pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.03570 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Discovery of a zsimeq 4.9 Lyman-α Emitter Protocluster: Wavelength-Dependent Environmental Effects on Galaxy Structure

Ronaldo Laishram , Yusei Koyama , Haruka Kusakabe , Satoshi Kikuta , Shunta Shimizu , Tadayuki Kodama This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alpha emittersprotoclustergalaxy morphologyhigh-redshift galaxiesJWST imagingenvironmental effectsrest-optical sizes
0
0 comments X

The pith

LAEs in a z=4.9 protocluster are 40 percent larger in rest-optical size than field LAEs but show no UV size difference.

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

The paper reports the discovery of a Lyman-alpha emitter protocluster at redshift 4.9 in the COSMOS field, made of four overdensity peaks. It uses JWST NIRCam imaging to compare galaxy sizes via Sersic fits for protocluster members and field LAEs in both rest-UV and rest-optical bands. Protocluster LAEs show a median effective radius of 0.81 kpc in rest-optical light versus 0.58 kpc for field galaxies, with a statistically significant offset at fixed stellar mass. No size difference appears in rest-UV measurements. The wavelength-dependent signature points to environmental processes acting on extended stellar populations during the early phases of galaxy assembly.

Core claim

We discover an LAE protocluster at z=4.90 spanning four peaks over 65 by 36 comoving Mpc, with the main peak showing four times the field surface density. Sersic fitting on JWST F277W rest-optical images yields protocluster LAEs with 40 percent larger median effective radii than field LAEs, while F150W rest-UV sizes match. At fixed stellar mass the protocluster sample sits 0.12 dex above the field size-mass relation, with 75 percent of members showing positive residuals versus 44 percent in the field.

What carries the argument

Sersic profile fitting applied separately to JWST rest-UV and rest-optical images to extract effective radii and compare protocluster versus field LAE samples.

If this is right

  • Environmental influences on galaxy structure operate as early as z approximately 5.
  • Tidal interactions in protoclusters act preferentially on the extended stellar components visible in rest-optical light.
  • The build-up phase of cosmic star formation includes measurable environmental differences in galaxy sizes.
  • LAE samples drawn from dense regions may systematically trace galaxies with different structural properties than field LAEs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of high-redshift galaxy formation may need stronger early environmental terms to reproduce wavelength-dependent size offsets.
  • The pattern could foreshadow the later emergence of morphological differences seen in lower-redshift clusters.
  • Larger JWST samples at similar redshifts could test whether the effect scales with local density or total protocluster mass.

Load-bearing premise

The four overdensity peaks form one physically bound structure rather than chance line-of-sight alignments, and the LAE selection plus Sersic fits introduce no differential bias between the two samples.

