Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 132 references

What becomes of JWST/NIRCam-selected high-redshift massive galaxies?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read JWST color cuts miss most of the truly massive high-redshift galaxies, and those galaxies rarely become today's giants without late mergers.

desk verdict Solid simulation test of published NIRCam cuts: they miss most of the true high-mass end at z~5 in TNG300, and early mass rank is a poor predictor of z=0 rank unless late mergers intervene. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08820 v1 pith:LAIRACSP submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.GA

Devontae C. Baxter , Alison L. Coil , Ethan O Nadler , Xuejian Shen , Mark Vogelsberger This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesJWST/NIRCamphotometricselectiongalaxyformationIllustrisTNGdustattenuationstellarmassassemblyprogenitorsofmassive
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

Early JWST/NIRCam surveys found many high-redshift massive-galaxy candidates that earlier UV surveys missed, raising questions about whether galaxy formation models are incomplete and whether those objects are the direct ancestors of today's most massive galaxies. This paper tests five published photometric color selections by applying them to galaxies in the large-volume TNG300 simulation that have been given synthetic dust-attenuated NIRCam photometry. The most inclusive published cut still recovers only one of the eighteen simulated galaxies that already exceed 10^11 solar masses at z ~ 5; the rest are systematically bluer under the adopted dust model. The authors therefore introduce magnitude-dependent color cuts that better isolate massive systems while rejecting dusty low-mass interlopers. Tracking the selected galaxies forward in the merger trees shows that they almost never finish as the most massive galaxies at z = 0. Only those that experience substantial merger-driven growth at very late times (z less than or equal to 0.2) join the ranks of the present-day giants. The work therefore both improves how observers should select high-redshift massive galaxies and warns against reading today's most massive systems as simple descendants of the JWST candidates.

What carries the argument

Synthetic dust-attenuated JWST/NIRCam photometry for TNG300 galaxies (full Monte-Carlo radiative transfer) combined with SUBLINK merger trees that link each high-redshift selected galaxy to its z = 0 descendant.

What would settle it

If deeper multi-band imaging or spectroscopy of a complete mass-selected sample at z ~ 5 shows that the majority of galaxies above 10^11 solar masses already satisfy the published red color cuts (or that their descendants systematically rank among the top ten most massive systems at z = 0 without late mergers), the central claims would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Published JWST/NIRCam color selections do not recover the most massive high-redshift galaxies in the TNG300 simulation (only 1 of 18 systems with stellar mass above 10^11 solar masses at z ~ 5 satisfies the best cut), and the galaxies that are selected rarely evolve into the most massive galaxies by z = 0 unless they undergo substantial late-time merger growth.

Load-bearing premise

The dust model underestimates how much ultraviolet light is blocked in the most massive high-redshift galaxies, so the true number of systems that would pass the color cuts is higher than the simulation reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers should replace single-color cuts with magnitude-dependent Balmer-break selections if they want higher purity and completeness for massive z ~ 5 galaxies.
  • Number-density comparisons between JWST candidates and theoretical models must treat the published selections as incomplete at the high-mass end.
  • Searches for progenitors of brightest cluster galaxies cannot rely solely on the most massive high-redshift galaxies inside overdensities.
  • Claims that a given high-redshift massive galaxy is a direct progenitor of a present-day ultra-massive galaxy require independent evidence of late-time merger activity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dust underestimation is as large as the UV-slope discrepancy suggests, many of the observed 'little red dots' and extremely red candidates may still be lower-mass or AGN-contaminated systems once better dust models are applied.
  • Wide-area cosmic-web maps at z > 2 (e.g., from future infrared surveys) could supply the environmental context needed to flag which massive high-redshift galaxies are most likely to experience the late mergers that produce today's giants.
  • The same simulation-based selection-refinement method can be repeated at z = 7 and z = 4 to produce redshift-specific purity cuts for ongoing deep fields.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies five published JWST/NIRCam color–magnitude selections to TNG300 galaxies with synthetic dust-attenuated photometry (Model C of Vogelsberger et al. 2020 / Shen et al. 2020) and finds that the Pérez-González et al. (2023) cut (S1) is the most inclusive among those that recover any objects. Even so, only 1 of 18 galaxies with M⋆ ≥ 10^11 M⊙ at z ∼ 5 satisfies S1; the rest are ∼0.5 mag bluer under the adopted dust model. The authors introduce magnitude-dependent S6/S7 wedges in (m200W − m277W) vs m150W that improve purity/completeness for M⋆ > 10^10.5 M⊙ at z = 5 while excluding low-mass dusty contaminants. Using SUBLINK merger trees they then show that the most massive NIRCam-selected (and purely mass-selected) galaxies at z = 7, 5, 4 and 2 rarely remain among the most massive systems at z = 0; only those that experience substantial late-time (z ≲ 0.2) merger-driven growth do so. The work therefore cautions both that current observational NIRCam cuts miss the most massive high-z galaxies and that high-z mass rank is a poor predictor of z = 0 mass rank.

