Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 222 references

Galaxies at z ≳ 12 form half their stars in under 30 Myr, so young populations dominate their light and must be modelled carefully.

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 ↗

Ultra-high-z galaxies have median t50 ≲ 30 Myr and t90 ≲ 70 Myr—3–4× shorter than at z~6—with rising median SFHs but diverse individual histories, requiring refined young-star SED mapping for accurate UV luminosities.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-12 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid, useful SAM+GUREFT SFH catalogue that quantifies young-star domination at z≳12 and fixes the authors’ own UV photometry; the missing short-timescale burstiness is real but not load-bearing for the central claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02650 v1 pith:LK3Q35V6 submitted 2026-07-02 astro-ph.GA

Investigating the star formation histories of galaxies from Cosmic Dawn to the Epoch of Reionization with the Santa Cruz SAM

L. Y. Aaron Yung , Rachel S. Somerville , Steven L. Finkelstein , Kartheik G. Iyer This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords star formation historiesultra-high redshiftEpoch of Reionizationsemi-analytic modelsJWSTUV luminosity functionsstellar populationsgalaxy assembly timescales
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.

The reading

This paper uses dark-matter halo merger trees from the GUREFT suite and the Santa Cruz semi-analytic model to predict how galaxies built their stars from cosmic dawn (z ~ 14) through the end of reionization (z ~ 6). On average the star-formation histories rise rapidly, yet individual galaxies show bursts and short pauses even at fixed final mass. The key quantitative result is that the lookback times needed to form the most recent 50 % and 90 % of a galaxy’s stars shrink dramatically with increasing redshift: at z ≳ 12 those times are typically under 30 Myr and 70 Myr—three to four times shorter than for comparable galaxies at z ~ 6. Because such young stars dominate the ultraviolet light, coarser age binning systematically under-predicts luminosities; refining the age grid by a factor of fifteen brightens the predicted ultraviolet magnitudes by up to two magnitudes and brings the model luminosity functions into better agreement with JWST data up to z ~ 12. The same short timescales also change how observers should interpret ratios of star-formation rates averaged over different windows.

Core claim

For galaxies observed at z ≳ 12 the median lookback times to assemble the youngest 50 % and 90 % of their stellar mass are t50 ≲ 30 Myr and t90 ≲ 70 Myr—factors of three to four shorter than for galaxies of similar mass near z ~ 6—so their stellar populations are overwhelmingly young-star dominated and require finely resolved age mapping for accurate synthetic photometry.

What carries the argument

The Santa Cruz semi-analytic model run on high-cadence GUREFT merger trees, with the native 10-Myr star-formation histories re-binned onto the finer logarithmic age grid of BPASS stellar-population models before constructing composite spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The model’s galaxy-averaged star-formation and wind recipes, calibrated only at the present day and lacking explicit cloud-scale burstiness shorter than 10 Myr, still correctly capture the characteristic assembly timescales at z greater than 12.

What would settle it

If high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations or future spectroscopic age diagnostics of z greater than 12 galaxies systematically recover median t50 values longer than about 50 Myr, the claimed compression of formation timescales would be ruled out.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper couples the Santa Cruz semi-analytic model to GUREFT (and VSMDPL) dark-matter halo merger trees to predict galaxy star-formation histories from z ~ 14 to z ~ 6. Median SFHs are rapidly rising; individual histories are diverse, with bursts and mini-quenching. The central quantitative result is that the lookback times to form the most recent 50 % and 90 % of stellar mass (t50, t90) shorten strongly with increasing redshift of observation (and weakly with stellar mass): at z ≳ 12 one finds typical t50 ≲ 30 Myr and t90 ≲ 70 Myr, a factor of ~3–4 shorter than for comparable galaxies at z ~ 6. The authors show that this young-star dominance requires finer age binning when mapping SFHs to BPASS SSPs; the revised photometry brightens rest-UV magnitudes by ~1–2 mag and brings the predicted UV luminosity functions into good agreement with JWST data up to z ~ 12 without retuning free parameters. They further argue that the observed decline in SFR20/SFR100 toward lower redshift is largely a consequence of lengthening characteristic growth timescales rather than decreasing burstiness, and they supply a bounded-power-law template for cumulative SFHs that can serve as an SED-fitting prior.

