Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Evolution of Half-Mass Radii and Color Gradients for Young and Old Quiescent Galaxies at $0.5 < z < 3$ with JWST/PRIMER

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rest-frame infrared sizes faithfully trace the mass-weighted sizes of quiescent galaxies, and young and old quiescent galaxies have the same average size at intermediate masses across $0.5<z<3$.

desk verdict A careful age-split size study with a new mimicry result, but the headline claim that F444W sizes trace mass sizes is partly built into the method and needs external validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04788 v1 pith:SH5UUPDA submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Maike Clausen , Ivelina Momcheva , Katherine E. Whitaker , Sam E. Cutler , Rachel S. Bezanson , James S. Dunlop , Norman A. Grogin , Anton M. Koekemoer
show 7 more authors
Derek McLeod Ross McLure Tim B. Miller Erica Nelson Arjen van der Wel David Wake Stijn Wuyts
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords quiescentgalaxieshalf-massradiussizeevolutioncolorgradientsJWST/NIRCamM*/Lprogenitorbiasminormergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using JWST/NIRCam imaging from the PRIMER survey, this paper asks whether the growth of quiescent galaxy sizes with cosmic time is real or a measuring artifact. It derives both half-light radii (from six filters) and half-mass radii (from the F444W profile plus a color-to-mass-to-light relation) for 455 quiescent galaxies at $0.5

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical color-to-mass-to-light relation, $\log(M_*/L_{\mathrm{F444W}}) = -2.5\,\log_{10}(F277W/F444W)\,A + C$, fitted in redshift bins to integrated colors and SED-based masses (Table 1). The paper uses the observed $F277W-F444W$ color to predict the stellar mass-to-light ratio at every radius, multiplies the F444W luminosity profile by this radial $M_*/L$ to get a mass profile, and integrates to obtain the half-mass radius. This is the step that turns light profiles into mass profiles, and it is where the assumption of universal radial $M_*/L$ enters.

What would settle it

Compare the half-mass radii obtained here with radii derived from spatially resolved stellar-population fitting (fitting the SED in concentric annuli or pixels) for the same galaxies; if the radial $M_*/L$ gradients differ, the half-mass radii and the $r_{e,\mathrm{mass}}/r_{e,\mathrm{light}}$ ratios would shift by more than the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the size growth of the red sequence between $z=3$ and $z=0.5$ is intrinsic to the population and not an artifact of measuring light rather than mass. The paper demonstrates that half-light radii measured at rest-frame infrared wavelengths ($\sim$4.4 µm) agree with half-mass radii, while rest-frame optical sizes ($0.5$–$0.7$ µm) run 0.1–0.2 dex larger. For intermediate-mass galaxies ($10<\log(M_*/M_\odot)<11$), young quiescent galaxies have the same average half-light and half-mass radii as old quiescent galaxies within uncertainties; the previously reported size difference appears only at $\log(M_*/M_\odot)>11$, where the present sample has only nine young objects. The paper argues that these results favor a mix of progenitor bias and minor mergers driving size growth, and that the increasing share of young quiescent galaxies at high redshift can mimic a redshift evolution of the $r_{e,\mathrm{mass}}/r_{e,\mathrm{light}}$ ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the color-to-mass-to-light relation fitted to each galaxy's integrated colors also holds at every radius inside the galaxy, so that radial color profiles can be converted into radial mass profiles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Half-mass radii of quiescent galaxies grow by about 0.4–0.45 dex from $z=3$ to $z=0.5$, so the size growth of the red sequence is not an artifact of measuring light.
  • Rest-frame infrared (F444W) half-light radii can be used as a direct proxy for half-mass radii in quiescent galaxies, simplifying future size studies.
  • At intermediate masses, the agreement between young and old quiescent galaxies implies that both progenitor bias and minor mergers contribute to size growth, so simulations of quenching must include both channels.
  • The apparent redshift evolution of the $r_{e,\mathrm{mass}}/r_{e,\mathrm{light}}$ ratio in the general quiescent population can be explained by the growing fraction of young quiescent galaxies at high redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same color-to-$M_*/L$ method could be extended to star-forming galaxies, where stronger dust and star-formation gradients would test whether the universality of radial $M_*/L$ holds more generally.
  • If the relation is truly universal in radius, then the similarity of young and old color gradients implies that intermediate-mass galaxies share similar radial stellar population structure regardless of quenching age; resolved spectroscopy could verify this directly.
  • The 0.1–0.2 dex offset between optical and infrared sizes implies that single-band optical size measurements systematically overestimate the mass scale of quiescent galaxies; the method applied to wider-area JWST surveys could confirm this at the high-mass end, where the current sample has only nine young galaxies.
  • Because IMF gradients could shift half-mass radii by up to 0.3 dex, the absolute sizes reported here rest on the assumed IMF; a spatially resolved dynamical or lensing mass calibration would set the scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses JWST/NIRCam PRIMER imaging to measure half-light and half-mass radii of 455 quiescent galaxies at 0.5 < z < 3, split into 426 old and 39 young quiescent galaxies. Half-light radii are measured in six filters with GALFIT and residual-corrected surface brightness profiles. Half-mass radii are derived by converting F277W-F444W color profiles into M*/L444 profiles using a redshift-binned linear relation (Eq. 2) calibrated on the same galaxies' integrated colors and SED masses, then multiplying the F444W luminosity profiles by these M*/L profiles and integrating. The paper reports that rest-frame infrared sizes trace mass-weighted sizes while rest-frame optical sizes are 0.1-0.2 dex larger, that young and old quiescent galaxies have consistent sizes at intermediate masses, and that the changing young/old mix can mimic apparent evolution in re,mass/re,light. These results are interpreted as evidence for a combination of progenitor bias and minor mergers driving size growth.

