Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Star clusters seen at cosmic dawn already sit at the local globular-cluster metallicity floor, while clusters formed 2.5 Gyr later are far more enriched.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 05:03 UTC pith:OSCRS24T

load-bearing objection Solid new GEMS photometry and a clean two-epoch enrichment ordering; the floor point estimate is prior-driven and the dust-free injection tests leave one real gap, but the paper is honest about both and still worth engaging. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24952 v1 pith:OSCRS24T submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Reaching the Metallicity Floor at zsim 10: Lensed Star Clusters at Cosmic Dawn and Cosmic Noon

Raul Jimenez , Elena Tomasetti , Carmela Lardo , Licia Verde This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords globular clustershigh-redshift galaxiescosmic dawnchemical enrichmentstrong gravitational lensingatomic-cooling halosstar cluster formationmetallicity floor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper places two strongly lensed star-cluster populations on one timeline: the Cosmic Gems arc at redshift 9.6 and the Sparkler at redshift 1.4. New deconvolution photometry and a common Bayesian analysis show the Gems clusters formed around redshift 10–11, when the first atomic-cooling halos assembled, and that their light requires very low metallicity—low enough to match the floor seen in today’s Milky Way globular clusters, and firmly ruling out near-solar values. The Sparkler clusters formed much later, in an ordinary Cosmic Noon dwarf, at intermediate metallicity around one-third solar. Closed-box and gas-regulator calculations show both results fit a simple picture: early clusters form from nearly pristine gas and then rapidly enrich their surroundings, while later clusters form in galaxies whose metallicity is held down by fresh metal-poor inflow. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a direct look at birth conditions of globular-cluster progenitors across the first few billion years, not only the survivors we see today.

Core claim

The GEMS clusters formed at z_form ≈ 10–11 (median ≃ 10.2) with population metallicity formally [Z/H] = −2.3 ± 0.3—consistent with the Milky Way globular-cluster floor—while every cluster is individually below [Z/H] ≲ −1.2 and the data exclude [Z/H] ≥ −0.5. The Sparkler clusters formed ~2.5 Gyr later at z_form ≈ 2–3.5 with [Z/H] ≈ −0.5. Together they sample two enrichment regimes: a primordial near-floor burst and later accretion-regulated growth.

What carries the argument

A homogeneous Bayesian SED fit of STARRED deconvolution photometry for ten doubly imaged GEMS clusters (and five Sparkler GCs), converted to formation redshifts on a common cosmology and interpreted with limiting closed-box and gas-regulator chemical-evolution models plus the atomic-cooling halo mass threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The formal floor-level metallicity number depends on a logarithmic prior in metallicity; the same photometry under a linear prior would not land on the floor, even though the exclusion of high metallicity does not need that prior.

What would settle it

Deeper, higher-resolution stellar-continuum spectroscopy of the individual GEMS clusters that measures photospheric metal lines (not just the post-burst nebular gas already seen at PRISM resolution) and either confirms or raises the birth metallicities above the floor.

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

If this is right

  • Early massive clusters can form in atomic-cooling-scale halos from gas that has seen only trace prior star formation.
  • The burst that builds those clusters can raise retained gas by one to two orders of magnitude within tens of Myr, matching observed nebular metallicities near the arc.
  • Cluster metallicity at fixed cosmic time is set more by host environment (closed burst vs open accretion) than by a universal clock.
  • Local globular-cluster age–metallicity extremes have direct high-redshift analogues, without forcing an in-situ or ex-situ label on either system.
  • Future continuum spectroscopy of lensed clusters at z ~ 10 can decide whether the local metallicity floor is already a birth floor.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If floor-level birth metallicities are common at z ~ 10, survival-based explanations of the local floor become incomplete: the floor is at least partly set at formation.
  • The mass budget implying multiple progenitor halos merging within ~100 Myr suggests cluster-rich first galaxies are rapidly assembled merger products, not single isolated bursts.
  • Injection–recovery already shows linear-prior SED fits of young clusters systematically invent ~0.1 Z_⊙ metallicities; other high-z photometric metallicities may need the same check.
  • A statistical sample of lensed cluster hosts between z ~ 10 and z ~ 3 could map when the closed-box-to-regulator transition typically occurs.