Significance. If the reported compression of assembly timescales is robust, the work supplies physically motivated SFH priors for the ultra-high-redshift regime where traditional parametric forms (declining-τ, delayed-τ, etc.) are inappropriate. The demonstration that a simple refinement of the SFH-to-SED age grid removes most of the previous UVLF tension up to z ~ 12 is a concrete, immediately usable result for both modellers and observers. The multi-box resolution tests (Appendix D), automated distribution-function stitching (Appendix A), and explicit functional form for cumulative mass growth (Appendix C) are strengths that enhance reproducibility and utility. The paper therefore advances both the interpretation of existing JWST photometry and the design of future SED-fitting analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.4, §4.3.1] §3.4 and §4.3.1: The claim that the redshift evolution of SFR20/SFR100 is driven primarily by compressed global growth timescales (rather than changing burstiness) is central to the paper’s interpretive conclusions. Because the SAM lacks explicit GMC-scale stochasticity on ≲10 Myr timescales, the absolute scatter (and possibly the median) of the predicted ratio may be incomplete. A short quantitative test—e.g., post-processing a simple sub-grid burst model or citing the expected change in scatter from high-resolution zoom simulations—would make the robustness of this interpretation clearer without altering the cumulative t50/t90 results.
  2. [Appendix D, §3.2] Appendix D and the mass-bin selections in §3.2–3.3: The ≥120-particle cut is well motivated, yet the highest-mass bins drawn from gureft-90 still show prematurely truncated early SFHs (dotted lines in Fig. 6). A brief estimate of the residual bias this introduces into the reported median t90 (and into the high-mass end of the heatmaps in Fig. 13) for z = 6 systems would strengthen confidence that the quoted factor-of-3–4 compression is not resolution-limited.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and surrounding text: the vertical grey bands that mark the re-binned ages are described as “0.1 dex wide,” but the precise mapping from the factor-of-15 linear split onto the BPASS log-age grid could be stated more explicitly for reproducibility.
  2. [Appendix C] The functional form in Appendix C is stated to apply for 6 ≲ z ≲ 10; a one-sentence remark on whether the same parameters remain adequate (or require mild redshift evolution) at z > 10 would help users who wish to adopt it as an SED prior at the highest redshifts.
  3. [Data Availability] Data-availability statement currently reads “upon request.” Depositing the median SFH tables, t50/t90 heatmaps, and the combined UVLFs/SMFs in a public repository would increase the paper’s long-term utility.
  4. [Figures 6, 9, 10] Minor typographical inconsistencies appear in a few figure legends (e.g., “Mz = 6” versus “M* z=6”) and in the rendering of some redshift ranges; a final proof-reading pass would catch them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: low-z calibrated SAM + GUREFT trees yield independent high-z SFH timescales; self-citations supply infrastructure only.

full rationale

The paper's central results (median rising SFHs; t50 ≲ 30 Myr and t90 ≲ 70 Myr at z ≳ 12, a factor ~3–4 shorter than at z ~ 6; young-star dominance requiring fine age bins for photometry) are direct numerical outputs of the Santa Cruz SAM run on GUREFT (and VSMDPL) merger trees. Free parameters are fixed exclusively to z ~ 0 constraints (stellar mass function, stellar-to-halo mass ratio, cold-gas fractions, metallicities, MBH–Mbulge) and are never re-tuned to the high-z UVLFs, SFHs or tX values being reported (explicit statement in §2.1). The refined SFH-to-SED re-binning (§2.3) is a post-processing fidelity improvement that does not alter the underlying SFHs or inject new free parameters; it merely maps the already-predicted young-star-dominated populations more accurately onto BPASS SSPs. Self-citations (Yung et al. 2019–2025, Somerville et al. 2015/2025, GUREFT papers) provide the model code, merger trees and prior UVLF forecasts, but the new t50/t90 measurements and their redshift/mass trends are not forced by those citations, nor do they reduce by construction to any fitted high-z quantity. Appendix C's bounded-power-law fit is a descriptive summary of the simulated cumulative SFHs for use as SED priors, not a circular prediction. No self-definitional loops, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling appear. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external high-z benchmarks; the single minor self-citation pattern is ordinary model infrastructure and does not raise the score above 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Santa Cruz SAM’s standard baryonic physics (atomic cooling, H2-based KS law, stellar and AGN feedback) whose free parameters were fixed at z=0, plus the assumption that GUREFT merger trees adequately resolve the relevant progenitor mass range. No new free parameters are introduced for the high-z SFH analysis itself; the only ad-hoc numerical choice is the factor-of-15 re-binning of the native 10-Myr SFH grid.

