Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

JWST Predictions for $z > 10$ Galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations -- I: Photometry and Sizes

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Renaissance Simulations reproduce JWST z>10 galaxy trends at lower stellar masses.

desk verdict Renaissance Simulations mocks overlap JWST z>10 data but low-mass extension risks being numerical rather than physical. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.30436 v1 pith:YGL2DEUN submitted 2026-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Samantha E Hardin , John H Wise , Emily K Troutman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTobservationsgalaxysimulationsstellarmassesstarformationratessizesphotometryzgreaterthan10
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

The paper compares galaxies formed in the Renaissance Simulations to the first JWST discoveries at redshifts above 10. Simulated galaxies span stellar masses from roughly 10^3 to 10^8 solar masses and star formation rates from 10^{-4} to 10 solar masses per year, overlapping the lower end of JWST values while extending to fainter systems. The simulated objects remain compact, with most half-light radii between 1 and 10 parsecs and half-mass radii near 0.1 kiloparsec, and they appear bluer than typical lower-redshift galaxies while connecting smoothly to the observed UV magnitude sequence. This overlap indicates that the simulations capture the formation pathways of the earliest observed galaxies.

What carries the argument

Mock photometry and size measurements generated from the Renaissance Simulations for galaxies at z>10, used to compare stellar mass, SFR, half-light radius, half-mass radius, Sersic index, and UV magnitude distributions against JWST observations.

What would settle it

Discovery of a large population of z>10 galaxies whose half-light radii lie systematically outside the 1-10 parsec range or whose stellar masses and SFRs fall well below the simulated lower bounds would falsify the claimed overlap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Renaissance galaxies provide an accurate representation of the formation history of JWST's z > 10 discoveries and follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses. Stellar masses range from approximately 10^3 to 10^8 solar masses, overlapping JWST galaxies from 10^7 to 10^9 solar masses; star formation rates increase from 10^{-4} to 10 solar masses per year and overlap the lower JWST range of 1-20 solar masses per year; the galaxies are compact with half-light radii mostly 1-10 parsecs and half-stellar-mass radii around 0.1 kiloparsec; Sersic indices lie between 0 and 4; and the galaxies are bluer while transitioning into the absolute UV magnitudes of the JWST mai

Load-bearing premise

The Renaissance Simulations correctly capture the dominant physical processes of star formation, feedback, metal enrichment, and cosmology that govern galaxy formation at z>10 without major missing ingredients or resolution limits that would change the reported overlaps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The simulations extend the galaxy main sequence to stellar masses three orders of magnitude below current JWST detections.
  • Galaxy morphology shows little change across the simulated mass range, with most objects remaining compact.
  • The simulated color and magnitude trends connect directly to the observed JWST sequence, allowing the runs to fill in the faint end.
  • The agreement makes the simulations a practical tool for predicting properties of still-fainter galaxies at these redshifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the overlap holds, the simulations can be used to forecast the number density and detectability of galaxies below current JWST limits.
  • The compactness prediction offers a clear target for future high-resolution imaging or lensing studies of z>10 systems.
  • Any future discrepancy in size or color distributions would point to specific missing physics such as altered feedback efficiency at early times.
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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations at z > 10, reporting stellar masses from ~10^3 to 10^8 M⊙, SFRs from 10^{-4} to 10^1 M⊙ yr^{-1}, half-light radii mostly 1-10 pc (with half-stellar-mass radii ~0.1 kpc), Sersic indices 0-4, and blue colors with UV magnitudes that transition into the JWST range. Mock photometry is generated and compared to the 14 spectroscopically confirmed JWST z > 10 galaxies (masses ~10^7-10^9 M⊙, SFRs 1-20 M⊙ yr^{-1}). The central claim is that the simulated galaxies provide an accurate representation of JWST z > 10 formation histories, follow observed trends, and usefully extend them to lower masses.