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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes star-cluster populations in two strongly lensed systems — GEMS at z=9.625 (ten doubly imaged clusters from STARRED deconvolution photometry) and the Sparkler at z=1.378 — under a homogeneous Bayesian SED-fitting framework, and places them on a common cosmological timeline. Its claims come in three tiers, explicitly distinguished by the authors in Sect. 5: (1) a robust, prior- and template-independent result that all GEMS clusters lie below [Z/H]~-1.2 at 68% confidence and that the injection-recovery calibration excludes a true metallicity >=0.3 Z_sun; (2) a floor-level population point estimate [Z/H]=-2.3±0.3, consistent with the Milky Way GC metallicity floor but acknowledged to be prior-dependent (a linear prior shifts it to -0.24); and (3) an interpretive layer identifying the two systems with a primordial closed-box burst mode near the atomic-cooling threshold and an accretion-regulated open-system mode at Cosmic Noon. The formation-epoch analysis (z_form~10.2 for GEMS, ~2.3 for the Sparkler) and the EPS timing match are presented as the non-circular evidence for the threshold-halo interpretation, the authors being commendably explicit that placing GEMS on the cooling boundary is definitional rather than evidential.

Significance. If the Tier-1 exclusion holds, this is the first direct constraint on the birth metallicities of a star-cluster population at z~10, reaching the regime of the local GC metallicity floor and sampling the epoch where GC-formation models diverge most strongly (z~6-14; Valenzuela et al. 2025). The paper ships several genuine methodological strengths: injection-recovery calibration across four template combinations (each family fit with itself and the other), ages derived without a cosmological prior, counterimage consistency checks, a template cross-validation (BC03 vs BPASS, systematic <=0.4 dex), an unusually frank prior-sensitivity analysis (Appendix A(i), Table A.1), and a falsifiable observational prediction (stellar photospheric spectroscopy vs PRISM nebular constraints). The EPS timing comparison is parameter-free and genuinely predictive. The floor-level point estimate is prior-dominated, but this is disclosed rather than hidden, and the robust claims are structured to avoid it.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix A(iii); Sect. 5] The exclusion of [Z/H]>=-0.5, identified in Sect. 5 as the prior- and template-independent empirical core, rests on injection-recovery tests whose injected SEDs are all single, dust-free bursts, while the actual fits leave A_V free over 0-4 mag (Calzetti; Sect. 3.1). At 30-100 Myr the age-dust-metallicity degeneracy acts in the dangerous direction: a dusty metal-rich input can in principle re-fit as metal-poor and dust-free. Nothing shown excludes a [Z/H]=-0.5, A_V~0.5-1 truth landing at [Z/H]~=-2, A_V~=0. Required: (i) an injection grid with nonzero input A_V at metal-rich truths; (ii) the joint (Z, A_V) posteriors of the real fits -- fitted A_V values are reported nowhere, not even in Table 2; (iii) per-source SNR, so the reader can see which clusters satisfy the SNR>=30 condition under which BC03 faithfully recovers an input of -0.5 (Appendix A(iii)). The arc's integrated beta_UV~=-2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A(iii) vs Table 2] The injection-recovery grid covers ages 10/30/60 Myr, but the fitted ages of clusters H, I, and J are 91-99 Myr (Table 2), beyond the oldest calibration node. Either extend the grid or state explicitly how the calibration statements apply to these objects.
  2. [Sect. 4.3.1; Fig. 2] The inverse-variance-weighted median epsilon~=2.7% is dominated by the two least massive clusters because the absolute error on epsilon scales with M*, so weighting by absolute error biases toward small values; the unweighted median is ~46%. Both are disclosed, but the weighted value is presented as the headline efficiency and enters the 'few percent' narrative. Log-space combination, or quoting the unweighted statistic as primary, would be more defensible.
  3. [Sect. 4.4.1] The forward enrichment relation Delta_Z ~ y*eps/(1-eps) is only meaningful for eps<1, yet Table 2 gives eps>1 for H, I, J and the quoted range 0.05-2 Z_sun implicitly spans eps near unity. Please state the domain of the formula and note that for the most massive clusters it breaks down rather than merely 'formally reaching unity'.
  4. [Sect. 3.4.2/4.4.2] The regulator estimate uses y=0.03 (the net yield) as the effective yield in Z ~ y*SFR/MFR; with outflows the effective yield is normally lower. Since MFR/SFR~4-6 is itself chosen from literature ranges, clarify what is absorbed into y so the agreement with -0.48 is not over-read.
  5. [Table A.1] The last three (linear-prior) rows report values but no uncertainties for the two BPASS rows (dashes); fill these in or explain why they are unavailable, since Table A.1 is the quantitative basis for the prior-dependence discussion.
  6. [Sect. 3.1; Appendix A(i)] The logarithmic prior is said to be derivable 'from first principles' citing Jimenez et al. 2026, which is listed as submitted. Soften the claim or note the preprint status, since this citation carries part of the justification for the prior on which the floor-level point estimate rests.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Acknowledged self-placement of GEMS on the atomic-cooling boundary and prior-geometry for the floor point estimate; main empirical claims (ages, [Z/H] upper bounds) remain independent.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sect. 3.3 and 4.3.1; Fig. 2 top]
    "Because each cluster is placed at the threshold mass Matom(zform) by construction (Sect. 3.3; Fig. 2, top panel), its lying on the cooling boundary is definitional and is not evidence for the hypothesis: that placement is what is being examined."

