Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 92 references

The VANDELS Survey: Star formation and quenching in two over-densities at 3 < z < 4

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two dense proto-clusters at z~3 already contained massive, fully quenched galaxies, with AGN feedback as the likely shutdown mechanism.

desk verdict A modest, transparent paper: two genuinely quenched galaxies in proto-cluster cores, with environmental claims that outrun the photo-z precision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08155 v2 pith:NELEJHJK submitted 2024-11-12 astro-ph.GA

M. Espinoza Ortiz , L. Guaita , R. Demarco , A. Calabró , L. Pentericci , M. Castellano , M. Celeste Artale , N. P. Hathi
show 6 more authors
Anton M. Koekemoer F. Mannucci P. Hibon D. J. McLeod A. Gargiulo E. Pompei
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyevolutionproto-clustersquenchedgalaxiesstarformationquenchingAGNfeedbackhigh-redshiftUVJdiagramVANDELSsurvey
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 tries to establish that the shutdown of star formation—quenching—was already underway inside the densest cores of two proto-clusters when the universe was only about 1.5 to 2 billion years old. Among 13 overdensities identified at $3

What carries the argument

The selection machinery has two stages. First, the rest-frame UVJ colour-colour diagram ($U-V$ versus $V-J$) with the adopted passive boundary separates quenched from star-forming galaxies, and the specific-star-formation-rate cut sSFR $<0.2/t_{\rm obs}$ is applied to the results of two Bayesian SED-fitting codes, BEAGLE and BAGPIPES, so that dusty starbursts are rejected. Second, overdensity membership and local densities come from the cell-growth density algorithm applied to three-dimensional positions, where most redshifts are photometric with assumed uncertainty $0.02(1+z)$. The TNG300 cosmological simulation—a large-volume galaxy formation model—then supplies the evolutionary reading: among 30 simulated proto-clusters, the 15 that contain massive passive galaxies at $z=3$ predict a median quiescent fraction that rises from about 4% at $z=3$ to more than 40% by $z=1$.

What would settle it

Obtain spectroscopic redshifts for every member of the z355 and z343 overdensities. If the quenched galaxies or a large fraction of their neighbours turn out to be interlopers, or if the neighbour counts around the quenched galaxies drop to the field level when only confirmed members are counted, the central claim fails. A second test: deep X-ray or mid-infrared observations that reveal AGNs in several of the other 11 overdensities would weaken the claimed link between AGN activity and the presence of quenched galaxies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two of the 13 overdensity candidates—here labelled z355 and z343—are genuine proto-clusters at $z \simeq 3.55$ and $z \simeq 3.43$ that already host massive quiescent galaxies. Each quenched member passes three independent checks: the UVJ passive region defined by the adopted literature criterion, an sSFR below $0.2/t_{\rm obs}$ from BEAGLE, and the same sSFR cut from BAGPIPES, so dusty star-forming galaxies are ruled out. Their estimated dark matter halo masses are of order $10^{13}\,M_\odot$, consistent with proto-clusters that will grow into clusters of $3$ to $10\times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ by $z=0$. The same two structures contain eight AGNs (five in z355, three in z343), while the other eleven overdensities contain neither passive galaxies nor AGNs, and neighbour counts around the quenched members are significantly higher than around a passive galaxy in the field. The paper concludes that galaxy interactions, high gas accretion, and AGN feedback in dense environments drove the early quenching.

