Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

This paper claims that one ratio — log(SFR10/SFRavg) — carries enough information to recover the three star-formation-history archetypes of Lyman-alpha emitting galaxies, so that stellar mass assembly can be summarized without reconstructin

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 03:41 UTC pith:7U2O67LA

load-bearing objection Useful new diagnostic and a clean confirmation of the LAE archetype fractions, but the headline GMM recovery claim rests on a visual overlay and a constant mass-retention assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23062 v1 pith:7U2O67LA submitted 2026-07-25 astro-ph.GA

HETDEX: Star Formation Stochasticity Diagram of Lyman Alpha Emitting Galaxies at Cosmic Noon Confirms Three Archetypes

Nicole Firestone , Eric Gawiser , Kartheik G. Iyer , Charlotte Olsen , Antara Basu-Zych , Adam Broussard , Peter Kurczynski , Kyoung-Soo Lee
show 9 more authors
Erin Mentuch Cooper Robin Ciardullo Daniel J. Farrow Steven L. Finkelstein Caryl Gronwall Ho Seong Hwang Byeongha Moon Shun Saito Donald P. Schneider
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alpha galaxiesstar formation stochasticitystar formation historySFR-M* diagramGaussian mixture modelcosmic noonHETDEXstellar mass assembly
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 claims that one quantity — the ratio of a Lyman-alpha emitting galaxy's star formation rate over the last 10 million years to its average rate over cosmic time — is enough to summarize how the galaxy assembled its stars. The authors reconstruct flexible, non-parametric star formation histories for 270 HETDEX LAEs in the CANDELS/COSMOS field and confirm the same three archetypes previously found in ODIN LAEs: First Burst, Dominant Burst, and Nondominant Burst. They then show that an unsupervised Gaussian mixture model applied to the single ratio recovers those same three populations without ever seeing the full histories. The new Star Formation Stochasticity Diagram removes the redshift evolution that complicates the standard star formation rate–stellar mass diagram, and it reveals that rapidly rising First Burst galaxies are hidden by a 100-million-year averaging timescale. If correct, this gives observers a quick way to classify how distant galaxies are forming stars.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the empirical LAE SFH archetypes — First Burst, Dominant Burst, Nondominant Burst — are not just artifacts of detailed SFH fitting but appear as statistically preferred Gaussian components in the distribution of log(SFR10/SFRavg). The traditional SFR100–M* diagram averages the recent burst over 100 Myr and merges First Burst LAEs with ordinary galaxies; switching to a 10 Myr average separates them. Because the ratio normalizes out the redshift-dependent scaling of SFR with mass, the full HETDEX sample can be analyzed without binning, and the Gaussian mixture (selected by BIC) chooses three components for the burst-sensitive metric. The componen

What carries the argument

The central object is the Star Formation Stochasticity Diagram, plotting log(SFR/SFRavg) against redshift, where SFRavg = Mformed/tuniv = M*/(fret·tuniv) is the galaxy's average star formation rate since the Big Bang. The paper's 'burst-sensitive' version uses SFR10, the SFR averaged over the last 10 Myr, to catch young bursts that a 100 Myr average washes out. The accompanying Gaussian Mixture Model (a probabilistic model that decomposes a distribution into Gaussian subpopulations, with the number of components chosen by the Bayesian Information Criterion) is the mechanism that recovers the three archetypes from the ratio alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single mass-retention fraction (fret = 0.67) converts formed stellar mass to present stellar mass for every galaxy; because the paper itself notes that mass loss is age-dependent, any systematic variation in retention across the three archetypes would shift the stochasticity metric differentially and could make the three Gaussian components an artifact of that assumption.

What would settle it

Recompute log(SFR10/SFRavg) for the same 270 galaxies using per-galaxy mass-retention fractions derived from stellar-population models with age-dependent mass loss, then rerun the GMM on the new values; if the BIC no longer prefers three components, or the components no longer align with the archetypes assigned from full SFHs, the claim that the ratio alone recovers the archetypes fails.

