Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

On the ages of the stellar populations of galaxies at $z=0.1$-7

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For 60% of 668 galaxies, stellar ages evolve with redshift

desk verdict Qualitatively right on galaxy ages, but the headline 59% is a point-estimate count that needs error propagation or mock calibration before I'd trust the exact number. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03075 v1 pith:KDJEXHL5 submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Eric E. Martínez-García This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxies:evolutionphotometrystellarcontentcosmology:observationsgalaxyagespopulationsynthesisJWSTHST
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

Recent claims that galaxy stellar ages stop evolving at z > 2.5, or that some galaxies are older than the Universe, would conflict with standard cosmology. This paper tries to settle the point with a sample of 668 galaxies spanning z = 0.1–7, using JWST and HST photometry and fitting stellar population synthesis models without assuming any cosmological parameters except the measured redshift. The central result is that 394 of 668 objects (59 percent) have best-fit mass-weighted ages younger than the age of the Universe at their redshift, so the majority of galaxies behave as flat-ΛCDM expects. The remaining older-than-Universe subset is attributed mainly to degeneracies among age, metallicity and reddening or to AGN contamination rather than to a failure of the cosmology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the mass-weighted stellar age, defined as $age_{\rm mw} = \int_0^{T_{\rm form}} t \Psi(t)\,dt / \int_0^{T_{\rm form}} \Psi(t)\,dt$, where $\Psi(t)$ is the star formation rate of a delayed-plus-burst star formation history; it marks the epoch when most stellar mass was assembled. For each galaxy, a library of roughly $4.3\times10^4$ Bruzual & Charlot (2003) stellar population synthesis models was drawn from random metallicity, dust attenuation, and star formation history parameters, deliberately giving a nearly uniform prior on $age_{\rm mw}$, then fitted to adjacent-band colours with a $\chi^2$ likelihood. The fitted $age_{\rm mw}$ is compared with the age of the Universe $age_{\rm Universe}(z)$ computed for a flat-ΛCDM cosmology, and the sign of $age_{\rm mw}-age_{\rm Universe}(z)$ defines the two subsets; the paper also checks the result against alternative IMFs and additional medium-band filters.

