Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Evidence for inverse Compton scattering in high-redshift Lyman-break galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacking ~200,000 ultraviolet-selected galaxies, this paper finds that their average 1.4-GHz radio flux at fixed UV brightness falls from redshift 3 to 5, matching the predicted energy drain from cosmic microwave background photons.

desk verdict Clean large-sample stacking shows the radio/UV ratio rising with redshift at z=3–5; the IC interpretation is plausible but not yet uniquely established against dust/IMF evolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06677 v1 pith:6VTZVA2Y submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA

I. H. Whittam , M. J. Jarvis , Eric J. Murphy , N. J. Adams , R. A. A. Bowler , A. Matthews , R. G. Varadaraj , C. L. Hale
show 8 more authors
I. Heywood K. Knowles L. Marchetti N. Seymour F. Tabatabaei A. R. Taylor M. Vaccari A. Verma
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords inverseComptonscatteringcosmicmicrowavebackgroundLyman-breakgalaxiesradiocontinuumstarformationratesgalaxyevolutionMIGHTEEstacking
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

This paper tries to establish that inverse Compton scattering off the cosmic microwave background has been detected in ordinary star-forming galaxies at redshifts 3 to 5. Using roughly 200,000 Lyman-break galaxies selected in the ultraviolet, the authors stack deep radio images to measure an average 1.4-GHz flux density in bins of UV magnitude. They find that at a fixed UV brightness, both the radio flux and radio luminosity decline as redshift increases. The size of the decline matches the theoretical prediction for energy losses of relativistic electrons scattering off CMB photons, whose energy density grows as (1+z)^4. If correct, the result means radio-based star-formation rates at z > 3.5 must be corrected upward for these losses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is qIR, the logarithmic ratio of infrared luminosity (estimated here from UV-derived star-formation rates) to 1.4-GHz radio luminosity. The paper stacks radio images at the positions of roughly 200,000 Lyman-break galaxies, split into UV-magnitude and redshift bins, to measure median flux densities as low as about 0.1 microJy. Plotting qIR against redshift and comparing with theoretical predictions that include the (1+z)^4 growth of CMB energy density carries the argument: the observed increase in qIR follows the predicted IC slope, while a no-IC reference stays flat.

What would settle it

Measure the mean dust reddening of the z = 3, z = 4, and z = 5 Lyman-break samples directly, for example from the UV spectral slope or the infrared-to-UV ratio. If reddening falls from about 0.04 at z = 3 to 0.01 at z = 5, the radio deficit can be reproduced without IC scattering. Alternatively, stack the same galaxies in a second radio band: inverse Compton losses predict a frequency-dependent deficit, whereas dust or IMF evolution would shift the whole radio spectrum without the same frequency signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 1.4-GHz radio luminosity of Lyman-break galaxies at a fixed rest-frame UV magnitude genuinely decreases between z ~ 3 and z ~ 5, and that the size of the decrease is what inverse Compton scattering of cosmic-ray electrons off CMB photons predicts. The evidence comes from stacking roughly 200,000 UV-selected galaxies in three redshift bins: median flux densities of order 0.1-1 microJy are recovered, and both flux density and luminosity decline with redshift at fixed UV brightness. When converted to qIR, the logarithmic ratio of infrared (star-formation) luminosity to radio luminosity, the data rise with redshift along the slope of the theoretical IC curve

