Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

MAGAZ3NE: Evidence for Galactic Conformity in $z\gtrsim3$ Protoclusters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 First evidence of galactic conformity at z>3

desk verdict Careful quiescent-fraction measurements and a new spectroscopically confirmed protocluster, but the z>3 conformity claim is weakened by quiescent-selected discovery and a small independent sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14641 v1 pith:HHQAPMVA submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.GA

Ian McConachie , Gillian Wilson , Ben Forrest , Z. Cemile Marsan , Adam Muzzin , M. C. Cooper , Marianna Annunziatella , Danilo Marchesini
show 11 more authors
Percy Gomez Wenjun Chang Stephanie M. Urbano Stawinski Michael McDonald Tracy Webb Allison Noble Brian C. Lemaux Ekta A. Shah Priti Staab Lori M. Lubin Roy R. Gal
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticconformityprotoclustersquiescentgalaxiesultra-massivez>3galaxyevolutionCOSMOSfieldUVJcolorclassificationspectroscopicconfirmation
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

The paper reports the first evidence for galactic conformity at redshifts above 3: in six spectroscopically-confirmed protoclusters in the COSMOS field, the quiescent fraction of massive galaxies tracks whether the protocluster's most massive galaxy (an ultra-massive galaxy, log(M$/M$⊙)>11) is itself quiescent or star-forming. Two protoclusters with UVJ-quiescent central UMGs show elevated quiescent fractions (QO-1000 at 41%, MAG-0959 at 18%), while four with star-forming centrals have quiescent fractions consistent with the field. The paper also presents the spectroscopic confirmation of a new protocluster, MAGAZ3NE J100143+023021 at z=3.122, with 28 spectroscopic members including three star-forming UMGs. If the correlation is real, the mechanism behind galactic conformity was already active less than 2 Gyr after the Big Bang, constraining models of how massive galaxies quench.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the protocluster quiescent fraction QF, computed from UVJ-classified members with photometric-redshift membership probabilities P, background-subtracted using the coeval field, and compared against the UVJ star-formation state of each system's central UMG (the most massive spectroscopically-confirmed member). The central UMG defines the protocluster center and the 10 comoving Mpc radius within which members are counted. The UVJ diagram (U−V vs V−J) is the named classification tool separating quiescent from star-forming galaxies. The paper's newly confirmed system, MAGAZ3NE J100143+023021, is established by Keck/MOSFIRE K-band spectroscopy of 28 galaxies, with a biweight central redshift z=3.122 and a Gaussian kernel density map delimiting the structure core.

What would settle it

Measure the quiescent fractions of z>3 protoclusters selected without any quiescent or red-galaxy bias (for example, purely by Lyα-emitter overdensities or submillimeter emission) and compare the split between quiescent-central and star-forming-central systems; the conformity signal is real only if the alignment persists in such a blind sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that z≳3 protoclusters in COSMOS obey galactic conformity: protoclusters whose central ultra-massive galaxy (UMG, log(M$/M$⊙)>11) is classified as UVJ-quiescent exhibit elevated quiescent fractions among their massive members, while protoclusters whose central UMG is UVJ-star-forming have low quiescent fractions indistinguishable from the coeval field. The classification rests on rest-frame U−V and V−J colors using the Whitaker et al. (2011) wedge, applied to spectroscopic members at fixed zspec and to photometric members weighted by their membership probability P. The pattern holds across all six systems plus the two literature protoclusters SSA22 and SXDS, which both host quiescent UMGs and have high quiescent fractions. The paper also reports the new protocluster MAGAZ3NE J100143+023021 at z=3.122, containing 79 members (28 spectroscopic, 51 photometric), three star-forming UMGs with the most massive at log(M$/M$⊙)=11.15, and a core mass of 2.25×10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$. The authors describe this as the first evidence for galactic conformity at z>3.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that its six protoclusters fairly represent z>3 protoclusters with ultra-massive galaxies, but most were originally discovered as overdensities of quiescent or red galaxies, so the apparent conformity could be a product of how the sample was selected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Protoclusters at z>3 with a UVJ-quiescent central UMG have elevated quiescent fractions relative to the field, while those with a star-forming central UMG do not.
  • Galactic conformity, previously detected only out to z≈2, extends to z≈2.8–3.4, within about 2 Gyr of the Big Bang.
  • The early presence of conformity argues against low-redshift environmental mechanisms such as ram-pressure stripping being the primary driver of quenching in massive halos.
  • The newly confirmed MAGAZ3NE J100143+023021 adds a star-forming-central system with a low quiescent fraction, consistent with the conformity pattern and embedded in a possible z≈3.1 proto-supercluster.
  • The measured quiescent fractions are robust to the photometric membership threshold (Pthresh from 0.17 to 0.68), supporting the reality of the split.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern is real, known quiescent UMGs at z>3 are high-yield targets for finding quenched protoclusters; the paper's logic implies surveys should prioritize spectroscopy around UVJ-quiescent UMGs.
  • Because several of the six protoclusters were discovered as quiescent-galaxy overdensities, the 6/6 alignment could be a selection artifact; a protocluster sample selected by star-forming tracers (LAEs, submillimeter sources) would test this directly.
  • The conformity signal may strengthen toward the highest masses (MAG-0959 shows QF≈73% at log(M$/M$⊙)≥11 in previous work), suggesting the effect could be mass-dependent rather than purely environmental.
  • The paper's field-subtracted QF methodology could be applied to the growing sample of JWST-confirmed z>4 protoclusters to test whether conformity persists even earlier.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the spectroscopic confirmation of a new protocluster MAGAZ3NE J100143+023021 (MAG-1001) at z=3.122 in the COSMOS field, identified through Keck/MOSFIRE spectroscopy and containing 28 spectroscopic and 51 photometric members, three of which are ultra-massive galaxies (log M*/Msun > 11). The authors then measure photometric quiescent fractions for six COSMOS protoclusters (including MAG-1001) and compare them with the UVJ star-forming/quiescent classification of each protocluster's most massive central UMG. They observe that protoclusters with quiescent central UMGs have elevated quiescent fractions while those with star-forming centrals have low quiescent fractions, and they add two literature protoclusters (SSA22 and SXDS) to the comparison. The paper claims this constitutes the first evidence for galactic conformity at z>3.