Significance. If the half-mass radii are robust, the paper provides one of the first direct light- versus mass-weighted size comparisons for age-selected quiescent galaxies at 0.5 < z < 3 with JWST, and it has practical relevance for using infrared sizes as proxies for mass-weighted sizes. The strengths include careful Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation, residual-corrected SBPs, validation of 1D versus 2D radii, comparisons with literature measurements, and explicit discussion of caveats such as IMF-gradient effects. However, the central empirical claim depends on an unvalidated assumption about the radial applicability of the integrated color-M*/L relation, so the key results are currently conditional on that assumption rather than independently demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2), and Section 3.3] The color-M*/L relation is calibrated on the integrated colors and SED masses of the same sample and then applied at every radius inside each galaxy. Because the mass profile is the F444W luminosity profile scaled by the resulting M*/L profile, the re,mass/re,light ratio at F444W is partly built in: a shallow F277W-F444W color gradient yields a nearly constant M*/L profile, forcing re,mass to track re,light(F444W). The agreement between F444W sizes and half-mass sizes is therefore not an independent test of the claim that infrared light traces stellar mass. The appendix (Fig. 8) checks residuals against total mass, age, and flux, but not against radius. I request validation with spatially resolved SED fitting in annuli, or comparison with dynamical or lensing mass profiles; absent that, the headline claims should be reframed as conditional on the radial M*/L assumption.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and 5] The young quiescent sub-sample comprises only 39 galaxies, of which 9 are above log(M*/M_sun) > 11. The claim that young and old quiescent galaxies agree in size at intermediate masses is based on small-N bins and large galaxy-to-galaxy scatter. Although the paper notes this limitation, I would like a quantitative statement of the statistical power: what fractional size difference could be detected at 1-sigma with N=39 in the 10 < log(M*/M_sun) < 11 range? Without this, the conclusion of 'a combination of progenitor bias and minor mergers' is not strongly constrained by the data.
  3. [Section 2] Thirty-five percent of the parent sample is excluded because galaxies cannot be securely fit in all six available filters, and no test is presented of how the excluded systems differ in mass, redshift, concentration, or merging state. Since fitting failures in compact or irregular quiescent galaxies are plausibly correlated with the size measurements, this selection could bias the derived size distributions and the young/old comparison. I request a comparison of the included and excluded samples in mass-redshift space and in at least one measured property such as the F444W half-light radius from a forced fit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Conclusions, bullet 3] The expression '(10<log(M*/M_sun)> 11)' should read '(10<log(M*/M_sun)<11)'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The label 'F227W' is a typo and should be 'F277W'.
  3. [Section 4.1] The exponent reported as '(-1.85 ± -0.27)' should be written with a positive uncertainty, e.g., '(-1.85 ± 0.27)', and the sign convention for R ∝ (1+z)^alpha should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 4.4] The phrase 'old and young quiescent galaxies quiescent galaxies are, on average, constant' contains a duplicated word and should be revised.
  5. [Appendix, Figure 8 caption] The caption contains the typo 'Depency'; it should be 'Dependence'.
  6. [Table 1] The quoted uncertainties on A and C are highly disparate across redshift bins, which likely indicates strong covariance between the two fitted parameters; presenting the full covariance matrix or a corner plot would help readers assess whether the bin-to-bin variations in A are meaningful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Half-mass radii are constructed by multiplying the F444W light profile by a color-M*/L relation fitted to the same galaxies, so the claim that F444W sizes trace mass is partly an artifact of the method rather than an independent empirical test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2-3.3, Eq. (2); Sec. 5]
    "Next, we derive an empirical relation between the integrated colors of the galaxies and their M∗/L ratios, which we use to convert the color profiles into radial M∗/L profiles. Then, we multiply the radial M∗/L profiles with the derived luminosity profiles to derive radial mass profiles. ... We assume that these color-M∗/L444 relations are valid for integrated colors and radial trends inside each galaxy. ... To extract the radial mass profile, we multiply the luminosity profile measured in F444W with the M∗/LF444W profiles."