Load-bearing premise

The three redshift samples must be directly comparable: the dust dimming the ultraviolet light, or the mix of stellar masses, must not change with redshift in exactly the way needed to mimic the observed radio deficit without inverse Compton scattering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radio star-formation rates at z > 3.5 will be underestimates unless an inverse Compton correction is applied.
  • Existing qIR calibrations from lower redshift underpredict the radio-derived star-formation rate of the typical galaxy population beyond z ~ 3.5.
  • The effect is present in galaxy-dominated bins, so AGN contamination is not driving the trend.
  • The magnitude of the decline is compatible with internal magnetic field strengths around 100 microgauss, linking the result to magnetic field evolution.
  • Follow-up at higher radio frequencies (S-band) should reveal the predicted frequency dependence and confirm the interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A clean test of the interpretation is to measure dust attenuation directly in these same samples; if the mean dust reddening does not drop steeply with redshift, the dust alternative is excluded and the IC interpretation is on much firmer ground.
  • If IC losses are the cause, the far-infrared-radio correlation is not redshift-invariant above z ~ 3.5, so radio star-formation calibrators at those redshifts need a correction that likely depends on magnetic field strength and hence on galaxy properties.
  • The same stacking analysis applied in a second radio band should show a frequency-dependent deficit if IC is real, whereas dust or IMF evolution would shift the whole radio spectrum without the same spectral signature. This is a direct, testable extension of the paper's method.
  • At even higher redshifts, the IC correction becomes larger, so radio continuum may become a less reliable star-formation tracer for faint galaxies unless magnetic field strengths are independently constrained.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper stacks 1.4-GHz MIGHTEE continuum images at the positions of ~200,000 Lyman-break galaxies at 3<z<5 selected from Adams et al. (2023). Stacking in rest-frame UV magnitude bins, the authors find that median 1.4-GHz flux density and luminosity at fixed M_UV decrease with redshift. They convert the UV magnitudes to UV SFRs and then to L_IR using Kennicutt & Evans (2012), estimate q_IR, and compare the redshift dependence of q_IR to theoretical predictions from Murphy (2009) for inverse Compton energy losses off the CMB. The Murphy curves are shifted by -0.45 in q_IR to match z<3 data. The paper reports consistency with IC scattering and discusses dust attenuation and IMF evolution as alternatives, concluding that IC is the most compelling explanation and that radio SFR calibrations at z>3.5 need an IC correction.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, this would be one of the first statistical detections of CMB inverse Compton losses in ordinary high-redshift star-forming galaxies, with direct implications for radio-derived SFRs at z>3.5. The analysis uses a very large, homogeneous sample and careful stacking with bootstrap uncertainties, and Section 5.6 usefully tests the assumed radio spectral index. However, the paper's own Sections 5.2 and 5.5 demonstrate that plausible dust-attenuation evolution or a top-heavy IMF can reproduce the observed trend. Because the authors do not measure dust attenuation in their own M_UV/redshift bins, the uniqueness of the IC interpretation is not yet established. The result is interesting and publishable, but the strength of the conclusion currently exceeds what the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Fig. 8] This is the load-bearing alternative. The authors show that E(B-V) evolving from 0.04 at z=3 to 0.01 at z=5 removes exactly the observed qIR trend. Since qIR is computed from uncorrected MUV (Section 3.2), qIR,obs differs from qIR,true by -0.4 A_UV; a decrease in A_UV of ~0.36 dex between z=3 and z=5 produces the reported increase. The response relies on literature values (Cullen+18, Bouwens+14, Bowler+24) rather than a direct attenuation measurement in the same stacked sample. In addition, the z~5 sample uses an extra u-dropout criterion (Section 2.1), which may preferentially select bluer, less dusty galaxies. I request a direct estimate of E(B-V) (e.g. from UV spectral slopes or SED fits) in the same MUV/redshift bins, or an explicit treatment of selection effects. Until then, the observed decrease does not uniquely require IC scattering.
  2. [Section 5.5, Fig. 9] The top-heavy IMF scenario is dismissed as requiring fine-tuning, but the paper's own example is not extreme: changing the high-mass slope from -2.3 to -2.0 above 25 M_sun shifts MUV by -0.26 mag and plausibly accounts for part or all of the z=4/5 offsets. The 'fine-tuning' argument is qualitative, and a modest dust evolution combined with a modest IMF change could also reproduce the trend. To make the IC claim convincing, the authors should quantify the relative likelihood of these scenarios, or provide independent constraints on the IMF in these specific LBG populations. As written, Section 5.5 weakens rather than supports the central conclusion.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figs. 6 and 7] The comparison to Murphy (2009) is essentially a visual slope check after shifting the model by -0.45 in qIR to match low-z observations, and after adopting B=100 microG (or the Tabatabaei et al. B-z relation) for the internal magnetic field. The normalization offset and B are fitted/assumed, so only the shape of the predicted z-dependence is being tested. The authors should measure the slope of qIR vs z from the stacked points, propagate the uncertainty in the -0.45 offset, and compare with Murphy predictions for a plausible range of B rather than a single adopted value. This is important because the slope itself depends on B and on the treatment of U_rad (e.g. the 'updated' predictions).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The first M_UV bin is labelled '-20.0< M_uv <-20.5', which reverses the lower and upper bounds. It should read '-20.5< M_uv <-20.0' to be consistent with the other bins.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'for the three fields' but the figure shows the three redshift bins. Please correct.
  3. [Section 5.2] Typo: 'even is there is a general change' should be 'even if there is a general change'.
  4. [General] Notation for absolute UV magnitude is inconsistent: M_uv, MUV, and M_uv are used interchangeably. Please unify.
  5. [Section 5.7] The statement that 'the Delhaize+17, Algera+20 and Tabatabaei+25 q_IR relations are underestimates compared to this sample' is ambiguous. It should say that using those q_IR values underestimates the radio-derived SFR (or overestimates the needed radio luminosity) at z>3.5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed radio decrease is a measured quantity, and the IC comparison uses external Murphy (2009) predictions anchored to independent low-redshift data.