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

If this is right

  • First Burst LAEs, which appear ordinary in SFR100–M* space, are revealed as genuine starbursts when the 10 Myr average is used.
  • The stochasticity diagram allows the LAE sample to be analyzed as a whole over Δz~1.6 without redshift binning.
  • A Gaussian mixture on log(SFR10/SFRavg) recovers the same three archetypes as full SFH reconstruction, so classification can be done from the ratio alone.
  • The archetype frequencies are consistent between the HETDEX sample (61/31/7%) and the earlier ODIN sample (67/28/5%), supporting a common population description.
  • Existing SFR–M* correlations can be converted into the new diagram via the relation log(SFR/SFRavg) = (β−1)log M* + α + log(fret·tuniv), placing generic galaxies and LAEs on a common scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If mass retention varies with stellar age, the single-fret assumption could shift the stochasticity metric differently for young and old archetypes, making the three Gaussian components partly a systematic effect rather than a purely physical separation.
  • The ratio could in principle be estimated from empirical tracers — e.g., an emission-line SFR for SFR10 and a mass-to-light or continuum measure for SFRavg — offering a faster way to classify large samples without full SED fitting.
  • The same diagram should apply to other emission-line-selected populations, such as [OII] or H-alpha emitters; if the three-component structure is universal, it would argue for a common stochasticity in gas accretion, not something peculiar to Lyα selection.
  • If the archetypes reflect genuinely different mass-assembly phases, the stochasticity diagram could be used to test galaxy formation simulations by comparing predicted distributions of log(SFR10/SFRavg) at fixed redshift.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 270 HETDEX-detected LAEs in the COSMOS field with CANDELS photometry, reconstructs star formation histories with the Dense Basis method, and classifies them into the three SFH archetypes from Firestone et al. (2025): First Burst, Dominant Burst, and Nondominant Burst. It introduces a 'Star Formation Stochasticity Diagram' based on log(SFR10/SFRavg) and log(SFR100/SFRavg), compares LAEs with a generic-galaxy correlation from Mérida et al. (2026), and applies a Gaussian Mixture Model to the stochasticity metric. The central claim is that a 3-component GMM on log(SFR10/SFRavg) recovers the three archetypes, so that the ratio summarizes stellar mass assembly without viewing full SFHs.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide a useful one-dimensional summary statistic for the diverse star-formation histories of LAEs and a diagnostic diagram that removes the redshift evolution of the SFR–M* relation. The analysis benefits from a spectroscopically selected sample, a non-parametric SFH reconstruction method, and a comparison catalog analyzed with consistent assumptions. The archetype fractions are consistent with the previous ODIN results, adding confidence to the empirical archetype framework. However, the headline claim rests on a purely visual comparison in Figure 4, and the archetype definitions already encode the same recent-versus-past SFR contrast that the stochasticity metric measures. The paper also leaves a normalization correction unspecified and adopts a single mass-retention fraction that it admits is age-dependent. These issues need to be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 / Fig. 4] The claim that a 3-component GMM on log(SFR10/SFRavg) 'recovers' the three SFH archetypes is supported only by a visual overlay of histograms in Figure 4. No classification accuracy, confusion matrix, mutual information, or null-model comparison is reported. Because the archetype definitions (§3.3) are thresholds on the contrast between star formation in the last 200 Myr and earlier star formation, and log(SFR10/SFRavg) is a smoothed version of that same contrast, a separation in this ratio is expected by construction. Please provide a quantitative assignment of GMM components to archetype labels (e.g., using posterior probabilities and a contingency table) and a test of whether the agreement exceeds a randomized labeling or a mass/redshift-matched null.
  2. [§4.1, §5.1–5.2] The comparison to the Mérida et al. (2026) correlation uses an unspecified 'simple correction to the correlation's normalization based on the behavior of a subset of our LAEs' (§4.1). The correction's functional form, sample size, and selection are not given. In addition, the conversion via Eq. (3) assumes a single mass-retention fraction fret=0.67, yet §5.1 states that mass losses exceed 30% and are 'heavily dependent on the age of a galaxy's stars.' If fret varies systematically across the archetypes, the metric is shifted differentially and the GMM components could be partly artifacts. Please specify the normalization correction, test sensitivity to fret, and consider an age-dependent or marginalised treatment.
  3. [Eq. (3) / §5.2] Equation (3) gives log(SFR100/SFRavg) = (β−1) log(M*) + α + log(fret t_univ). Thus the converted reference correlation remains a function of stellar mass unless β=1. The white horizontal reference line in Figure 3 cannot hold for all LAEs unless a representative M* is specified or the correlation is marginalised over the sample mass distribution. The claim that the stochasticity diagram removes redshift evolution and enables direct comparison requires explicit treatment of this mass dependence; otherwise the placement of the reference line is ambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §2.1] The abstract contains 'CANDELS\null', likely a LaTeX error. Also, 'better 98% accuracy' should read 'better than 98% accuracy'.
  2. [Figure 4] BIC values and the fitted GMM parameters (means, variances, weights) should be tabulated for both the burst-sensitive and generic metrics. The current presentation does not allow readers to assess the strength of the 3-component preference.
  3. [§5.2] For the generic metric, the BIC does not strongly prefer 3 components and the component count is fixed at 3 for comparison. This should be stated more prominently in the main text and abstract so that 'statistically motivated sub-populations' is not overclaimed.
  4. [§3.4] The archetype fractions (61%, 31%, 7%) are given without uncertainties. Bootstrap or posterior-sampling uncertainties would help assess the consistency with the ODIN fractions.
  5. [§4.1–4.2] SFR10 and SFR100 are used in §4.2 before being explicitly defined in the main text; a sentence in §4.1 or a footnote defining both timescales would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

