The Roles of Mass and Environment in the Quenching of Galaxies

E. Contini; J. Rhee; Q. Gu; S.K. Yi; X. Kang

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 68 references

The Roles of Mass and Environment in the Quenching of Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar mass, not environment, quenches galaxies down to z=0

desk verdict The paper's main claim is largely a projection of its own mass-dependent quenching prescriptions, but the model is transparent and the work is useful as a model prediction, not as empirical evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01995 v2 pith:TOUTKS4S submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.GA

E. Contini , Q. Gu , X. Kang , J. Rhee , S.K. Yi This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxyquenchingstellarmassenvironmentstarformationratespecificquiescentgalaxiesanalyticmodelsubhaloabundancematching

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

This paper tries to settle which of two suspected causes, a galaxy's stellar mass or its surroundings, drives the shutting down of star formation. Using an analytic model grafted onto a dark-matter merger tree, it finds that the star formation rate and specific star formation rate at a given stellar mass are the same in every environment, from field to massive clusters, across redshifts $01$, and that environmental processes must act too quickly to alter the star formation of active galaxies, only raising the chance that a galaxy is already dead.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an analytic quenching model built on a subhalo abundance matching assignment of galaxies to haloes in a high-resolution N-body merger tree. Each galaxy is placed on an observed, redshift-dependent SFR–$M_*$ relation (Eq. 4, from Tomczak et al. 2016) and then its star formation decays exponentially with a quenching timescale $\tau_c = 10^{11.7}\,(M_*/M_\odot)^{-1}\,(1+z)^{-1.5}$ Gyr for centrals; satellites follow the same decay for a 2–4 Gyr delay after infall and then quench on a faster timescale $\tau_s$ drawn as 0.1–0.5 times $\tau_c$. Because the quenching timescales depend on stellar mass and redshift but not on halo mass or clustercentric distance, all environment dependence enters only through whether a galaxy becomes a satellite and how long it stays active. This is what lets the paper read its output as evidence that mass, not environment, drives quenching.

What would settle it

Measure the specific star formation rate of low-mass star-forming galaxies ($8.5 < \log M_* < 9.25$) in the cores of massive clusters and in the field at the same redshift near $z\sim0.5$. The model predicts no systematic offset at fixed stellar mass; a difference larger than the typical 0.2 dex scatter would contradict the environment-independent SFR–$M_*$ relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stellar mass, not environment, controls when galaxies stop forming stars. In the model, the SFR–$M_*$ relation and the specific SFR–$M_*$ relation are independent of halo mass for both star-forming and quiescent galaxies at every redshift probed, and the same holds when distance from the cluster core replaces halo mass as the environmental measure. Conversely, the SFR at fixed halo mass depends strongly on stellar mass, with about $\sim1.6$ dex separating the lowest and highest stellar-mass bins at $z=0$. The picture the authors draw is that environmental quenching is real but effectively instantaneous and binary: it does not bend the star formation rates of still-active galaxies, it only increases the probability that a galaxy belongs to the quiescent population.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that every galaxy's initial star formation rate comes from an environment-independent observed SFR–stellar mass relation and then falls on a timescale set only by stellar mass and redshift; if the initial rate or the decay time actually depend on environment, the result would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At fixed stellar mass, predicted star formation rates of both star-forming and quiescent galaxies are identical across halo masses from $z=1.5$ to $z=0$, with scatter around 0.2 dex.
At fixed halo mass or fixed distance from a cluster core, predicted SFR varies by roughly 1.6 dex between low- and high-stellar-mass bins at $z=0$, a direct signature of mass quenching.
Environmental quenching, if present, must be fast and nearly binary: it leaves the SFR of active galaxies unchanged while raising the quiescent fraction, as seen in observed quiescent fractions.
The result extends mass-quenching dominance to the present day, not only to $z>1$ as commonly claimed.

