Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The 150 MHz luminosity function of star-forming galaxies evolves in both luminosity and number density, not luminosity alone.

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 ↗

At 150 MHz, the star-forming galaxy luminosity function evolves in both luminosity and density; pure luminosity evolution is strongly rejected by a KDE-plus-maximum-likelihood reanalysis of LOFAR deep fields.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful, honest reanalysis of the LOFAR deep-field SFG sample; the LADE-over-PLE conclusion is not new, but the KDE-guided global MLE framework is a solid methodological step worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.22934 v2 pith:UN34JOSY submitted 2025-10-27 astro-ph.GA

Revisiting the 150 MHz Radio Luminosity Function of Star-Forming Galaxies with LOFAR Deep Fields through a Refined Statistical Framework

Wenjie Wang , Zunli Yuan , Hongwei Yu , Yang Liu , Yu Luo , Puxun Wu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy evolutionstar formationluminosity functionradio continuum emissionkernel density estimationpure luminosity evolutiondensity evolutionLOFAR deep fields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the 150 MHz radio luminosity function of star-forming galaxies cannot be described by pure luminosity evolution; the data require both luminosity evolution and a changing comoving number density—joint luminosity and density evolution (LADE). The authors establish this by reconstructing the luminosity function without binning, using adaptive kernel density estimation on about 56,000 galaxies in three deep LOFAR fields, and then fitting three parametric models with maximum likelihood, completeness corrections, and constraints from the local luminosity function and Euclidean-normalized source counts. Information-theoretic model selection (AIC and BIC) decisively rejects pure luminosity evolution in both the deepest field alone and the combined three-field sample. In the deepest field the most flexible LADE model wins; across all fields a simpler LADE model wins. If correct, radio-based measurements of the cosmic star formation history must account for an evolving space density of star-forming galaxies, not just a shift in characteristic luminosity.

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that the evolving 150 MHz luminosity function of star-forming galaxies shows clear signatures of joint luminosity and density evolution, so models with only luminosity evolution are strongly disfavored. Using adaptive kernel density estimation, the luminosity function is reconstructed continuously in redshift and luminosity; reference points on these curves move toward higher luminosity and lower normalization with increasing redshift, which reads as simultaneous luminosity and density evolution if the luminosity function shape is fixed. Three parametric models are then fit: pure luminosity evolution (PLE) and two LADE variants. The LADE

What carries the argument

The central object is the bivariate luminosity function Phi(z,L), modeled as e1(z) times a local (z=0) luminosity function of the familiar curved form with a characteristic knee luminosity, evaluated at L/e2(z), where e2(z)=(1+z)^{k1+k2 z} is the luminosity-evolution factor and e1(z) is the density-evolution factor (equal to 1 for pure luminosity evolution, 10^{p1 z} for a simple LADE model, and (1+z)^{p1+p2 z} for a more flexible LADE model). Adaptive kernel density estimation in a transformed luminosity-redshift plane supplies a non-parametric, unbinned reference for how the luminosity function moves with redshift; the parametric models are constrained by a full maximum-likelihood term for

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the luminosity function's shape—its faint-end slope and bright-end curvature—stays fixed across all redshifts; if the shape actually evolves, the separation into luminosity and density evolution becomes ambiguous and the preference for LADE could be an artifact.

