Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 137 references

Signature of Bursty Star Formation in the High-Redshift Galaxies Detected with JWST

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Shorter star formation timescales explain the slow UV luminosity function evolution at z > 10 without changes to efficiency, dust, or IMF.

desk verdict The paper's attribution of z>10 UV LF flattening to shorter star-formation timescales alone rests on extrapolating a lower-z calibrated model while holding f_star and other ingredients fixed, which undercuts the exclusion of dust or IMF alternatives. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.02738 v1 pith:Z2AMQW3K submitted 2026-06-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Rupam Sarkar , Saumyadip Samui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords UVluminosityfunctionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTstarformationtimescalessemi-analyticalmodelgalaxyevolutioninitialmassAGNactivity
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

A semi-analytical model of the ultraviolet luminosity function is calibrated against measurements from redshifts 2 to 10 and then applied to JWST data at higher redshifts. The model identifies a progression toward shorter characteristic star formation timescales at increasing redshift while star formation efficiency remains fixed. This progression reproduces the unexpectedly slow evolution of the luminosity function at z greater than 10. Neither dust-free conditions nor a top-heavy initial mass function match the observations at z around 14 on their own. The combination of luminosity functions with stellar mass estimates favors evolving star formation histories as the main driver of the high-redshift behavior.

What carries the argument

semi-analytical model of the UV luminosity function that varies only the characteristic star formation timescale while holding star formation efficiency fixed

What would settle it

Direct estimates of star formation durations in z greater than 10 galaxies, obtained independently from spectral energy distribution fitting or other tracers, that are inconsistent with the short timescales needed to match the observed UV luminosity function.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the slow evolution of ultraviolet luminosity functions at redshifts greater than 10 is reproduced by shifting to even shorter star formation timescales in the semi-analytical model while holding star formation efficiency constant. Dust-free conditions or a top-heavy initial mass function alone fail to match the data at z approximately 14. When ultraviolet luminosity functions are paired with stellar mass estimates obtained from Prospector-based spectral energy distribution fitting, the results indicate that evolving star formation timescales rather than initial mass function or dust variations are the primary cause, with moderate AGN activity offering an additional boos

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytical model calibrated against z approximately 2 to 10 data can be extrapolated to z greater than 10 by varying only the star formation timescale while keeping all other parameters fixed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At redshifts less than or equal to 5, longer star formation timescales with nearly constant efficiency dominate the luminosity function.
  • Between redshifts 6 and 10, shorter timescales explain the data without any increase in star formation efficiency.
  • At redshifts greater than 10, further shortening of the timescale accounts for the slow luminosity function evolution.
  • Moderate AGN activity can increase UV luminosities at z around 14 without requiring adjustments to stellar parameters.
  • The observed evolution reflects changing physical conditions during the earliest phases of galaxy assembly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If star formation timescales continue to shorten at still higher redshifts, the model would predict even flatter luminosity function evolution than currently observed.
  • Independent constraints on stellar masses at z greater than 10 could tighten limits on how much the timescale must decrease.
  • The same mechanism may influence the timing and sources of cosmic reionization through altered ultraviolet output from early galaxies.
  • Bursty formation histories could leave distinct signatures in the scatter of galaxy properties at fixed luminosity.
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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a semi-analytical model of the UV luminosity function calibrated against measurements at z∼2–10. It concludes that the unexpectedly slow evolution of the UV LF at z>10 is explained by a further reduction in the characteristic star-formation timescale while holding star-formation efficiency f⋆ fixed; dust-free conditions and a top-heavy IMF are stated to be unable to reproduce the z∼14 data on their own. The model is combined with Prospector SED fits to address IMF–SFH degeneracies, and moderate AGN activity is suggested as an additional UV boost at z∼14.