    The half-mass radius is not an independent mass tracer: it is defined as the half-mass point of the F444W luminosity profile multiplied by a M*/L444 profile obtained from Eq. (2), whose slope and intercept are least-squares fits to the integrated F277W-F444W colors and SED masses of the very same galaxies (Table 1), under the explicit assumption that the relation holds at every radius. Consequently the later statement that half-light radii measured at observed 4.4 micron follow the half-mass radii closely is largely a restatement of the construction: if the observed radial color gradient is shallow, the radial M*/L factor is nearly constant and re,mass must coincide with the F444W half-light radius.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its methodology, but the central size measurement is constructed: half-mass radii are obtained by taking the F444W radial luminosity profile and multiplying it by a radial M*/L444 profile whose normalization and slope come from Eq. (2), a fit to the integrated colors and SED masses of the same galaxies, assumed to hold at every radius (Sec. 3.2). Consequently the headline conclusion that F444W/rest-frame-IR sizes accurately trace mass-weighted sizes is not an independent empirical finding but an anticipated consequence of the method: a shallow F277W-F444W color gradient produces a nearly constant M*/L444 profile, which forces re,mass to track the F444W half-light radius. The paper does quantify integrated residuals and checks dependence on mass, age, and flux in Appendix A, but it never validates the color-M*/L relation radially against resolved SED fitting, dynamical masses, or lensing; it also explicitly cites Bernardi et al. (2023) showing that IMF or metallicity gradients can change half-mass sizes by up to 0.3 dex. The young/old comparison and the redshift and mass trends in color gradients retain independent observational content, and the self-citations to Clausen et al. (2024) are used mainly as context rather than as the derivation of the half-mass measurement. Still, the paper's signature claim that infrared light traces stellar mass is partially circular by construction, so the score is 5 rather than lower.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small number of empirical calibrations and domain assumptions. The only fitted numbers that directly enter the main result are the two coefficients of the color-M*/L relation in each of 20 redshift bins; the size-evolution power laws are descriptive fits. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile assumptions are the radial applicability of the integrated color-M*/L relation, the UVJ-based young/old classification, and the fidelity of GALFIT plus residual light profiles.

