Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 220 references

This paper argues that the COLIBRE simulation suite reproduces observed galaxy dust scaling relations from z=0 to z=15, while overproducing dust at late times and missing the most extreme sub-millimeter galaxies.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:43 UTC pith:QSM7RYN3

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful dust-simulation reference set, with a real but disclosed caveat: the clumping-factor tuning underlies much of the DTM/DTG agreement. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26058 v1 pith:QSM7RYN3 submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.GA

The evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations in the COLIBRE simulations

Aswin P. Vijayan , James W. Trayford , Joop Schaye , Sylvia Ploeckinger , Andrea Gebek , Nick Andreadis , Maarten Baes , Alejandro Ben\'itez-Llambay
show 6 more authors
Evgenii Chaikin Carlos S. Frenk Filip Hu\v{s}ko Robert J. McGibbon Alexander J. Richings Matthieu Schaller
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ISM: dustdust scaling relationscosmological simulationsgrain growthdust-to-metal ratiodust mass functionhigh-redshift galaxiesgrain size evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the COLIBRE cosmological simulations, which track dust production by stars, grain growth and destruction in the interstellar medium, and grain size evolution, reproduce the observed evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations from the present day back to z=15, when the universe was under a billion years old. If right, the simulations give a physically self-consistent baseline for interpreting ALMA and JWST dust observations across cosmic time, including dust-to-gas ratios, dust-to-metal ratios, dust mass functions, and the total dust density of the universe. The central anchor of the argument is that dust content is set by a three-regime balance—stellar seeding at low metallicity, rapid grain growth in dense gas at intermediate metallicity, and saturation at high metallicity—which produces a characteristic S-shaped scaling relation that matches observations in shape and normalisation. The model also makes concrete predictions: silicates dominate dust mass at all epochs, large grains give way to small grains toward the present day, and dust enrichment proceeds quickly in the early universe. Its failures—overproducing dust at z<1 by a few tenths of a dex and failing to make the most massive sub-millimeter galaxies—are argued to be informative physical gaps rather than numerical artifacts.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a single cosmological simulation that couples dust to the multiphase gas, chemistry, and feedback can simultaneously match the observed dust-to-gas and dust-to-metal ratios as functions of metallicity, the dust mass–stellar mass relation, the dust mass function, and the cosmic dust mass density across 0 ≤ z ≤ 15, with agreement best at the highest resolution. The simulations reproduce the characteristic sigmoid 'S-shape' of the DTG- and DTM-metallicity relations, tracing the transition from stellar dust production to interstellar grain growth to saturation at a dust-to-metal ratio near 0.3, set by the model's cap on carbon condensation. The

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a resolution-dependent subgrid clumping factor C(n_H) that boosts the local gas density entering the grain-growth and coagulation timescales, capped at C_max = 100, compensating for the simulation's inability to resolve the dense clouds where accretion is most efficient. Around this sits a three-regime dust economy that produces the paper's central observable signature: at low metallicity, stellar seeding from AGB stars and core-collapse supernovae sets the dust-to-metal ratio; at intermediate metallicity, grain growth in dense gas, with timescales inversely proportional to both metallicity and boosted density, drives a sharp rise; at high metallicity, depletion

Load-bearing premise

The paper's agreement with observed dust-to-metal and dust-to-gas ratios rests on a single unresolved subgrid prescription—a clumping factor that multiplies gas density by up to 100 in the grain-growth and coagulation timescales—which the authors themselves note may require re-calibration at each numerical resolution; if this boost does not faithfully represent the true distribution of dense gas, the match to observations in the growth-dominated regime is partly built in rath

What would settle it

Resolve the clumping prescription: run the same galaxy at a resolution high enough to model molecular clouds explicitly, so the clumping factor is unnecessary, and check whether the predicted S-shape transition metallicity of the dust-to-metal relation, and its shift from z=0 to z=2, is unchanged. An observational alternative: measure dust-to-metal ratios at fixed metallicity, around 12+log10(O/H) of 8, in galaxies at z ≈ 0, 1, and 2; the model predicts a significant rise from z=0 to z=2 in this regime, whereas models with grain growth restricted to a fixed dense-gas fraction predict little ev