Significance. The spectroscopic reduction, membership assignment, and Monte Carlo uncertainty treatment are careful and reproducible, and the paper includes robustness checks against photometric redshift threshold choices. The new protocluster MAG-1001 is a valuable addition to the small sample of spectroscopically confirmed z>3 structures. If the conformity trend is genuine, it would push the onset of galactic conformity to within 2 Gyr of the Big Bang and provide constraints on quenching mechanisms. However, the central claim rests on a very small sample with potential selection biases that are not quantified, so the result is currently suggestive rather than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1.1, Section 6.2] The sample is partially biased by the discovery method. QO-1000 was discovered as an overdensity of quiescent galaxy candidates (Ito et al. 2023) and SXDS was identified as an overdensity of quiescent galaxies (Tanaka et al. 2024). Because the independent variable (quiescent central UMG) is directly correlated with the discovery selection, these two systems cannot serve as independent confirmations of the conformity trend. The paper does not quantify how much of the visual 6/6 alignment depends on these systems, nor does it discuss the selection function. I recommend repeating the analysis without QO-1000 and SXDS, and/or presenting a permutation test under the null hypothesis that central UMG status is unrelated to quiescent fraction, explicitly stating the effect of the selection.
  2. [Section 6.2, Figure 5] No statistical significance is quoted for the conformity signal. With eight protoclusters (six COSMOS plus two literature) and two quiescent centrals, the probability of perfect separation of quiescent fractions under random assignment is roughly 1/C(8,2) = 1/28, which is marginal (p ~ 0.04 one-sided). The large uncertainties on the individual quiescent fractions further weaken this. A rank-based or Monte Carlo permutation test should be reported, including its sensitivity to removing QO-1000 and SXDS. Without such a test, the 'first evidence' claim in the abstract and Section 6.2 is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Section 2.1.1] The independence of the six COSMOS protoclusters is not established. MAG-0959 and MAG-1000 are both substructures of the Elentari proto-supercluster at z~3.3 (Forrest et al. 2023), as stated in Section 2.1.1, and MAG-1001 may be associated with the same large-scale structure (Section 6.1). If these systems share a common large-scale environment, they are not independent draws from the protocluster population, which reduces the effective sample size further. The paper should justify treating them as independent probes of conformity, or otherwise account for the correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.2] The phrase 'a difference in a difference in the the quenched fraction' contains a duplicated 'the' and should be reworded for clarity.
  2. [Section 6.1.1] The text says 'line-of-site' and should be 'line-of-sight'.
  3. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Chiang et al. (2014); one should be removed.
  4. [Section 4.1] The numbers '1,720,700' and '959,216' would be more consistent if formatted with commas, matching the style used later in the paper (e.g., '2,372' in Section 4.1.1).
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'solid and open downward-facing triangles respectively show the corrected and uncorrected values; Kubo et al. 2013' but does not specify which triangle is corrected. Adding 'solid = corrected, open = uncorrected' would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Apparent conformity is partly built into the sample: QO-1000 and SXDS were discovered as quiescent overdensities, so their placement on the quiescent-central side of Figure 5 is selected rather than independently predicted.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1.1 (QO-1000), Section 6.2 (SXDS), and Figure 5]
    "QO-1000: This protocluster was initially identified as an overdensity of quiescent galaxy candidates then targeted for spectroscopic followup in Ito et al. (2023). ... SXDS at z = 3.99 was also first identified and presented as an overdensity of quiescent galaxies in Tanaka et al. (2024)."

    Both systems are then plotted in Figure 5 as red points (quiescent central UMG, elevated quiescent fraction) and counted as supporting the claimed conformity trend. A system discovered as an overdensity of quiescent candidates is expected, by construction, to have a high quiescent fraction and a quiescent central; its position on the conforming side of the diagram is therefore inherited from the sample selection rather than measured independently. The paper does not correct for this selection coupling or quantify how the 6/6 (or 8/8 with the literature additions) alignment depends on these preselected systems.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.2 and Equations (3)-(4)]
    "We define all galaxies in the redshift slice which fall within this radius to be 'protocluster members' (including the central UMG)."