What would settle it

Fit the same data with a model that allows the luminosity function shape parameters (e.g., the faint-end slope) to evolve with redshift while keeping pure luminosity evolution; if this shape-evolving PLE model achieves AIC/BIC comparable to the LADE fits, the central claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • Radio surveys that assume pure luminosity evolution will misestimate the abundance of faint star-forming galaxies at high redshift, because the comoving density also changes.
  • The cosmic star formation rate density derived by integrating the luminosity function must include the density-evolution term; otherwise the radio-based star formation history will be biased.
  • Shallower survey fields do not simply add constraining power: combining them can dilute the preference for a more flexible model, so future survey design should target depth near the luminosity function knee.
  • A persistent bright-end excess across all estimators indicates residual AGN contamination; improved AGN-star-forming galaxy separation is needed before claiming the bright-end shape of the star-forming luminosity function.
  • The unbinned kernel-density-plus-maximum-likelihood framework can be applied directly to next-generation surveys to track luminosity function evolution without binning artifacts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'see-saw' between luminosity and density evolution hints that the two may not be physically separable with current depth; a survey reaching the luminosity function knee at z greater than about 1 could break this degeneracy and test whether 'density evolution' is real or a stand-in for shape evolution.
  • If the bright-end excess is indeed AGN contamination, the true star-forming luminosity function falls more steeply at high luminosity than the fitted models, which would lower the bright-end contribution to the cosmic star formation rate density.
  • The method's use of the local luminosity function and source counts as external constraints means the high-redshift faint end is partly an extrapolation; the strongest test will come from deep, wide-area 150 MHz observations that directly sample the knee at z of 1 to 3.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper determines the 150 MHz radio luminosity function (LF) of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) using the LOFAR Deep Fields sample of Cochrane et al. (2023), containing ~56,000 sources in ELAIS-N1, Boötes, and Lockman Hole. The authors first apply an adaptive kernel density estimator (KDE) to reconstruct the LF in the (z, L) plane without binning, and track reference points to infer simultaneous luminosity and density evolution (LADE). They then fit three parametric models — pure luminosity evolution (Model A) and two LADE variants (Models B and C) — using a maximum-likelihood objective that adds χ² penalties from the local radio LF and Euclidean-normalized source counts (Eq. 13). AIC/BIC are used to compare models. For ELAIS-N1 Model C is preferred; for the combined sample Model B is preferred. In all cases PLE is reported as strongly disfavored. The paper concludes that the 150 MHz SFG LF requires LADE and that residual AGN contamination explains a bright-end excess.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the work strengthens the case that the low-frequency radio LF of SFGs cannot be described by PLE alone and provides a useful template combining non-parametric LF reconstruction with parametric model fitting. The paper has several strengths: it uses a full unbinned likelihood with field-dependent completeness and survey areas; the MCMC posteriors appear well constrained; and the authors are transparent in §4.3 that agreement with the LRLF and source counts is a consistency check rather than an independent test. They also acknowledge the e1–e2 degeneracy in §4.2 and the possible AGN contamination at the bright end in §4.1. However, the central claim is more conditional than the abstract suggests: the LADE preference is established within a fixed-shape model family and with constraints that derive from the same parent sample. The significance would be higher if the catalogue-only likelihood were shown to give the same model ranking and if shape evolution were tested explicitly.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (13) and §4.3] The LRLF and SC penalties in Eq. (13) are not independent of the catalogue likelihood: they are built from the same Cochrane et al. (2023) data that supply S_single and S_all. The reported AIC/BIC differences (Table 3: ΔAIC=1709 for Model A; Table 4: ΔAIC=15020) therefore partly measure how well a model fits constraints derived from the fitting sample, and the double-counting biases the model comparison. Section 4.3 correctly notes that the agreements in Figs. 7–8 are not independent tests, but the central conclusion still rests on Eq. (13). Please report the catalogue-only S_single/S_all fits and the AIC/BIC without the penalty terms, and quantify how much of the LADE preference comes from the χ² constraints.
  2. [§3.3 and Eq. (15)] The KDE-based empirical evidence for LADE is obtained under the explicit assumption that the LF shape is redshift-invariant. §3.3 says the reference-point tracking captures e1(z) and e2(z) 'under the assumption that the shape of the LF remains invariant with redshift', and Eq. (15) fixes η_j as constants. All three parametric models inherit this assumption. If β or γ evolve with z, the visual KDE shifts and the reference-point trajectories can mimic a decline in normalization without genuine density evolution, and the PLE-versus-LADE comparison is restricted to the fixed-shape family. Since this assumption is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, please add a test with redshift-dependent shape parameters (e.g., β(z)=β0+β1 z or γ(z)=γ0+γ1 z) or otherwise demonstrate that the inferred LADE signature is not an artifact of the fixed-shape restriction.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 3–4] The paper's own see-saw degeneracy statement in §4.2 shows that the decomposition into luminosity and density evolution is not unique: stronger e2(z) is compensated by steeper e1(z). This is acknowledged, but the abstract and §5 present LADE as a single robust phenomenon. The quantitative density-evolution track, and especially the difference between Models B and C, should be described as model-dependent within the adopted functional forms. This does not invalidate the paper, but it should temper the strength of the 'clear signatures' language.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Figure 5 paragraph] The first and third paragraphs of §4.2 contain a nearly verbatim duplicated passage describing Figure 5; one copy should be removed.
  2. [§4.1 heading] Typo in the heading: 'the the ELAIS-N1 field'.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The integration limits z_min and z_max in Eq. (14) are never defined. State whether they are 0 and the maximum survey redshift, or set by the flux-luminosity relation.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to 'green hexagons' but the legend symbols are not explicitly listed; please identify the KDEa points in the caption text.
  5. [§3.2, Fig. 7] The LRLF points used to compute χ²_LRLF appear to be the same Cochrane et al. (2023) points plotted in Fig. 7. If so, Fig. 7 should be explicitly labeled a fit diagnostic, not a validation, and the statement in §5 that the models 'reproduce' the LRLF should be softened accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the LADE-vs-PLE result rests on a stated shape-invariance assumption and likelihood-based model selection, and the LRLF/source-count comparisons are explicitly disclosed as consistency checks rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The non-parametric KDE estimate is defined in Eqs. (3)-(8) from the unbinned data, and the reference-point tracking in Section 3.3 explicitly conditions on the assumption that 'the shape of the LF remains invariant with redshift' — a stated astrophysical assumption, not an input fitted to the conclusion. The parametric models in Eqs. (15)-(20) are fitted by the maximum-likelihood objective in Eqs. (9)-(13); the local radio LF and Euclidean-normalized source counts enter as chi-squared penalty terms, and Section 4.3 explicitly warns that 'the comparisons presented here should not be regarded as independent tests, but rather as consistency checks to illustrate how well the fitted models reproduce the basic observational quantities on which they are based.' Thus the later agreement with LRLF/SCs is not presented as an independent confirmation. The AIC/BIC model selection is a standard comparison of fit quality versus complexity, not a self-fulfilling construction. Self-citations (Yuan et al. 2020, 2022; Wang et al. 2024) supply the KDE formalism and selection-function interpolation, but they do not by themselves force the LADE conclusion; the central evidence is the unbinned catalogue likelihood and the fitted evolution functions. The main vulnerability — the fixed-shape assumption eta_j constant in Eq. (15) and the possible degeneracy between shape evolution and e1/e2 — is a modeling limitation and an untested alternative hypothesis, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only interpretive entity is 'residual AGN contamination,' a standard astrophysical explanation invoked for the bright-end excess, not a new postulated mechanism. The free parameters are the usual Schechter/Saunders LF parameters, evolution parameters, KDE bandwidths, and hand-chosen flux limits.

