Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Evidence for environmental effects in the $z\,{=}\,4.3$ protocluster core SPT2349$-$56

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Protocluster galaxies at z=4.3 have hotter, denser gas than field galaxies

desk verdict First [CI] ratio measurements in a z~4 protocluster core, but the headline statistics quietly drop most of the upper limits—so the environmental offset is less secure than the abstract claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03790 v2 pith:OWDJOL3Z submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Chayce Hughes , Ryley Hill , Scott Chapman , Manuel Aravena , Melanie Archipley , Veronica J. Dike , Anthony Gonzalez , Thomas R. Greve
show 11 more authors
Gayathri Gururajan Chris Hayward Kedar Phadke Cassie Reuter Justin Spilker Nikolaus Sulzenauer Joaquin D. Vieira David Vizgan George Wang Axel Weiss Dazhi Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords protoclusterdustystar-forminggalaxiesneutralcarbonfine-structurelineslineluminosityratiogasexcitationtemperaturegalaxyenvironmenthigh-redshiftevolutionsubmillimeterobservations
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 tries to establish that living in a dense protocluster core changes the interstellar gas inside galaxies, not just their surroundings. Using millimeter observations of the two neutral carbon fine-structure lines in 25 dusty star-forming galaxies in the z=4.3 protocluster SPT2349-56, it measures a median line-luminosity ratio of 0.94, well above the 0.55 seen in comparable field galaxies. The excess comes from the higher-excitation [CI](2-1) line at a given 850-micron flux, and under local thermal equilibrium it translates to a gas excitation temperature of about 59 K versus 34 K in the field. If right, this is direct evidence that the dense environment heats and compresses the gas in these galaxies, likely through interactions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the neutral carbon atom's two fine-structure transitions, $[CI](1-0)$ at 492 GHz and $[CI](2-1)$ at 809 GHz, which together form a simple three-level system. Their luminosity ratio $R_{CI} = L'_{[CI](2-1)}/L'_{[CI](1-0)}$ is converted to an excitation temperature through the LTE formula $T_{ex} = 38.8 \, \mathrm{K} / \ln(2.11 / R_{CI})$. Because both lines are observed in the same galaxies at the same redshift, the ratio is a self-calibrating thermometer that does not depend on distance or overall luminosity. The paper also uses power-law fits of each line luminosity against the 850 micron flux density to isolate which line drives the ratio difference.

What would settle it

Measure both [CI] lines in a sample of unlensed, non-interacting dusty star-forming galaxies at z approximately 4.3 matched in 850 micron flux density; if their median line ratio matches the protocluster value rather than the lensed-field value, the claimed environmental excess disappears. Alternatively, a non-LTE excitation model that reproduces the field ratios at higher gas densities would remove the need for an environmental temperature difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an environmental difference in the neutral carbon line ratio. Protocluster galaxies in SPT2349-56 have a mean $L'_{[CI](2-1)}/L'_{[CI](1-0)}$ ratio of $1.094 \pm 0.090$, compared with $0.671 \pm 0.052$ for field dusty star-forming galaxies drawn from a lensed sample at comparable redshift and 850 micron flux density. Power-law fits of line luminosity versus $S_{850}$ show that while $[CI](1-0)$ is similar between the two populations, $[CI](2-1)$ is elevated by a factor of about two in the protocluster. Assuming the lines are optically thin and in local thermal equilibrium, this yields an excitation temperature of $59.1^{+8.1}_{-6.8}$ K for the protocluster and $33.9^{+2.4}_{-2.2}$ K for the field. The authors interpret this as cold gas being driven to the galactic cores by interactions in the dense environment, raising gas density and excitation.