    The independent variable (UVJ class of the central UMG) is included in the dependent variable: the central UMG's q_i enters the numerator and denominator of the quiescent fraction in Equations (3)-(4). For the small member counts in Table 4, this mechanically shifts QF in the direction of the tested correlation (a quiescent central adds to the quiescent count). The effect is one galaxy per cluster and is not the dominant driver, but it is a definitional coupling rather than an independent satellite-only test.

full rationale

The core quiescent-fraction measurement is not fitted to produce the conformity trend: Equations (3)-(4) are direct P-weighted counts of UVJ-classified galaxies, and the new MAG-1001 spectroscopy is presented independently. The MAGAZ3NE self-citations (McC22, Forrest et al.) are real, published data and are not the main source of circularity. The load-bearing problem is sample construction: QO-1000 and SXDS were themselves discovered as overdensities of quiescent/red galaxies, so their high quiescent fractions and quiescent centrals are selected by the discovery method; SSA22 is also a red/massive-galaxy-selected literature system. The paper acknowledges only that the literature systems used different classification methods, not that they were discovered through the property being tested. Removing QO-1000 and SXDS leaves MAG-0959 and SSA22 on the quiescent-central side against four star-forming-central systems; the trend remains suggestive but the paper quotes no significance for it. This is partial circularity/selection-construction rather than an equation-level identity, hence a score of 6 rather than higher.

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

The central claim rests on membership thresholds (Pthresh, mass cut, 10 cMpc aperture), on the applicability of UVJ criteria at z>3, and on the unverified assumption that the six protoclusters are unbiased by quiescent content. No new physical entities are introduced. The mass estimate for MAG-1001 uses a literature galaxy bias b=3.5 but this is not part of the conformity argument.

free parameters (5)
  • Pthresh = 0.17
    Integrated p(z) membership threshold; set via a hypothetical worst-case galaxy, not fit to the QF outcome. QFs are shown to be robust to this choice.
  • Photometric member mass cut = log(M*/Msun) >= 10.5
    Applied to select massive galaxies for membership and QF; excludes lower-mass spectroscopic members from the photometric sample.
  • Protocluster radius = 10 comoving Mpc
    Defines the protocluster region around the central UMG; adopted from Chiang et al. (2017) simulations.
  • Galaxy bias b = 3.5
    Used only for the MAG-1001 mass estimate (delta_m = delta_gal/b), adopted from LBG clustering literature; not used in the conformity QFs.
  • KDE bandwidth = 1.68 arcmin for MAG-1001
    Optimized by likelihood cross-validation for density maps; affects overdensity and mass estimates, not the QF comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption COSMOS2020 EazyPy photometric redshifts, masses, and rest-frame colors are accurate enough for membership and UVJ classification.
    The analysis relies on catalog SED fits for all photometric members; systematic errors in the templates propagate into QFs.
  • domain assumption The Whitaker et al. (2011) UVJ quiescent selection, calibrated at lower redshift, applies at z>3.
    Used to classify all galaxies as quiescent/star-forming; if the boundary shifts at z>3, QFs and central UMG status could change.
  • domain assumption The six protoclusters are a representative sample of z>3 protoclusters containing UMGs, unbiased by quiescent content.
    QO-1000 and MAG-0959 were discovered as quiescent overdensities, and SSA22/SXDS were selected for quiescent galaxies; this assumption is load-bearing for the conformity claim.
  • domain assumption The most massive spectroscopically confirmed member is the central galaxy of each protocluster.
    Used to define the central UMG and the 10 cMpc region; for VPC-1000 no spectroscopic member redshifts are published, so the most massive photometric UMG is used instead.
  • standard math Spectroscopic redshifts and confidence levels from slinefit are reliable.
    Biweight central redshift, membership within 3-sigma, and UMG classification depend on these redshifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MAGAZ3NE: Evidence for Galactic Conformity in $z\gtrsim3$ Protoclusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHQAPMVA

@misc{pith2026241114641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MAGAZ3NE: Evidence for Galactic Conformity in $z\gtrsim3$ Protoclusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHQAPMVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14641}
}
abstract

We examine the quiescent fractions of massive galaxies in six $z\gtrsim3$ spectroscopically-confirmed protoclusters in the COSMOS field, one of which is newly confirmed and presented here. We report the spectroscopic confirmation of MAGAZ3NE~J100143+023021 at $z=3.122^{+0.007}_{-0.004}$ by the Massive Ancient Galaxies At $z>3$ NEar-infrared (MAGAZ3NE) survey. MAGAZ3NE~J100143+023021 contains a total of 79 protocluster members (28 spectroscopic and 51 photometric). Three spectroscopically-confirmed members are star-forming ultra-massive galaxies ($\log(M_{\star}/{\rm M}_\odot)>11$; UMGs), the most massive of which has $\log(M_{\star}/{\rm M}_\odot)=11.15^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$. Combining Keck/MOSFIRE spectroscopy and the COSMOS2020 photometric catalog, we use a weighted Gaussian kernel density estimator to map the protocluster and measure its total mass $2.25^{+1.55}_{-0.65}\times10^{14}~{\rm M}_{\odot}$ in the dense ``core'' region. For each of the six COSMOS protoclusters, we compare the quiescent fraction to the status of the central UMG as star-forming or quiescent. We observe that galaxies in these protoclusters appear to obey galactic conformity: elevated quiescent fractions are found in protoclusters with $UVJ$ quiescent UMGs and low quiescent fractions are found in protoclusters containing $UVJ$ star-forming UMGs. This correlation of star-formation/quiescence in UMGs and the massive galaxies nearby in these protoclusters is the first evidence for the existence of galactic conformity at $z>3$. Despite disagreements over mechanisms behind conformity at low redshifts, its presence at these early cosmic times would provide strong constraints on the physics proposed to drive galactic conformity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UltraVISTA DR4 Ks-band image with overlaid MOSFIRE slit positions (left), MOSFIRE 1D K-band spectra (upper center), MOSFIRE 2D K-band spectra (lower center) and the SED (right) of the three most massive spectroscopically-confirmed members (the UMGs, the first three members of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The 28 spectroscopic members of protocluster MAG-1001 as a function of their photometric redshifts and Ks magnitudes from the C2020 catalog. Galaxies with stellar mass in excess of log(M⋆/M⊙)= 11 are marked with open stars. There is excellent agreement between the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts for the spectroscopic members (members with broader photometric redshift probability distributions have larg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaussian kernel density map of galaxies in the COSMOS2020 catalog (cyan circles) after photometric redshift, stellar mass, Ks-band magnitude, and probability cuts described in §4.1 have been applied at z = 3.125. The size of each galaxy’s cyan circle is scaled by its P value. Spectroscopically-confirmed protocluster members are shown as magenta crosses and the three spectroscopically-confirmed UMGs are denoted by op… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UV J color-color diagram for MAG-1001. The 28 spectroscopic members and 51 photometric members of MAG-1001 are shown as black squares and shaded blue circles, respectively. The three open stars denote the three spectroscopically-confirmed UMGs in the proto￾cluster (the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The measured quiescent fractions for the six COS￾MOS protoclusters explored in this work. The points and error￾bars of each COSMOS protocluster are colored based on the rest￾frame U − V and V − J colors of the protocluster’s most massive spectroscopically-confirmed UMG…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Environmental Evidence for Overly Massive Black Holes in Low Mass Galaxies and a Black Hole - Halo Mass Relation at $z \sim 5$