free parameters (10)
  • log10 Φ⋆ (LF normalization) = -2.237 to -2.604 (model/field dependent)
    Free parameter in Eq. (16), fitted by MCMC; Tables 1 and 2.
  • log10 L⋆ (characteristic luminosity) = 21.718 to 22.555
    Free parameter in Eq. (16), fitted by MCMC.
  • β (faint-end slope) = 0.970 to 1.209
    Free parameter in Eq. (16), fitted by MCMC.
  • γ (bright-end slope) = 0.382 to 0.707
    Free parameter in Eq. (16), fitted by MCMC.
  • k1 (luminosity evolution amplitude) = 2.571 to 4.670
    Free parameter in e2(z) = (1+z)^(k1+k2 z), Eq. (17).
  • k2 (luminosity evolution redshift dependence) = -0.204 to 0.002
    Free parameter in e2(z), Eq. (17).
  • p1 (density evolution amplitude) = -2.536 to -0.478
    Free parameter in Models B and C density evolution functions, Eqs. (19)-(20).
  • p2 (density evolution redshift dependence) = -0.135 to -0.094
    Free parameter in Model C, Eq. (20).
  • KDE bandwidth globals h10, h20 and adaptation β = not tabulated
    Chosen by likelihood cross-validation in Section 3.1; they affect the KDE LF shape and the reference-point evolution trends.
  • Conservative flux limits for the three fields = 100, 160, 110 μJy
    Chosen by hand in Section 2 as reference limits to exclude sources below the flux-redshift curves; not fitted, but they define the analyzed sample.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The LF shape is redshift-invariant: η_j is constant in Eq. (15).
    Invoked in Section 3.4 after Eq. (15) and in the KDE reference-point method (Section 3.3). If the shape evolves, the separation into e1(z) and e2(z) is degenerate and the LADE conclusion could be an artifact.
  • domain assumption The selection function p(z,L)=C_radio×C_photometric from Cochrane et al. (2023) is correct for all three fields.
    Used in Eqs. (9)-(11); incorrect completeness corrections would bias the LF normalization and redshift evolution.
  • domain assumption A single power-law radio spectrum with α=0.7 is used for K-corrections and source counts.
    Adopted in Section 2 (Eq. 1) and Eq. (14); a different or redshift-dependent spectral index would shift luminosities and counts.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and SFG/AGN classifications from Kondapally et al. (2021), Duncan et al. (2021), and Best et al. (2023) are reliable.
    The sample definition depends entirely on these external products; residual AGN contamination is acknowledged as the likely cause of the bright-end excess.
  • standard math The KDE transformation-reflection estimator of Yuan et al. (2020, 2022) is consistent and corrects boundary biases.
    Equations (3)-(8) rely on this method; any bias in the estimator propagates into the KDE LFs and the reference-point trends.
  • standard math The source-count integral (Eq. 14) and the Saunders et al. (1990) local LF form (Eq. 16) are valid.
    Used to compute model predictions and χ² penalties; these are standard relations from the literature.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7.
    Adopted throughout for luminosity distances, comoving volumes, and source-count integration.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the 150 MHz Radio Luminosity Function of Star-Forming Galaxies with LOFAR Deep Fields through a Refined Statistical Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UN34JOSY

