Quenching of Galaxies at Cosmic Noon: Understanding the Effect of Environment

Akriti Singh; Ankit Kumar; Boris H\"aussler; Caryl Gronwall; Changbom Park; Eric Gawiser; Francisco Valdes; Ho Seong Hwang; Hyunmi Song; Julie Nantais

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Quenching of Galaxies at Cosmic Noon: Understanding the Effect of Environment

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that massive galaxies at z≈3.1 stop forming stars in a uniformly short time, 300–500 Myr, and that this happens independently of their environment, pointing to internal processes such as AGN feedback rather than…

desk verdict A careful null result on environment and quenching at z~3.1, undermined by unpropagated Tq uncertainties and small-sample fragility. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12722 v2 pith:G4EQZR5W submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.GA

Akriti Singh , Lucia Guaita , Pascale Hibon , Boris Häussler , Kyoung-Soo Lee , Vandana Ramakrishnan , Ankit Kumar , Nelson Padilla

show 11 more authors

Nicole M. Firestone Hyunmi Song Maria Celeste Artale Ho Seong Hwang Paulina Troncoso Iribarren Caryl Gronwall Eric Gawiser Julie Nantais Francisco Valdes Changbom Park Yujin Yang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxyquenchingmassivequiescentgalaxieshigh-redshiftcosmicnoonenvironmentaldensityVoronoitessellationSEDfittingAGNfeedback

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 sets out to determine whether the shutdown of star formation in massive galaxies at z≈3.1—an epoch about 2 billion years after the Big Bang—is imposed by the surrounding environment or by processes inside the galaxies themselves. Using 24 massive quiescent galaxies selected from the COSMOS2020 catalogue and two independent density tracers, it finds that quenching timescales are short and strikingly uniform, with 19 of 24 galaxies quenching in 300–500 Myr. It also finds no correlation between environmental density and quenching duration, quenched fraction, or quenching timing, and no preference for quiescent galaxies to sit in protoclusters or filaments compared with equally massive star-forming galaxies. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that internal mechanisms—AGN feedback, stellar feedback, virial shock heating, or morphological quenching—dominate over environmental mechanisms at cosmic noon, and that external gas removal is not required to explain the early quiescent population.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the quenching timescale $T_q = t_{\rm quench} - t_{\rm form}$, where $t_{\rm form}$ is the star-formation-weighted formation time and $t_{\rm quench}$ is the moment when $t\,{\rm SFR}(t)/M_{\rm formed}$ drops below 0.1, both extracted by fitting a double power-law star-formation history with the BAGPIPES SED-fitting code to 29-band photometry. This parameter does the work of linking photometry to mechanism, because the paper's simulations literature associates short timescales (≈0.1 Gyr) with stellar and AGN feedback and long timescales (≈1 Gyr) with merger-driven quenching. On the environment side, the machinery is a Voronoi Monte Carlo density map built independently from Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters and from photo-$z$-selected galaxies, with protocluster and filament catalogues taken from that LAE map, and Anderson–Darling tests used to compare quiescent and star-forming galaxy distributions.