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Faint broad-line AGN at redshift 4 to 5 appear to live in low-mass galaxies of about 50 million solar masses, implying black holes that are an order of magnitude heavier than their host stellar mass.

  2. Satellite quenching by radio jets of central galaxies in galaxy groups

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Kinetic AGN feedback from central radio jets, particularly large FR-II lobes, quenches star formation in satellite galaxies of groups after matching halo mass, redshift, central stellar mass and SFR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

176 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    6":f LӔB65툋;=cup6 پ F[U&-^ #6F q1rxܒ j Yg/ڎo #M7Ȩ [ a 0 z5)

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Steidel, C

    Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 1998, , 505, 18, 10.1086/306162

    work page doi:10.1086/306162 1998

  5. [5]

    2018, , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    Aihara , H., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018, , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  6. [6]

    D., et al

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

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

  7. [7]

    Ayromlou, M., Kauffmann, G., Anand, A., & White, S. D. M. 2022, , 519, 1913, 10.1093/mnras/stac3637

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3637 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Nelson, D., & White, S

    Ayromlou, M., Kauffmann, G., Yates, R. M., Nelson, D., & White, S. D. M. 2021, , 505, 492, 10.1093/mnras/stab1245

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1245 2021

Show all 176 references
  1. [9]

    K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, , 600, 681, 10.1086/380092

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    L., McGee , S

    Balogh , M. L., McGee , S. L., Mok , A., et al. 2016, , 456, 4364, 10.1093/mnras/stv2949

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Gilbank , D

    Balogh , M. L., Gilbank , D. G., Muzzin , A., et al. 2017, , 470, 4168, 10.1093/mnras/stx1370

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, , 2021, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/029

    Barreira, A., Lazeyras, T., & Schmidt, F. 2021, , 2021, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/029

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Cooper , M

    Baxter , D. C., Cooper , M. C., Balogh , M. L., et al. 2022, , 515, 5479, 10.1093/mnras/stac2149

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Cooper, M

    Baxter, D. C., Cooper, M. C., Balogh, M. L., et al. 2023, , 526, 3716, 10.1093/mnras/stad2995

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Flynn , K., & Gebhardt , K

    Beers , T. C., Flynn , K., & Gebhardt , K. 1990, , 100, 32, 10.1086/115487

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Coil, A

    Berti, A. M., Coil, A. L., Behroozi, P. S., et al. 2017, , 834, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/87

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Pillepich, A., Sales, L

    Bray, A. D., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2016, , 455, 185, 10.1093/mnras/stv2316

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Weaver, J

    Brinch, M., Greve, T. R., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, , 943, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d96

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Berlind, A

    Calderon, V. F., Berlind, A. A., & Sinha, M. 2018, , 480, 2031, 10.1093/mnras/sty2000

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Ellis , R

    Capak , P., Abraham , R. G., Ellis , R. S., et al. 2007, , 172, 284, 10.1086/518424

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Riechers , D., Scoville , N

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

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Casey , C. M. 2016, , 824, 36, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/36

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Cooray , A., Capak , P., et al

    Casey , C. M., Cooray , A., Capak , P., et al. 2015, , 808, L33, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L33

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    B., Casey, C

    Champagne, J. B., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2021, , 913, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4e6

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Blain , A., Ibata , R., et al

    Chapman , S. C., Blain , A., Ibata , R., et al. 2009, , 691, 560, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/560

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, , 890, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    Chartab, N., Mobasher, B., Darvish, B., et al. 2020, , 890, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2013, , 779, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

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

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    2014, , 782, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L3

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R., & Gebhardt , K. 2014, , 782, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L3

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

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

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

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    A., Gebhardt , K., et al

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R. A., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2015, , 808, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/37

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, , 712, 833, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, , 699, 486, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  27. [39]

    C., et al

    Cucciati , O., Zamorani , G., Lemaux , B. C., et al. 2014, , 570, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423811

