Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Euclid preparation: V. Predicted yield of redshift 7<z<9 quasars from the wide survey

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Euclid's wide survey should yield over 100 quasars at redshifts 7.0-7.5, and roughly 25 beyond 7.5, even if quasar numbers fade fast.

desk verdict A careful, transparent update of the Euclid z>7 quasar yield forecast, but the k=-0.92 scenario has an unquantified internal inconsistency (selection functions built with a k=-0.72 prior) that likely makes the headline 'over 100' an overestimate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04310 v2 pith:BFEM3WKY submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Euclid Collaboration , R. Barnett , S. J. Warren , D. J. Mortlock , J. -G. Cuby , C. Conselice , P. C. Hewett , C. J. Willott
show 121 more authors
N. Auricchio A. Balaguera-Antolínez M. Baldi S. Bardelli F. Bellagamba R. Bender A. Biviano D. Bonino E. Bozzo E. Branchini M. Brescia J. Brinchmann C. Burigana S. Camera V. Capobianco C. Carbone J. Carretero C. S. Carvalho F. J. Castander M. Castellano S. Cavuoti A. Cimatti R. Clédassou G. Congedo L. Conversi Y. Copin L. Corcione J. Coupon H. M. Courtois M. Cropper A. Da Silva C. A. J. Duncan S. Dusini A. Ealet S. Farrens P. Fosalba S. Fotopoulou N. Fourmanoit M. Frailis M. Fumana S. Galeotta B. Garilli W. Gillard B. R. Gillis J. Graciá-Carpio F. Grupp H. Hoekstra F. Hormuth H. Israel K. Jahnke S. Kermiche M. Kilbinger C. C. Kirkpatrick T. Kitching R. Kohley B. Kubik M. Kunz H. Kurki-Suonio R. Laureijs S. Ligori P. B. Lilje I. Lloro E. Maiorano O. Mansutti O. Marggraf N. Martinet F. Marulli R. Massey N. Mauri E. Medinaceli S. Mei Y. Mellier R. B. Metcalf J. J. Metge G. Meylan M. Moresco L. Moscardini E. Munari C. Neissner S. M. Niemi T. Nutma C. Padilla S. Paltani F. Pasian P. Paykari W. J. Percival V. Pettorino G. Polenta M. Poncet L. Pozzetti F. Raison A. Renzi J. Rhodes H. -W. Rix E. Romelli M. Roncarelli E. Rossetti R. Saglia D. Sapone R. Scaramella P. Schneider V. Scottez A. Secroun S. Serrano G. Sirri L. Stanco F. Sureau P. Tallada-Crespí D. Tavagnacco A. N. Taylor M. Tenti I. Tereno R. Toledo-Moreo F. Torradeflot L. Valenziano T. Vassallo Y. Wang A. Zacchei G. Zamorani J. Zoubian E. Zucca
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords high-redshiftquasarsquasarluminosityfunctionEuclidwidesurveyBayesianmodelcomparisonreionizationLyman-alphadampingwingnear-infraredselectionMLTdwarfs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper predicts how many quasars at redshifts $78$. Adding deep $z$-band data from ground-based surveys roughly doubles the yield over $77.5$ quasars are predicted to appear in the DR1 data release expected in 2024. If these numbers hold, Euclid will provide the first large statistical sample of $z>7$ quasars, enabling direct measurements of the quasar luminosity function and new probes of cosmic reionisation through Lyman-$\alpha$ damping wings.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Bayesian model-comparison (BMC) selection function. For simulated quasars on a grid of luminosity and redshift, the method computes a posterior quasar probability $P_q$ from Gaussian photometric likelihoods weighted by the surface densities of three populations: quasars from the $z=6$ luminosity function, MLT dwarfs from published luminosity functions and colours, and compact early-type galaxies at $z=1-2$ modelled from COSMOS data with a size-mass relation. The selection function records the fraction of quasars with $P_q>0.1$ as a function of absolute magnitude and redshift, and the predicted yields follow by integrating the assumed luminosity function over these functions. The key comparison that carries the argument is between using Euclid's broad $O$ band and using deep ground-based $z$-band data, which sharpens the contrast across the Lyman break and deepens the selection by about a magnitude over $7<z<8$.