Load-bearing premise

The field galaxies are strongly lensed, and for about a third of them the two carbon lines are assumed to be magnified equally even without a lens model; if that magnification ratio is wrong, the field line ratios could be biased low and the environmental difference could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gas in protocluster galaxies is on average hotter and likely denser than in field galaxies at the same epoch, implying the environment alters the interstellar medium before quenching.
  • The elevated $[CI](2-1)/S_{850}$ ratio provides a new observational marker for environmentally affected galaxies at high redshift.
  • Gas mass estimates from $[CI]$ agree with CO-based estimates within a factor of two, so the higher excitation does not invalidate $[CI]$ as a gas tracer.
  • The shorter gas depletion timescales previously reported for SPT2349-56 are consistent with the higher radiation intensity per unit gas mass implied by the hotter gas.
  • Future resolved observations should test whether the extra $[CI](2-1)$ is concentrated in galaxy cores, as predicted by the interaction scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the line-ratio excess survives a comparison against unlensed field galaxies, it would strengthen the case that environment, not lensing selection, drives the difference.
  • A testable extension is to look for a correlation between the $[CI]$ ratio and merger stage or projected separation within the protocluster; the paper reports no trend with distance from the center, but merger state is a more direct probe.
  • The same ratio method could be applied to other protocluster cores to ask whether the heating is universal or specific to SPT2349-56's extreme over-density.
  • The implied higher excitation temperature should also be visible in other tracers, such as the $CO(7-6)/CO(4-3)$ ratio, which the paper finds is also elevated.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA Band 3 and Band 4 observations of the [C I] 492 GHz and 806 GHz fine-structure lines toward 25 dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) in the core of the z = 4.3 protocluster SPT2349-56. The authors measure [C I](1-0), [C I](2-1), and CO(7-6) line strengths, deblending the latter two using [C II] profiles as templates, and compare the ratio L'[CI](2-1)/L'[CI](1-0) with field DSFGs from Gururajan et al. (2023). They report a higher mean ratio in the protocluster (mu = 1.094 +/- 0.090 versus 0.671 +/- 0.052), a higher median (0.94 versus 0.55), an excess of [C I](2-1) at fixed 850 micron flux density (power-law fits give r21/r10 = 1.54 +/- 0.39), and LTE excitation temperatures of 59.1 K versus 33.9 K. The interpretation is that interactions in the dense protocluster environment drive cold gas to galaxy cores, raising the average gas density and excitation temperature. The central ratio measurement is direct and does not rely on fitted parameters; the main interpretive steps are the LTE assumption and the representativeness of the lensed field comparison sample.

