Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 79 references

A novel analysis of contamination in Lyman-break galaxy samples at $\boldsymbol{z\sim6-8}$: spatial correlation with intermediate-redshift galaxies at $\boldsymbol{z\sim1.3-2}$

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spatial clustering estimates contamination in Lyman-break galaxy samples

desk verdict Useful, honest method paper for estimating LBG contamination via spatial correlation, with a caveat about the random-subset assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00301 v1 pith:DM5RSH5L submitted 2024-12-31 astro-ph.CO

Miftahul Hilmi , Nicha Leethochawalit , Michele Trenti , Benjamin Metha This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords Lyman-breakgalaxiescontaminationfractioncross-correlationfunctioncounts-in-cellshigh-redshiftphotometricselectionGOODS-SBoRGsurvey
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 introduces a new way to estimate how many galaxies in photometrically selected high-redshift samples are actually lower-redshift interlopers. Instead of relying on spectroscopy or simulations of galaxy colors, the method measures whether the high-redshift candidates cluster spatially with the population of galaxies that could mimic them. If there is no clustering, contamination is low; if there is clustering, some of the candidates are likely interlopers. The method is applied to two survey strategies and validated against mock observations, giving an upper limit below 5.5% contamination for z~6 samples in GOODS-S and XDF, and a 62% contamination estimate for the z~8 BoRG sample that agrees with earlier work.

What carries the argument

The cross-correlation function with a modified Landy-Szalay estimator, together with a counts-in-cells Pearson correlation for multi-field surveys. The method exploits the physical independence of galaxies at the two redshifts: any measured angular correlation must come from interlopers sharing the same parent population. Monte Carlo simulations with IllustrisTNG mocks convert a leakage fraction (probability that a faint interloper is misidentified as a high-redshift galaxy) into a contamination fraction and predict the signal expected at each contamination level.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift survey of all the z~6 candidates in GOODS-S and XDF that finds an actual contamination fraction above 5.5% would contradict the paper's upper limit. Similarly, measuring the angular autocorrelation of the faint z~1.3 interlopers and finding that Balmer-break galaxies are significantly more clustered than the full faint population would invalidate the leakage-fraction mapping used in the Monte Carlo simulations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that contamination in Lyman-break galaxy samples can be quantified from the angular clustering between the high-redshift candidates and galaxies at the redshift where a Balmer break mimics the Lyman break. For a single contiguous field, the cross-correlation function between z~6 galaxies and z~1.3 galaxies in GOODS-S and XDF is consistent with zero; Monte Carlo simulations based on IllustrisTNG mocks show that contamination above 5.5% would be detected 90% of the time, so the true contamination is below 5.5% at 90% confidence. For a survey of many independent pointings, the paper instead uses counts-in-cells: the number of z~8 candidates in each BoRG field is compared with the number of faint z~2 galaxies, and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.05 +/- 0.17 is measured. Matching this to simulations yields a contamination fraction of 62+13-39% for the BoRG z~8 sample, consistent with the previous 42% estimate of Bradley et al. (2012). These results demonstrate that the spatial-correlation approach works as an independent check of contamination.

Load-bearing premise

The depth of the analysis depends on the assumption that the interlopers are a random subset of the faint intermediate-redshift galaxy population, sharing that population's angular clustering; if actual Balmer-break interlopers are more or less clustered than the general faint population, the derived 5.5% limit and the leakage-to-contamination mapping would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is correct, photometrically selected LBG samples in large contiguous surveys can be validated without expensive spectroscopy, simply by measuring the cross-correlation against the interloper population.
  • The depth dependence found here predicts that contamination fractions drop for deeper surveys because the high-redshift luminosity function is steeper than that of the interlopers; deeper future surveys should show lower contamination at fixed leakage.
  • Applying the counts-in-cells method to upcoming JWST pure-parallel surveys such as PANORAMIC should yield much tighter contamination constraints for z~8 and higher redshift samples.
  • The measured z~8 BoRG contamination of ~62% implies that current luminosity function estimates at z~8 from such shallow surveys may be substantially biased if not corrected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be extended to JWST-era samples at z>10, where contamination from intermediate-redshift galaxies is expected to rise sharply; a null cross-correlation signal would then set an upper limit that drives the practical survey depth needed.
  • The contamination fraction inferred from clustering assumes that interlopers trace the angular clustering of the general faint interloper population. If Balmer-break galaxies are more strongly clustered, the limit would be less constraining; checking this would require measuring the ACF of the interloper population itself.
  • Counts-in-cells uses a small number of fields (39) with Poisson noise; the 62% estimate for BoRG is consistent with the previous 42% only within the large error bars, and future surveys with more pointings will decide whether the technique can discriminate between competing contamination models.
  • The cross-correlation method could in principle be turned around: instead of contamination, it might measure the magnification bias between the two redshift populations, if strong lensing contributes to the apparent clustering signal.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two estimators of contamination in photometrically selected Lyman-break galaxy samples based on spatial correlation with the parent population of lower-redshift interlopers. For a large contiguous field, the method uses the angular cross-correlation between z~6 galaxies and z~1.3 galaxies; applying this to CANDELS GOODS-S and XDF yields no significant signal, and mock observations from IllustrisTNG are used to claim that the contamination fraction is below 5.5% at 90% confidence. For a multi-field survey, the method uses counts-in-cell Pearson correlation between z~8 and z~2 galaxy counts; applying this to BoRG gives a leakage fraction f_leak=2.90±2.38% and a contamination fraction f_cont=62+13-39%, consistent with previous estimates. The paper is clearly written and the proposed framework is a conceptually attractive independent check of contamination, but several calibration and statistical issues need to be addressed before the headline limits can be accepted.