free parameters (4)
  • stellar-wind mass-loading normalization and slope
    Calibrated once to the z~0 stellar-mass function and gas fractions (Gabrielpillai et al. 2022); held fixed for all redshifts.
  • H2-based KS slope transition density ΣH2,crit
    Taken from Bigiel et al. (2008) and Gnedin & Kravtsov (2011) fitting functions; not re-tuned.
  • dust-attenuation normalization (redshift-dependent)
    Calibrated as in Yung et al. (2021); used only for attenuated UVLFs, not for the intrinsic SFH timescales.
  • SFH re-binning factor (15)
    Chosen by hand as a practical compromise between temporal resolution and cost; tested but not formally optimized.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Atomic cooling threshold Tvir > 10^4 K sets the onset of star formation; molecular and metal-line cooling below that temperature are neglected.
    Standard in the Santa Cruz SAM (§2.1); controls the earliest star-formation episodes.
  • domain assumption Galaxy-averaged Kennicutt–Schmidt-like law with multi-phase gas partitioning adequately captures the time-averaged star-formation rate even though GMC-scale stochasticity is unresolved.
    Explicitly stated limitation in §4.3.1; load-bearing for the smoothness of median SFHs.
  • domain assumption GUREFT merger trees with ≳100 DM particles per halo yield reliable early-time SFHs.
    Justified by resolution tests in Appendix D; trees below this threshold are discarded.
  • domain assumption BPASS binary SSP models with Chabrier IMF (upper cut-off 300 M⊙) correctly describe the UV light of young, metal-poor populations.
    Adopted in §2.3; comparison to BC03/FSPS shows ~0.5 mag sensitivity to the upper-mass cut-off.

reviewed 2026-07-12 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the star formation histories of galaxies from Cosmic Dawn to the Epoch of Reionization with the Santa Cruz SAM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LK3Q35V6

