Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Using merger trees from the TNG300-1 simulation, this paper argues that galaxies emerging from collisions have higher average star formation rates than their progenitors at all redshifts, with a tenfold gap near z=4, and that mergers occur

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 ↗

Galaxies emerging from mergers in IllustrisTNG300 have higher average star formation rates than their progenitors at all redshifts, the simulated cosmic star formation rate density peaks at z=2.57, and merger environments are overdense compared with the overall galaxy population.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful high-redshift merger census with an unsupported central claim: the SFR boost is mostly mass assembly. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09355 v1 pith:XWIMT5WK submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.GA

The History of Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG

Bendeguz Koncz , Istvan Horvath , Andr\'as P\'eter Jo\'o , Andreas Burkert , L. Viktor T\'oth This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy mergersstar formation rateIllustrisTNGTNG300-1merger treescosmic star formation historyenvironment densityJWST comparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Using merger trees from the TNG300-1 cosmological simulation, the paper tracks progenitor and descendant galaxies from z<15 to ask whether galaxy collisions boost star formation and in what environments mergers occur. It reports that descendant galaxies have average star formation rates one to two orders of magnitude higher than their most massive progenitor at every redshift, with the largest gap near z=4. It also finds that merger galaxies consistently sit in denser local environments than the average galaxy, and it derives a cosmic star formation rate density history for TNG300 that peaks at z=2.57 with log10(SFRD) around -1.24, which the authors compare with recent JWST-derived histories. A sympathetic reader takes the paper as evidence from a large-volume simulation that mergers accompany star formation enhancement and preferentially happen in overdense regions.

Core claim

The central claim is that, averaged over merger events in TNG300-1, the descendant galaxy's star formation rate exceeds its progenitor's at every redshift, by roughly an order of magnitude around z=4, implying that the collision process is associated with triggered star formation. A second claim is that merger galaxies occupy systematically denser environments than the full galaxy population throughout cosmic time, quantified with the fifth-nearest-neighbor density estimator. The paper also finds that TNG300's cosmic star formation rate density peaks at z=2.57 at log10(SFRD) about -1.24, a peak that is shallower and at higher redshift than the JWST/MIRI source-count cosmic star formation his

What carries the argument

The central object is the SubLink merger tree, which links subhalos through unique descendant relations and identifies the most-massive-history branch as the first progenitor and the second branch as the next progenitor. Interacting pairs are selected as galaxies sharing a descendant in the next or following snapshot; the analysis then averages star formation rate, total mass, stellar mass, gas mass, gas fraction, and specific star formation rate over these pairs. Environment is measured with the η_k density parameter, η_k = (k-1)/V(r_k), using the fifth-closest neighbor distance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that comparing a descendant's average star formation rate directly with its progenitor's rate, without a matched control sample of non-merging galaxies in similar environments and masses, isolates the effect of the merger itself.

What would settle it

Construct a control sample of non-merging galaxies matched in stellar mass, gas fraction, and local density at the same redshifts, then compare their average star formation rate with the descendant galaxies in Figure 6. If the controls match the descendants, the claimed 1-2 dex merger enhancement is an artifact of comparing a summed descendant to a single progenitor; the near-identical descendant and next-progenitor specific star formation rates in Figure 11 already hint that per-unit-mass enhancement may be small.

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

If this is right

  • If descendant galaxies have higher star formation rates than progenitors at all redshifts, merger-driven star formation enhancement is a persistent cosmic process, not limited to low-z mergers.
  • The merger SFR peak near z=4, earlier than the global cosmic star formation peak around z=2-3, implies collisional triggering was most prominent in the early universe and may contribute significantly to high-redshift star formation.
  • Since mergers consistently occur in denser regions, merger incidence and the evolution of the cosmic density field are coupled, so environment must be included in merger-driven galaxy evolution models.
  • The TNG300 star formation rate density peak at z=2.57, compared with JWST-derived peaks around z=1-2, exposes a model-observation tension worth closer calibration.
  • Case studies of massive subhalos show gas depletion times falling from roughly 10 Gyr at high redshift to about 0.1 Gyr at low redshift, suggesting merger-driven gas consumption becomes more efficient over cosmic time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper compares each descendant with its own progenitor rather than with matched non-merging galaxies, part of the claimed 1-2 dex star formation gap likely reflects simple mass assembly: the descendant is the summed output of two galaxies. The nearly identical specific star formation rates of descendants and next-progenitors in Figure 11 suggest the per-unit-mass enhancement may be mod
  • A direct test of the merger-enhancement claim would be environment- and mass-matched control samples of non-merging galaxies; the paper itself identifies this as an interesting next step.
  • Repeating the same pair-selection and density analysis in the higher-resolution TNG50 simulation would test whether the z=4 SFR peak and the environmental trends persist below TNG300's resolution limit.
  • The density-SFR relation in Figure 12, with rising SFR up to about 25 galaxies/Mpc^3 and decline beyond, could be disentangled from merger triggering by comparing the environments of mergers and non-mergers in the same density bins.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the IllustrisTNG TNG300-1 simulation's public catalogues and Sublink merger trees to construct samples of merging galaxies with stellar mass > 10^9 Msun over 0 < z < 15. It reports average SFR, total mass, stellar mass, gas mass, gas fraction, and sSFR for progenitors, next progenitors, and descendants, along with local density via the fifth-nearest-neighbour distance. The central claims are that descendant galaxies have higher SFR than their progenitors at all redshifts, with the gap reaching about one order of magnitude near z ~ 4; that galaxy mergers occur in denser environments across cosmic time; and that the TNG300 cosmic SFRD peaks at z = 2.57 with log10(SFRD) ~ -1.24, which is compared with JWST-based measurements.

