Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Bursty star formation prevents large dust reservoirs from lasting long in early galaxies.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 06:25 UTC pith:K64V5BKH

load-bearing objection Solid dust analysis of Thesan-Zoom that cleanly shows, inside this model, bursty SF cannot keep large dust reservoirs; the UVLF implication is real but rests on missing dense-clump shielding. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08824 v1 pith:K64V5BKH submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.GA

The Thesan-Zoom project: bursty star formation is incompatible with prolonged dust survival

Enrico Garaldi , Filip Popovic , Rahul Kannan , Aaron Smith , Ewald Puchwein , Naoki Yoshida , Kentaro Nagamine , Celine Peroux
show 6 more authors
Laura Keating Mark Vogelsberger William McClymont Xuejian Shen Sandro Tacchella Lars Hernquist
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic dustbursty star formationhigh-redshift galaxiesdust survivalUV attenuationthesan-zoomISM feedbackdust temperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that, in a self-consistent radiation-hydrodynamical model of early galaxies, short intense star-formation bursts repeatedly destroy and eject dust so thoroughly that large dust reservoirs cannot persist for most of cosmic time. The simulated systems match several observed dust-to-gas and dust-to-metal trends and produce realistic dust temperatures and UV–IR spatial offsets during brief IR-bright windows, yet they under-produce UV attenuation and dust mass at high specific star-formation rates. The central claim is therefore that burstiness and prolonged dust survival are incompatible inside this framework. That incompatibility matters because bursty star formation is frequently invoked to explain the excess of UV-bright galaxies seen at redshift greater than or equal to 10: if the same burstiness also erases dust, the bursts must settle by redshift approximately 8, where substantial dust is already observed, or else missing physics must protect dust from feedback.

Core claim

In the thesan-zoom model, bursty star formation prevents large dust reservoirs (M_dust/M_star greater than or equal to 10^{-3}) from surviving over a significant fraction of cosmic time; short-lived IR-bright phases (median duration roughly 20 Myr) alternate with longer dust-poor phases, so that observed dust properties and the high-redshift UV luminosity function can be reconciled only if burstiness declines rapidly by z approximately 8 or if additional shielding physics is present.

What carries the argument

The coupled on-the-fly dust model (formation via stellar yields, metallicity-dependent accretion, thermal and supernova sputtering) fully linked to multi-phase ISM and SMUGGLE stellar feedback; the machinery shows that feedback co-spatial with newly formed dust preferentially destroys and ejects it after each burst.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the adopted sub-grid dust physics and feedback scheme correctly capture how dust survives, even though unresolved dense clumps that could shield dust are missing.

What would settle it

Deep continuum or absorption measurements showing large dust reservoirs (M_dust/M_star greater than or equal to 10^{-3}) coexisting with high specific star-formation rates in a statistical sample of z greater than or equal to 10 UV-bright galaxies would falsify the claimed incompatibility.

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

If this is right

  • Bursty star formation can explain the z greater than or equal to 10 UV-bright excess only if it rapidly settles by z approximately 8, where large dust reservoirs are already detected.
  • Observed IR-bright high-redshift galaxies are short-lived post-burst phases lasting only tens of Myr and are therefore biased relative to the bulk population.
  • Dust-poor post-starburst phases should preferentially allow high escape fractions of ionizing photons.
  • A mechanism that shields dust from strong feedback is required if the same galaxy-formation model is to match the higher observed UV attenuation at lower redshifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If unresolved cold clumps systematically protect dust, models that currently under-produce attenuation may still be viable once resolution or sub-grid shielding improves.
  • A statistical sample of dust masses in UV-selected z greater than 10 galaxies would cleanly discriminate between pure burstiness and models that retain dust while still producing UV variability.
  • The same cycle that erases dust after each burst may also explain why some high-redshift samples appear split into dust-rich and dust-poor populations without requiring two distinct formation channels.

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 analyses cosmic dust in the Thesan-Zoom radiation-hydrodynamical zoom-in suite, which couples an on-the-fly dust model (adapted from McKinnon et al. 2016, 2017) to multi-phase ISM physics, SMUGGLE feedback and radiative transfer at z ≥ 3. Simulated galaxies reproduce observed DGR and DMR trends with metallicity and broadly match dust temperatures and UV–IR offsets, but show a dust deficit at high sSFR and systematically low A1500 even after TODDLERS post-processing of unresolved birth-cloud dust. The central claim is that the emergent bursty star-formation cycle (illustrated in Sec. 5.1 and Fig. 15) produces short-lived IR-bright phases (median ~20 Myr) and longer dust-poor phases, so that large reservoirs (M_dust/M_star ≳ 10^{-3}) cannot survive for a significant fraction of cosmic time; therefore bursty SF can explain the z ≳ 10 UVLF excess only if it settles by z ~ 8, or the model is missing shielding physics.