What would settle it

Search for spectroscopically confirmed quasars at $7.5<z<8.0$ in the Euclid DR1 southern field (1250 deg2 with one-year LSST data), where the prediction is 4.1 quasars for $k=-0.72$ and 1.8 for $k=-0.92$; a confirmed count consistent with zero across the full DR1 area would falsify the yield forecast.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a new set of Euclid quasar selection functions, derived by simulating quasars on a grid of absolute magnitude and redshift and recording the fraction that survive a Bayesian model-comparison selection with quasar probability threshold $P_q>0.1$. When the $z=6$ quasar luminosity function is extrapolated as $\Phi\propto 10^{k(z-6)}$, the predicted yields are 204 quasars at $7.0<z<7.5$ and 45 at $7.5<z<8.0$ for $k=-0.72$ with ground-based optical data, falling to 117 and 19 for $k=-0.92$; the corresponding numbers beyond $z=8$ are 23 and 8. With deep $z$-band data the selection reaches $J_{AB}\sim23$, about a magnitude deeper than with Euclid's own optical band over $7<z<8$, and at that limit the predicted contamination leaves a selection efficiency of roughly two-thirds. The paper further shows that quasars at $z>8$ can be selected from Euclid $OYJH$ photometry alone, and that $k$ can be recovered to a $1\sigma$ uncertainty of 0.07 over $7<z<8$ if $k=-0.72$.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the assumption that the measured decline of bright quasars between redshifts 5 and 6 continues unchanged all the way to redshift 9 as a single power law, $\Phi\propto 10^{k(z-6)}$, with the decline rate set to $k=-0.72$ or $k=-0.92$; if the number density falls faster or the luminosity function bends, every predicted count shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the nominal $k=-0.72$ decline, Euclid should yield over 200 quasars at $7.0<z<7.5$ and 45 at $7.5<z<8.0$ with ground-based optical data, giving the first large sample of $z>7$ quasars.
  • Even under the steeper $k=-0.92$ decline, more than 100 quasars at $7<z<7.5$ and about 8 beyond $z>8$ are expected, so Euclid should break the current redshift record.
  • Euclid's samples will constrain the bright-end slope of the quasar luminosity function over $7<z<8$ with 8m telescopes, while JWST or E-ELT follow-up will be needed to measure the faint-end slope.
  • The first quasars at $z>7.5$ should appear in the DR1 data release in 2024, with more than ten $7<z<9$ quasars predicted over the 1250 deg2 southern DR1 area with LSST data.
  • Assuming $k=-0.72$, the decline parameter $k$ can be measured to a $1\sigma$ uncertainty of 0.07 over $7<z<8$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the predicted counts materialise, the same sample could be used to test black-hole seeding scenarios by checking whether the supply of $z>7$ bright quasars is consistent with Eddington-limited growth from stellar-mass seeds, because the survey would measure the bright-end space density directly rather than extrapolating it.
  • Inference: the forecast's sensitivity to $z$-band depth implies that the realised yield is partly a survey-coordination outcome: a one-magnitude loss in Pan-STARRS or LSST coverage would more than halve the $7<z<8$ yield, so the paper functions as a quantitative argument for prioritising the ground-based overlap.
  • Inference: because the simulation excludes gravitationally lensed quasars with optical flux from the deflecting galaxy, a future search that adds lensed templates could find an additional population; counting lensed candidates in the final sample would test whether the empirical lensing fraction near 1% holds at $z>7$.
  • Inference: a quick test of the selection before DR1 is possible with the Q1 release over about 50 deg2, where the model predicts at most one $7<z<9$ quasar but also predicts the expected number of false candidates; matching that contamination rate would calibrate the Bayesian priors for later releases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents simulated predictions of the number of 7<z<9 quasars that the Euclid wide survey will discover. The authors update the Red Book calculation using revised NISP filter curves, the Jiang et al. (2016) z=6 quasar luminosity function extrapolated with k=-0.72 or k=-0.92, improved models of MLT dwarf and early-type galaxy contaminants, and a Bayesian model comparison (BMC) selection method alongside a minimum-chi-squared method. They compute selection functions and integrate them over the QLF to obtain yields in redshift bins. With ground-based z-band data, they predict over 100 quasars at 7.0<z<7.5 even for k=-0.92, about 25 at z>7.5, and about 8 at z>8.0. They also discuss contamination rates, follow-up feasibility, and the timeline of Euclid data releases, and estimate that k could be measured to 1-sigma uncertainty of 0.07 over 7<z<8.