Significance. If the merger-driven SFR enhancement claim were properly established, the paper would provide useful high-redshift constraints from a modern cosmological simulation. The paper's descriptive statistics from the public TNG300-1 data are a potentially useful reference, and the comparison with JWST-derived cosmic star formation history is an interesting benchmark. The authors are transparent about the data products and give a quantitative SFRD peak. However, the headline causal claim that mergers enhance star formation is not supported by the present analysis, as detailed in the major comments. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the lack of a non-merger control sample, which is central to the interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figures 6 and 11] The descendant–progenitor comparison does not isolate the effect of mergers on star formation. A descendant is the merged product of at least two galaxies, and its stellar mass is systematically larger than that of either progenitor (Fig. 7). Since SFR correlates strongly with stellar mass, the higher absolute SFR of descendants in Fig. 6 is the expected consequence of mass assembly, not necessarily a merger-triggered starburst. The paper's own Fig. 11 shows that descendant and next-progenitor sSFR are nearly identical at all redshifts, implying no per-stellar-mass enhancement. The Discussion states: 'An interesting next step would be to investigate non-merger galaxies that reside in environments similar to those of merging systems.' Without such a matched control, the assertion in §3.2 that the order-of-magnitude gap 'supports the theoretical and observed hypothesis that through the mer
  2. [Section 3.1, Figures 3–5] The environment claim is partly tautological and may not generalize. Mergers are selected as pairs that share a descendant in the next snapshot; by construction, such galaxies are spatially close. Comparing their fifth-neighbour distance with the average over all galaxies partly measures this selection criterion rather than a physical environmental effect. Additionally, Figures 3–5 appear to use galaxies from a single merger tree (captions: 'in a merger tree'), so the statement that 'galaxy mergers consistently occur in denser regions throughout the entire time interval' is not established for the full TNG300 volume. A control of non-merging pairs matched in separation and mass, or a volume-averaged analysis over many merger trees, is needed.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figures 6–11] No uncertainties or sample sizes are reported for the averaged quantities. The order-of-magnitude differences in Fig. 6 lack error bars or confidence intervals, so it is impossible to assess whether the differences are statistically significant. The redshift binning and the fact that descendants can skip snapshots are described qualitatively, but without bootstrap errors or at least the number of galaxies per bin, the central comparison is not quantitatively supported. Add confidence intervals or sample counts to the key figures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract mentions TNG100-1 and TNG300-1, but the methods and results focus on TNG300-1. Please clarify whether TNG100-1 is used anywhere in the analysis or remove it from the abstract.
  2. [Figure A4 caption] Typo: 'Deplation time' should be 'Depletion time'.
  3. [Equation (1)] The eta_k estimator should specify that k = 5 is used, and the units of r_k and V(r_k) should be stated consistently (comoving vs physical).
  4. [Section 4, Figure 13] The B-spline smoothing parameter (0.01) is a free choice; please justify it or show sensitivity of the reported peak position and amplitude to this choice.
  5. [Section 4.1, Figure 14] The comparison with the JWST-derived CSFH of Kim et al. would benefit from a quantitative statement of uncertainties on both the TNG300 and observational values, since the claimed 'shallower peak at higher redshift' may be within systematic uncertainties.
  6. [General] There are several grammatical and formatting issues (e.g., 'The stellar mass of galaxies is increasing with time monotonic', Table A1 column headers with inconsistent spacing). A careful language edit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: reported values are direct TNG300 catalogue measurements; the main caveat (no non-merger control) is a methodological confound, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims (SFR, stellar mass, gas mass, local density, SFRD) are computed directly from the public IllustrisTNG TNG300-1 catalogues and merger-tree files; they are not fitted to the JWST data with which they are compared, and the SFRD peak at z=2.57 is read off the simulation's own values. The central interpretation that mergers enhance star formation is weakened by the absence of a matched non-merger control sample: Section 3.2/Figure 6 compares descendant galaxies with their main progenitors, and descendants are systematically more massive (Figure 7), while Figure 11 shows sSFR of descendants and next progenitors are nearly identical. However, this is an inference/confound issue, not circularity - descendant SFR is not defined as progenitor SFR, and the simulation could in principle show quenching. The Discussion explicitly acknowledges the missing control ('An interesting next step would be to investigate non-merger galaxies that reside in environments similar to those of merging systems'). The only self-citation of note is Koncz et al. (2023) used to justify that individual merger trees are representative; this is a mild reliance, but the paper's main SFR results are corroborated by independent external TNG studies (Patton et al. 2020; Hani et al. 2020) and the cited claim is not what generates the reported values. Thus no load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional reduction is present; circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest entirely on the public TNG300-1 simulation and its SubLink merger trees. No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger records the hand-set analysis parameters (neighbor order, mass cut, redshift cap, spline smoothing) and the domain assumptions inherited from the simulation and merger-tree construction. The most consequential item is the implicit control-free assumption that descendant-versus-progenitor SFR differences can be read as merger-driven enhancement.

