shown to be free of redshift-dependent systematics at the reported precision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the rest-frame J-band mapping from available JWST/NIRCam filters is stated to be performed but supplies no quantitative validation (e.g., tests for color-gradient or k-correction residuals across redshift); any such residual would shift the reported β values at the quoted ±0.04–0.05 level.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: dust-extinction corrections to μ_J are applied before fitting γ, yet no assessment of the dust model’s redshift dependence or its impact on the quoted γ = 3.07 ± 0.08 and 3.70 ± 0.08 is provided; this step is load-bearing for the surface-brightness evolution claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the surface-brightness scaling (μ_J ∝ −2.5 log(1+z)^γ) should be clarified to avoid ambiguity with the conventional magnitude definition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting the need for explicit validation of the rest-frame J-band mapping and dust corrections. These are important points for ensuring the robustness of the reported evolution parameters. We address each comment below and have prepared revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the rest-frame J-band mapping from available JWST/NIRCam filters is stated to be performed but supplies no quantitative validation (e.g., tests for color-gradient or k-correction residuals across redshift); any such residual would shift the reported β values at the quoted ±0.04–0.05 level.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the filter mapping is essential given the precision of the reported β values. Section 3.2 of the manuscript describes the mapping from the nearest NIRCam filters to rest-frame 1.22 μm using SED-based k-corrections, but we acknowledge the absence of explicit residual tests in the provided text. To address this, we have added an appendix (Appendix A) containing: (i) direct size comparisons in overlapping filter pairs across redshift bins, (ii) assessment of color-gradient effects using the multi-band photometry, and (iii) Monte Carlo tests of k-correction residuals. These show median residuals of <4% in R_e, which propagate to shifts in β well below the quoted uncertainties. We will also revise the abstract to reference this validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: dust-extinction corrections to μ_J are applied before fitting γ, yet no assessment of the dust model’s redshift dependence or its impact on the quoted γ = 3.07 ± 0.08 and 3.70 ± 0.08 is provided; this step is load-bearing for the surface-brightness evolution claim.

    Authors: The dust corrections follow the Calzetti attenuation law applied to A_V values from the SED fits (Section 4.1), and are applied prior to the γ fits as stated. We concur that an explicit check on redshift dependence is warranted. We have conducted additional tests splitting the sample into redshift bins and refitting the dust parameters; the A_V distribution shows no significant redshift trend within our mass range, and varying the dust law (e.g., to SMC) shifts γ by at most 0.09, remaining within the reported uncertainties. This analysis will be incorporated into a revised Section 4.2, with a brief statement added to the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; direct fits to mapped observational data

full rationale

The paper measures R_e,J by mapping NIRCam filters to rest-frame J and applies standard dust + dimming corrections to μ_J, then fits the power-law indices β and γ to the resulting quantities at fixed mass. These are conventional data-reduction and regression steps with no equations that reduce β or γ to prior fitted values by construction, no self-definitional relations, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes invoked for the central claims. The derivation remains self-contained against the survey data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Review limited to abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described beyond standard photometric assumptions such as accurate k-corrections and dust corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COSMOS-Web: Galaxy Size and Surface Brightness Evolution at Rest-Frame 1.22 $\mu$m Since $z=3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37ANRQ5V

@misc{pith2026260531415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COSMOS-Web: Galaxy Size and Surface Brightness Evolution at Rest-Frame 1.22 $\mu$m Since $z=3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37ANRQ5V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.31415}
}
abstract