full rationale

The central claim derives from a direct stacking measurement: median 1.4-GHz flux densities and luminosities are measured for M_UV/redshift bins, and q_IR is computed from these using standard calibrations. No equation in the paper defines the predicted IC trend in terms of the observed stacked flux densities; the observed decrease is a free measurement. The theoretical comparison is the external Murphy (2009) model, whose redshift dependence is fixed by CMB energy density and magnetic field assumptions, not by fitting the high-z stack. The -0.45 dex shift in q_IR is explicitly a normalization to independent low-redshift measurements (Algera et al. 2020 and Tabatabaei et al. 2025); it does not set the slope that is tested. The paper acknowledges and tests alternative explanations (dust evolution in Sec 5.2, IMF evolution in Sec 5.5) and shows they could reproduce the trend, but this is a degeneracy/limitation, not a circular derivation. The only author-overlap citation with possible load-bearing weight is Tabatabaei et al. (2025), used for the low-z anchor and magnetic-field strength; this is an externally published measurement and is reinforced by the independent Algera et al. (2020) result. No target result is assumed as input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a stacking measurement, so most axioms are standard observational assumptions about unresolved sources, photometric redshifts, k-corrections and UV SFR calibration. The hand-set numbers are the spectral index, the -0.45 dex shift applied to the Murphy model, the chosen magnetic field strength, and the illustrative dust evolution. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Radio spectral index alpha = 0.7
    Assumed for scaling measured flux densities to 1.4 GHz and for k-corrections. Tests with alpha=0.6 or an evolving alpha=(0.7,0.6,0.5) leave the trends unchanged (Section 5.6).
  • Murphy (2009) qIR vertical offset = -0.45 dex
    Theoretical qIR(z) relations are shifted by -0.45 to match Algera et al. (2020) and Tabatabaei et al. (2025) at z<3. This is a hand-set normalization, not fitted to the high-z data.
  • Internal magnetic field strength B = 100 microGauss (curves at 50, 100, 200 microGauss shown)
    The Murphy model comparison uses B=100 microGauss as a better match; Tabatabaei et al. (2025) predicts about 147-189 microGauss at the sample redshifts, so B is not independently measured here.
  • Example dust attenuation evolution E(B-V) = 0.04, 0.02, 0.01 at z=3,4,5
    Constructed by hand in Section 5.2 to show that a decreasing dust attenuation with redshift could remove the observed qIR trend. It is an illustrative alternative, not the adopted explanation.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Stacked central pixel flux density equals total source flux density because the MIGHTEE beam (~5 arcsec) is much larger than LBG sizes (<1 arcsec).
    Used in Section 3.1 to estimate source flux densities; relies on LBGs being unresolved in the radio.
  • domain assumption Rest-frame 1.4 GHz luminosity is computed with a k-correction assuming alpha=0.7 and photometric redshifts from Adams et al. (2023).
    Section 3.1; luminosity distance and k-correction are standard, but correctness depends on photometric redshift quality.
  • domain assumption UV star formation rates are derived from uncorrected MUV using the Madau & Dickinson (2014) calibration and a Chabrier IMF.
    Section 3.2; the qIR estimates inherit this calibration and are explicitly lower limits because no dust correction is applied.
  • domain assumption Murphy (2009) correctly describes inverse Compton energy losses of cosmic ray electrons in the CMB as a function of redshift and magnetic field.
    The central interpretation compares the observed qIR slope to this external theoretical prediction; the model is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation does not evolve significantly over z=3-5, based on Cullen et al. (2018), Bouwens et al. (2014) and Bowler et al. (2024).
    Used in Section 5.2 to argue dust evolution is not responsible; if false, the IC interpretation is weakened.
  • domain assumption No significant size evolution of LBGs over z=3-5, based on Varadaraj et al. (2024).
    Section 5.4; invoked to rule out cosmic-ray diffusion as the cause of the observed trend.
  • domain assumption The IMF does not evolve to a top-heavy form over z=3-5, or if it does, the required evolution is fine-tuned.
    Section 5.5; a top-heavy IMF at z=4-5 could explain the observed decrease without IC scattering.
  • standard math Cosmological parameters H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.3 and Omega_Lambda=0.7 are used for distance and luminosity calculations.
    Stated at the end of Section 1; standard flat LCDM cosmology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for inverse Compton scattering in high-redshift Lyman-break galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6VTZVA2Y