@misc{pith2026251022934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the 150 MHz Radio Luminosity Function of Star-Forming Galaxies with LOFAR Deep Fields through a Refined Statistical Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UN34JOSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.22934}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of the 150~MHz radio luminosity function (LF) of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) using deep observations from the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey in the ELAIS-N1, Bo\"{o}tes, and Lockman Hole fields. Our sample comprises $\sim$56,000 SFGs over $0 < z < 5.7$. We first analyze the deepest field (ELAIS-N1), then jointly model all three fields while accounting for their distinct flux limits and selection functions. Using adaptive kernel density estimation (KDE), we reconstruct the LF continuously across redshift and luminosity without binning or parametric assumptions. The KDE results reveal clear signatures of joint luminosity and density evolution (LADE). Motivated by this, we construct and fit three parametric models--pure luminosity evolution (PLE) and two LADE variants--using a full maximum-likelihood method that includes completeness corrections and constraints from the local radio LF and Euclidean-normalized source counts (SCs). Model selection using Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria strongly favors LADE over PLE. For ELAIS-N1, the more flexible LADE model (Model C) provides the best fit, while for the combined fields, the simpler Model B balances fit quality and complexity more effectively. Both LADE models reproduce the observed LFs and SCs across luminosity and flux density ranges, whereas PLE underperforms. We also identify a mild excess at the bright end of the LF, likely due to residual AGN contamination. This study demonstrates that combining KDE with parametric modeling offers a robust framework for quantifying the evolving radio LF of SFGs, paving the way for future work with next-generation surveys like the SKA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22934 by Hongwei Yu, Puxun Wu, Wenjie Wang, Yang Liu, Yu Luo, Zunli Yuan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift distribution (top) and scatter plot (bottom) of our SFG sample for three fields: ELAIS-N1 (lef t), Bo¨otes (middle), and Lockman Hole (right). The red dashed lines indicate the flux limits of F150 MHz = 100 µJy for ELAIS-N1, 160 µJy for Bo¨otes, and 110 µJy for Lockman Hole. Note that a small number of sources fall below these flux limit lines and are excluded from our subsequent analysis. maximum… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LFs estimated at a series of redshift grid points using the adaptive KDE method. The resulting curves are color-coded according to redshift. Solid circles indicate the flattest regions of the LF at each redshift. on Cochrane et al. (2023). These binned measurements help constrain the global normalization and redshift evo￾lution of the LF. The resulting SCs are shown in Fig￾ure 8. Following Padovani (2016) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Redshift evolution of the luminosity (left) and comoving number density (right) of the reference points identified along the KDE-estimated LFs in the ELAIS-N1 field, shown as green hexagons. Assuming a redshift-invariant LF shape, the evolution of these reference points closely traces the underlying LADE trends. Colored curves represent the LE and DE functions derived from our three parametric LF models, w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio LFs of SFGs in the ELAIS-N1 field at various redshifts. Blue, orange, and green solid lines show the best-fit LFs from Models A, B, and C, respectively. The light shaded area shows the 3σ confidence interval. The vertical red dashed line in each panel indicates the luminosity threshold corresponding to the survey flux limit at the given redshift. The solid purple lines indicate adaptive KDE LFs and s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LE and DE fitted from our three parametric LF models using the combined sample of all fields, with light shaded regions indicating the corresponding 3σ uncertainty intervals. The green hexagons and purple circles represent the LE and DE trends based solely on the ELAIS-N1 field (same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of our best-fit models with the SCs obtained using the binned method in the ELAIS-N1 field (left panel) and combined all three fields (right panel). In both panels, the blue solid line, orange dashed-dotted line, and green dashed line represent the best-fit SCs for Models A, B, and C, respectively. The purple circles denote the SCs obtained using the bin method. of KDE with the statistical rigor… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ELAIS-N1 field corner plot illustrating the one- and two-dimensional projections of the posterior probability distri￾butions for Model A, derived from the MCMC sampling. The diagonal panels display the marginalized posterior distributions for each parameter, with the 16th and 84th percentiles indicated by vertical dashed lines. The off-diagonal panels present the two-dimensional joint posterior distributio… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗

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. Prospects for Observing Galaxy Spectral Energy Distribution from the Radio to the far-Infrared in the Era of Next-Generation Radio Telescopes

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations predict ngVLA at 100 GHz can detect galaxies above 10^9 solar masses at any redshift while SKA low frequencies reach massive dusty galaxies to z=5-7.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2932

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2932 2017

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Aird, J., Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2531, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15829.x

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  4. [4]

    Algera, H. S. B., van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb77a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb77a 2020

  5. [5]

    L., Stern, D., Brodwin, M., et al

    Ashby, M. L., Stern, D., Brodwin, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 428, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/428

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/428 2009

  6. [6]

    Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794, doi: 10.1086/367829

    doi:10.1086/367829 2003

  7. [8]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article17

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  8. [9]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1040

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e 2021

  9. [10]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [11]

    2017, Biostatistics & Epidemiology, 1, 161

    Chen, Y.-C. 2017, Biostatistics & Epidemiology, 1, 161

    2017

  11. [12]

    K., Kondapally, R., Best, P

    Cochrane, R. K., Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1602 2023

  12. [13]

    J., Anderson, M

    Condon, J. J., Anderson, M. L., & Helou, G. 1991, ApJ, 376, 95, doi: 10.1086/170258

    doi:10.1086/170258 1991

  13. [14]

    M., & Baddeley, A

    Davies, T. M., & Baddeley, A. 2018, Statistics and Computing, 28, 937

    2018

  14. [15]

    2017, A&A, 602, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629367

    Delvecchio, I., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Zamorani, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629367

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629367 2017

  15. [16]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/172

    Dicken, D., Tadhunter, C., Axon, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/172

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/172 2012

  16. [17]

    B., Simpson, C., Collins, C

    Drake, A. B., Simpson, C., Collins, C. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt775

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt775 2013

  17. [18]

    J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M

    Duncan, K. J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038809 2021

  18. [19]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca

    Enia, A., Talia, M., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca 2022

  19. [20]

    A., Schneider, D

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 121, 54

    2001

  20. [21]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  21. [22]

    Gonzalez, A. H. 2010, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts 216

    2010

  22. [23]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 23, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt308

    Gruppioni, C., Pozzi, F., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt308

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt308 2013

  23. [24]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M

    Gruppioni, C., B´ ethermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Smith, D. J. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3010, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty016

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 2020

  24. [25]

    Richards, E. A. 2000, ApJ, 544, 641, doi: 10.1086/317225

    work page doi:10.1086/317225 2000

  25. [26]

    Hogg, D. W. 1999, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9905116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  26. [27]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 Kennicutt Jr, R

    Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 2018

  27. [28]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038813

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038813 2021

  28. [29]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    arXiv 2007

  29. [30]

    J., Smith, H

    Lonsdale, C. J., Smith, H. E., Robinson, M. R., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 897

    2003

  30. [31]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  31. [32]

    C., Dickinson, M

    Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388

    doi:10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388 1996

  32. [33]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A45

    Magnelli, B., Ivison, R., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A45

    2015

  33. [34]

    D., Jarvis, M

    Malefahlo, E. D., Jarvis, M. J., Santos, M. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3242

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3242 2022

  34. [35]

    1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 269, 35

    Marshall, H., Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y., & Zamorani, G. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 269, 35

    1983

  35. [36]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L1

    2005

  36. [37]

    J., McLure, R

    McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw904

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw904 2016

  37. [38]