@misc{pith2026260702650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the star formation histories of galaxies from Cosmic Dawn to the Epoch of Reionization with the Santa Cruz SAM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LK3Q35V6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02650}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has opened a new window onto galaxy evolution in the very early Universe. In this work, we leverage halo merger trees extracted from the GUREFT dark-matter-only cosmological simulation suite together with the Santa Cruz semi-analytic model (SAM) for galaxy formation to investigate the predicted star formation histories (SFHs) of galaxies from cosmic dawn (z ~ 14) to the end of the Epoch of Reionization (EoR; z~6). While we find that on average, median SFHs of galaxies across all masses are uniformly and rapidly rising over time from 14 < z < 6 as expected, individual galaxy SFHs show a range of diverse SFHs, even for a fixed terminal mass or redshift, with bursts and mini-quenching episodes in agreement with SFHs inferred from observations. The median lookback time to form the youngest 50% (t_50) and 90% (t_90) of galaxies' stars decreases weakly with increasing stellar mass, and strongly with the redshift of observation. For galaxies at z>12, we find typical values of t_50 < 30 Myr and t_90 < 70 Myr, a factor of ~3 to 4 shorter than for comparable galaxies near the end of EoR (z ~ 6). The young-star dominated nature of stellar populations in ultra-high-z galaxies implies that careful modelling of young stellar populations is crucial for obtaining accurate synthetic photometry. In addition, our results have important implications for interpreting observational indicators of star formation histories and timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02650 by Kartheik G. Iyer, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Rachel S. Somerville, Steven L. Finkelstein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top row: The rest-frame FUV luminosity 𝐿UV (left axis) and magnitude (right axis) for a simple stellar population (SSP) of 𝑀∗ = 106 M⊙ as a function of stellar age predicted by bpass (magenta and red for binary and single star models), BC03 (orange, Chabrier100 only), fsps (green), and the Yggdrasil (blue) spectral synthesis models, assuming instantaneous starbursts for metallicities of nearly metal-free (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A breakdown of the composite stellar SED (top) and the fraction of the total flux density (bottom) that comes from stellar populations of different ages for a typical galaxy at 𝑧 ∼ 12 with log(𝑀∗/M⊙ ) = 8.89 and a rest-frame 𝑀UV = −21.85. We show that stars with age < 5 (< 10) Myr are responsible for ∼ 50% (∼ 75%) of the total light emitted in the FUV. is extremely sensitive to stellar age. For metal-poor … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UVLFs at 𝑧 = 9 to 17 run on gureft merger trees, with photometry computed using 1 Myr-wide stellar age bins (solid purple lines), compared to the Yung et al. (2024a) results, which utilized the 10 Myr-wide stellar age bins native to the Santa Cruz SAM outputs (cyan lines). Both sets of UV LFs do not include the effect of dust attenuation. The underlying simulations and predicted galaxy physical properties … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UVLFs at 𝑧 = 9 to 17 with extension to more massive halos from VSMDPL without dust attenuation (solid purple line) and with dust attenuation assuming a ‘slab’ dust model (dashed purple line). Past simulations using EPS-based merger trees are shown for comparison (blue solid and dashed lines for without and with dust attenuation, respectively; Yung et al. 2019a). Grey symbols show a compilation of observati… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The UV-to-SFR conversion factor, KUV, as a function of stellar mass for simulated galaxies from gureft-90 and gureft-35 at 𝑧 = 8, 10, and 12. We compute KUV using SFR100, matching the definition adopted in Yung et al. (2024a) to enable a direct comparison. Because the updated photometry pipeline yields brighter rest-frame UV luminosities at fixed SFR, the inferred KUV values are systematically lower than t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Star formation histories (SFHs) as a function of the age of the Universe (bottom 𝑥-axis) or redshift (top 𝑥-axis) for galaxies predicted by the Santa Cruz SAM, binned by their terminal stellar masses at 𝑧 = 6. We show the SFHs of a random sample of 50 SFHs in grey to illustrate the diverse SFH of individual galaxies. Red solid lines and shaded regions indicate the median and the 16th to 84th percentile ran… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Median instantaneous (left) and integrated (right) star formation efficiencies (SFEs) as a function of the age of the universe (bottom 𝑥-axis) or redshift (top 𝑥-axis) for galaxies binned by their terminal stellar masses at 𝑧 = 6. We find that more massive galaxies identified near the end of the EoR maintain higher star formation efficiencies throughout their histories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of stellar mass assembly histories (SMAHs) for galaxies terminating at 𝑧 = 6 with 8.5 ≲ log(𝑀𝑧=6 ∗ /M⊙ ) ≲ 11, simulated with the Santa Cruz SAM in merger trees extracted from gureft-90. Each track shows the cumulative stellar mass as a function of cosmic time (top axis) and redshift (bottom axis), and is colour-coded by the terminal stellar mass at 𝑧 = 6. This figure is designed to illustrate the… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of stars formed for galaxies in various stellar mass bins, normalized to their final stellar mass at 𝑧 = 6, as a function of cosmic time (bottom axis) and redshift (top axis), simulated with the Santa Cruz SAM in various gureft volumes (see annotated text in each panel). Individual galaxies are shown in grey. The red solid line and shaded region represent the median and the 16th to 84th percentile… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of stars formed for galaxies in various stellar mass bins, normalized to their final stellar mass at 𝑧 = 12, as a function of cosmic time (bottom axis) and redshift (top axis), simulated with the Santa Cruz SAM in various gureft volumes (see annotated text in each panel). Individual galaxies in the sample are shown in grey. The red solid line and shaded region represent the median and the 16th to… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized stellar mass assembly histories (cumulative frac￾tion of stellar mass formed) for galaxies identified at 𝑧 = 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 (see legend for colour coding) in bins of terminal stellar mass with Δ log(𝑀∗/ M⊙ ) = 0.5 as annotated in each panel, shown as a function of stellar age as predicted by the Santa Cruz SAM. Solid lines and shaded re￾gions indicate the median and the 16th to 84th pe… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Heatmaps showing the median 𝑡50 (top) and 𝑡90 (bottom) as a function of stellar mass and redshift, where 𝑡𝑋 is the lookback time (relative to the terminal redshift) over which galaxies formed their most recent 𝑋 per cent of stellar mass. The outline colour of each grid cell indicates the gureft volume from which the galaxy sample is drawn: blue, magenta, and cyan correspond to gureft-90, gureft-35, and gu… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Volume-normalized distributions of the ratio of SFR20/SFR100 for all simulated galaxies (cyan) and for UV-luminous galaxies with 𝑀UV < −20 (blue) at 𝑧 = 6 (left), 9 (middle), and 12 (right), simulated with VSMDPL merger trees. Data points and error bars in matching colours mark the median and the 16th to 84th percentile range of each distribution. The vertical grey dashed line marks the SFR20=SFR100 bound… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of SFR20/SFR100 over 6 ≲ 𝑧 ≲ 12 for all simulated galaxies (cyan) and for UV-luminous galaxies with 𝑀UV < −20 (blue), simulated with VSMDPL merger trees. The data points and error bars in matching colours mark the median and the 16th to 84th percentile range of each distribution. The horizontal grey dashed line marks the SFR20=SFR100 boundary, above which galaxies are more strongly dominated by … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The correlation between 𝑡50 and the SFR ratio SFR20/SFR100 computed for galaxies between 6 ≲ 𝑧 ≲ 15 and with 6 ≲ log(𝑀∗/M⊙ ) ≲ 9. The error bars represent the 16th and 84th percentile range in 𝑡50 and SFR20/SFR100 among the galaxy populations. This illustrates that the decline in SFR20/SFR100 with increasing cosmic time may arise from the ubiquitously rising SFH coupled with lengthening characteristic sta… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

