Metal Abundances and Star-Formation Rates of Emission-Line Galaxies in and around the Bootes Void

Alec Hirschauer; Gary Wegner; Joanna Taylor; John Salzer

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Metal Abundances and Star-Formation Rates of Emission-Line Galaxies in and around the Bootes Void

T0 review · 3 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 Galaxy environment does not set metallicity or star formation in void galaxies

desk verdict Careful complete-sample confirmation of the void null result above ~10^9 Msun; the global artifact argument has a circular corner, while the direct void comparison is the stronger and more useful part. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07539 v1 pith:YP5N5EFW submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.GA

Gary Wegner , John Salzer , Joanna Taylor , Alec Hirschauer This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords emission-linegalaxiesgalaxyenvironmentsmetallicitystarformationvoidsBootesVoidKISSsurveylocaldensity

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 tests whether a galaxy's chemical makeup and star-formation rate depend on how crowded its cosmic neighborhood is, using 820 hydrogen-$\alpha$-selected star-forming galaxies from the KISS survey that cross the Bootes Void. It finds that galaxies living in the void, where the local galaxy density is on average 16.5 times lower than in surrounding high-density regions, have essentially the same oxygen abundances and star-formation rates as matched galaxies in dense regions. Across the full sample, metallicity and star-formation rate do decline modestly at low density, but the paper argues these trends are not environmental: both disappear once the lower stellar masses of low-density galaxies are accounted for through the mass-metallicity relation and the mass-normalized specific star-formation rate. If correct, the result says local environment plays little role in setting the metal content or star-formation activity of galaxies above roughly $10^9$ to $10^{9.5}$ solar masses.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a complete, line-flux-limited sample plus an environment metric and an explanatory relation. The sample is the 820 KR2 star-forming galaxies from the KISS survey, each with an O3N2-based oxygen abundance and a Kennicutt (1998) H-alpha star-formation rate. Local density is measured with an N=15 nearest-neighbor algorithm applied to an independent SDSS DR7 plus UZC comparison catalog of 14,577 galaxies, corrected for magnitude-limit incompleteness with the Postman & Geller (1984) luminosity-function normalization using Blanton et al. (2003) parameters. The load-bearing explanatory device is the mass-metallicity relation: it converts the observed density trend in stellar mass into a predicted abundance trend, and the close agreement of that prediction with the observed abundance trend is what turns apparent environmental effects into artifacts.

What would settle it

Measure the residual of each galaxy from the mass-metallicity relation and plot that residual against local density using the same KISS sample: if the residual correlates with density by more than the reported $\sim 0.07$ dex scatter, the claim that abundance trends are fully explained by mass fails. A targeted H-$\alpha$ survey of void dwarfs below $10^9\,M_\odot$ that found systematically lower metallicities or higher specific star-formation rates than mass-matched field dwarfs would also rule out the paper's conclusion for the lowest-mass systems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that local galaxy density does not drive chemical enrichment or star formation in star-forming galaxies. The paper shows this in two ways. Globally, among 810 star-forming galaxies, the median stellar mass, oxygen abundance, and SFR all fall weakly with decreasing density, but the abundance drop (about $-0.166$ dex over 2.5 dex in density) matches almost exactly the $-0.171$ dex predicted from the observed 0.38 dex mass drop and the mass-metallicity relation of Hirschauer et al. (2018), and the SFR trend vanishes when plotted as specific SFR. Within the Bootes Void itself, 33 star-forming galaxies have the same mean and median metallicity, stellar mass, luminosity, color, and SFR as a comparison sample of 58 galaxies in regions 16.5 times denser; K-S tests cannot reject a common parent population. The paper concludes that the weak global trends are artifacts of the tendency of low-density regions to contain lower-mass galaxies, and that the chemical evolution and star formation of these systems are governed by internal processes rather than environment.

Load-bearing premise

The density assignments, and with them the void sample and the reported 16.5x density contrast, assume that the SDSS DR7 plus UZC comparison catalog, after the luminosity-function correction, faithfully traces the true galaxy density field on megaparsec scales.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Galaxy metallicity is set by galaxy mass, not by the density of the surrounding large-scale structure, at least for masses above roughly $10^9$ to $10^{9.5}$ solar masses.
The lower star-formation rates seen in low-density environments are simply the lower rates of lower-mass galaxies; specific star-formation rate is flat with density.
Void galaxies and high-density galaxies of the same mass have statistically indistinguishable star-formation histories, so present-day environment cannot be the main driver of their assembly.
Comparisons that report higher star formation in voids must be mass-matched or they will misread the mass-density trend as an environmental effect.
Any environmental dependence of metallicity or star formation, if it exists, must be confined to dwarf galaxies below the sample's completeness limit.