    2014 doi

  28. [40]

    C., Zamorani , G., et al

    Cucciati , O., Lemaux , B. C., Zamorani , G., et al. 2018, , 619, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833655

    2018 doi

  29. [41]

    2017, , 846, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8808

    Daddi , E., Jin , S., Strazzullo , V., et al. 2017, , 846, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8808

    2017 doi

  30. [42]

    M., et al

    Daddi, E., Valentino, F., Rich, R. M., et al. 2021, , 649, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038700

    2021 doi

  31. [43]

    2022, , 926, 7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f

    Daddi, E., Rich, R., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, , 926, 7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f

    2022 doi

  32. [44]

    D., De Breuck , C., et al

    Dannerbauer , H., Kurk , J. D., De Breuck , C., et al. 2014, , 570, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423771

    2014 doi

  33. [45]

    Z., Martin , C., et al

    Darvish , B., Scoville , N. Z., Martin , C., et al. 2020, , 892, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75c3

    2020 doi

  34. [46]

    J., Brammer, G., et al

    de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.05683

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [47]

    2023, Nature, 615, 809, 10.1038/s41586-023-05761-x

    Di Mascolo , L., Saro, A., Mroczkowski, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 615, 809, 10.1038/s41586-023-05761-x

    2023 doi

  36. [48]

    J., Knobel , C., et al

    Diener , C., Lilly , S. J., Knobel , C., et al. 2013, , 765, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/109

    2013 doi

  37. [49]

    J., Ledoux , C., et al

    Diener , C., Lilly , S. J., Ledoux , C., et al. 2015, , 802, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/31

    2015 doi

  38. [50]

    1980, , 236, 351, 10.1086/157753

    Dressler , A. 1980, , 236, 351, 10.1086/157753

    1980 doi

  39. [51]

    H., Balogh, M

    Edward, A. H., Balogh, M. L., Bahe, Y. M., et al. 2024, , 527, 8598, 10.1093/mnras/stad3751

    2024 doi

  40. [52]

    2007, , 468, 33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz , D., Daddi , E., Le Borgne , D., et al. 2007, , 468, 33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    2007 doi

  41. [53]

    2007, , 172, 182, 10.1086/516577

    Finoguenov , A., Guzzo , L., Hasinger , G., et al. 2007, , 172, 182, 10.1086/516577

    2007 doi

  42. [54]

    2018, , 866, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80d

    Foltz, R., Wilson, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2018, , 866, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80d

    2018 doi

  43. [55]

    H., Broussard , A., et al

    Forrest , B., Tran , K.-V. H., Broussard , A., et al. 2017, , 838, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa653b

    2017 doi

  44. [56]

    C., Annunziatella , M., et al

    Forrest , B., Marsan , Z. C., Annunziatella , M., et al. 2020 a , , 903, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb819

    2020 doi

  45. [57]

    2020 b , , 890, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    Forrest , B., Annunziatella , M., Wilson , G., et al. 2020 b , , 890, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    2020 doi

  46. [58]

    2022, , 938, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8747

    Forrest, B., Wilson, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2022, , 938, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8747

    2022 doi

  47. [59]

    C., Shah, E., et al

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E., et al. 2023, , 526, L56, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad114

    2023 doi

  48. [60]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78

    2024 doi

  49. [62]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., et al. 1998, , 503, 543, 10.1086/306027

    1998 doi

  50. [63]

    L., Nichol , R

    G \'o mez , P. L., Nichol , R. C., Miller , C. J., et al. 2003, , 584, 210, 10.1086/345593

    2003 doi

  51. [64]

    2003, , 346, 601, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07114.x

    Goto , T., Yamauchi , C., Fujita , Y., et al. 2003, , 346, 601, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07114.x

    2003

  52. [65]

    E., & Gott , J

    Gunn , J. E., & Gott , J. Richard, I. 1972, , 176, 1, 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  53. [66]

    1982, Biometrika, 69, 383, 10.1093/biomet/69.2.383

    HALL, P. 1982, Biometrika, 69, 383, 10.1093/biomet/69.2.383

    1982 doi

  54. [67]

    G., Conselice, C

    Hartley, W. G., Conselice, C. J., Mortlock, A., Foucaud, S., & Simpson, C. 2015, , 451, 1613, 10.1093/mnras/stv972

    2015 doi

  55. [68]

    2018, , 858, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    Hasinger, G., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2018, , 858, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    2018 doi

  56. [69]

    P., Behroozi , P

    Hearin , A. P., Behroozi , P. S., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2016, , 461, 2135, 10.1093/mnras/stw1462

    2016 doi

  57. [70]

    P., Watson , D

    Hearin , A. P., Watson , D. F., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2015, , 452, 1958, 10.1093/mnras/stv1358

    2015 doi

  58. [71]

    Henriques , B. M. B., White , S. D. M., Thomas , P. A., et al. 2015, , 451, 2663, 10.1093/mnras/stv705

    2015 doi

  59. [72]

    Henriques, B. M. B., White, S. D. M., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2017, , 469, 2626, 10.1093/mnras/stx1010

    2017 doi

  60. [73]

    2009, , 498, 725, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    Hildebrandt , H., Pielorz , J., Erben , T., et al. 2009, , 498, 725, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    2009 doi

  61. [74]

    1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  62. [75]

    M., Chiang , Y.-K., et al

    Hung , C.-L., Casey , C. M., Chiang , Y.-K., et al. 2016, , 826, 130, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/130