free parameters (3)
  • Color-M*/L relation slope A per redshift bin = 20 values in Table 1, e.g., -0.2752 +/- 0.0562 at 0.5<z<0.6 to 0.6406 +/- 0.143 at 2.6<z<3.0
    Fitted via least squares in Eq. 2 to the same sample's integrated F277W-F444W colors and PROSPECTOR M*/L ratios; these values set the radial M*/L profiles used to derive all half-mass radii.
  • Color-M*/L relation intercept C per redshift bin = 20 values in Table 1, e.g., 0.2215 +/- 0.0246 at 0.5<z<0.6 to -2.7505 +/- 0.0358 at 2.6<z<3.0
    Same fit as A; jointly determines the M*/L normalization applied to each galaxy.
  • Size evolution power-law exponents alpha = young half-light -1.85 +/- 0.27, old -1.35 +/- 0.08; young half-mass -2.33 +/- 0.05, old -1.81 +/- 0.04
    Fitted descriptive trends R proportional to (1+z)^alpha in Section 4.1; used to quantify growth but not to construct the main claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The color-M*/L relation derived from integrated colors and SED masses is valid locally within each galaxy.
    Section 3.2: 'We assume that these color-M*/L444 relations are valid for integrated colors and radial trends inside each galaxy.' This is load-bearing for all half-mass radii.
  • domain assumption UVJ rest-frame colors correctly separate quiescent from star-forming and young from old quiescent galaxies.
    Section 2: quiescent selection and age split use position in the (V-J)-(U-V) diagram; any contamination or age misclassification propagates into all population comparisons.
  • domain assumption GALFIT Sersic models plus residual correction recover the true light profiles; PSFs from unresolved stars in each band are accurate.
    Section 3.1: half-light radii and surface brightness profiles depend on these fits; 35% of galaxies that cannot be fit are excluded.
  • domain assumption Chabrier IMF with no radial IMF gradients.
    Section 1 states the IMF; Section 5 notes Bernardi et al. 2023 showed IMF gradients could reduce half-mass radii by up to 0.3 dex.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and PROSPECTOR stellar masses from the PRIMER catalog are accurate for the selected flags.
    Section 2: uses catalog redshifts and masses and quality flags; errors in z affect luminosity distances and rest-frame wavelength interpolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolution of Half-Mass Radii and Color Gradients for Young and Old Quiescent Galaxies at $0.5 < z < 3$ with JWST/PRIMER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SH5UUPDA

@misc{pith2026250104788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolution of Half-Mass Radii and Color Gradients for Young and Old Quiescent Galaxies at $0.5 < z < 3$ with JWST/PRIMER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SH5UUPDA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04788}
}
abstract

We present a study of the size growth of the red sequence between $0.5<z<3,$ tracing the evolution of quiescent galaxies in both effective half-light and half-mass radii using multi-wavelength JWST/NIRCam imaging provided by the PRIMER survey. Half-light radii are measured from imaging in 6 different filters for 455 quiescent galaxies with log($M_*/M_{\odot}$)$>10$, whereas half-mass radii are derived from the F444W profiles together with the F277W-F444W color-$M_*$/L relation. We investigate the dependence of the ratio $r_{e, \mathrm{mass}}/r_{e, \mathrm{light}}$ on redshift, stellar mass, and the wavelength used to measure $r_{e, \mathrm{light}}$, also separating the sample into younger and older quiescent galaxies. Our data demonstrate that rest-frame infrared sizes accurately trace mass-weighted sizes while sizes measured at rest-frame optical wavelengths (0.5-0.7$\mu$m) are 0.1-0.2 dex larger, with only minor variations in redshift. We find that the average size of young quiescent galaxies agrees with that of old quiescent galaxies at intermediate masses, $10<$log($M_*/M_{\odot}$)$<11$, within their respective uncertainties in all observed-frame half-light, rest-frame half-light and half-mass radius measurements. At face value, our results point to a combination of progenitor bias and minor mergers driving the size growth of intermediate-mass quiescent galaxies at $0.5<z<3$. Our results further indicate that the varying contributions to the general quiescent population by young and old quiescent galaxies can mimic evolution in redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel : Star-forming (gray), old quiescent (red), and young quiescent (blue) galaxies in PRIMER. Since the most massive galaxies drive the rest-frame optical size difference, we select only galaxies that have masses higher than logM∗ > 10M⊙ (black dashed line). Right panel: Selection of quiescent galaxies (only massive logM∗ > 10M⊙ sample depicted) within (V-J)-(U-V) space (black line). The dotted line divides … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Methodology of deriving half-mass radii. Panels (A) and (B): Measured SBP (black), convolved model from GALFIT (orange) and deconvolved model (dark blue) in two photometric bands (F227W and F444W, respectively). The residual between the flux from the original cutout and the convolved model is added to the deconvolved model (bright blue). This is considered the total flux. The lower panels display in red the magnitud… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. M∗ / L444 dependence on redshift. Data points are color-coded by the classification of a galaxy as young quiescent (blue) or old quiescent (red). The fit parameters for each redshift bin are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Evolution of half-light radii measured at F150W of young (blue) and old (red) quiescent galaxies. Right panel: Evolution of half-mass radii. Both populations grow in both light-weighted and mass-weighted sizes towards lower redshift, with no significant dif…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color gradient evolution measured at rest-frame 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 and 1.5µm respectively. Both old (right panels) and young (left panels) quiescent galaxies show stronger, negative color gradients at bluer rest-frame wavelengths relative to measurements at longer wavelengt…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average half-mass and restframe 0.7µm half-light radii of both young and old quiescent galaxies increase with total stellar mass both at 0.5 < z < 1.75 (upper left panel) and at 1.75 < z < 3 (upper right panel). The re,mass/re,light ratios of both populations agree…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of the color gradients (upper panels) and their scatter (lower panels) on the wavelengths used to determine the half-light radius and redshift. For both young quiescent galaxies (left panels) and the old quiescent galaxies (right panels), the color gradient …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Depency of the derived color-M∗/L relation on redshift, mass, stellar age, and total flux. There is no dependence of the relation on redshift or flux. There is a small residual dependence of the relation on both mass and stellar age, with higher masses and ages underpr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: On average, there is no difference between effective radii derived from fitting a two-dimensional Sersic profile to half-light radii extracted by integrating the radial SBPs. At high masses, there are small outliers where the GALFIT results in larger galaxies. To deter…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Morphological Demographics of Galaxies at $z\sim 10-16$: Log-Normal Size Distribution and Exponential Profiles Consistent with the Disk Formation Scenario