Significance. If the incompleteness and late-time-merger results hold, the paper supplies a concrete, simulation-grounded caution for interpreting JWST photometric massive-galaxy candidates as either a complete census of the high-mass end or as direct progenitors of present-day BCGs/cluster centrals. Strengths include the transparent purity/completeness optimization that yields the new S6/S7 wedges, the explicit 1/18 recovery statistic, the multi-redshift growth-history comparison (Figs. 7–9), and the authors’ own quantification of the dust-model bias as a lower-limit statement (§5.3). The analysis is cleanly executed inside a single, well-documented simulation and is immediately useful to observers designing follow-up selections.

major comments (2)
  1. §5.3 and top-right panel of Fig. 2: the central incompleteness claim (1 of 18 galaxies with M⋆ ≥ 10^11 M⊙ recovered by S1) is load-bearing, yet the paper itself states that Model C underestimates UV attenuation for bright/massive systems (steeper simulated β–MUV at z = 4–6). While the authors correctly label the recovery fraction a lower limit, the manuscript never quantifies how large a reddening shift would be required to move the remaining 17 objects into the S1 wedge, nor whether that shift would also pull low-mass dusty satellites into the same region. A short sensitivity test (e.g., uniform or mass-dependent ΔE(B−V) or Δβ applied to the high-mass tail) is needed before the absolute statement “current selections are not identifying the most massive high-redshift galaxies” can be taken at face value outside TNG300+Model C.
  2. §3.3 and Fig. 4: S6/S7 are optimized on the same TNG300 photometry to which they are then applied; purity (0.70) and completeness (0.39/0.88) are therefore in-sample figures of merit. The paper presents them as “improved” observational selections, but without a hold-out redshift, an independent simulation, or an explicit statement that they remain untested against low-z interlopers (already noted in the text), their claimed superiority for real JWST catalogs is not yet demonstrated. Either a cross-validation step or a clearer framing as “simulation-motivated proposals requiring observational validation” is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and §3.1: the abstract says “1 of the 18 galaxies” while the body text sometimes says “1 of the 17”; reconcile the exact count of M⋆ ≥ 10^11 M⊙ systems at z = 5.
  2. Table 1 / Fig. 1: S4 and S5 return zero objects even at z > 5; a one-sentence quantitative statement of how far the simulated colors fall short of the published cuts would help readers judge whether the non-detection is decisive or merely a dust-model artifact.
  3. Fig. 6 caption: the dynamic-range statement is useful, but the physical scale bars (0.5 cMpc) are hard to read in the rendered panels; enlarge or move them.
  4. §2.2: the redshift-dependent dust-to-metal ratio 0.9 × (z/2)^−1.92 is given without an immediate citation to the calibration paper; add the reference for reproducibility.
  5. Throughout: “NIRCam-selected” is used both for the observational S1–S5 cuts and for the new S6/S7 wedges; a brief terminological distinction (e.g., “literature-selected” vs “simulation-optimized”) would reduce ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: observational cuts are external tests applied to an independent simulation; new wedges are openly simulation-optimized proposals, not forced predictions; descendant tracking is direct SUBLINK output.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are (1) that five published NIRCam color-magnitude cuts recover only a minority (or zero) of TNG300's M⋆≥10^11 M⊙ galaxies at z=5 under the adopted dust-attenuated photometry, and (2) that the most massive high-z galaxies (whether mass-selected or NIRCam-selected) rarely remain among the most massive at z=0 unless they experience substantial late-time (z≲0.2) merger growth. Both are obtained by direct application of external observational criteria (Table 1) to the pre-existing TNG300 + SKIRT photometry catalog and by following SUBLINK main-descendant branches; neither claim is defined in terms of the other, nor is any free parameter fitted to the target quantity and then re-labeled a prediction. The new S6/S7 wedges are explicitly constructed by maximizing purity/completeness on the same simulation sample and are presented as simulation-motivated proposals for observers, not as independent forecasts. Self-citations to Vogelsberger et al. (2020) and Shen et al. (2020) supply the photometry product and are accompanied by an explicit discussion of the model's known under-attenuation of UV light for bright galaxies (§5.3); that caveat is treated as making the recovery fraction a lower limit rather than as a uniqueness theorem that forces the conclusions. No equation reduces a claimed result to its input by construction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely via overlapping-author citation. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the simulation's own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on the public TNG300 galaxy-formation model, a published dust RT post-processing pipeline, and standard SUBFIND/SUBLINK definitions; the only free parameters that directly affect the central incompleteness claim are those inside the dust model.