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

If this is right

  • If correct, COLIBRE's dust scaling relations provide a self-consistent baseline for interpreting ALMA and JWST dust observations: the dust content of a galaxy is predicted from its metallicity and stellar mass, and the predicted evolution of the dust mass function and cosmic dust mass density can be compared against ongoing surveys.
  • The model predicts rapid dust enrichment in the early universe (z = 10–15), with dust masses marginally consistent with current observational upper limits—a claim that JWST and ALMA follow-up can confirm or rule out.
  • The flat z=1 to z=0 evolution of the simulated cosmic dust mass density, which conflicts with most observations, is attributed to gas-phase selection: when the dust density is computed using only dense or molecular phases, the simulated decline from z=1 to 0 mirrors the observed trend.
  • The failure to reproduce extreme sub-millimeter galaxies even when all metals are condensed into dust implies that such systems require higher dense-gas fractions and metallicities than the simulations produce, constraining the physics of early enrichment.
  • At high masses silicates dominate the dust mass at all epochs, and the small-to-large grain mass ratio follows a characteristic rise-peak-decline pattern that connects extinction-curve properties to galaxy mass and redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: because the clumping factor is recalibrated per resolution, the growth-dominated portion of the scaling relations is calibrated output rather than an ab-initio prediction; the strongest genuine tests are the saturated high-metallicity and high-mass regime and the redshift evolution of the growth transition.
  • A testable extension: the paper notes that its largest volume may be too small to sample the rare density peaks hosting extreme sub-millimeter galaxies. If larger-volume simulations recover these objects, the SMG deficit is a cosmic-variance artifact; if not, the deficit points to missing physics such as more efficient early enrichment or higher dust condensation in stellar ejecta.
  • The similarity between the model's DTM saturation value, about 0.3, and the constant dust-to-metal ratio assumed in many dust-free galaxy formation models suggests the carbon condensation cap, rather than detailed grain physics, is the dominant lever controlling the high-metallicity plateau; varying this single parameter would shift all high-metallicity dust predictions.
  • The finding that dense-phase selections reproduce the observed z=1 to 0 decline in cosmic dust mass density implies that low-redshift observational dust estimates may preferentially trace dense star-forming regions and undercount diffuse dust reservoirs; forward-modelled synthetic observations could determine whether the entire CDMD discrepancy is an observational selection bias.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents dust scaling relations from z=0 to z=15 predicted by the COLIBRE cosmological simulations, at three resolutions (baryon masses 2.3e5, 1.84e6, 1.47e7 solar masses) and volumes up to (400 cMpc)^3. The model tracks six dust grain species in two size bins, including production by AGB stars and CCSNe, accretion, sputtering, astration, SN/AGN shock destruction, shattering and coagulation, coupled to a multiphase ISM and non-equilibrium chemistry. The paper compares predicted dust-to-gas (DTG) and dust-to-metal (DTM) ratios as functions of metallicity and stellar mass, the dust mass–stellar mass relation, silicate fractions, small-to-large grain mass ratios, the dust mass function (DMF), and the cosmic dust mass density (CDMD) against a large compilation of observations from z=0 to z~15. The authors report that the model broadly reproduces most observed trends, with best agreement at the highest resolution; that silicates dominate the dust mass; that early grain populations are large-grain dominated; that the DMF at z<1 is reproduced; that the CDMD is overproduced by about 0.3 dex at z<1 while matching at higher redshift; and that extreme sub-millimeter galaxy dust masses are underpredicted. They also show that gas-phase selection significantly affects the normalisation of the relations, complicating direct comparison with observations.