GMM 'recovery' of LAE archetypes is an in-sample re-expression of the same SFH contrast, with the generic-metric component count forced to 3.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5.2 (Star Formation Stochasticity Results), Figure 4]
    "The Gaussian components clearly recover the empirical archetypes of Firestone et al. (2025). This recovery is clearest in the burst sensitive version, which is best suited for understanding star-bursting galaxies such as LAEs. The three LAE SFH archetypes are motivated and well-described by the log(SFR10/SFRavg) metric."

    The archetype labels (Section 3.3) are thresholds on the contrast between star formation in the last 200 Myr and earlier star formation. The stochasticity metric log(SFR10/SFRavg) is computed from the very same Dense Basis SFHs: SFR10 is the most recent 10 Myr bin and SFRavg is the lifetime mean of that SFH (Eq. 2). Hence the metric is a continuous, smoothed version of the recent-versus-past SFR contrast used to define the archetypes, so separation of the labeled groups in this metric is expected by construction. The GMM is unsupervised, but the input feature is not independent of the classification, and the paper reports only a visual overlay in Figure 4 with no classification accuracy, confusion matrix, or out-of-sample test. The 'recovery' is therefore an in-sample consistency check rat

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Figure 4 bottom row (generic metric)]
    "Since the generic metric does not show a strong preference between 2, 3, and 4 Gaussian components, we use 3 optimal components for direct comparison with the burst sensitive metric."

    For the generic metric log(SFR100/SFRavg), the BIC does not select three components; the authors choose three specifically because the burst-sensitive metric (and the prior archetype framework) has three groups. They then present the resulting three Gaussian components as 'recovering' the three archetypes. Setting the component count to match the number of archetypes, then citing that number as evidence for the archetypes, is circular for this panel. The burst-sensitive metric independently prefers three components, which mitigates the issue, but the paper's wording 'we use 3 optimal components for direct comparison' makes the generic-metric comparison a forced rather than agnostic result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a 3-component Gaussian mixture on log(SFR10/SFRavg) 'reveals three populations consistent with the empirical LAE SFH archetypes,' allowing stellar mass assembly to be summarized without viewing full SFHs. This is only partially circular: the GMM is unsupervised and applied to a new HETDEX sample, and the archetypes themselves come from prior work (Firestone et al. 2025) rather than being fit in this paper. However, the load-bearing 'confirmation' is weakened because both the archetype labels and the stochasticity metric derive from the same Dense Basis SFH reconstructions and encode the same recent-versus-past SFR contrast. The comparison in Figure 4 is visual only; no quantitative classification test connects the GMM components to the archetype labels, and no out-of-sample validation supports the practical claim that the ratio alone is sufficient. A secondary circular step is the forced choice of 3 components for the generic metric, where the BIC does not prefer 3 and the number is chosen to match the archetype count. Self-citations to Firestone et al. (2025) and Iyer et al. are not themselves treated as circular because they are prior methods and a prior classification scheme; the circularity lies in the in-sample reuse of the same SFH-derived information. Overall this is partial circularity, not a fully forced derivation, so a score of 5 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are dominated by hand-chosen timescales and thresholds and an unspecified normalization correction; the axioms are mostly standard SED-fitting assumptions, but the constant fret and the same-code comparison are the ones a critical reader should probe.