Reading between the lines

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

The model builds part of the answer into its inputs: because $\tau_c$ and $\tau_s$ depend on stellar mass and redshift but not on environment, the finding that environment is marginal is partly a consequence of the prescription, and the sharpest independent test is the observed quiescent fraction at fixed stellar mass across environments.
A concrete target: low-mass star-forming galaxies in cluster cores should have the same specific star formation rate as field galaxies at the same mass and redshift; a cluster survey in H$\alpha$ around $z\sim0.5$ could check this directly.
The paper states it cannot yet assess whether mass- and environment-quenching efficiencies are mutually dependent, as some recent cluster studies claim; comparing quenched fractions at fixed stellar mass with clustercentric distance would directly address that gap.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The punchline: the central claim—that stellar mass drives quenching at all z<1.5 and environment is marginal—is to a large degree built into the model's input assumptions. Equation 4 assigns each galaxy an initial SFR from the observed SFR–M* relation, and Equation 2 makes the quenching timescale a power law in M* and redshift only. For satellites, the added quenching timescale is a random fraction of that same mass-dependent timescale, with no input from host halo mass or local density. So when Figures 4–8 show environment-independent SFR–M* relations and a strong M* dependence at fixed halo mass, that is mostly a projection of the ansatz, not an empirical finding. The stress-test note is right on this.

What the paper does well: it is transparent about the model, it matches the observed stellar mass function and the quiescent fraction at z~0.1 (Fig. 2), and it openly acknowledges that it underpredicts the stellar mass density of quiescent galaxies (Fig. 3, right). The authors also do a reasonable sensitivity check on the satellite delay and quenching fraction. As a self-consistent model that extends a known framework to z<1.5, it is cleanly executed. The only genuinely new bit is the low-redshift extension, but that follows from the same prescriptions.

The soft spots: the main one is interpretive. The paper frames the result as a conclusion about the universe, but it is a model prediction. The mismatch in quiescent stellar mass density is not fully resolved; the authors attribute most of it to SSFR vs color selection, but it remains a direct test of the quenching law and it is not cleanly passed. I also find the claim that 'environmental processes must act on very short timescales' too strong given that the model's satellite quenching is artificially rapid and environment-blind by construction. That said, the paper is not incoherent—it is just over-interpreted.

Who this is for: readers interested in semi-analytic quenching models will find a clear, reproducible example of how mass-dependent quenching prescriptions produce mass-dominated outcomes. Observers will not find a new constraint.

Recommendation: I would not cite it as evidence about what drives quenching. But it deserves a serious referee, because the question matters and the paper is well-built; a referee can ask the authors to reframe the claims as model predictions and to strengthen the comparison with observed quiescent mass densities. Send it to review with that expectation.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic model of galaxy formation coupled to merger trees from an N-body simulation, using subhalo abundance matching to assign stellar masses and a prescribed star formation history. Star formation rates are initialized from an observed SFR-M* relation at z_match or z_form (Eq. 4) and decay exponentially with a quenching timescale that depends only on stellar mass and redshift for centrals (Eq. 2), while satellites follow a delayed-then-rapid quenching with a timescale that is a random fraction (0.1-0.5) of the central timescale (Eq. 3). The paper then reports that the SFR/SSFR-M* relations are independent of environment (halo mass or clustercentric distance) at all redshifts 0<z<1.5 for both star-forming and quiescent galaxies, and that SFR/SSFR at fixed halo mass depend strongly on stellar mass. The authors conclude that stellar mass is the main driver of galaxy quenching at all probed redshifts, with a minimal role for environment.