222 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    R., Avila-Reese V., Rodr guez-Puebla A., Hernandez-Toledo H., Papastergis E., 2018, Revista Mexicana de Astronom\'ia y Astrof\'isica, 54, 443

    Calette A. R., Avila-Reese V., Rodr guez-Puebla A., Hernandez-Toledo H., Papastergis E., 2018, Revista Mexicana de Astronom\'ia y Astrof\'isica, 54, 443

    2018

  2. [80]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., Overzier R., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv705 , 451, 2663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv705 2015

  3. [81]

    P., Somerville R

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Somerville R. S., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2180 , 472, 2468

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2180 2017

  4. [82]

    S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , 487, 333

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Somerville R. S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , 487, 333

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1256 2019

  5. [83]

    Hirschmann M., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 , 526, 3610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955 2023

  6. [84]

    A., Riechers D., Decarli R., Walter F., Carilli C

    Hodge J. A., Riechers D., Decarli R., Walter F., Carilli C. L., Daddi E., Dannerbauer H., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L18 , 798, L18

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/l18 2015

  7. [85]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , 973, 8

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , 973, 8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 2024

  8. [86]

    Hutter A., Dayal P., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Legrand L., Ucci G., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab602 , 503, 3698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab602 2021

  9. [87]

    Iyer K., Gawiser E., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 , 838, 127

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f0 2017

  10. [88]

    G., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2150 , 498, 430

    Iyer K. G., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2150 , 498, 430

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2150 2020

  11. [89]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7c43 , 275, 38

    Iyer K. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7c43 , 275, 38

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad7c43 2024

  12. [90]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0334 , 994, 174

    Iyer K. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0334 , 994, 174

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0334 2025

  13. [91]