Significance. If the calibration assumptions are met, the paper offers a valuable independent check of contamination in LBG samples that does not rely on SED fitting or spectroscopic follow-up. The use of public IllustrisTNG simulations and external luminosity functions is a strength, and the method produces falsifiable predictions: for GOODS-S, contamination above ~5.5% should produce a detectable cross-correlation signal. The BoRG application, despite large uncertainties, provides a consistency test against earlier contamination estimates. However, the strength of the conclusions is currently limited by the assumption that interlopers are a uniformly random subset of the faint lower-redshift population, by an apparent overextension of the sensitivity limit to XDF, and by the statistical treatment of the BoRG correlation measurement.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1-3.2, abstract] The calibration assumes that contaminants are a uniformly random subset of the faint z~1.30 population. In the Monte Carlo, every faint z=1.30 mock galaxy has the same leakage probability, so the injected contaminants inherit exactly the angular clustering of the parent population; the same ACF is then used in Eq. (14) to convert the measured cross-correlation into f_cont and in Fig. 4 to set the 5.5% threshold. Real Balmer/4000-Å break interlopers are SED-selected and could be more or less clustered than the general faint population; if their ACF differs by a factor b, both the threshold and the inferred f_cont rescale by 1/b. The paper validates only the average z~1.3 ACF against the observations (Section 3.1), not the ACF of the objects that actually leak. Please quantify the sensitivity of the headline limits to this assumption, for example by using spectroscopically confirmed interlopers or an SED-selected mock interloper population.
  2. [Section 3.1-3.2, abstract] The 90%-confidence sensitivity threshold is derived from mock fields that match the GOODS-S geometry: the cutout boxes are 'approximately the size of the GOODS-S area.' The abstract and Section 3.3 extend the <5.5% conclusion to XDF, which has an area of 4.7 arcmin^2 versus 64.5 arcmin^2 for GOODS-S and a different sample size of z~6 galaxies. The same sensitivity threshold does not automatically apply to XDF. Either run the Monte Carlo with XDF-geometry mocks, including the smaller number of z~6 galaxies, or restrict the claim to GOODS-S.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (15), summary] The BoRG contamination estimate rests on a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.05±0.17, which Section 4.2 states is consistent with zero. The weighting scheme in Eq. (15) uses a Gaussian likelihood in r to compute the weighted mean f_leak=2.90±2.38%, yielding f_cont=62+13-39%. This is not a proper posterior: because the observed r is within 1σ of both zero and the simulated f_leak=0 value (0.01±0.17), the quoted 1σ interval that excludes zero contamination is not justified. The summary's phrase 'we detected evidence of number counts correlation' is also stronger than the data support. Please replace the weighting with a likelihood-based fit that accounts for the full noise distribution, or report the result as an upper limit.
  4. [Section 4.3] The simulation sets the expected faint z~2 count in each BoRG field to a deterministic multiple of the observed bright count, using the luminosity-function ratio from Marchesini et al. (2012), and then applies only Poisson noise. This ignores field-to-field cosmic variance and stochasticity in the faint-to-bright ratio, which are significant for 39 BoRG fields of roughly 4 arcmin^2 each. If the faint counts fluctuate independently of the bright counts, the f_leak-to-cP mapping and hence the contamination estimate change. Please include a model for this scatter or justify its neglect with a quantitative argument.
  5. [Section 2.2, Eq. (14)] The method assumes zero intrinsic cross-correlation between the z~6 and z~1.3 populations, but gravitational magnification of z~6 sources by foreground z~1.3 structures can produce a positive angular cross-correlation even with no contamination. The paper cites magnification bias as a concern for luminosity functions but does not quantify its contribution to Eq. (14). If lensing contributes at a level comparable to the 5.5% contamination threshold, the reported limit changes. A concrete test would be to cross-correlate the z~6 sample with a foreground sample at a redshift that cannot be an interloper (e.g., z~0.5), or to estimate the expected magnification signal from the z~1.3 dark-matter halos in the simulations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] In the third paragraph of Section 2.2, 'the cross-correlation function between galaxies at z~1.3 and z~2' should read 'z~6' rather than 'z~2'.
  2. [Section 2.2] Only ten bootstrap resamples are used to estimate the covariance matrix. Given the resulting noise and the ridge-regression stabilization, a brief sensitivity test on the ridge constant c=0.0001 would help the reader assess the robustness of the fit.
  3. [Section 3.1] The mock field size is stated as 0.12 x 0.2 degrees, which is approximately 86 arcmin^2, while the GOODS-S area is 64.5 arcmin^2; the match is only approximate and could be stated more precisely.
  4. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'C+19 discard two fields because they affected by star overdensity' contains a missing verb; it should read 'because they are affected by...'.
  5. [Data availability] For a methods paper, sharing the analysis code would aid reproducibility; the current statement only covers the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: contamination estimates are forward-modeled from external simulations and luminosity functions, then fitted to observed correlations.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. For the CANDELS/GOODS-S limit, the paper measures a null cross-correlation (§2.2) and then calibrates, with IllustrisTNG mocks (§3.2), the contamination fraction at which the null would be rejected. The mock injects contaminants by randomly selecting faint z=1.30 galaxies ("we use a Monte Carlo method to randomly select contaminants from interlopers"), so the simulated signal is proportional to the z~1.3 ACF; this is a physical assumption about the interloper population, not a definitional restatement of the measured contamination. The f_leak-to-f_cont conversion and the 5.5% threshold are outputs of the simulation's number densities, not recycled inputs. For BoRG, the expected z~8 counts come from the Schmidt+14 luminosity function and the expected faint z~2 counts from the Marchesini+12 LF normalized to observed bright counts; the contamination fraction is then fitted from the observed Pearson coefficient (cP=0.05±0.17), not imposed. Eq. (14) is taken from Awan & Gawiser (2020) and is used consistently with the simulation to translate a null cross-correlation into a small f_cont. Self-citations (Dalmasso+24 random catalogs; Cameron+19 z~2 catalog and counts-in-cells method; Trenti+12 completeness) supply data and procedures, but they are not uniqueness theorems and do not force the headline numbers. The central caveat—real Balmer-break interlopers might be more or less clustered than a random subset of the faint z~1.3 population—affects the accuracy of the calibration but is not a circular reduction: the paper's equations do not set the answer equal to an input. Therefore no significant circularity.