Significance. The paper is potentially a reference benchmark for dust evolution in cosmological simulations. Its strengths include z=0-15 coverage, a three-resolution convergence analysis, large volumes, a coupled multiphase ISM with a fairly detailed dust model, transparent percentile spreads, explicit discussion of observational systematics, and planned public data. If the predictions are genuinely independent of the calibration choices, the DMF, CDMD, and grain-size predictions would provide valuable baselines for interpreting ALMA/JWST dust observations. However, the main quantitative successes in the DTG/DTM plane are tied to a clumping factor calibrated to reproduce observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios, and the DTM plateau is set by an ad hoc carbon cap. These load-bearing choices need a sensitivity analysis before the paper's central claim can be accepted as an independent prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.3, Eq. (3); §§4.1–4.2] The clumping factor C(n_H) multiplies the gas density entering the grain-growth and coagulation timescales (Eqs. 2 and 7), and the text states that this prescription 'reproduces observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios for nH ≳ 0.1 cm^-3' (Trayford et al. 2026). The validation of the DTM/DTG relations in Figs 1–2 uses the same kind of observed dust-to-metal measurements. The agreement is therefore at least partly guaranteed by construction. No sensitivity test is shown for the functional form of C (the power-law index m, n_H,min, n_H,max, or C_max), and §4.1 explicitly concedes that the clumping factor may require re-calibration at each resolution. Please add a dedicated sensitivity study, ideally with a small set of re-calibrated or parameter-varied runs, showing how the median DTG/DTM relations, the DMF, and the CDMD respond to changes in C. Without this, the central claim of 'broadly reprodu
  2. [§2.3.3 and §4.2] The DTM saturation plateau at about 0.3 is, by the authors' own statement, 'crucially determined by the cap we introduced for carbon' (the 2/3 cap on carbon depletion). This plateau is one of the main quantitative anchors used to claim agreement with observations in Fig. 2. Varying the cap would move the plateau, so the match is an input rather than an output of the model. Please report the sensitivity of the high-metallicity end of the DTM relation to this cap, and either provide an independent physical or observational calibration for the cap or explicitly identity the plateau as a calibrated quantity rather than a prediction.
  3. [Sections 4–6] The paper repeatedly uses phrases such as 'broadly reproduces', 'excellent agreement', and 'within the uncertainties' without any quantitative goodness-of-fit measure. Given that the observational uncertainties are up to 1 dex and that the simulation scatter is quantified, the reader cannot assess whether the claimed agreement is statistically meaningful. Please add a quantitative metric for each main relation and redshift—for example the median offset and normalised median absolute deviation relative to the observations, or a likelihood that includes the quoted observational errors—and state the threshold implied by 'broadly reproduces'. This is needed to support the central conclusion in §8.
  4. [§7, Fig. 13, and §8] The abstract and conclusions state that the CDMD is systematically high by about 0.3 dex at z<1, but Fig. 13 shows that restricting the dust mass to dense gas phases (molecular or nH>10 cm^-3) reproduces the observed decline from z=1 to 0. The paper does not draw the logical consequence: the low-redshift CDMD discrepancy may be an observational phase-selection effect rather than a dust-model failure. Please state explicitly which of these the authors favour, and give a quantitative estimate of how much of the z<1 offset comes from dust outside the observationally traced phases. This is needed for the conclusions to be internally consistent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 and Table 3] The legend of Fig. 4 includes 'Schouws et al. (2025)' but Table 3 has no entry for this work and the text does not discuss it. Please add the corresponding table entry and some description, or remove the data from the figure.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the lighter region covers the '0.135th−99.865th (3σ)' percentile spread; the notation should be 0.135th–99.865th, and the order should be consistent with the darker 16th–84th interval.
  3. [§2.3.3] Equation (3) is described only in words; the parameters n_H,min, n_H,max, C_max and the exponent m are stated, but a small plot of C(n_H) would help the reader see the functional form and the density range over which the boost operates.
  4. [§4.5.2] The abbreviation 'STL' for small-to-large grain mass ratio is used many times; please define it explicitly in the text at first use (it is defined in the caption of Fig. 7, but not in the body).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

DTM/DTG agreement is partly guaranteed by the calibrated clumping factor and carbon cap, but the independent dust-mass, DMF, and CDMD predictions keep the central claim from being fully circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.3, Eq. (3); validated in Section 4.1 and 4.2, Figs. 1 and 2]
    "Therefore, a clumping factor, C, is introduced that boosts the density used in the accretion rate, n′H = CnH, where ... This prescription reproduces observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios for nH ≳ 0.1 cm−3 (Trayford et al. 2026)."