Significance. The dataset is unique: [C I](1-0) and [C I](2-1) measurements for a statistical sample of protocluster DSFGs at z ~ 4.3, along with a field sample at comparable redshift and 850 micron flux density. If the offset is real, it is one of the clearest pieces of evidence for environmental effects on the ISM excitation of galaxies during protocluster assembly, and it speaks directly to the gas-concentration and gas-stripping scenarios debated in the literature. The paper's strengths include the careful deblending procedure validated on the comparison sample, the spatial-coincidence checks in Appendix B, the explicit robustness test for the bright source N1 in Appendix A, and the transparent statement of the equal-magnification assumption for lensed sources without lens models. The central ratio measurement is independent of fitted calibrations, so circularity is not a concern; the only shared calibration (X_CI x alpha_CO from Gururajan et al. 2023) is used in the secondary gas-mass comparison. However, the treatment of censored measurements is incomplete and the quoted significance of the headline offset is likely overstated, so the quantitative claims need additional work.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The statistics in Section 3 silently exclude the censored measurements in Table 1: only sources with both lines detected above an (apparently) 3.5 sigma threshold enter the mean, median, and power-law fits, while 11 of the 25 protocluster galaxies (C11, C12, C14, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20, C21, C22, C23) have at least one 3 sigma upper limit and 7 have neither line detected. The text never states this threshold or how upper limits enter the analysis; the 3.5 sigma criterion appears only in the caption of Fig. 2. Because the strongly lensed field sample is nearly fully detected, the two samples are censored asymmetrically, and the comparison requires either a survival-analysis treatment of the ratios or, at minimum, a sensitivity test that assigns upper-limit values to the censored sources and recomputes the median, mean, and fits. Concretely, C16 and C21 have [C I](2-1) upper limits that bound their L' ratios to about 0.45 and 0.60, below the reported protocluster median of 0.94. The paper should also state explicitly in the abstract and text that the quoted median and mean are based on roughly 10 detected sources, not all 25 galaxies.
  2. [Section 3] The quoted uncertainty on the protocluster mean, mu = 1.094 +/- 0.090, appears to be the standard deviation of the per-realization means obtained by drawing only from the Gaussian measurement errors; it does not include the sampling variance of the mean, sigma/sqrt(N) ~ 0.42/sqrt(10) ~ 0.13. Including both contributions gives a total uncertainty of about 0.16 on the protocluster mean, and the offset of 0.423 relative to the field mean is then significant at roughly 2.5-3 sigma rather than the roughly 4 sigma implied by a naive combination of the quoted errors. The paper should report a significance that accounts for both measurement noise and population variance (for example, a Welch t-test or a permutation test over sources), or explicitly state that the quoted errors are measurement-error-only bounds. This is load-bearing because the abstract's claim that the ratios are 'markedly different' rests on this significance.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The headline statistics are sensitive to the S/N threshold used for inclusion, and that threshold is not justified. With the 3.5 sigma criterion the mean ratio is about 1.09, but with the 2 sigma convention of Table 1 the weak-[C I](1-0) sources C8, C10, and C13 enter and raise the mean to about 1.3; these are the same sources whose individual L' ratios (about 2.1-2.5) sit at or above the optically-thin LTE limit R = 2.11 where Eq. (2) diverges. The paper should state the threshold in the text, show how the mean, median, and Tex vary with the threshold, and test whether the ratio correlates with S850 or with [C I](1-0) S/N within the protocluster, since any such correlation would make the threshold choice a selection effect in the comparison with the fully detected field sample.
  4. [Section 3, Table 2] The power-law fits that support the 'excess of [C I](2-1) at fixed S850' claim appear to use different source subsets for the two lines: [C I](2-1) is detected in more protocluster galaxies than [C I](1-0) at the 3.5 sigma level (for example, C10 and C13 enter the [C I](2-1) fit but not the [C I](1-0) fit), and the text never specifies which sources enter the ODR fits. The authors should restrict both fits to the same source list and to the same treatment of upper limits, including the censored galaxies discussed above, and they should tabulate the field fit parameters alpha and gamma, which currently appear only in Fig. 2, so that the quoted r10 = 1.41 +/- 0.26 and r21 = 2.17 +/- 0.38 can be verified.
  5. [Section 3, field comparison] The field comparison rests on the inclusion of 11 Gururajan et al. (2023) sources without lens models under the explicit assumption that both [C I] lines are magnified equally; the paper should test the sensitivity of the mean field ratio and of r10 and r21 to excluding these sources, since differential magnification of a more compact [C I](2-1) region would bias the field ratio upward and shrink the reported offset, while the opposite geometry would enlarge it. In addition, the field sample uses S870 while the protocluster uses S850; at these frequencies the S850/S870 ratio is about 1.1 for a modified blackbody with beta ~ 1.8 and Td ~ 35-40 K, and the paper should state how this offset is handled in the fits, even though it largely cancels in the line-ratio comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that 'the protocluster galaxies exhibit a median ratio of 0.94,' but this median is computed from only the roughly 10 sources with both lines detected; the statement should make clear that the median refers to the detected subset, or better, to a properly censored analysis.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The 3.5 sigma inclusion criterion for the statistics in Section 3 appears only in the caption of Fig. 2; it should be moved to the text and applied consistently throughout.