What would settle it

Take spectra of the 24 MQGs to pin down redshifts and star-formation rates, then refit the star-formation histories with a non-parametric model: if the quenching timescales spread out or begin to correlate with local density, the uniformity claim collapses. A simpler check is to remove the four galaxies with unconstrained sSFR values (log sSFR ≈ −31 to −41) and see whether the environment correlations stay null; if those four are actually dusty star-forming galaxies, the sample may be too small to support the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at z≈3.1 massive quiescent galaxies are quenched rapidly and uniformly, and that this quenching is independent of environment. The 24 MQGs share a common star-formation history shape: an intense early starburst followed by a fast decline, with a median quenching timescale around 350 Myr and most galaxies in the 300–500 Myr range. Their quenched fraction is flat across local density, their neighbor counts match the general galaxy population, and their distances to protoclusters and filaments are statistically indistinguishable from those of massive star-forming galaxies. The paper concludes that environmental processes alone—mergers, interactions, ram-pressure stripping, strangulation—cannot account for quenching at this epoch, and that internal processes such as AGN feedback, stellar feedback, virial shock heating, or morphological quenching play the leading role.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the mathematical model used to fit the galaxies' light correctly measures when their star formation stopped, so the uniform 300–500 Myr quenching times are real; this is fragile because four of the 24 galaxies have essentially unconstrained star-formation rates in the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, theoretical models of galaxy formation at z≈3 must make internal feedback—AGN, stellar, or virial shock heating—the primary quenching channel for massive galaxies, rather than relying on environmental processes.
Surveys that search for high-redshift quiescent galaxies inside protoclusters will systematically miss most of the population, since the quiescent fraction is flat across density.
Simulations now have a quantitative target: reproduce a quenching timescale of 300–500 Myr that is independent of environment at cosmic noon.
The presence of quenched galaxies near gas-rich filaments, with no sign of rejuvenation, implies gas heating rather than gas exhaustion, and motivates searches for heated or ionized gas around these galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the tight clustering of $T_q$ could partly reflect the double power-law prior; a non-parametric star-formation history refit would reveal how much of the uniformity is imposed by the model.
Editorial inference: the two density tracers used here may miss bound group-scale environments at z≈3, so group-scale halo mass could still influence quenching even though large-scale density does not.
Editorial inference: if internal quenching dominates at z≈3.1, the same analysis at the other ODIN redshift slices (z≈2.4 and z≈4.5) should show the same environmental independence—a testable prediction of the paper's interpretation.
Editorial inference: dropping the four MQGs with unconstrained sSFR values and repeating the correlation analysis would show whether the null environmental result survives on the securely quiescent subsample.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the Singh et al. paper. The genuinely new thing is the environmental null result: 24 massive quiescent galaxies in COSMOS, with densities traced two independent ways (LAEs and photo-z galaxies), and no correlation between quenched fraction, quenching timescale, or SFR peak and local density. I don't think that explicit null is in the literature yet. That is worth having.

The paper is careful in the right places: they check FIR contamination, visually inspect SEDs, run Monte Carlo simulations to see how much correlation power a sample of 24 actually has, and use Anderson-Darling tests for protocluster and filament distances. They also admit that spectroscopic redshifts are needed. That honesty counts.

The soft spots are the usual ones for this kind of work, but they matter because the central claim leans on them. The 'uniformly short' quenching timescale is a BAGPIPES point estimate with no propagated uncertainties. Table A.1 shows four galaxies with log sSFR values like -41 ± 19, meaning the photometry does not pin down their recent star formation at all. The corner plots in Appendix C show broad posteriors for the falling slope and turnover time for several objects. If the Tq posterior widths are large, the 300–500 Myr clustering is partly a prior/model artifact. To their credit, they acknowledge model dependence in Section 3.1, but the abstract and conclusions do not carry that caveat. The conclusion that internal mechanisms dominate follows from the absence of an environmental correlation, which is an interpretation, not a detection. With 24 objects, a null result is weak, and the 2D projected densities are noisy. The Monte Carlo power tests help, but they only show you could detect a strong correlation, not that you are sensitive to a weak one.