Reading between the lines

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

Extending the same mass-residual analysis to deeper, lower-mass samples would test whether the mass-metallicity relation itself is environment-independent at the dwarf end; a change in the mass-metallicity residual with density would localize where environment starts to matter.
The paper's argument implies that most of a galaxy's stellar mass was assembled before the modern void-wall density contrast developed; stellar-population age gradients across voids would provide an independent check.
Because the density metric averages over hundreds of kiloparsecs to a few megaparsecs, close-pair interactions on tens of kiloparsec scales could still leave an environmental imprint on star formation that this analysis is not designed to see.
If future, algorithmically defined void catalogs reproduce the 16.5x density contrast with the same null result, the case for environment-independent enrichment becomes hard to avoid.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a solid, workmanlike confirmation that for star-forming galaxies above roughly 10^9 solar masses in and around the Bootes Void, metallicity and SFR do not depend on local density once stellar mass is accounted for. The real virtue is completeness: all 820 KR2 star-forming galaxies have self-consistent O3N2 metallicities and H-alpha SFRs, so the 33 void versus 58 high-density comparison is apples-to-apples, with the same selection function, photometry, and spectroscopy for both arms. That is genuinely useful, even though the conclusion matches what Kreckel, Douglas, Moorman, and others have already reported.

The weak spot is the Section 4.3 'fully explained' argument. The predicted metallicity drop of -0.171 dex comes from the Hirschauer et al. (2018) M-Z slope, and that same relation was used to assign metallicities to 70 of the 810 galaxies in the plot. The agreement with the observed -0.166 dex is therefore at least partly tautological. This is not fatal, but the paper should rerun the binned trend with those 70 objects excluded, or at least say how much the result changes. The paper also never states how many of the 33 void galaxies and 58 high-density galaxies received their metallicities from the M-Z relation rather than from emission lines. If a sizable fraction of the void sample did, the similarity between the two samples could be partly baked in, since the two samples have nearly equal mean stellar masses. The authors need to report those numbers.

Two minor notes. The void boundary is set by eye, which makes the N=33 sample not algorithmically reproducible; the authors say the exact boundary is not crucial, and the mean density contrast is indeed large, but a reproducibility-minded reader will want a defined criterion. And the K-S test on SFR returns only a 39.5% chance of same parent distribution, which is not evidence of a real difference but is the weakest of the five tests; the text waves it away as small-scale sampling a bit quickly.

Credit where due: the paper is explicit that it cannot constrain true dwarfs below ~10^9 Msun, and it flags the Pustilnik/Kniazev low-metallicity dwarf claims as tantalizing. That is honest framing.