free parameters (3)
  • redshift-dependent dust-to-metal ratio = 0.9×(z/2)^−1.92
    Set to 0.9×(z/2)^−1.92 and calibrated to observed UV luminosity functions at z=2–10; directly controls the amount of reddening that decides which massive galaxies enter the color cuts.
  • birth-cloud age threshold for MAPPINGS-III replacement = 10 Myr
    Stars younger than 10 Myr have their FSPS templates replaced by MAPPINGS-III to model unresolved birth-cloud attenuation; choice affects UV colors of the most actively star-forming systems.
  • aperture for flux integration = 30 pkpc
    Fixed 30 pkpc physical aperture centered on each galaxy; truncates extended light and can alter magnitudes of the most massive systems.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TNG300 baryonic physics (star formation, dual-mode AGN feedback, stellar winds) correctly ranks galaxies by stellar mass at z=5 and z=0
    All mass rankings and descendant statements inherit the simulation’s calibrated sub-grid model; invoked throughout §§2–4.
  • domain assumption Dust traces cold, star-forming gas metals with a spatially constant dust-to-metal ratio
    Core assumption of the SKIRT post-processing (Model C); stated in §2.2 and revisited as a limitation in §5.3.
  • standard math SUBLINK main-progenitor and main-descendant branches correctly identify the evolutionary track of each subhalo
    Standard merger-tree definition used for all growth-history and descendant analyses (§2.1, §4).
invented entities (1)
  • S6 high-purity and S7 high-completeness NIRCam color–magnitude wedges
    purpose: Provide simulation-optimized selections that recover more M⋆>10^10.5 M⊙ galaxies at z∼5 while excluding stripped low-mass interlopers.
    Defined in §3.3 from exhaustive filter permutations; no independent observational confirmation yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What becomes of JWST/NIRCam-selected high-redshift massive galaxies?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAIRACSP

@misc{pith2026260708820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What becomes of JWST/NIRCam-selected high-redshift massive galaxies?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAIRACSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08820}
}
abstract