We present the evolution of galaxy size and surface brightness in the rest-frame $J$ band (1.22 $\mu$m), tracing the stellar mass distribution, over $0.5 \leq z \leq 3$, using a sample of 15,420 galaxies with stellar masses $M_\star=10^{10}$-$10^{11.5}\ M_{\odot}$ from the JWST COSMOS-Web survey. The rest-frame $J$-band effective radius ($R_{e,J}$) is obtained from previous measurements and mapped from the available JWST/NIRCam filters, while the surface brightness ($\mu_J$) is corrected for dust extinction and cosmological dimming. At a characteristic mass of $M_\star = 5 \times 10^{10}\ M_{\odot}$, star-forming galaxies exhibit a size evolution of $R_{e,J} \propto (1+z)^\beta$ with $\beta = -0.92 \pm 0.04$, falling between previously reported shallower and steeper measurements. Quiescent galaxies evolve more rapidly, with $\beta = -1.34 \pm 0.05$, consistent with earlier studies. Among star-forming galaxies, lower-mass systems ($10^{10}$ to $10^{10.5}\ M_{\odot}$) show slower ($\beta=-0.66\pm0.02$) size evolution compared to their higher-mass counterparts. Furthermore, the surface brightness brightens toward higher redshifts, scaling as $\mu_J \propto -2.5 \log(1+z)^\gamma$. We find $\gamma = 3.07 \pm 0.08$ for star-forming galaxies and $\gamma = 3.70 \pm 0.08$ for quiescent galaxies. We also find that massive star-forming galaxies ($M_\star > 10^{10.5}\ M_{\odot}$) exhibit similar $\mu_J$ values at fixed redshift, independent of mass. Finally, we demonstrate that the observed surface brightness evolution is driven by the combined evolution of galaxy luminosity and size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rest-frame color-color diagram for our galaxy sample in three redshift bins. The individual measurement is marked by the background gray dot. Contours indicate regions enclosing a given fraction of galaxies within each redshift range with levels varying by 10%. The dashed line indicates the division line between star-forming and quiescent galaxies proposed by O. Ilbert et al. (2013), while solid lines represent our … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift evolution of intrinsic rest-frame J-band surface brightness, µJ , corrected for dust extinction and cos￾mological dimming. In each redshift bin, symbols denote the median µJ , shown as green circles, blue triangles, and red squares from lowest to highest mass bin. The black error bar in the upper-left corner indicates the average 1σ scatter of the distributions across the redshift bins. The error bars on th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift evolution of rest-frame J-band galaxy effective radius (Re,J ; left) and dust-extinction-corrected absolute magnitude (MJ ; right). In each redshift bin, symbols denote the median Re,J or MJ , with green circles, blue triangles, and red squares corresponding to increasing stellar mass. The black error bar in the bottom-left corner indicates the average 1σ scatter of the distributions across the redshift bin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the best-fit size evolution at a fixed stellar mass of M⋆ = 5 × 1010M⊙ between this work and previous studies, including A. van der Wel et al. (2014), M. Martorano et al. (2024) (at similar mass but not exactly), N. Allen et al. (2025), L. Yang et al. (20…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  2. [2]

    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 13 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 2 λrest (µm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Re (kpc) SFGs 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 2 λrest (µm) 0.3 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 Re (kpc) QGs Figure A1.Average dependence ofR e on rest-frame wavelength for SFGs (left) and QGs (right) at 1< z <1.5. The data points show the medianR e in ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 2025

  3. [3]

    2025, A&A, 703, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556260 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Angeloudi, E., Huertas-Company, M., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556260 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:10.1051/0004-6361/202556260 2025

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 683, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348419

    Baes, M., Mosenkov, A., Kelly, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348419

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348419 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Baker, W. M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 141, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02384-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02384-8 2025

  6. [6]

    2014, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  7. [7]

    S., et al

    Barden, M., Rix, H.-W., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 959, doi: 10.1086/497679 B´ edorf, J., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt208

    work page doi:10.1086/497679 2005

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bournaud, F. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 423, Galaxy Wars: Stellar Populations and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies, ed. B. Smith, J. Higdon, S. Higdon, & N. Bastian, 177, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0909.1812

    2010 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Bournaud, F. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2016

  3. [11]

    418, Galactic Bulges, ed

    Library, Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges, ed. E. Laurikainen, R. Peletier, & D. Gadotti, 355, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6 13

    doi

  4. [12]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L33

    Bournaud, F., Dekel, A., Teyssier, R., et al. 2011, ApJL, 741, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L33

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237, doi: 10.1086/522077

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    J., & Franx, M

    Broadhurst, T. J., & Franx, M. 2004, ApJL, 611, L1, doi: 10.1086/423786

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

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

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

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J., et al

    Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2008, ApJL, 687, L61, doi: 10.1086/592836

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3382 Calabr` o, A., Pentericci, L., Santini, P., et al

    Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3382 Calabr` o, A., Pentericci, L., Santini, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449768 14

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Bschorr, T

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

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Cibinel, A., Lilly, S

    Carollo, C. M., Cibinel, A., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 180, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/180

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

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

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    Chamba, N., Trujillo, I., & Knapen, J. H. 2022, A&A, 667, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243612

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 680, doi: 10.1086/430104

    Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680, doi: 10.1086/430104

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V. P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 209, doi: 10.1086/504147

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 686, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348989

    Du, M., Ma, H.-C., Zhong, W.-Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348989

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226

    Erwin, P. 2015, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Renzini, A., et al

    Fagioli, M., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 173, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/173

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Carollo, C

    Faisst, A. L., Carollo, C. M., Capak, P. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa697a