    The clumping factor C(nH) multiplies the gas density entering the grain-growth (Eq. 2) and coagulation (Eq. 7) timescales. The text states that this prescription was chosen to reproduce observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios, citing Trayford et al. (2026), a paper by overlapping authors. The same DTM/DTG–metallicity relations are then presented as predictions and compared with observational DTM/DTG data (Rémy-Ruyer et al. 2014; De Cia et al. 2016; etc.). In the intermediate-metallicity regime, grain growth is the dominant dust-production channel, and its rate is set by the calibrated clumping factor. Thus the claimed agreement of the DTM/DTG scaling relations with observations is at least partly guaranteed by construction, especially since the paper concedes in §4.1 that the clumping factor 'ma

  2. self definitional [Section 4.2, DTM saturation discussion; Figure 2]
    "The maximum depletion of carbon is capped to 2/3 in the model to account for carbon locked in CO. ... Hence the saturation fraction in the model is crucially determined by the cap we introduced for carbon. ... this corresponds to a DTM ratio of ≈0.3, similar to the median saturation value reached in the model."

    The high-metallicity DTM plateau is not an emergent prediction: its value is set by the imposed 2/3 carbon-depletion cap, as the paper explicitly states. The model's DTM saturation value of ≈0.3 is then compared with the observed DTM≈0.3 at high metallicity and claimed as agreement. Therefore the match at the saturation end is partly a restatement of the input cap. The low-metallicity shape and the redshift evolution of the transition retain predictive content, which limits the severity of this step.

full rationale

COLIBRE's dust scaling relations are not fully circular. The paper's most independent predictions — the dust mass–stellar mass relation (Fig. 4), dust mass function (Fig. 8), and cosmic dust mass density (Fig. 9) — are compared against observations without being calibrated to those quantities, and the paper reports genuine failures (CDMD overproduction at z<1, missing SMG dust masses). These provide external anchor points that give the central claim independent content. However, the DTM/DTG–metallicity relations, which are central to the claimed success, are partly calibrated: the clumping factor in Eq. (3) is described as reproducing observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios, and the DTM saturation value is stated to be 'crucially determined' by the imposed carbon cap. Yet the paper does not perform a sensitivity test showing how the DTM/DTG relations respond to changes in C(nH) parameters such as m, nH,min, nH,max, or Cmax. Without that, the agreement with observed DTM/DTG is difficult to distinguish from post-hoc fitting. Weighing the independent dust-mass/CDMD/DMF predictions against the partially calibrated DTM/DTG relations, the circularity is partial rather than complete: the paper's headline claim is not equivalent to its inputs, but some of its 'predicted' scaling relations reduce to calibrated choices. Score 5 reflects this partial self-calibration, not a fully forced result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on several fitted or adopted subgrid parameters. The most consequential is the clumping factor C_max=100, calibrated to reproduce observed dust-to-metal ratios; the coagulation factor f_co is hand-adjusted per resolution; and the carbon cap of 2/3 sets the DTM saturation plateau. Many constants (sticking probability, condensation efficiencies, seed size distribution) come from previous work. These parameters do not render the paper circular, but they mean that agreement on DTM/DTG is partly calibration, and resolution-dependence is partly a consequence of f_co.