Early JWST/NIRCam surveys revealed a puzzling population of high-redshift massive galaxy candidates largely absent from previous rest-frame UV surveys. Spectroscopic follow-up has both confirmed and contested these candidates, whose potential overabundance may challenge traditional models of galaxy formation. In this study we evaluate the reliability of the photometric selections used to identify these candidates in observational data by applying them to galaxies in the TNG300 simulation with synthetic dust-attenuated photometry. Among the five observational selection criteria considered, we find that the selection presented by P\'erez-Gonz\'alez et al. is the most reliable and inclusive. Nevertheless, only 1 of the 18 galaxies at $z\sim5$ with $M_{\star} \geq 10^{11}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ in the simulation satisfies this selection; the remaining 17 galaxies are on average $\sim0.5$ mag bluer than the color selection under the adopted dust model. We construct an improved JWST/NIRCam color-magnitude selection that provides a more complete census of massive galaxies at $z\sim5$ in TNG300 while excluding dusty, low-mass galaxies identified by criteria from the observational literature. We investigate the descendants of the most massive NIRCam-selected galaxies at $z=7,~4,$ and $2$ in TNG300, finding that they rarely evolve into the most massive galaxies by $z=0$. In general only the high-redshift massive galaxies that undergo substantial late-time ($z\lesssim0.2$) merger-driven growth become the most massive galaxies in the Universe today. Together these results suggest that current observational JWST/NIRCam selections are not identifying the most massive high-redshift galaxies, and caution against interpreting high-redshift massive galaxies as direct progenitors of the most massive galaxies at $z=0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08820 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Matrix showing the fractional overlap between simulated galaxy populations at z = 5 selected using the five NIRCam pho￾tometric criteria described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panel plot showing color versus magnitude (top left), color versus stellar mass (top right), star formation rate versus stellar mass (bottom left), and stellar mass versus halo mass (bottom right) for simulated galaxies at z = 5. The full galaxy population is represented by black and gray hexagonal bins. The subpopulation of NIRCam-selected galaxies, identified using the criteria of Perez-Gonz ´ alez et al. ´ (2023)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. JWST/NIRCam color–magnitude diagrams at z = 5 constructed from the F200W, F277W, and F150W filters. The left (right) panel is color-coded by mean stellar mass (purity). We define purity as the fraction of TNG300 galaxies in each color–magnitude bin with M⋆ > 1010.5 M⊙. In this parameter space, the most massive simulated galaxies are efficiently selected with high purity using m150W < 25.3 mag and (m200W − m277W) > 0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the present-day and descendant stellar and (sub)halo masses (left and right panels, respectively) for the subsample of TNG300 galaxies that are selected at z = 5 by our fiducial criteria and survive to z = 0 without being disrupted. The black and gray hex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface density of dark matter centered on the most massive, median-mass, and least massive galaxies (left, middle, and right columns, respectively) identified using our fiducial NIRCam selection (S1, top two rows) and high-purity selection (S6, bottom two rows). The f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar mass growth histories for the ten most massive TNG300 galaxies selected at z = 5 based purely on stellar mass (top row), using our fiducial NIRCam color selection (middle row), and using our high-purity NIRCam color selection (bottom row). The solid (dashed) li…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top row: Stellar mass growth rates for the ten most massive TNG300 galaxies at zselect = 7, 4, 2, and 0. Bottom row: The fraction of the z = 0 stellar mass assembled for the ten most massive galaxies at zselect = 7, 4, 2, and 0. The color bar shows the stellar mass ran…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 Alcalde Pampliega, B., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Barro, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14f2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  3. [3]

    L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A

    Andalman, Z. L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf930 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Wh...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf930 2025

  4. [4]

    2011, ApJS, 196, 22, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 16

    Baes, M., Verstappen, J., De Looze, I., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 22, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 16

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 2011

  5. [5]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  6. [6]

    A., Weibel, A., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad947

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad947 2023

  7. [7]

    C., Coil, A

    Baxter, D. C., Coil, A. L., Nadler, E. O., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf644 Ben´ıtez-Llambay, A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 122, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/addab2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf644 2025

  8. [8]

    Quantifying biases in stellar masses of JWST high-z quasar host galaxies caused by quasar subtraction

    Berger, S., Marshall, M. A., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12130, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12130

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12130 2025

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf471

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf471

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    1994 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004

    Camps, P., & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, A&A, 560, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322281

    Camps, P., Baes, M., & Saftly, W. 2013, A&A, 560, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322281

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023a, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    doi

  6. [14]

    C., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 520, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad369

    doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4ede

    Chang, W., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4ede

    2026 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Wang, K

    Chen, Y ., Mo, H. J., & Wang, K. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2866

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Chastenet, J., et al

    Chiang, I.-D., Sandstrom, K. M., Chastenet, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc5f

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Salim, S., Kereˇs, D., Hayward, C

    Choban, C. R., Salim, S., Kereˇs, D., Hayward, C. C., & Sandstrom, K. M. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf118

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    2026, A&A, 707, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557054

    Choe, J., Kimm, T., Katz, H., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557054

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

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

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2, doi: 10.1111/j...