Load-bearing premise

The environmental result rests on photometric redshifts with an assumed uncertainty of $0.02(1+z)$ for most overdensity members—the paper notes that the z355 groups have redshift ranges of 0.3–0.4 because most galaxies there have photometric redshifts—so interloping galaxies could make the density peaks and the apparent overdensity of the quenched galaxies artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two passive galaxies are real, massive quiescent galaxies existed in proto-cluster cores by $z\sim3$, not only in lower-density field environments.
  • The z355 and z343 structures should be ancestors of today's massive clusters, because their estimated halo masses fall in the proto-cluster range at $z\sim3$.
  • The z355 structure splits into three spatial groups with redshift ranges of 0.3–0.4, implying it is an early, not yet collapsed structure; the spectroscopically confirmed passive galaxy sits at the peak of the central group.
  • TNG300 predicts that proto-clusters already containing passive galaxies at $z=3$ will have a higher fraction of passive members at $z=1$ than proto-clusters without them, by roughly 10 percentage points.
  • The coincidence of AGNs only in the two passive-galaxy structures suggests black hole growth and AGN feedback are implicated in the quenching, although the paper presents this as a scenario rather than a proof.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if spectroscopic follow-up confirms the photometric members, the two quenched galaxies would be natural targets for ALMA or JWST to search for residual cold gas and direct signatures of AGN feedback.
  • Editorial inference: because only 2 of 13 overdensities show passive galaxies, quenching at $z\sim3$ may require a threshold in local density or halo mass; a testable extension is to search for quenched members in even more massive proto-clusters in wider surveys.
  • Editorial inference: the absence of AGNs in the other 11 overdensities could be a sensitivity effect; deeper X-ray or mid-infrared observations would test whether hidden AGNs weaken the claimed link between AGN activity and the presence of quenched galaxies.
  • Editorial inference: the two passive galaxies were already present in earlier literature catalogs, so the new step is not the discovery of the objects themselves but their placement at density peaks with AGN companions; that placement is exactly what the photometric-redshift uncertainty threatens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 13 overdensities at 3 < z < 4 in the CDFS and UDS fields of the VANDELS survey, originally identified by Guaita et al. (2020). The authors derive rest-frame U-V and V-J colors and physical parameters with BEAGLE and BAGPIPES, classify galaxies by UVJ and sSFR, and identify two passive galaxies, one in the z355 structure and one in the z343 structure. They report that these two galaxies are redder, older, more massive, and more compact than other members, that they sit in the highest-density peaks of their overdensities, that both overdensities host AGNs, and that the quenched members have denser local environments than a field passive galaxy. They then use TNG300 to argue that such proto-clusters evolve into structures with higher passive fractions by z = 1, with mass growth and AGN feedback as the likely quenching channel.