Significance. If the resolution and subgrid physics concerns are addressed, the work supplies a valuable public database of mock photometry and sizes for interpreting JWST high-redshift observations, particularly by populating the lower-mass regime. Direct overlap comparisons and the extension of trends constitute a concrete contribution to the growing suite of high-z simulation-observation interfaces.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; results on photometry and sizes] Abstract and results section on sizes/masses: the reported half-light radii (1-10 pc) and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙ are load-bearing for the claim that the simulations 'follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses' and 'provide an accurate representation.' The manuscript must explicitly state the Renaissance grid resolution, softening length, and minimum resolved mass relative to these scales; without this, it is impossible to determine whether the compact sizes and low-mass extension are physical or set by numerical floors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'overlap well' and 'agree well' but does not report quantitative metrics (e.g., distribution overlap statistics or selection-function-matched comparisons); adding these would strengthen the presentation without altering the central claim.
  2. [Methods] Mock photometry pipeline details (filter transmission, dust attenuation model, and any post-processing adjustments) should be cross-referenced to a dedicated methods subsection for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and recommendation for major revision. We address the single major comment below and agree to incorporate the requested numerical details to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; results on photometry and sizes] Abstract and results section on sizes/masses: the reported half-light radii (1-10 pc) and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙ are load-bearing for the claim that the simulations 'follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses' and 'provide an accurate representation.' The manuscript must explicitly state the Renaissance grid resolution, softening length, and minimum resolved mass relative to these scales; without this, it is impossible to determine whether the compact sizes and low-mass extension are physical or set by numerical floors.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly stating the Renaissance Simulations' grid resolution, gravitational softening length, and minimum resolved stellar mass (relative to the reported half-light radii of 1-10 pc and stellar masses down to 10^3 M⊙) is necessary to support our claims. These parameters are documented in the original Renaissance papers (Wise et al. 2012, 2014), but were not restated in this manuscript. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section quoting the relevant values (e.g., maximum grid resolution, softening, and the mass threshold for resolved star particles) and directly compare them to the galaxy scales reported in the results. This will demonstrate that the compact sizes and low-mass extension are resolved and physical rather than numerical artifacts, thereby reinforcing the overlap with JWST trends. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct comparison of independent simulation outputs to JWST observations

full rationale

The paper presents physical properties and mock observations derived from the Renaissance Simulations and compares them directly to independent JWST observational data on stellar masses, SFRs, sizes, and UV magnitudes. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are described that would reduce the reported overlaps or trends to quantities defined from the JWST sample itself. The agreement is an external, falsifiable comparison between simulation outputs and separate observations.

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

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. Typical cosmological simulation assumptions (Lambda-CDM, subgrid physics) are implicit but not detailed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST Predictions for $z > 10$ Galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations -- I: Photometry and Sizes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGL2DEUN

@misc{pith2026260530436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST Predictions for $z > 10$ Galaxies from the Renaissance Simulations -- I: Photometry and Sizes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGL2DEUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.30436}
}
abstract