free parameters (4)
  • k in eta_k density estimator = 5
    The nearest-neighbor order is fixed at 5 following Das et al. (2023); it is a hand-chosen method parameter that affects all density values and the density-SFR relation in Figure 12.
  • Stellar mass cut for galaxy sample = 10^9 Msun
    Galaxies are selected with stellar mass above 10^9 Msun; the authors test 10^8.8 and 10^9 cuts in Appendix B, but the threshold affects high-z counts and density estimates.
  • Maximum redshift considered = z=15
    Redshifts above 15 are excluded because the simulation contains only a few galaxies; this truncates the merger history at the high-redshift end.
  • B-spline smoothing parameter = 0.01
    The SFRD peak at z=2.57 is obtained by fitting a quadratic B-spline with smoothing 0.01 and interpolating to 100 bins; no sensitivity analysis is provided, so the peak location is partly a fitting artifact.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption SubLink merger trees accurately assign progenitor and descendant relations for all merging subhalos.
    Section 2.2 relies entirely on SubLink and LHaloTree outputs; mislinked or missed subhalos would change the merger sample and all derived averages.
  • domain assumption TNG300 subgrid physics, including star formation, feedback, and AGN prescriptions, is a valid model of galaxy formation.
    All SFR, gas, and stellar mass values are taken from TNG300-1; the model's calibration to observed galaxy populations is inherited from earlier IllustrisTNG papers and not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Comparing mean SFR of descendants with progenitors, without a matched non-merger control, isolates the effect of mergers.
    Section 3.2 and Figure 6 implicitly assume that the descendant-versus-progenitor SFR gap can be attributed to the merger; the Discussion defers the non-merger comparison to future work, and the sSFR results in Figure 11 undermine the assumption.
  • domain assumption The 5th-nearest-neighbor density eta_5 adequately represents the local environment.
    Section 3.1 and Equation 1 adopt the method of Das et al. (2023); the density values depend on the completeness of the subhalo catalog and the chosen mass cut.
  • domain assumption The snapshot cadence of about 150 million years does not alias merger selection or the star formation enhancement timescale.
    Section 2.1 and 2.2: mergers are identified by common descendants in the next or following snapshot, and the paper then compares SFR at snapshot redshifts; shorter-lived star formation bursts could be missed or misassigned.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The History of Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWIMT5WK

@misc{pith2026250909355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The History of Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWIMT5WK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09355}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The process of galaxy evolution over cosmic time is not yet fully understood, since there is a debate on the impact of galaxy collisions on the star formation and metallicity. The local environment of the galaxy mergers could also have a large impact on the evolution of the galaxies, but it has not yet been possible to examine it in detail. Modern simulations with larger capacity, including the newest physical knowledge and new observations with JWST, help us to answer these questions. Using the IllustrisTNG cosmological simulation, we processed the catalogue data and the merger tree files of the TNG300-1 simulation. We calculated the galaxies average star formation rate (SFR) and mass at redshifts between 0 < z < 15. We investigated the environment of galaxy mergers, with the focus on the local density, and also examined how the SFR changes in merging galaxies. We compared our findings with JWST results and highlighted differences in the star formation rate density (SFRD) history between the models and observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09355 by Andr\'as P\'eter Jo\'o, Andreas Burkert, Bendeguz Koncz, Istvan Horvath, L. Viktor T\'oth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of the galaxy mergers in the 0th merger tree (red) and their neighborhood (blue points) at z = 0 redshift in the IllustrisTNG 300-1 simulation. Spatial coordinates of galaxies (SubhaloPos) are represented by red/blue points. Galaxy collisions occur only in the densest regions. Only those galaxy mergers are shown which are connected to the chosen merger tree, therefore, no collisions ca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatial distribution of the galaxies in the TNG300-1 simulation at z = 0 redshift. The spatial coordinates of galaxies (SubhaloPos) are represented by blue points. Galaxies form filamentary structures where they build clusters, between these filaments are lower-density regions and voids. the close neighbors around each galaxy, if the majority of galaxies appearing in the total volume are arranged in cluste… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average comoving distance of the 5th closest neighbor galaxy r5 for all galaxies (black), in a galaxy cluster (blue) and for merger galaxies in a merger tree (red) at different redshifts. Galaxy mergers appear in much denser regions at all redshifts compared to the selected galaxy cluster. (they skip a Snapshot), and not all of the NextProgenitors are in the Snapshot in question, but in the previous one, o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average physical distance of the 5th closest neighbor galaxy r5 for all galaxies (black), in a galaxy cluster (blue) and for merger galaxies in a merger tree (red) at different redshifts. Galaxy mergers appear in much denser regions at all redshifts compared to the selected galaxy cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the η5 density parameters (left y axis) and galaxy number density (right y axis) average at different redshifts (z) for all galaxies in the TNG300-1 simulation (black), for a galaxy cluster (blue) and the galaxy mergers (red). The η5 density parameter counts with the distance of the 5th closest neighbor for each galaxy, if its value is larger, the galaxies are closer to each other. Galaxy mer… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Merger galaxies average star formation rate (<SFR>) on logarithmic scale versus redshift (z). Each point represents the average SFR at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color. The star formation rates of the descendant galaxies have higher values at all redshifts than… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Merger galaxies average total mass (<Mtot>) on logarithmic scale versus redshift (z). Each point represents the average mass at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color. The masses of the descendant galaxies have higher values at all redshifts than the progenitors [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Merger galaxies average stellar mass (<M∗>) on logarithmic scale versus redshift (z). Each point represents the average stellar mass at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Merger galaxies average gas mass (<Mgas>) on logarithmic scale versus redshift (z). Each point represents the average gas mass at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Merger galaxies gas fraction (µgas) versus redshift (z), where µgas = Mgas/Mstar. Each point represents the average gas fraction at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color. At high redshifts, progenitors and descendant galaxies had more and similar amounts of gas fra… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Merger galaxies specific star formation rate (<sSFR>) on logarithmic scale in Gyr versus redshift (z). Each point represents the average specific star formation rates at a given redshift. Progenitor galaxies (the most massive ones) are shown with red, NextProgenitors of these galaxies with blue, and their Descendant galaxies marked with green color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Galaxy mergers average star formation rate versus the galaxy density. Galaxies star formation is highly increasing at the density ∼16 galaxy/Mpc3 , but at more dense environments the SFR is decreasing. Extremely dense regions could cause the quenching of galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: TNG300 cosmic star formation history for all galaxies in the simulation volume. We calculated SFRD values for each redshift z close to a whole number, with a few extra data points added close to the maximum. These values are shown as orange dots. We then fitted these data points with a quadratic B-spline with a smoothing parameter of 0.01, interpolated to 100 bins between zmin and zmax. We found the bin w… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between the Cosmic Star Formation History (CSFH) derived by Kim et al. [56] from recent JWST observations and our calculated SFRD data points for TNG300. Amongst the most spectacular findings of JWST is how early in the Universe we see already evolved galaxies. Atek et al. [66] revealed three galaxy candidates with masses log(M∗/M⊙) > 9 at redshift z between 8.88 and 9.78 in the JWST deep field… 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