Significance. If the result holds, it supplies a concrete, falsifiable constraint linking two major high-z puzzles: the JWST UVLF excess and the presence of substantial dust reservoirs by z ~ 8. The work is valuable because it is one of the few suites that self-consistently couples live dust, multi-phase ISM and radiation, produces quantitative predictions (IR-phase duty cycle, T_dust–ΔMS correlation, UV–IR offsets) that can be tested with ALMA/NOEMA and JWST, and explicitly flags the model limitations that would reverse the conclusion. The forward-modelling of UV–IR offsets and dust surface-density distributions, and the transparent comparison to multiple observational samples and other simulations, are clear strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. 5.1 and Fig. 15 establish the co-spatial growth–destruction cycle that underpins the incompatibility claim, yet Sec. 2.2, Sec. 5.4 and Appendix B acknowledge that unresolved cold dense clumps (n ≳ 10 cm^{-3}, T ≲ 100 K) capable of shielding dust from the SMUGGLE injection kernel are missing. Because the paper itself identifies this as the softest link, the central statement that bursty SF is incompatible with prolonged survival of M_dust/M_star ≳ 10^{-3} should be explicitly conditioned on the absence of such shielding, and a quantitative estimate (or at least a clear statement of the required change in destruction efficiency or recovery timescale) should be added so that the UVLF implication remains falsifiable rather than model-contingent.
  2. Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 14 show that A1500 remains low compared with observations even after TODDLERS birth-cloud dust is included. The abstract and Sec. 5 correctly note that a shielding mechanism is therefore required, but the paper does not quantify how much additional shielded dust (or what change in feedback topology) would be needed to reach the observed A1500 while preserving the bursty UVLF success at z ≳ 10. Without that estimate the claim that the model is already close enough for the duty-cycle argument to be robust is under-supported.
  3. The single effective grain size a_eff = 0.1 μm and the restriction of accretion to star-forming gas (Eq. 1 and Sec. 2.2) lock dust production to the same dense gas that later hosts feedback. Sec. 5.4 mentions grain-size evolution only in passing. A short test or literature-based estimate of how a multi-bin size distribution (or accretion outside star-forming gas) would alter the post-burst recovery timescale would strengthen the claim that the incompatibility is robust to dust-physics uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2 caption and text: the vertical stripes of constant M_star are attributed to rapid dust growth; a brief note that they could also reflect temporary dust ejection followed by re-accretion would avoid over-interpretation.
  2. Sec. 3.6: the statement that dust temperatures >100 K 'should be easily observable but have not been detected' needs a short caveat on the limited volume and mass range of the zoom sample.
  3. Eq. (1): the ad-hoc assignment of T = 10^4 K to star-forming gas for the accretion timescale is tested in Appendix B, but the main text should flag this assumption more prominently when the growth rate is first introduced.
  4. Fig. 12: the assumed Gaussian PSF with σ = 0.5 pkpc is reasonable for a population comparison, but a sentence noting the range of actual ALMA beams in the REBELS/ALPINE samples would help readers judge the comparison.
  5. Throughout: a few typographical inconsistencies remain (e.g., 'thesan-zoom' capitalisation, occasional missing spaces around Å). A light copy-edit pass would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the incompatibility claim is an emergent simulation outcome compared to external data, not a definitional or fitted reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that bursty star formation prevents prolonged survival of large dust reservoirs (M_dust/M_star ≳ 10^{-3})—is obtained by running thesan-zoom (SMUGGLE feedback + McKinnon-style dust) and inspecting the resulting time series (Fig. 15, Sec. 5.1). Dust growth, sputtering, and ejection are computed from the stated sub-grid equations (Eqs. 1–3); burstiness is an emergent property already documented in companion papers, not redefined here to force the dust result. Scaling relations and attenuation are then compared to independent ALMA/JWST/DLA observations. The dust model is taken from McKinnon et al. (2016, 2017) with modest updates (metallicity dependence, T_gas threshold); those citations are external and do not encode the high-z UVLF implication. No equation equates a fitted parameter to a claimed prediction by construction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives. The softest link is physical (missing dense-clump shielding, single grain size), which is a model-limitation issue, not circularity. Score 1 for ordinary self-citation of the simulation suite and dust module; the derivation chain itself is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the McKinnon-style dust sub-grid model (single grain size, accretion only in star-forming gas, SN + thermal sputtering) coupled to SMUGGLE feedback that produces the bursty SFHs. Free parameters are those inherited or lightly retuned from the original dust model; no new particles or forces are invented. Domain assumptions about multi-phase ISM resolution and CMB optical thinness are stated.