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

The method relies on several external models and selection choices. The principal free parameters are the fitted angular correlation amplitudes and slopes and the leakage fraction; the main axioms are about the absence of intrinsic cross-correlation and the clustering properties of contaminants.

free parameters (6)
  • Angular correlation function amplitude Aomega for z~1.3 galaxies = 0.66 ± 0.18 (GOODS-S), 0.48 +0.59/-0.48 (XDF)
    Fitted to the z~1.3 catalog; used in Eq. 14 to convert observed cross-correlation into contamination fraction.
  • Angular correlation slope beta for z~1.3 galaxies = 0.45 ± 0.19 (GOODS-S), 0.81 ± 0.79 (XDF)
    Fitted alongside Aomega; assumed equal to the slope of the cross-correlation power law.
  • Ridge regression constant c = 0.0001
    Chosen by hand to stabilize the covariance matrix; approximately 1% of median diagonal elements.
  • Limiting magnitude cuts = 28.5 (mocks), 24.5 (bright z~2), 26.75 (BoRG homogenization)
    Selection thresholds that define which lower-z galaxies can be interlopers; these choices directly affect the sensitivity and the inferred contamination.
  • Leakage fraction f_leak (BoRG) = 2.90 ± 2.38%
    Fitted by weighting simulated Pearson coefficients against the observed coefficient; this is the parameter that yields f_cont=62%.
  • Detection completeness for z~8 in BoRG = 60%
    Assumed from Trenti et al. (2012) to compute expected true z~8 counts; uncertainty not propagated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Intrinsic cross-correlation between high-redshift and intermediate-redshift galaxies is zero
    Section 2 states the method 'rests on the lack of physical correlation between galaxies at high redshift and galaxies at interloper redshifts'; this neglects possible lensing magnification or other projection effects.
  • domain assumption Contaminants are a random subset of all faint lower-redshift galaxies with the same clustering as the general population
    Section 3.2 and 4.3 define interlopers as all faint z~1.3/z~2 galaxies with a magnitude cut, not a color-selected Balmer-break population.
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG simulations accurately represent galaxy clustering at z~1.3 and z~6 on the relevant scales
    Section 3.1 uses TNG300-1 mocks to calibrate the cross-correlation signal; the 5.5% limit depends on this fidelity.
  • domain assumption External luminosity functions (Marchesini et al. 2012; Schmidt et al. 2014) correctly predict the expected number counts
    Section 4.3 uses these LFs to compute expected faint z~2 and z~8 counts; errors in the LF parameters are not propagated.
  • domain assumption Removing fields with limiting magnitude fainter than the median removes depth-induced correlations
    Section 4.2 applies a 26.75 mag cut to homogenize depth; the area variation across fields is not explicitly corrected in the correlation calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel analysis of contamination in Lyman-break galaxy samples at $\boldsymbol{z\sim6-8}$: spatial correlation with intermediate-redshift galaxies at $\boldsymbol{z\sim1.3-2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM5RSH5L

@misc{pith2026250100301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel analysis of contamination in Lyman-break galaxy samples at $\boldsymbolz\sim6-8$: spatial correlation with intermediate-redshift galaxies at $\boldsymbolz\sim1.3-2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM5RSH5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00301}
}
abstract