68 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hwang, H.S.; Shin, J.; Song, H. Evolution of star formation rate–density relation over cosmic time in a simulated universe: the observed reversal reproduced.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2019,489, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stz2136

  2. [2]

    Gasdynamics and Starbursts in Major Mergers.ApJ1996,464, 641, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/9512099]

    Mihos, J.C.; Hernquist, L. Gasdynamics and Starbursts in Major Mergers.ApJ1996,464, 641, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/9512099]. https://doi.org/10.1086/177353

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Investigating the Effect of Galaxy Interactions on Star Formation at 0.5 &lt; z &lt; 3.0.The Astrophysical Journal2022,940, 4

    Shah, E.A.; Kartaltepe, J.S.; Magagnoli, C.T.; Cox, I.G.; Wetherell, C.T.; Vanderhoof, B.N.; Cooke, K.C.; Calabro, A.; Chartab, N.; Conselice, C.J.; et al. Investigating the Effect of Galaxy Interactions on Star Formation at 0.5 &lt; z &lt; 3.0.The Astrophysical Journal2022,940, 4. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac96eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac96eb

  4. [4]

    Dwarf Galaxies and the Origin of the Intracluster Medium.ApJ1995,454, 604, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro- ph/9505081]

    Nath, B.B.; Chiba, M. Dwarf Galaxies and the Origin of the Intracluster Medium.ApJ1995,454, 604, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro- ph/9505081]. https://doi.org/10.1086/176514

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    PRIMUS: Constraints on Star Formation Quenching and Galaxy Merging, and the Evolution of the Stellar Mass Function from z = 0-1.ApJ2013,767, 50, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1301.1688]

    Moustakas, J.; Coil, A.L.; Aird, J.; Blanton, M.R.; Cool, R.J.; Eisenstein, D.J.; Mendez, A.J.; Wong, K.C.; Zhu, G.; Arnouts, S. PRIMUS: Constraints on Star Formation Quenching and Galaxy Merging, and the Evolution of the Stellar Mass Function from z = 0-1.ApJ2013,767, 50, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1301.1688]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50. Version ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Galaxy mergers can rapidly shut down star formation.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters2022,517, L92–L96

    Ellison, S.L.; Wilkinson, S.; Woo, J.; Leung, H.H.; Wild, V .; Bickley, R.W.; Patton, D.R.; Quai, S.; Gwyn, S. Galaxy mergers can rapidly shut down star formation.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters2022,517, L92–L96. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slac109

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac109

  7. [7]

    How to quench a galaxy

    Pontzen, A.; Tremmel, M.; Roth, N.; Peiris, H.V .; Saintonge, A.; Volonteri, M.; Quinn, T.; Governato, F. How to quench a galaxy. MNRAS2017,465, 547–558, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1607.02507]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    How is star formation quenched in massive galaxies?MNRAS2010, 407, 749–771, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1001.1734]

    Gabor, J.M.; Davé, R.; Finlator, K.; Oppenheimer, B.D. How is star formation quenched in massive galaxies?MNRAS2010, 407, 749–771, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1001.1734]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16961.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Effect of galaxy mergers on star-formation rates.A&A2019,631, A51, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1908.10115]

    Pearson, W.J.; Wang, L.; Alpaslan, M.; Baldry, I.; Bilicki, M.; Brown, M.J.I.; Grootes, M.W.; Holwerda, B.W.; Kitching, T.D.; Kruk, S.; et al. Effect of galaxy mergers on star-formation rates.A&A2019,631, A51, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1908.10115]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  10. [10]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy colour bimodality.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 624–647

    Nelson, D.; Pillepich, A.; Springel, V .; Weinberger, R.; Hernquist, L.; Pakmor, R.; Genel, S.; Torrey, P .; Vogelsberger, M.; Kauffmann, G.; et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy colour bimodality.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 624–647. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040

  11. [11]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2018

    Marinacci, F.; Vogelsberger, M.; Pakmor, R.; Torrey, P .; Springel, V .; Hernquist, L.; Nelson, D.; Weinberger, R.; Pillepich, A.; Naiman, J.; et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2206

  12. [12]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 648–675

    Pillepich, A.; Nelson, D.; Hernquist, L.; Springel, V .; Pakmor, R.; Torrey, P .; Weinberger, R.; Genel, S.; Naiman, J.P .; Marinacci, F.; et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 648–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx3...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112 2025

  13. [13]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: matter and galaxy clustering.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 676–698