    2016 doi

  63. [76]

    C., Cucciati, O., et al

    Hung, D., Lemaux, B. C., Cucciati, O., et al. 2024. 2410.00237

    2024 arXiv

  64. [77]

    J., et al

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

    2006 doi

  65. [78]

    2023, , 945, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, , 945, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    2023 doi

  66. [79]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, , 683, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    2024 doi

  67. [80]

    S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al

    Kalita, B. S., Daddi, E., D’Eugenio, C., et al. 2021, , 917, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16dc

    2021 doi

  68. [81]

    2015, , 454, 1840, 10.1093/mnras/stv2113

    Kauffmann, G. 2015, , 454, 1840, 10.1093/mnras/stv2113

    2015 doi

  69. [82]

    2018, , 475, L45, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx204

    ---. 2018, , 475, L45, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx204

    2018 doi

  70. [83]

    Kauffmann, G., Li, C., & Heckman, T. M. 2010, , 409, 491, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17337.x

    2010

  71. [84]

    2013, , 430, 1447, 10.1093/mnras/stt007

    Kauffmann, G., Li, C., Zhang, W., & Weinmann, S. 2013, , 430, 1447, 10.1093/mnras/stt007

    2013 doi

  72. [85]

    Kauffmann , G., White , S. D. M., Heckman , T. M., et al. 2004, , 353, 713, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x

    2004

  73. [86]

    M., White , S

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 341, 33, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    2003

  74. [87]

    F., Papovich, C., et al

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Quadri, R. F., Papovich, C., et al. 2016, , 817, 9, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/9

    2016 doi

  75. [88]

    2018, , 615, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731212

    Kerscher, M. 2018, , 615, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731212

    2018 doi

  76. [89]

    Kiyota, T., Ando, M., Tanaka, M., et al. 2024. 2406.02849

    2024 arXiv

  77. [90]

    J., Woo, J., & Kova c , K

    Knobel, C., Lilly, S. J., Woo, J., & Kova c , K. 2015, , 800, 24, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/24

    2015 doi

  78. [91]

    Koyama, Y., Polletta, M. d. C., Tanaka, I., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 503, L1?L5, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab013

    2021 doi

  79. [92]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, , 218, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15

    2015 doi

  80. [93]

    K., Yamada, T., et al

    Kubo, M., Uchimoto, Y. K., Yamada, T., et al. 2013, , 778, 170, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/170

    2013 doi

  81. [94]

    2021, , 919, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8

    Kubo, M., Umehata, H., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2021, , 919, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8

    2021 doi

  82. [95]

    2022, , 935, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f2d

    ---. 2022, , 935, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f2d

    2022 doi

  83. [96]

    E., Padilla, N., & Gonzalez-Perez, V

    Lacerna, I., Contreras, S., Gonz \' a lez, R. E., Padilla, N., & Gonzalez-Perez, V. 2018, , 475, 1177, 10.1093/mnras/stx3253

    2018 doi

  84. [97]

    B., Tinsley , B

    Larson , R. B., Tinsley , B. M., & Caldwell , C. N. 1980, , 237, 692, 10.1086/157917

    1980 doi

  85. [98]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

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

    2007

  86. [99]

    Le F \`e vre , O., Tasca , L. A. M., Cassata , P., et al. 2015, , 576, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829

    2015 doi

  87. [100]

    F., White , M., Croft , R

    Lee , K.-G., Hennawi , J. F., White , M., Croft , R. A. C., & Ozbek , M. 2014, , 788, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/49

    2014 doi

  88. [101]

    F., White , M., et al

    Lee , K.-G., Hennawi , J. F., White , M., et al. 2016, , 817, 160, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/160

    2016 doi

  89. [102]

    2024, , 962, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

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

    2024 doi

  90. [103]

    D., Alexander, D

    Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Geach, J. E., et al. 2009, , 691, 687, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/687

    2009 doi

  91. [104]

    C., Tomczak, A

    Lemaux, B. C., Tomczak, A. R., Lubin, L. M., et al. 2017, , 472, 419, 10.1093/mnras/stx1579

    2017 doi

  92. [105]

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

    Lemaux , B. C., Le F \`e vre , O., Cucciati , O., et al. 2018, , 615, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730870

    2018 doi

  93. [106]

    C., Tomczak, A

    Lemaux, B. C., Tomczak, A. R., Lubin, L. M., et al. 2019, , 490, 1231, 10.1093/mnras/stz2661

    2019 doi

  94. [107]

    C., Cucciati, O., Le Fèvre , O., et al

    Lemaux, B. C., Cucciati, O., Le Fèvre , O., et al. 2022, , 662, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346

    2022 doi

  95. [108]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., Renzini , A., et al

    Lilly , S. J., Le F \`e vre , O., Renzini , A., et al. 2007, , 172, 70, 10.1086/516589

    2007 doi

  96. [109]

    2019, , 881, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ece

    Man, Z.-Y., Peng, Y.-J., Shi, J.-J., et al. 2019, , 881, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ece

    2019 doi

  97. [110]

    M., et al

    Mao, Z., Kodama, T., P \' e rez-Mart \' i nez, J. M., et al. 2022, , 666, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243733

    2022 doi

  98. [111]

    C., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G

    Marsan , Z. C., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2017, , 842, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7206

    2017 doi

  99. [112]

    2015, , 801, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/133

    ---. 2015, , 801, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/133

    2015 doi

  100. [113]

    C., Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., et al

    Marsan, Z. C., Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., et al. 2022, , 924, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac312a

    2022 doi

  101. [114]

    2005, , 634, L125, 10.1086/499071

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2005, , 634, L125, 10.1086/499071

    2005 doi

  102. [115]

    2022, , 926, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2022, , 926, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    2022 doi

  103. [116]

    J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al

    McCracken , H. J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al. 2012, , 544, A156, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    2012 doi

  104. [117]

    S., Steidel , C

    McLean , I. S., Steidel , C. C., Epps , H., et al. 2010, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Design and development of MOSFIRE: the multi-object spectrometer for infrared exploration at the Keck Observatory , 77351E, 10.1117/...