There are small internal inconsistencies: the abstract and conclusions say ≤400 Myr while the text says 300–500 Myr for 19/24; the Spearman coefficient for quiescent fraction vs density is quoted as 0.55 in one place and as 0.43/−0.55 in the Figure 8 captions. These are fixable but should be fixed.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. It is a solid observational study with a new null result, but the strong claims about uniform quenching timescales and internal quenching dominance need tempering. The authors should release a catalog with Tq uncertainties, or at least the full posteriors. I'd send it to review expecting major revisions, not desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper identifies 24 massive quiescent galaxies (MQGs) at z ≈ 3.1 in the COSMOS field, using COSMOS2020 photometry and BAGPIPES SED fitting with a double power-law star-formation history. It constructs Voronoi-based density maps from two independent tracers (photo-z selected galaxies and ODIN Lyman-alpha emitters) and compares the MQGs' quenching timescales, quenched fractions, and distances to protoclusters and filaments with those of massive star-forming galaxies. The main claims are that quenching timescales are uniformly short (300–500 Myr for 19 of 24 objects) and independent of environment, implying that internal processes such as AGN feedback dominate over environmental quenching at this epoch.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides an observational constraint on quenching mechanisms at z ≈ 3.1, complementing simulation-based studies such as IllustrisTNG and Magneticum and extending the study of quiescent galaxies to the cosmic-noon epoch. The authors are careful in several respects: they check FIR/sub-mm non-detections, visually inspect SEDs, reject contaminants, use two independent density tracers, and run Monte Carlo simulations to assess the power of the Spearman correlation test. However, the central quantitative claim of uniformly short quenching timescales is presented without propagated uncertainties, and a few sample members appear not to satisfy the stated quiescence criterion, so the conclusion is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Eq. (5), Fig. 3] The central claim that 19 of 24 MQGs have uniformly short quenching timescales (300–500 Myr) is presented without any uncertainty on Tq. Tq is a deterministic function of the BAGPIPES parameters, but the paper quotes only point estimates. Appendix C shows broad or asymmetric posteriors for α, β, and τ for several objects (e.g., IDs 310229, 341682, 779869, 962569), and Table A.1 lists four galaxies with log sSFR uncertainties of ±19 to ±33 dex. The authors should compute the full posterior distribution of Tq for each galaxy and report 68% credible intervals. If those intervals are wide or overlap the 0.9 Gyr outlier, the uniformity claim, and hence the argument for a common internal quenching mechanism, is not supported.
[§2.5, Eq. (2), Table A.1] Three objects included in the MQG sample appear to violate the stated quiescence criterion (sSFR + σ_sSFR ≤ 0.2/t_age). For IDs 383298, 779869, and 961549, the quoted log sSFR + σ_sSFR values are approximately -9.90, -9.20, and -9.93, respectively, all above the -10.01 threshold. The authors should either correct the criterion, re-evaluate these objects, or explicitly justify their inclusion. The size and composition of the final sample is the basis for all subsequent environmental comparisons, so this inconsistency is load-bearing.
[§3.3, Fig. 8, Appendix A] The conclusion of no density dependence in the quenched fraction is stronger than the statistics support. The bootstrap Spearman coefficient for the COSMOS2020 map is 0.55 ± 0.4, and the LAE map gives -0.55 ± 0.23, which is not obviously 'no correlation'. The Monte Carlo simulations in Appendix A show that a weakly correlated input with ~25 galaxies yields a median coefficient near 0.6, so the test has limited power to distinguish a weak correlation from no correlation. A quantitative upper limit (for example, a confidence interval on the Spearman coefficient or a model comparison) should be reported before concluding that the environment is irrelevant to the quenched fraction.