What would settle it

Recompute the younger-than-Universe count using each object's own 16th–84th percentile error bars from its likelihood distribution instead of a common 1 Gyr Gaussian error; if fewer than half of the galaxies are then younger than the Universe at their redshift, the majority claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a quantitative split of the galaxy population: using only photometric colours and spectroscopic redshifts, with no cosmological priors in the stellar population synthesis fitting, the author finds that the inferred mass-weighted ages of 394 out of 668 galaxies (59 percent) are younger than the age of a flat-ΛCDM Universe at the same redshift, over the range z = 0.1–7. These objects form the majority subset whose ages evolve with redshift. A minority subset, roughly 40 percent, has best-fit ages older than the Universe, and its members tend to become older with increasing redshift; the paper argues these are plausibly explained by age–metallicity–reddening degeneracies or emission from AGNs and little red dots, not by evidence against the standard model. An independent check based on stacked optical SEDs is consistent: galaxies classified as younger than the Universe have bluer average SEDs than those classified as older.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on treating every galaxy's age error as a single bell-shaped uncertainty of about 1 Gyr; if individual galaxies have larger or skewed errors, many of the 394 objects could shift across the boundary between younger and older than the Universe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 59 percent result holds, the majority of galaxies at z = 0.1–7 have stellar ages younger than the Universe, directly matching the flat-ΛCDM expectation that galaxy formation is continuous and recent.
  • The claim would undercut reports of non-evolving ages at z > 2.5 and of galaxies older than the Universe: those populations exist but constitute the minority subset, not the norm.
  • The older-than-Universe minority need not signal new cosmology; degeneracies or AGN emission could account for it, and that explanation can be tested with spectroscopy.
  • Switching from a Chabrier to a Salpeter IMF changes the younger fraction from 59 to 58 percent, and adding JWST medium-band filters raises it to 63 percent, so the conclusion is stable under those systematic checks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test per-object error distributions; a natural check would be to recompute the 394/668 count using each galaxy's own 16th–84th percentile age interval instead of a sample-wide 1 Gyr Gaussian error.
  • The older-than-Universe subset could be cross-checked against X-ray or mid-infrared AGN indicators; if most of those objects show AGN signatures, the clean stellar fraction would be even higher than 59 percent.
  • The same colour-fitting pipeline could be applied to galaxies with photometric rather than spectroscopic redshifts, enlarging the sample but requiring redshift uncertainty to be marginalised over.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyses 668 galaxies with HST and JWST photometry and spectroscopic redshifts (z = 0.127–7.433). It builds BC03 SPS libraries with random SFH parameters chosen to produce a nearly uniform prior on mass-weighted age, fits observed colours by maximum likelihood, and compares the best-fit age_mw of each galaxy with the age of the Universe in a flat-ΛCDM cosmology. The paper finds that 394/668 (59%) galaxies have age_mw younger than ageUniverse, interprets this as a majority showing age evolution with redshift, and discusses systematic effects including age–metallicity–dust degeneracies, IMF choice, TP-AGB stars, nebular emission, and little red dots/AGN.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a large-sample, cosmology-unconstrained check on recent reports of non-evolving galaxy ages at z ≳ 2.5 and of galaxies older than the Universe. Its strengths are the use of secure spectroscopic redshifts, the explicit absence of cosmological priors in the SPS fitting, and the robustness tests for IMF choice, TP-AGB emission, and nebular-line sensitivity. However, the main 59% statistic is not yet supported because it rests on unpropagated point-estimate uncertainties and because the null expectation is 100%, not 50%; the significance of the result is therefore conditional on the additional analysis requested in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (6)–(7), Figure 2] The 59% statistic (394/668) is a count of maximum-likelihood point estimates of age_mw, with the global 1σ_agemw ≈ 1.0 Gyr used only to normalize the ordinate in Figure 2 and never propagated into the classification. At z ≳ 3, ageUniverse(z) ≈ 0.7–2.2 Gyr is comparable to or smaller than σ_agemw, so an individual point can fall on either side of the zero line because of photometric noise and library sampling alone. Given the nearly uniform prior on age_mw described in Section 3.3, the classification of weakly constrained objects is not informative. The paper should replace the point-estimate count with per-object posterior probabilities P(age_mw < ageUniverse(z)) from the likelihood distribution in Eq. (6), or demonstrate with mock-injected galaxies that the sign of age_mw − ageUniverse is recovered for realistic SEDs across the full redshift range.
  2. [Section 5, Section 5.1.1] The physical expectation for the fraction of galaxies with age_mw < ageUniverse(z) is 100%, not 50%, because no real stellar population can be older than the Universe. The observed fraction of 59% therefore indicates large scatter or systematic bias in the fitted ages, and the 'majority' framing does not by itself establish evidence for age evolution. The statement in Section 5.1.1 that degeneracies are 'reduced with a statistically large sample' addresses random scatter only; it does not address systematic age–dust–metallicity biases, and no simulation is provided to show that the recovered fraction is unbiased. Without such a calibration, the 59% figure cannot be interpreted as a majority of genuinely younger galaxies.
  3. [Section 3.3, Section 4] The paper fits colours only (Eq. 7) and adopts a deliberately broad prior on age_mw, but it never reports the width of the individual likelihood in age_mw or the fraction of objects for which the 68% credible interval excludes the ageUniverse(z) threshold. Reporting only the best-fit point and a global σ_agemw obscures the fact that many galaxies at z ≳ 3 may have essentially unconstrained ages. The conclusions should be based on the full likelihood or on a posterior-weighted fraction, not on the best-fit model alone.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3] In Section 3, 'Most of the calculations were done with the with the GALAXEV software' contains a duplicated phrase; please correct.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] Please correct the grammatical issues 'a non evolution' and 'drawn into conclusion' in the abstract and Section 5.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'A total of n = 10, and n = 11 colours... were used' is awkward; specify the filter pairs that define the two colour sets.
  4. [Section 5.1.5] The LRD selection text is garbled ('The Greene et al. (2024) criteria red 15, compact, and v-shape were also applied'; 'matched the red 1and compact criteria'); please clarify the colour criterion and the placement of footnote 5.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption should state explicitly whether individual data points include error bars; the current text only describes the global σ used to normalize the y-axis.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement gives a URL only for JADES; please add the source or reference for the HST photometry of Rafelski et al. (2015).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the age comparison uses an internal SPS-derived agemw against an external ageUniverse(z) benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that 394/668 (59%) of galaxies have mass-weighted ages younger than the Universe age at their redshift—is not circular. The mass-weighted age agemw is defined in Eq. (5) purely from the adopted star-formation-history parameters (tau0, tau1, f, Tform, Bform) and is fit to observed photometric colours via the maximum-likelihood chi-squared of Eqs. (6)-(7). No cosmological parameter enters this fitting; the library is deliberately built with a nearly uniform prior on agemw extending to ~16 Gyr (Section 3.3), so the target result (ages younger than the Universe) is not built into the prior. The comparison quantity ageUniverse(z) is computed externally from Bennett et al. (2014) using Wright (2006), a flat-LCDM benchmark applied after the fits, not an input. The paper does not fit any parameter to a subset and then call it a prediction; the 59% fraction is a direct count of best-fit point estimates, not a fitted parameter. Self-citations (Martinez-Garcia et al. 2017, 2018, 2021) appear only in the discussion of degeneracies and TP-AGB stars and are not load-bearing for the central result; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that constrains the fits. The paper's own limitation—that the global 1-Gyr error and no posterior propagation may affect the classification—is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity. The result is therefore a self-contained, externally benchmarked comparison with no step equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard stellar population synthesis, a chosen SFH parameterization, a dust model, and a reference cosmology. The main hand-chosen inputs are the SFH and metallicity priors for library generation, and the single estimated error used for significance; none of these are tuned to force the 'younger than the Universe' result.