What would settle it

Deep spectroscopy that either confirms all four peaks share the same systemic redshift or shows the reported optical size offset vanishes with a larger sample or alternate size metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03570 by Haruka Kusakabe, Ronaldo Laishram, Satoshi Kikuta, Shunta Shimizu, Tadayuki Kodama, Yusei Koyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overdensity map of NB718 LAEs at z = 4.90 revealing a large-scale protocluster structure (the Loktak protocluster) within the 0.54 deg2 COSMOS-Web survey area. The background shows the KDE-smoothed density field (colorbar: δ), with warmer colors indicating higher overdensity. Contour lines trace overdensity levels at δ = 2 (magenta), δ = 5 (green), δ = 8 (blue), and δ = 10 (black). Individual LAE positions… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Size-mass relations for LAEs in rest-UV (F150W, left panel) and rest-optical (F277W, right panel). Blue circles represent field LAEs, and red squares represent protocluster members. Large filled symbols show binned medians with bootstrap uncertainties. In the left panel (rest-UV), no systematic offset is detected between protocluster and field LAEs (field fit: β = 0.05±0.08, scatter = 0.2 dex). For referen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of size residuals ∆ log10(Re) from the field size-mass relation for rest￾frame UV (F150W, left) and rest-frame optical (F277W, right). Residuals are calculated as the observed size minus the size predicted from the linear relation fit to our field LAE sample (Section 4.2) at each galaxy’s stellar mass. Blue lines show field LAEs (centered near zero by construction),… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of a Lyman-alpha emitter (LAE) protocluster at z = 4.90 in the COSMOS field, comprising four distinct overdensity peaks spanning ~65 x 36 cMpc$^2$, with the primary concentration exhibiting a 4-fold surface density enhancement relative to the field within a 1.5 proper Mpc (pMpc) radius. Using SILVERRUSH narrowband survey data combined with JWST COSMOS-Web imaging, we perform a first systematic rest-frame optical and UV morphological comparison of protocluster versus field LAEs at this redshift using JWST NIRCam rest-frame UV (F150W, ~2540 Angstrom) and optical (F277W, ~4700 Angstrom) imaging. Sersic profile fitting for 16 protocluster members and 23 field LAEs reveals a size difference: protocluster LAEs are $\sim$40% larger in rest-optical (median $R_e = 0.81_{-0.04}^{+0.26}$ kpc vs. $0.58_{-0.04}^{+0.11}$ kpc, $p = 0.041$) with no significant difference in rest-UV ($p = 0.51$) or Sersic index. At fixed stellar mass, protocluster LAEs are offset by $+0.12$~dex ($\simeq$31%) in rest-optical size from the field size-mass relation (68% CI: $[+0.08, +0.21]$; Mann-Whitney $p = 0.033$), with 75% exhibiting positive size residuals compared to 44% of field LAEs. This wavelength-dependent environmental signature suggests that protocluster environments at $z \simeq 5$ preferentially affect extended stellar populations, possibly through tidal interactions, with no significant environmental difference detected in rest-UV sizes, providing observational evidence for environmental influences on the structure of LAEs during the early build-up phase of cosmic star formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of a z≈4.9 LAE protocluster in COSMOS comprising four overdensity peaks with a 4-fold surface density enhancement. Using SILVERRUSH narrowband data and JWST NIRCam imaging, it performs Sersic fitting on 16 protocluster and 23 field LAEs, finding protocluster members ~40% larger in rest-optical (F277W, median Re=0.81 vs 0.58 kpc, p=0.041) but no difference in rest-UV (F150W, p=0.51), plus a +0.12 dex mass-matched size offset (p=0.033) with 75% positive residuals vs 44% in the field. The result is interpreted as evidence for wavelength-dependent environmental effects on extended stellar populations at z≈5.

Significance. If the size offset holds after bias checks, the work would supply rare high-redshift observational constraints on how dense environments shape galaxy structure during early cosmic star formation, distinguishing rest-optical from rest-UV behavior. The JWST-based morphological comparison at z≈5 is timely, but the small N=16 protocluster sample and marginal p-values make the central claim tentative rather than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and morphological comparison: The rest-optical size difference (median Re 0.81 vs 0.58 kpc, p=0.041) is based on only 16 protocluster LAEs. With 4× higher surface density, differential biases in background subtraction, deblending, or PSF modeling in F277W could systematically inflate recovered Re values; the absence of a UV difference (p=0.51) is consistent with such a band-specific artifact. A quantitative test (e.g., simulated injections or alternative fitting) is required to demonstrate that the offset is not fitting-induced.
  2. [Abstract] Protocluster definition: The claim that the four overdensity peaks form a single physically bound structure spanning ~65×36 cMpc² rests on surface-density enhancement alone. Without spectroscopic velocity coherence or other dynamical evidence, line-of-sight projections remain a viable alternative that would undermine the environmental interpretation.
  3. [Abstract] Stellar-mass matching: The +0.12 dex offset at fixed stellar mass (68% CI [+0.08,+0.21], p=0.033) is central to the environmental claim, yet the abstract provides no details on how stellar masses were derived or on sample completeness/contamination. These omissions prevent assessment of whether the mass-matched comparison is robust.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Report the exact number of LAEs per overdensity peak and any cuts applied to the Sersic sample to allow reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational comparison

