Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 156 references

Insights into environmental quenching at $z\sim1$: an enhancement of faint, low-mass passive galaxies in clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At z≈1, galaxy clusters already hold an excess of faint, low-mass dead galaxies.

desk verdict Deeper VLT data reveal the long-sought low-mass upturn in z~1 cluster passive SMFs; the result is robust except for an under-tested photometric shift in the field sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12394 v1 pith:EE4AWLBT submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.GA

Harry Gully , Nina Hatch , Syeda Lammim Ahad , Yannick Bahé , Michael Balogh , Devontae C. Baxter , Pierluigi Cerulo , M. C. Cooper
show 6 more authors
Ricardo Demarco Ben Forrest Umberto Rescigno Gregory Rudnick Benedetta Vulcani Gillian Wilson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersenvironmentalquenchingluminosityfunctionstellarmasspassivegalaxiesredsequencehigh-redshiftSchechter
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

By pushing galaxy-cluster counts below $10^{10}\,M_\odot$, this paper finds that four clusters at $0.8

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is red-sequence selection using two VLT filters ($F_b$, $F_r$) that straddle the 4000Å break at each cluster redshift, isolating galaxies at the cluster redshift without needing photometric redshifts for the faint sources. The cluster and field luminosity/mass functions are measured with kernel density estimation, corrected for completeness through injection-recovery simulations, statistically background-subtracted using an outer annulus, and fit with Schechter functions via MCMC. The comparison that carries the argument is the faint-end slope $\alpha$: a shallower slope in clusters than in the field means relatively more low-mass passive galaxies in clusters.