free parameters (4)
  • SFH parameter ranges (τ0, τ1, f, Tform, Bform) = Randomly drawn from chosen ranges, not fitted to data
    Section 3.3 defines these ranges to produce a nearly uniform agemw PDF; the choice of ranges defines the age prior, though the paper does not tune them to the target result.
  • Metallicity grid values = Six discrete values: 0.0001, 0.0004, 0.004, 0.008, 0.02, 0.05
    Section 3.1 adopts a uniform PDF over these values; this is a modeling choice rather than a fit, but it affects the age-metallicity degeneracy.
  • Dust attenuation parameters (τV, μ) = Sampled from da Cunha et al. (2008) PDFs
    Section 3.2 draws these from literature distributions; they are not fitted to the data but influence the recovered ages.
  • Single random error σagemw = ≈ 1.0 Gyr
    Section 5 estimates one Gaussian error from the sample's error distribution; this uncertainty is used to define the 60% statistic and is not per-object.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bruzual & Charlot (2003) SPS models accurately represent real stellar populations at z=0.1-7
    Invoked in Section 3 as the basis of the model libraries; a known approximation with specific IMF and stellar library choices.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshifts from MUSE and NIRSpec are accurate and unbiased
    Section 2 selects only secure redshifts (quality flags 3 for MUSE, A or B for NIRSpec); any systematic redshift error propagates into rest-frame colours and age estimates.
  • domain assumption The flat-ΛCDM age of the Universe computed with Bennett et al. (2014) parameters is the correct reference for comparison
    Section 5 uses this cosmology to separate younger and older galaxies; if the assumed cosmology differs, the fraction could change.
  • domain assumption Madau (1995) and Meiksin (2006) IGM absorption corrections are adequate
    Section 3.4 applies these corrections; errors in the IGM opacity affect high-z rest-frame colours.
  • domain assumption Charlot & Fall (2000) two-component dust model describes attenuation
    Section 3.2 adopts this model; alternative dust geometries can change fitted ages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the ages of the stellar populations of galaxies at $z=0.1$-7." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDJEXHL5