    1985 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z

    Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1919

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Annunziatella, M., et al

    Forrest, B., Marsan, Z. C., Annunziatella, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb819

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Muzzin, A., et al

    Forrest, B., Cooper, M. C., Muzzin, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 977, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b1c

    doi

  26. [34]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 971, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78

    doi

  27. [35]

    M., Akins, H

    Gentile, F., Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad738a

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Forrest, B., et al

    Giddings, F., Lemaux, B. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554407 G´omez-Guijarro, C., Magnelli, B., Elbaz, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346673

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    A., et al

    Gottumukkala, R., Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae754

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Sutherland, R

    Groves, B., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 438, doi: 10.1086/528711

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    C., et al

    Gururajan, G., Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A312, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553926

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Wise, J

    Hardin, S. E., Wise, J. H., & Troutman, E. K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.30436. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30436

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 103540, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103540

    Huang, H.-L., Jiang, J.-Q., & Piao, Y .-S. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 103540, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103540

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f0c

    Ito, K., Kashikawa, N., Toshikawa, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f0c

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 218, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/218

    Jing, Y .-J., Rong, Y ., Wang, J., Guo, Q., & Gao, L. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 218, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/218

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 691, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    Killi, M., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348857

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a23

    Kim, H., Kim, J.-H., Jung, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a23

    2026 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Koyama, Y ., Polletta, M. d. C., Tanaka, I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab013 17 Labb´e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Bravo, M., Tobar, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1024

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2026, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    Laishram, R., Koyama, Y ., Kusakabe, H., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1002, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5824

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    S., et al

    Lambrides, E., Chiaberge, M., Long, A. S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad11ee

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08693, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08693

    Lapasia, Y ., Tacchella, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08693, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08693

    2026 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dav´e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19463

    Lim, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19463. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19463

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1790

    Lim, S., Tacchella, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1790

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Antwi-Danso, J., Lambrides, E

    Long, A. S., Antwi-Danso, J., Lambrides, E. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4cea

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 629, 53, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2550

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Bose, S., et al

    Lu, S., Frenk, C. S., Bose, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2646

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

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

    1995 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Dickinson, M

    Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388

    1996 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Huang, J.-S., & Ashby, M

    Mawatari, K., Yamada, T., Fazio, G. G., Huang, J.-S., & Ashby, M. L. N. 2016, PASJ, 68, 46, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw041

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    K., Hashimoto, T., et al

    Mawatari, K., Inoue, A. K., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6596

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    H., & Regan, J

    McCaffrey, J., Hardin, S., Wise, J. H., & Regan, J. A. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 47, doi: 10.21105/astro.2304.13755

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad586

    Montenegro-Taborda, D., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad586

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    Morishita, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10980

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10980

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    2026, AJ, 171, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4e20

    Mould, J. 2026, AJ, 171, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4e20

    2026 doi

  65. [73]

    O., Benson, A., Driskell, T., Du, X., & Gluscevic, V

    Nadler, E. O., Benson, A., Driskell, T., Du, X., & Gluscevic, V . 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad666

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56033, doi: 10.33232/001c.156033

    2026 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    Narayanan, D., Lower, S., Torrey, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0966

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    I., et al

    Navarro-Carrera, R., Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df6

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/68

    Nayyeri, H., Mobasher, B., Hemmati, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/68

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  75. [83]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  78. [86]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 P´erez, F., & Granger, B

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 P´erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 P´erez-Gonz´alez, P. G., Barro, G., Annunziatella, M., et al. 2023, ApJL,...