Significance. If the environmental associations are secure, the identification of massive quiescent galaxies in proto-cluster cores at z ~ 3, with co-located AGNs, would be a valuable observational constraint on early quenching. The paper has genuine strengths: the passive classification of CDFS004503 and CDFS019883 is corroborated by independent work (Merlin et al. 2019; Straatman et al. 2014) using MIPS/Herschel data precisely to exclude dusty starbursts, and the SED parameters are checked with two independent codes. The z355 passive galaxy has a spectroscopic redshift. The data availability note on Zenodo is also a positive feature. However, the environmental conclusions rest on photometric-redshift memberships whose line-of-sight coherence is not demonstrated, so the central density-peak claim is currently not established. The sample of two passive galaxies also limits the statistical weight of the comparative statements.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 2.2, 5.1; Table 1; Figs. 4-7] The environmental analysis is built on the Guaita et al. (2020) membership lists, and for the z355 structure 74 of 82 members have only photometric redshifts (Table 1). The redshift distribution of each of the three subgroups spans roughly 0.3-0.4 (Sect. 5.1), whereas the assumed photometric-redshift uncertainty used in the density algorithm is 0.02(1+z), i.e., about 0.09 at z = 3.55. This discrepancy implies a line-of-sight depth of roughly 170-230 cMpc, far larger than the transverse size of the structure, so the density peaks and neighbor counts in Figs. 4-6 may be superpositions of unrelated galaxies along the line of sight rather than genuine three-dimensional overdensities. The paper itself notes that the range "may be due to the fact that the majority of the galaxies... has photometric redshifts" (Sect. 5.1). I request a quantitative treatment of this problem, for example by propagating photo-z PDFs into the density field or by repeating the density-peak and neighbor-count analyses using only galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts, and a demonstration that the conclusions survive.
  2. [Sect. 5, Fig. 4] The "denser than the field" claim is supported only by a comparison with a single passive galaxy from the literature located in the z323 field, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is applied to radial neighbor counts around that one object versus one or two passive members. With a single field object, the null distribution is not a meaningful sample, and the very small p-values (e.g., 1.5e-14) do not establish a general environmental difference. The authors should compare against a distribution of field passive galaxies or at least a sample of field galaxies matched in stellar mass and redshift, and report the scatter.
  3. [Abstract; Sect. 2.3; Table 1] The AGN counts are internally inconsistent: the abstract and conclusions give three AGNs for z343, while Table 1 lists two; Sect. 2.3 reports eight AGNs in the CDFS overdensities, but the Table 1 entries sum to seven if the G-A/G-B/G-C rows are subgroups of z355, and to more than eight if they are additional structures. In addition, the G-A/G-B/G-C member counts (39, 25, 16; sum 80) do not match the z355 entry of 82 members. These inconsistencies need to be resolved, since the co-location of AGNs is one of the paper's main results.
  4. [Sect. 4.2 and Conclusions] The statement that quenched members are "redder, older, more massive, and more compact" than other members is based on exactly two objects, and no significance or confidence intervals are given for these comparisons. While the figures show the two passive galaxies as outliers, with N = 2 the claim should be phrased as a tentative trend, and ideally supported by a bootstrap or by comparison with the full distribution of member properties with errors. This is a central claim in the abstract, so it needs either quantification or qualification.
  5. [Sect. 5.4, Fig. 9] The simulation comparison selects 15 proto-clusters that already host massive passive galaxies at z = 3 and then reports their past sSFR and mass growth; this selection by construction favors galaxies with high earlier star formation, so statements such as "the median mass growth rate was 96% from z = 6 to z = 3" are partly predetermined by the sample definition. The comparison with the 11 proto-clusters without passive galaxies is more informative, but the 40% versus 30% difference at z = 1 has no quoted uncertainties and rests on a small number of clusters. I recommend presenting the selection dependence explicitly and adding error estimates.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 5.4] The sSFR threshold and the quantity in "sSFR ≲ -10" should state units explicitly, e.g., log10(sSFR/yr^-1) < -10.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains "creen crosses," which should be "green crosses."
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption writes "Stratman+14," but the reference is Straatman et al. (2014).
  4. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption contains the typo "ovdendensitis," which should be "overdensities."
  5. [Sect. 5.1] "Group C is like an elongated tale" should read "elongated tail."
  6. [Table 1] The volume column should specify whether the units are comoving Mpc^3 and how the quoted uncertainty is derived; the note currently attributes it only to the photometric-redshift uncertainty.
  7. [Sect. 5.4] The selection of the 30 simulated clusters relies on "Andrews et al. (in prep.)"; if that work is not yet public, the selection should be described in enough detail to be reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Simulation-based 'prediction' is partly preordained by selecting TNG300 proto-clusters on the presence of massive passive galaxies at z=3; the observational claims remain externally grounded.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Sect. 5.4 (Comparison with a cosmological simulation)]
    "By using the IllustrisTNG simulation (TNG300), we find that proto-cluster structures with quenched galaxies at high redshift are likely to evolve into a structure with a higher fraction of passive galaxies by z = 1. ... we chose the proto-clusters at z = 3 hosting massive passive galaxies, characterised by stellar masses larger than 10^11 M⊙ and sSFR ≲−10. We identify 15 proto-clusters hosting either one or two massive passive galaxies. ... As a control sample, we also identify 11 proto-clusters at z = 3 that only host star-forming galaxies."

    The TNG300 'prediction' is obtained by first selecting the simulated proto-clusters on exactly the property being reported: the 15 systems are chosen because they already host massive passive galaxies at z=3, while the control sample is defined as hosting no passive galaxies at z=3. The quoted conclusion that such structures evolve into structures with a higher passive fraction by z=1 therefore inherits the initial selection: the selected sample starts at a median quiescent fraction of 3.7% versus 0% for the control. The z=1 fractions (about 40% vs 30%) are genuine simulation outputs and the gap widens, so the circularity is partial rather than total, but the qualitative claim is substantially preordained by the sample definition rather than being an independent prediction.