    Host halo mass for each GEMS cluster is set equal to M_atom(z_form) by the analysis design. Any statement that the population ‘traces the cooling boundary’ is therefore true by assignment, not an independent test. The authors correctly demote this visual and rely instead on EPS timing and efficiencies; the step is still a self-definitional construction in the diagnostic diagram.

  2. self definitional [Sect. 4.4.1 (closed-box M*,prior)]
    "Under the closed-box assumption this is simply the low metallicity re-expressed as a mass (M∗,prior∝Z at fixed reservoir and yield), not an independent constraint: the GEMS clusters formed from gas enriched only by trace preceding star formation—a near-first stellar generation. Because it restates the metallicity rather than adding evidence, this reading is correspondingly insensitive to the residual metallicity uncertainty."

    M*,prior = Z M_gas/y is algebraically Z rewritten as a stellar mass at fixed reservoir and yield. Presenting ‘only ∼10^4–10^5 M⊙ of prior stars’ as a physical implication of the closed-box model does not add information beyond the adopted metallicity; the paper acknowledges the reduction.

  3. self citation load bearing [Sect. 3.1, 5; Appendix A (prior sensitivity); Jimenez et al. 2026]
    "the metallicity was sampled logarithmically (uniform prior in log10 Z), the appropriate choice for a scale parameter constrained over several decades (see Jimenez et al. 2026, for a physical principle underlying such prior choices, whose importance for this measurement is quantified in Appendix A); … An importance-reweighting estimate … under a linear-uniform metallicity prior … yields a population value of [Z/H]=−0.24±0.14, compared with −2.3±0.3 under the logarithmic prior."

    When the likelihood is nearly flat below [Z/H]≃−1, the floor-level point estimate [Z/H]=−2.3±0.3 is set by the logarithmic prior’s geometry (and its lower bound), not by data localization. Justification for that prior is referred to Jimenez et al. 2026 (overlapping authors). This is load-bearing only for the formal floor value and the ‘consistent with the MW GC metallicity floor’ phrasing; the exclusion of [Z/H]≥−0.5 and per-cluster ≲−1.2 bounds do not require it.