free parameters (7)
  • Clumping factor maximum C_max = 100
    Boosts ISM density in grain-growth/coagulation timescales (Eq. 3); calibrated to reproduce observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios (Trayford et al. 2026); directly controls DTG/DTM relations and their resolution dependence.
  • Coagulation resolution factor f_co = 1.0 (m5,m6); 10^-0.5 (m7)
    Resolution-dependent factor in coagulation timescale (Eq. 7); chosen by hand to improve convergence in the m7 runs (Table 1). Affects small-to-large grain ratio and dust size evolution.
  • Carbon depletion cap = 2/3
    Maximum fraction of carbon that can be depleted onto grains (Eq. 2, §2.3.3); sets the plateau DTM ≈ 0.3. Assumed to account for CO locking; directly determines saturation value.
  • CCSNe condensation efficiencies = η_C=0.15, η_sil=3.5×10^-4
    Adopted from Zhukovska et al. (2008) for dust nucleation in CCSNe; set the initial dust species mix and silicate fraction at early times.
  • Seed grain size distribution = 90% large, 10% small
    Initial allocation of stellar dust production in the two size bins (§2.3.2); important for early-Universe grain size predictions before ISM processes dominate.
  • Sticking probability S_acc = 0.3
    Adopted from literature; sets absolute grain growth rate (Eq. 2).
  • Grain growth timescale normalisations τ_G = 180 Myr (C), 99.3 Myr (silicate)
    Species-dependent constants in Eq. 2 determining absolute growth timescales; adopted from Trayford et al. (2026).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Unresolved small-scale ISM structure can be represented by the analytic clumping factor C(n_H) in Eq. 3
    COLIBRE does not resolve molecular clouds; the density boost compensates for missing resolution. Calibrated to observed ISM dust-to-metal ratios.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust is completely destroyed in any gas particle receiving stochastic SN or AGN thermal feedback
    §2.3.4: 'dust is assumed to be completely destroyed in any gas particles selected to receive SN thermal feedback. This is also the case for AGN feedback.' An unresolved approximation; affects dust destruction rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Type Ia SNe and AGN produce negligible dust
    §2.3.2: 'The model excludes Type Ia SNe as dust sources due to a lack of observed dust formation, and neglects AGN dust formation for simplicity.' Simplification affecting late-time dust budgets.
  • domain assumption Carbon locked in CO limits carbon depletion to 2/3
    Imposed cap in §2.3.3; controls maximum DTM. Physically motivated but not self-consistently computed.
  • domain assumption Two grain sizes (0.01 µm and 0.1 µm) and spherical grains capture the essential grain size evolution
    §2.3.1: 'We assume spherical grains, which simplifies dust-evolution equations.' The model uses only two size bins; conclusions on small-to-large ratio depend on this coarse representation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 51933 in / 17737 out tokens · 153318 ms · 2026-08-01T00:43:07.461419+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present dust scaling relations across cosmic time ($0 \le z \le 15$) for galaxies in the COLIBRE cosmological simulations. COLIBRE self-consistently tracks dust production, growth, destruction, and grain size evolution within a multiphase interstellar medium. Using volumes up to $(400\, {\rm cMpc})^3$ at three mass resolutions ($10^{5}-10^7$ M$_{\odot}$), we predict the dust mass function, cosmic dust mass density, and key dust scaling relations (dust-to-gas ratio, dust-to-metal ratio, grain species fractions, and grain sizes) as functions of galaxy metallicity, stellar mass, and dust mass. The model broadly reproduces most observed relations across cosmic time, matching closest at the highest resolution. We find that silicates dominate the dust mass ($\gtrsim 70\%$) at all epochs, and while large grains dominate in the early Universe ($z \ge 5$), their mass fraction declines to become comparable to small grains by $z=0$. At $z < 1$, the simulated dust mass functions align well with observations, but the cosmic dust mass density is systematically high by $\lesssim 0.3$ dex, while in agreement with observations at higher redshifts. Additionally, the simulations underpredict the extreme dust masses of bright sub-millimeter galaxies at $z \ge 2$. We demonstrate that scaling relations are sensitive to numerical resolution only in the low-redshift, low-mass regime; while their normalisation is influenced by gas-phase selection. These findings highlight both the predictive power and resolution-dependent limits of cosmological dust models, providing essential insights to refine ISM physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26058 by Alejandro Ben\'itez-Llambay, Alexander J. Richings, Andrea Gebek, Aswin P. Vijayan, Carlos S. Frenk, Evgenii Chaikin, Filip Hu\v{s}ko, James W. Trayford, Joop Schaye, Maarten Baes, Matthieu Schaller, Nick Andreadis, Robert J. McGibbon, Sylvia Ploeckinger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The dust-to-gas (DTG) ratio of galaxies in the COLIBRE m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5 in light-blue), m6 (L200m6 in orange), and m7 (L400m7 in red) simulations as a function of their gas phase metallicity for 𝑧 ∈ [0, 15]. The