Significance. If the fixed-parameter extrapolation is valid, the work supplies a physically motivated account of JWST high-z observations that ties the UV LF behavior to evolving star-formation timescales rather than changes in efficiency, dust, or IMF. The attempt to break degeneracies with SED fitting and the explicit consideration of AGN contributions are constructive steps toward testable predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'For z > 10'): the central claim that dust-free conditions or a top-heavy IMF 'alone cannot reproduce the observations at z∼14' is obtained inside a model whose only free parameter at high redshift is the star-formation timescale, with f⋆ and all other ingredients held at their z∼2–10 values. No explicit test is shown that the same conclusion survives if, for example, the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are allowed to vary with redshift.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on Prospector SED fits): the statement that these fits 'break the IMF–SFH degeneracy' rests on the same extrapolation of the semi-analytical model to z>10. Without a quantitative table or figure comparing the likelihoods under the fixed-parameter versus alternative scenarios, it is not possible to assess whether the degeneracy is actually broken or merely re-parameterized.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the characteristic star-formation timescale and f⋆ should be defined explicitly at first use rather than introduced only in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'For z > 10'): the central claim that dust-free conditions or a top-heavy IMF 'alone cannot reproduce the observations at z∼14' is obtained inside a model whose only free parameter at high redshift is the star-formation timescale, with f⋆ and all other ingredients held at their z∼2–10 values. No explicit test is shown that the same conclusion survives if, for example, the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are allowed to vary with redshift.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted claim is derived within the fiducial model in which only the star-formation timescale is allowed to vary at z>10 while f⋆ and other parameters remain fixed at their z∼2–10 values. The manuscript does not present explicit tests in which the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are also permitted to evolve. We will therefore add a dedicated subsection (and associated figure) in the revised manuscript that repeats the z∼14 comparison after allowing those two ingredients to vary with redshift, thereby testing whether the preference for shorter timescales survives. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on Prospector SED fits): the statement that these fits 'break the IMF–SFH degeneracy' rests on the same extrapolation of the semi-analytical model to z>10. Without a quantitative table or figure comparing the likelihoods under the fixed-parameter versus alternative scenarios, it is not possible to assess whether the degeneracy is actually broken or merely re-parameterized.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current text does not supply a quantitative comparison (e.g., likelihood ratios or Bayesian evidence) between the fixed-parameter extrapolation and alternative IMF/SFH scenarios. In the revised manuscript we will add a table that reports the relative likelihoods (or evidence ratios) obtained when the Prospector SED posteriors are combined with the UV LF constraints under the fiducial model versus under models that allow redshift-dependent IMF or SFH variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in model calibration and extrapolation

full rationale

The paper develops a semi-analytical UV LF model calibrated on independent z~2-10 observations, then interprets z>10 data by varying the characteristic star-formation timescale while holding f_star and other parameters fixed. This is a conventional extrapolation and parameter-inference procedure, not a reduction where any claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described derivation. The exclusion of dust-free or top-heavy IMF scenarios follows from comparisons internal to the fixed model but does not collapse to a tautology. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a single semi-analytical framework calibrated at moderate redshift can be extrapolated by varying only one parameter (star-formation timescale) while holding star-formation efficiency fixed; no independent evidence for the functional form of the timescale evolution is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • characteristic star formation timescale
    Varied across redshift bins to reproduce the observed UV LF evolution while keeping f_star constant.
  • star formation efficiency f_star
    Held fixed across the z>10 range after calibration at lower redshift.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The semi-analytical UV LF model calibrated at z~2-10 remains valid at z>10 when only the star-formation timescale is changed.
    This extrapolation underpins the claim that timescale evolution is the primary driver.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signature of Bursty Star Formation in the High-Redshift Galaxies Detected with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2AMQW3K

@misc{pith2026260602738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signature of Bursty Star Formation in the High-Redshift Galaxies Detected with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2AMQW3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.02738}
}
abstract