full rationale

The paper reports a discovery and direct morphological measurements of LAEs using Sersic profile fits on JWST NIRCam imaging (F150W, F277W) combined with SILVERRUSH narrowband data. Central results are median Re values, p-values from statistical tests (Mann-Whitney), and size-mass residuals, all derived from independent data reductions without any equations, model predictions, or fitted parameters that reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citation chains, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to support the wavelength-dependent size offset. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (observed sizes and densities), consistent with the reader's assessment of score 1.0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms beyond standard observational techniques, or invented entities are introduced; all measurements rest on established Sersic fitting and survey data.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Sersic profiles adequately describe the light distributions of high-redshift LAEs
    Invoked for size and index measurements in both UV and optical bands.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1342 out tokens · 59141 ms · 2026-05-15T16:11:42.400163+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2019, Publ

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103 —. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  2. [2]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Allen, N., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 12Laishram et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452690 2025

  3. [3]

    and LeBlanc , F

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x 2002

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., Vecchia, C. D., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 857, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01693-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01693-0 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 683, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348419

    Baes, M., Mosenkov, A., Kelly, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348419

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348419 2024

  6. [6]

    A., Gawiser, E., Guaita, L., et al

    Bond, N. A., Gawiser, E., Guaita, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/95 2012

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  8. [8]

    , eprint =

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517, doi: 10.1086/500691

    work page doi:10.1086/500691 2006

  9. [9]

    Jiang, F

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x B˘ adescu, T., Yang, Y., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  10. [10]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  11. [11]

    L., Riechers, D., Scoville, N

    Capak, P. L., Riechers, D., Scoville, N. Z., et al. 2011, Nature, 470, 233, doi: 10.1038/nature09681

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09681 2011

  12. [12]

    M., et al

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  13. [13]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fd

    Chen, Z., Gu, Y., Zou, H., & Yuan, Q. 2024, ApJ, 961, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fd 2024

  14. [14]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/127 2013

  15. [15]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b 2017

  16. [16]

    C., Newman, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Madgwick, D. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 833, doi: 10.1086/432868

    work page doi:10.1086/432868 2005

  17. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121

    Aragon-Calvo, M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/121 2015

  18. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b90

    Ding, X., Silverman, J., Treu, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b90

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b90 2020

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    work page doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  20. [20]

    B., Casey, C

    Franco, M., Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6a 2024

  21. [21]

    M., Koekemoer, A

    Franco, M., Casey, C. M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03256

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03256 2025

  22. [22]

    M., Hunt, L., et al

    Geda, R., Crawford, S. M., Hunt, L., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 2022

  23. [23]

    M., Powell, M

    Ghosh, A., Urry, C. M., Powell, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad596f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad596f 2024

  24. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14843, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.14843

    Golden-Marx, E., Cai, Z., Shi, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14843, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.14843

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14843 2025

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2192

    Higuchi, R., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2192

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2192 2019

  26. [26]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Scott, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1275 2020

  27. [27]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    Hu, W., Wang, J., Infante, L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y 2021

  28. [28]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea4

    Huang, Y., Lee, K.-S., Cucciati, O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea4 2022

  29. [29]

    Accurate photometric redshifts for the CFHT Legacy Survey calibrated using the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  30. [30]

    K., Yamanaka, S., Ouchi, M., et al

    Inoue, A. K., Yamanaka, S., Ouchi, M., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa100

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaa100 2020

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f0c

    Ito, K., Kashikawa, N., Toshikawa, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f0c 2019

  32. [32]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9 2026

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb

    Kikuta, S., Ouchi, M., Shibuya, T., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace4cb 2023