full rationale

The observational core of the paper is not circular: the overdensity catalog is taken from the external Guaita et al. (2020) work, and the two passive galaxies were previously classified as passive by Merlin et al. (2019) and Straatman et al. (2014) using MIPS/Herschel photometry specifically to avoid confusing dusty star-forming galaxies with quiescent ones. The BEAGLE/BAGPIPES UVJ and sSFR cuts are used to select/confirm candidates, not to predict the same quantities. Statements that the selected objects are redder (U-V>1.3) and have low sSFR are definitional, and the paper itself notes 'by definition'; they are descriptive and not load-bearing evidence. The main partial circularity is in the TNG300 interpretation: the 15 simulated proto-clusters are selected on the presence of massive passive galaxies at z=3, so the abstract's claim that such structures evolve into structures with a higher passive fraction by z=1 is partly inherited from that selection, because the control sample is defined as having no passive galaxies at z=3. The z=1 fractions are real simulation outputs and the difference grows, so this is only partial circularity. Separately, the photo-z based membership (74/82 photo-z in z355; observed redshift spreads 0.3-0.4 versus assumed 0.02(1+z)) is a correctness risk for the density-peak claims, but it is a data-quality limitation rather than a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational result rests on literature SED-fitting tools, literature classification thresholds, and a previously published over-density catalog; the interpretation rests on a cosmological simulation with its own sub-grid physics. No new physical entities are introduced, and the only fitted numbers are the per-galaxy SED parameters that enter standard classification.

free parameters (2)
  • BEAGLE SED fitting parameters (stellar mass, mass-weighted age, tau, dust attenuation, metallicity)
    Per-galaxy best-fit values from Bayesian SED fitting determine the sSFR, stellar mass, and age used for the passive classification and the comparisons in Figs. A.1-A.4; the paper does not tabulate posterior uncertainties.
  • BAGPIPES SED fitting parameters (stellar mass, age, tau, metallicity, dust)
    Used to check sSFR of the 10 passive candidates; eight candidates were reclassified as dusty star-forming based on these fits, so the final sample of two depends on these fitted values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Over-density membership lists from Guaita et al. (2020), updated with photometric and spectroscopic redshifts, are correct.
    The paper takes the 13 over-densities from this earlier catalog and updates redshifts but does not re-derive the memberships; if memberships are wrong, environment conclusions change.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift uncertainty sigma_z = 0.02(1+z) is accurate and defines the volume cells in the density estimator.
    Used in the Trevese et al. (2007)/Salimbeni et al. (2009) density estimator; the z355 groups have redshift ranges 0.3-0.4, which the paper attributes to photometric redshift scatter (Sect. 5.1).
  • domain assumption Williams et al. (2009) UVJ boundaries and Carnall et al. (2018b) sSFR < 0.2/tobs criterion separate quiescent from dusty star-forming galaxies at 3<z<4.
    These literature thresholds define the passive sample in Sect. 3.1; the paper adds a BAGPIPES check and literature cross-match, but the selections themselves are external.
  • domain assumption van der Burg et al. (2014) stellar-mass-to-halo-mass calibration is valid at z=3 for proto-cluster candidates.
    Used to convert total stellar mass of members into dark matter halo masses in Table 1 and for the simulated proto-cluster GrNr11 in Sect. 5.4; the calibration was derived for lower-redshift clusters and is an extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The IllustrisTNG300 simulation, including its AGN feedback model, adequately represents real proto-cluster evolution.
    Used in Sect. 5.4 to infer that z=3 passive galaxies in proto-clusters were highly star-forming at z=6 and that AGN feedback drives quenching; the paper's causal conclusion depends on this model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The VANDELS Survey: Star formation and quenching in two over-densities at 3 < z < 4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NELEJHJK

@misc{pith2026241108155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The VANDELS Survey: Star formation and quenching in two over-densities at 3 < z < 4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NELEJHJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08155}
}
read the original abstract