solid line shows the median result, with the darker and lighter shaded regions denoting the 16th − 84th (1𝜎) and 99.865th - 0.135th (3𝜎) percentile spread. The median relation for bin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The dust-to-metal (D TM) ratio of galaxies in the COLIBRE m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) simulations (solid light-blue, orange, and red curves representing each resolution, respectively) as a function of their gas phase metallicity for 𝑧 ∈ [0, 15]. The solid line shows the median result (dashed line for bins with fewer than 5 galaxies), with the darker and lighter shaded regi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: D T G (top panel) and D TM (bottom panel) ratio as a function of stellar mass for 𝑧 = 0, 1, 2, and 7 of galaxies in the COLIBRE m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) simulations. The solid lines show the median relation (solid light-blue, orange, and red curves representing m5, m6, and m7, respectively), with the darker and lighter shaded region showing the 1𝜎 and 3𝜎 spread. The med… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The stellar mass-dust mass relation for galaxies in the m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) COLIBRE simulations with the solid light-blue, orange, and red curves representing the median each resolution for redshifts in the range 𝑧 ∈ [0, 15]. The darker and lighter shaded region shows the 1𝜎 and 3𝜎 spread. The observational constraints from Rémy-Ruyer et al. (2014); Santini et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Galaxy dust mass as a function of the stellar mass, split into different specific star formation rate (sSFR) bins for the L200m6 simulation for 𝑧 = 0, 1, 2 and 3. We overplot observational data from Rémy-Ruyer et al. (2014); Santini et al. (2014); Davies et al. (2017); Gillman et al. (2024); Lee et al. (2024); Manning et al. (2025). At 𝑧 = 2 and 3, we show the Gillman et al. (2024) field galaxy data as con… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The silicates mass fraction as a function of galaxy stellar mass (bottom panel) and galaxy dust mass (top panel) for the m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) COLIBRE simulations in the redshifts 𝑧 = 0, 1, 2, 6, and 10. The solid coloured line (light-blue, orange, and red curves for m5, m6, and m7 respectively) shows the median, with the darker and lighter shaded region denoting the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The small-to-large grain mass as a function of galaxy stellar mass (bottom panel) and dust mass (top panel) for 𝑧 = 0, 1, 2, 6, and 10 for the m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) COLIBRE simulations. The solid line (light-blue, orange, and red for m5, m6, and m7 respectively) shows the median, with the darker and lighter shaded region denoting the 1𝜎 and 3𝜎 spread. In 𝑧 > 0 panels… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The dust mass function (DMF) for the m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) COLIBRE simulations for 𝑧 ∈ [0, 7] shown as the solid light blue, orange, and red lines, respectively. Bins with less than 5 galaxies are denoted by coloured dashed lines. The fainter orange dashed line repeated in the 𝑧 > 0 panels, is the L200m6 DMF at 𝑧 = 0. The COLIBRE DMF barely evolves from 𝑧 = 0 to 2, b… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The evolution of the cosmic dust mass density for the m5 (L025m5 or L050m5 or L100m5), m6 (L200m6), and m7 (L400m7) COLIBRE simulations (solid light-blue, orange, and red lines respectively). The dashed (with circle marker), dotted (square marker), dash-dotted (diamond marker) and densely dash-dotted (pentagon marker) lines shows the dust mass density evolution in the L200m6 volume in stellar mass range of… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The median dust mass as a function of galaxy stellar mass for the L100m6 COLIBRE simulation at 𝑧 = 0 and 3. The coloured solid lines show dust mass measured in gas phase corresponding to all gas (Total, fiducial choice), atomic, molecular, both atomic and molecular, and specific density/temperature cuts (T< 104.5 K and 𝑛H > 0.1, 1, or 10 cm−3 ). 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 5 4 3 2 1 lo g 1 0 ( ) Total Atomic … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The median dust-to-gas (D T G) ratio as a function of galaxy gas-phase metallicity for the L100m6 COLIBRE simulation at 𝑧 = 0 and 3. The coloured solid lines show D T G ratio measured using dust and gas mass corresponding different gas phases: all gas (Total), atomic, molecular, both atomic and molecular, and specific density/temperature cuts (T< 104.5 K and 𝑛H > 0.1, 1, or 10 cm−3 ). The dashed coloured … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The median small-to-large (ST L) grain mass ratio as a function of galaxy dust mass (top panel) and stellar mass (bottom panel) for the L100m6 COLIBRE simulation at 𝑧 = 0, 3, and 6. The coloured solid lines show dust mass measured in gas phase corresponding to all gas (Total), atomic, molecular, both atomic and molecular, and specific density/temperature cuts (T< 104.5 K and 𝑛H > 0.1, 1, or 10 cm−3 ). The… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] 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