@misc{pith2026250906677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for inverse Compton scattering in high-redshift Lyman-break galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6VTZVA2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06677}
}
abstract

Radio continuum emission provides a unique opportunity to study star-formation unbiased by dust obscuration. However, if radio observations are to be used to accurately trace star-formation to high redshifts, it is crucial that the physical processes which affect the radio emission from star-forming galaxies are well understood. While inverse Compton (IC) losses from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are negligible in the local universe, the rapid increase in the strength of the CMB energy density with redshift [$\sim (1+z)^4$] means that this effect becomes increasingly important at $z\gtrsim3$. Using a sample of ~200,000 high-redshift (3 < z < 5) Lyman-break galaxies selected in the rest-frame ultraviolet (UV), we have stacked radio observations from the MIGHTEE survey to estimate their 1.4-GHz flux densities. We find that for a given rest-frame UV magnitude, the 1.4-GHz flux density and luminosity decrease with redshift. We compare these results to the theoretical predicted effect of energy losses due to inverse Compton scattering off the CMB, and find that the observed decrease is consistent with this explanation. We discuss other possible causes for the observed decrease in radio flux density with redshift at a given UV magnitude, such as a top-heavy initial mass function at high redshift or an evolution of the dust properties, but suggest that inverse Compton scattering is the most compelling explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06677 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The redshift distribution of sources in the Adams et al. (2023) catalogue used in this work. The multi-wavelength data consist of 14 photometric bands cov￾ering 0.3 − 2.4 μm; optical data from the Canada–France–Hawaii￾Telescope Legacy Survey (Cuillandre et al. 2012, CFHTLS;), the VST Optical Imaging of the CDFS Field (VOICE; Vaccari et al. 2016), and the HyperSuprimeCam Strategic Survey Programme (HSC DR2; Aihara et… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of corrected pixel flux densities in each 𝑀uv bin (each pixel value is corrected for local background level and scaled to 1.4 GHz). The vertical dashed lines show the median flux density in each 𝑀uv bin, and the shaded coloured regions illustrate the uncertainties on these median flux densities, estimated by bootstrap re-sampling. The different panels show the three redshift bins. The 𝑀uv bins are the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Median 1.4-GHz stacked flux density, corrected for the background, in 𝑀uv bins. Bins which are dominated by AGN are marked by black circles. The three redshift bins are shown separately. Error bars plotted are the uncer￾tainty on the median estimated from bootstrap re-sampling. Points are plotted at the median 𝑀uv value in each bin. −26 −25 −24 −23 −22 −21 −20 MUV 1021 1022 1023 1024 Median 1.4 GHz luminosity / W Hz… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median 1.4-GHz radio luminosity in 𝑀uv bins for the three fields, with the three redshift bins shown separately. Bins which are dominated by AGN are marked by black circles. Error bars plotted are the uncertainties on the median estimated from bootstrap re-sampling. Po…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observed-frame 1.4-GHz flux densities as a function of redshift. The coloured points show the observed values from this work, for three UV SFR bins. These bins correspond the the following 𝑀uv ranges: −24 < 𝑀uv < −23 (blue), −23 < 𝑀uv < −22 (orange) and −22 < 𝑀uv < −21…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝑞IR as a function of redshift. The coloured points show the stacked results from this work, in the same 𝑀uv and redshift bins shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Investigating the potential effects of dust evolution on these results. Here we reproduce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Investigating the possible effects of an evolving IMF. Here we reproduce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A MIGHTEE robust measurement of the star formation rate-radio correlation