  4. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 3.4.2 and 4.4.2 (gas-regulator for Sparkler)]
    "Quantitatively, the regulator equilibrium of Sect. 3, Z≈y SFR/MFR, with y=0.03 and the inflow-to-star-formation ratios MFR/SFR≈4–6 typical of low-mass galaxies at these redshifts … yields Zeq≈0.25–0.4Z⊙, i.e., [Z/H]≈−0.6 to −0.4, in agreement with the observed −0.48."

    The ‘agreement’ is obtained by inserting literature-typical MFR/SFR ratios chosen to land near the already-measured Sparkler metallicity. This is an illustrative consistency check with tunable inputs, not an out-of-sample prediction. The paper softens the claim (‘compatible… although they do not uniquely require this regime’), so the circularity is partial and disclosed.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing empirical chain—SED ages converted to z_form, population metallicity upper bounds excluding [Z/H]≥−0.5, and the Sparkler contrast—does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Two moderate circularity burdens exist and are largely disclosed by the authors. (1) GEMS clusters are assigned host mass M_atom(z_form) by construction (Sect. 3.3), so their appearance on the cooling boundary in Fig. 2 is definitional; the authors state this explicitly and rest the hypothesis on the EPS timing match and per-cluster efficiencies instead. (2) The formal population point estimate [Z/H]=−2.3±0.3 is prior-dominated when the likelihood is flat below ≃−1.5; a linear-uniform prior on the same posteriors yields ≃−0.24 (Appendix A), and the logarithmic prior is justified in part by a same-author citation (Jimenez et al. 2026). The closed-box M*,prior argument is likewise a re-expression of Z, which the text flags. None of these force the robust tier (every cluster ≲−1.2; ≥−0.5 excluded under both template families). Score 3 reflects disclosed self-definitional placement plus prior self-citation that is load-bearing only for the floor point value, not for the paper’s empirical core.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central low-Z and two-epoch claims rest on standard stellar-population and cosmological machinery plus one consequential prior choice and limiting one-zone chemical models. No new particles or forces are introduced. The interpretive 'two modes' are labels for limiting regimes already in the literature (closed-box atomic-cooling vs gas regulator), not new ontological entities.