@misc{pith2026250703075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the ages of the stellar populations of galaxies at $z=0.1$-7},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDJEXHL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03075}
}
abstract

Recent studies have reported a non evolution of galaxy ages at redshifts higher than $z\sim$ 2.5, as well as galaxies older than the Universe. In this work, a sample of galaxies from JWST and HST was analysed via photometry to further understand this astronomical phenomenon. No prior cosmological parameters were assumed in the analysis, but the spectroscopic redshift. When compared to stellar population synthesis models, the results for mass-weighted galaxy ages indicate that the analysed objects seem to be divided into two subsets. The results for the subset with the majority of objects (60\% assuming a flat-$\Lambda$CDM cosmology) indicate an evolution of galaxy ages within the redshift range $z$=0.1-7.0, in the sense that higher redshift galaxies are younger than the Universe. Sources of systematic errors were discussed drawing into conclusion that degeneracies between reddening-age-metallicity, and/or AGN emission may explain the rest 40\% of the galaxies with ages older than expected from a flat-$\Lambda$CDM cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03075 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of the spectroscopic redshifts (z) of the galaxy sample. Galaxies with green bins belong to the HST data, while objects with gray bins to the JWST data. were excluded from the final sample. The complete sample (HST plus JWST) consists of 668 objects, 254 from HST and 414 from JWST, respectively. The redshift range spans from z = 0.127 to z = 7.433 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: (agemw − ageUniverse)/σagemw vs. spectroscopic redshift z, where agemw is the fitted mass-weighted galaxy age with random error σagemw , and ageUniverse(z) is the age of the Universe as a function of redshift assuming a flat-ΛCDM cosmology. The black dashed-line indicates (agemw − ageUniverse) = 0. The dark red cross shows a LRD source (see Section 5.1.5). Right panel: Density contour plot of the data po… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stacked optical rest-frame SEDs. Blue and orange solid lines: galaxies from the HST sample. Green and red solid lines: galaxies from the JWST sample. SEDs are grouped according to their retrieved agemw with respect to ageUniverse(z) according to the flat-ΛCDM cosmological model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1117/12.856027

    Bacon R., Accardo M., Adjali L., Anwand H., Bauer S., Biswas I., Blaizot J., et al., 2010, SPIE, 7735, 773508. doi:10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  2. [2]

    Baggen J. F. W., van Dokkum P., Brammer G., de Graaff A., Franx M., Greene J., Labb \'e I., et al., 2024, ApJL, 977, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 2024

  3. [3]

    G., Kocevski D

    Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., Kocevski D. D., McGrath E. J., Trump J. R., Simons R. C., Somerville R. S., et al., 2024, ApJ, 963, 128. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  4. [4]

    L., Larson D., Weiland J

    Bennett C. L., Larson D., Weiland J. L., Hinshaw G., 2014, ApJ, 794, 135. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/135 2014

  5. [5]

    R., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2501.07291

    Bevacqua D., Saracco P., La Barbera F., De Marchi G., De Propris R., Ditrani F., Gallazzi A. R., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2501.07291. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.07291

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07291 2025

  6. [6]

    K., et al., 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien M., Burgarella D., Roehlly Y., Buat V., Ciesla L., Corre D., Inoue A. K., et al., 2019, A&A, 622, A103. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    G., 2007, IAUS, 241, 125

    Bruzual A. G., 2007, IAUS, 241, 125. doi:10.1017/S1743921307007624

    doi:10.1017/s1743921307007624 2007

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2692

    Capozzi D., Maraston C., Daddi E., Renzini A., Strazzullo V., Gobat R., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 790. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2692

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Fruchter A

    Casertano S., de Mello D., Dickinson M., Ferguson H. C., Fruchter A. S., Gonzalez-Lopezlira R. A., Heyer I., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 2747. doi:10.1086/316851

    doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1086/376392

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

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Kriek M., Beverage A

    Cheng C. M., Kriek M., Beverage A. G., Slob M., Bezanson R., Franx M., Leja J., et al., 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1527. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf806