free parameters (4)
  • a_eff (effective grain size) = 0.1 μm
    Fixed at 0.1 μm; controls accretion and sputtering timescales (Eq. 1–3). Chosen as representative of AGB/SN grains; total dust mass only weakly sensitive per McKinnon et al. Appendix B.
  • τ_growth normalisation and Z dependence = 3 Gyr (at n=100 cm^{-3}, T=20 K, Z=Z_⊙)
    3 Gyr base timescale with extra Z_⊙/Z_gas factor (Eq. 1); metallicity dependence newly added relative to original McKinnon model.
  • T_gas,thr for accretion = 300 K
    New 300 K temperature ceiling for growth; ad-hoc addition to suppress accretion at high relative velocities.
  • SN grain destruction efficiency ε
    Inherited from McKinnon et al.; multiplies local SN rate in sputtering timescale.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Dust is a passive scalar advected with gas (no dust–gas drag).
    Sec. 2.2; standard approximation at the densities resolved here.
  • ad hoc to paper Star-forming gas is assigned fixed T=10^4 K only for the accretion timescale calculation.
    Sec. 2.2; formally inconsistent with the 300 K threshold but shown in Appendix B to have negligible effect.
  • domain assumption CMB is optically thin to the relevant photons, so dust cannot cool below T_CMB.
    Sec. 2.2; authors note possible breakdown only in extreme n≳10^6 cm^{-3}, Z≳Z_⊙ regions.
  • domain assumption SMUGGLE stellar feedback produces realistic bursty SFHs that match the z≳10 UVLF.
    Sec. 2.1 and McClymont et al. 2025a; load-bearing for the incompatibility claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 50104 in / 2900 out tokens · 25882 ms · 2026-07-13T06:25:02.633862+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmic dust is a key regulator of galaxy evolution, but its build-up and survival in the first billion years remain poorly constrained. We present a systematic analysis of dust in the thesan-zoom suite of radiation-hydrodynamical zoom-in simulations, which self-consistently model dust formation, growth, destruction, and its coupling to radiative transfer in galaxies at $z \geq 3$, a multi-phase ISM and bursty star formation histories. The simulated galaxies reproduce the observed trends of dust-to-gas and dust-to-metal ratios with gas metallicity, while showing a dust deficit at high specific star-formation rates. They also broadly match observed dust temperatures and UV-IR spatial offsets. We find that dust and its properties are strongly time-variable and tightly linked to bursty star formation, with short-lived IR-bright phases (median duration of $20.3^{+2.3}_{-2.4}$ Myr) and longer dust-poor phases, naturally producing a correlation between dust temperature and distance from the star-forming main sequence. The predicted attenuation at $1500$ \r{A} is low compared to observations, even when including unresolved dust through post processing, indicating that a mechanism able to shield dust from strong feedback events is necessary to reconcile our galaxy formation model with observations. In our model, bursty star formation prevents the survival of large dust reservoirs ($M_{dust} / M_{star} \geq 10^{-3}$) over a significant fraction of cosmic time. This implies that bursty star formation can produce the observed overabundance of UV-bright galaxies at $z \geq 10$ only if it rapidly settles down by $z \sim 8$ (where large dust reservoirs are detected). It is also possible that our models lack physical ingredients or emergent phenomena that aid the survival of dust. Future observations of high-redshift dust will be key to diagnose the physical mechanism at play in the first galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08824 by Aaron Smith, Celine Peroux, Enrico Garaldi, Ewald Puchwein, Filip Popovic, Kentaro Nagamine, Lars Hernquist, Laura Keating, Mark Vogelsberger, Naoki Yoshida, Rahul Kannan, Sandro Tacchella, William McClymont, Xuejian Shen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Overview of dust-related properties in two thesan-zoom galaxies. The vertical sequences on the left and right of the plot show the evolution of the projected stellar mass content in the m11.9 (left) and m12.6 (right) haloes. The size of the panel is set to 140 comoving kpc/ℎ. In the middle part of the Figure, we show two sets of plots (the halo depicted and the redshift are reported in the top left corne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Dust-to-stellar mass relation for thesan-zoom galaxies. Each row shows a different redshift range. Panels on the right side show zoom-ins of the high Mstar end, with the vertical axis normalized by Mstar for visual clarity. Different colored symbols represent different targets and resolution levels. The gray background histogram shows simulated all-HR. Dark grey symbols report individual observations fro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Dust mass function estimated from thesan-zoom (see text for details on how it is computed) over the redshift range 3 ≤ 𝑧 ≤ 15 (colored solid lines), compared to models from Popping et al. (2017, dotted orange line), Lewis et al. (2023, long-dashed green line), Graziani et al. (2020, dot￾dashed