Recent JWST observations reveal an unexpectedly slow evolution in ultraviolet luminosity functions (UV LFs) at redshifts $z > 10$. To investigate this phenomenon, we develop a semi-analytical model of the UV LF, calibrated against well-constrained measurements at $z \sim 2-10$. Our analysis identifies a transition in star formation modes across cosmic epochs: at $z \lesssim 5$, a longer characteristic star formation timescale with nearly constant star formation efficiency ($f_\star$) dominates, whereas at $6 \lesssim z \lesssim 10$, shorter timescales prevail without requiring an increase in $f_\star$. For $z > 10$, the slow UV LF evolution is best explained by a shift toward even shorter star formation timescales without changing the star formation efficiency. Dust-free conditions or a top-heavy initial mass function (IMF) alone cannot reproduce the observations at $z\sim 14$. By combining UV LF with stellar mass estimates from Prospector-based SED fitting, we try to break degeneracies between IMF variations and star formation histories. Our results indicate that evolving star formation timescales rather than IMF or dust changes are the primary drivers of the observed high-redshift UV LF evolution, reflecting changing physical conditions during the earliest phases of galaxy assembly. Additionally, we show that moderate AGN activity could further boost UV luminosities at $z \sim 14$, potentially explaining the observed UV LF without changes in stellar parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UV luminosity functions at 𝑧 = 2 − 10. Models are shown with 𝜅 = 0.5 (thin dashed blue line), 𝜅 = 1 (solid black line) and 𝜅 = 4 (dash-dotted red line). Additionally model with 𝜅 = 0.25 ( thick dash-dotted olive line; marked with † in the 𝑧 = 2 panel ) is included for 𝑧 = 9 and 𝑧 = 10. Filled markers represent observational data points included in the fitting procedure, while unfilled markers indicate upper or lower… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UV luminosity functions at 𝑧 = 11 − 14. Models are shown with 𝜅 = 0.25 (thick dash-dotted olive line), 𝜅 = 0.5 (thin dashed blue line), 𝜅 = 1 (solid black line) and 𝜅 = 4 (dash-dotted red line,† not included for 𝑧 = 14). Filled markers represent observational data points included in the fitting procedure, while unfilled markers indicate upper or lower limits (excluded from fitting). The observed data points are take… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure shows the redshift evolution of star formation efficiency ( 𝑓★) along with its uncertainty for models with different 𝜅, i.e., 𝜅 = 4, , 1 and 0.5. Additionally 𝜅 = 0.25 is included for redshift 9-14 only. at 𝑧 = 14, thus completely ruled out. However, models assuming 𝜅 = 0.5 at 𝑧 = 10 and 𝜅 = 0.25 at 𝑧 = 14 fit the luminosity function with similar 𝑓★ = 0.069 and 0.064 with reasonably low chi-square values.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of UV luminosity functions (LFs) at 𝑧 = 14 for different models. The solid black line shows the fiducial UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 using the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 parameters for this redshift. The red dashed line represents the UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 assuming the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 value…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper Panel: Time evolution of the UV luminosity (ℓ1500) for a burst of 106 M⊙ star formation with four different initial mass functions: (i) Chabrier IMF (Chabrier 2003), (ii) Standard Salpeter IMF (1−100 M⊙), (iii) Top-Heavy IMF (10−300 M⊙), and (iv) More Extreme Top…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contribution to the UV luminosity function (UV LF) from galaxies in different stellar mass ranges, shown for two models: i) 𝜅 = 0.25 with Salpeter IMF (1 − 100 M⊙) (upper panel), and ii) Top-heavy IMF (10 − 300 M⊙) with 𝜅 = 1 (lower panel). In both panels, the solid bl…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of UV luminosity functions (LFs) at 𝑧 = 14 for different models. The solid black line shows the fiducial UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 using the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 parameters for this redshift. The red dashed-dotted line represents the UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 assuming the best-fit 𝑓★/…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distribution of the stellar mass (𝑀★) for the galaxy JADES-GS-z14-0, derived using the Prospector code (Johnson et al. 2021) by varying the star formation timescale 𝜏, while keeping the IMF fixed. The red, olive, blue, and purple curves correspond to 𝜏 = 0.1,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 129 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    z~7 Galaxies in the HUDF: First Epoch WFC3/IR Results

    z -0.5ex 7 Galaxies in the HUDF: First Epoch WFC3/IR Results. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L16 , archivePrefix =. 0909.1806 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l16

  2. [5]