Who is this for? Anyone working on void galaxies, environmental quenching, or the local M-Z relation. It is a confirmation paper, not a discovery. It deserves a serious referee: the complete-sample design and matched control samples are worth having, and the circularity issue is fixable in revision. I would bring it up in reading group as an example of how sample construction can quietly couple the calibration and the result.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 820 star-forming galaxies from the second H-alpha-selected KISS catalog (KR2) to test whether gas-phase metallicity and star-formation rate depend on local environment. Densities are derived from an independent SDSS DR7 + UZC redshift catalog using an N=15 nearest-neighbor estimator with a Postman-Geller luminosity-function correction. In the global analysis (Section 4), binned median stellar mass, metallicity, and SFR decline weakly toward low density, but sSFR shows no trend; the authors argue the metallicity and SFR trends are artifacts of the mass-density trend, using the Hirschauer et al. (2018) M-Z slope to predict the metallicity change. In the void analysis (Section 5), 33 KR2 star-forming galaxies selected inside an adopted Bootes Void boundary are compared with 58 KR2 galaxies at higher density and matched redshift; no significant differences are found in metallicity or SFR, despite a factor of 16.5 difference in mean density. The paper concludes that environment does not drive chemical enrichment or star formation for galaxies above roughly 10^9 to 10^9.5 solar masses.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful constraint: for H-alpha-selected star-forming galaxies above roughly 10^9 solar masses, local density does not measurably affect metallicity or SFR, consistent with a picture in which internal processes dominate. The study's strengths include the uniform KISS selection, complete follow-up spectroscopy for all KR2 candidates, self-consistent abundance and SFR estimators, a comparison sample drawn from the same survey, and an explicit statement of the mass range over which the constraint applies. The central 'artifact' argument, however, is currently weakened by a partly circular use of the M-Z relation, and the void boundary is defined by eye; both issues are fixable with targeted robustness checks.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.3, Figure 10] The artifact argument is partly circular. Section 2.2 states that 70 of the 810 KR2 star-forming galaxies have abundances assigned from the Hirschauer et al. (2018) M-Z relation because their spectra lack the necessary emission lines. Section 4.3 then takes the slope of that same relation (0.451) and multiplies by the observed 0.38 dex mass drop to predict a -0.171 dex metallicity drop, which is compared with the observed -0.166 +/- 0.069 dex. Because a subset of the data in Figure 10 was generated directly from this relation, and because the relation was calibrated on the same KISS sample and abundance scale, the agreement is at least partly tautological. The manuscript does not state how many of the 33 void galaxies or 58 high-density comparison galaxies have M-Z-estimated abundances. I request a robustness analysis that removes the 70 M-Z-assigned objects from the global trends and from the void/high-density comparison, or uses an external M-Z calibration, with the resulting slopes and K-S probabilities reported.
[Section 5.1] The void sample is not defined reproducibly. The text says the center, velocity, and radius of the red circle were adjusted by eye to maximize inclusion of low-density objects while excluding intermediate-density sources, and then six galaxies outside the circle were added based on a density threshold. Although Table 1 lists the resulting 33 objects, the construction depends on subjective choices. Please replace this with an algorithmic boundary (for example, a fixed density threshold with a stated center and radius) and show that the conclusions are stable to plausible variations in the boundary parameters (e.g., radius 2800-3600 km/s, density threshold log(rho) from -1.8 to -2.0).
[Section 3, Figure 5] The density estimates rely on the SDSS DR7 + UZC comparison catalog being complete enough for N=15 nearest-neighbor counts after a Postman-Geller correction with Blanton et al. (2003) luminosity function parameters. Because the paper notes that KISS reaches 1-2 mag deeper than the SDSS redshift survey, faint galaxies absent from the comparison catalog could bias derived densities at the void distance. The constancy of the corrected mean density outside the void is reassuring, but a more direct test, such as recomputing densities with a volume-limited subsample or with alternative luminosity function parameters, would make the density assignments, and hence the reported 16.5x density contrast, more robust.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The last sentence contains an apparent wording error: 'the observed drop in stellar mass with decreasing metallicity' should read 'with decreasing density', since the argument concerns the mass-density trend.
[Section 2.2] The claim that all 820 star-forming galaxies possess metallicity and SFR estimates should be qualified, because 70 galaxies have M-Z-based rather than O3N2-based abundances; consider saying 'metallicity estimates (O3N2 or M-Z based)' in the abstract and Section 7.
[Section 5.2] The K-S test for log(SFR) returns a 39.5% probability, which means the test fails to reject the null hypothesis; with N=33 and N=58 the test has limited power, so the text should not present this as positive evidence of identical parent populations. Reporting a confidence interval for the mean/median SFR offset or a bootstrap test would be more informative.
[Table 2, Section 5.2] The error in the mean is computed as sigma/sqrt(N) for all properties; for skewed distributions such as log(SFR) this may be misleading. Consider also reporting bootstrapped confidence intervals or median-based statistics.
[Figure 10 and Section 4.3] The figure caption quotes a 0.20 dex drop in median abundance over the plotted density range, while the text and Section 4.3 use the fitted value -0.166 +/- 0.069 dex for comparison with the M-Z prediction; please make explicit which quantity is being compared.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Global metallicity-density 'prediction' is partly circular: 70/810 metallicities come from the same Hirschauer et al. M-Z relation used to predict the trend, and that relation was fit to the same KISS sample.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (sample properties); Section 4.3 (global discussion)]
"For 70 KR2 galaxies the existing follow-up spectra do not contain the necessary emission lines to allow us to compute an O3N2 abundance. For these galaxies the abundances are estimated using the mass-metallicity (M-Z) relation presented in the Hirschauer et al. (2018) study."

These 70 objects' metallicities are, by construction, a linear function of their stellar mass with the 0.451 slope of the Hirschauer et al. relation. When Section 4.3 multiplies the observed 0.38 dex mass drop by that same slope to 'predict' a 0.171 dex metallicity drop, the 70 M-Z-assigned objects automatically contribute a metallicity-density trend that tracks their mass-density trend. The observed drop of 0.166 dex used for comparison is computed from the full sample that includes these 70 objects, so the agreement is not an independent confirmation; at least part of the predicted trend is an input rather than a measurement.
self citation load bearing [Section 4.3]
"The recent study by Hirschauer et al. (2018) derived a linear M-Z relation with a slope of 0.451 per dex in terms of the logarithm of the stellar mass, using precisely the same metallicities employed in the current study. Using the Hirschauer et al. (2018) M-Z relation slope we infer that a systematic drop in the stellar mass by this amount would translate into a corresponding drop in the observed O/H abundance of -0.171 dex."