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    M., 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, ApJ, 539, 718. doi:10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin M., McGrath E

    Chworowsky K., Finkelstein S. L., Boylan-Kolchin M., McGrath E. J., Iyer K. G., Papovich C., Dickinson M., et al., 2024, AJ, 168, 113. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x

    da Cunha E., Charlot S., Elbaz D., 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1595. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x

    2008

  8. [16]

    R., Swinbank A

    da Cunha E., Walter F., Smail I. R., Swinbank A. M., Simpson J. M., Decarli R., Hodge J. A., et al., 2015, ApJ, 806, 110. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/110

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Sohn J., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.05263

    Damjanov I., Geller M. J., Sohn J., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.05263. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.05263

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    J., Scholtz J., Carniani S., Willott C

    D'Eugenio F., Cameron A. J., Scholtz J., Carniani S., Willott C. J., Curtis-Lake E., Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2404.06531. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.11752

    D'Eugenio F., Maiolino R., Perna M., Uebler H., Ji X., McClymont W., Koudmani S., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2503.11752. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.11752

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    P., Labbe I., Wang B., Leja J., Matthee J., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2503.16600

    de Graaff A., Rix H.-W., Naidu R. P., Labbe I., Wang B., Leja J., Matthee J., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2503.16600. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.16600

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., Willott C., Alberts S., Arribas S., Bonaventura N., Bunker A

    Eisenstein D. J., Willott C., Alberts S., Arribas S., Bonaventura N., Bunker A. J., Cameron A. J., et al., 2023, arXiv, arXiv:2306.02465. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    P., Whitler L., Topping M

    Endsley R., Stark D. P., Whitler L., Topping M. W., Chen Z., Plat A., Chisholm J., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2312. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1919

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    L., et al., 2022, A&A, 661, A81

    Ferruit P., Jakobsen P., Giardino G., Rawle T., Alves de Oliveira C., Arribas S., Beck T. L., et al., 2022, A&A, 661, A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Labb \'e I., Zitrin A., Greene J

    Furtak L. J., Labb \'e I., Zitrin A., Greene J. E., Dayal P., Chemerynska I., Kokorev V., et al., 2024, Natur, 628, 57. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ce4

    Gao C.-Y., L \'o pez-Corredoira M., Wei J.-J., 2024, ApJ, 970, 142. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ce4

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Labbe I., Goulding A

    Greene J. E., Labbe I., Goulding A. D., Furtak L. J., Chemerynska I., Kokorev V., Dayal P., et al., 2024, ApJ, 964, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    N., Maiolino R., Juod z balis I., Scholtz J., \"U bler H., D'Eugenio F., Helton J

    Hainline K. N., Maiolino R., Juod z balis I., Scholtz J., \"U bler H., D'Eugenio F., Helton J. M., et al., 2025, ApJ, 979, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane Y., Zhang Y., Nakajima K., Ouchi M., Isobe Y., Ono Y., Hatano S., et al., 2023, ApJ, 959, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731195

    Inami H., Bacon R., Brinchmann J., Richard J., Contini T., Conseil S., Hamer S., et al., 2017, A&A, 608, A2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731195

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    Inayoshi K., Maiolino R., 2025, ApJL, 980, L27. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    L., et al., 2022, A&A, 661, A80

    Jakobsen P., Ferruit P., Alves de Oliveira C., Arribas S., Bagnasco G., Barho R., Beck T. L., et al., 2022, A&A, 661, A80. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    Ji X., Maiolino R., \"U bler H., Scholtz J., D'Eugenio F., Sun F., Perna M., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2501.13082. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Finkelstein S

    Kocevski D. D., Finkelstein S. L., Barro G., Taylor A. J., Calabr \`o A., Laloux B., Buchner J., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2404.03576. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    I., Greene J

    Kokorev V., Caputi K. I., Greene J. E., Dayal P., Trebitsch M., Cutler S. E., Fujimoto S., et al., 2024, ApJ, 968, 38. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    E., van Dokkum P