[§3.2, Fig. 5] The Anderson-Darling test p-value of ~0.25 is used to conclude that MQGs and MSFGs have the same distribution with respect to protoclusters. With only 24 MQGs the test has limited power, and a non-significant p-value does not quantify the similarity of the two distributions. The authors should provide a power analysis or a confidence interval on the difference in median distance to protoclusters, parallel to the Monte Carlo exercise already performed for the Spearman test.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract and §5] The Abstract states quenching timescales of ≤400 Myr while the Results and Conclusions state <500 Myr and Fig. 3 shows a median of ~350 Myr; the numbers should be made consistent.
[§3.2 and §4] Section 3.2 says 6 of 24 MQGs (25%) are in protocluster candidates, while Section 4 says 20%; the correct fraction should be stated consistently.
[§3.5] The text says 9 of 24 MQGs are within 5 cMpc of a filament but later refers to 25% of MQGs; 9/24 is 37.5%, so one of these statements is incorrect.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption references 'Equation 3.1' for the quenching timescale definition, but the definition appears as Eq. (5); the cross-reference should be corrected.
[Eq. (2)] The expression '0.2yr/t_age' is garbled and the units are unclear; the threshold should be written with explicit units for t_age and the derivation of 10^-10.01 shown.
[Table A.1] No quenching timescale or its uncertainty is listed; adding a Tq column with credible intervals would make Fig. 3 reproducible and is directly relevant to the paper's main claim.
[§4] There is an unresolved citation '(Park et al. 2024; ?)' in the discussion of AGN outflows; the reference should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: environmental density analysis is self-contained; Tq uniformity is a model-based posterior inference, and self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central environmental comparison is not circular: the density field is constructed from LAEs (Ramakrishnan et al. 2023; Firestone et al. 2024) and from COSMOS2020 photo-z galaxies (Section 2), while MQGs are selected from COSMOS2020 photometry with BAGPIPES SED fits; no MQG property enters the density map construction, so the null correlations in Figures 6-8 are not forced by definition. The quenching timescale Tq is defined in Equation 5 as tquench - tform and is a derived parameter of the fitted double power-law SFH (Equation 1), not a parameter fitted to the environment; the model permits long Tq (one galaxy with about 0.9 Gyr), so the reported 300-500 Myr uniformity is a posterior inference, not a by-construction constant. The paper itself flags the model dependence in Section 3.1: 'The quenching timescale in our analysis is derived from SED fitting of photometric data using a double power-law star formation history model, which may introduce some uncertainty in its estimation.' This is a robustness limitation, as also shown by four MQGs in Table A.1 with essentially unconstrained sSFR (e.g., log sSFR = -41.3 +/- 19.4), meaning those individual Tq values are not securely pinned down; but unconstrained posteriors are a data-quality issue, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to Ramakrishnan et al. (2023) for the LAE map and protocluster detection thresholds and to Firestone et al. (2024) for LAE selection are data and method references from the same collaboration; they are externally testable (published map and validated contamination rate) and the conclusion does not hinge on those particular thresholds because the local-density correlations, neighbor counts, and filament-distance tests stand independently. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is imported, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no specific circular step can be exhibited; the score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the reliability of SED-based SFH reconstruction and on photometric environment tracers. The SED fitting introduces multiple fitted parameters (SFH slopes, turnover, mass, metallicity, dust) and an assumed SFH shape; the environment analysis assumes the VMC method, SExtractor structure detection, and LAE filament maps are valid. No new physical entities are introduced, and the relevant physical constants are standard.