The load-bearing calibration is a prior paper by overlapping authors (Hirschauer and Salzer are co-authors here) that was fit to the same KISS galaxies and the same O3N2 metallicities used in the present analysis. It is therefore not an external, parameter-free test: the slope that generates the predicted metallicity drop was derived from the very data being 'explained.' The near-equality of -0.171 and -0.166 demonstrates consistency with a same-sample fit rather than a first-principles environmental prediction.

full rationale

The direct void-versus-high-density comparison in Section 5 is largely self-contained: local densities come from an independent SDSS+UZC catalog, the void and comparison samples are drawn from the same KISS selection function, and the K-S tests compare measured property distributions. That portion of the paper does not reduce to the M-Z relation and provides independent support for the primary claim of no strong environmental dependence. However, the global artifact argument in Section 4.3 is partly circular. Seventy of the 810 star-forming galaxies have metallicities assigned from the Hirschauer et al. (2018) M-Z relation, and the same relation's slope is then used to predict the metallicity-density trend, with the quoted agreement of -0.171 dex versus -0.166 +/- 0.069 dex. Moreover, the relation was fit using precisely the same KISS metallicities employed here, so it is not an independent calibration. The paper does not state how many of the 33 void or 58 high-density galaxies received M-Z-inferred abundances, so the independence of the Section 5 comparison is incompletely documented; this is a limitation rather than a demonstrated circular step. Overall, the central observational comparison retains independent content, but the 'fully explained by mass' prediction is partially tautological, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard calibrations (O3N2, Kennicutt SFR, SDSS LF) and on the M-Z relation from the authors' own prior work. The M-Z relation is the most consequential input because it both fills in missing abundances and generates the predicted trend. Analysis choices (N=15, void boundary) are free parameters set by hand.

free parameters (4)

Mass-metallicity relation slope (Hirschauer et al. 2018) = 0.451 per dex
Used in Section 4.3 to predict a metallicity drop of -0.171 dex from the observed 0.38 dex mass drop, and in Section 2.2 to assign metallicities to 70 KR2 galaxies missing line measurements.
SDSS luminosity function parameters (Blanton et al. 2003) = M*_g = -20.1, alpha = -0.89
Used in Section 3 for the Postman & Geller (1984) density correction to account for magnitude-limited incompleteness of the comparison catalog.
Nearest-neighbor count N = 15
Chosen in Section 3 after experimenting with N=5 to 20 to balance sampling and edge effects.
Bootes Void boundary (center and radius) = RA 14h50m, v=15000 km/s, radius=3200 km/s
Set by eye in Section 5.1 to maximize low-density galaxies inside and exclude higher-density ones; six galaxies outside the circle were also added.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Standard flat LambdaCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
Adopted in the Introduction for distances and volumes; distances derived from redshifts assume this cosmology.
domain assumption The mass-metallicity relation derived by Hirschauer et al. (2018) applies to all KISS galaxies and can be used both to estimate missing metallicities and to predict density trends.
Invoked in Sections 2.2 and 4.3; the relation is derived from the same sample and calibration, so this assumption is not an independent external check.
domain assumption The SDSS DR7 + UZC comparison catalog, corrected with the luminosity-function normalization, traces the true galaxy density field on the scales probed.
Used in Section 3 for all density estimates; if the catalog is incomplete in the void or the correction is wrong, density assignments and void membership change.
domain assumption H-alpha luminosities measured from objective-prism spectra are reliable total fluxes for SFR computation.
Stated in Section 2.2; the Kennicutt (1998) relation converts these to SFR.
domain assumption The N=15 nearest-neighbor density estimator captures the local environment relevant to galaxy evolution.
Defined in Section 3; the choice of N affects the density scale, and the paper acknowledges it measures megaparsec-scale environment rather than kiloparsec-scale interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metal Abundances and Star-Formation Rates of Emission-Line Galaxies in and around the Bootes Void." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YP5N5EFW