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, Euclid will provide the first large statistical sample of z>7 quasars, enabling direct measurement of the quasar luminosity function at 7<z<9, constraints on SMBH growth, and Ly-alpha damping-wing measurements of reionization. The paper is thorough and reproducible in structure: the population models are described in detail, the BMC and chi-squared methods are compared, and the sensitivity to contaminant populations (Sects. 5.4-5.5) and quasar template variations (Sect. 5.6) is explicitly tested. The predicted yield for the k=-0.92 scenario, however, rests on an internal inconsistency in the selection-function prior, which needs to be resolved before the headline numbers can be considered robust.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sections 3.2.1 and 4.1, Table 3] The k=-0.92 yield forecasts are computed by integrating the k=-0.92 QLF over selection functions that were themselves derived with a quasar prior fixed to k=-0.72 (stated in Section 3.2.1). Because P_q in Eq. (2) depends on the quasar surface-density prior in Eq. (3), this is not a self-consistent forecast: in a true k=-0.92 world the prior would be lower by a factor of 10^{0.2(z-6)} (about 1.8 at z=7.25 and 2.9 at z=8.25), which would lower P_q for marginal sources and likely reduce the faint-end completeness. Since a substantial fraction of the Table 3 counts come from near J~23, the headline claim of 'over 100 quasars' for k=-0.92 in the abstract and Section 4.1 could be an overestimate. Please recompute the selection functions for the k=-0.92 prior or quantify the resulting bias; the current treatment leaves the size of the effect unquantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The yields are reported as point estimates with no uncertainties; adding at least Poisson errors (and a brief discussion of systematic uncertainties from the contaminant surface densities) would help the reader assess the significance of the differences between scenarios.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 4] The statement that 'the first Euclid quasars at z>7.5 should be found in DR1' is stronger than the numbers justify; for k=-0.92 the predicted DR1 yield at z>7.5 is 2.3 sources, so 'expected' or 'could' would be more appropriate.
  3. [Abstract] The headline 'over 100 quasars with 7.0<z<7.5' for k=-0.92 refers to the case with ground-based z-band data; the abstract mentions that z-band data improve selection over 7<z<8, but the claim should state this condition explicitly at that point.
  4. [Section 3.1.1, Eq. (3)] The notation 'theta_t is the set of parameters describing a single population' is ambiguous because the quasar population is described by a continuous grid in M_1450 and z while the MLT population is a set of discrete spectral types; please clarify.
  5. [Section 3.2.1] The statement that the results are insensitive to the near-zone size is not demonstrated; a one-sentence sensitivity test or a reference would support this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted yields are conditional forecasts obtained by integrating an externally measured QLF over simulated selection functions; the k=-0.92 prior mismatch is a consistency caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction is the yield of z>7 quasars from Euclid, computed as the integral of an assumed quasar luminosity function over simulated selection functions. The QLF is taken from Jiang et al. (2016), an external measurement at z=5-6, with k=-0.72 adopted from that work and k=-0.92 chosen 'simply to present a more pessimistic forecast' (Sect. 4.1). The selection functions are derived from simulated photometry, model SEDs, noise, and the BMC or chi-squared selection algorithms; they are detection probabilities, not re-expressions of the yield. The BMC quasar prior does use the same Jiang et al. QLF family (Sect. 3.2.1), but the predicted counts are not equal to that prior by construction: they depend non-trivially on colors, contaminants, photometric noise, and the Pq threshold. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the result. The Mortlock et al. (2012) citation for the BMC method is not circular because the method is fully specified in Eqs. (2)-(4) and was externally validated by discovering a real z>7 quasar. The only notable issue is internal consistency: the k=-0.92 columns of Table 3 use selection functions computed with a k=-0.72 quasar prior, which could bias the yield estimate, but this is a modeling inconsistency rather than a circular argument, since the prediction is not logically equivalent to its inputs. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and transparently labels k as the dominant unknown, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on externally measured QLF parameters, survey planning assumptions, and contaminant population models, all stated in the text. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • QLF decline rate k = -0.72 and -0.92 (assumed)
    Dominant uncertainty; adopted from Jiang et al. 2016 for k=-0.72, while k=-0.92 is explicitly described as arbitrary and pessimistic. All yield predictions scale with this parameter.
  • Early-type galaxy surface density parameters (alpha, sigma, J0, b, z0) = 8969, 0.770, 20.692, 1.332, 0.424
    Maximum-likelihood fit to COSMOS quiescent galaxies at 1<z<2 (Sect. 3.2.3); used to model early-type galaxy contamination, which sets limits at z>8.
  • Pq selection threshold = 0.1
    Chosen for candidate follow-up; the paper reports that Pq in the range 0.05 to 0.2 changes total yield by about 15 percent (Sect. 3.1.1).
  • Early-type galaxy formation redshift fractions = 0.8 at zf=3, 0.2 at zf=10
    Hand-chosen approximation to the COSMOS formation-redshift histogram (Sect. 3.2.3); enters the contaminant colour models.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and Gaussian photometric likelihood (Eqs. 2-4) define the posterior quasar probability.
    Used to compute Pq for the Bayesian model comparison method; standard probability.
  • domain assumption The Jiang et al. (2016) z=6 QLF with power-law decline Phi proportional to 10^{k(z-6)} holds at 7<z<9.
    Sect. 3.2.1 and 4.1; central input for all yield predictions, with k=-0.92 chosen arbitrarily as a pessimistic case.
  • domain assumption Quasars at z>7 have negligible flux blueward of the redshifted Ly-alpha line except for a 3 Mpc near zone.
    Sect. 3.2.1; basis of the optical dropout selection; the paper notes gravitational lensing could add an unmodeled population.
  • domain assumption MLT dwarfs and compact early-type galaxies are the only relevant contaminating populations.
    Sect. 3.2 and 5.4; supported by COSMOS colour tracks and SED fitting, but not by full Euclid simulations.
  • domain assumption The adopted Euclid wide survey depths, ERS footprint, and LSST/Pan-STARRS z-band depths will be realized.
    Table 1 and Sect. 2; the ground-based scenario yields are conditional on these planning assumptions.
  • domain assumption All J1>22 early-type galaxies at 1<z<2 will be classified as point sources by Euclid.
    Sect. 3.2.3; conservative assumption, shown in Sect. 5.5 to have modest effect on yields except possibly at z>8.
  • domain assumption A single typical quasar SED (EW C IV = 39.1 Angstrom, continuum slope f1315/f2225 = 1.0) represents the z>7 population when combined with template weights.
    Sect. 3.2.1 and 5.6; a template mismatch reduces yield by 20 percent, with the full template set mitigating the loss.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way thin-disk MLT density model with a 300 pc scale height and literature colours is accurate, and subdwarfs are negligible.
    Sect. 3.2.2; based on Bochanski et al. 2010, Cruz et al. 2007, and Skrzypek et al. 2016; subdwarf contamination argued to be small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Euclid preparation: V. Predicted yield of redshift 7<z<9 quasars from the wide survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFEM3WKY