220 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3520A 105, 023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  2. [2]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1897 2026

  3. [3]

    K., Driver S

    Andrews S. K., Driver S. P., Davies L. J. M., Kafle P. R., Robotham A. S. G., Wright A. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.1569A 464, 1569

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2395 2017

  4. [4]

    Aoyama S., Hou K.-C., Shimizu I., Hirashita H., Todoroki K., Choi J.-H., Nagamine K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..105A 466, 105

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3061 2017

  5. [5]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431 2018

  6. [6]

    Arabsalmani M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd4b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952...67A 952, 67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd4b7 2023

  7. [7]

    S., Takeuchi T

    Asano R. S., Takeuchi T. T., Hirashita H., Nozawa T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..637A 432, 637

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt506 2013

  8. [8]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    A., Gomez H

    Beeston R. A., Gomez H. L., Dunne L., Maddox S., Eales S. A., Smith M. W. L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.3162B 535, 3162

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2507 2024

  10. [10]

    Bekki K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1625B 449, 1625

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv165 2015

  11. [11]

    Ben \' tez-Llambay A., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.tmp..254B

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag268 2026

  12. [12]

    A., Freedman W

    Bernstein R. A., Freedman W. L., Madore B. F., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571...56B 571, 56

    work page doi:10.1086/339422 2002

  13. [13]

    Berta S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...551A.100B 551, A100

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220859 2013

  14. [14]

    Berta S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.193B 696, A193

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452894 2025

  15. [15]

    Bing L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..66B 677, A66

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346579 2023

  16. [16]

    D., Wolfire M., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..207B 51, 207

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  17. [18]

    K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    Boquien M., Burgarella D., Roehlly Y., Buat V., Ciesla L., Corre D., Inoue A. K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  18. [19]

    Borrow J., Borrisov A., 2020, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02430 , 5, 2430

    doi:10.21105/joss.02430 2020

  19. [20]

    G., Schaye J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2367B 511, 2367

    Borrow J., Schaller M., Bower R. G., Schaye J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2367B 511, 2367

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3166 2022

  20. [21]

    Boselli A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/651535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..261B 122, 261

    doi:10.1086/651535 2010

  21. [22]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a 2022

  22. [23]

    Calzetti D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1449C 113, 1449

    doi:10.1086/324269 2001

  23. [24]

    Calzetti D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714.1256C 714, 1256

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1256 2010

  24. [25]

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

    arXiv 2020

  25. [26]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  26. [27]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..417C 490, 417

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..417C 490, 417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2544 2019

  27. [28]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...31C 954, 31

    Casey C. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...31C 954, 31

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  28. [29]

    M., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2606.17270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260617270C p

    Casey C. M., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2606.17270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260617270C p. arXiv:2606.17270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17270 2026

  29. [30]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  30. [31]

    Chaikin E., Schaye J., Schaller M., Ben \' tez-Llambay A., Nobels F. S. J., Ploeckinger S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3709C 523, 3709

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1626 2023

  31. [32]

    arXiv:2509.07960

    Chaikin E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250907960C p. arXiv:2509.07960

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07960 2025

  32. [33]

    G., Ploeckinger S., Schaller M., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260115207C p

    Chaikin E., Schaye J., Hu s ko F., Lacey C. G., Ploeckinger S., Schaller M., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260115207C p. arXiv:2601.15207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15207

  33. [34]

    Chaikin E., et al., 2026b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag300C 548, stag300

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag300

  34. [35]

    arXiv:2512.16208

    Chandro-G \'o mez \'A ., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251216208C p. arXiv:2512.16208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16208 2025

  35. [36]

    Chiang Y.-K., Makiya R., M \'e nard B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...992...65C 992, 65

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb6a 2025

  36. [37]

    R., Kere s D., Sandstrom K

    Choban C. R., Kere s D., Sandstrom K. M., Hopkins P. F., Hayward C. C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.2356C 529, 2356

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae716 2024

  37. [38]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt760 2013

  38. [39]

    Conroy C., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 , 51, 393

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  39. [40]

    A., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag645C 548, stag645

    Correa C. A., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag645C 548, stag645

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag645 2026

  40. [41]

    D'Silva J. C. J., Driver S. P., Robotham A. S. G., Battisti A., da Cunha E., Davies L. J. M., Eales S., Lagos C. d. P., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260108112D p. arXiv:2601.08112