Significance. The paper is transparent in its construction: the analytic model is simple, the free parameters are stated, and the comparison to the observed quiescent fraction in Figure 2 is a useful check. The authors are also honest about the disagreement in Figure 3 and about the inability of their analysis to address mass-environment interdependence. However, the central claim is not an empirical measurement but a consequence of the model's prescriptions. Since both the initial SFR (Eq. 4) and the quenching timescale (Eq. 2) depend only on stellar mass and redshift, with satellite quenching also mass-dependent through Eq. 3, the environment-independence of the SFR-M* relation is built in by construction. The paper would be valuable as a self-consistent model prediction, but it does not constitute a test of whether mass or environment drives quenching.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Figure 3 (right panel)] The central result is pre-encoded in the model. Equation 4 assigns the initial SFR from stellar mass and redshift only, and Equation 2 sets the central quenching timescale as tau_c = 10^11.7 (M*/Msun)^-1 (1+z)^-1.5, also independent of environment. For satellites, Equation 3 uses tau_s = f*tau_c with f uniform in [0.1,0.5] and a delay of 2-4 Gyr, with no dependence on host halo mass, local density, or clustercentric distance. Consequently, the environment-independence of the SFR/SSFR-M* relations in Figures 4 and 5 is a direct algebraic consequence of these prescriptions, not an empirically inferred result. To make the claim non-circular, the paper would need to show that the observables could have differed if an environmental term had been included, or confront the model with independent data that specifically constrain environmental variations of SFR at fixed stellar mass. As written, the conclusion that 'stellar mass is the main driver of galaxy quenching' is a restatement of the model's input assumptions.
[Section 4 (last paragraph)] The model underpredicts the stellar mass density of quiescent galaxies and overpredicts that of star-forming galaxies at all redshifts. The authors attribute much of the disagreement to the difference between a color-based selection and their SSFR cut, but this comparison is the closest direct test of the quenching law in the paper, and it is not cleanly passed. Because the quiescent fraction is the main environmental observable matched in Figure 2, the failure to reproduce the quiescent mass density weakens the robustness of any conclusion about environmental quenching efficiency. The paper should provide a quantitative assessment of the discrepancy (e.g., by stellar mass and redshift) and demonstrate that it does not affect the central conclusions, rather than asserting that it is not going to invalidate the analysis.
[Section 3.1 (Figure 5, low-mass galaxies)] The paper explicitly acknowledges that its analysis cannot confirm or rule out a mutual dependence between mass and environmental quenching efficiencies, and that the information in Figure 8 is not enough for a fair comparison with studies such as Balogh et al. (2016), Darvish et al. (2016), and Kawinwanichakij et al. (2017). This is a significant limitation on the breadth of the main conclusion. If mass and environmental quenching are interdependent, then the statement that 'stellar mass is the main driver of galaxy quenching at any redshift probed' is not supported by the modeling, because the model's mass-only prescription cannot produce such interdependence. The conclusions should be framed as predictions of the model rather than as a resolution of the nature/nurture debate.
[Section 2.1 (Eq. 2)] The paper notes a trend for low-mass star-forming galaxies (log M* < 9.3) in which SFR and SSFR decrease with increasing halo mass at lower redshifts, but dismisses it as less than 0.2 dex and within the typical scatter. Given that the model has no environmental term in the star formation prescription, any such residual trend must originate from the assembly history and satellite fraction, not from direct environmental quenching. The claim that 'the environment does not play any role' is therefore too strong; the model can only place an upper limit on the magnitude of such an effect, not demonstrate its absence.

minor comments (3)

[Section 3, Figure 2] The abstract and introduction contain several typographical errors ('tipically', 'generelly', 'instantantaneous', 'dispruted', 'stronlgy', 'altogehter', 'enviromental') that should be corrected before publication.
[Section 3.2, Figure 6] The comparison in Figure 2 uses the SDSS quiescent fraction of Wetzel et al. (2012) at z~0.1, but the model is not compared to any observed quiescent fraction at higher redshift. Given that the conclusions extend to z=1.5, an additional comparison to higher-redshift quiescent fractions (e.g., from COSMOS/UltraVISTA as used in Figure 3) would make the model validation more convincing.
[Section 3.2, Figure 6] The text states that the average difference in SFR for star-forming galaxies is ~1.6 dex between the least and most massive stellar mass bins at z=0, but it never provides the corresponding error bars or the significance of this difference. Adding quantitative uncertainties to the quoted values would make the comparison with observations more robust.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline result is largely pre-encoded in Eqs. 2-4: initial SFR and quenching timescales depend only on M* and z, so the predicted environment-independence of the SFR-M* relation is a consequence of the model's ansatz rather than an independent measurement.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2, '2.1. Mass and Environmental Quenching Prescriptions'; Eqs. (2)-(5); Sec. 3.1, Fig. 4]
"At zmatch ... a SFR is assigned to each galaxy by means of the SFR-M∗ relation observed at that redshift ... τc = 10^11.7 · (M∗/M⊙)^−1 · (1 +z)^−1.5 [Gyr] ... SFRsat(t) = SFRmatch/form · exp(−t/τs)"