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Galaxies at z=10-16 have a log-normal size distribution with sigma 0.52, nearly uniform axis ratios, and exponential profiles, consistent with early disk formation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E., Leja , J., et al

    Akhshik , M., Whitaker , K. E., Leja , J., et al. 2023, , 943, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca677

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca677 2023

  2. [2]

    T., et al

    Almaini , O., Wild , V., Maltby , D. T., et al. 2017, , 472, 1401, 10.1093/mnras/stx1957

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  3. [3]

    M., Koo , D

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., Koo , D. C., et al. 2017, , 840, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 2017

  4. [4]

    F., & de Jong , R

    Bell , E. F., & de Jong , R. S. 2001, , 550, 212, 10.1086/319728

    doi:10.1086/319728 2001

  5. [5]

    B., & Ellis , R

    Belli , S., Newman , A. B., & Ellis , R. S. 2015, , 799, 206, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/206

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/206 2015

  6. [6]

    2019, , 874, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    ---. 2019, , 874, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  7. [7]

    K., Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H., et al

    Bernardi , M., Sheth , R. K., Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H., et al. 2023, , 518, 3494, 10.1093/mnras/stac3361

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3361 2023

  8. [8]

    G., Tal , T., et al

    Bezanson , R., van Dokkum , P. G., Tal , T., et al. 2009, , 697, 1290, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1290

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1290 2009

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    M., Bschorr , T

    Carollo , C. M., Bschorr , T. J., Renzini , A., et al. 2013, , 773, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/112

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Kartaltepe , J

    Casey , C. M., Kartaltepe , J. S., Drakos , N. E., et al. 2023, , 954, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, , 447, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stu2694

    Ceverino , D., Dekel , A., Tweed , D., & Primack , J. 2015, , 447, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stu2694

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Chan , J. C. C., Beifiori , A., Mendel , J. T., et al. 2016, , 458, 3181, 10.1093/mnras/stw502

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, , 933, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b4

    Chen , X., Lin , Z., Kong , X., et al. 2022, , 933, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b4

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, , 482, 21, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078739

    Cimatti , A., Cassata , P., Pozzetti , L., et al. 2008, , 482, 21, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078739

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Momcheva, I., et al

    Clausen, M., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I., et al. 2024, 3D-DASH: The Evolution of Size, Shape, and Intrinsic Scatter in Populations of Young and Old Quiescent Galaxies at 0.5 < z < 3. 2405.09354