  3. [Throughout] The name 'Canameras' is rendered as 'Ca~nameras' in several places in the text and in the reference list.
  4. [Section 4] The sentence beginning '(Cortzen et al. 2020) also measured...' should read 'Cortzen et al. (2020) also measured...'.
  5. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'we averaged over the channels within 2 sigma of the expected position' should specify whether the 2 sigma refers to the line width or to the per-channel noise.
  6. [Eq. (1)] The definition of the integration variable u and the limits are given in the text, but the notation in Eq. (1) is dense; a short verbal description of rbar as the mean predicted ratio over the 2-20 mJy interval would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central [CI](2-1)/(1-0) comparison is a direct measurement, not a fitted prediction; self-citations provide data and calibrations but do not define the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that SPT2349-56 protocluster galaxies have a higher atomic carbon line luminosity ratio than field DSFGs—rests on measured line luminosities in Table 1 and a Monte Carlo average of those measurements, not on any parameter fitted to the target quantity. The power-law fits in Section 3 are descriptive comparisons of the same data and are not used to generate the headline ratio; the consistency check rbar21/rbar10 = 1.54 ± 0.39 versus the ratio of mean ratios 1.63 ± 0.18 is an internal cross-check, not a prediction from fitted inputs. The excitation temperature Tex from Eq. (2) is an analytic, monotone transform of the measured ratio RCI, so it carries no independent confirmatory power but is not circular. The field comparison sample from Gururajan et al. (2023) is prior published ALMA data; although several authors of the present paper overlap with that work, the citation is data, not an imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the main claim does not reduce to its calibration. The X_CI × alpha_CO factor from Gururajan et al. (2023) enters only the secondary gas-mass comparison (Fig. 3), so it does not feed back into the line-ratio result. The text itself flags two limitations that are interpretive rather than definitional: the assumption that both [CI] lines are magnified equally for lensed sources without lens models, and the statement that the interaction versus stripping scenarios 'cannot be conclusively distinguished with our current data.' A further non-circular statistical concern is that Section 3 does not state how the many 3-sigma upper limits in Table 1 enter the mean/median statistics; if faint protocluster members with low [CI](2-1) are excluded, the reported offset could be a censoring artifact. That is a selection/correctness issue, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the central measurement is not circularly defined.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central line-ratio measurement itself is model-independent and does not depend on fitted parameters. The main free parameters are the descriptive power-law fits used to quantify the [CI](2-1) excess, and the main domain assumptions concern the field comparison sample, the deblending templates, and the LTE interpretation of the derived temperatures.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-law amplitude alpha and slope gamma for L[CI](1-0) vs S850, protocluster sample = alpha = 1.243 +/- 0.076, gamma = 0.656 +/- 0.093 (including N1); alpha = 1.122 +/- 0.089, gamma = 0.48 +/- 0.10…
    Fit with ODR to protocluster data in Fig. 2; used to show [CI](1-0) is comparable to the field sample.
  • Power-law amplitude alpha and slope gamma for L[CI](2-1) vs S850, protocluster sample = alpha = 5.57 +/- 0.37, gamma = 0.729 +/- 0.094 (including N1); alpha = 5.96 +/- 0.48, gamma = 0.84 +/- 0.13 (excluding…
    Fit with ODR to protocluster data in Fig. 2; the larger amplitude compared to the field drives the claimed [CI](2-1) excess.
  • Power-law amplitude alpha and slope gamma for field sample [CI](1-0) and [CI](2-1) fits = Reported in Figure 2 but not transcribed in the extract
    The field fits are the baseline against which the protocluster excess is defined; the paper gives the parameters in the figure.
  • Normalization constants C_y and S_x in power-law fits = C_y = 3e7 Lsun, S_x = 7 mJy
    Chosen by hand to make fit parameters unitless and order unity; this does not change the relative conclusions.
  • Relative height of two Gaussian components in [CII] template for sources C3, C5, and N1 = Not quoted
    Additional free parameter in the deblending model for these sources; it affects the line strengths of those galaxies only.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Both [CI] lines are optically thin and the emission arises from PDRs in local thermal equilibrium
    Required for Eq. (2) to give Tex; the authors verify optical depths below 5e-3 but do not independently verify LTE.
  • domain assumption Lensing magnification affects [CI](1-0) and [CI](2-1) equally in field sources without lens models
    Stated in Section 3 before including these sources in sample statistics; if false, the field median ratio could be biased.
  • domain assumption Best-fit [CII] line profiles from Hill et al. (2020) are accurate templates for deblending CO(7-6) and [CI](2-1)
    Used for all sources in Section 2.2; profile mismatch would propagate into the line luminosities.
  • domain assumption S850 is a model-independent tracer and is comparable between the protocluster and field samples
    Used as the x-axis for all comparisons in Fig. 2; the field S870 values are treated as equivalent to S850.
  • domain assumption The Gururajan et al. (2023) lensed DSFG sample is representative of field DSFGs at comparable redshift and S850 range
    This is the central comparison sample; a biased field sample would change the claimed environmental excess.
  • domain assumption X_CI * alpha_CO = (6.31 +/- 0.67) x 10^-5 from Gururajan et al. (2023)
    Used only for the secondary gas-mass comparison in Fig. 3; it is not load-bearing for the main line-ratio result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for environmental effects in the $z\,{=}\,4.3$ protocluster core SPT2349$-$56." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWDJOL3Z