Equation (4) fixes the initial SFR solely by M* and z, and Equations (2)-(3) set the subsequent decay timescales from M*, z, and a random satellite fraction/delay, with no dependence on host-halo mass, local density, or clustercentric distance. Therefore the model's SFR at fixed M* and z cannot respond to the environmental proxies used in Figures 4-8. The reported result that the SFR/SSFR-M* relation is environment-independent and that the SFR-M_halo relation is mass-driven is an algebraic consequence of this ansatz, not an independently measured finding. The conclusion 'stellar mass is the main driver of galaxy quenching' restates the mass-only, environment-free construction of Eq. (2).
self definitional [Sec. 2.1, satellite prescription and Eq. (3); Sec. 3.1, Fig. 4 caption]
"Our approach is a revised version of the so-called delayed-then-rapid quenching mode suggested by Wetzel et al. (2013), where the SFRs of satellites evolve like those of centrals for 2−4 Gyr after infall, and then quench rapidly according to a quenching timescale τs."

By defining environmental quenching as a central/satellite status effect (delay + random fraction of τc), the model excludes any explicit dependence on halo mass or clustercentric distance. Consequently, the result that SFR at fixed M* does not depend on those environmental proxies is largely an echo of the adopted definition; any halo-mass dependence can enter only through the satellite/infall-time mix of the sample, and that mix is the only place where the model's environment can appear. The paper's conclusion that the environment has a minimal role is therefore substantially fixed by the model's construction.

full rationale

The paper is a self-consistent modeling exercise with a real external check: the predicted quiescent fractions are compared with Wetzel et al. (2012) data (Fig. 2), and the averaged SFRs could in principle depend on halo mass through the satellite/infall-time composition of the sample. However, the central mass-quenching channel is inserted at the level of the initial SFR-M* relation (Eq. 4) and the mass-only, environment-free quenching timescale (Eq. 2), while the satellite channel is a delayed-then-rapid quenching with a random fraction of that same mass-dependent timescale and no explicit dependence on halo mass or clustercentric distance. The headline conclusions—environment independence of the SFR/SSFR-M* relation and mass as the main quenching driver—therefore reduce largely to these input prescriptions. The paper's own Fig. 3(right) comparison shows the model underpredicts the quiescent stellar mass density, weakening the external anchor. This is partial circularity: the model can be wrong in detail, and its environment channel is not entirely absent, but the principal result is substantially forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted parameters and ad hoc assumptions, most importantly the mass-dependent quenching timescale and the observed SFR-M* relation used as inputs. The conclusion that mass drives quenching is thus heavily dependent on these choices, leaving little independent explanatory content.

free parameters (6)

tau_c normalization = 10^11.7
Equation 2, sets the absolute quenching timescale scale; tuned to match observed SMF and SFH.
tau_c mass slope = -1
Equation 2, power-law index for the stellar mass dependence of quenching timescale; a model choice that directly encodes mass quenching.
tau_c redshift slope = -1.5
Equation 2, redshift dependence of quenching timescale; model choice.
s0, M0, gamma of SFR-M* relation = s0 = 0.195 + 1.157z - 0.143z^2, log(M0) = 9.244 + 0.753z - 0.090z^2, gamma = -1.118
Equations 4-5, assigns initial SFR from stellar mass and redshift; an observed fitted relation used as input, so it is a free parameter in the model.
satellite delay time = 2-4 Gyr random
Section 2.1, delay before rapid satellite quenching; random range chosen from Wetzel et al. 2013.
satellite quenching fraction f_tau = 0.1-0.5 random
Section 2.1, fraction of tau_c for the satellite quenching timescale; random range is a model choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Subhalo abundance matching populates haloes with galaxies according to the stellar mass-halo mass relation
Section 2, the model relies on ShAM to assign galaxies to haloes; a standard but unproven mapping.
domain assumption The observed SFR-M* relation (Tomczak et al. 2016) is valid for all galaxies at zmatch or zform
Equation 4, the initial SFR is assigned from this relation; if it does not hold universally, the model's SFRs are biased.
ad hoc to paper Star formation decays exponentially with a mass-dependent timescale (Noeske et al. 2007 style)
Equations 1-2, the functional form of quenching is chosen for convenience and to match the SMF, not derived from first principles.
ad hoc to paper Satellites follow centrals for 2-4 Gyr then quench rapidly (delayed-then-rapid)
Section 2.1, based on Wetzel et al. 2013, but the delay range and rapid timescale are adopted as model prescriptions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Roles of Mass and Environment in the Quenching of Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOUTKS4S