    2010 doi

  105. [118]

    S., Steidel , C

    McLean , I. S., Steidel , C. C., Epps , H. W., et al. 2012, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, MOSFIRE, the multi-object spectrometer for infra-red exploration at the Keck Observatory , 84460J, 10.1117/12.924794

    2012 doi

  106. [119]

    A., Amodeo, S., et al

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

    2023 doi

  107. [120]

    B., Doore, K., Eufrasio, R

    Monson, E. B., Doore, K., Eufrasio, R. T., et al. 2023, , 951, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd449

    2023 doi

  108. [121]

    1996, , 379, 613, 10.1038/379613a0

    Moore , B., Katz , N., Lake , G., Dressler , A., & Oemler , A. 1996, , 379, 613, 10.1038/379613a0

    1996 doi

  109. [122]

    L., Aird , J., et al

    Moustakas , J., Coil , A. L., Aird , J., et al. 2013, , 767, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50

    2013 doi

  110. [123]

    I., Hatch , N

    Muldrew , S. I., Hatch , N. A., & Cooke , E. A. 2015, , 452, 2528, 10.1093/mnras/stv1449

    2015 doi

  111. [124]

    I., Hatch, N

    Muldrew, S. I., Hatch, N. A., & Cooke, E. A. 2018, , 473, 2335, 10.1093/mnras/stx2454

    2018 doi

  112. [125]

    2013, , 767, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/39

    Muzzin , A., Wilson , G., Demarco , R., et al. 2013, , 767, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/39

    2013 doi

  113. [126]

    Muzzin , A., Wilson , G., Yee , H. K. C., et al. 2012, , 746, 188, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/188

    2012 doi

  114. [127]

    B., van der Burg , R

    Nantais , J. B., van der Burg , R. F. J., Lidman , C., et al. 2016, , 592, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628663

    2016 doi

  115. [128]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  116. [129]

    B., Rudie, G

    Newman, A. B., Rudie, G. C., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2020, , 891, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ee

    2020 doi

  117. [130]

    1974, , 194, 1, 10.1086/153216

    Oemler , Augustus, J. 1974, , 194, 1, 10.1086/153216

    1974 doi

  118. [131]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  119. [132]

    A., Masters, K

    Otter, J. A., Masters, K. L., Simmons, B., & Lintott, C. J. 2020, , 492, 2722, 10.1093/mnras/stz3626

    2020 doi

  120. [133]

    G., & Pahwa, I

    Paranjape, A., Kova c , K., Hartley, W. G., & Pahwa, I. 2015, , 454, 3030, 10.1093/mnras/stv2137

    2015 doi

  121. [134]

    A., Sharon , C

    Pavesi , R., Riechers , D. A., Sharon , C. E., et al. 2018, , 861, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6b6

    2018 doi

  122. [135]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  123. [136]

    I., Wheeler, C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Phillips, J. I., Wheeler, C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2014, , 437, 1930, 10.1093/mnras/stt2023

    2014 doi

  124. [137]

    I., Wheeler, C., Cooper, M

    Phillips, J. I., Wheeler, C., Cooper, M. C., et al. 2015, , 447, 698, 10.1093/mnras/stu2192

    2015 doi

  125. [138]

    H., et al

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

    2023 doi

  126. [139]

    C., et al

    Ramakrishnan, V., Lee, K.-S., Artale, M. C., et al. 2024. 2406.08645

    2024 arXiv

  127. [140]

    J., & Brunner, R

    Ross, A. J., & Brunner, R. J. 2009, , 399, 878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15318.x

    2009

  128. [141]

    2020, , 905, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7c4

    Saracco , P., Marchesini , D., La Barbera , F., et al. 2020, , 905, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7c4

    2020 doi

  129. [142]

    R., Lemaux, B

    Shen, L., Tomczak, A. R., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2019, , 484, 2433, 10.1093/mnras/stz152

    2019 doi

  130. [143]

    C., Lubin, L

    Shen, L., Lemaux, B. C., Lubin, L. M., et al. 2021, , 912, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abee75

    2021 doi

  131. [144]

    2020, , 899, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba626

    Shi, K., Toshikawa, J., Cai, Z., Lee, K.-S., & Fang, T. 2020, , 899, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba626

    2020 doi

  132. [145]

    2021, , 911, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e

    Shi, K., Toshikawa, J., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2021, , 911, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e

    2021 doi

  133. [146]

    2019, , 871, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf85d

    Shi , K., Lee , K.-S., Dey , A., et al. 2019, , 871, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf85d

    2019 doi

  134. [147]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2022, , 665, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244661

    2022 doi

  135. [148]