What would settle it

Measure the passive SMF of the field in the same four narrow redshift slices using a survey that reaches the same depth as the cluster images with filters matched to the VLT bands, or with spectroscopic redshifts for the faint galaxies, bypassing the extrapolated magnitude shift; if the field slope then approaches $\alpha\approx-0.5$ the claimed enhancement vanishes, while if it stays near $\alpha\approx0.1$ the enhancement is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that at $0.8<z<1.3$, the passive red-sequence populations of clusters are relatively richer in faint, low-mass galaxies than the corresponding field population, demonstrated through Schechter-function fits to kernel-density-estimated luminosity and stellar mass functions. In the composite passive cluster SMF the low-mass slope is $\alpha=-0.54^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ versus $\alpha=0.12^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ for the field, with a two-tailed $p$-value below $10^{-74}$ for the difference. The authors estimate that reproducing the cluster slope requires quenching $25\pm5\%$ of the star-forming field population that falls into the clusters. They conclude that cluster environmental quenching processes are enhanced compared with the field and already operating by $z\sim1$, consistent with traditional independent mass-plus-environment quenching models.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on a magnitude correction for the field comparison sample that was calibrated on bright galaxies and extrapolated to faint magnitudes the calibration survey never reached; if that extrapolation is wrong, the flat field slope that drives the cluster-field difference could be artificial.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, environmental quenching in clusters was already reshaping the low-mass galaxy population at $z\sim1$, not just at later epochs.
  • The faint-end slope of the passive stellar mass function becomes a practical diagnostic: high-redshift clusters should show a relative upturn below about $10^{10}\,M_\odot$, exactly where earlier surveys were incomplete.
  • The estimated $25\pm5\%$ quenched fraction gives a quantitative target that simulations and semi-analytic models of galaxy formation should reproduce.
  • Because the field sample itself contains overdensities, the true cluster-field quenching contrast is likely at least as large as measured, and may be larger.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to measure the field slope with a deeper, filter-matched survey; if it stays near $0.12$ the cluster-field difference is a real environmental signal, while if it drops to roughly $-0.4$ the result may be an artifact of the magnitude-shift extrapolation.
  • The discrepancy with earlier null results at the same redshifts likely reflects the red-sequence plus statistical background subtraction method and deeper detection images, which restore the low-mass galaxies that membership-correction methods dilute.
  • The same two-filter red-sequence technique could be applied to hundreds of clusters from future wide surveys to map the redshift at which the low-mass upturn turns on.
  • If the $25\pm5\%$ quenched fraction is physical, cluster infall regions at $z\sim1$ should contain a population of recently quenched, post-starburst low-mass galaxies that deep spectroscopy can identify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper measures the luminosity functions and stellar mass functions of passive red-sequence galaxies in four SpARCS/GCLASS clusters at 0.8<z<1.3, using new deep VLT imaging in Fb/Fr filter pairs complemented by GCLASS/GOGREEN archival data. A field reference sample is assembled from COSMOS2020 photometry shifted to VLT-equivalent filters using PAUS overlap, with red-sequence and UVJ selection applied in the same way as to the clusters. Cluster membership for faint galaxies is handled with statistical background subtraction using cluster outskirts, completeness is calibrated through injection-recovery simulations, and Schechter parameters are fit to KDE estimates via MCMC. The central claim is that clusters show a relative excess of faint, low-mass passive galaxies, seen as shallower faint-end slopes; the composite cluster SMF gives alpha=-0.54 versus alpha=0.12 for the field, and the authors estimate that 25+/-5% of infalling star-forming field galaxies must be quenched to reproduce the cluster SMF. The paper interprets this as evidence that environmental quenching is already active at z~1.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-known tension in the literature: van der Burg et al. (2013, 2020) found nearly identical cluster and field passive SMF shapes at z~1, while traditional quenching models predict an upturn at low masses in clusters. This work goes deeper and reports the opposite result, so if the measurement holds it is an important observational constraint on environmental quenching at high redshift. The study makes good use of deep VLT imaging, includes an injection-recovery completeness correction, and presents several robustness checks (red-sequence width, background annulus, redshift-slice evolution, red-sequence versus no red-sequence selection). The use of public GCLASS/GOGREEN, COSMOS2020, and PAUS data is a strength, as is the candid discussion of limitations. The central comparison is a direct measurement rather than a fitted prediction, although the quoted 25% quenched fraction is a fitted normalization of a double-Schechter model and is presented as an estimate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2.3] The field sample is constructed by fitting a linear shift between COSMOS2020 and PAUS magnitudes for bright sources (i<=23) and extrapolating that shift to the full COSMOS2020 depth, with shifts reaching 0.4 mag at magnitude 25. The central claim of the paper is the cluster-field difference in the faint-end Schechter slope, and the field alpha is measured from these shifted magnitudes; an error in the extrapolated shift directly changes which faint field galaxies enter the passive sample and can thereby alter alpha. The paper does not quantify the sensitivity of the field alpha to the uncertainty in this extrapolation. I request a robustness test in which the shift slope/intercept is varied by its fit uncertainty, or an alternative field sample built without the shift (using COSMOS2020 native filters or the PAUS-bright region only), with the resulting alpha and cluster-field difference reported. Without such a test, the load-bearing comparison rests on an unquantified calibration extrapolation.
  2. [Abstract / Section 4.2.1] The abstract states 'We find a significant enhancement in the abundance of faint/low-mass passive galaxies in both the LFs and SMFs of all four clusters compared to the field.' Section 4.2.1 reports, however, that for SpARCS 0215 the SMF cluster-field slope difference is insignificant, with a two-tailed p-value of 0.07. The text in Section 4.2.1 acknowledges this, but the abstract overstates the result. Please revise the abstract so that the SMF claim is limited to three of four clusters or to the composite SMF, with the LF result stated separately for all four clusters.