blue line), Trayford et al. (2026, double-dashed-dotted yellow line), Jones et al. (2024, triple-dot-dashed pink… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Dust-to-gas mass ratio (DGR) as a function of gas-phase metallicity for thesan-zoom galaxies. Each panel shows a different redshift range. Different colors represent different targets while symbols reflect their resolution level. The gray background histogram shows non-target simulated galaxies. The thick purple contour shows the central 68% of the data from the original thesan simulation. Black symbols … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Dust-to-metal ratio (DMR) as function of gas-phase metallicity (𝑍gas) for thesan-zoom galaxies. The DMR is normalized by the Milky Way value (DMRMW = 0.44). Each panel shows a different redshift range. Colors represent different targets while symbols reflect their resolution level. The gray background histogram shows non-target simulated galaxies. The thick purple contour shows the central 68% of the dat… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Dust temperature evolution in thesan-zoom. Target galaxies are shown using colored lines, while other high-resolution galaxies identi￾fied at 𝑧 = 3 are shown in grey. The red histogram shows the average dust temperature and its standard deviation (shaded region) computed assuming only galaxies with 𝑇dust > 25 K are observable, in order to coarsely mimic observational limitations. We also report observati… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Radial dust density profile at 𝑧 = 3 for thesan-zoom targets (colored lines) and all-HR (grey thin lines, their median profile is indicated by a dark grey dashed line). Different zoom factors are reported with different line styles, as indicated in the legend. The radial distance is normalised by the effective radius, defined as twice the stellar half mass radius. For reference, we show with dashed lines… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: —Dust-to-gas (top) and gas-to-stellar (bottom) size evolution. All radii are computed as twice the half-mass radius of the component, while the thick black lines show their median. Thin lines show the value for individual thesan-zoom targets, with different line styles corresponding to different zoom factors. We do not show other all-HR for visual clarity. The dust distribution is typically more concentra… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: —Examples of UV–IR offsets(or lack thereof) in simulated galaxies at 𝑧 = 6. Each 3-panel collage refers to a different redshift (reported on the left) and galaxy (reported on the top left, followed by the zoom level). Within each collage, the left and central panels show the projected attenuated UV luminosity in arbitrary units and the IR luminosity as traced by the projected total dust mass. In the right… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — UV–IR spatial offsets as function of stellar mass (left) and specific star formation rate (right). The median for thesan-zoom galaxies in three redshift bins (red, green and yellow histograms, see legend) is shown using a solid histogram, while the central 68% of the data is shown by a shaded region around it. For visual clarity, we only show the latter for the central redshift bin, but it has a similar… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Dust surface density distribution function 𝑓 (Σdust) in thesan￾zoom galaxies at 𝑧 = 6. Light-grey violins show the distribution from 104 random sampling of sightlines through each of the target galaxies, while the red violin shows the distribution of the full sample. For the latter, we mark the extremes of the distribution with horizontal bars. We show the observations from Péroux et al. (2023) using bl… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Attenuation at 1500 Å as a function of stellar mass in the thesan-zoom galaxies, augmented with the TODDLERS model for unre￾solved dust in the stellar birth cloud. The colored symbols show the target galaxies (using circles, squares and diamonds for zoom factor 4, 8, and 16, respectively). The background gray shaded region shows the distribution of all-HR at integer redshifts only. The histogram and the… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Time evolution of physical properties of three sample thesan-zoom galaxies, namely the m12.2z4, m11.5z4 and m10.4z8 runs (left to right column, respectively). From top to bottom, we show with coloured thick lines the dust-to-total-mass ratio, gas-to-total-mass ratio, stellar-mass-to-total-mass ratio, DM mass, dust-to-gas ratio, dust-to-metal ratio, IR-luminosity-weighted dust temperature, dust radius, g… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mapping Dust Attenuation at Kiloparsec Scales. IV. A Dust-model Interpretation of Attenuation Curves in Nearby Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    A silicate+graphite MRN dust screen fitted to 2487 kpc-scale attenuation curves maps the 2175 Å bump to small graphite grains and the NUV slope to small silicates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