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The SFR–1.4 GHz radio correlation is log10(SFR) = 0.790(L′)+1.244(1+z)^0.122−0.033M′ with 0.178 dex scatter, showing significant redshift but weak mass dependence when AGN are treated probabilistically.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Bowler R

    Adams N. J., Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Varadaraj R. G., H \"a u ler B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..327A 523, 327

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1333 2023

  2. [2]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...4A 70, S4

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066

  3. [3]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...8A 70, S8

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081

  4. [4]

    Aihara H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71..114A 71, 114

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  5. [5]

    Algera H. S. B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb77b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..138A 903, 138

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb77b 2020

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lacey C

    Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G., Frenk C. S., Granato G. L., Silva L., Bressan A., Benson A. J., Cole S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08553.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1191B 356, 1191

    2005

  2. [10]

    F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..794B 586, 794

    Bell E. F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..794B 586, 794

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Smail I., Ivison R

    Blain A. W., Smail I., Ivison R. J., Kneib J. P., Frayer D. T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00134-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhR...369..111B 369, 111

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    Boquien M., Burgarella D., Roehlly Y., Buat V., Ciesla L., Corre D., Inoue A. K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..115B 793, 115

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..115B 793, 115

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Bowler R. A. A., Adams N. J., Jarvis M. J., H \"a u ler B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..662B 502, 662

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Bowler R. A. A., Cullen F., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Avison A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5088B 510, 5088

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Bowler R. A. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5808B 527, 5808

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    S., 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    Briggs D. S., 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 112.02

    1995

  10. [18]

    Buat V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A.141B 545, A141

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Burgarella D., Buat V., Iglesias-P \'a ramo J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360.1413B 360, 1413

    2005

  12. [20]

    Burgarella D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..70B 554, A70

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Katz H., Witten C., Saxena A., Laporte N., Bunker A

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Witten C., Saxena A., Laporte N., Bunker A. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..523C 534, 523

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..883C 689, 883

    Carilli C. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..883C 689, 883

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Narayanan D., Cooray A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhR...541...45C 541, 45

    Casey C. M., Narayanan D., Cooray A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhR...541...45C 541, 45

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6082C 523, 6082

    Cochrane R. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6082C 523, 6082

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..575C 30, 575

    Condon J. J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..575C 30, 575

    1992

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2012, in Peck A

    Cuillandre J.-C. J., et al., 2012, in Peck A. B., Seaman R. L., Comeron F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8448, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems IV. p. 84480M, @doi 10.1117/12.925584

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Cullen F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3218C 476, 3218

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    De Zotti G., Bonato M., Giulietti M., Massardi M., Negrello M., Algera H. S. B., Delhaize J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.272D 689, A272

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Delhaize J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A...4D 602, A4

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Delvecchio I., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.123D 647, A123

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..861D 466, 861

    Dunlop J. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..861D 466, 861

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal

    Dunlop J. S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1837

    2021

  27. [35]

    Franco M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A.152F 620, A152

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.1789G 465, 1789

    Geach J. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.1789G 465, 1789

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Sramek R

    Gehrz R. D., Sramek R. A., Weedman D. W., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...267..551G 267, 551

    1983 doi

  30. [38]

    Gim \'e nez-Arteaga C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc5ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948..126G 948, 126

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    G \"u rkan G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3010G 475, 3010