  3. [Section 4.2.2 / Figure 9] The composite field SMF is constructed by combining the four field samples, but these samples are not independent: SpARCS 0034 and SpARCS 0036 have redshifts of 0.867 and 0.869, so their +/-0.025 redshift slices are nearly identical, and all four slices are drawn from the same COSMOS2020/PAUS catalog. Combining them as independent measurements underestimates the field uncertainties and makes the quoted p<1e-74 for the composite slope difference overconfident. The cluster composite is still meaningful, but the field side needs to be handled with an estimate of the effective number of independent field galaxies, or by combining the overlapping redshift slices before fitting, or by fitting a single field sample per redshift and propagating that properly into the composite comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1 / Figure 11] The offset of 0.27 in alpha between red-sequence-selected and non-red-sequence-selected field samples is an important diagnostic, but the two curves in Figure 11 are difficult to distinguish in the printed caption; please use distinct line styles and add a legend so that the reader can directly see the offset as a function of redshift.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text notes that the solar-metallicity assumption can underestimate low-mass stellar masses by ~0.25 dex and states that this does not affect the cluster-field comparison because both samples use the same assumption. It would be useful to state explicitly whether the mass completeness limits, which are converted from magnitude limits using the fitted mass-luminosity relation, are also insensitive to this assumption to the same order.
  3. [Section 3.4] The KDE bandwidth is chosen with the Silverman rule of thumb, and the shape of the LF/SMF may depend on this choice even though binning is avoided. A brief statement that the fitted alpha is insensitive to changes in the bandwidth, or a test with an alternative bandwidth, would reassure the reader that the slope difference is not a smoothing artifact.
  4. [Section 5.2] The comparison with Hamadouche et al. (2024) equates the two components of their double Schechter function with internally and environmentally quenched populations; this is a strong interpretative assumption and should be flagged more explicitly as a working hypothesis rather than a direct measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cluster-field LF/SMF comparison is a direct measurement built from independent cluster and field photometry, with no fitted value renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a differential measurement of observed luminosity and stellar mass functions. Cluster photometry comes from new VLT observations, while the field photometry comes from COSMOS2020 combined with PAUS; neither sample is defined in terms of the other, and the Schechter parameters in Tables 2 and 3 are fits to independently measured KDEs. The quoted low-mass slopes (cluster alpha = -0.54, field alpha = 0.12) are therefore direct outputs of separate fits, not quantities forced by construction. The 25 +/- 5% quenched fraction is explicitly a fitted normalization of a double Schechter model presented as an estimate ('To reproduce the observed passive cluster SMF, we estimate that 25 +/- 5% of the star-forming field population...'), not an out-of-sample prediction, so it does not qualify as fitted input called prediction. The extrapolated COSMOS2020/PAUS magnitude shift in Section 2.2.3 is a real systematic uncertainty affecting the faint end of the field sample, but it is not a circular reduction: no result is defined in terms of the cluster-field difference, and no fitted parameter is used to construct the quantity it is supposed to explain. Self-citations to GCLASS/GOGREEN DR1 and earlier cluster studies provide data and context rather than load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The internal inconsistency for SpARCS 0215 (SMF p = 0.07 in Section 4.2.1 versus the abstract's claim of significance in all four clusters) is an overclaim concern, not circularity. No circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central cluster-field slope comparison relies on standard photometric and SED assumptions rather than invented physics. The main free parameters are analysis choices (selection widths, background annulus, completeness threshold) and the PAUS-COSMOS magnitude shift, plus the fitted 25% quenching fraction used only in the interpretive model. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Red-sequence selection width = ±0.3 mag (SpARCS 0035: ±0.5 mag)
    Chosen by visual inspection of the colour-magnitude diagrams; the authors verified the main conclusions do not change when the width is increased to ±0.5 or ±0.7 mag, so it is not strongly load-bearing.
  • Cluster/control field boundary = 1 Mpc
    Used to split cluster region from background annulus in the statistical subtraction; the authors varied the boundary between 0.5 and 1.5 Mpc and report conclusions unchanged except for SpARCS 0035.
  • PAUS-COSMOS magnitude shift = linear fit, up to 0.4 mag at magnitude 25
    Applied to convert COSMOS2020 photometry to the VLT filter system for the field sample; the shift is extrapolated to magnitudes fainter than PAUS reaches, which is a source of potential systematic error in the field comparison.
  • Quenched fraction f_SF = 25±5%
    Normalization of the star-forming field Schechter component in the double Schechter fit to the composite cluster SMF; this is a fitted estimate used to interpret the result, not an independent prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lambda CDM cosmology with Omega0=0.3, OmegaLambda=0.7, and H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
    Adopted in the introduction for all distance and mass definitions; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The red-sequence and UVJ criteria select the same passive galaxy population in clusters and field.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3; if dusty star-forming interlopers contaminate the passive sample differently in clusters versus field, the slope difference could be biased.
  • domain assumption The outer annulus (r>1 Mpc) is a valid background for statistical subtraction.
    Section 3.6; if pre-processing or infalling galaxies make the outer region different from a true field population, the cluster LF/SMF estimates are biased. The authors test sensitivity and find it minor except for SpARCS 0035.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses from EAZY with solar metallicity and Chabrier IMF are unbiased enough for the mass function slopes.
    Section 3.3; Bellstedt and Robotham (2024) report ~0.25 dex under-estimates for low-mass galaxies, which could flatten or steepen the low-mass slope, though the authors argue the cluster-field comparison is unaffected.
  • ad hoc to paper Separability of mass and environmental quenching in the Peng et al. (2010) model.
    Assumed in Section 5.2 for the double Schechter decomposition and the 25% quenched fraction estimate; not required for the central cluster-field slope measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper Star-forming field galaxies represent the pre-quenching population of cluster galaxies.
    Used in Section 5.2 to interpret the star-forming Schechter component as the environmentally quenched population; assumes the mass distribution of infalling galaxies matches the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights into environmental quenching at $z\sim1$: an enhancement of faint, low-mass passive galaxies in clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EE4AWLBT