    G., Pacifici C., Calistro-Rivera G., Lovell C

    Iyer K. G., Pacifici C., Calistro-Rivera G., Lovell C. C., 2026 ( @eprint arXiv 2502.17680 )

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [92]

    I., Thuan T

    Izotov Y. I., Thuan T. X., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/306708 , 511, 639

    doi:10.1086/306708 1999

  15. [93]

    Jain S., Tacchella S., Mosleh M., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3333 , 527, 3291

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3333 2023

  16. [94]

    K., Cranmer M., Melchior P., Ho S., Somerville R

    Jespersen C. K., Cranmer M., Melchior P., Ho S., Somerville R. S., Gabrielpillai A., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b18 , 941, 7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b18 2022

  17. [95]

    K., Steinhardt C

    Jespersen C. K., Steinhardt C. L., Somerville R. S., Lovell C. C., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb422 , 982, 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb422 2025

  18. [96]

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

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , 254, 22

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  19. [97]

    Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., 1993, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/261.4.921 , 261, 921

    doi:10.1093/mnras/261.4.921 1993

  20. [98]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1989, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/167834 , 344, 685

    doi:10.1086/167834 1989

  21. [99]

    C., 1998, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , 36, 189

    Kennicutt R. C., 1998, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , 36, 189

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  22. [100]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 , 50, 531

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  23. [101]

    N., Lanfranchi G

    Kirby E. N., Lanfranchi G. A., Simon J. D., Cohen J. G., Guhathakurta P., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/78 , 727, 78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/78 2011

  24. [102]

    Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., He S., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw248 , 457, 4340

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw248 2016

  25. [103]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5 , 988, L10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5 2025

  26. [104]

    C., 2013, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  27. [105]

    C., et al., 2026 ( @eprint arXiv 2604.17963 )

    Kreilgaard K. C., et al., 2026 ( @eprint arXiv 2604.17963 )

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [106]

    Labb \'e I., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 , 616, 266

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 2023

  29. [107]

    Lacey C., Cole S., 1993, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627 , 262, 627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/262.3.627 1993

  30. [108]

    Lacey C., Cole S., 1994, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/271.3.676 , 271, 676

    doi:10.1093/mnras/271.3.676 1994

  31. [109]

    Lagos C. D. P., Tobar R. J., Robotham A. S. G., Obreschkow D., Mitchell P. D., Power C., Elahi P. J., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2440 , 481, 3573

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2440 2018

  32. [110]

    Lagos C. D. P., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1024 , 531, 3551

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1024 2024

  33. [111]

    C., Somerville R

    Lee S.-K., Ferguson H. C., Somerville R. S., Wiklind T., Giavalisco M., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1644 , 725, 1644

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1644 2010

  34. [112]

    Legrand L., Hutter A., Dayal P., Ucci G., Gottl \"o ber S., Yepes G., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3034 , 509, 595

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3034 2021

  35. [113]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/313233 , 123, 3

    doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  36. [114]

    D., Conroy C., Dokkum P

    Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Dokkum P. G. V., Byler N., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe , 837, 170

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  37. [115]

    C., Johnson B

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019a, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , 876, 3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

  38. [116]

    Leja J., et al., 2019b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a , 877, 140

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

  39. [117]

    Leung G. C. K., et al., 2023a, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/acfe78 , 269, 46

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfe78

  40. [118]

    Leung G. C. K., et al., 2023b, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365 , 954, L46

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf365 2041

  41. [119]

    C., Vijayan A

    Lovell C. C., Vijayan A. P., Thomas P. A., Wilkins S. M., Barnes D. J., Irodotou D., Roper W., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3360 , 500, 2127

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3360 2020

  42. [120]

    D., Conroy C., Dav \'e R., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 , 904, 33

    Lower S., Narayanan D., Leja J., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Dav \'e R., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 , 904, 33

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 2020

  43. [121]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , 52, 415

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  44. [122]

    C., Dickinson M

    Madau P., Ferguson H. C., Dickinson M. E., Giavalisco M., Steidel C. C., Fruchter A., 1996, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388 , 283, 1388

    doi:10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388 1996

  45. [123]