@misc{pith2026190807539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metal Abundances and Star-Formation Rates of Emission-Line Galaxies in and around the Bootes Void},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YP5N5EFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07539}
}

read the original abstract

We explore the possible dependencies of galaxy metal abundance and star-formation rate (SFR) on local environment, focusing on the volume of space in and around the Bootes Void. Our sample of star-forming galaxies comes from the second catalog of the H-alpha-selected KPNO International Spectroscopic Survey (KISS) which overlaps the void. This sample represents a statistically complete, line-flux-limited ensemble of 820 star-forming galaxies, all of which possess metallicity and SFR estimates. We carry out two distinct analyses of the KISS galaxies: one which probes the properties of the entire sample as a function of local density, and a second which details the properties of 33 KISS star-forming galaxies located within the Bootes Void. In both cases we find no evidence that either the metallicity of the KISS galaxies or their SFRs depend on the environments within which the galaxies are located. Our global analysis does show weak trends for decreasing stellar mass, decreasing metallicity, and decreasing SFRs with decreasing local densities. However, we argue that the metallicity and SFR trends are artifacts of the stellar mass - local density trend. In particular, the change in metallicity with density is precisely what one would predict from the mass-metallicity relation given the observed drop in stellar mass with decreasing metallicity. Likewise, the SFR trend with density disappears when one instead considers the mass-normalized specific SFR. The KISS galaxies dwelling in the Bootes Void are found to have nearly identical metallicity and SFR properties to a matched comparison sample, despite the fact that the former are located in density environments that are, on average, more than 16 times lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07539 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Spectroscopic diagnostic plot for the full sample of KR2 emission-line galaxies. Star-forming galaxies (SFGs) are plotted as dots, while Seyfert 2 galaxies and LINERs are plotted as triangles and squares, respectively. The solid line that coincides with the SFGs represents a locus of model H II regions from Dopita & Evans (1986), while the dashed line is an empirical curve separating SFGs from AGN (Kauffmann et al. … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Histograms exhibiting the basic characteristics of the KR2 sample. Panels (a) - (d) include all 903 KR2 galaxies that are Hα-detected, while panels (e) - (f) plot only the star-forming ELGs (N=820). (a) Apparent B magnitudes for the KR2 galaxies; median B = 18.02. (b) Measured redshifts; median z = 0.0615. The survey has a hard upper redshift limit of 0.095. (c) Absolute B-band magnitudes; median MB = −19.05. (d)… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Sky map showing the region considered in this study. The red rectangle denotes the area covered by the KR2 survey (RA range 11h 55m to 16h 15m (178.5◦ – 244.4◦ ), Dec range 42.55◦ – 44.35◦ ). The comparison sample of galaxies with redshifts in the UZC and SDSS catalogs covers the RA range of 11h 44m to 16h 28m (176.0◦ – 247.0◦ ) and 40.0◦ to 47.0◦ in Dec. Each small black dot represents a galaxy in the comparison ca… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cone diagram for the extended region considered in this study. This covers the full volume of the comparison sample (7◦ in declination) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Uncorrected (a) and corrected (b) volume densities for the KR2 galaxies. The red points in both plots represent the mean value for log(density) in evenly spaced (45 Mpc separation) distance bins. The drop on the mean density at the distances covered by the Bo¨otes V…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) Histograms showing the distributions of densities computed for the KR2 galaxies (red; N=893) and for the comparison SDSS+UZC sample galaxies located within the celestial footprint of the KR2 survey volume (black, N=3548). The KR2 histogram has been scaled up by a f…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cone diagrams of the comparison and KISS galaxies located within the KR2 survey region (1.8◦ in declination), where the color of each point indicates the local galaxy density. The upper plot shows the galaxies in the comparison SDSS+UZC sample that lie within the bound…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Stellar mass (M∗) plotted versus local density (# Mpc−3 ) for the KISS galaxies. The total number of galaxies plotted is N=893. Of these, 83 are AGN (Seyfert 1’s (N=9), Seyfert 2’s (N=23) and LINERs (N=51)); the AGN are plotted as green dots. The remaining 810 objects…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Oxygen abundance plotted versus local density (# Mpc−3 ) for the KISS star-forming galaxies. The total number of galaxies plotted is N=810. These are the same objects as the black dots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Hα-derived specific star-formation rate (sSFR) plotted versus local density (# Mpc−3 ) for the KISS starforming galaxies. The total number of galaxies plotted is N=810. The larger red and green dots represent the median sSFRs in binned ranges of density. The green d…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Histograms presenting the properties of the KISSR galaxies located within the Bo¨otes Void (N=33; red histograms), as well as the same properties measured for a comparison sample of KISSR galaxies located in high density regions (N=58; black histograms). The high dens…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

߿? . On ǏϷỷÝE׏B ? Po _ Џ? _ H. wO S崔V4s;, i<S'

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2019
[2]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag \"u eros, M. A., et al.\ 2009, , 182, 543

2009
[3]

Alpaslan, M., Robotham, A. S. G., Obreschkow, D., et al.\ 2014, , 440, L106

2014
[4]