    Springel, V .; Pakmor, R.; Pillepich, A.; Weinberger, R.; Nelson, D.; Hernquist, L.; Vogelsberger, M.; Genel, S.; Torrey, P .; Marinacci, F.; et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: matter and galaxy clustering.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2017,475, 676–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304

  14. [14]

    Naiman, J.P .; Pillepich, A.; Springel, V .; Ramirez-Ruiz, E.; Torrey, P .; Vogelsberger, M.; Pakmor, R.; Nelson, D.; Marinacci, F.; Hernquist, L.; et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: a tale of two elements – chemical evolution of magnesium and europium.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2018,477, 1206–1224. https://doi.o...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty618

  15. [15]

    A statistical study of the relationship between galaxy interactions and nuclear activity.ApJ1985, 296, 90–105

    Cutri, R.M.; McAlary, C.W. A statistical study of the relationship between galaxy interactions and nuclear activity.ApJ1985, 296, 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1086/163422

    work page doi:10.1086/163422

  16. [16]

    Galaxy pairs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - IV

    Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Mendel, J.T.; Scudder, J.M. Galaxy pairs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - IV . Interactions trigger active galactic nuclei.MNRAS2011,418, 2043–2053, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1108.2711]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2043

  17. [17]

    Interacting galaxies on FIRE-2: the connection between enhanced star formation and interstellar gas content.MNRAS2019, 485, 1320–1338, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.02305]

    Moreno, J.; Torrey, P .; Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Hopkins, P .F.; Bueno, M.; Hayward, C.C.; Narayanan, D.; Kereš, D.; Bluck, A.F.L.; et al. Interacting galaxies on FIRE-2: the connection between enhanced star formation and interstellar gas content.MNRAS2019, 485, 1320–1338, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.02305]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  18. [18]

    Recent star formation in interacting galaxies - II

    Joseph, R.D.; Wright, G.S. Recent star formation in interacting galaxies - II. Super starbursts in merging galaxies.MNRAS1985, 214, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/214.2.87

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/214.2.87

  19. [19]

    Outflows in Infrared-Luminous Starbursts at z < 0.5

    Rupke, D.S.; Veilleux, S.; Sanders, D.B. Outflows in Infrared-Luminous Starbursts at z < 0.5. II. Analysis and Discussion.ApJ Suppl.2005,160, 115–148, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0506611]. https://doi.org/10.1086/432889

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    Supernova Feedback Efficiency and Mass Loading in the Starburst and Galactic Superwind Exemplar M82.ApJ2009,697, 2030–2056, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/0903.4175]

    Strickland, D.K.; Heckman, T.M. Supernova Feedback Efficiency and Mass Loading in the Starburst and Galactic Superwind Exemplar M82.ApJ2009,697, 2030–2056, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/0903.4175]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2030

  21. [21]

    Outflows in Active Galactic Nucleus/Starburst-Composite Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies1,.ApJ2005,632, 751–780, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0507037]

    Rupke, D.S.; Veilleux, S.; Sanders, D.B. Outflows in Active Galactic Nucleus/Starburst-Composite Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies1,.ApJ2005,632, 751–780, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0507037]. https://doi.org/10.1086/444451. Version October 21, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 31 of 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Delayed or No Feedback? Gas Outflows in Type 2 AGNs

    Woo, J.H.; Son, D.; Bae, H.J. Delayed or No Feedback? Gas Outflows in Type 2 AGNs. III.ApJ2017,839, 120, [arXiv:astro- ph.GA/1702.06681]. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa6894

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Connections between Galaxy Mergers and Starburst: Evidence from the Local Universe.ApJL2014, 789, L16, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1406.5315]

    Luo, W.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y. Connections between Galaxy Mergers and Starburst: Evidence from the Local Universe.ApJL2014, 789, L16, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1406.5315]. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  24. [24]

    Early- and late-stage mergers among main sequence and starburst galaxies at 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 2.MNRAS2019,485, 5631–5651, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1809.00715]

    Cibinel, A.; Daddi, E.; Sargent, M.T.; Le Floc’h, E.; Liu, D.; Bournaud, F.; Oesch, P .A.; Amram, P .; Calabrò, A.; Duc, P .A.; et al. Early- and late-stage mergers among main sequence and starburst galaxies at 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 2.MNRAS2019,485, 5631–5651, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1809.00715]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz690

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Effects of Active Galactic Nucleus Feedback on Cold Gas Depletion and Quenching of Central Galaxies.The Astrophysical Journal2022,941, 205

    Ma, W.; Liu, K.; Guo, H.; Cui, W.; Jones, M.G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Davé, R. Effects of Active Galactic Nucleus Feedback on Cold Gas Depletion and Quenching of Central Galaxies.The Astrophysical Journal2022,941, 205. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ aca326

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/

  26. [26]

    Chemical Composition and Evolution of Irregular and Blue Compact Galaxies.A&A1979,80, 155

    Lequeux, J.; Peimbert, M.; Rayo, J.F.; Serrano, A.; Torres-Peimbert, S. Chemical Composition and Evolution of Irregular and Blue Compact Galaxies.A&A1979,80, 155

  27. [27]

    Spectroscopic observations of 10 emission-line dwarf galaxies.ApJ1981,243, 127–139

    Kinman, T.D.; Davidson, K. Spectroscopic observations of 10 emission-line dwarf galaxies.ApJ1981,243, 127–139. https: //doi.org/10.1086/158575

    doi:10.1086/158575

  28. [28]

    K., J.; Whitmore, B.C

    Rubin, V .C.; Ford, W. K., J.; Whitmore, B.C. Luminosity-dependent line ratios in disks of spiral galaxies.ApJL1984,281, L21–L24. https://doi.org/10.1086/184276

    work page doi:10.1086/184276

  29. [29]