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G., & Villaume , A

    Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P. G., & Villaume , A. 2017, , 837, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Whitaker , K

    Cutler , S. E., Whitaker , K. E., Weaver , J. R., et al. 2024, , 967, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Abraham , R

    Damjanov , I., McCarthy , P. J., Abraham , R. G., et al. 2009, , 695, 101, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/101

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, , 605, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419

    Davidzon , I., Ilbert , O., Laigle , C., et al. 2017, , 605, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Drory , N., & Sheth , R

    Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H., Bernardi , M., Brownstein , J. R., Drory , N., & Sheth , R. K. 2019, , 489, 5612, 10.1093/mnras/stz2414

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Abraham , R

    Dunlop , J. S., Abraham , R. G., Ashby , M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1837

    2021

  15. [23]

    J., Faber , S

    Fang , J. J., Faber , S. M., Koo , D. C., & Dekel , A. 2013, , 776, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/63

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Gould , K. M. L., Brammer , G., Valentino , F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10934, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10934

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2011, , 735, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/18

    Guo , Y., Giavalisco , M., Cassata , P., et al. 2011, , 735, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/18

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Muzzin , A., Franx , M., & van de Sande , J

    Hill , A. R., Muzzin , A., Franx , M., & van de Sande , J. 2016, , 819, 74, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/74

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Hogg , D. W. 1999, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905116

    1999 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2017, , 843, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f8

    Ichikawa , A., & Matsuoka , Y. 2017, , 843, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f8

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Ilbert , O., McCracken , H. J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. L. Cambresy , F. Martins , E. Nuss , & A. Palacios , 545--548

    2013

  22. [30]

    La Barbera , F., & de Carvalho , R. R. 2009, , 699, L76, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L76

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, , 972, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    Martorano , M., van der Wel , A., Baes , M., et al. 2024, , 972, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    B., et al

    Matharu , J., Muzzin , A., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2020, , 493, 6011, 10.1093/mnras/staa610

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al

    Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al. 2014, , 788, 144, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/144

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    B., van Dokkum , P., & Mowla , L

    Miller , T. B., van Dokkum , P., & Mowla , L. 2023, , 945, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc74

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Z., & Tacchella , S

    Mosleh , M., Hosseinnejad , S., Hosseini-ShahiSavandi , S. Z., & Tacchella , S. 2020, , 905, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7cc

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2017, , 837, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14

    Mosleh , M., Tacchella , S., Renzini , A., et al. 2017, , 837, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    A., van Dokkum , P., Brammer , G

    Mowla , L. A., van Dokkum , P., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2019, , 880, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    H., & Ostriker , J

    Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., & Ostriker , J. P. 2009, , 699, L178, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Ellis , R

    Newman , A. B., Ellis , R. S., Bundy , K., & Treu , T. 2012, , 746, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Hong , Y

    Patel , S. G., Hong , Y. X., Quadri , R. F., Holden , B. P., & Williams , R. J. 2017, , 839, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf4

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    G., van Dokkum , P

    Patel , S. G., van Dokkum , P. G., Franx , M., et al. 2013, , 766, 15, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/15

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    M., McAlpine , S., Trayford , J

    Pawlik , M. M., McAlpine , S., Trayford , J. W., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 440, 10.1038/s41550-019-0725-z

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Calvi , R., Bindoni , D., et al

    Poggianti , B. M., Calvi , R., Bindoni , D., et al. 2013, in The Intriguing Life of Massive Galaxies, ed. D. Thomas , A. Pasquali , & I. Ferreras , Vol. 295, 151--154, 10.1017/S1743921313004547

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    Rix , H.-W., & Rieke , M. J. 1993, , 418, 123, 10.1086/173376

    1993 doi

  39. [48]

    2022, , 940, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a48

    Santini , P., Castellano , M., Fontana , A., et al. 2022, , 940, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a48

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  41. [50]

    A., Kriek , M., Price , S

    Suess , K. A., Kriek , M., Price , S. H., & Barro , G. 2019 a , , 877, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2019 b , , 885, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4db3

    ---. 2019 b , , 885, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4db3

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    2020, , 899, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abacc9