@misc{pith2026250412394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights into environmental quenching at $z\sim1$: an enhancement of faint, low-mass passive galaxies in clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EE4AWLBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12394}
}
abstract

Understanding the processes that transform star-forming galaxies into quiescent ones is key to unraveling the role of environment in galaxy evolution. We present measurements of the luminosity functions (LFs) and stellar mass functions (SMFs) of passive red-sequence galaxies in four galaxy clusters at $0.8 < z < 1.3$, selected using deep VLT observations complemented with data from the GCLASS and GOGREEN surveys. We find a significant enhancement in the abundance of faint/low-mass passive galaxies in both the LFs and SMFs of all four clusters compared to the field. This is further evidenced by a shallower low-mass slope in the composite passive cluster SMF, which yields a Schechter parameter $\alpha = -0.54^{+\,0.03}_{-0.03}$, compared to $\alpha = 0.12^{+\,0.01}_{-0.01}$ for the field. Our findings indicate that quenching processes that act in clusters are enhanced compared to the field, suggesting that environmental quenching mechanisms may already be active by $z\sim1$. To reproduce the observed passive cluster SMF, we estimate that $25\pm5\%$ of the star-forming field population that falls into the cluster must have been quenched. Our results largely support traditional quenching models but highlight the need for deeper studies of larger cluster samples to better understand the role of environmental quenching in the distant Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transmission curves of the 𝐹𝑏 and 𝐹𝑟 filters used in this work (grey), with the nearest available filters in COSMOS2020 (green) and PAUS (purple). maximum of 0.4 mag for a galaxy with magnitude 25. While not ideal, these slight shifts allow us to create a more representative field sample, and allow for a more accurate comparison with our cluster sample. As the VISTA 𝑌 and HAWK-I 𝑌 bands are so similar, we do not nee… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: (𝐵)𝑔𝑧𝐾 colour-colour plots for all sources detected in the 𝐹𝑟 image. The equations of the black dashed lines are defined by equation 1, where any source below one of these lines (shown in blue circles) is classified as a star. Bottom: 𝐽 − 𝐾 CMD for all sources as in the row above. The equation of the black dashed lines indicates our stellar locus cut of 𝐽 − 𝐾 < 0.1 (equation 2), where any source below one of th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Colour-magnitude diagrams for each of the clusters. The points shown are all the sources remaining after the star removal, with those that are also in GCLASS/GOGREEN outlined with black circles. The distributions above and to the side represent the magnitude and colour…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Example of an EAZY Spectral Energy Distribution (grey) fit to the photometry (coloured circles) of a galaxy in SpARCS 0034 of mass 9.55 × 1010 M⊙. Also shown are the transmission curves of the filters used to measure the photometry for galaxies in this cluster. R…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relationship between stellar mass and magnitude for passive galaxies selected in the red sequence of each of the clusters (green), and the corresponding field sample (purple). The darker green points represent galaxies that have a spec-𝑧 within the same range used …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: The luminosity functions of passive galaxies in the clusters (green) and field (purple). The points are calculated via a Kernel Density Estimation, with the errors deriving from a combination of Monte Carlo simulations and bootstrapping. These points are fit with …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The stellar mass functions of passive galaxies in the clusters (green) and field (purple). The points are calculated via a Kernel Density Estimation, with the errors deriving from a combination of Monte Carlo simulations and bootstrapping. These points are fit wit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The composite stellar mass function of passive galaxies in the clusters (green) and field (purple). The points are calculated by combining the individual SMFs from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The gradient of the low-mass end of the SMF (𝛼) of passive cluster galaxies as a function of redshift, for different studies. The works we compare to in redshift order are: Annunziatella et al. (2016), Annunziatella et al. (2014), Vulcani et al. (2013), van der Burg e…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The gradient of the low-mass end of the SMF (𝛼) of passive galaxies as a function of redshift. The Schechter parameter 𝛼 is measured using the MCMC method with error bars representing 1𝜎. The solid purple line represents the 𝛼 values for field galaxies selected on the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: The double Schechter function (orange) to the composite SMF of passive galaxies in the clusters (green points). The double Schechter function is comprised of the single Schechter functions fit to passive and star-forming field galaxies, whose relative contributio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Muzzin A., Bah \'e Y