Alpaslan, M., Driver, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 3249

2015
[5]

A., & Szalay, A

Aragon-Calvo, M. A., & Szalay, A. S.\ 2013, , 428, 3409

2013
[6]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R.\ 1981, , 93, 5

1981
[7]

R., Hogg, D

Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al.\ 2003, , 592, 819

2003
[8]

Cai, Y.-C., Padilla, N., & Li, B.\ 2015, , 451, 1036

2015

Show all 102 references

[9]

Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., et al.\ 2014, , 441, 2923

2014
[10]

N., Pustilnik, S

Chengalur, J. N., Pustilnik, S. A., Makarov, D. I., et al.\ 2015, , 448, 1634

2015
[11]

Clampitt, J., Cai, Y.-C., & Li, B.\ 2013, , 431, 749

2013
[12]

L., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 1213

Collobert, M., Sarzi, M., Davies, R. L., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 1213

2006
[13]

M., Wegner, G

Corsini, E. M., Wegner, G. A., Thomas, J., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 974

2017
[14]

Cruzen, S., Wehr, T., Weistrop, D., et al.\ 2002, , 123, 142

2002
[15]

De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al.\ 2006, , 366, 499

2006
[16]

A., & Huchra, J.\ 1990, , 99, 463

Dey, A., Strauss, M. A., & Huchra, J.\ 1990, , 99, 463

1990
[17]

A., Vogeley, M

Douglas, K. A., Vogeley, M. S., & Cen, R.\ 2018, , 864, 144

2018
[18]

A., & Evans, I

Dopita, M. A., & Evans, I. N. 1986, , 307, 431

1986
[19]

Einasto, J., Suhhonenko, I., H \"u tsi, G., et al.\ 2011, , 534, A128

2011
[20]

E., Kurtz, M

Falco, E. E., Kurtz, M. J., Geller, M. J., et al.\ 1999, , 111, 438

1999
[21]

A., & Geller, M

Grogin, N. A., & Geller, M. J.\ 2000, , 119, 32

2000
[22]

J., et al.\ 2004a, , 128, 644

Gronwall, C., Jangren, A., Salzer, J. J., et al.\ 2004a, , 128, 644
[23]

J., Sarajedini, V

Gronwall, C., Salzer, J. J., Sarajedini, V. L., et al.\ 2004b, , 127, 1943

1943
[24]

S., Salzer, J

Hirschauer, A. S., Salzer, J. J., Bresolin, F., et al.\ 2015, , 150, 71

2015
[25]

S., Salzer, J

Hirschauer, A. S., Salzer, J. J., Janowiecki, S., et al.\ 2018, , 155, 82

2018
[26]

Hoeft, M., Yepes, G., Gottl \"o ber, S., et al.\ 2006, , 371, 401

2006
[27]

W., Blanton, M

Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., Brinchmann, J., et al.\ 2004, , 601, L29

2004
[28]

S., & Pan, D.\ 2012, , 426, 3041

Hoyle, F., Vogeley, M. S., & Pan, D.\ 2012, , 426, 3041

2012
[29]

K., Hopp, U., & Kuhn, B.\ 1997, , 319, 67

Huchtmeier, W. K., Hopp, U., & Kuhn, B.\ 1997, , 319, 67

1997
[30]

J., Sarajedini, V

Jangren, A., Salzer, J. J., Sarajedini, V. L., et al.\ 2005a, , 130, 2571
[31]

J., et al.\ 2005b, , 130, 496

Jangren, A., Wegner, G., Salzer, J. J., et al.\ 2005b, , 130, 496
[32]

M., Tremonti, C., 2003, , 346, 1055

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., 2003, , 346, 1055

2003
[33]

Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, , 35, 267

1998
[34]

P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P

Kirshner, R. P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P. L., et al.\ 1981, , 248, L57

1981
[35]

P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P

Kirshner, R. P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P. L., et al.\ 1983, in IAU Symposium 104, Early Evolution of the Universe and Its Present Structure , 197

1983
[36]

P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P

Kirshner, R. P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P. L., et al.\ 1987, , 314, 493

1987
[37]

Y., Egorova, E

Kniasev, A. Y., Egorova, E. S., & Pustilnik, S. A. \ 2018, , 479, 3842

2018
[38]

R., & Cen, R.\ 2011, , 735, 132

Kreckel, K., Joung, M. R., & Cen, R.\ 2011, , 735, 132

2011
[39]

Kreckel, K., Peebles, P. J. E., van Gorkom, J. H., et al.\ 2011, , 141, 204

2011
[40]