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08112 2026

  41. [43]

    Davidzon I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..70D 605, A70

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 2017

  42. [44]

    Davies L. J. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.1014D 447, 1014

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2515 2015

  43. [45]

    I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/044102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129d4102D 129, 044102

    Davies J. I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/044102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129d4102D 129, 044102

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/044102 2017

  44. [46]

    Davies L. J. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.3005D 544, 3005

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1763 2025

  45. [47]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac537 2022

  46. [48]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 2016

  47. [49]

    De Cia A., Ledoux C., Petitjean P., Savaglio S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...611A..76D 611, A76

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731970 2018

  48. [50]

    E., Bower R

    De Rossi M. E., Bower R. G., Font A. S., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3354D 472, 3354

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2158 2017

  49. [51]

    De Vis P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4680D 464, 4680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2501 2017

  50. [52]

    arXiv:2605.18992

    Decleir M., et al., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260518992D p. arXiv:2605.18992

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [53]

    Dell'Agli F., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Schneider R., Ventura P., La Franca F., Valiante R., Marini E., Di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4431D 467, 4431

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx387 2017

  52. [54]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.458..737D 458, 737

    Devlin M. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.458..737D 458, 737

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07918 2009

  53. [55]

    Dorschner J., Begemann B., Henning T., Jaeger C., Mutschke H., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...300..503D 300, 503

    1995

  54. [56]

    T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41..241D 41, 241

    Draine B. T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41..241D 41, 241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  55. [57]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  56. [58]

    T., Li A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..810D 657, 810

    Draine B. T., Li A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..810D 657, 810

    doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  57. [59]

    P., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..971D 413, 971

    Driver S. P., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..971D 413, 971

    arXiv 2011

  58. [60]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..108D 827, 108

    Driver S. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..108D 827, 108

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/108 2016

  59. [61]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2891D 475, 2891

    Driver S. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2891D 475, 2891

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2728 2018

  60. [62]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..439D 513, 439

    Driver S. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..439D 513, 439

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  61. [63]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449784 2024

  62. [64]

    e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e U., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3828D 494, 3828

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa769 2020

  63. [65]

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

    arXiv 2011

  64. [66]

    Dwek E., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...508..106D 508, 106

    doi:10.1086/306382 1998

  65. [67]

    Eales S., Ward B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1130E 529, 1130

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae403 2024

  66. [68]

    Eales S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707.1779E 707, 1779

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1779 2009

  67. [69]

    Eales S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/653086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..499E 122, 499

    doi:10.1086/653086 2010

  68. [70]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1614F 493, 1614

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa302 2020

  69. [71]

    R., Macci \`o A

    Faucher N., Blanton M. R., Macci \`o A. V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957....7F 957, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf9f0 2023

  70. [72]

    J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., Bah \'e Y

    Forouhar Moreno V. J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., Bah \'e Y. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543.1339F 543, 1339

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1478 2025

  71. [73]

    Fudamoto Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530..340F 530, 340

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae556 2024

  72. [74]

    Fuente A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.105F 624, A105

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834654 2019

  73. [75]

    Gall C., Hjorth J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...62G 868, 62

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae520 2018

  74. [76]

    R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...581.1019G 581, 1019

    Garnett D. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...581.1019G 581, 1019

    doi:10.1086/344301 2002

  75. [77]

    C., Pino T., Giuliani A., Dartois E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A.106G 586, A106

    Gavilan L., Alata I., Le K. C., Pino T., Giuliani A., Dartois E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A.106G 586, A106

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527098 2016

  76. [78]

    The COLIBRE-SKIRT pipeline: Calibration-free dust radiative transfer postprocessing for cosmological simulations

    Gebek A., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2607.14901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260714901G p. arXiv:2607.14901

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.14901 2026

  77. [79]

    Gillman S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.299G 691, A299

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451006 2024

  78. [80]

    L., Murante G., Ragone-Figueroa C., Tornatore L., Borgani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2588G 479, 2588

    Gjergo E., Granato G. L., Murante G., Ragone-Figueroa C., Tornatore L., Borgani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2588G 479, 2588

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1564 2018

  79. [81]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab362 2021

  80. [82]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa796 2020

Showing first 80 references.