JWST has enabled new high redshift observations with 14 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies at $z > 10$ to date, leading to a need for high redshift, high resolution simulations to interpret these observations. We present the physical properties and mock observations of the galaxies in the Renaissance Simulations to add to the growing database of high redshift simulation data to guide and interpret observations. We find that they provide an accurate representation of the formation history of JWST's $z > 10$ discoveries and follow the trends observed in JWST galaxies but extended to lower masses. The stellar masses of the Renaissance galaxies range from $\approx 10^{3}$ to $10^8 M_{\odot}$ and overlap well with the $z > 10$ JWST galaxies with a stellar mass range of about $10^{7}$ to $10^9 M_{\odot}$. The simulated SFRs increase from $10^{-4}$ to $10^1 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$, overlapping the JWST galaxies' lower SFRs in the range $1 - 20 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$. These compact galaxies show minimal morphology change as their stellar masses increase with the majority of the half light radii between $1$ and $10$ pc and the majority of the half stellar mass radii around $0.1$ kpc; their Sersic indices vary between $0$ and $4$. The Renaissance galaxies are bluer and generally transition well into the absolute UV magnitudes of the JWST galaxies in the main sequence of galaxies. Overall, our simulations agree well with JWST's discoveries to date, making them a valuable tool in the continued effort to understand the high redshift Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The number of galaxies binned by stellar masses in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right, respectively. 2.5. JWST z > 10 galaxy properties In this paper, we compare the Renaissance galaxies to spectroscopically confirmed JWST galaxies with z > 10. We compile the physical properties of these JWST galaxies from several papers into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Pop II SFRs over 10 Myr of the galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respectively, as a function of their stellar masses. The red hexbins depict the number of galaxies. The stars represent the z > 10 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies observed by JWST. The dashed lines show sSFRs that overlap most with the data. The blue points represent the median of the SFR wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The number of galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respec￾tively, as a function of half stellar mass radius. Nearly all galaxies have sizes below 1 kpc with a median around 100 pc. age. In general, our galaxies represent the earliest stages of galaxy formation that will eventually reach the high mass regime seen by JWST. 4. MORPHOLOGIES OF THE RENAISSANCE GALAXIES 4.1… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respec￾tively, as a function of stellar mass and half stellar mass radius. The blue points represent the medians of the half stellar mass radii with 1σ error bars. been …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ratio of half light to half stellar mass radii represented as a histogram for the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right. This distri￾bution highlights that the emitted light is more concentrated than the stellar mass in most low-mass…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The probability distribution of the Sersic index in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance, from left to right respectively for the F200W filter. The data in this filter was chosen because its wavelength is redward of the Lyα line. We disregard Sersic in…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Sersic index as a function of stellar mass for the F200W filter represented as hexbins colored by the number of galaxies. There is a histogram of the number of halos with each Sersic index on the x-axis and a histogram with the number halos with each stellar mass o…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The probability distribution of the apparent magnitude in JWST’s wideband filters in the Rarepeak re￾gion of Renaissance in increasing stellar mass cuts in each panel. Each probability distribution line is colored based on the filters. mean in the F150W and F200W filt…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The absolute UV magnitude as a function of stellar mass represented by red hexbins for the galaxies in the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right respectively. The absolute UV magnitude was averaged over 100 viewing angles of the Renaissa…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The color-magnitude plots for each combination of JWST wideband filters with the hexbins colored by number of halos for the Rarepeak, Normal, and Void regions of Renaissance from left to right, respectively. The stars represent spectroscopically confirmed JWST galaxie…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Color-color diagrams of all combinations of the wideband NIRCam filters for the Rarepeak region of the Renaissance Simulation. The hexbins are colored by the mean stellar mass of the galaxies in each hexbin. The colors of the spectroscopically confirmed z > 10 JWST ga…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. What becomes of JWST/NIRCam-selected high-redshift massive galaxies?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Observational JWST/NIRCam selections recover almost none of TNG300's M⋆≥10^11 M⊙ galaxies at z~5 and their descendants rarely become the most massive systems at z=0 unless they experience late merger growth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1134, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Colla...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 2025

  2. [2]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Zavala, J. A., Mitsuhashi, I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3723 2023

  3. [3]

    O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B

    Baldwin, J. O., Nelson, E., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 29, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad220a

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad220a 2024

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G., Oesch, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023

  7. [7]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 2023

  8. [8]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    Brummel-Smith, C., Bryan, G., Butsky, I., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01636 2019

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 24

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration

    Bunker, A. J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha, J. Hodge, J. Afonso, L. Pentericci, & D. Sobral, 342–346, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319009463

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318–322, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318–322, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  8. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009b, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    doi

  9. [18]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5c05

    2026 doi

  12. [21]

    2025, A&A, 698, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453267

    Dottorini, D., Calabr` o, A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453267

    2025 doi

  13. [22]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    2003 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3163

    2026 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    R., & Mirocha, J

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Mirocha, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac310

