Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Massive high-redshift galaxies grew most of their stars in short, near-unity-efficiency bursts around z~9-10, unless dust or a top-heavy IMF is allowed for.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 15:57 UTC pith:HIZHYPMR

load-bearing objection Clean data-driven SFHs and SFEs from JWST UV LFs; high peaks at z>9 are real predictions of the method, with the usual dust/IMF sensitivity already quantified. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.26209 v2 pith:HIZHYPMR submitted 2026-05-25 astro-ph.GA

How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function

Hao Fu , Francesco Shankar , Fabio Fontanot , Andrea Lapi , Feng Yuan , Mohammadreza Ayromlou , Daniel Roberts , Lumen Boco
show 4 more authors
Nicola Menci Emiliano Merlin Laura Pentericci Mengyuan Xiao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesstar formation efficiencyUV luminosity functionabundance matchingdust attenuationinitial mass functionJWSTsemi-empirical model
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.

JWST finds far more UV-bright galaxies at z greater than about 5 than standard models expected. This paper asks how those galaxies actually built their stellar mass by turning observed UV luminosity functions into star-formation rates and mapping them onto dark-matter halo growth via abundance matching. The resulting star-formation efficiencies are predictions, not free parameters. The model recovers the observed stellar mass function, clustering, and main sequence, and shows that the most massive systems formed roughly half their stars in less than 100 Myr near z=9-10 with efficiencies of 0.8-0.9, then settled to more ordinary values of 0.2-0.3. Adding dust attenuation raises the required rates still further (sometimes above 100 percent efficiency); only a top-heavy stellar initial mass function brings the efficiencies back into a physical range. The work therefore supplies a transparent, data-driven baseline that any successful high-redshift model must match.

Core claim

When observed UV luminosity functions at z=5-12 are converted to star-formation rates and abundance-matched to halo accretion rates, massive galaxies are predicted to have assembled most of their stars in a bursty phase around z~9-10 with peak star-formation efficiencies of 0.8-0.9, declining to the familiar 0.2-0.3 only below z~9; dust can push those peaks above unity unless a top-heavy IMF is adopted.

What carries the argument

The SFR-halo accretion rate relation recovered by abundance matching the observed UV luminosity function to the theoretical halo accretion-rate distribution (with fixed 0.4 dex scatter); integrating that relation along merger trees yields stellar masses and efficiencies as pure outputs.

Load-bearing premise

That a single monotonic average relation between a galaxy's star-formation rate and its host halo's accretion rate, recovered by abundance matching with fixed scatter, still holds all the way to redshift eleven.

What would settle it

Direct measurements of the infrared luminosity function or of dust-corrected SFRs for a complete sample of massive galaxies at z greater than or equal to 8 that remain well below the UV-inferred rates used here would force the derived efficiencies downward and break the claimed peak near unity.

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

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a data-driven semi-empirical model (DECODE) that takes observed UV luminosity functions at z ≃ 5–12 as input, converts them to SFR functions, and abundance-matches them to dark-matter halo accretion-rate distributions (with 0.4 dex scatter) to obtain an SFR–HAR relation. Stellar masses are then built by integrating those SFRs along SatGen merger trees, so that star-formation efficiencies emerge as predictions rather than free parameters. The model reproduces the stellar mass function, large-scale clustering bias, star-forming main sequence and cosmic stellar-mass density. It finds that massive galaxies assemble with a burst at z ∼ 9–10, driving SFEs of 0.8–0.9 that later decline to 0.2–0.3; dust corrections can push SFEs above unity unless a top-heavy IMF is adopted.