free parameters (6)

Double-power-law falling slope alpha = Per-galaxy fitted values (range 0.01-1000; see Table A.1 and corner plots)
Fitted to COSMOS2020 photometry with BAGPIPES; directly sets the decline rate of the SFH and thus the derived quenching timescale.
Double-power-law rising slope beta = Per-galaxy fitted values (range 0.01-1000; see Table A.1 and corner plots)
Fitted to photometry; sets the early starburst rise in the assumed SFH.
Turnover time tau = Per-galaxy fitted values (range 0.1 Gyr to t_obs)
Fitted to photometry; controls the timing of the SFH peak and hence the duration of the starburst phase.
Total stellar mass formed = Per-galaxy fitted values (range log(M/Msun) ~ 1-13)
Fitted to photometry; the final stellar masses are used to define the massive galaxy sample and to normalize the sSFR.
Metallicity Z/Zsun = Per-galaxy fitted values (range 0.2-2.5)
Fitted to photometry as part of the BAGPIPES model; affects the SED shape and the derived stellar mass and age.
Dust attenuation parameters (AV, delta, B) = Per-galaxy fitted values: AV in 0-8 mag, delta in -0.3-0.3, B in 0-5
Fitted to photometry; dust attenuation can mimic age or quenching signatures, so it is a key nuisance in deriving sSFR and quenching timescales.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The double power-law SFH model accurately represents the star formation histories of high-redshift quenched galaxies.
Section 2.4; motivated by Carnall et al. (2018) simulation tests, but it is still an assumed parametric form that shapes the derived Tq.
domain assumption LePhare photometric redshifts in COSMOS2020 are accurate enough for the z~3.1 selection.
Section 2.3; outlier fraction ~4% for 22-25 mag galaxies, but only one MQG has a spectroscopic confirmation, so the MQG redshifts are not individually verified.
domain assumption Voronoi Monte Carlo density maps trace the true galaxy environment at z~3.1.
Section 2.6; the method is validated in the literature, but the maps are 2D projections of a 3D density field and rely on photometric redshifts for the COSMOS2020 map.
domain assumption The SExtractor criteria adopted from Ramakrishnan et al. (2023) identify protoclusters with only 20% contamination.
Section 3.2; these thresholds were tuned for the ODIN LAE map, and applying them to the photo-z map may not give the same contamination rate.
domain assumption The sSFR-based quiescence criterion (sSFR + sigma <= 0.2/t_age) separates quiescent from star-forming galaxies at z~3.1.
Section 2.5; the threshold is borrowed from low-redshift UVJ studies and has not been fully calibrated at z~3 with spectroscopy.
domain assumption LAE-selected filaments are gas-rich reservoirs, and projected distances to them are a meaningful environmental probe.
Section 3.5; relies on Ramakrishnan et al. (2023) filament maps and on the assumption that 2D proximity to a filament implies cold gas availability.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quenching of Galaxies at Cosmic Noon: Understanding the Effect of Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4EQZR5W

@misc{pith2026241112722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quenching of Galaxies at Cosmic Noon: Understanding the Effect of Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4EQZR5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12722}
}

abstract

The aim of this study is to identify quiescent galaxies in the 2-deg$^2$ COSMOS field at $z \sim 3.1$ and analyze their environment. Using data from the ODIN survey and COSMOS2020 catalog, we identify 24 massive quiescent galaxies (MQGs) with stellar masses $\geq 10^{10.6}$ and derive their star formation histories and quenching timescales using SED fitting with BAGPIPES. Voronoi-based density maps trace local and large-scale environments using Lyman-$\alpha$ Emitters and photometric galaxies. Results indicate uniformly short quenching timescales ($<$500 Myr) independent of environmental density, suggesting rapid internal mechanisms such as AGN feedback dominate over environmental factors. MQGs do not correlate with protoclusters or filaments, although some are near gas-rich filaments but show no rejuvenation. These findings suggest quenching at high redshift is driven primarily by internal processes rather than environmental interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12722 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Density map traced by the galaxies selected from the COSMOS2020 (Left) and the LAE (Right) catalogues, and obtained by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left: The quenching timescale of the MQGs (as defined in Equation 3.1) as a function of the stellar mass estimated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Yellow shaded regions represent structures identified by running Source Extractor in the COSMOS2020 (left) and in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: The cumulative distribution of the distances of MQGs, and massive star-forming galaxies to the photo-z protocluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Left: Quenching timescale as a function of density from the COSMOS2020 VMC map. Right: SFR at peak of star formation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Left: Quenching timescale as a function of density from the LAE density map. Right: SFR at the peak of star formation as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Evolution of the quenched fraction with the local density, log(1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Left: Filaments (yellow lines) discovered using DisPerSE by Ramakrishnan et al. (2023), overplotted on the LAE density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Ergodicity of FIRE: star formation variations within and between simulated galaxies
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

FIRE-2 galaxies show apparent ergodic convergence in star-forming-main-sequence deviations by the Thirumalai–Mountain metric, but block-scrambling reveals this is not true ergodicity.
Dust removal timescale in galaxies across cosmic time
astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The dust removal timescale in galaxies decreases from about 1.8 Gyr at z~0.05 to about 0.4 Gyr at z>3, indicating more efficient dust clearing in the early universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