    J., Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2696, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt627 2013

  38. [39]

    J., Croston, J

    Mingo, B., Hardcastle, M. J., Croston, J. H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu263

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu263 2014

  39. [40]

    2015, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Mohan, N., & Rafferty, D. 2015, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1502.007

    2015

  40. [41]

    2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    Novak, M., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delhaize, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629436 2017

  41. [42]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5911

    Ocran, E., Taylor, A., Vaccari, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5911

    2020

  42. [43]

    F., Taylor, A

    Ocran, E. F., Taylor, A. R., Vaccari, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3401

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3401 2020

  43. [44]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb´ e, I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f 2018

  44. [45]

    J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al

    Oliver, S. J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20912.x

    arXiv 2012

  45. [46]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 869, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869

    Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 869, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/869 2010

  46. [47]

    2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 24, 13, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6

    Padovani, P. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 24, 13, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6

    doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 2016

  47. [48]

    2010, Nature, 468, 772, doi: 10.1038/468772b

    Pritchard, J., & Loeb, A. 2010, Nature, 468, 772, doi: 10.1038/468772b

    doi:10.1038/468772b 2010

  48. [49]

    A., Bradford, C

    Riechers, D. A., Bradford, C. M., Clements, D. L., et al. 2013, Nature, 496, 329, doi: 10.1038/nature12050

    doi:10.1038/nature12050 2013

  49. [50]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1169

    Rowan-Robinson, M., Oliver, S., Wang, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1169 2016

  50. [51]

    N., Tasse, C., et al

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Tasse, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038828

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038828 2021

  51. [52]

    M., Jenkins, C

    Sadler, E. M., Jenkins, C. R., & Kotanyi, C. G. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/240.3.591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/240.3.591 1989

  52. [53]

    1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 242, 318 18W ang et al

    Saunders, W., Rowan-Robinson, M., Lawrence, A., et al. 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 242, 318 18W ang et al

    1990

  53. [54]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    doi:10.1086/149446 1968

  54. [55]

    Schober, J., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Klessen, R. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1999

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1999 2015

  55. [56]

    1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    arXiv 1978

  56. [57]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 109

    Singal, J., Ko, A., & Petrosian, V. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 109

    2014

  57. [58]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 43

    Singal, J., Petrosian, V., Lawrence, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 43

    2013

  58. [59]

    J., & Blain, A

    Smail, I., Ivison, R. J., & Blain, A. W. 1997, ApJL, 490, L5, doi: 10.1086/311017

    doi:10.1086/311017 1997

  59. [60]

    Smith, D. J. B., Haskell, P., G¨ urkan, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039343 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Zamorani, G., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 24 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Schinnerer, E., Zamorani, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 610, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/610

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039343 2021

  60. [61]

    S., Schinnerer, E., Krause, M., et al

    Tabatabaei, F. S., Schinnerer, E., Krause, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/185

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/185 2017

  61. [62]

    J., et al

    Tasse, C., Shimwell, T., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804 van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J. A., Algera, H. S. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac99db

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038804 2021

  62. [63]

    2024, A&A, 683, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347746

    Wang, W., Yuan, Z., Yu, H., & Mao, J. 2024, A&A, 683, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347746

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347746 2024

  63. [64]

    2006, All of nonparametric statistics (Springer Science & Business Media)

    Wasserman, L. 2006, All of nonparametric statistics (Springer Science & Business Media)

    2006

  64. [65]

    1999, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Brunner, R., eds. 1999, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 191, Photometric Redshifts and the Detection of High Redshift Galaxies

    1999

  65. [66]

    Eales, S. A. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 536

    2001

  66. [67]

    J., & Wang, J

    Yuan, Z., Jarvis, M. J., & Wang, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 1

    2020

  67. [68]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 65

    Yuan, Z., Wang, J., Zhou, M., & Mao, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 65

    2016

  68. [69]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 78

    Yuan, Z., Wang, J., Zhou, M., Qin, L., & Mao, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 78

    2017

  69. [70]

    Yuan, Z., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Cheng, X., & Wang, W. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 10 AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article19 APPENDIX 2.35 2.30 2.25 log10( ) 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 k2 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 k1 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 1.0 1.1 1.2 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 log10(L ) log10( ) = 2.295 ± 0.018 21.6 21.8 log10(L ) log10(L ) = 21.718+0.06...

    2022

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