Significance. If the central mapping holds, the work supplies a transparent, observationally anchored baseline for high-z SFEs that does not rely on parametric efficiency functions or explicit feedback modelling. The multi-observable consistency checks (SMF, bias, main sequence, stellar-mass density) and the explicit dust/IMF sensitivity tests are genuine strengths; the publicly available DECODE code further aids reproducibility. The result that high SFEs (and a possible variable IMF) are required even in a pure ΛCDM framework is of clear interest to the JWST community and to semi-analytic and simulation groups calibrating early galaxy formation.

major comments (2)
  1. The load-bearing assumption is the monotonic SFR–HAR relation recovered by abundance matching with fixed 0.4 dex Gaussian scatter (§2.2), validated only against TNG (§3) and then applied to observed UV LFs out to z ∼ 11. The paper already shows that scatter variations of 0.3–0.5 dex shift stellar masses by ≲0.05 dex, and the multi-observable checks provide independent support. Nevertheless, a short quantitative test of how non-monotonicity or redshift-dependent scatter would shift the claimed SFE peaks (0.8–0.9) and the z ∼ 9–10 burst timing would strengthen the central claim without altering the overall architecture.
  2. Section 4.7 and Appendix C: dust attenuation is applied uniformly across the UV luminosity range, producing SFEs that can exceed unity at z ≳ 7–8. The text notes that the same correction overestimates the faint end of the IR LF (Fig. C.1). A mass- or luminosity-dependent attenuation (or an explicit statement that dust is relevant only for the massive end) is needed to keep the high-SFE claim physically consistent when dust is included.
minor comments (5)
  1. Equation (1) and surrounding text: the Kennicutt/Madau & Dickinson UV-to-SFR conversion is adopted with only a brief metallicity check; a short table or sentence quantifying the residual systematic for the most massive systems would help readers.
  2. Figure 6 caption and lower panels: the right-hand SFE axis is defined as ε★ = M★/(Mh fb); a one-line reminder that fb = 0.16 is used would avoid ambiguity.
  3. Section 2.4: merger timescales are scaled by ∼1.5 at z ≳ 5 relative to Fu et al. (2022); a brief justification or reference for that factor would improve transparency.
  4. Appendix A, Table A.1: several parameter uncertainties appear without the ‘+’ or ‘−’ signs (e.g., z = 7 row); cosmetic fix only.
  5. A few typographical slips remain (e.g., ‘decode’ capitalisation, ‘decode’s’, missing spaces around ‘z ∼’).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: SFEs and SMFs are genuine outputs of UV-LF→SFR–HAR abundance matching plus time integration; only a minor non-forcing self-citation of the authors’ prior DECODE method.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2 Methods / DECODE description; also §2.4 mergers]
    "we made use, extending it to higher redshifts, of the semi-empirical approach recently devised by our group in two semi-empirical models, decode (Fu et al. 2025a,b) and TopSem (Boco et al. 2023)… These timescales are fitted to reproduce the number densities of surviving satellite subhaloes of the Millennium simulation up to redshift z∼11−12 [referencing Fu et al. 2022]."

    The core abundance-matching pipeline and merger-delay prescription are imported from the same authors’ prior DECODE papers rather than re-derived. This is ordinary methodological self-citation and is not load-bearing for the high-z SFE result (the high-z UV LFs and HARs are new inputs), so it raises the score only to 1.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: observed UV LFs → SFR functions (Kennicutt conversion) → abundance matching to theoretical HAR distributions (with fixed 0.4 dex scatter) → SFR–HAR relation → assign SFRs along SatGen progenitor trees → integrate (with recycling) to M⋆ → SFE ≡ M⋆/(Mh fb) and SMF. The SMF, clustering bias, and main sequence are therefore independent consistency checks, not inputs; the paper correctly frames them as such (§4.2–4.4, §4.6). Unlike parametric SFE(Mh,z) models that tune efficiency to match LFs, here SFE is an emergent prediction. Dust and IMF variations are post-hoc sensitivity tests, not free parameters fitted to rescue the high-SFE claim. The only minor circularity-adjacent element is reliance on the authors’ own prior DECODE papers for the low-z method and merger timescales; that is ordinary self-citation of a technique, not a uniqueness theorem or definitional loop that forces the high-z SFE peaks. The TNG scatter and monotonicity assumption are external modelling choices (weakest assumption), not circular reductions. Score 1 reflects that single non-load-bearing self-citation; the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ΛCDM halo growth, the empirical UV LFs, and the abundance-matching hypothesis that SFR ranks with HAR. Free parameters are few and mostly taken from prior literature or TNG; the main ad-hoc choices are the fixed scatter, recycling fraction, and the particular top-heavy/bottom-light IMF parameterizations used to illustrate the IMF effect.