Context: Understanding galaxy evolution in dense environments, particularly proto-clusters, is crucial for studying mechanisms driving star formation and quenching. Aims: This study examines how two proto-cluster over-densities at 3 < z < 4 impact star formation rate (SFR), stellar mass, and morphology, focusing on quenched galaxies. Methods: We identified proto-cluster over-densities in the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS) and Ultra Deep Survey (UDS) regions of the VANDELS survey. Using spectral energy distribution analysis, Bayesian methods (BEAGLE and BAGPIPES) helped derive best-fit parameters and U-V and V-J rest-frame colours (UVJ), classifying galaxies as quenched or star-forming based on UVJ diagrams and specific star formation rates (sSFR). TNG300 simulations aided interpretation. Results: Two of 13 proto-cluster over-densities host quenched galaxies with red U-V colours, low sSFR, and properties like massive passive galaxies. These quenched members are redder, older, more massive, and more compact. The highest-density peaks at z=3.55 and z=3.43 have dark matter halo masses consistent with proto-clusters and host AGNs, with five and three AGNs, respectively. Compared to field galaxies, these quenched members are in denser environments. TNG300 simulations suggest proto-clusters with quenched galaxies at high redshift evolve to contain more passive galaxies by z=1. Conclusions: The over-densities host massive quenched galaxies and AGNs in their densest peaks. Simulations reveal that sSFR for passive galaxies in proto-clusters was high at z=6, with median mass growth rates of 96% from z=6 to z=3. Conditions for mass assembly likely involve galaxy interactions and high gas accretion in dense environments. Black hole growth and AGN feedback appear to drive quenching at z=3, aligning with the properties of quenched galaxies observed in our study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distribution and associated density of the galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of SEDs computed by BEAGLE for two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rest-frame U-V versus V-J diagrams showcasing galaxies in di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Number of neighbors as a function of projected distance. The projected distance is calculated with respect to the passive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the galaxies of the z355 over-density in the RA-Dec. plain. The galaxies are separated in three group with the kernel density estimation, as explained in the text and colour coded accordingly: group A (yellow) at RA ∼ 53.08, group B (red) at RA ∼ 53.12,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Age as a function of stellar mass. Navy points represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift distributions for each group in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of passive galaxies as a function of redshift in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    G., Moore , B., & Bower , R

    Abadi , M. G., Moore , B., & Bower , R. G. 1999, , 308, 947

    1999

  4. [4]

    K., Balogh , M

    Baldry , I. K., Balogh , M. L., Bower , R. G., et al. 2006, , 373, 469

    2006

  5. [5]

    L., Morris , S

    Balogh , M. L., Morris , S. L., Yee , H. K. C., Carlberg , R. G., & Ellingson , E. 1999, , 527, 54

    1999

  6. [6]

    M., Koo , D

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., Koo , D. C., et al. 2017, , 840, 47

    2017

  7. [7]

    M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P

    Barro , G., Faber , S. M., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., et al. 2013, , 765, 104

    2013

  8. [8]

    F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al

    Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 608, 752

    2004

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 159

    2009

  2. [10]

    2015, , 86, 466

    Bongiorno , A., Pentericci , L., & VANDELS Team . 2015, , 86, 466

    2015

  3. [11]

    & Gavazzi , G

    Boselli , A. & Gavazzi , G. 2006, , 118, 517

    2006

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.17829

    Calabr \`o , A., Pentericci , L., Santini , P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.17829

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2022, , 667, A117

    Calabr \`o , A., Pentericci , L., Talia , M., et al. 2022, , 667, A117

    2022

  6. [14]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018 a , , 480, 4379

    2018

  7. [15]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018 b , , 480, 4379

    2018

  8. [16]

    C., Walker, S., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Walker, S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 695–707

    2020

  9. [17]

    2023, , 675, A121

    Castellano , M., Belfiori , D., Pentericci , L., et al. 2023, , 675, A121

    2023

  10. [18]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  11. [19]

    & Charlot , S

    Chevallard , J. & Charlot , S. 2016, , 462, 1415

    2016

  12. [20]

    2013, , 779, 127

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R., & Gebhardt , K. 2013, , 779, 127

    2013

  13. [21]

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

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R. A., Gebhardt , K., & Henriques , B. 2017, , 844, L23

    2017

  14. [22]

    Collins , M. L. M. & Read , J. I. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 647

    2022

  15. [23]

    2016, , 825, 113

    Darvish , B., Mobasher , B., Sobral , D., et al. 2016, , 825, 113

    2016

  16. [24]

    J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R. A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1430

    2022

  17. [25]

    & Birnboim , Y

    Dekel , A. & Birnboim , Y. 2008, , 383, 119

    2008

  18. [26]

    2009, , 457, 451

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

    2009

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Dressler , A., Oemler , Augustus, J., Couch , W. J., et al. 1997, , 490, 577

    1997

  20. [28]