@misc{pith2026241203790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for environmental effects in the $z\,=\,4.3$ protocluster core SPT2349$-$56},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWDJOL3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03790}
}
abstract

We present ALMA observations of the [CI] 492 and 806$\,$GHz fine-structure lines in 25 dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) at $z\,{=}\,4.3$ in the core of the SPT2349$-$56 protocluster. The protocluster galaxies exhibit a median $L^\prime_{[\text{CI}](2-1)}/L^\prime_{[\text{CI}](1-0)}$ ratio of 0.94 with an interquartile range of 0.81-1.24. These ratios are markedly different to those observed in DSFGs in the field (across a comparable redshift and 850$\,\mu$m flux density range), where the median is 0.55 with an interquartile range of 0.50-0.76, and we show that this difference is driven by an excess of [CI](2-1) in the protocluster galaxies for a given 850$\,\mu$m flux density. Assuming local thermal equilibrium, we estimate gas excitation temperatures of $T_{\rm ex}\,{=}\,59.1^{+8.1}_{-6.8}\,$K for our protocluster sample and $T_{\rm ex}\,{=}\,33.9^{+2.4}_{-2.2}\,$K for the field sample. Our main interpretation of this result is that the protocluster galaxies have had their cold gas driven to their cores via close-by interactions within the dense environment, leading to an overall increase in the average gas density and excitation temperature, and an elevated [CI](2-1) luminosity-to-far-infrared luminosity ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Continuum-subtracted Band 3 and 4 spectra for all sources with a > 2σ peak pixel [Ci](1–0) or aperture [Ci](2–1) measurement. The average per-channel noise in mJy over the displayed channels is listed in the top-right of each panel, and the name of each galaxy in Hill et al. (2020) is listed in the top-left. All spectra are unbinned. The fits to the Band 3 and 4 spectra are shown in green and red, respec￾tively. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of [Ci] and CO line luminosities and line ratios in SPT2349−56 and the literature field sample. Top: The L[Ci](2−1) / L[Ci](1−0) ratio as a function of S850 for protocluster galaxies (blue) and field galaxies (red), with L ′ units shown on the right axis. The horizontal dashed line at L ′ [Ci](2−1) / L′ [Ci](1−0) = 2.11 indicates where the line ratio becomes unphysical (see Eq. 2). Sources with > 3.5σ mea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas mass estimates from CO(4–3) measure￾ments compared to gas mass estimates from [Ci]. Hill et al. (2020) assumed r4,1 = 0.60 ± 0.05 to convert CO(4–3) to CO(1–0) line luminosities (in units of K km s−1 pc2 ) and αCO = 1.0 M⊙ (K km s−1 pc2 ) −1 . We have used Eq. 4 with XCI × αCO = (6.31 ± 0.67) × 10−5 (Gururajan et al. 2023), along with the same αCO value. αCO = 1.0 M⊙ (K km s−1 pc2 ) −1 (as was used by Hill et al… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Cii] cutouts from Hill et al. (2020) are shown in the background, with blue contours overlaid in steps of 2nσ (where n = 0, 1, 2, 3...). [Ci](1–0) (red) and [Ci](2–1) (yellow) contours are overlaid following the same σ levels for comparison. The peak pixel in the [Cii…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Large Molecular Gas Reservoir in the Protocluster SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,{=}\,4.3$