free parameters (4)
  • SFR–HAR scatter = 0.4 dex
    Fixed at 0.4 dex from TNG analysis; varied only in a narrow 0.3–0.5 dex range. Directly controls the width of the assigned SFRs and therefore the high-mass tail of the SMF.
  • stellar mass recycling fraction R = 0.45
    Set to 0.45 for a Chabrier IMF; changes with IMF choice but is not re-fitted to high-z data.
  • Saunders SFR-function parameters (ϕ⋆, Ṁ⋆, α, σ) at each z = see Table A.1
    MCMC-fitted to the compiled UV LF data at z=6–11 (Table A.1); these define the input SFR functions that drive all subsequent results.
  • Larson IMF characteristic mass / high-mass slope for toy models = m⋆,c=0.1 M⊙; ξ=−1.5
    m⋆,c=0.1 M⊙ (bottom-light) and ξ=−1.5 (top-heavy) chosen by hand to illustrate extremes; not fitted to data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mean galaxy SFR is a monotonic function of host-halo accretion rate that can be recovered by abundance matching
    Core methodological premise (§2.2); validated only against TNG at z=6–11 (§3).
  • domain assumption Planck 2020 ΛCDM cosmology and Tinker halo mass function / bias
    Standard background cosmology used for all halo catalogues and bias calculations.
  • domain assumption UV luminosity converts to SFR via Kennicutt/Madau factor (kUV=2.5×10−10) for a Chabrier IMF, with only mild metallicity corrections
    Eq. (1) and surrounding text; authors note possible 0.1 dex systematics but treat the conversion as fixed for the reference model.
  • domain assumption Satellite galaxies follow the same M⋆–Mh relation as centrals at infall and merge on delayed timescales calibrated to Millennium
    §2.4; mergers contribute <10% so the assumption is secondary but still present.
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation can be described by Charlot & Fall, Calzetti or Salim curves with literature parameters
    Appendix C; used to explore the dust-boosted case.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 33609 in / 3286 out tokens · 30444 ms · 2026-07-12T15:57:14.838719+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIZHYPMR

@misc{pith2026260526209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIZHYPMR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.26209}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