    Ahad S. L., Muzzin A., Bah \'e Y. M., Hoekstra H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.6329A 528, 6329

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae341 2024

  2. [2]

    Aihara H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71..114A 71, 114

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  3. [4]

    B., Trinchieri G., Raichoor A., Ellis R

    Andreon S., Newman A. B., Trinchieri G., Raichoor A., Ellis R. S., Treu T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...565A.120A 565, A120

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323077 2014

  4. [5]

    Annunziatella M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..80A 571, A80

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424102 2014

  5. [6]

    Annunziatella M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...585A.160A 585, A160

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527399 2016

  6. [7]

    Appenzeller I., et al., 1998, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Msngr..94....1A 94, 1

    1998

  7. [8]

    S., Couch W

    Aragon-Salamanca A., Ellis R. S., Couch W. J., Carter D., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/262.3.764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.262..764A 262, 764

    doi:10.1093/mnras/262.3.764 1993

  8. [9]

    Arcila-Osejo L., Sawicki M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..845A 435, 845

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1354 2013

Show all 156 references
  1. [10]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4186B 470, 4186

    Bah \'e Y. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4186B 470, 4186

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R

    Baldry I. K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R. H., Nichol R. C., Szalay A. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..681B 600, 681

    2004 doi

  3. [13]

    L., Baldry I

    Balogh M. L., Baldry I. K., Nichol R., Miller C., Bower R., Glazebrook K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615L.101B 615, L101

    2004 doi

  4. [14]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4364B 456, 4364

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4364B 456, 4364

    2016 doi

  5. [15]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4168B 470, 4168

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4168B 470, 4168

    2017 doi

  6. [16]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..358B 500, 358

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..358B 500, 358

    2021 doi

  7. [17]

    C., Cooper M

    Baxter D. C., Cooper M. C., Fillingham S. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1636B 503, 1636

    2021 doi

  8. [18]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3716B 526, 3716

    Baxter D. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3716B 526, 3716

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    Bell E. F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    2004 doi

  10. [20]

    Bellhouse C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844...49B 844, 49

    2017 doi

  11. [21]

    Bellstedt S., Robotham A. S. G., 2024, ProGeny II: the impact of libraries and model configurations on inferred galaxy properties in SED fitting ( @eprint arXiv 2410.17698 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17698