    C., & Henry , J

    Ebeling , H., Edge , A. C., & Henry , J. P. 2001, , 553, 668

    2001

  21. [29]

    Fabian , A. C. 2012, , 50, 455

    2012

  22. [30]

    & Mayer , L

    Feldmann , R. & Mayer , L. 2015, , 446, 1939

    2015

  23. [31]

    2018, , 866, 136

    Foltz , R., Wilson , G., Muzzin , A., et al. 2018, , 866, 136

    2018

  24. [32]

    2021, , 647, A150

    Garilli , B., McLure , R., Pentericci , L., et al. 2021, , 647, A150

    2021

  25. [33]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 139, 369

    Giacconi, R., Zirm, A., Wang, J., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 139, 369

    2002

  26. [34]

    A., Kocevski , D

    Grogin , N. A., Kocevski , D. D., Faber , S. M., et al. 2011, , 197, 35

    2011

  27. [35]

    2020, , 640, A107

    Guaita , L., Pompei , E., Castellano , M., et al. 2020, , 640, A107

    2020

  28. [36]

    Gunn , J. E. & Gott , J. Richard, I. 1972, , 176, 1

    1972

  29. [37]

    2016, , 462, 1757

    Gutkin , J., Charlot , S., & Bruzual , G. 2016, , 462, 1757

    2016

  30. [38]

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

    Hopkins , P. F., Quataert , E., & Murray , N. 2012, , 421, 3488

    2012

  31. [39]

    2022, , 929, 53

    Ito , K., Tanaka , M., Miyaji , T., et al. 2022, , 929, 53

    2022

  32. [40]

    H., Naab , T., & Ostriker , J

    Johansson , P. H., Naab , T., & Ostriker , J. P. 2009, , 697, L38

    2009

  33. [41]

    H., & Dav \'e , R

    Kere s , D., Katz , N., Weinberg , D. H., & Dav \'e , R. 2005, , 363, 2

    2005

  34. [42]

    E., et al

    Kim , K., Malhotra , S., Rhoads , J. E., et al. 2018, , 867, 118

    2018

  35. [43]

    D., Hasinger , G., Brightman , M., et al

    Kocevski , D. D., Hasinger , G., Brightman , M., et al. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJS/236/48

    2018

  36. [44]

    M., Faber , S

    Koekemoer , A. M., Faber , S. M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2011, , 197, 36

    2011

  37. [45]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03083

    Kurinchi-Vendhan , S., Farcy , M., Hirschmann , M., & Valentino , F. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03083

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    D., Pentericci , L., Overzier , R

    Kurk , J. D., Pentericci , L., Overzier , R. A., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., & Miley , G. K. 2004, , 428, 817

    2004

  39. [47]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 379, 1599

    2007

  40. [48]

    C., Cucciati , O., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Lemaux , B. C., Cucciati , O., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2022, , 662, A33

    2022

  41. [49]

    M., Jonsson , P., Cox , T

    Lotz , J. M., Jonsson , P., Cox , T. J., et al. 2011, , 742, 103

    2011

  42. [50]

    2021, , 913, 81

    Lu , S., Fang , G., Gu , Y., et al. 2021, , 913, 81

    2021

  43. [51]

    N., Xue , Y

    Luo , B., Brandt , W. N., Xue , Y. Q., et al. 2017, , 228, 2

    2017

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Mao , Z., Kodama , T., P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , J. M., et al. 2022, , 666, A141

    2022

  45. [53]

    2022, , 926, 37

    McConachie , I., Wilson , G., Forrest , B., et al. 2022, , 926, 37

    2022

  46. [54]

    J., Pentericci , L., Cimatti , A., et al

    McLure , R. J., Pentericci , L., Cimatti , A., et al. 2018, , 479, 25

    2018

  47. [55]

    F., et al

    Menanteau , F., Sif \'o n , C., Barrientos , L. F., et al. 2013, , 765, 67

    2013

  48. [56]

    2019, , 490, 3309

    Merlin , E., Fortuni , F., Torelli , M., et al. 2019, , 490, 3309

    2019

  49. [57]

    1996, , 379, 613

    Moore , B., Katz , N., Lake , G., Dressler , A., & Oemler , A. 1996, , 379, 613

    1996

  50. [58]