    Metallicity and Nuclear Star Formation in Nearby Galaxy Pairs: Evidence for Tidally Induced Gas Flows.Astronomical Journal2006,131, 2004–2017, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0511119]

    Kewley, L.J.; Geller, M.J.; Barton, E.J. Metallicity and Nuclear Star Formation in Nearby Galaxy Pairs: Evidence for Tidally Induced Gas Flows.Astronomical Journal2006,131, 2004–2017, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0511119]. https://doi.org/10.1086/500295

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    GALAXY PAIRS IN THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY

    Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Simard, L.; McConnachie, A.W. GALAXY PAIRS IN THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY. I. STAR FORMATION, ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEUS FRACTION, AND THE LUMINOSITY/MASS–METALLICITY RELATION.The Astronomical Journal2008,135, 1877. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

  31. [31]

    A Physically Motivated Framework to Compare the Merger Timescales of Isolated Low- and High-mass Galaxy Pairs Across Cosmic Time.ApJ2024,975, 104, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2409.02233]

    Chamberlain, K.; Patel, E.; Besla, G.; Torrey, P .; Rodriguez-Gomez, V . A Physically Motivated Framework to Compare the Merger Timescales of Isolated Low- and High-mass Galaxy Pairs Across Cosmic Time.ApJ2024,975, 104, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2409.02233]. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bad

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: image data release and the major role of mini mergers as drivers of asymmetry and star formation

    Bottrell, C.; Yesuf, H.M.; Popping, G.; Omori, K.C.; Tang, S.; Ding, X.; Pillepich, A.; Nelson, D.; Eisert, L.; Gao, H.; et al. IllustrisTNG in the HSC-SSP: image data release and the major role of mini mergers as drivers of asymmetry and star formation. MNRAS2024,527, 6506–6539, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2308.14793]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Montenegro-Taborda, D.; Rodriguez-Gomez, V .; Pillepich, A.; Avila-Reese, V .; Sales, L.V .; Rodríguez-Puebla, A.; Hernquist, L. The growth of brightest cluster galaxies in the TNG300 simulation: dissecting the contributions from mergers and in situ star formation.MNRAS2023,521, 800–817, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2302.10943]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Galaxy mergers in UNIONS - I

    Ferreira, L.; Bickley, R.W.; Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Byrne-Mamahit, S.; Wilkinson, S.; Bottrell, C.; Fabbro, S.; Gwyn, S.D.J.; McConnachie, A. Galaxy mergers in UNIONS - I. A simulation-driven hybrid deep learning ensemble for pure galaxy merger classification.MNRAS2024,533, 2547–2569, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2407.18396]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1885

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Galaxy merger challenge: A comparison study between machine learning- based detection methods.A&A2024,687, A24, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2403.15118]

    Margalef-Bentabol, B.; Wang, L.; La Marca, A.; Blanco-Prieto, C.; Chudy, D.; Domínguez-Sánchez, H.; Goulding, A.D.; Guzmán- Ortega, A.; Huertas-Company, M.; Martin, G.; et al. Galaxy merger challenge: A comparison study between machine learning- based detection methods.A&A2024,687, A24, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2403.15118]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Merger-tree-based Galaxy Matching: A Comparative Study across Different Resolutions.ApJ2024,965, 156, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2312.02466]

    Jung, M.; Kim, J.h.; Oh, B.K.; Hong, S.E.; Lee, J.; Kim, J. Merger-tree-based Galaxy Matching: A Comparative Study across Different Resolutions.ApJ2024,965, 156, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2312.02466]. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad34d1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Omori, K.C.; Bottrell, C.; Walmsley, M.; Yesuf, H.M.; Goulding, A.D.; Ding, X.; Popping, G.; Silverman, J.D.; Takeuchi, T.T.; Toba, Y. Galaxy mergers in Subaru HSC-SSP: A deep representation learning approach for identification, and the role of environment on merger incidence.A&A2023,679, A142, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2309.15539]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - I: Triggered star formation in a cosmological context.MNRAS2020, 494, 4969–4985, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2003.00289]

    Patton, D.R.; Wilson, K.D.; Metrow, C.J.; Ellison, S.L.; Torrey, P .; Brown, W.; Hani, M.H.; McAlpine, S.; Moreno, J.; Woo, J. Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - I: Triggered star formation in a cosmological context.MNRAS2020, 494, 4969–4985, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2003.00289]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa913

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

    Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - II: star formation in the post-merger stage.MNRAS2020,493, 3716–3731, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2001.04472]

    Hani, M.H.; Gosain, H.; Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Torrey, P . Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - II: star formation in the post-merger stage.MNRAS2020,493, 3716–3731, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2001.04472]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa4 59

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [40]

    Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - III

    Quai, S.; Hani, M.H.; Ellison, S.L.; Patton, D.R.; Woo, J. Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - III. (The rarity of) quenching in post-merger galaxies.MNRAS2021,504, 1888–1901, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2104.03327]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stab988

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  41. [41]

    Byrne-Mamahit, S.; Hani, M.H.; Ellison, S.L.; Quai, S.; Patton, D.R. Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - IV: enhanced supermassive black hole accretion rates in post-merger galaxies.MNRAS2023,519, 4966–4981, [arXiv:astro- ph.GA/2212.07342]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3674. Version October 21, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specifie...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - V

    Brown, W.; Patton, D.R.; Ellison, S.L.; Faria, L. Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations - V . Comparing the influence of star-forming versus passive companions.MNRAS2023,522, 5107–5122, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2304.14566]. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    On the Normalization of the Cosmic Star Formation History.The Astrophysical Journal2006, 651, 142–154