A., et al.\ 2011, , 141, 4

Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Arag \'o n-Calvo, M. A., et al.\ 2011, , 141, 4

2011
[41]

A., et al.\ 2012, , 144, 16

Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Arag \'o n-Calvo, M. A., et al.\ 2012, , 144, 16

2012
[42]

Kreckel, K., Croxall, K., Groves, B., et al.\ 2015, , 798, L15

2015
[43]

Y., Clampitt, J., Cai, Y

Lam, T. Y., Clampitt, J., Cai, Y. C., et al.\ 2015, , 428, 3409

2015
[44]

C., Salzer, J

Lee, J. C., Salzer, J. J., & Melbourne, J.\ 2004, , 616, 752

2004
[45]

F., Serrano, A, et al.\ 1979, , 80, 155

Lequeux, J., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A, et al.\ 1979, , 80, 155

1979
[46]

Li, B., Zho, G.-B., & Koyama, K.\ 2012, , 421, 3481

2012
[47]

I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al.\ 2018, , 473, 1195

Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al.\ 2018, , 473, 1195

2018
[48]

Liebscher, D.-E., Priester, W., & Hoell, J.\ 1992, , 261, 377

1992
[49]

A., Scherrer, R

Mao, Q., Berlind, A. A., Scherrer, R. J., et al.\ 2017, , 835, 161

2017
[50]

W.\ 2012, , 144, 4

McConnachie, A. W.\ 2012, , 144, 4

2012
[51]

J.\ 2002, , 123, 2302

Melbourne, J., & Salzer, J. J.\ 2002, , 123, 2302

2002
[52]

J., et al.\ 2004, , 127, 686

Melbourne, J., Phillips, A., Salzer, J. J., et al.\ 2004, , 127, 686

2004
[53]

M., Vogeley, M

Moorman, C. M., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al.\ 2014, , 444, 3559

2014
[54]

M., Vogeley, M

Moorman, C. M., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al.\ 2015, , 810, 108

2015
[55]

M., Moreno, J., White, A., et al.\ 2016, , 831, 118

Moorman, C. M., Moreno, J., White, A., et al.\ 2016, , 831, 118

2016
[56]

P., & Scott, D.\ 2011, , 83, 103515

Moss, A., Zibin, J. P., & Scott, D.\ 2011, , 83, 103515

2011
[57]

W., Kirshner, R

Moody, J. W., Kirshner, R. P., MacAlpine, G. M., et al.\ 1987, , 314, L33

1987
[58]

G., & Karachentsev, I

Nasonova, O. G., & Karachentsev, I. D.\ 2011, Astrophysics, 54, 1

2011
[59]

C., Dopita, M

Nicholls, D. C., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al.\ 2014, , 786, 155

2014
[60]

C., Jerjen, H., Dopita, M

Nicholls, D. C., Jerjen, H., Dopita, M. A., et al.\ 2014, , 780, 88

2014
[61]

C., Vogeley, M

Pan, D. C., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al.\ 2012, , 421, 926

2012
[62]

P., et al.\ 2015, , 574, A113

Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., et al.\ 2015, , 574, A113

2015
[63]

G., Prada, F., Holtzman, J., et al.\ 2006, , 372, 1710

Patiri, S. G., Prada, F., Holtzman, J., et al.\ 2006, , 372, 1710

2006
[64]

Peebles, P. J. E.\ 2001, , 557, 495

2001
[65]

Peebles, P. J. E., & Nusser, A.\ 2010, , 465, 565

2010
[66]

Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S.\ 1992, , 253, 349

1992
[67]

Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T.\ 2007, , 380, 551

2007
[68]

C., Hopp, U., & Els\"asser, H.\ 1997, , 325, 881

Popescu, C. C., Hopp, U., & Els\"asser, H.\ 1997, , 325, 881

1997
[69]

C., Hopp, U., & Rosa, M

Popescu, C. C., Hopp, U., & Rosa, M. R.\ 1999, , 350, 414

1999
[70]

J.\ 1984, , 281, 95

Postman, M., & Geller, M. J.\ 1984, , 281, 95

1984
[71]

A., & Tepliakova, A

Pustilnik, S. A., & Tepliakova, A. L.\ 2011, , 415, 1188

2011
[72]

A., Martin, J.-M., Lyamina, Y

Pustilnik, S. A., Martin, J.-M., Lyamina, Y. A., et al.\ 2013, , 432, 2224

2013
[73]

A., Perepelitsyna, Y

Pustilnik, S. A., Perepelitsyna, Y. A., & Kniasev, A. Y.\ 2016, , 463, 670

2016
[74]