    2024 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Ben \' tez N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691..241B 691, 241

    2009 doi

  13. [23]

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

    1996 doi

  14. [24]

    Biviano A., van der Burg R. F. J., Muzzin A., Sartoris B., Wilson G., Yee H. K. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..51B 594, A51

    2016 doi

  15. [25]

    Biviano A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.105B 650, A105

    2021 doi

  16. [26]

    Boselli A., Gavazzi G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..517B 118, 517

    2006 doi

  17. [27]

    Boselli A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..69B 570, A69

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    Boselli A., Fossati M., Sun M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&ARv..30....3B 30, 3

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    G., Lucey J

    Bower R. G., Lucey J. R., Ellis R. S., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/254.4.589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.254..589B 254, 589

    1992 doi

  20. [30]

    G., Kodama T., Terlevich A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01868.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299.1193B 299, 1193

    Bower R. G., Kodama T., Terlevich A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01868.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299.1193B 299, 1193

    1998

  21. [31]

    G., Benson A

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    2006

  22. [32]

    Bradley L., et al., 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.9.0 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  24. [34]

    B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    2011 doi

  25. [35]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476...12B 476, 12

    Bremer M. N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476...12B 476, 12

    2018 doi

  26. [36]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  27. [37]

    Chan J. C. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880..119C 880, 119

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    2010 doi

  29. [39]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    2009 doi

  30. [40]

    Contini E., Kang X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453L..53C 453, L53

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    K., Kang X., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..156C 889, 156

    Contini E., Gu Q., Ge X., Rhee J., Yi S. K., Kang X., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..156C 889, 156

    2020 doi

  32. [43]

    J., Kenney J

    Cramer W. J., Kenney J. D. P., Sun M., Crowl H., Yagi M., J \'a chym P., Roediger E., Waldron W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaefff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...63C 870, 63

    2019 doi

  33. [45]

    Cucciati O., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A..49C 619, A49

    2018 doi

  34. [46]

    Daddi E., Cimatti A., Renzini A., Fontana A., Mignoli M., Pozzetti L., Tozzi P., Zamorani G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..746D 617, 746

    2004 doi

  35. [48]

    Darvish B., Mobasher B., Sobral D., Rettura A., Scoville N., Faisst A., Capak P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825..113D 825, 113

    2016 doi

  36. [49]

    C., Sobral D., Scoville N., Stroe A., Hemmati S., Kartaltepe J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...16D 837, 16

    Darvish B., Mobasher B., Martin D. C., Sobral D., Scoville N., Stroe A., Hemmati S., Kartaltepe J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...16D 837, 16

    2017 doi

  37. [50]

    Darvish B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75c3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892....8D 892, 8

    2020 doi

  38. [51]

    Davidzon I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..23D 586, A23

    2016 doi

  39. [53]

    Dekel A., Silk J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303...39D 303, 39

    1986 doi

  40. [54]

    Demarco R., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711.1185D 711, 1185

    2010 doi

  41. [55]

    S., Smail I., Dressler A., Couch W

    Ellis R. S., Smail I., Dressler A., Couch W. J., Oemler Augustus J., Butcher H., Sharples R. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483..582E 483, 582

    1997 doi

  42. [56]

    Erben T., et al., 2005, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200510396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AN....326..432E 326, 432

    2005 doi

  43. [57]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.126E 658, A126

    2022 doi

  44. [58]

    Foltz R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..138F 812, 138

    2015 doi

  45. [59]

    Foltz R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..136F 866, 136

    2018 doi

  46. [60]

    Forrest B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526L..56F 526, L56

    2023 doi

  47. [61]

    Forrest B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..169F 971, 169

    2024 doi

  48. [62]

    J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2028F 455, 2028

    Fossati M., Fumagalli M., Boselli A., Gavazzi G., Sun M., Wilman D. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2028F 455, 2028

    2016 doi

  49. [63]

    Gobat R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A.133G 526, A133

    2011 doi

  50. [64]

    Gozaliasl G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3545G 483, 3545

    2019 doi

  51. [65]