    Kriek M., Labb \'e I., Conroy C., Whitaker K. E., van Dokkum P. G., Brammer G. B., Franx M., et al., 2010, ApJL, 722, L64. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/1/L64

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  29. [37]

    A., Leja J., Brammer G., et al., 2023, Natur, 616, 266

    Labb \'e I., van Dokkum P., Nelson E., Bezanson R., Suess K. A., Leja J., Brammer G., et al., 2023, Natur, 616, 266. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Bezanson R., Fujimoto S., Furtak L

    Labbe I., Greene J. E., Bezanson R., Fujimoto S., Furtak L. J., Goulding A. D., Matthee J., et al., 2025, ApJ, 978, 92. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4f86

    L \'o pez-Corredoira M., Melia F., Wei J.-J., Gao C.-Y., 2024, ApJ, 970, 63. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4f86

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Rodighiero G., Enia A., Werle A., Bisigello L., Cassata P., Casasola V., et al., 2024, A&A, 686, A124

    Lofaro C. M., Rodighiero G., Enia A., Werle A., Bisigello L., Cassata P., Casasola V., et al., 2024, A&A, 686, A124. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347626

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Gobat R., Renzini A., et al., 2025, NatAs, 9, 128

    Lu S., Daddi E., Maraston C., Dickinson M., Haro P. A., Gobat R., Renzini A., et al., 2025, NatAs, 9, 128. doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02391-9

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Setton D

    Ma Y., Greene J. E., Setton D. J., Volonteri M., Leja J., Wang B., Bezanson R., et al., 2025, ApJ, 981, 191. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada613

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    A., McDonald M., Courteau S., Jes \'u s Gonz \'a lez J., 2010, ApJ, 718, 768

    MacArthur L. A., McDonald M., Courteau S., Jes \'u s Gonz \'a lez J., 2010, ApJ, 718, 768. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/768

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1086/175332

    Madau P., 1995, ApJ, 441, 18. doi:10.1086/175332

    1995 doi

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino R., Scholtz J., Curtis-Lake E., Carniani S., Baker W., de Graaff A., Tacchella S., et al., 2024, A&A, 691, A145. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Shirley R., Duncan K., et al., 2018, A&A, 620, A50

    Ma ek K., Buat V., Roehlly Y., Burgarella D., Hurley P. D., Shirley R., Duncan K., et al., 2018, A&A, 620, A50. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833131

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066772

    Marigo P., Girardi L., 2007, A&A, 469, 239. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066772

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Marigo P., Girardi L., Bressan A., Groenewegen M. A. T., Silva L., Granato G. L., 2008, A&A, 482, 883. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo P., Girardi L., Bressan A., Rosenfield P., Aringer B., Chen Y., Dussin M., et al., 2017, ApJ, 835, 77. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1086/508143

    Maraston C., Daddi E., Renzini A., Cimatti A., Dickinson M., Papovich C., Pasquali A., et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 85. doi:10.1086/508143

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira R

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a E. E., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira R. A., Magris C. G., Bruzual A. G., 2017, ApJ, 835, 93. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/93

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Bruzual G., Magris C

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a E. E., Bruzual G., Magris C. G., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira R. A., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1862. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2801

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Bruzual G., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira R

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a E. E., Bruzual G., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira R. A., Rodr \' guez-Merino L. H., 2021, ApJ, 908, 110. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abce68

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Brammer G., Chisholm J., Eilers A.-C., Goulding A., Greene J., et al., 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

    Matthee J., Naidu R. P., Brammer G., Chisholm J., Eilers A.-C., Goulding A., Greene J., et al., 2024, ApJ, 963, 129. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09756.x

    Meiksin A., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 807. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09756.x

    2006

  48. [56]

    F., Dalcanton J

    Melbourne J., Williams B. F., Dalcanton J. J., Rosenfield P., Girardi L., Marigo P., Weisz D., et al., 2012, ApJ, 748, 47. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/47