A., Tepliakova, A

Pustilnik, S. A., Tepliakova, A. L., & Makarov, D. I.\ 2019, , 482, 4329

2019
[75]

Ricciardelli, E., Cava, A., Varela, J., et al.\ 2014, , 445, 4045

2014
[76]

R., Vogeley, M

Rojas, R. R., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al.\ 2005, , 624, 571

2005
[77]

P., et al.\ 2008, , 135, 588

Saintonge, A., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., et al.\ 2008, , 135, 588

2008
[78]

J., Hanson, M

Salzer, J. J., Hanson, M. M., & Gavazzi, G.\ 1990, , 353, 39

1990
[79]

J., Gronwall, C., Lipovetsky, V

Salzer, J. J., Gronwall, C., Lipovetsky, V. A., et al.\ 2000, , 120, 80

2000
[80]

J., Gronwall, C., Lipovetsky, V

Salzer, J. J., Gronwall, C., Lipovetsky, V. A., et al.\ 2001, , 121, 66

2001
[81]

J., Gronwall, C., Sarajedini, V

Salzer, J. J., Gronwall, C., Sarajedini, V. L., et al.\ 2002, , 123, 1292

2002
[82]

J., Jangren, A., Gronwall, C., et al.\ 2005a, , 130, 2584

Salzer, J. J., Jangren, A., Gronwall, C., et al.\ 2005a, , 130, 2584
[83]

J., Lee, J

Salzer, J. J., Lee, J. C., Melbourne, J., et al.\ 2005b, , 624, 661
[84]

J., Williams, A

Salzer, J. J., Williams, A. L., & Gronwall, C.\ 2009, , 695, L67

2009
[85]

Sanduleak, N., & Pesch, P.\ 1982, , 258, L11

1982
[86]

Sanduleak, N., & Pesch, P.\ 1987, , 63, 809

1987
[87]

Schechter, P.\ 1976, , 203, 297

1976
[88]

A., & Huchra, J.\ 1988, , 95, 1602

Strauss, M. A., & Huchra, J.\ 1988, , 95, 1602

1988
[89]

A., Weinberg, D

Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al.\ 2002, , 124, 1810

2002
[90]

H., Gregg, M

Szomoru, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Gregg, M. D., et al.\ 1996, , 111, 2150

1996
[91]

G., Kirshner, R

Tifft, W. G., Kirshner, R. P., Gregory, S. A., et al.\ 1986, , 310, 75

1986
[92]

V., & Klypin, A.\ 2009, , 395, 1915

Tikhonov, A. V., & Klypin, A.\ 2009, , 395, 1915

2009
[93]

L., & Conroy, C.\ 2009, , 691, 633

Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C.\ 2009, , 691, 633

2009
[94]

A., Heckman, T

Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2004, , 613, 898

2004
[95]

Varela, J., Betancort-Rijo, J., Trujillo, I., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 82

2012
[96]

van de Weygaert, R., & Platen, E.\ 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 41

2011
[97]

E.\ 1987, , 63, 295

Veilleux, S., & Osterbrock, D. E.\ 1987, , 63, 295

1987
[98]

J., Jangren, A., et al.\ 2003, , 125, 2373

Wegner, G., Salzer, J. J., Jangren, A., et al.\ 2003, , 125, 2373

2003
[99]

A.\ 2008, , 136, 1

Wegner, G., & Grogin, N. A.\ 2008, , 136, 1

2008
[100]

A.\ 1988, , 331, 172

Weistrop, D., & Downes, R. A.\ 1988, , 331, 172

1988
[101]

C., et al.\ 1992, , 396, L23

Weistrop, D., Hintzen, P., Kennicutt, R. C., et al.\ 1992, , 396, L23

1992
[102]

Weistrop, D., Hintzen, P., Liu, C., et al.\ 1995, , 109, 981

1995

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

߿? . On ǏϷỷÝE׏B ? Po _ Џ? _ H. wO S崔V4s;, i<S'

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2019

[2] [2]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag \"u eros, M. A., et al.\ 2009, , 182, 543

2009

[3] [3]

Alpaslan, M., Robotham, A. S. G., Obreschkow, D., et al.\ 2014, , 440, L106

2014

[4] [4]

Alpaslan, M., Driver, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 3249

2015

[5] [5]

A., & Szalay, A

Aragon-Calvo, M. A., & Szalay, A. S.\ 2013, , 428, 3409

2013

[6] [6]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R.\ 1981, , 93, 5

1981

[7] [7]

R., Hogg, D

Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al.\ 2003, , 592, 819

2003

[8] [8]

Cai, Y.-C., Padilla, N., & Li, B.\ 2015, , 451, 1036

2015