free parameters (6)
  • logarithmic metallicity prior lower bound = fiducial yields [Z/H]=−2.34±0.27
    Uniform prior in log10 Z extending below the BC03 grid; moving the bound from −2.8 to −4 shifts population [Z/H] by up to ~0.4 dex, and a linear prior shifts it by ~2 dex (Appendix A).
  • net stellar yield y = 0.03
    Fixed at y≈0.03 for closed-box and regulator calculations (Sect. 3.4); order-of-magnitude conclusions stated to be stable to factor-of-two changes.
  • star-formation history timescale cap = ≤100 Myr; single-burst reference
    SFH timescales limited to 100 Myr; single-burst adopted as reference while exp/delayed-τ ages older by up to ×2 (Sect. 3.1, 5).
  • lensing magnification (mean of two models) = model mean; scatter 0.1–0.2 dex
    Delensed masses use mean of two Messa et al. (2026) lens models; 0.1–0.2 dex scatter dominates mass and ε errors (Sect. 3.1).
  • Sparkler host M* and SHMR = M*~3–10×10^8 Msun → Mhalo~10^10.7–10^11 Msun
    Host stellar mass anchored to literature µ=5–12 estimates and a ×10 field-star scaling; Behroozi et al. (2013) SHMR converts to Mhalo (Sect. 3.3).
  • MFR/SFR ratio for regulator equilibrium = 4–6
    Typical Cosmic-Noon dwarf inflow-to-SFR ratios 4–6 used to predict Zeq≈0.25–0.4 Zsun (Sect. 4.4.2).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2020 parameters converts SED ages (no cosmological prior) into z_form
    Sect. 3.2; only step at which cosmology enters formation redshifts.
  • domain assumption Atomic-cooling threshold Matom(z) from Barkana & Loeb (2001) at Tvir=10^4 K is the relevant minimum halo mass for sustained star formation at z≳10
    Sect. 3.3; GEMS placed on this boundary by construction.
  • domain assumption BC03 and BPASS stellar-population models (with stated SFHs, Kroupa IMF, Calzetti dust) adequately describe integrated light of ≲100 Myr clusters at low Z
    Sect. 3.1; cross-fits and injection–recovery quantify template systematics ≤0.4 dex.
  • domain assumption Closed-box relation Z≈y M*/Mgas and forward enrichment ΔZ≈yε/(1−ε) describe the first atomic-cooling halos to order of magnitude
    Sect. 3.4.1; used to convert GEMS Z into M*,prior and post-burst gas Z.
  • domain assumption Gas-regulator equilibrium Z≈y SFR/MFR describes Cosmic-Noon dwarf ISM metallicity
    Sect. 3.4.2, 4.4.2; Lilly et al. (2013) framework.
  • ad hoc to paper Logarithmic prior is the appropriate non-informative choice for metallicity as a scale parameter
    Sect. 3.1 and Appendix A, justified by appeal to Jimenez et al. 2026; drives the floor point estimate.
  • domain assumption Extended Press–Schechter assembly epoch of Matom halos is the expected formation-time distribution for first clusters (Trenti et al. 2015 channel)
    Sect. 3.3, 4.3.1; compared to pooled GEMS z_form posterior.
invented entities (1)
  • primordial burst mode vs secular accretion mode (as named regimes) no independent evidence
    purpose: Label the two limiting cluster-formation environments assigned to GEMS and Sparkler
    Interpretive framing of existing closed-box and gas-regulator limits (Sect. 2, 4.4), not a new physical object; independent_evidence false as named modes, though the underlying models are standard.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 29794 in / 4596 out tokens · 89989 ms · 2026-07-31T05:03:33.068430+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Origins of globular clusters (GCs) are linked to the assembly of their host galaxies. We analyze star-cluster populations in two strongly lensed systems that bracket Cosmic Dawn and Cosmic Noon: the Cosmic Gems arc (GEMS) at z=9.625, among the first galaxies, and the Sparkler at z=1.378. New STARRED deconvolution photometry of GEMS provides SEDs for ten unique, doubly imaged cluster candidates, while a homogeneous Bayesian analysis places both populations on a common cosmological timeline. The GEMS clusters formed at $z_{\rm form}\approx 10$--$11$ (median $\simeq10.2$), consistent with halo assembly at or above the atomic-cooling scale. Their photometry requires low metallicities: individual clusters are consistent with $[Z/{\rm H}] \lesssim -1.2$, and the data exclude $[Z/{\rm H}]\geq-0.5$, though they cannot distinguish reliably below $[Z/{\rm H}] \simeq -1.5$. This conclusion is unchanged when using stellar-population models including binary evolution---important for ultraviolet emission at this age---yielding similarly low metallicities, $[Z/{\rm H}]=-2.2$ to $-2.7$. The formal estimate, $[Z/{\rm H}] = -2.3\pm0.3$, is consistent with the Milky Way GC metallicity floor, though its value remains prior-dependent. The Sparkler clusters formed $\sim2.5$ Gyr later, at $z_{\rm form}\approx 2$--$3.5$ in a Cosmic Noon dwarf galaxy, and are more enriched ($[Z/{\rm H}] \approx -0.5$). Comparison with Milky Way GCs places GEMS in an exceptionally early, metal-poor regime and the Sparkler among later, more enriched populations, though neither association uniquely determines an in-situ or ex-situ origin. Closed-box and gas-regulator calculations show both systems are compatible with limited pre-enrichment followed by rapid enrichment and accretion-regulated growth. Together, they probe distinct cluster-forming environments from Cosmic Dawn to Cosmic Noon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24952 by Carmela Lardo, Elena Tomasetti, Licia Verde, Raul Jimenez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: presents the central result of this work by combin￾ing the two measurements: metallicity against formation epoch, expressed both as the age of the Universe at cluster formation (bottom axis) and as formation redshift (top axis). Three fea￾tures stand out. First, the two populations are consistent with the expected direction of cosmic chemical enrichment—the clusters that formed earliest are the most metal-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Formation-redshift distributions of the two cluster populations, obtained by pooling the Monte Carlo zform posteriors of the individual clusters. The GEMS clusters (zobs = 9.625, solid red) display a syn￾chronized formation burst peaking at zform ≈ 10, in agreement with the extended Press–Schechter expectation for the assembly epoch of halos at the atomic-cooling threshold (dotted black line; cf. Trenti et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: the atomic-cooling threshold Matom(z) (Tvir = 104 K; Sect. 3.3) (solid line), with the extended Press–Schechter median forma￾tion epoch and 16–84% spread for halos of that mass (dashed line and shaded band). The GEMS clusters are placed on the threshold at their formation redshifts, zform ≈ 10–11 (Sect. 3.3); vertical bars map the stellar-mass uncertainties of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: places the two systems on the observed age– metallicity plane of the MW GC system. The comparison sam￾ple comprises 69 MW GCs with homogeneous ages, [Fe/H], and progenitor classifications, together with the truncated￾exponential age–metallicity relations (AMRs) inferred for the five accreted progenitors—Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE), Sagittarius, Sequoia, Helmi/H99, and the low-energy group (Val￾cin et al. … 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