    ---. 2020, , 899, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abacc9

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Bezanson , R., Nelson , E

    Suess , K. A., Bezanson , R., Nelson , E. J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.10655. 2207.10655

    2022 arXiv

  45. [54]

    A., Williams , C

    Suess , K. A., Williams , C. C., Robertson , B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.14209, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.14209

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [55]

    J., et al

    Szomoru , D., Franx , M., Bouwens , R. J., et al. 2011, , 735, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/735/1/L22

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    G., et al

    Szomoru , D., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2013, , 763, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/73

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    2010, , 714, L244, 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L244

    ---. 2010, , 714, L244, 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L244

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    R., Romanowsky , A

    Tortora , C., Napolitano , N. R., Romanowsky , A. J., et al. 2011, , 418, 1557, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19438.x

    2011

  50. [59]

    Trujillo , I., & Aguerri , J. A. L. 2004, , 355, 82, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08292.x

    2004

  51. [60]

    2006 a , , 373, L36, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00238.x

    Trujillo , I., Feulner , G., Goranova , Y., et al. 2006 a , , 373, L36, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00238.x

    2006

  52. [61]

    M., Rudnick , G., et al

    Trujillo , I., F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Rudnick , G., et al. 2006 b , , 650, 18, 10.1086/506464

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    2013, , 771, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/85

    van de Sande , J., Kriek , M., Franx , M., et al. 2013, , 771, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/85

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    P., Zirm , A

    van der Wel , A., Holden , B. P., Zirm , A. W., et al. 2008, , 688, 48, 10.1086/592267

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    P., Bell , E

    van der Wel , A., Rix , H.-W., Holden , B. P., Bell , E. F., & Robaina , A. R. 2009, , 706, L120, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L120

    2009 doi

  56. [65]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    2024, , 960, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02ee

    van der Wel , A., Martorano , M., H \"a u ler , B., et al. 2024, , 960, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02ee

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    2021, , 923, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a30

    van Dokkum , P., & Conroy , C. 2021, , 923, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a30

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    G., Franx , M., Kriek , M., et al

    van Dokkum , P. G., Franx , M., Kriek , M., et al. 2008, , 677, L5, 10.1086/587874

    2008 doi

  60. [69]

    G., Whitaker , K

    van Dokkum , P. G., Whitaker , K. E., Brammer , G., et al. 2010, , 709, 1018, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1018

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    2023, , 944, L58, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba99

    Wang , B., Leja , J., Bezanson , R., et al. 2023, , 944, L58, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba99

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    R., Kauffmann , O

    Weaver , J. R., Kauffmann , O. B., Ilbert , O., et al. 2022, , 258, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    2022 doi

  63. [72]

    R., Cutler , S

    Weaver , J. R., Cutler , S. E., Pan , R., et al. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.02671, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.02671

    2023 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    R., Davidzon , I., Toft , S., et al

    Weaver , J. R., Davidzon , I., Toft , S., et al. 2023 b , , 677, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Cutler , S

    Weaver , J. R., Cutler , S. E., Pan , R., et al. 2024, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The UNCOVER phot. catalog of A2744 wiht HST+JWST (Weaver+, 2024) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/270/7. Originally published in: 2024ApJS..270....7W

    2024

  66. [75]

    2015, , 449, 361, 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    Wellons , S., Torrey , P., Ma , C.-P., et al. 2015, , 449, 361, 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., & Franx , M. 2012, , 754, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    2012 doi

  68. [77]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., et al. 2013, , 770, L39, 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L39

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    J., Xia , X., & Deng , Z

    Wu , H., Shao , Z., Mo , H. J., Xia , X., & Deng , Z. 2005, , 622, 244, 10.1086/427821

    2005 doi

  70. [79]

    2020, , 888, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd9

    Wu , P.-F., van der Wel , A., Bezanson , R., et al. 2020, , 888, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd9

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    J., Hayward , C

    Wuyts , S., Cox , T. J., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2010, , 722, 1666, 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1666

    2010 doi

  72. [81]

    2009, , 400, 1181, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    Zibetti , S., Charlot , S., & Rix , H.-W. 2009, , 400, 1181, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    2009

  73. [82]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  74. [83]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  75. [84]

    ,# (7),01444 '9=82<.342C 2! !22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' en...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.