    P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al

    Naiman , J. P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 477, 1206

    2018

  51. [59]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  52. [60]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 266, 713

    1983

  53. [61]

    F., Benoist , C., Cappi , A., et al

    Olsen , L. F., Benoist , C., Cappi , A., et al. 2007, , 461, 81

    2007

  54. [62]

    A., Heckman , T

    Overzier , R. A., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2009, , 706, 203

    2009

  55. [63]

    & Hwang , H

    Park , C. & Hwang , H. S. 2009, , 699, 1595

    2009

  56. [64]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 266

    2002

  57. [65]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097

    2010

  58. [66]

    & Renzini , A

    Peng , Y.-j. & Renzini , A. 2020, , 491, L51

    2020

  59. [67]

    D., R \"o ttgering , H

    Pentericci , L., Kurk , J. D., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2000, , 361, L25

    2000

  60. [68]

    J., Garilli , B., et al

    Pentericci , L., McLure , R. J., Garilli , B., et al. 2018, , 616, A174

    2018

  61. [69]

    2018, , 473, 4077

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077

    2018

  62. [70]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 547

    Pontzen, A., Tremmel, M., Roth, N., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 547

    2016

  63. [71]

    2023, , 958, 183

    Salim , S., Tacchella , S., Osborne , C., et al. 2023, , 958, 183

    2023

  64. [72]

    2009, , 501, 865

    Salimbeni , S., Castellano , M., Pentericci , L., et al. 2009, , 501, 865

    2009

  65. [73]

    2017, , 847, 76

    Santini , P., Fontana , A., Castellano , M., et al. 2017, , 847, 76

    2017

  66. [74]

    2007, , 382, 1415

    Schawinski , K., Thomas , D., Sarzi , M., et al. 2007, , 382, 1415

    2007

  67. [75]

    2018, , 618, A85

    Schreiber , C., Glazebrook , K., Nanayakkara , T., et al. 2018, , 618, A85

    2018

  68. [76]

    A., Lemaux , B., Forrest , B., et al

    Shah , E. A., Lemaux , B., Forrest , B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.04634

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2020, , 897, 44

    Shahidi , A., Mobasher , B., Nayyeri , H., et al. 2020, , 897, 44

    2020

  70. [78]

    2024, , 961, 39

    Shi , K., Malavasi , N., Toshikawa , J., & Zheng , X. 2024, , 961, 39

    2024

  71. [79]

    2021, , 911, 46

    Shi , K., Toshikawa , J., Lee , K.-S., et al. 2021, , 911, 46

    2021

  72. [80]

    Silverman , B. W. 1986, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis

    1986

  73. [81]

    Straatman , C. M. S., Labb \'e , I., Spitler , L. R., et al. 2014, , 783, L14

    2014

  74. [82]

    2014, , 789, 164

    Tal , T., Dekel , A., Oesch , P., et al. 2014, , 789, 164

    2014

  75. [83]

    2023, , 678, A25

    Talia , M., Schreiber , C., Garilli , B., et al. 2023, , 678, A25

    2023

  76. [84]

    2007, , 463, 853

    Trevese , D., Castellano , M., Fontana , A., & Giallongo , E. 2007, , 463, 853

    2007

  77. [85]

    van der Burg , R. F. J., Muzzin , A., Hoekstra , H., et al. 2014, , 561, A79

    2014

  78. [86]

    F., H \"a ussler , B., et al

    van der Wel , A., Bell , E. F., H \"a ussler , B., et al. 2012, , 203, 24

    2012

  79. [87]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28

    2014

  80. [88]

    M., van den Bosch , F

    Weinmann , S. M., van den Bosch , F. C., Yang , X., & Mo , H. J. 2006, , 366, 2

    2006

  81. [89]

    R., Tinker , J

    Wetzel , A. R., Tinker , J. L., & Conroy , C. 2012, , 424, 232

    2012

  82. [90]

    R., Tinker , J

    Wetzel , A. R., Tinker , J. L., Conroy , C., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2013, , 432, 336

    2013

  83. [91]

    E., Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2011, , 735, 86

    2011

  84. [92]

    J., Quadri , R

    Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.