2019, , 71, 114

Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, , 71, 114

2019
[2]

1999, , 310, 540

Arnouts, S., Cristiani, S., Moscardini, L., et al. 1999, , 310, 540

1999
[3]

2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

2016
[4]

& Arnouts , S

Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

1996
[5]

2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 30, 3

Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 30, 3

2022
[6]

& Gavazzi , G

Boselli , A. & Gavazzi , G. 2006, , 118, 517

2006
[7]

2012, , 427, 127

Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

2012
[8]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000

2003

Show all 107 references

[9]

2023, , 678, A15

Calvi, R., Castignani, G., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, , 678, A15

2023
[10]

C., et al

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682

2000
[11]

2023, , 520, 3974

Carnall, A., McLeod, D., McLure, R., et al. 2023, , 520, 3974

2023
[12]

C., McLure, R

Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, , 480, 4379–4401

2018
[13]

Casey, C. M. 2016, , 824, 36

2016
[14]

& Klypin, A

Ceverino, D. & Klypin, A. 2009, , 695, 292

2009
[15]

& Charlot, S

Chevallard, J. & Charlot, S. 2016, , 462, 1415

2016
[16]

2013, , 779, 127

Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, , 779, 127

2013
[17]

2014, , 562, A21

Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, , 562, A21

2014
[18]

2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 10

Combes, F. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 10

2017
[19]

Cowie, L. L. & Songaila, A. 1977, , 266, 501

1977
[20]

J., Springel, V., White, S

Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D., et al. 2006, , 365, 11

2006
[21]

2018, , 619, A49

Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, , 619, A49

2018
[22]

Dav \'e , R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P. F. 2016, , 462, 3265

2016
[23]

2012, , 420, 2221

DeBuhr, J., Quataert, E., & Ma, C.-P. 2012, , 420, 2221

2012
[24]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.06317

D'Eugenio , F., Perez-Gonzalez , P., Maiolino , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.06317

2023 arXiv
[25]

1980, , 236, 351

Dressler , A. 1980, , 236, 351

1980
[26]

S., Bowler, R

Dunlop, J. S., Bowler, R. A., Franx, M., et al. 2023, A Decade of ESO Wide-field Imaging Surveys (surveys2023, 10

2023
[27]

2020, , 892, L2

D’Eugenio, C., Daddi, E., Gobat, R., et al. 2020, , 892, L2

2020
[28]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, , 50, 455

2012
[29]

2011, , 532, A95

Falc \'o n-Barroso, J., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, , 532, A95

2011
[30]

M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al

Firestone, N. M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al. 2024, , 974, 217

2024
[31]

2020, , 890, L1

Forrest, B., Annunziatella, M., Wilson, G., et al. 2020, , 890, L1

2020
[32]

C., Shah, E., et al

Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E., et al. 2023, , 526, L56

2023
[33]

2007, , 671, 278

Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, , 671, 278

2007
[34]

1986, , 303, 336

Gehrels , N. 1986, , 303, 336

1986
[35]

2019, , 632, A80

Girelli , G., Bolzonella , M., & Cimatti , A. 2019, , 632, A80

2019
[36]

2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 3

Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Marchesini, D., Kacprzak, G., & Jacobs, C. 2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 3

2022
[37]

2024, in Early Disk-Galaxy Formation from JWST to the Milky Way, ed

Glazebrook , K., Nanayakkara , T., Marchesini , D., Kacprzak , G., & Jacobs , C. 2024, in Early Disk-Galaxy Formation from JWST to the Milky Way, ed. F. Tabatabaei , B. Barbuy , & Y.-S. Ting , Vol. 377, 3--8

2024
[38]

2017, , 544, 71

Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2017, , 544, 71

2017
[39]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott III, J. R. 1972, , 176, 1

1972
[40]