@misc{pith2026190804310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Euclid preparation: V. Predicted yield of redshift 7<z<9 quasars from the wide survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFEM3WKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04310}
}
abstract

We provide predictions of the yield of $7<z<9$ quasars from the Euclid wide survey, updating the calculation presented in the Euclid Red Book in several ways. We account for revisions to the Euclid near-infrared filter wavelengths; we adopt steeper rates of decline of the quasar luminosity function (QLF; $\Phi$) with redshift, $\Phi\propto10^{k(z-6)}$, $k=-0.72$, and a further steeper rate of decline, $k=-0.92$; we use better models of the contaminating populations (MLT dwarfs and compact early-type galaxies); and we use an improved Bayesian selection method, compared to the colour cuts used for the Red Book calculation, allowing the identification of fainter quasars, down to $J_{AB}\sim23$. Quasars at $z>8$ may be selected from Euclid $OYJH$ photometry alone, but selection over the redshift interval $7<z<8$ is greatly improved by the addition of $z$-band data from, e.g., Pan-STARRS and LSST. We calculate predicted quasar yields for the assumed values of the rate of decline of the QLF beyond $z=6$. For the case that the decline of the QLF accelerates beyond $z=6$, with $k=-0.92$, Euclid should nevertheless find over 100 quasars with $7.0<z<7.5$, and $\sim25$ quasars beyond the current record of $z=7.5$, including $\sim8$ beyond $z=8.0$. The first Euclid quasars at $z>7.5$ should be found in the DR1 data release, expected in 2024. It will be possible to determine the bright-end slope of the QLF, $7<z<8$, $M_{1450}<-25$, using 8m class telescopes to confirm candidates, but follow-up with JWST or E-ELT will be required to measure the faint-end slope. Contamination of the candidate lists is predicted to be modest even at $J_{AB}\sim23$. The precision with which $k$ can be determined over $7<z<8$ depends on the value of $k$, but assuming $k=-0.72$ it can be measured to a 1 sigma uncertainty of 0.07.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04310 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contamination becomes more of a problem at low S/N, which was dealt with in the Laureijs et al. (2011) analysis by selecting only bright point sources (JAB < 22). Furthermore, it was argued that early-type galaxies at these brighter magni￾tudes might be identified and eliminated on the basis of their morphologies (we examine this assumption in more detail be￾low). Assuming the z = 6 QLF of Willott et al. (2010), wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cylindrical projection of the area from which we draw simulated quasars, in ecliptic coordinates, consistent with the ERS coverage defined in Scaramella et al. (in prep.). Euclid/Pan￾STARRS sources are drawn from the red area with δ > 30◦ , and Euclid/LSST sources from the blue area with δ < 30◦ . The sam￾ple with no ground-based counterpart is drawn from the com￾bined area. The aim of this paper is to accurately mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Population surface densities as a function of J-band mag￾nitude. Blue: Early-type galaxies, integrated over the redshift range z = 1 – 2. Red: MLTs, summed over spectral type. Black: Quasars, integrated over over the redshift range z = 7 – 9. scribed in Sect. 3.1. We present the models for quasars in Sect. 3.2.1, for MLTs in Sect. 3.2.2, and for early-type galaxies in Sect. 3.2.3. 3.2.1. Quasars The parameters θ for… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MLT number densities at the Galactic central plane. M0 – M6 (yellow) are determined from the Bochanski et al. (2010) lu￾minosity function. M7 – M9 (orange) are extrapolated from L0, satisfying the Cruz et al. (2007) measurement. We measure L0 – T8 (red) number densitie…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of sizes of quiescent COSMOS galaxies as a function of M∗, based on the relation and scatter measured by van der Wel et al. (2014). distances, and so may become a comparable source of contami￾nation at faint Euclid magnitudes. However, in Sect. 4.3 we find…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of flux contained in a 100 diameter aper￾ture, against 100 J-band magnitude, measured for the COSMOS sample. The flux fractions are determined by integrating de Vau￾couleurs profiles. sified as point sources. For the purposes of this paper, we take a conse…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quasar selection functions determined using the BMC method for Euclid Y JH data with a) Euclid optical data, b) ground￾based optical data. A quasar is defined as selected if Pq > 0.1. Contours of apparent magnitude are indicated by the labelled green lines. (a) Predict…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted numbers of 7 < z < 9 quasars as a function of redshift (left) and J magnitude (right), determined by integrating the QLF over the selection functions presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quasar selection functions determined using BMC (filled contours; same as Fig. 8b) and χ 2 model fitting (dashes), assuming z-band data are available. Contour intervals are the same in both cases. implies the majority of z = 7 – 9 quasars detected in Euclid will be br…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: M1450 / z plane with all z > 6.5 quasars with published redshifts and luminosities at 1450 Å (red crosses), and a sim￾ulated Euclid wide survey quasar sample (black points), with random luminosities and redshifts drawn from the ground-based selection function (Fig. 8b…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Model COSMOS colour tracks and COSMOS sources. The COSMOS filters are different to Euclid and LSST/Pan￾STARRS, resulting in slight differences in the tracks presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quasar selection functions using ground-based data and using BMC, assuming a single contaminating population. Filled contours indicate the case where only galaxies are considered as contaminants, i.e., Ws = 0. Dashed lines indicate the case where only MLTs are conside…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Decarli, R., et al

    Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 11 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473

    2016

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 601, A16

    Barnett, R., Warren, S., Becker, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A16

    2017

  3. [3]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Madau, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3402

    2015

  4. [4]

    C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289

    2006

  5. [5]