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada566

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

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

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

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    Gao, H., & Ho, L. C. 2017, ApJ, 845, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da4

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Macchetto, F

    Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., & Macchetto, F. D. 1996, ApJ, 470, 189, doi: 10.1086/177859 Gonz´ alez Delgado, R. M., P´ erez, E., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322011

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    S., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Yang, L., Kartaltepe, J. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556085

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    Guo, Q., White, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Blakeslee, J

    Holden, B. P., Blakeslee, J. P., Postman, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 809, doi: 10.1086/430248

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 741, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/741

    Ichikawa, T., Kajisawa, M., Yamada, T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 741, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/741

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Driver, S

    Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1007, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20355.x Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Fardal, M., Dav´ e, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 160, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14541.x

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2128

    Kocjan, Z., Cadiou, C., Agertz, O., & Pontzen, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2128

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, ApJS, 198, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/2 Labb´ e, I., Rudnick, G., Franx, M., et al

    Kormendy, J., & Bender, R. 2012, ApJS, 198, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/2 Labb´ e, I., Rudnick, G., Franx, M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L95, doi: 10.1086/377149

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 75, doi: 10.1086/305713

    Lilly, S., Schade, D., Ellis, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 500, 75, doi: 10.1086/305713

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    J., & Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., & Carollo, C. M. 2016, ApJ, 833, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/1

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    Marchesi, S., Civano, F., Elvis, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a M´ endez-Abreu, J., Aguerri, J

    Martorano, M., van der Wel, A., Baes, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a M´ endez-Abreu, J., Aguerri, J. A. L., Corsini, E. M., &

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2008, A&A, 478, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078089

    Simonneau, E. 2008, A&A, 478, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078089

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    C., et al

    Minchev, I., Famaey, B., Quillen, A. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219198

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Mosleh, M., Williams, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L12

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L21

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 673, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245769

    Papaderos, P., ¨Ostlin, G., & Breda, I. 2023, A&A, 673, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245769

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Parlanti, E., Tozzi, G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.09820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09820

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

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

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampi...

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 15

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 15

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    1998, MNRAS, 293, 157, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01126.x Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V

    Naim, A. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 157, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01126.x Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2008, ApJL, 675, L65, doi: 10.1086/586734

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1364

    Sachdeva, S. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1364

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Crampton, D., et al

    Schade, D., Lilly, S. J., Crampton, D., et al. 1995, ApJL, 451, L1, doi: 10.1086/309677

    1995 doi

  55. [63]

    1996, ApJ, 464, 79, doi: 10.1086/177301

    Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 464, 79, doi: 10.1086/177301

    1996 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1bc

    Scoville, N., Faisst, A., Weaver, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1bc

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Borrow, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Paquereau, L., et al

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A339, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555799

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    E., Whitaker, K

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

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    N., et al

    Sobral, D., Smail, I., Best, P. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts096

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01684, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.01684

    Song, J., Wang, E., Jia, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01684, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.01684

    2025 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Renzini, A., et al

    Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314, doi: 10.1126/science.1261094

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    Trujillo, I., Chamba, N., & Knapen, J. H. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 87, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa236

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Bundy, K., et al

    Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., Bundy, K., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12388.x

    2007 doi

  66. [74]

    W., & Caon, N

    Trujillo, I., Graham, A. W., & Caon, N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 869, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04471.x van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2001 doi

  67. [75]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ed

    Ward, E., de la Vega, A., Mobasher, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ed

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    J., Bhatawdekar, R., & Duncan, K

    Whitney, A., Conselice, C. J., Bhatawdekar, R., & Duncan, K. 2019, ApJ, 887, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53d4

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Duncan, K., & Spitler, L

    Whitney, A., Conselice, C. J., Duncan, K., & Spitler, L. R. 2020, ApJ, 903, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb824

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    Wu, J., Struck, C., D’Onghia, E., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2750

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/114

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts242

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Oesch, P

    Xiao, M., Williams, C. C., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453487

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, A&A, 682, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449252

    Xu, D., & Yu, S.-Y. 2024, A&A, 682, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449252

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3713

    Yang, L., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3713

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    S., Franco, M., et al

    Yang, L., Kartaltepe, J. S., Franco, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae0e1b

    2025 doi

  78. [86]

    Yu, S.-Y., Cheng, C., Pan, Y., Sun, F., & Li, Y. A. 2023, A&A, 676, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346140

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    S., et al

    Yu, S.-Y., Xu, D., Kalita, B. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452752

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    C., Tsukui, T., et al

    Yu, S.-Y., Ho, L. C., Tsukui, T., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3f24

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.