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042434

    Mignoli M., Cimatti A., Zamorani G., Pozzetti L., Daddi E., Renzini A., Broadhurst T., et al., 2005, A&A, 437, 883. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042434

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Matthee J., Katz H., de Graaff A., Oesch P., Smith A., Greene J

    Naidu R. P., Matthee J., Katz H., de Graaff A., Oesch P., Smith A., Greene J. E., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2503.16596. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    J., Ratra B., 2003, RvMP, 75, 559

    Peebles P. J., Ratra B., 2003, RvMP, 75, 559. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559

    2003 doi

  52. [60]

    G., Barro G., Rieke G

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., Barro G., Rieke G. H., Lyu J., Rieke M., Alberts S., Williams C. C., et al., 2024, ApJ, 968, 4. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    I., Gardner J

    Rafelski M., Teplitz H. I., Gardner J. P., Coe D., Bond N. A., Koekemoer A. M., Grogin N., et al., 2015, AJ, 150, 31. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/31

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Kelly D

    Rieke M. J., Kelly D. M., Misselt K., Stansberry J., Boyer M., Beatty T., Egami E., et al., 2023, PASP, 135, 028001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Robertson B., Tacchella S., Hainline K., Johnson B

    Rieke M. J., Robertson B., Tacchella S., Hainline K., Johnson B. D., Hausen R., Ji Z., et al., 2023, ApJS, 269, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    B., Jones T., Fontana A., 2021, ApJ, 910, 86

    Roberts-Borsani G., Treu T., Mason C., Schmidt K. B., Jones T., Fontana A., 2021, ApJ, 910, 86. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe45b

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161. doi:10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  58. [66]

    Sandage A., 1986, A&A, 161, 89

    1986

  59. [67]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, ApJ, 737, 103. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Hensley H., Jermyn A

    Sneppen A., Steinhardt C. L., Hensley H., Jermyn A. S., Mostafa B., Weaver J. R., 2022, ApJ, 931, 57. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac695e

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, ApJL, 951, L40

    Steinhardt C. L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, ApJL, 951, L40. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    W., Stark D

    Topping M. W., Stark D. P., Endsley R., Whitler L., Hainline K., Johnson B. D., Robertson B., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4087. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae800

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    C., et al., 2017, A&A, 602, A35

    Thomas R., Le F \`e vre O., Scodeggio M., Cassata P., Garilli B., Le Brun V., Lemaux B. C., et al., 2017, A&A, 602, A35. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628141

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    G., 2008, ApJ, 674, 29

    van Dokkum P. G., 2008, ApJ, 674, 29. doi:10.1086/525014

    2008 doi

  65. [73]

    B., Weibel A., van Dokkum P., Baggen J

    Wang B., Leja J., de Graaff A., Brammer G. B., Weibel A., van Dokkum P., Baggen J. F. W., et al., 2024, ApJL, 969, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Greene J

    Wang B., de Graaff A., Davies R. L., Greene J. E., Leja J., Brammer G. B., Goulding A. D., et al., 2025, ApJ, 984, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc1ca

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Topping M., Chen Z., Charlot S., 2023a, MNRAS, 519, 157

    Whitler L., Endsley R., Stark D. P., Topping M., Chen Z., Charlot S., 2023a, MNRAS, 519, 157. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3535

    doi

  68. [76]

    P., Endsley R., Leja J., Charlot S., Chevallard J., 2023b, MNRAS, 519, 5859

    Whitler L., Stark D. P., Endsley R., Leja J., Charlot S., Chevallard J., 2023b, MNRAS, 519, 5859. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad004

    doi

  69. [77]

    E., Baum S., Bergeron L

    Williams R. E., Baum S., Bergeron L. E., Bernstein N., Blacker B. S., Boyle B. J., Brown T. M., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 2735. doi:10.1086/316854

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    L., 2006, PASP, 118, 1711

    Wright E. L., 2006, PASP, 118, 1711. doi:10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  71. [79]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts126

    Zibetti S., Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Pierini D., Pasquali A., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1479. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts126

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.