Potential contamination from low/intermediate-redshift galaxies, such as objects with a prominent Balmer break, affects the photometric selection of high-redshift galaxies through identification of a Lyman break. Traditionally, contamination is estimated from spectroscopic follow-up and/or simulations. Here, we introduce a novel approach to estimating contamination for Lyman-break galaxy (LBG) samples based on measuring spatial correlation with the parent population of lower redshift interlopers. We propose two conceptual approaches applicable to different survey strategies: a single large contiguous field and a survey consisting of multiple independent lines of sight. For a large single field, we compute the cross-correlation function between galaxies at redshift $z \sim 6$ and intermediate-redshift galaxies at $z \sim 1.3$. We apply the method to the CANDELS GOODS-S and XDF surveys and compare the measurement with simulated mock observations, finding that the contamination level in both cases is not measurable and lies below $5.5\%$ (at $90\%$ confidence). For random-pointing multiple field surveys, we measure instead the number count correlation between high-redshift galaxies and interlopers, as a two-point correlation analysis is not generally feasible. We show an application to the LBG samples at redshift $z \sim 8$ and the possible interloper population at $z \sim 2$ in the Brightest of Reionizing Galaxies (BoRG) survey. By comparing the Pearson correlation coefficient with the result from Monte Carlo simulations, we estimate a contamination fraction of $62^{+13}_{-39}\%$, consistent with previous estimates in the literature. These results validate the proposed approach and demonstrate its utility as an independent check of contamination in photometrically selected samples of high-redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Root mean square (rms) image of GOODS-S field taken in F125W band and shown in logarithmic scale. As we can see from the image, the central region has a different depth compared to the edge regions. Therefore, we only consider galaxies inside the white lines, with sources marked as cyan crosses for 𝑧 ∼ 1.3 galaxies and red circles for 𝑧 ∼ 6 galaxies. angular separation 𝜃. We use the modified Landy-Szalay estimator (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-correlation function of 𝑧 ∼ 1.3 and 𝑧 ∼ 6 galaxies in the GOODS-S field (left) and XDF (right). Dashed line is the power law function of 𝜔cross( 𝜃 ) = 𝐴𝜔 𝜃 −𝛽 , where 𝐴𝜔 and 𝛽 are the best-fit parameters constrained by the 𝜒 2 fitting with Equation 4. we conduct a statistical test between the two models of the cross￾correlation function. If there is significant contamination, we expect a clustering signal betw… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross-correlation function of galaxies at redshift 𝑧 ∼ 1.30 and 𝑧 ∼ 5.85 based on Illustris mock catalogs. The blue circles represent each data point generated from the Monte Carlo simulation. The red line is the mean and its standard error. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we adjust the contamination level by increasing the leakage fraction ( 𝑓leak). As we change 𝑓leak from 0 to 8%, the cross-correlation signal incr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First three left panels: Histograms of AIC − AIC0 for three bins of 𝑓cont = 0% − 0.5%, 1% − 1.5%, 2% − 2.5%. Negative value (left side of dashed vertical line) indicating that the simulation shows a cross-correlation signal. Right panel: Fraction of simulation showing …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contamination fraction as a function of leakage fraction for galaxies at redshift 𝑧 ∼ 1.30 and 𝑧 ∼ 5.85 based on Illustris mock catalogs using three different magnitude cuts. The blue circles represent each data point generated from the Monte Carlo simulation. The red …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing the number of galaxies observed at intermediate redshift (𝑧 ∼ 2) to the number of galaxies at high redshift (𝑧 ∼ 8) for all 39 fields of the BoRG survey studied in this paper. The filled red circles in every panel show the values taken from the 𝑧 ∼ 2 catalogu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: Pearson correlation coefficient as a function of leakage fraction. The blue circles represent each data point generated from the Monte Carlo simulation. The red square is the mean and its standard deviation. The red horizontal line and its shaded region are …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    E., Bennett C