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae839

    Garaldi, E., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae839

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8

    Garg, P., Narayanan, D., Byler, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    Gelli, V., Salvadori, S., Pallottini, A., & Ferrara, A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2410

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Adams, N

    Harvey, T., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    H., & Haghi, H

    Haslbauer, M., Kroupa, P., Zonoozi, A. H., & Haghi, H. 2022, ApJL, 939, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    Hazlett, R., Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Wise, J. H. 2025, ApJ, 978, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919e

    2025 doi

  30. [39]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Rieke, G

    Helton, J. M., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 729, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02503-z

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    F., Gurvich, A

    Hopkins, P. F., Gurvich, A. B., Shen, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1902

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/mcse.2007.55

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Ellis, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1903

    doi

  37. [46]

    P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O

    Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56097, doi: 10.33232/001c.156097

    2026 doi

  38. [47]

    2023b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    doi

  39. [48]

    P., Cadiou, C., et al

    Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05201

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    W., Munshi, F., Trebitsch, M., & Tremmel, M

    Keller, B. W., Munshi, F., Trebitsch, M., & Tremmel, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb148

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  42. [51]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    Kravtsov, A., & Belokurov, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2025a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991 25

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2025a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991 25

    doi

  45. [54]

    LaChance, P., Croft, R. A. C., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20439, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20439

    doi

  46. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3034

    Legrand, L., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3034

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    H., & Regan, J

    McCaffrey, J., Hardin, S., Wise, J. H., & Regan, J. A. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 47, doi: 10.21105/astro.2304.13755

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1861

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1861

    2025 doi

  49. [58]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56033, doi: 10.33232/001c.156033

    2026 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Robitaille, T., et al

    Narayanan, D., Turk, M. J., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc487

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

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

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a O’Shea, B

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a O’Shea, B. W., Wise, J. H., Xu, H., & Norman, M. L. 2015, ApJL, 807, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L12

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G...

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012:

    2012

  60. [69]

    Oschmann, Jr., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    doi

  61. [70]

    E., Pontoppidan, K

    Pickering, T. E., Pontoppidan, K. M., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, C. R. Benn, & R. L. Seaman (SPIE), 44, doi: 10.1117/12.2231768

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2011, A&A, 536, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117150

    2011 doi

  64. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    Rosdahl, J., Katz, H., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    2002 doi

  66. [75]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Kannan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Borrow, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    D., & Lang, M

    Smith, B. D., & Lang, M. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1881, doi: 10.21105/joss.01881

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    F., Pe˜ na, T., Yung, L

    Snyder, G. F., Pe˜ na, T., Yung, L. Y. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3397

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3011

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1185

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    P., Topping, M

    Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Endsley, R., & Tang, M. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 4, Vol. 4, 453–499, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00128-0

    2026 doi

  73. [82]

    C., & Shen, X

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Shen, X. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    C., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al

    Sun, W., Ho, L. C., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1f6

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Hainline, K., et al

    Tacchella, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hainline, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdbc6

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    F., Vogelsberger, M., et al

    Torrey, P., Snyder, G. F., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2592

    2015 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  78. [87]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa137

    Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa137

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe07

    Wang, B., Fujimoto, S., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe07

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    A., Barrufet, L., et al

    Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Barrufet, L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 1808–1838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1891 26

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    C., & Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296, doi: 10.1086/318651

    2001 doi

  83. [92]

    H., & Abel, T

    Wise, J. H., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3458, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18646.x

    2011 doi

  84. [93]

    Smith, B. D. 2012, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1480, First Stars IV - from Hayashi to the Future -, ed. M. Umemura & K. Omukai (AIP), 123–128, doi: 10.1063/1.4754341

    2012 doi

  85. [94]

    J., Johnson, B

    Wu, Z., Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae01a1

    2025 doi

  86. [95]

    H., Norman, M

    Xu, H., Wise, J. H., Norman, M. L., Ahn, K., & O’Shea, B. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/84

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.