    Sin, L. P. T., Lilly, S. J., & Henriques, B. M. B. 2017, , 471, 1192, 10.1093/mnras/stx1674

    2017 doi

  136. [149]

    2019, , 488, 234, 10.1093/mnras/stz1695

    ---. 2019, , 488, 234, 10.1093/mnras/stz1695

    2019 doi

  137. [150]

    R., Labb \'e , I., Glazebrook , K., et al

    Spitler , L. R., Labb \'e , I., Glazebrook , K., et al. 2012, , 748, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L21

    2012 doi

  138. [151]

    C., Adelberger , K

    Steidel , C. C., Adelberger , K. L., Dickinson , M., et al. 1998, , 492, 428, 10.1086/305073

    1998 doi

  139. [152]

    Straatman , C. M. S., Labb \'e , I., Spitler , L. R., et al. 2015, , 808, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L29

    2015 doi

  140. [153]

    Straatman , C. M. S., Spitler , L. R., Quadri , R. F., et al. 2016, , 830, 51, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/51

    2016 doi

  141. [154]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi \' c , Z ., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, , 122, 1861, 10.1086/323301

    2001 doi

  142. [155]

    2018, , 477, 3136, 10.1093/mnras/sty832

    Sun, S., Guo, Q., Wang, L., et al. 2018, , 477, 3136, 10.1093/mnras/sty832

    2018 doi

  143. [156]

    2009, Nature, 459, 61, 10.1038/nature07947

    Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., Nakanishi, K., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 61, 10.1038/nature07947

    2009 doi

  144. [157]

    2024, , 970, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316

    Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., Shimakawa, R., et al. 2024, , 970, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316

    2024 doi

  145. [158]

    R., Lemaux, B

    Tomczak, A. R., Lemaux, B. C., Lubin, L. M., et al. 2017, , 472, 3512, 10.1093/mnras/stx2245

    2017 doi

  146. [159]

    2019, , 484, 4695, 10.1093/mnras/stz342

    ---. 2019, , 484, 4695, 10.1093/mnras/stz342

    2019 doi

  147. [160]

    W., Shapley, A

    Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., & Steidel, C. C. 2016, , 824, L11, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L11

    2016 doi

  148. [161]

    H., Alcorn , L

    Tran , K.-V. H., Alcorn , L. Y., Kacprzak , G. G., et al. 2017, , 834, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/101

    2017 doi

  149. [162]

    2018, , 477, 2684, 10.1093/mnras/sty769

    Treyer, M., Kraljic, K., Arnouts, S., et al. 2018, , 477, 2684, 10.1093/mnras/sty769

    2018 doi

  150. [163]

    M., Cooper, M

    Urbano Stawinski , S. M., Cooper, M. C., Forrest, B., et al. 2024, Open J. Astrophys., 7, 10.33232/001c.120087

    2024 doi

  151. [164]

    van der Burg , R. F. J., Rudnick , G., Balogh , M. L., et al. 2020, , 638, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037754

    2020 doi

  152. [165]

    2016, , 223, 29, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/29

    van der Wel , A., Noeske , K., Bezanson , R., et al. 2016, , 223, 29, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/29

    2016 doi

  153. [166]

    2023, , 523, 1268, 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    Wang, K., Peng, Y., & Chen, Y. 2023, , 523, 1268, 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    2023 doi

  154. [167]

    2016, , 828, 56, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56

    Wang , T., Elbaz , D., Daddi , E., et al. 2016, , 828, 56, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56

    2016 doi

  155. [168]

    Wang, W., & White, S. D. M. 2012, , 424, 2574, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21256.x

    2012

  156. [169]

    J., & Cowie , L

    Wang , W.-H., Barger , A. J., & Cowie , L. L. 2012, , 744, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/155

    2012 doi

  157. [170]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, , 258, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    2022 doi

  158. [171]

    R., Zalesky, L., Kokorev, V., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Zalesky, L., Kokorev, V., et al. 2023, , 269, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf850

    2023 doi

  159. [172]

    L., Leja, J., et al

    Webb, K., Balogh, M. L., Leja, J., et al. 2020, , 498, 5317, 10.1093/mnras/staa2752

    2020 doi

  160. [173]

    M., van den Bosch, F

    Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, , 366, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x

    2006

  161. [174]

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

    Whitaker , K. E., Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2011, , 735, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86

    2011 doi

  162. [175]

    J., Quadri , R

    Williams , R. J., Quadri , R. F., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P., & Labb \'e , I. 2009, , 691, 1879, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879

    2009 doi

  163. [176]

    2007, , 655, 51, 10.1086/509708

    Wuyts , S., Labb \'e , I., Franx , M., et al. 2007, , 655, 51, 10.1086/509708

    2007 doi

  164. [177]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr. , J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  165. [178]

    G., et al

    Yuan , T., Nanayakkara , T., Kacprzak , G. G., et al. 2014, , 795, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L20

    2014 doi

  166. [179]

    A., Casey , C

    Zavala , J. A., Casey , C. M., Scoville , N., et al. 2019, , 887, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5302

    2019 doi

  167. [180]

    2018, , 476, 1637, 10.1093/mnras/sty279

    Zu, Y., & Mandelbaum, R. 2018, , 476, 1637, 10.1093/mnras/sty279

    2018 doi

  168. [181]

    6":f LӔB65툋;=cup6 پ F[U&-^ #6F q1rxܒ j Yg/ڎo #M7Ȩ [ a 0 z5)

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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' en...

    2021

Pith tools

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