    Hopkins, A.M.; Beacom, J.F. On the Normalization of the Cosmic Star Formation History.The Astrophysical Journal2006, 651, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/506610

    doi:10.1086/506610

  44. [44]

    E pur si muove: Galilean-invariant cosmological hydrodynamical simulations on a moving mesh.MNRAS2010, 401, 791–851, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/0901.4107]

    Springel, V . E pur si muove: Galilean-invariant cosmological hydrodynamical simulations on a moving mesh.MNRAS2010, 401, 791–851, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/0901.4107]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Simulating galaxy formation with the IllustrisTNG model.MNRAS2018,473, 4077–4106, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1703.02970]

    Pillepich, A.; Springel, V .; Nelson, D.; Genel, S.; Naiman, J.; Pakmor, R.; Hernquist, L.; Torrey, P .; Vogelsberger, M.; Weinberger, R.; et al. Simulating galaxy formation with the IllustrisTNG model.MNRAS2018,473, 4077–4106, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1703.02970]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Simulating galaxy formation with black hole driven thermal and kinetic feedback.MNRAS2017,465, 3291–3308, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1607.03486]

    Weinberger, R.; Springel, V .; Hernquist, L.; Pillepich, A.; Marinacci, F.; Pakmor, R.; Nelson, D.; Genel, S.; Vogelsberger, M.; Naiman, J.; et al. Simulating galaxy formation with black hole driven thermal and kinetic feedback.MNRAS2017,465, 3291–3308, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1607.03486]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time.MNRAS 2019,490, 3196–3233, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.05553]

    Pillepich, A.; Nelson, D.; Springel, V .; Pakmor, R.; Torrey, P .; Weinberger, R.; Vogelsberger, M.; Marinacci, F.; Genel, S.; van der Wel, A.; et al. First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time.MNRAS 2019,490, 3196–3233, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.05553]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback.MNRAS2019, 490, 3234–3261, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.05554]

    Nelson, D.; Pillepich, A.; Springel, V .; Pakmor, R.; Weinberger, R.; Genel, S.; Torrey, P .; Vogelsberger, M.; Marinacci, F.; Hernquist, L. First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback.MNRAS2019, 490, 3234–3261, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1902.05554]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  49. [49]

    The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V .; Genel, S.; Vogelsberger, M.; Sijacki, D.; Pillepich, A.; Sales, L.V .; Torrey, P .; Snyder, G.; Nelson, D.; Springel, V .; et al. The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models. MNRAS2015,449, 49–64, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1502.01339]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars.Nature2005,435, 629–636, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro- ph/0504097]

    Springel, V .; White, S.D.M.; Jenkins, A.; Frenk, C.S.; Yoshida, N.; Gao, L.; Navarro, J.; Thacker, R.; Croton, D.; Helly, J.; et al. Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars.Nature2005,435, 629–636, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro- ph/0504097]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03597

    arXiv

  51. [51]

    Investigating star formation in Illustris TNG galaxy mergers.Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso2023,53, 153–163

    Koncz, B.; Joó, A.P .; Pintér, S. Investigating star formation in Illustris TNG galaxy mergers.Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso2023,53, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.31577/caosp.2023.53.4.153

    work page doi:10.31577/caosp.2023.53.4.153 2023

  52. [52]

    Galaxy Interactions in Filaments and Sheets: Effects of the Large-scale Structures Versus the Local Density.Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics2023,23, 025016

    Das, A.; Pandey, B.; Sarkar, S. Galaxy Interactions in Filaments and Sheets: Effects of the Large-scale Structures Versus the Local Density.Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics2023,23, 025016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acab44

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acab44

  53. [53]

    Core radius and density measurements in N-body experiments Connections with theoretical and observational definitions.ApJ1985,298, 80–94

    Casertano, S.; Hut, P . Core radius and density measurements in N-body experiments Connections with theoretical and observational definitions.ApJ1985,298, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/163589

    doi:10.1086/163589

  54. [54]

    Star Formation History in the Illustris TNG Simulation

    Joó, A.P .; Koncz, B.; Pinter, S.; Tóth, L.V . Star Formation History in the Illustris TNG Simulation. In Proceedings of the Resolving the Rise and Fall of Star Formation in Galaxies; Wong, T.; Kim, W.T., Eds., 1 2023, Vol. 373,IAU Symposium, pp. 318–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921323000157

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921323000157 2023

  55. [55]

    Evolution of the specific star formation rate function at z< 1.4 Dissecting the mass-SFR plane in COSMOS and GOODS.A&A 2015,579, A2, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1410.4875]

    Ilbert, O.; Arnouts, S.; Le Floc’h, E.; Aussel, H.; Bethermin, M.; Capak, P .; Hsieh, B.C.; Kajisawa, M.; Karim, A.; Le Fèvre, O.; et al. Evolution of the specific star formation rate function at z< 1.4 Dissecting the mass-SFR plane in COSMOS and GOODS.A&A 2015,579, A2, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1410.4875]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Kim, S.J.; Goto, T.; Ling, C.T.; Wu, C.K.W.; Hashimoto, T.; Kilerci, E.; Ho, S.C.C.; Uno, Y.; Wang, P .Y.; Lin, Y.W. Cosmic star- formation history and black hole accretion history inferred from the JWST mid-infrared source counts.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2023,527, 5525–5539, [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/527/3/5525/5...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3499

  57. [57]

    Galaxy source counts at 7.7, 10, and 15µm with the James Webb Space Telescope.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2022, 517, 853–857