JWST has measured an unprecedented abundance of galaxies above $z\gtrsim 4-5$, whose formation and evolution are still difficult to reconcile within traditional galaxy evolution models in a $\Lambda$CDM framework. Here, we present a study on the star formation histories of these high-redshift galaxies between $z\simeq5-12$ via a data-driven semi-empirical model that uses the observed UV LFs as input to retrieve SFRs, naturally bypassing any uncertain modelling of cooling, feedback and/or stochastic processes. Galaxy stellar masses are progressively built in time by integrating their SFRs assigned along their progenitor haloes via the SFR-halo accretion rate relation, derived from abundance matching between the input observed UV LFs with the dark matter halo accretion rate distributions at each redshift. This makes the SFEs a full prediction of the model rather than a tuned input, serving as a natural baseline to test burstiness, dust attenuation, or IMF variations. Our approach naturally reproduces the total stellar mass function, the large-scale clustering, and the star-forming main sequence. We find that massive galaxies grew their stellar mass with a bursty star formation at $z\sim9-10$, broadly in agreement with the star formation histories inferred from spectral energy distribution fitting, with the SFE reaching high peaks of $0.8-0.9$ at $z>9$ and lowering to standard values of $0.2-0.3$ below $z\lesssim9$. We find that the presence of dust could enhance the predicted SFRs at $z\lesssim8$, better reproducing the observed SFRs of massive dusty galaxies, and increase the SFEs to values close to or even above unity at $z \gtrsim 8$. Finally, switching to top-heavy IMFs reduces the SFEs by a factor of $2-3$, highlighting the need for a variable IMF as an inevitable ingredient in the evolution of galaxies at high redshifts to avoid unphysical SFEs, especially in the presence of dust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26209 by Andrea Lapi, Daniel Roberts, Emiliano Merlin, Fabio Fontanot, Feng Yuan, Francesco Shankar, Hao Fu, Laura Pentericci, Lumen Boco, Mengyuan Xiao, Mohammadreza Ayromlou, Nicola Menci.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the TNG subhaloes on the star formation rate-halo accretion rate plane (blue dots), and median star formation rate-halo accretion rate relations from the TNG (blue lines) and computed using the TNG’s inputs via the abundance matching described in Section 2.2 (orange dashed lines) at redshifts z = 6 − 11. The subplots in each panel show the distribution normalised to unity of the star format… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Star formation rate function at from redshifts z = 6 to 11. The data points with error bars show the data from HST (blue squares, pink pluses and grey pentagons; Bouwens et al. 2015, 2021, 2022), UltraVISTA/COSMOS and UKIDSS (orange rhombuses; Bowler et al. 2015), WUDS (green dots; Pelló et al. 2018), PEARLS+JWST (yellow stars; Adams et al. 2024), JWST-PRIMER (red triangles; Donnan et al. 2024), JWST ERO+E… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the cosmic stellar mass density. The blue solid line shows the cosmic star formation history computed by integrating the cosmic star formation rate density retrieved from our star formation rate functions shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper panel: Star formation rate-halo accretion rate relation from redshift z = 6 to 11, from the abundance matching. The cyan coloured area shows the redshift evolution region of the relation from z = 0 to 6, as presented in Fu et al. (2025a) and Fu et al. (2025b). Cen￾tral panel: Halo accretion rate function in the same redshift bins. Lower panel: Star formation rate from the TNG simulation compared to t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Galaxy stellar mass function at redshifts z = 6, 7 and 8. The blue solid lines show the prediction from decode’s reference model and the blue dashed lines show the scenario with dust correction (as we will discuss in Section 4.7). Our results are compared with the observational data from HST/CANDELS (green dots with error bars; Stefanon et al. 2021), JWST NIRCam (blue squares with error bars; Weibel et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar mass-halo mass relation at redshifts z = 6, 7 and 8. The upper and lower panels show the stellar mass and stellar-to-halo mass ratio as a function of halo mass, respectively. The right labels in the lower panels represent the star formation efficiency, defined as ϵ⋆ = M⋆/(Mh fb). Our results (blue solid lines) are compared to the observational measurements from Stefanon et al. (2021, green dots wit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Galaxy bias as a function of redshift for UV magnitude MUV ≲ −19 (blue solid line) and MUV ≲ −17 (orange dashed line). We com￾pare our predictions to the observed galaxy bias from Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam (cyan triangles with error bars; Harikane et al. 2016), JWST JADES (blue dots with error bars; Dalmasso et al. 2024a), HST CANDELS (red squares with error bars; Dalmasso et al. 2024b) and JWST NIRCam/gris… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper panel: Stellar mass growth of galaxies in different mass bins as a function of redshift. The red dots with error bars show three massive galaxies in the JWST sample from Xiao et al. (2024). The mas￾sive candidates detected by de Graaff et al. (2025) and Wang et al. (2024b) are also plotted as a reference (purple square and green tri￾angles with error bars). The red lines and shaded areas show the mea… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average star formation rate evolution for galaxies selected in our catalogue with stellar mass M⋆ ∼ 1011 M⊙ at redshift z ≃ 5 (red dashed line). We compare our results to the star formation histories inferred for the JWST ZF-UDS-7329 galaxy from Prospector and FAST++ (M⋆ = 1011 M⋆ at z = 3.2; Glazebrook et al. 2024; blue and orange lines with shaded areas), JWST RUBIES-EGS-49140 (M⋆ = 1.5 × 1011 M⋆ at z = … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Star formation rate-stellar mass relation at redshifts z = 6, 7 and 8. The predictions from decode (blue solid lines and shaded areas) are compared to the observational determinations Spitzer+Herschel (grey solid lines; Popesso et al. 2023), JWST JADES/CEERS (red dashed and green dash-dotted lines; Clarke et al. 2024) and COSMOS/SMUVS, JWST JADES/GOODS-S and MIDIS/XDF (yellow dotted lines; Ri￾naldi et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Upper panel: Stellar mass growth of galaxies in the same largest stellar mass bins as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Initial mass function from Salpeter (1955, black dotted line), Kroupa (2001, black dashed line) and Chabrier (2003, black dash-dotted line), compared to the bottom-light (gold solid line) and top-heavy (red solid line) toy model IMFs parametrised in terms of Larson (1998) formula. The green shaded area represents the range of variation of the integrated galaxy-wide initial mass function for star formation… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Star formation rates required by the evolving stellar mass function yield a main sequence that agrees with JWST spectroscopy and theory but differs from prior concordance relations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 169