226 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4755A 518, 4755

    Adams N. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4755A 518, 4755

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3347 2023

  2. [2]

    B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...64A 934, 64

    Akins H. B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...64A 934, 64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac795b 2022

  3. [3]

    Algera H. S. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6142A 518, 6142

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3195 2023

  4. [4]

    Algera H. S. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3098A 533, 3098

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1994 2024

  5. [5]

    Algera H. S. B., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f1897A 545, staf1897

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1897 2026

  6. [6]

    Aoyama S., Hou K.-C., Shimizu I., Hirashita H., Todoroki K., Choi J.-H., Nagamine K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3061 , 466, 105

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3061 2016

  7. [7]

    Aoyama S., Hou K.-C., Hirashita H., Nagamine K., Shimizu I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4905A 478, 4905

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431 2018

  8. [8]

    Aoyama S., Hirashita H., Nagamine K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3844A 491, 3844

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253 2020

  9. [9]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..22A 951, L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 2023

  10. [10]

    Atek H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1201A 519, 1201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3144 2023

  11. [11]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557207 , 706, A91

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557207 , 706, A91

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557207 2025

  12. [12]

    Bakx T. J. L. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab104 , 508, L58

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab104 2021

  13. [13]

    Bakx T. J. L. C., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2270B 532, 2270

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1613

  14. [14]

    Bakx T. J. L. C., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1533B 535, 1533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2409

  15. [15]

    Bakx T. J. L. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.1502B 544, 1502

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1714 2025

  16. [16]

    Bakx T. J. L. C., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf2284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.546f2284B 546, staf2284

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2284 2026

  17. [17]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...57B 770, 57

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

  18. [18]

    Bekki K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt589 , 432, 2298

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt589 2013

  19. [19]

    Bekki K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..166B 799, 166

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/166 2015

  20. [20]

    B \'e thermin M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A.113B 573, A113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425031 2015

  21. [21]

    B \'e thermin M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A...2B 643, A2

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037649 2020

  22. [22]

    Bhagwat A., Costa T., Ciardi B., Pakmor R., Garaldi E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3406B 531, 3406

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1125 2024

  23. [23]

    Bianchi S., Schneider R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..973B 378, 973

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x 2007

  24. [24]

    Boquien M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A..50B 663, A50

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142537 2022

  25. [25]

    stad2523

    Borrow J., Kannan R., Garaldi E., Smith A., Vogelsberger M., Pakmor R., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2523 , p. stad2523

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2523 2023

  26. [26]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..160B 931, 160

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..160B 931, 160

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a 2022

  27. [27]

    Bouwens R., Illingworth G., Oesch P., Stefanon M., Naidu R., van Leeuwen I., Magee D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1014 , 523, 1009

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023

  28. [28]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3744 2022

  29. [29]

    D., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/533519 , 678, 647

    Bradley L. D., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/533519 , 678, 647

    doi:10.1086/533519 2008

  30. [30]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  31. [31]

    K., Takeuchi T

    Burgarella D., Nanni A., Hirashita H., Theul \'e P., Inoue A. K., Takeuchi T. T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..32B 637, A32

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937143 2020

  32. [32]

    Burgarella D., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A.336B 699, A336

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554231 2025

  33. [33]

    Stardust Galaxies at z>9: A Dust-Origin Transition Behind the Excess of UV-Bright Galaxies

    Burgarella D., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.09829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260509829B p. arXiv:2605.09829

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09829 2026

  34. [34]

    Camps P., Baes M., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&C....3100381C 31, 100381

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381 2020

  35. [35]

    Carniani S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..318C 633, 318

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  36. [36]

    Castellano M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938L..15C 938, L15

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 2022

  37. [37]

    Castellano M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..143C 972, 143

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 2024

  38. [38]

    Cazaux S., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...575L..29C 575, L29

    doi:10.1086/342607 2002

  39. [39]

    Cazaux S., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..222C 604, 222

    doi:10.1086/381775 2004

  40. [40]

    Ceverino D., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2791C 470, 2791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1386 2017

  41. [41]

    Ceverino D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3332 , 527, 2139

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3332 2024

  42. [42]

    Chemerynska I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1260 , 531, 2615

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1260 2024

  43. [43]