65 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513

    2024

  2. [2]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 525, L6

    Adamo, A., Usher, C., Pfeffer, J., & Claeyssens, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 525, L6

    2023

  3. [3]

    Adamo, A., Zeidler, P., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 69

    2020

  4. [4]

    & Loeb, A

    Barkana, R. & Loeb, A. 2001, Physics Reports, 349, 125

    2001

  5. [5]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 83

    2018

  6. [6]

    A., Leaman , R., Gallart , C., et al

    Beasley , M. A., Leaman , R., Gallart , C., et al. 2019, , 487, 1986

    2019

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Conroy , C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57

    2013

  8. [8]

    D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 32

    2025

  9. [9]

    Brodie, J. P. & Strader, J. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 193

    2006

  10. [10]

    & Yoshida, N

    Bromm, V. & Yoshida, N. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 373

    2011

  11. [11]

    & Charlot, S

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

    2003

  12. [12]

    2022, , 516, 5914

    Calura , F., Lupi , A., Rosdahl , J., et al. 2022, , 516, 5914

    2022

  13. [13]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379

    2018

  14. [14]

    & Gnedin , O

    Chen , Y. & Gnedin , O. Y. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 23

    2024

  15. [15]

    Y., & Li , H

    Choksi , N., Gnedin , O. Y., & Li , H. 2018, , 480, 2343

    2018

  16. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    Claeyssens , A., Adamo , A., Richard , J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    2023

  17. [17]

    De Lucia , G., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Trujillo-Gomez , S., Hirschmann , M., & Xie , L. 2024, , 530, 2760

    2024

  18. [18]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451

    2009

  19. [19]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e058

    2017

  20. [20]

    Forbes, D. A. & Bridges, T. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 1203

    2010

  21. [21]

    Forbes, D. A. & Romanowsky, A. J. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 520, L58

    2023

  22. [22]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 1487

    1996

  23. [23]

    2026, submitted to JCAP, arXiv:2606.18491

    Jimenez , R., Pe \ n a Garay , C., Simpson , F., & Verde , L. 2026, submitted to JCAP, arXiv:2606.18491

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Kimm , T., Cen , R., Rosdahl , J., & Yi , S. K. 2016, , 823, 52

    2016

  25. [25]

    Kravtsov, A. V. & Gnedin, O. Y. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 650

    2005

  26. [26]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1658

    2015

  27. [27]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D. 2019, , 486, L20

    2019

  28. [28]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Reina-Campos, M., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 3180

    2019

  29. [29]

    & Cole , S

    Lacey , C. & Cole , S. 1993, , 262, 627

    1993

  30. [30]