    The present-day star formation rate of the Milky-Way determined from Spitzer detected young stellar objects , volume =

    Robitaille, Thomas and Whitney, Barbara , year =. The present-day star formation rate of the Milky-Way determined from Spitzer detected young stellar objects , volume =. ApJ , doi =

  3. [17]

    , keywords =

    The Burstiness of Star Formation at z 6: A Huge Diversity in the Recent Star Formation Histories of Very UV-faint Galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc74 , archivePrefix =. 2410.01905 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc74

  4. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, Dylan and Pillepich, Annalisa and Springel, Volker and Pakmor, Rüdiger and Weinberger, Rainer and Genel, Shy and Torrey, Paul and Vogelsberger, Mark and Marinacci, Federico and Hernquist, Lars , year=. First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback , volume=. MNRAS , publisher=. doi:10.1093/...

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

  5. [20]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, Annalisa and Nelson, Dylan and Springel, Volker and Pakmor, Rüdiger and Torrey, Paul and Weinberger, Rainer and Vogelsberger, Mark and Marinacci, Federico and Genel, Shy and van der Wel, Arjen and Hernquist, Lars , year=. First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time , volume=. MNRAS , pu...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338

  6. [22]

    L., Bagley, M

    A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: A Candidate z 12 Galaxy in Early JWST CEERS Imaging. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , archivePrefix =. 2207.12474 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

  7. [25]

    Discovery of z~8 Galaxies in the HUDF from ultra-deep WFC3/IR Observations

    Discovery of z -0.5ex 8 Galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field from Ultra-Deep WFC3/IR Observations. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L133 , archivePrefix =. 0909.1803 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l133

  8. [33]

    A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy

    A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129 , archivePrefix =. 1603.00461 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/129

Show all 137 references
  1. [35]

    , keywords =

    On the ages of bright galaxies 500 Myr after the big bang: insights into star formation activity at z 15 with JWST. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3535 , archivePrefix =. 2208.01599 , primaryClass =

    doi

  2. [37]

    2023 , eprint=

    The Next Generation Deep Extragalactic Exploratory Public (NGDEEP) Survey , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  3. [39]

    z 2-9 Galaxies Magnified by the Hubble Frontier Field Clusters. II. Luminosity Functions and Constraints on a Faint-end Turnover. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1 , archivePrefix =. 2205.11526 , primaryClass =

    doi

  4. [41]

    , keywords =

    Observational Searches for Star-Forming Galaxies at z > 6. , keywords =. doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.26 , archivePrefix =. 1511.05558 , primaryClass =

    2016 doi arXiv

  5. [42]

    , keywords =

    Reionization Era Bright Emission Line Survey: Selection and Characterization of Luminous Interstellar Medium Reservoirs in the z > 6.5 Universe. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , archivePrefix =. 2106.13719 , primaryClass =

    doi

  6. [57]

    , keywords =

    Super-early JWST galaxies, outflows, and Ly visibility in the Epoch of Reionization. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 , archivePrefix =. 2310.12197 , primaryClass =

    doi

  7. [63]

    , keywords =

    Early galaxy formation and its large-scale effects. , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002 , archivePrefix =. 1809.09136 , primaryClass =

    2018 doi

  8. [76]

    Models of high redshift luminosity functions and galactic outflows: The dependence on halo mass function , volume=

    Samui, Saumyadip and Subramanian, Kandaswamy and Srianand, Raghunathan , year=. Models of high redshift luminosity functions and galactic outflows: The dependence on halo mass function , volume=. New Astronomy , publisher=. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.02.006 , number=

    2009 doi

  9. [84]

    , keywords =

    New synthesis models of consistent extragalactic background light over cosmic time. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz174 , archivePrefix =. 1801.09693 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  10. [107]

    , keywords =

    The z = 9-10 galaxy population in the Hubble Frontier Fields and CLASH surveys: the z = 9 luminosity function and further evidence for a smooth decline in ultraviolet luminosity density at z 8. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw904 , archivePrefix =. 1602.05199 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  11. [111]

    CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background

  12. [113]