    J., Hawley, S

    Bochanski, J. J., Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2679

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    S., Haehnelt, M

    Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., Warren, S. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, L70

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34

    2003

  8. [8]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Burgasser, A. J. 2014, ArXiv e-prints: 1406.4887

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cantalupo, S., Porciani, C., & Lilly, S. J. 2008, ApJ, 672, 48

    2008

  3. [11]

    L., Wang, R., Fan, X., et al

    Carilli, C. L., Wang, R., Fan, X., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 834

    2010

  4. [12]

    & Haiman, Z

    Cen, R. & Haiman, Z. 2000, ApJ, 542, L75

    2000

  5. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints: 1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J., Bluck, A

    Conselice, C. J., Bluck, A. F. L., Ravindranath, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2770 Article number, page 17 of 19 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Euclidz7QSOs_arxiv

    2011

  8. [16]

    L., Reid, I

    Cruz, K. L., Reid, I. N., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 439

    2007

  9. [17]

    B., Furlanetto, S

    Davies, F. B., Furlanetto, S. R., & McQuinn, M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3006

    2016

  10. [18]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., Bañados, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 142

    2018

  11. [19]

    M., Shiralilou, B., et al

    Dayal, P., Rossi, E. M., Shiralilou, B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2336

    2019

  12. [20]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, Nature, 545, 457

    2017

  13. [21]

    Dupuy, T. J. & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19

    2012

  14. [22]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 24

    2017

  15. [23]

    F., & Davies, F

    Eilers, A.-C., Hennawi, J. F., & Davies, F. B. 2018, ApJ, 867, 30

    2018

  16. [24]

    2006, AJ, 132, 117

    Fan, X., Strauss, M., Becker, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117

    2006

  17. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 870, L11

    Fan, X., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L11

    2019

  18. [26]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 141

    Ferguson, D., Gardner, S., & Yanny, B. 2017, ApJ, 843, 141

    2017

  19. [27]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410

    Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410

    2014

  20. [28]

    2017, A&A, 598, A20

    Galametz, A., Saglia, R., Paltani, S., Apostolakos, N., & Dubath, P. 2017, A&A, 598, A20

    2017

  21. [29]

    2015, A&A, 578, A83

    Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., Fiore, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A83

    2015

  22. [30]

    & Reid, N

    Gilmore, G. & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025

    1983

  23. [31]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 113

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Bertelli, G., & Nasi, E. 1996, A&AS, 117, 113

    1996

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 5094

    Greig, B., Mesinger, A., & Bañados, E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5094

    2019

  25. [33]

    Gunn, J. E. & Peterson, B. A. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633

    1965

  26. [34]

    C., Warren, S

    Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., Leggett, S. K., & Hodgkin, S. T. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 454

    2006

  27. [35]

    W., Bridge, J

    Holwerda, B. W., Bridge, J. S., Ryan, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A132

    2018

  28. [36]

    Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., & Ostriker, J. P. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3738 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints: 0805.2366

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2008, AJ, 135, 1057

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Annis, J., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1057

    2008

  30. [38]

    D., Fan, X., et al

    Jiang, L., McGreer, I. D., Fan, X., et al. 2016, AJ, 833, 222

    2016

  31. [39]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 41617

    Koptelova, E., Hwang, C., Yu, P., Chen, W., & Guo, J. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 41617

    2017

  32. [40]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15

    2015

  33. [41]

    2008, Synphot Data User’s Guide, (Balti- more, STScI)

    Laidler, V ., Boffi, F., Barlow, T., et al. 2008, Synphot Data User’s Guide, (Balti- more, STScI)

    2008

  34. [42]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24

    2016

  35. [43]

    2011, ArXiv e-prints: 1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, ArXiv e-prints: 1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

    2007

  37. [45]

    2016, in Proc

    Maciaszek, T., Ealet, A., Jahnke, K., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, 99040T

    2016

  38. [46]

    C., Péroux, C., Nestor, D

    Maddox, N., Hewett, P. C., Péroux, C., Nestor, D. B., & Wisotzki, L. 2012, MN- RAS, 424, 2876

    2012

  39. [47]

    C., Warren, S

    Maddox, N., Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., & Croom, S. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1605

    2008

  40. [48]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1160

    Manti, S., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., Greig, B., & Feruglio, C. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1160