free parameters (6)
  • fret = 0.67 mass retention fraction = 0.67
    Average mass retention assumed for all galaxies when converting Mformed to M* and defining SFRavg (Eq. 2). Derived from the CANDELS generic population; applied uniformly despite age dependence.
  • SFR averaging timescale (10 Myr) = 10 Myr
    Chosen as 'burst-sensitive' window; motivated by O/B star lifetimes but not derived from data.
  • GMM component count for generic metric = 3
    BIC does not strongly prefer 3 for log(SFR100/SFRavg); fixed to 3 'for direct comparison' with the burst-sensitive metric.
  • Archetype boundaries (200 Myr, 1 Msun/yr) = 200 Myr; 1 Msun/yr
    Thresholds adopted from Firestone et al. 2025 to define First/Dominant/Nondominant Burst classes; chosen by hand, not fitted here.
  • Correlation normalization correction = unspecified
    A 'simple correction' to the Mérinda et al. (2026) normalization is applied based on a subset of LAEs similar to the main sequence; the correction's form and amplitude are not given (Section 4.1).
  • Redshift bin width = Δz ≈ 0.5
    Adopted for the SFR–M* analysis; binning choice affects the comparison to the correlation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Dense Basis SFH reconstructions recover true SFHs within 0.2 dex scatter to ~5 Gyr lookback.
    Relied on to treat reconstructed SFHs as ground truth for archetype classification and the SFR/SFRavg ratio (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Chabrier IMF, Calzetti dust law, FSPS/MILES+MIST isochrones are appropriate for LAEs.
    Adopted SED fitting priors (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Mérinda et al. (2026) SFR–M* correlations are applicable to LAEs after normalization correction.
    Used as the reference 'median' in the stochasticity diagram (Sections 4.1, 5.2).
  • domain assumption Constant fret=0.67 for all galaxies.
    Used in Eq. 2 and the conversion (Section 5.2).
  • standard math BIC is a valid model-selection criterion for GMM component count.
    Standard statistical model selection.
  • standard math Cosmology h=0.7, Ωm=0.27, ΩΛ=0.73.
    Assumed throughout the analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16769 in / 13510 out tokens · 124473 ms · 2026-08-01T03:41:15.444886+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we aim to measure the star formation stochasticity of Lyman Alpha Emitting Galaxies (LAEs) at Cosmic Noon. We identify 270 LAEs from the HETDEX Survey in the COSMOS field with rest-UV-through-NIR photometry from CANDELS\null. For each LAE, we perform non-parametric gaussian-process star formation history (SFH) reconstruction using the Dense Basis method. Our HETDEX LAE sample is described well by the three SFH archetypes defined for ODIN LAEs in Firestone et al. 2025 with comparable frequency: First Burst, Dominant Burst, and Nondominant Burst. The rapidly rising Star Formation Rates (SFRs) of First Burst LAEs are not adequately represented in traditional SFR$_{100}-M_*$ diagrams, where SFR$_{100}$ is averaged over the most recent 100Myr. This motivates the usage of SFR$_{10}-M_*$, where SFR$_{10}$ is averaged over the most recent 10Myr. We introduce the Star Formation Stochasticity Diagram, a diagnostic tool that probes variations in galaxies' SFRs across cosmic time. By eliminating the confounding factor of redshift evolution, we are able to employ a gaussian mixture model to decompose our ratio of short- vs.long-term SFR into statistically motivated sub-populations. This agnostic component decomposition reveals three populations consistent with the empirical LAE SFH archetypes. We can, therefore, summarize the overall stellar mass assembly of LAEs with this ratio, even without viewing their full star formation histories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23062 by Adam Broussard, Antara Basu-Zych, Byeongha Moon, Caryl Gronwall, Charlotte Olsen, Daniel J. Farrow, Donald P. Schneider, Eric Gawiser, Erin Mentuch Cooper, Ho Seong Hwang, Kartheik G. Iyer, Kyoung-Soo Lee, Nicole Firestone, Peter Kurczynski, Robin Ciardullo, Shun Saito, Steven L. Finkelstein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The top row of panels presents the traditional SFR − M∗ diagram while the bottom row displays a burst-sensitive version where the star formation rate is averaged over a shorter timescale. The x-axis represents the logarithm of the stellar mass in solar masses at the time of observation. The y-axis displays the logarithm of the star formation rate in solar masses per year averaged over the last 100 Myr (top… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The upper left panel is a schematic depiction of the familiar SFR-M∗ correlation found for star-forming galaxies at all redshifts. The upper middle panel illustrates that changing the x-axis to each galaxy’s average SFR since the Big Bang (SFRavg) will shift low-redshift galaxies to the left and high-redshift galaxies to the right due to the different amounts of time they have had to generate a given amoun… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Star Formation Stochasticity Diagrams. The x-axis represents the redshift (z) while the y-axis is the logarithmic ratio between the short-term and long-term average star formation rate. The top panel represents a burst-sensitive version of the diagram where the short term star formation rate is averaged over the last 10 Myr; the bottom panel displays a generic version of the diagram where the short term st… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaussian Mixture Model results for log(SFR10/SFRavg) (top row) and log(SFR100/SFRavg) (bottom row). The top left panel depicts the Bayesian Information Criterion for different numbers of Gaussian components, revealing that three components are preferred. The middle panels depict a histogram of all data in log(SFR/SFRavg ) (black) overlaid with the three Gaussian components (blue, pink, and purple, respecti… 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