    , keywords =

    A dusty compact object bridging galaxies and quasars at cosmic dawn. , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04454-1 , archivePrefix =. 2204.06393 , primaryClass =

    doi

  13. [114]

    , keywords =

    ALMA confirmation of an obscured hyperluminous radio-loud AGN at z = 6.853 associated with a dusty starburst in the 1.5 deg ^ 2 COSMOS field. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad266 , archivePrefix =. 2206.00018 , primaryClass =

    doi

  14. [115]

    , keywords =

    On the Coevolution of the AGN and Star-forming Galaxy Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions at 3 < z < 9. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb , archivePrefix =. 2207.02233 , primaryClass =

    doi

  15. [116]

    Peterson, B. M. , title =

  16. [117]

    Rybicki, G. B. and Lightman, A. P. , title =

  17. [119]

    , keywords =

    Black Hole Halo Mass Relation from UNIONS Weak Lensing. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0 , archivePrefix =. 2402.10740 , primaryClass =

    doi

  18. [126]

    , keywords =

    The Evolution and Properties of Rotating Massive Star Populations. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa679f , archivePrefix =. 1702.04722 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  19. [128]

    , keywords =

    The ultraviolet continuum slopes ( ) of galaxies at z ≃ 8-16 from JWST and ground-based near-infrared imaging. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad073 , archivePrefix =. 2208.04914 , primaryClass =

    doi

  20. [129]

    , keywords =

    The ALMA REBELS Survey: specific star formation rates in the reionization era. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2291 , archivePrefix =. 2203.07392 , primaryClass =

    doi

  21. [132]

    , keywords =

    Dusty Starbursts Masquerading as Ultra-high Redshift Galaxies in JWST CEERS Observations. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe , archivePrefix =. 2208.01816 , primaryClass =

    doi

  22. [135]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    Adams N. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    2024 doi

  23. [136]

    H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    Andrews B. H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    2013 doi

  24. [137]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.622..707A 622, 707

    2023 doi

  25. [138]

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

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

    2009 doi

  26. [139]

    Atek H., Richard J., Kneib J.-P., Schaerer D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1820 , 479, 5184

    2018 doi

  27. [140]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..209B 961, 209

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..209B 961, 209

    2024 doi

  28. [141]

    Barkana R., Loeb A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhR...349..125B 349, 125

    2001 doi

  29. [142]

    J., Lacey C

    Benson A. J., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05387.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..156B 333, 156

    2002 doi

  30. [143]

    N., Kaiser C

    Best P. N., Kaiser C. R., Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00159.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368L..67B 368, L67

    2006 doi

  31. [144]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Franx M., Ford H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..928B 670, 928

    2007 doi

  32. [145]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...83B 754, 83

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...83B 754, 83

    2012 doi

  33. [146]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    2015 doi

  34. [147]

    J., Oesch P

    Bouwens R. J., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Ellis R. S., Stefanon M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4 , 843, 129

    2017 doi

  35. [148]

    J., Stefanon M., Oesch P

    Bouwens R. J., Stefanon M., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Nanayakkara T., Roberts-Borsani G., Labb \'e I., Smit R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...25B 880, 25

    2019 doi

  36. [149]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    2021 doi

  37. [150]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., van Dokkum P. G., Oesch P. A., Stefanon M., Ribeiro B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4791 , 927, 81

    2022 doi

  38. [151]

    Bouwens R., Illingworth G., Oesch P., Stefanon M., Naidu R., van Leeuwen I., Magee D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1009B 523, 1009

    2023 doi

  39. [152]

    G., Benson A

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    2006 doi

  40. [153]

    Bowler R. A. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1817B 452, 1817

    2015 doi

  41. [154]

    Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Adams N. J., Milvang-Jensen B., McCracken H. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2059B 493, 2059

    2020 doi

  42. [155]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..731B 7, 731

    2023 doi

  43. [156]

    Bromm V., Loeb A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...575..111B 575, 111

    2002 doi

  44. [157]

    S., Larson R

    Bromm V., Coppi P. S., Larson R. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564...23B 564, 23