    Addison G. E., Bennett C. L., Jeong D., Komatsu E., Weiland J. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879...15A 879, 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22a0 2019

  4. [4]

    Akaike H., 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ITAC...19..716A 19, 716

    1974

  5. [6]

    Atek H., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..121A 743, 121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/121 2011

  6. [7]

    Awan H., Gawiser E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...78A 890, 78

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63c8 2020

  7. [8]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...17B 793, 17

    Barone-Nugent R. L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...17B 793, 17

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/17 2014

  8. [9]

    Ben \' tez N., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..571B 536, 571

    doi:10.1086/308947 2000

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    Ben \' tez N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..150....1B 150, 1

    2004 doi

  2. [11]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  3. [12]

    Blake C., Pope A., Scott D., Mobasher B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10158.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..732B 368, 732

    2006

  4. [13]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Adams N. J., Milvang-Jensen B., McCracken H. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2059B 493, 2059

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..108B 760, 108

    Bradley L. D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..108B 760, 108

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Trenti M., Livermore R

    Cameron A. J., Trenti M., Livermore R. C., van der Velden C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1922C 483, 1922

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    F., Jee M., Bouwens R., Ford H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..926C 132, 926

    Coe D., Ben \' tez N., S \'a nchez S. F., Jee M., Bouwens R., Ford H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..926C 132, 926

    2006 doi

  10. [19]

    Dalmasso N., Trenti M., Leethochawalit N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..898D 528, 898

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.3187F 507, 3187

    Farrow D. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.3187F 507, 3187

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    R., Mirocha J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5274F 523, 5274

    Furlanetto S. R., Mirocha J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5274F 523, 5274

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..175G 445, 175

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    Giavalisco M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.121301.111837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA&A..40..579G 40, 579

    2002

  16. [25]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...32G 876, 32

    Grasshorn Gebhardt H. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...32G 876, 32

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821..123H 821, 123

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    E., Kennard R

    Hoerl A. E., Kennard R. W., 1970, @doi [Technometrics] 10.1080/00401706.1970.10488635 , 12, 69

    1970

  19. [28]

    arXiv:1606.00841

    Illingworth G., et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160600841I p. arXiv:1606.00841

    2016 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Ishigaki M., Kawamata R., Ouchi M., Oguri M., Shimasaku K., Ono Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...12I 799, 12

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    D., Szalay A

    Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...412...64L 412, 64

    1993 doi

  22. [31]

    Y., Somerville R

    Lee K.-S., Giavalisco M., Gnedin O. Y., Somerville R. S., Ferguson H. C., Dickinson M., Ouchi M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642...63L 642, 63

    2006 doi

  23. [32]

    Leethochawalit N., Trenti M., Morishita T., Roberts-Borsani G., Treu T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.5836L 509, 5836

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    N., Frenk C

    Ling E. N., Frenk C. S., Barrow J. D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/223.1.21P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223P..21L 223, 21

    1986 doi

  25. [34]