63 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, ApJL, 751, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L26

    Acquaviva, V., Vargas, C., Gawiser, E., & Guaita, L. 2012, ApJL, 751, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/l26 2012

  2. [2]

    J., Blanc, G

    Adams, J. J., Blanc, G. A., Hill, G. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 192, 5

    2010

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80

    Ashby, M., Willner, S., Fazio, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/80 2013

  4. [4]

    A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833136 2018

  5. [5]

    D., et al

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    C., et al

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

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  7. [7]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 2019

  8. [8]

    2024, The star formation histories of Lyman-alpha emitters at z= 3 - 7

    Ceban, D. 2024, The star formation histories of Lyman-alpha emitters at z= 3 - 7

    2024

  9. [9]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  10. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  11. [11]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  12. [12]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 1 See http://www.tacc.utexas.edu for information about the Texas Advanced Computing Center

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  13. [13]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    doi:10.1086/521818 2007

  14. [14]

    M., et al

    Davis, D., Gebhardt, K., Cooper, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb0ca 2023

  15. [15]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 2007

  16. [16]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Finkelstein, K. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Tilvi, V., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/78 2015

  17. [17]

    L., Rhoads, J

    Finkelstein, S. L., Rhoads, J. E., Malhotra, S., & Grogin, N. 2009, ApJ, 691, 465, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/465

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/465 2009

  18. [18]

    M., Gawiser, E., Iyer, K

    Firestone, N. M., Gawiser, E., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 986, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbf8c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbf8c 2025

  19. [19]

    G., Herrera, D., et al

    Gawiser, E., Van Dokkum, P. G., Herrera, D., et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 1, doi: 10.1086/497644

    doi:10.1086/497644 2006

  20. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    doi:10.1086/522955 2007

  21. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    Gebhardt, K., Mentuch Cooper, E., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03 2021

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 683, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348011

    Goovaerts, I., Pello, R., Burgarella, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348011

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348011 2024

  23. [23]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  24. [24]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/114 13

    Guaita, L., Acquaviva, V., Padilla, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/114 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/114 2011

  25. [25]

    Gwyn, S. D. 2012, ApJ, 143, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/38 2012

  26. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/59

    Hagen, A., Ciardullo, R., Gronwall, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/59 2014

  27. [27]