    2024

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37

    2025

  3. [3]

    Algera, H. S. B., Inami, H., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6142

    2023

  4. [4]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 74

    Aversa, R., Lapi, A., de Zotti, G., Shankar, F., & Danese, L. 2015, ApJ, 810, 74

    2015

  5. [5]

    M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C

    Baker, W. M., Valentino, F., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A270

    2025

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  7. [7]

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

    Bernardi, M., Domínguez Sánchez, H., Brownstein, J. R., Drory, N., & Sheth, R. K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5633

    2019

  8. [8]

    B., et al

    Bernardi, M., Shankar, F., Hyde, J. B., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2087

    2010

  9. [9]

    & Fritze-v

    Bicker, J. & Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U. 2005, A&A, 443, L19

    2005

  10. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 97

    Boco, L., Lapi, A., Shankar, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 97

    2023

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 117

    Bosi, M., Lapi, A., Boco, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 117

    2025

  12. [12]

    2015, A&A, 575, A56

    Bournaud, F., Daddi, E., Weiß, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A56

    2015

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009

    Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G., Oesch, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009

    2023

  14. [14]

    J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R. S., Oesch, P., & Stefanon, M. 2022, ApJ, 940, 55

    2022

  15. [15]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34

    2015

  16. [16]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47

    2021

  17. [17]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1817

    2015

  18. [18]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731

    2023

  19. [19]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  20. [20]

    & Shankar, F

    Buchan, S. & Shankar, F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2001 Calabrò, A., Pentericci, L., Llerena, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.18068

    arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  22. [22]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126

    Cappellari, M., Bacon, R., Bureau, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126

    2006

  23. [23]

    C., Begley, R., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., Begley, R., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L45

    2023

  24. [24]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325

    2024

  25. [25]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  26. [26]

    & Fall, S

    Charlot, S. & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

    2000

  27. [27]

    E., Sanders, R

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133

    2024

  28. [28]

    2026, Journal of High Energy Astro- physics, 53, 100626

    Comini, L., Vagnozzi, S., & Loeb, A. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astro- physics, 53, 100626

    2026

  29. [29]

    & van Dokkum, P

    Conroy, C. & van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, ApJ, 760, 71

    2012

  30. [30]

    J., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 997

    2024

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    2023

  32. [32]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622

    2023

  33. [33]

    2024b, MNRAS, 528, 898 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Dalmasso, N., Trenti, M., & Leethochawalit, N. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, 898 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280