    McClymont W., et al., 2025, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staf1660 , 544, 513

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1660 2025

  46. [124]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , 764, 184

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184 2013

  47. [125]

    J., et al., 2026 ( @eprint arXiv 2604.16666 )

    McLeod D. J., et al., 2026 ( @eprint arXiv 2604.16666 )

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [126]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , 225, 27

    Momcheva I. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , 225, 27

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 2016

  49. [127]

    P., Naab T., White S

    Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts261 , 428, 3121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts261 2013

  50. [128]

    P., Naab T., White S

    Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty655 , 477, 1822

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty655 2018

  51. [129]

    Moustakas J., et al., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50 , 767, 50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/50 2013

  52. [130]

    B., et al., 2026, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stag415 , 547, 1

    Mu \ n oz J. B., et al., 2026, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stag415 , 547, 1

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag415 2026

  53. [131]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8 , 206, 8

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

  54. [132]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , 777, 18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/18

  55. [133]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , 940, L14

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , 940, L14

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 2022

  56. [134]

    Napolitano L., et al., 2025, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090 , 693, A50

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452090 2025

  57. [135]

    Nguyen T., Modi C., Yung L. Y. A., Somerville R. S., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2001 , 533, 3144

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2001 2024

  58. [136]

    Nguyen T., Modi C., Mishra-Sharma S., Yung L. Y. A., Somerville R. S., 2025, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staf1487 , 543, 722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1487 2025

  59. [137]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160817 , 266, 713

    doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  60. [138]

    P., Choi E., Ciotti L., Novak G

    Ostriker J. P., Choi E., Ciotti L., Novak G. S., Proga D., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/642 , 722, 642

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/642 2010

  61. [139]

    Pacifici C., Charlot S., Blaizot J., Brinchmann J., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x , 421, 2002

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x 2012

  62. [140]

    Pacifici C., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/79 , 832, 79

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/79 2016

  63. [141]

    Pandya V., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3c1 , 905, 4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3c1 2020

  64. [142]

    C., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/322412 , 559, 620

    Papovich C., Dickinson M., Ferguson H. C., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/322412 , 559, 620

    doi:10.1086/322412 2001

  65. [143]

    L., Ferguson H

    Papovich C., Finkelstein S. L., Ferguson H. C., Lotz J. M., Giavalisco M., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17965.x , 412, 1123

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17965.x 2011

  66. [144]

    Papovich C., et al., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/26 , 803, 26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/26 2015

  67. [145]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe. Princeton University Press

    1980

  68. [146]

    G., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , 951, L1

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , 951, L1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 2023

  69. [147]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8c9 , 991, 179

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8c9 , 991, 179

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8c9 2025

  70. [148]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , 594, A13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  71. [149]

    Popesso P., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 , 519, 1526

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3214 2023

  72. [150]

    S., Trager S

    Popping G., Somerville R. S., Trager S. C., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu991 , 442, 2398

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu991 2014

  73. [151]

    J., Ricarte A., Natarajan P., Somerville R

    Porras-Valverde A. J., Ricarte A., Natarajan P., Somerville R. S., Gabrielpillai A., Yung L. Y. A., 2026, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fb1 , 998, 48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fb1 2026

  74. [152]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/152650 , 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/152650 , 187, 425

    doi:10.1086/152650 1974

  75. [153]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    Price-Whelan A. M., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  76. [154]

    R., Mutch S

    Qin Y., Duffy A. R., Mutch S. J., Poole G. B., Geil P. M., Angel P. W., Mesinger A., Wyithe J. S. B., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx083 , 467, 1678

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx083 2017

  77. [155]

    D., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/59 , 783, 59

    Rawle T. D., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/59 , 783, 59

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/59 2014

  78. [156]

    Reback J., et al., 2022, Pandas-Dev/Pandas: Pandas 1.4.2, Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/ZENODO.6408044

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6408044 2022

  79. [157]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 , 7, 611

    Robertson B. E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 , 7, 611

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1 2023

  80. [158]

    Robertson B., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d , 970, 31

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d 2024

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 12, 2026.