    2017

  41. [49]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 26

    2016

  42. [50]

    2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    Matsuoka, Y ., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, L2

    2019

  43. [51]

    P., et al

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91

    2017

  44. [52]

    D., Jiang, L., Fan, X., et al

    McGreer, I. D., Jiang, L., Fan, X., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 105

    2013

  45. [53]

    A., Menanteau, F., et al

    Morganson, E., Gruendl, R. A., Menanteau, F., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 074501

    2018

  46. [54]

    J., Patel, M., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Patel, M., Warren, S. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 390

    2012

  47. [55]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

    2011

  48. [56]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 368

    Ohsuga, K., Mori, M., Nakamoto, T., & Mineshige, S. 2005, ApJ, 628, 368

    2005

  49. [57]

    & Loeb, A

    Pacucci, F. & Loeb, A. 2019, ApJ, 870, L12

    2019

  50. [58]

    S., & McLure, R

    Parsa, S., Dunlop, J. S., & McLure, R. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2904

    2018

  51. [59]

    2018, A&A, 617, A127 Planck Collaboration

    Pipien, S., Cuby, J.-G., Basa, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A127 Planck Collaboration. 2018, arXiv e-prints: 1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    G., Simcoe, R

    Pons, E., McMahon, R. G., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5142

    2019

  53. [61]

    L., Banerji, M., Becker, G

    Reed, S. L., Banerji, M., Becker, G. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1874

    2019

  54. [62]

    L., McMahon, R

    Reed, S. L., McMahon, R. G., Martini, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4702

    2017

  55. [63]

    C., Aubourg, É., et al

    Rhodes, J., Nichol, R. C., Aubourg, É., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 21

    2017

  56. [64]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1764

    Roche, N., Franzetti, P., Garilli, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1764

    2012

  57. [65]

    P., Richards, G

    Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2360

    2010

  58. [66]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 35

    Shen, Y ., Wu, J., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 35

    2019

  59. [67]

    & Skilling, J

    Sivia, D. & Skilling, J. 2006, Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial, Oxford science publications (Oxford University Press)

    2006

  60. [68]

    J., & Faherty, J

    Skrzypek, N., Warren, S. J., & Faherty, J. K. 2016, A&AS, 589, A49

    2016

  61. [69]

    J., Faherty, J

    Skrzypek, N., Warren, S. J., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2015, A&AS, 574, A78

    2015

  62. [70]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4568

    Tang, J., Goto, T., Ohyama, Y ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4568

    2017

  63. [71]

    M., Rudnick, G., et al

    Trujillo, I., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Rudnick, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 18 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28

    2006

  64. [72]

    P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L11

    2015

  65. [73]

    P., Findlay, J

    Venemans, B. P., Findlay, J. R., Sutherland, W. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 24 V olonteri, M. 2010, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 18, 279

    2013

  66. [74]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 27

    Wang, F., Fan, X., Yang, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 27

    2017

  67. [75]

    2018a, ArXiv e-prints: 1810.11926

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2018a, ArXiv e-prints: 1810.11926

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    A., Morgan, D

    West, A. A., Morgan, D. P., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 97

    2011

  69. [77]

    J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 906

    2010

  70. [78]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  71. [79]

    2015, Proc

    Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Proc. IAU, 11, 80

    2015

  72. [80]

    Wyithe, J. S. B. & Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 577, 57

    2002

  73. [81]

    2019, AJ, 157, 236

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 236

    2019

  74. [82]

    H., Galvez-Ortiz, M

    Zhang, Z. H., Galvez-Ortiz, M. C., Pinfield, D. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5447

    2018

  75. [83]

    2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Zoubian, J., Kümmel, M., Kermiche, S., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay, 509 1 Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, Lo...

    2014

  76. [84]

    Marconi, I-00185 Roma, Italy 75 Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tec- nológicas (CIEMAT), Avenida Complutense 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain 76 Phys

    Gif-sur-Yvette, France 64 INAF-IASF Bologna, Via Piero Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy 65 Observatoire de Sauverny, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lau- sanne, CH-1290 Versoix, Switzerland 66 INFN-Bologna, Via Irnerio 46, I-40126 Bologna, Italy 67 Kapteyn Astronomical Inst...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.