A., Bonoli , S., Baugh , C

Gurung-L \'o pez , S., Orsi , \'A . A., Bonoli , S., Baugh , C. M., & Lacey , C. G. 2019, , 486, 1882

2019
[41]

A., Bonoli , S., et al

Gurung-L \'o pez , S., Orsi , \'A . A., Bonoli , S., et al. 2020, , 491, 3266

2020
[42]

I., Nelson, E

Hartley, A. I., Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., et al. 2023, , 522, 3138

2023
[43]

2017, , 472, 2468

Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2017, , 472, 2468

2017
[44]

Hu, E. M. & McMahon, R. G. 1996, , 382, 231

1996
[45]

2020, , 491, 5524

Hung, D., Lemaux, B., Gal, R., et al. 2020, , 491, 5524

2020
[46]

2022, , 929, 53

Ito , K., Tanaka , M., Miyaji , T., et al. 2022, , 929, 53

2022
[47]

2023, , 945, L9

Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, , 945, L9

2023
[48]

2023, , 945, L9

Ito , K., Tanaka , M., Valentino , F., et al. 2023, , 945, L9

2023
[49]

2018, , 864, 56

Jin, S., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2018, , 864, 56

2018
[50]

B., Magdis, G

Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, , 683, L4

2024
[51]

Kalita , B. et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L17

2021
[52]

C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al

Kimmig, L. C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al. 2025, , 979, 15

2025
[53]

S., Rhoads, J

Kova c , K., Somerville, R. S., Rhoads, J. E., Malhotra, S., & Wang, J. 2007, , 668, 15

2007
[54]

2022, , 935, 89

Kubo , M., Umehata , H., Matsuda , Y., et al. 2022, , 935, 89

2022
[55]

2024, , 534, 3974

Kurinchi-Vendhan, S., Farcy, M., Hirschmann, M., & Valentino, F. 2024, , 534, 3974

2024
[56]

Larson, R. B. 1990, , 102, 709

1990
[57]

2013, , 559, A14

Le F \`e vre, O., Cassata, P., Cucciati, O., et al. 2013, , 559, A14

2013
[58]

2024, , 962, 36

Lee , K.-S., Gawiser , E., Park , C., et al. 2024, , 962, 36

2024
[59]

C., Johnson, B

Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, , 876, 3

2019
[60]

2014, , 572, A41

Lemaux, B., Cucciati, O., Tasca, L., et al. 2014, , 572, A41

2014
[61]

C., Le F \`e vre, O., Cucciati, O., et al

Lemaux, B. C., Le F \`e vre, O., Cucciati, O., et al. 2018, , 615, A77

2018
[62]

2019, , 244, 40

Liu, D., Lang, P., Magnelli, B., et al. 2019, , 244, 40

2019
[63]

& Belli, S

Man, A. & Belli, S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 695

2018
[64]

M., et al

Mao, Z., Kodama, T., P \'e rez-Mart \' nez, J. M., et al. 2022, , 666, A141

2022
[65]

2017, , 835, 77

Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, , 835, 77

2017
[66]

C., et al

Martizzi, D., Vogelsberger, M., Artale, M. C., et al. 2019, , 486, 3766

2019
[67]

2012, , 544, A156

McCracken, H., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, , 544, A156

2012
[68]

2019, , 490, 3309

Merlin, E., Fortuni, F., Torelli, M., et al. 2019, , 490, 3309

2019
[69]

1996, , 379, 613

Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, , 379, 613

1996
[70]

2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724

Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724

2024
[71]

2025, , 981, 78

Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., et al. 2025, , 981, 78

2025
[72]

2020, , 58, 617

Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, , 58, 617

2020
[73]

2003, , 582, 60

Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H., et al. 2003, , 582, 60

2003
[74]

Overzier, R. A. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 24, 14

2016
[75]

Pacifici, C., Oh, S., Oh, K., Lee, J., & Sukyoung, K. Y. 2016, , 824, 45

2016
[76]