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2187H 536, 2187

    Hale C. L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2187H 536, 2187

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Johnson B

    Hao C.-N., Kennicutt R. C., Johnson B. D., Calzetti D., Dale D. A., Moustakas J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741..124H 741, 124

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    arXiv:2504.05244

    Harvey T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250405244H p. arXiv:2504.05244

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Haskell P., Das S., Smith D. J. B., Cochrane R. K., Hayward C. C., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530L...7H 530, L7

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Smith D

    Hayward C. C., Smith D. J. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1512H 446, 1512

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Heinis S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.1268H 437, 1268

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    Heywood I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2150H 509, 2150

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Heywood I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534...76H 534, 76

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..241H 394, 241

    Hughes D. H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..241H 394, 241

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    Inami H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.3126I 515, 3126

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1281J 428, 1281

    Jarvis M. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1281J 428, 1281

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Jarvis M., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 6 ( @eprint arXiv 1709.01901 ), @doi 10.22323/1.277.0006

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    Jonas J. L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    2009

  45. [53]

    Jonas J., MeerKAT Team 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 1, @doi 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Karim A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...61K 730, 61

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..531K 50, 531

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Lines N. E. P., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240910963L p. arXiv:2409.10963

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Jarvis M

    Malefahlo E. D., Jarvis M. J., Santos M. G., White S. V., Adams N. J., Bowler R. A. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4291M 509, 4291

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..194M 966, 194

    Matthews A. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..194M 966, 194

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..931M 375, 931

    Mauch T., Sadler E. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..931M 375, 931

    2007

  54. [62]

    J., Bonfield D

    McAlpine K., Jarvis M. J., Bonfield D. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1084M 436, 1084

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    McCracken H. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc1d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985..174M 985, 174

    Morales A. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc1d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985..174M 985, 174

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706..482M 706, 482

    Murphy E. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706..482M 706, 482

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    J., 2011, in Treyer M., Wyder T., Neill J., Seibert M., Lee J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Murphy E. J., 2011, in Treyer M., Wyder T., Neill J., Seibert M., Lee J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 440, UP2010: Have Observations Revealed a Variable Upper End of the Initial Mass Function?. p. 361 ( @eprint arXiv 1009.1666 ), @doi 10.485...

    2011 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    J., Helou G., Kenney J

    Murphy E. J., Helou G., Kenney J. D. P., Armus L., Braun R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678..828M 678, 828

    2008 doi

  60. [68]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67 , 737, 67

    Murphy E. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67 , 737, 67

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    Murphy E., et al., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 85 ( @eprint arXiv 1412.5677 ), @doi 10.22323/1.215.0085

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J., Momjian E., Condon J

    Murphy E. J., Momjian E., Condon J. J., Chary R.-R., Dickinson M., Inami H., Taylor A. R., Weiner B. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...35M 839, 35

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Novak M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A...5N 602, A5

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    Smartt S. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    2009 doi

  65. [73]

    Smith D. J. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A...6S 648, A6

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Smol c i \'c V., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..177...14S 177, 14

    2008 doi

  67. [75]

    Smol c i \'c V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A...6S 602, A6

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Tabatabaei F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ade233

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2511T 528, 2511

    Taylor A. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2511T 528, 2511

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Vaccari M., et al., 2016, in The 4th Annual Conference on High Energy Astrophysics in Southern Africa (HEASA 2016). p. 26 ( @eprint arXiv 1704.01495 ), @doi 10.22323/1.275.0026

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    G., Bowler R

    Varadaraj R. G., Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Adams N. J., H \"a u ler B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4586V 524, 4586

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3724V 533, 3724

    Varadaraj R. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3724V 533, 3724

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3231W 527, 3231

    Whittam I. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3231W 527, 3231

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    S., Reddy N

    Yun M. S., Reddy N. A., Condon J. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..803Y 554, 803

    2001 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Papadopoulos P

    Zhang Z.-Y., Romano D., Ivison R. J., Papadopoulos P. P., Matteucci F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0196-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.558..260Z 558, 260

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    Zwart J. T. L., Santos M., Jarvis M. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.1740Z 453, 1740

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    da Cunha E., Charlot S., Elbaz D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1595D 388, 1595

    2008

  78. [86]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.