    C., Trenti M., Bradley L

    Livermore R. C., Trenti M., Bradley L. D., Bernard S. R., Holwerda B. W., Mason C. A., Treu T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aacd16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861L..17L 861, L17

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...97L 837, 97

    Lotz J. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...97L 837, 97

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    Madau P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...441...18M 441, 18

    1995 doi

  28. [37]

    B., Whitaker K

    Marchesini D., Stefanon M., Brammer G. B., Whitaker K. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748..126M 748, 126

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    Marinacci F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.5113M 480, 5113

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...79M 805, 79

    Mason C. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...79M 805, 79

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Newman J

    Matthews D. J., Newman J. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..180M 745, 180

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    arXiv:1303.4722

    M \'e nard B., Scranton R., Schmidt S., Morrison C., Jeong D., Budavari T., Rahman M., 2013, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1303.4722M p. arXiv:1303.4722

    2013 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Merlin E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..22M 649, A22

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    Morishita T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..150M 867, 150

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    Cycle 2, ID

    Morishita T., et al., 2023, A NIRCam Pure-Parallel Imaging Survey of Galaxies Across the Universe , JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. \#3990

    2023

  36. [45]

    Moutard T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...590A.103M 590, A103

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2208.02794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220802794N p

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2208.02794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220802794N p. arXiv:2208.02794

    2022 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1206N 477, 1206

    Naiman J. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1206N 477, 1206

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Nelson D., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&C....13...12N 13, 12

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..624N 475, 624

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Bouwens R

    Overzier R. A., Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Franx M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648L...5O 648, L5

    2006 doi

  43. [52]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4077P 473, 4077

    doi

  44. [53]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..648P 475, 648

    doi

  45. [54]

    Rahman M., M \'e nard B., Scranton R., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3912R 457, 3912

    doi

  46. [55]

    J., M \'e nard B., Scranton R., Schmidt S

    Rahman M., Mendez A. J., M \'e nard B., Scranton R., Schmidt S. J., Morrison C. B., Budav \'a ri T., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460..163R 460, 163

    doi

  47. [56]

    Roberts-Borsani G., Morishita T., Treu T., Leethochawalit N., Trenti M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..236R 927, 236

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716L.229R 716, L229

    Robertson B. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716L.229R 716, L229

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02652.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.307..703R 307, 703

    Roche N., Eales S. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02652.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.307..703R 307, 703

    1999

  50. [59]

    L., Bagley M

    Rojas-Ruiz S., Finkelstein S. L., Bagley M. B., Stevans M., Finkelstein K. D., Larson R., Mechtley M., Diekmann J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891..146R 891, 146

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Salmon B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5a8b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..189S 889, 189

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...57S 786, 57

    Schmidt K. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...57S 786, 57

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    F., Nelson D., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..575S 452, 575

    Sijacki D., Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Springel V., Torrey P., Snyder G. F., Nelson D., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..575S 452, 575

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401..791S 401, 791

    2010

  55. [64]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..676S 475, 676

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Bremer M

    Stanway E. R., Bremer M. N., Lehnert M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12853.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385..493S 385, 493

    2008

  57. [66]

    C., Giavalisco M., Pettini M., Dickinson M., Adelberger K

    Steidel C. C., Giavalisco M., Pettini M., Dickinson M., Adelberger K. L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462L..17S 462, L17

    1996 doi

  58. [67]

    Trenti M., Stiavelli M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/528674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..767T 676, 767

    2008 doi

  59. [68]

    Trenti M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727L..39T 727, L39

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Trenti M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746...55T 746, 55

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    Vanzella E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...478...83V 478, 83

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sijacki D., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.3031V 436, 3031

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    doi

  64. [73]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.509..177V 509, 177

    doi

  65. [74]

    Vulcani B., Trenti M., Calvi V., Bouwens R., Oesch P., Stiavelli M., Franx M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5caf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..239V 836, 239

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3291W 465, 3291

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...16W 244, 16

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...16W 244, 16

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    C., et al., 2021, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron , JWST Proposal

    Williams C. C., et al., 2021, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#2514

    2021

  69. [78]

    Wyithe J. S. B., Yan H., Windhorst R. A., Mao S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.469..181W 469, 181

    2011 doi

  70. [79]

    L., Zehavi I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...667..760Z 667, 760

    Zheng Z., Coil A. L., Zehavi I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...667..760Z 667, 760

    2007 doi

  71. [80]

    van der Wel A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742..111V 742, 111

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.