& Hwang , H

Park , C. & Hwang , H. S. 2009, , 699, 1595

2009
[77]

2024, , 976, 72

Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2024, , 976, 72

2024
[78]

Peng, Y. et al. 2010, , 721, 193

2010
[79]

H., et al

Ramakrishnan, V., Moon, B., Im, S. H., et al. 2023, , 951, 119

2023
[80]

2019, , 490, 2139

Rodr \' guez Montero, F., Dav \'e , R., Wild, V., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar, D., & Narayanan, D. 2019, , 490, 2139

2019
[81]

& Narayanan, D

Salim, S. & Narayanan, D. 2020, , 58, 529

2020
[82]

2006, , 371, 703

Sanchez-Blazquez, P., Peletier, R., Jimenez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, , 371, 703

2006
[83]

2019, , 489, 5202

Sawicki , M., Arnouts , S., Huang , J., et al. 2019, , 489, 5202

2019
[84]

2018, , 618, A85

Schreiber, C., Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2018, , 618, A85

2018
[85]

2007, , 172, 1

Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, , 172, 1

2007
[86]

A., Lemaux, B., Forrest, B., et al

Shah, E. A., Lemaux, B., Forrest, B., et al. 2024, , stae519

2024
[87]

2019, , 879, 9

Shi, K., Huang, Y., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2019, , 879, 9

2019
[88]

2020, , 899, 79

Shi, K., Toshikawa, J., Cai, Z., Lee, K.-S., & Fang, T. 2020, , 899, 79

2020
[89]

2017, : Letters, 468, L21

Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Hayashi, M., et al. 2017, : Letters, 468, L21

2017
[90]

2011, , 414, 350

Sousbie, T. 2011, , 414, 350

2011
[91]

R., Straatman, C

Spitler, L. R., Straatman, C. M., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2014, , 787, L36

2014
[92]

2016, , 591, A51

Steinhauser, D., Schindler, S., & Springel, V. 2016, , 591, A51

2016
[93]

M., Labb \'e , I., Spitler, L

Straatman, C. M., Labb \'e , I., Spitler, L. R., et al. 2014, , 783, L14

2014
[94]

Tacchella , S. et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 170

2022
[95]

2024, , 970, 59

Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., Shimakawa, R., et al. 2024, , 970, 59

2024
[96]

2020, , 889, 93

Valentino, F., Tanaka, M., Davidzon, I., et al. 2020, , 889, 93

2020
[97]

Walters, D., Woo, J., & Ellison, S. L. 2022, , 511, 6126

2022
[98]

2023, , 677, A184

Weaver, J., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, , 677, A184

2023
[99]

R., Kauffmann , O., Shuntov , M., et al

Weaver , J. R., Kauffmann , O., Shuntov , M., et al. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 53, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 215.06

2021
[100]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & Van Den Bosch, F. C. 2013, , 432, 336

2013
[101]

E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P

Whitaker, K. E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2012, , 745, 179

2012
[102]

2016, , 463, 832

Wild, V., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., et al. 2016, , 463, 832

2016
[103]

J., Quadri , R

Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879

2009
[104]

J., Lagos, C

Wright, R. J., Lagos, C. d. P., Davies, L. J., et al. 2019, , 487, 3740

2019
[105]

2020, , 499, 768

Zinger, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, , 499, 768

2020
[106]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...
[107]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2019, , 71, 114

Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, , 71, 114

2019

[2] [2]

1999, , 310, 540

Arnouts, S., Cristiani, S., Moscardini, L., et al. 1999, , 310, 540

1999

[3] [3]

2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

2016

[4] [4]

& Arnouts , S

Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

1996

[5] [5]

2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 30, 3

Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 30, 3

2022

[6] [6]

& Gavazzi , G

Boselli , A. & Gavazzi , G. 2006, , 118, 517

2006

[7] [7]

2012, , 427, 127

Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

2012

[8] [8]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000

2003