@misc{pith2026190801995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Roles of Mass and Environment in the Quenching of Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOUTKS4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01995}
}

abstract

We study the roles of stellar mass and environment in quenching the star formation activity of a large set of simulated galaxies by taking advantage of an analytic model coupled to the merger tree extracted from an N-body simulation. The analytic model has been set to match the evolution of the global stellar mass function since redshift $z\sim 2.3$ and give reasonable predictions of the star formation history of galaxies at the same time. We find that stellar mass and environment play different roles: the star formation rate/specific star formation rate-$M_*$ relations are independent of the environment (defined as the halo mass) at any redshift probed, $0<z<1.5$, for both star forming and quiescent galaxies, while the star formation rate-$M_{halo}$ relation strongly depends on stellar mass in the same redshift range, for both star forming and quiescent galaxies. Moreover, the star formation rate and the specific star formation rate are strongly dependent on stellar mass even when the distance from the cluster core is used as a proxy for the environment, rather than the halo mass. We then conclude that stellar mass is the main driver of galaxy quenching at any redshift probed in this study, not just at $z>1$ as generally claimed, while the environment has a minimal role. All the physical processes linked to the environment must act on very short timescales, such that they do not influence the star formation of active galaxies, but increase the probability of a given galaxy to become quiescent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

2009
[2]

K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681

2004
[3]

K., Balogh, M

Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

2006
[4]

L., Navarro, J

Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

2000
[5]

2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

Balogh, M., Eke, V., Miller, C., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

work page 2004
[6]

L., McGee, S

Balogh, M. L., McGee, S. L., Mok, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4364

2016
[7]

P., Nichol, R

Bamford, S. P., Nichol, R. C., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1324

2009
[8]

R., Hogg, D

Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 186

2003

Show all 68 references

[9]

R., & Berlind, A

Blanton, M. R., & Berlind, A. A. 2007, ApJ, 664, 791

2007
[10]

N., Phillipps, S., Kelvin, L

Bremer, M. N., Phillipps, S., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 12

2018
[11]

Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

2004
[12]

2008, A&A, 483, L39

Cassata, P., Cimatti, A., Kurk, J., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, L39

2008
[13]

2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

2003
[14]

2014, A&A, 562, A21

Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21

2014
[15]

2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787

Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, ´A., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787

2014
[16]

K., & Kang, X

Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Kang, X. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 932

2018
[17]

K., & Kang, X

Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Kang, X. 2019, ApJ, 871, 24

2019
[18]

C., Gallazzi, A., Newman, J

Cooper, M. C., Gallazzi, A., Newman, J. A., & Yan, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1942

2010
[19]

J., Springel, V., White, S

Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1431

2006
[20]

2016, ApJ, 825, 113

Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 113

2016
[21]

Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5444

2019
[22]

1986, ApJ, 303, 39 De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., & Fontanot, F

Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39 De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., & Fontanot, F. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5041 De Propris, R., Colless, M., Peacock, J. A., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 125

1986
[23]

1980, ApJ, 236, 351

Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1980
[24]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

2012
[25]

J., Faber, S

Fang, J. J., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., & Dekel, A. 2013, ApJ, 776, 63

2013
[26]

Farouki, R., & Shapiro, S. L. 1981, ApJ, 243, 32

1981
[27]

P., Cooper, M

Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Pace, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1916

2016
[28]

J., Mendel, J

Fossati, M., Wilman, D. J., Mendel, J. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 153