    Ling, C.T.; Kim, S.J.; Wu, C.K.W.; Goto, T.; Kilerci, E.; Hashimoto, T.; Lin, Y.W.; Wang, P .Y.; Ho, S.C.C.; Hsiao, T.Y.Y. Galaxy source counts at 7.7, 10, and 15µm with the James Webb Space Telescope.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2022, 517, 853–857. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2716

  58. [58]

    Source counts at 7.7–21 µm in CEERS field with JWST.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2023,523, 5187–5197

    Wu, C.K.W.; Ling, C.T.; Goto, T.; Kim, S.J.; Hashimoto, T.; Kilerci, E.; Lin, Y.W.; Wang, P .Y.; Uno, Y.; Ho, S.C.C.; et al. Source counts at 7.7–21 µm in CEERS field with JWST.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2023,523, 5187–5197. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1769

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1769

  59. [59]

    Observations of the Hubble Deep Field with the Infrared Space Observatory - III

    Oliver, S.J.; Goldschmidt, P .; Franceschini, A.; Serjeant, S.B.G.; Efstathiou, A.; Verma, A.; Gruppioni, C.; Eaton, N.; Mann, R.G.; Mobasher, B.; et al. Observations of the Hubble Deep Field with the Infrared Space Observatory - III. Source counts and P(D) analysis.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society1997,289, 471–481. https://doi.org/10.109...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/289.2.471

  60. [60]

    The European Large Area ISO Survey – II

    Serjeant, S.; Oliver, S.; Rowan-Robinson, M.; Crockett, H.; Missoulis, V .; Sumner, T.; Gruppioni, C.; Mann, R.G.; Eaton, N.; Elbaz, D.; et al. The European Large Area ISO Survey – II. Mid-infrared extragalactic source counts.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2000,316, 768–778. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03551.x. Version Octob...

    arXiv 2000

  61. [61]

    Source counts at 15 microns from the AKARI NEP survey.Astronomy and Astrophysics2010,514, A8

    Pearson, C.P .; Oyabu, S.; Wada, T.; Matsuhara, H.; Lee, H.M.; Kim, S.J.; Takagi, T.; Goto, T.; Im, M.S.; Serjeant, S.; et al. Source counts at 15 microns from the AKARI NEP survey.Astronomy and Astrophysics2010,514, A8. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-636 1/200913382

    doi:10.1051/0004-636

  62. [62]

    The AKARI NEP-Deep survey: a mid-infrared source catalogue.Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics2011,537, A24

    Takagi, T.; Matsuhara, H.; Goto, T.; Hanami, H.; Im, M.; Imai, K.; Ishigaki, T.; Lee, H.M.; Lee, M.G.; Malkan, M.; et al. The AKARI NEP-Deep survey: a mid-infrared source catalogue.Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics2011,537, A24. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004 -6361/201117759

    doi:10.1051/0004

  63. [63]

    The first source counts at 18µm from the AKARI NEP Survey.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2014,444, 846–859

    Pearson, C.P .; Serjeant, S.; Oyabu, S.; Matsuhara, H.; Wada, T.; Goto, T.; Takagi, T.; Lee, H.M.; Im, M.; Ohyama, Y.; et al. The first source counts at 18µm from the AKARI NEP Survey.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2014,444, 846–859. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1472

  64. [64]

    Davidge, H.; Serjeant, S.; Pearson, C.; Matsuhara, H.; Wada, T.; Dryer, B.; Barrufet, L. AKARI/IRC source catalogues and source counts for the IRAC Dark Field, ELAIS North and the AKARI Deep Field South.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2017,472, 4259–4286. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1935

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1935 2017

  65. [65]

    Minor Merger Growth in Action: JWST Detects Faint Blue Companions around Massive Quiescent Galaxies at 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 3.0.The Astrophysical Journal Letters2023,956, L42

    Suess, K.A.; Williams, C.C.; Robertson, B.; Ji, Z.; Johnson, B.D.; Nelson, E.; Alberts, S.; Hainline, K.; D’Eugenio, F.; Übler, H.; et al. Minor Merger Growth in Action: JWST Detects Faint Blue Companions around Massive Quiescent Galaxies at 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 3.0.The Astrophysical Journal Letters2023,956, L42. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acf5e6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf5e6 2041

  66. [66]

    Atek, H.; Shuntov, M.; Furtak, L.J.; Richard, J.; Kneib, J.P .; Mahler, G.; Zitrin, A.; McCracken, H.J.; Charlot, S.; Chevallard, J.; et al. Revealing galaxy candidates out to z ∼ 16 with JWST observations of the lensing cluster SMACS0723.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society2022,519, 1201–1220, [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/519/...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3144

  67. [67]

    A population of red candidate massive galaxies 600 Myr after the Big Bang.Nature2023,616, 266–269

    Labbé, I.; van Dokkum, P .; Nelson, E.; Bezanson, R.; Suess, K.A.; Leja, J.; Brammer, G.; Whitaker, K.; Mathews, E.; Stefanon, M.; et al. A population of red candidate massive galaxies 600 Myr after the Big Bang.Nature2023,616, 266–269. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

  68. [68]

    The IllustrisTNG Simulations: Public Data Release, 2021, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1812.05609]

    Nelson, D.; Springel, V .; Pillepich, A.; Rodriguez-Gomez, V .; Torrey, P .; Genel, S.; Vogelsberger, M.; Pakmor, R.; Marinacci, F.; Weinberger, R.; et al. The IllustrisTNG Simulations: Public Data Release, 2021, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1812.05609]. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.