  34. [34]

    J., Alavi, A., Snapp-Kolas, C., et al

    Kim, K. J., Alavi, A., Snapp-Kolas, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d6c Kovaˇ c, K., Somerville, R. S., Rhoads, J. E., Malhotra, S., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d6c 2026

  35. [35]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 15, doi: 10.1086/520668

    Wang, J. 2007, ApJ, 668, 15, doi: 10.1086/520668

    work page doi:10.1086/520668 2007

  36. [36]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    Kusakabe, H., Shimasaku, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx148 2018

  37. [37]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3238

    Laishram, R., Kodama, T., Morishita, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3238

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3238 2024

  38. [38]

    2014a, ApJ, 796, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126 —

    Lee, K.-S., Dey, A., Hong, S., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 796, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126 —. 2014b, ApJ, 796, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/126

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    Lee, K.-S., Gawiser, E., Park, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e 2024

  40. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c6e

    Malavasi, N., Lee, K.-S., Dey, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c6e 2021

  41. [41]

    and Amodeo, Stefania and Afanasiev, Anton V

    Mei, S., Hatch, N. A., Amodeo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243551 2023

  42. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404 2024

  43. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f 2025

  44. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb81

    Naufal, A., Koyama, Y., Shimakawa, R., & Kodama, T. 2023, ApJ, 958, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb81 2023

  45. [45]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 219, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 219, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psae004 2024

  46. [46]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859 2020

  47. [47]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., Shibuya, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx074 2018

  48. [48]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 2016

  49. [49]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Overzier, R. A., Bouwens, R. J., Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 143, doi: 10.1086/524342 Loktak: LAE Protocluster atz≃4.9 13

    work page doi:10.1086/524342 2008

  50. [50]

    J., & Ferguson, H

    Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Conselice, C. J., & Ferguson, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 631, 101, doi: 10.1086/429120

    work page doi:10.1086/429120 2005

  51. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty281

    Paulino-Afonso, A., Sobral, D., Ribeiro, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty281

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty281 2018

  52. [52]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe

    work page 1980

  53. [53]

    , eprint =

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  54. [54]

    Peter, A. H. G., Shapley, A. E., Law, D. R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 23, doi: 10.1086/521184

    work page doi:10.1086/521184 2007

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Ramakrishnan, V., Moon, B., Im, S. H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd341

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd341 2023

  56. [56]

    C., et al

    Ramakrishnan, V., Lee, K.-S., Artale, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb 2024

  57. [57]

    2001, A&A, 368, 776, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010071

    Ramella, M., Boschin, W., Fadda, D., & Nonino, M. 2001, A&A, 368, 776, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010071

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010071 2001

  58. [58]

    S., et al

    Rubet, M., Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Gon¸ calves, T. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf18c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf18c 2025

  59. [59]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64b

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., & Nakajima, K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64b 2019

  60. [60]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S14, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx122

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Konno, A., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S14, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx122

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx122 2018

  61. [61]

    2003, ApJL, 586, L111, doi: 10.1086/374880

    Shimasaku, K., Ouchi, M., Okamura, S., et al. 2003, ApJL, 586, L111, doi: 10.1086/374880

    work page doi:10.1086/374880 2003

  62. [62]

    J., Reeves J

    Shimizu, I., & Umemura, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 913, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16758.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16758.x 2010

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Shimizu, S., Kashikawa, N., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 3125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1377 2025

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A339, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555799 2025

  65. [65]

    S., Ren, J., et al

    Song, Q., Liu, F. S., Ren, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae24e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae24e4 2026

  66. [66]

    C., Forrest, B., et al

    Staab, P., Lemaux, B. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae301 2024

  67. [67]

    Z., et al

    Taniguchi, Y., Murayama, T., Scoville, N. Z., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/915

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/915 2009

  68. [68]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0

    Umeda, H., Ouchi, M., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0 2025