    2019

  34. [34]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y . 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    2006

  35. [35]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451

    2009

  36. [36]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 160

    Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., Li, Z., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 160

    2025

  37. [37]

    C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z

    Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y ., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201

    2023

  38. [38]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    2024

  39. [39]

    2025, ApJ, 982, L12

    Dou, J., Peng, Y ., Gu, Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, L12

    2025

  40. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2199 Enríquez-Vargas, M., Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Manuwal, A., et al

    Eisert, L., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2199 Enríquez-Vargas, M., Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Manuwal, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2605.08353 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 178

    Fakhry, S., Shiravand, M., & Del Popolo, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 178

    2026

  42. [42]

    2024, A&A, 684, A207

    Ferrara, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A207

    2024

  43. [43]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    2023

  44. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 58

    Ferrara, A., Sommovigo, L., Dayal, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 58

    2022

  45. [45]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L13

    2023

  46. [46]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, L2

    2024

  47. [47]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. & Massa, D. 1986, ApJ, 307, 286

    1986

  48. [48]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 3812

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3812

    2017

  49. [49]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22405

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Xie, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22405

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    2024, A&A, 686, A302

    Fontanot, F., La Barbera, F., De Lucia, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A302

    2024

  51. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3206

    Fu, H., Shankar, F., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3206

    2022

  52. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 177 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Fu, H., Shankar, F., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 177 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

    2024

  53. [53]

    Gelli, V ., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192

    2024

  54. [54]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    2000

  55. [55]

    2024, Nature, 628, 277

    Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Schreiber, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 277

    2024

  56. [56]

    2022, A&A, 663, A1

    Goswami, S., Silva, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A1

    2022

  57. [57]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8

    Gruppioni, C., Béthermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8

    2020

  58. [58]

    J., Shankar, F., Leja, J., et al

    Grylls, P. J., Shankar, F., Leja, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 634

    2020

  59. [59]

    J., Shankar, F., Zanisi, L., & Bernardi, M

    Grylls, P. J., Shankar, F., Zanisi, L., & Bernardi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2506

    2019

  60. [60]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138

    2025

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    Harikane, Y ., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    2023

  62. [62]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 123

    Harikane, Y ., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y ., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 123

    2016

  63. [63]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2018, PASA, 35, e039

    2018

  64. [64]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 950

    2011

  65. [65]

    K., Li, W., & Ho, L

    Inayoshi, K., Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Li, W., & Ho, L. C. 2022, ApJ, 938, L10 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2022

  66. [66]

    K., Carnall, A

    Jespersen, C. K., Carnall, A. C., & Lovell, C. C. 2025, ApJ, 988, L19

    2025

  67. [67]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 621 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 621 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag086

    2021

  68. [68]

    2026, ApJ, 996, 103

    Kar, A., Alam, S., & Silk, J. 2026, ApJ, 996, 103

    2026

  69. [69]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  70. [70]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 La Barbera, F., Vazdekis, A., Ferreras, I., et al

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 La Barbera, F., Vazdekis, A., Ferreras, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1468 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266

    2001

  71. [71]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V olume 4, V ol

    Lapi, A., Boco, L., & Shankar, F. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V olume 4, V ol. 4, 554–575

    2026

  72. [72]

    2024, Universe, 10, 141

    Lapi, A., Gandolfi, G., Boco, L., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 141

    2024

  73. [73]

    Larson, R. B. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 569

    1998

  74. [74]

    S., Ting, Y .-S., et al

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 165

    2022

  75. [75]

    C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y ., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S

    Lovell, C. C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y ., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2511

    2023

  76. [76]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4474

    Lu, S., Zhu, K., Cappellari, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4474

    2024

  77. [77]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  78. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  79. [79]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 5639

    Marsden, C., Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5639

    2022

  80. [80]

    A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T

    Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 497

    2023

Showing first 80 references.