    2002 doi

  45. [158]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    2024 doi

  46. [159]

    Burgarella D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..70B 554, A70

    2013 doi

  47. [160]

    Carniani S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..318C 633, 318

    2024 doi

  48. [161]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    Casey C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    2024 doi

  49. [162]

    Castellano M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 , 938, L15

    2022 doi

  50. [163]

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

    2003 doi

  51. [164]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    2010 doi

  52. [165]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    2009 doi

  53. [166]

    Curti M., Mannucci F., Cresci G., Maiolino R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..944C 491, 944

    2020 doi

  54. [167]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..622C 7, 622

    2023 doi

  55. [168]

    C., Birnboim Y., Mandelker N., Li Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3201D 523, 3201

    Dekel A., Sarkar K. C., Birnboim Y., Mandelker N., Li Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3201D 523, 3201

    2023 doi

  56. [169]

    J., Weinberg D

    Dijkstra M., Haiman Z., Rees M. J., Weinberg D. H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..666D 601, 666

    2004 doi

  57. [170]

    T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    doi

  58. [171]

    T., McLeod D

    Donnan C. T., McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Carnall A. C., Cullen F., Magee D., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4554D 520, 4554

    doi

  59. [172]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    2024 doi

  60. [173]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  61. [174]

    Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Dayal P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1095 , 522, 3986

    2023 doi

  62. [175]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    2015 doi

  63. [177]

    L., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...52F 928, 52

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...52F 928, 52

    doi

  64. [178]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    2023 doi

  65. [179]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    2024 doi

  66. [180]

    Fu S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..186F 987, 186

    2025 doi

  67. [181]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..250F 977, 250

    2024 doi

  68. [182]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    doi

  69. [183]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...39H 959, 39

    doi

  70. [184]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..138H 980, 138

    2025 doi

  71. [185]

    arXiv:2601.21833

    Harikane Y., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260121833H p. arXiv:2601.21833

    2026 doi

  72. [186]

    Ishigaki M., Kawamata R., Ouchi M., Oguri M., Shimasaku K., Ono Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...12I 799, 12

    2015 doi

  73. [187]

    D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

    2021 doi

  74. [188]

    Kannan R., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3743 , 524, 2594

    2023 doi

  75. [189]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  76. [190]

    Khaire V., Srianand R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...33K 805, 33

    2015 doi

  77. [191]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988L..10K 988, L10

    2025 doi

  78. [192]

    B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02045.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.301..569L 301, 569

    Larson R. B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02045.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.301..569L 301, 569

    1998 doi

  79. [193]

    Leung G. C. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..46L 954, L46

    2023 doi

  80. [194]

    Lewis A., Challinor A., 2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026

    2011

  81. [195]

    Lin X., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae225e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...997..207L 997, 207

    2026 doi

  82. [196]

    Liu B., Bromm V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac927f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..30L 937, L30

    2022 doi

  83. [197]

    C., Finkelstein S

    Livermore R. C., Finkelstein S. L., Lotz J. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/113 , 835, 113

    2017 doi

  84. [198]

    A., Trenti M., Treu T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..497M 521, 497

    Mason C. A., Trenti M., Treu T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..497M 521, 497

    2023 doi

  85. [199]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5004M 527, 5004

    McLeod D. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5004M 527, 5004

    2024 doi

  86. [200]

    Mehta V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...29M 838, 29

    2017 doi

  87. [201]

    arXiv:2507.18705

    Messa M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250718705M p. arXiv:2507.18705

    2025 doi

  88. [202]

    B., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.tmp..405M

    Mu \ n oz J. B., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.tmp..405M

    2026 doi

  89. [203]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..14N 940, L14

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..14N 940, L14

    2022 doi

  90. [204]

    A., Bouwens R

    Oesch P. A., Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Labb \'e I., Stefanon M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..105O 855, 105

    2018 doi

  91. [205]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  92. [206]

    Ono Y., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..10O 70, S10

    2018 doi

  93. [207]