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  80. [88]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, ApJ, 950, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    C., et al

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa541

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, L19, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac115

    Rodighiero, G., Bisigello, L., Iani, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L19, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac115

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    2015 doi

  86. [94]

    B., Tchernyshyov, K., et al

    Roman-Duval, J., Jenkins, E. B., Tchernyshyov, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdeb6

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    2014, A&A, 561, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322593 18

    Saftly, W., Baes, M., & Camps, P. 2014, A&A, 561, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322593 18

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.24104, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.24104 S´anchez-Bl´azquez, P., Peletier, R

    Samuel, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Feldmann, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.24104, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.24104 S´anchez-Bl´azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    2026 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    A., Aydar, C., et al

    Saxena, A., Overzier, R. A., Aydar, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.13650, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.13650

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    J., Khullar, G., Miller, T

    Setton, D. J., Khullar, G., Miller, T. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a18

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c5

    Shahidi, A., Mobasher, B., Nayyeri, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c5

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    Naidu, R. P. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1932

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1423

    Shen, X., V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1423

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2119

    Shen, X., Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2119

    2026 doi

  95. [103]

    D., Wang, X., Zheng, X

    Shi, D. D., Wang, X., Zheng, X. Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17c3

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e

    Shi, K., Toshikawa, J., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e

    2021 doi

  97. [105]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2494

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Hayashi, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2494

    2018 doi

  98. [106]

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558022

    2026 doi

  99. [107]

    C., et al

    Sikorski, D., Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557084

    2026 doi

  100. [108]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3605

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3605

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010 doi

  102. [110]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001 doi

  103. [111]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    C., Forrest, B., et al

    Staab, P., Lemaux, B. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae301

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    C., & Shen, X

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Shen, X. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    2025, ApJL, 993, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1132 TDCOSMO Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E

    Sun, H., Wang, T., Daddi, E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1132 TDCOSMO Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555801 Urbano Stawinski, S. M., Cooper, M. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2024, The O...

    2025 doi

  107. [115]

    C., Araya-Araya, P., Sodr´e, Jr., L., & Strauss, M

    Vicentin, M. C., Araya-Araya, P., Sodr´e, Jr., L., & Strauss, M. A. 2025a, ApJ, 992, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff86

    doi

  108. [116]

    2025b, ApJ, 992, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff72

    Araya-Araya, P. 2025b, ApJ, 992, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff72

    doi

  109. [117]

    C., Strauss, M

    Vicentin, M. C., Strauss, M. A., Sodr´e, Jr., L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae45fc V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa137

    2026 doi

  110. [118]

    2025a, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    Wang, T., Sun, H., Zhou, L., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 988, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adebe7

    doi

  111. [119]

    2025b, MNRAS, 544, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1677

    Wang, Z., Shen, X., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 544, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1677

    doi

  112. [120]

    A., Barrufet, L., et al

    Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Barrufet, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1891

    2024 doi

  113. [121]

    J., et al

    Weibel, A., de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adab7a

    2025 doi

  114. [122]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  115. [123]

    C., et al

    Wiklind, T., Dickinson, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 781, doi: 10.1086/524919

    2008 doi

  116. [124]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    A., McClymont, W., et al

    Witten, C., Oesch, P. A., McClymont, W., et al. 2026a, A&A, 709, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556323

    doi

  118. [126]

    S., Oesch, P

    Witten, C., Bennett, J. S., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.28930, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.28930

    doi arXiv

  119. [127]

    A., Elbaz, D., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Elbaz, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 311, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08094-5

    2024 doi

  120. [128]

    A., Bing, L., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Bing, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.30802. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30802

    2026 arXiv

  121. [129]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad380a

    Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad380a

    2024 doi

  122. [130]

    2024, Science China

    Yuan, G.-W., Lei, L., Wang, Y .-Z., et al. 2024, Science China

    2024

  123. [131]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2433-3

    doi

  124. [132]

    J., Freese, K., Lozano, J., & Montefalcone, G

    Ziegler, J. J., Freese, K., Lozano, J., & Montefalcone, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21409

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.