2017
[29]

G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 770

2008
[30]

Gallazzi, A., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., & White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1439

2008
[31]

E., & Gott, J

Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. R., III 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

1972
[32]

P., & Elahi, P

Kang, X., Li, M., Lin, W. P., & Elahi, P. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 804 Kauﬀmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33 Kauﬀmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

2012
[33]

F., et al

Kawinwanichakij, L., Papovich, C., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 134

2017
[34]

S., Yi, S

Kimm, T., Somerville, R. S., Yi, S. K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1131

2009
[35]

2013, MNRAS, 434, 423 Lagan´ a, T

Koyama, Y., Smail, I., Kurk, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 423 Lagan´ a, T. F., & Ulmer, M. P. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 523

2013
[36]

Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 229

1974
[37]

B., Tinsley, B

Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

1980
[38]

G., Franx, M., & Whitaker, K

Leja, J., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., & Whitaker, K. E. 2015, ApJ, 798, 115

2015
[39]

H., Berlind, A

Maller, A. H., Berlind, A. A., Blanton, M. R., & Hogg, D. W. 2009, ApJ, 691, 394

2009
[40]

1996, Nature, 379, 613

Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613

1996
[41]

1999, MNRAS, 304, 465

Moore, B., Lake, G., Quinn, T., & Stadel, J. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 465

1999
[42]

Muzzin, A., Wilson, G., Yee, H. K. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 188

2012
[43]

2013, ApJ, 777, 18 13

Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18 13

2013
[44]

G., Weiner, B

Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43

2007
[45]

A., Padilla, N

Pallero, D., G´ omez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2018, arXiv:1812.08802

2018 arXiv
[46]

F., et al

Papovich, C., Kawinwanichakij, L., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 30

2018
[47]

2009, MNRAS, 394, 38

Somerville, R. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 38

2009
[48]

2009, ApJL, 705, L67

Franx, M. 2009, ApJL, 705, L67

2009
[49]

Illingworth, G. D. 2011, ApJ, 735, 53

2011
[50]

J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

2010
[51]

J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M

Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 4

2012
[52]

Pintos-Castro, I., Yee, H. K. C., Muzzin, A., Old, L., & Wilson, G. 2019, arXiv:1904.00023

2019 arXiv
[53]

M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al

Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 48

2017
[54]

2011, A&A, 532, A145

Popesso, P., Rodighiero, G., Saintonge, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A145

2011
[55]

L., Croom, S

Schaefer, A. L., Croom, S. M., Allen, J. T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 121

2017
[56]

N., Smail, I., et al

Sobral, D., Best, P. N., Smail, I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 675

2011
[57]

R., Quadri, R

Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 118

2016
[58]

H., Nanayakkara, T., Yuan, T., et al

Tran, K.-V. H., Nanayakkara, T., Yuan, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 28

2015
[59]

2018, arXiv:1811.09283

Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2018, arXiv:1811.09283

2018 arXiv
[60]

Vale, A., & Ostriker, J. P. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 189

2004
[61]

M., Finn, R

Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., Finn, R. A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 710, L1

2010
[62]

M., van den Bosch, F

Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2

2006
[63]

R., Dolphin, A

Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 136

2015
[64]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232

2012
[65]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

2013
[66]

M., et al

Woo, J., Dekel, A., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3306

2013
[67]

M., van der Wel, A., et al

Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., van der Wel, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 96 van den Bosch, F. C., Aquino, D., Yang, X., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 79 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28 von der Linden, A., Wild, V., Kauﬀmann, G., White,...

2011
[68]

2010, MNRAS, 404, 1231

Weinmann, S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1231

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

2009

[2] [2]

K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681

2004

[3] [3]

K., Balogh, M

Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

2006

[4] [4]

L., Navarro, J

Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

2000

[5] [5]

2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

Balogh, M., Eke, V., Miller, C., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

work page 2004

[6] [6]

L., McGee, S

Balogh, M. L., McGee, S. L., Mok, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4364

2016

[7] [7]

P., Nichol, R

Bamford, S. P., Nichol, R. C., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1324

2009

[8] [8]

R., Hogg, D

Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 186

2003