    H., et al

    Lah \'e n , N., Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., et al. 2019, , 879, L18

    2019

  31. [31]

    H., et al

    Lah \'e n , N., Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., et al. 2020, , 891, 2

    2020

  32. [32]

    2026, , 709, A280

    Lardo , C., Valcin , D., & Jimenez , R. 2026, , 709, A280

    2026

  33. [33]

    S., Romanowsky , A

    Larsen , S. S., Romanowsky , A. J., Brodie , J. P., & Wasserman , A. 2020, Science, 370, 970

    2020

  34. [34]

    A., & Mendel, J

    Leaman, R., VandenBerg, D. A., & Mendel, J. T. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 122

    2013

  35. [35]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y.-j. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 119

    2013

  36. [36]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  37. [37]

    & Mannucci, F

    Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 27, 3

    2019

  38. [38]

    F., Venn , K

    Martin , N. F., Venn , K. A., Aguado , D. S., et al. 2022, , 601, 45

    2022

  39. [39]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, L4

    2019

  40. [40]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.05509

    McClymont , W., Belokurov , V., Tacchella , S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.05509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    2025, , 544, 513

    McClymont , W., Tacchella , S., Smith , A., et al. 2025, , 544, 513

    2025

  42. [42]

    2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 705, A173

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 705, A173

    2026

  43. [43]

    Millon, M., Michalewicz, K., Dux, F., Courbin, F., & Marshall, P. J. 2024, AJ, 168, 55

    2024

  44. [44]

    2024, Nature, 636, 332

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 332

    2024

  45. [45]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 937, L35

    2022

  46. [46]

    Muratov, A. L. & Gnedin, O. Y. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1266

    2010

  47. [47]

    2022, , 262, 3

    Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., Xu , Y., et al. 2022, , 262, 3

    2022

  48. [48]

    2025, , 699, A31

    Pascale , R., Calura , F., Vesperini , E., et al. 2025, , 699, A31

    2025

  49. [49]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1984, , 277, 470

    1984

  50. [50]

    Peebles, P. J. E. & Dicke, R. H. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 154, 891

    1968

  51. [51]

    Pfeffer, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4309

    2018

  52. [52]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    2020

  53. [53]

    W., Kruijssen , J

    Reina-Campos , M., Keller , B. W., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2022, , 517, 3144

    2022

  54. [54]

    1993, , 414, 580

    Salaris , M., Chieffi , A., & Straniero , O. 1993, , 414, 580

    1993

  55. [55]

    & Zinn, R

    Searle, L. & Zinn, R. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 225, 357

    1978

  56. [56]

    Stanway , E. R. & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75

    2018

  57. [57]

    J., et al

    Tegmark, M., Silk, J., Rees, M. J., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 474, 1

    1997

  58. [58]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 699, A240

    Tomasetti, E., Moresco, M., Lardo, C., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 699, A240

    2025

  59. [59]

    2026, A&A, submitted

    Tomasetti , E., Moresco , M., Lardo , C., et al. 2026, A&A, submitted

    2026

  60. [60]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 808, L35

    Trenti , M., Padoan , P., & Jimenez , R. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 808, L35

    2015

  61. [61]

    2025, , 2025, 030

    Valcin , D., Jimenez , R., Seljak , U., & Verde , L. 2025, , 2025, 030

    2025

  62. [62]

    M., Forbes , D

    Valenzuela , L. M., Forbes , D. A., & Remus , R.-S. 2025, , 537, 306

    2025

  63. [63]

    2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 705, A171

    Vanzella, E., Messa, M., Adamo, A., et al. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 705, A171

    2026

  64. [64]

    F., Li , T

    Wan , Z., Lewis , G. F., Li , T. S., et al. 2020, , 583, 768

    2020

  65. [65]

    J., Pezzulli , G., & Matthee , J

    Wang , E., Lilly , S. J., Pezzulli , G., & Matthee , J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 132

    2019