    P., Cohen, S., Ryan Jr, R., et al

    Hathi, N. P., Cohen, S., Ryan Jr, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/88

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/88 2013

  28. [28]

    F., Jimenez, R., & Lahav, O

    Heavens, A. F., Jimenez, R., & Lahav, O. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03692.x

    arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02 2021

  30. [30]

    Hui, L., & Gnedin, N. Y. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 27, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9612232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9612232 1997

  31. [31]

    I., Rinaldi, P., et al

    Iani, E., Caputi, K. I., Rinaldi, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15f6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad15f6 2024

  32. [32]

    2017a, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 —

    Iyer, K., & Gawiser, E. 2017a, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 —. 2017b, ApJ, 838, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0

  33. [33]

    Iyer, K. G. 2019, PhD thesis, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, School of Graduate Studies

    2019

  34. [34]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 —. 2019b, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

  35. [35]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 Kennicutt Jr, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 0.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  36. [36]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb

    Kikuta, S., Ouchi, M., Shibuya, T., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Faber, S., Ferguson, H

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  38. [38]

    1998, A&A, 334, 11, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802253

    Kunth, D., Mas-Hesse, J., Terlevich, E., et al. 1998, A&A, 334, 11, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9802253 1998

  39. [39]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    Kusakabe, H., Shimasaku, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx148 2018

  40. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    Lee, K.-S., Gawiser, E., Park, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e 2024

  41. [41]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  42. [42]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  43. [43]

    2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al

    McCracken, H., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca962 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2026, ApJS, 284, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae6068 M´ erida, R. M., Sawicki, M., Iyer, K. G.,...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 2012

  44. [44]

    2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 11813, DOI, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    doi:10.5281/zenodo 2014

  45. [45]

    2007, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    Noeske, K., Weiner, B., Faber, S., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    doi:10.1086/517926 2007

  46. [46]

    Pacifici, C., Oh, S., Oh, K., Lee, J., & K. Yi, S. 2016, ApJ, 824, 45, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/45

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/1/45 2016

  47. [47]

    Reichardt, C., Jimenez, R., & Heavens, A. F. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 849, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04768.x

    arXiv 2001

  48. [48]

    2020, A&A, 633, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935782

    Rosani, G., Caminha, G., Caputi, K., & Deshmukh, S. 2020, A&A, 633, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935782

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935782 2020

  49. [49]

    B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al

    Sanders, D. B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86, doi: 10.1086/517885

    doi:10.1086/517885 2007

  50. [50]

    Scalo, J. M. 1986, Fundamentals of cosmic physics, 11, 1

    1986

  51. [51]

    J., Ferraro, S., Aldering, G., et al

    Schlegel, D. J., Ferraro, S., Aldering, G., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03585, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.03585 2022

  52. [52]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx091

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Shibuya, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx091

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx091 2017

  53. [53]

    A., Shapley, A

    Shivaei, I., Reddy, N. A., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/98 —. 2017, ApJ, 837, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa619c

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/98 2015

  54. [54]

    H., Conroy, C., et al

    Simha, V., Weinberg, D. H., Conroy, C., et al. 2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1404.0402

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1404.0402 2014

  55. [55]

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

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 2014

  56. [56]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 9, doi: 10.1086/516596

    Taniguchi, Y., Scoville, N., Murayama, T., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 9, doi: 10.1086/516596

    doi:10.1086/516596 2007

  57. [57]

    A., et al

    Taniguchi, Y., Kajisawa, M., Kobayashi, M. A., et al. 2015, PASJ, 67, 104, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv106

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psv106 2015

  58. [58]

    F., Jimenez, R., & Panter, B

    Tojeiro, R., Heavens, A. F., Jimenez, R., & Panter, B. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1252, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12323.x

    arXiv 2007

  59. [59]

    R., Quadri, R

    Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 118, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/118

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/118 2016

  60. [60]

    J., Bish, H., Acquaviva, V., et al

    Vargas, C. J., Bish, H., Acquaviva, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/26 2014

  61. [61]

    2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    Franx, M. 2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/l29 2012

  62. [62]

    E., Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/86 2011

  63. [63]

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

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/104 2014