    P., McKee C

    Ostriker J. P., McKee C. F., 1988, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.60.1 , 60, 1

    1988 doi

  94. [208]

    S., McLure R

    Parsa S., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., Mortlock A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3194P 456, 3194

    2016 doi

  95. [209]

    G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...1P 951, L1

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...1P 951, L1

    2023 doi

  96. [210]

    M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei

    Peterson B. M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei . Cambridge University Press

    1997

  97. [211]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  98. [212]

    A., Steidel C

    Reddy N. A., Steidel C. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..778R 692, 778

    2009 doi

  99. [213]

    T., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..166..470R 166, 470

    Richards G. T., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..166..470R 166, 470

    2006 doi

  100. [214]

    Robertson B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d , 970, 31

    2024 doi

  101. [215]

    Robitaille T., Whitney B., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L11 , 710

    2010 doi

  102. [216]

    arXiv:2507.01014

    Rojas-Ruiz S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250701014R p. arXiv:2507.01014

    2025 doi

  103. [217]

    C., Brotherton M

    Runnoe J. C., Brotherton M. S., Shang Z., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20620.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422..478R 422, 478

    2012 doi

  104. [218]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics . John Wiley & Sons

    1979

  105. [219]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  106. [220]

    Samui S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2014.01.010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NewA...30...89S 30, 89

    2014 doi

  107. [221]

    Samui S., Srianand R., Subramanian K., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11603.x , 377, 285–299

    2007 doi

  108. [222]

    Samui S., Subramanian K., Srianand R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12932.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385..783S 385, 783

    2008 doi

  109. [223]

    arXiv:1805.05945

    Samui S., Srianand R., Subramanian K., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1805.05945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180505945S p. arXiv:1805.05945

    2018 doi arXiv

  110. [224]

    Schmidt M., 1959, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959ApJ...129..243S 129, 243

    1959 doi

  111. [225]

    Shen X., Vogelsberger M., Boylan-Kolchin M., Tacchella S., Kannan R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3254S 525, 3254

    2023 doi

  112. [226]

    K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    1999 doi

  113. [227]

    L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..40S 951, L40

    Steinhardt C. L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..40S 951, L40

    2023 doi

  114. [228]

    C., Shen X., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2665S 526, 2665

    Sun G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hayward C. C., Shen X., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2665S 526, 2665

    doi

  115. [229]

    C., Shen X., Wetzel A., Cochrane R

    Sun G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hayward C. C., Shen X., Wetzel A., Cochrane R. K., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..35S 955, L35

    doi

  116. [230]

    B., Mirocha J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..034S 2025, 034

    Sun G., Mu \ n oz J. B., Mirocha J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..034S 2025, 034

    2025 doi

  117. [231]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..170T 927, 170

    2022 doi

  118. [232]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  119. [233]

    Trenti M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727L..39T 727, L39

    2011 doi

  120. [234]

    Tumlinson J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641....1T 641, 1

    2006 doi

  121. [235]

    Vallini L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527...10V 527, 10

    2024 doi

  122. [236]

    V., Fabian A

    Vasudevan R. V., Fabian A. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12328.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1235V 381, 1235

    2007 doi

  123. [237]

    Veilleux S., Cecil G., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..769V 43, 769

    2005 doi

  124. [238]

    Weaver R., McCray R., Castor J., Shapiro P., Moore R., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...218..377W 218, 377

    1977 doi

  125. [239]

    Weibel A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adab7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983...11W 983, 11

    2025 doi

  126. [240]

    Wyithe J. S. B., Padmanabhan T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09858.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366.1029W 366, 1029

    2006 doi

  127. [241]

    Yung L. Y. A., Somerville R. S., Finkelstein S. L., Wilkins S. M., Gardner J. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5929Y 527, 5929

    2024 doi

  128. [242]

    C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H. J., Pasquali A., McIntosh D. H., Weinmann S. M., Kang X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387...79V 387, 79

    2008 doi

  129. [243]

    van der Burg R. F. J., Hildebrandt H., Erben T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..74V 523, A74

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.