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ACA low-resolution observations reveal a 75% CO(4-3) flux excess in SPT2349-56 relative to the sum of ALMA-detected galaxies, implying a large extended molecular gas reservoir.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    S&D3tJ8H1/

    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]

    C., Swinbank , A

    Alaghband-Zadeh , S., Chapman , S. C., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2013, , 435, 1493, 10.1093/mnras/stt1390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1390 2013

  5. [5]

    2003, , 409, 37, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031073

    Andreon , S. 2003, , 409, 37, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031073

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031073 2003

  6. [6]

    C., Kumar , A., et al

    Andrews , M., Artale , M. C., Kumar , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08412, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08412

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08412 2024

  7. [7]

    2024, , 683, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245785

    Apostolovski , Y., Aravena , M., Anguita , T., et al. 2024, , 683, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245785

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245785 2024

  8. [8]

    G., & Contursi , A

    Bayet , E., Gerin , M., Phillips , T. G., & Contursi , A. 2009, , 399, 264, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15258.x

    arXiv 2009

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    E., Weiss , A., Wardlow , J

    Birkin , J. E., Weiss , A., Wardlow , J. L., et al. 2021, , 501, 3926, 10.1093/mnras/staa3862

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Barnes , J

    Blumenthal , K. A., & Barnes , J. E. 2018, , 479, 3952, 10.1093/mnras/sty1605

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Aguirre , J

    Bothwell , M. S., Aguirre , J. E., Aravena , M., et al. 2017, , 466, 2825, 10.1093/mnras/stw3270

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Ca \ n ameras , R., Nesvadba , N. P. H., Guery , D., et al. 2015, , 581, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425128

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Ca \ n ameras , R., Yang , C., Nesvadba , N. P. H., et al. 2018, , 620, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833625

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Hill , R., Aravena , M., et al

    Chapman , S. C., Hill , R., Aravena , M., et al. 2024, , 961, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b77

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    E., Valentino , F., et al

    Cortzen , I., Magdis , G. E., Valentino , F., et al. 2020, , 634, L14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937217

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Noble , A

    Cramer , W. J., Noble , A. G., Rudnick , G., et al. 2024, , 975, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7798

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2009, , 694, 1517, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1517

    Daddi , E., Dannerbauer , H., Stern , D., et al. 2009, , 694, 1517, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1517

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Vlahakis , C., & Gomez , H

    Dunne , L., Maddox , S. J., Vlahakis , C., & Gomez , H. L. 2021, , 501, 2573, 10.1093/mnras/staa3526

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Smail , I., Dressler , A., et al

    Ellis , R. S., Smail , I., Dressler , A., et al. 1997, , 483, 582, 10.1086/304261

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Zhang , L., Crawford , T

    Everett , W. B., Zhang , L., Crawford , T. M., et al. 2020, , 900, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9df7

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, , 676, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346449

    Gururajan , G., Bethermin , M., Sulzenauer , N., et al. 2023, , 676, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346449

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, , 495, 3124, 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    A., et al

    Hill , R., Chapman , S., Phadke , K. A., et al. 2022, , 512, 4352, 10.1093/mnras/stab3539

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Geach , J

    Hine , N. K., Geach , J. E., Alexander , D. M., et al. 2016, , 455, 2363, 10.1093/mnras/stv2448

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Biggs , A

    Ivison , R. J., Biggs , A. D., Bremer , M., Arumugam , V., & Dunne , L. 2020, , 496, 4358, 10.1093/mnras/staa1802

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Rudnick , G

    Lee-Brown , D. B., Rudnick , G. H., Momcheva , I. G., et al. 2017, , 844, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7948

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 226, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad148c

    Liao, C.-L., Chen, C.-C., Wang, W.-H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 226, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad148c

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, , 810, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L14