    Chisholm J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..30C 616, A30

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832758 2018

  44. [44]

    Chisholm J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5104C 517, 5104

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2874 2022

  45. [45]

    R., Kereš D., Hopkins P

    Choban C. R., Kereš D., Hopkins P. F., Sandstrom K. M., Hayward C. C., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1542 , 514, 4506

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1542 2022

  46. [46]

    R., Salim S., Kere s D., Hayward C

    Choban C. R., Salim S., Kere s D., Hayward C. C., Sandstrom K. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.1518C 537, 1518

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf118 2025

  47. [47]

    R., Salim S., Kere s D., Roman-Duval J., Sandstrom K

    Choban C. R., Salim S., Kere s D., Roman-Duval J., Sandstrom K. M., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2603.08504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260308504C p. arXiv:2603.08504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08504 2026

  48. [48]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..695C 433, 695

    Clemens M. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..695C 433, 695

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt760 2013

  49. [49]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs.tmp...66C

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w 2023

  50. [50]

    Dayal P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512..989D 512, 989

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac537 2022

  51. [51]

    B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..97D 596, A97

    De Cia A., Ledoux C., Mattsson L., Petitjean P., Srianand R., Gavignaud I., Jenkins E. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..97D 596, A97

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 2016

  52. [52]

    K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4632D 519, 4632

    Di Cesare C., Graziani L., Schneider R., Ginolfi M., Venditti A., Santini P., Hunt L. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4632D 519, 4632

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3702 2023

  53. [53]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , 518, 6011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472 2023

  54. [54]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , 533, 3222

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2037 2024

  55. [55]

    T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , 41, 241

    Draine B. T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , 41, 241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 2003

  56. [56]

    T., Lee H

    Draine B. T., Lee H. M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...285...89D 285, 89

    doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  57. [57]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.109D 651, A109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 2021

  58. [58]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.240D 687, A240

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 2024

  59. [59]

    A., Edmunds M

    Dunne L., Eales S. A., Edmunds M. G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06440.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341..589D 341, 589

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06440.x 2003

  60. [60]

    Dunne L., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19363.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1510D 417, 1510

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19363.x 2011

  61. [61]

    J., Gnedin N

    Esmerian C. J., Gnedin N. Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940...74E 940, 74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9612 2022

  62. [62]

    J., Gnedin N

    Esmerian C. J., Gnedin N. Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad410f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968..113E 968, 113

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad410f 2024

  63. [63]

    L., Fudamoto Y., Oesch P

    Faisst A. L., Fudamoto Y., Oesch P. A., Scoville N., Riechers D. A., Pavesi R., Capak P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4192F 498, 4192

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2545 2020

  64. [64]

    Feldmann R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3831F 522, 3831

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  65. [65]

    Feldmann R., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..988F 536, 988

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2633 2025

  66. [66]

    Ferrara A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.207F 684, A207

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 2024

  67. [67]

    Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Dayal P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3986F 522, 3986

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1095 2023

  68. [68]

    Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Sommovigo L., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.286F 694, A286

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452707 2025

  69. [69]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..55F 940, L55

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..55F 940, L55

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e 2022

  70. [70]

    Fiore F., Ferrara A., Bischetti M., Feruglio C., Travascio A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943L..27F 943, L27

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f2 2023

  71. [71]

    Fisher R., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539..109F 539, 109

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf485 2025

  72. [72]

    Fudamoto Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A...4F 643, A4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038163 2020

  73. [73]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..25F 949, L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9 2023

  74. [74]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..250F 977, 250

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 2024

  75. [75]

    Garaldi E., Kannan R., Smith A., Springel V., Pakmor R., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.4909G 512, 4909

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac257 2022

  76. [76]

    Garaldi E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3765G 530, 3765

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae839 2024

  77. [77]

    Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...29G 793, 29

    Gnedin N. Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...29G 793, 29

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/29 2014

  78. [78]

    D., Meurer G., Heckman T

    Goldader J. D., Meurer G., Heckman T. M., Seibert M., Sanders D. B., Calzetti D., Steidel C. C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..651G 568, 651

    doi:10.1086/339165 2002

  79. [79]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..511G 503, 511

    Granato G. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..511G 503, 511

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab362 2021

  80. [80]

    K., Maio U., Glatzle M., Ciardi B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1071G 494, 1071

    Graziani L., Schneider R., Ginolfi M., Hunt L. K., Maio U., Glatzle M., Ciardi B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1071G 494, 1071

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa796 2020

Showing first 80 references.