    Liu , D., Gao , Y., Isaak , K., et al. 2015, , 810, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L14

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Papovich , C., Faber , S

    Lotz , J. M., Papovich , C., Faber , S. M., et al. 2013, , 773, 154, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/154

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  24. [32]

    Meijerink , R., Spaans , M., & Israel , F. P. 2007, , 461, 793, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066130

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Chapman , S

    Miller , T. B., Chapman , S. C., Aravena , M., et al. 2018, , 556, 469, 10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    L., et al

    Moreno , J., Torrey , P., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2015, , 448, 1107, 10.1093/mnras/stv094

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, , 485, 1320, 10.1093/mnras/stz417

    ---. 2019, , 485, 1320, 10.1093/mnras/stz417

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

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

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    V., Koyama , Y., Hayashi , M., et al

    Namiki , S. V., Koyama , Y., Hayashi , M., et al. 2019, , 877, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b6c

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Nesvadba , N. P. H., Ca \ n ameras , R., Kneissl , R., et al. 2019, , 624, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833777

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Dunne , L., et al

    Oteo , I., Ivison , R. J., Dunne , L., et al. 2018, , 856, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1f1

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Overzier , R. A. 2016, , 24, 14, 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, , 510, 725, 10.1093/mnras/stab3194

    Papadopoulos , P., Dunne , L., & Maddox , S. 2022, , 510, 725, 10.1093/mnras/stab3194

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    P., & Greve , T

    Papadopoulos , P. P., & Greve , T. R. 2004, , 615, L29, 10.1086/426059

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Thi , W

    Papadopoulos , P. P., Thi , W. F., & Viti , S. 2004, , 351, 147, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07762.x

    2004

  36. [44]

    M., Kodama , T., Koyama , Y., et al

    P \'e rez-Mart \' nez , J. M., Kodama , T., Koyama , Y., et al. 2024, , 527, 10221, 10.1093/mnras/stad3805

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration VI . 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, , 370, 1185, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10575.x

    Pope , A., Scott , D., Dickinson , M., et al. 2006, , 370, 1185, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10575.x

    2006

  39. [47]

    2023, , 958, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/acee79

    Popescu , R., Pope , A., Lee , K.-S., et al. 2023, , 958, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/acee79

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2010, , 709, 512, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    Rettura , A., Rosati , P., Nonino , M., et al. 2010, , 709, 512, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Spilker , J

    Reuter , C., Vieira , J. D., Spilker , J. S., et al. 2020, , 902, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb599

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Chapman , S

    Rotermund , K. M., Chapman , S. C., Phadke , K. A., et al. 2021, , 502, 1797, 10.1093/mnras/stab103

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2003, , 406, 915, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030726

    Schneider , N., Simon , R., Kramer , C., et al. 2003, , 406, 915, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030726

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    2013, , 206, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/3

    Scoville , N., Arnouts , S., Aussel , H., et al. 2013, , 206, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/3

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Marrone , D

    Spilker , J. S., Marrone , D. P., Aravena , M., et al. 2016, , 826, 112, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/112

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Adelberger , K

    Steidel , C. C., Adelberger , K. L., Shapley , A. E., et al. 2005, , 626, 44, 10.1086/429989

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, , 801, 132, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/132

    Valentino , F., Daddi , E., Strazzullo , V., et al. 2015, , 801, 132, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/132

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Gullieuszik , M., et al

    Vulcani , B., Poggianti , B. M., Gullieuszik , M., et al. 2018, , 866, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae68b

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2011, , 730, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/18

    Walter , F., Wei , A., Downes , D., Decarli , R., & Henkel , C. 2011, , 730, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/18

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Leja , J., et al

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

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2003, , 409, L41, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031337

    Wei , A., Henkel , C., Downes , D., & Walter , F. 2003, , 409, L41, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031337

    2003 doi

  52. [60]

    C., Sulzenauer , N., et al

    Zhou , D., Chapman , S. C., Sulzenauer , N., et al. 2025, , 982, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/adb8d8

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.