    E., Gott J

    Gunn J. E., Gott J. Richard I., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...176....1G 176, 1

    1972 doi

  52. [67]

    Haines C., et al., 2023, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Msngr.190...31H 190, 31

    2023 doi

  53. [68]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241209592H p

    Hamadouche M. L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241209592H p. arXiv:2412.09592

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [69]

    K., 1970, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 , 57, 97

    Hastings W. K., 1970, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 , 57, 97

    1970 doi

  55. [70]

    W., Stubbs C

    High F. W., Stubbs C. W., Rest A., Stalder B., Challis P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138..110H 138, 110

    2009 doi

  56. [71]

    Ishikawa S., Kashikawa N., Toshikawa J., Onoue M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..205I 454, 205

    2015 doi

  57. [72]

    Ito K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945L...9I 945, L9

    2023 doi

  58. [73]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4753J 476, 4753

    Jaff \'e Y. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4753J 476, 4753

    2018 doi

  59. [74]

    H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Skrutskie M., Huchra J

    Jarrett T. H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Skrutskie M., Huchra J. P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.2498J 119, 2498

    2000 doi

  60. [75]

    Johnston R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-011-0041-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&ARv..19...41J 19, 41

    2011 doi

  61. [76]

    D., Parker L

    Joshi G. D., Parker L. C., Wadsley J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..761J 462, 761

    2016 doi

  62. [77]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...33K 341, 33

    2003

  63. [78]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..134K 847, 134

    2017 doi

  64. [79]

    K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...12K 905, 12

    Kim S., Contini E., Choi H., Han S., Lee J., Oh S., Kang X., Yi S. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...12K 905, 12

    2020 doi

  65. [80]

    Kissler-Patig M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...491..941K 491, 941

    2008 doi

  66. [81]

    J., Arag'on-Salamanca A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...334...99K 334, 99

    Kodama T., Arimoto N., Barger A. J., Arag'on-Salamanca A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...334...99K 334, 99

    1998 doi arXiv

  67. [82]

    Kova c K., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708..505K 708, 505

    2010 doi

  68. [83]

    Kova c K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..717K 438, 717

    2014 doi

  69. [84]

    Kriek M., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775L..16K 775, L16

    2013 doi

  70. [85]

    Kukstas E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4782K 518, 4782

    2023 doi

  71. [86]

    Laigle C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224...24L 224, 24

    2016 doi

  72. [87]

    B., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.169..229L 169, 229

    Larson R. B., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.169..229L 169, 229

    1974 doi

  73. [88]

    B., Tinsley B

    Larson R. B., Tinsley B. M., Caldwell C. N., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..692L 237, 692

    1980 doi

  74. [89]

    B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844...43L 844, 43

    Lee-Brown D. B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844...43L 844, 43

    2017 doi

  75. [91]

    Lidman C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..825L 433, 825

    2013 doi

  76. [92]

    Lotz M., Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Biviano A., Burkert A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.5370L 488, 5370

    2019 doi

  77. [93]

    M., Gal R

    Lubin L. M., Gal R. R., Lemaux B. C., Kocevski D. D., Squires G. K., 2009, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4867 , 137, 4867–4883

    2009 doi

  78. [94]

    180] 10.18727/0722-6691/5197 , pp

    Maiolino R., et al., 2020, @doi [Published in The Messenger vol. 180] 10.18727/0722-6691/5197 , pp. 24-29, June 2020

    2020 doi

  79. [95]

    A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3079M 429, 3079

    Mamon G. A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3079M 429, 3079

    2013 doi

  80. [96]

    L., Gonzalez A

    Mancone C. L., Gonzalez A. H., Brodwin M., Stanford S. A., Eisenhardt P. R. M., Stern D., Jones C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..284M 720, 284

    2010 doi

  81. [97]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..141M 761, 141

    Mancone C. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..141M 761, 141

    2012 doi

  82. [98]

    G., F \"o rster Schreiber N

    Marchesini D., van Dokkum P. G., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Franx M., Labb \'e I., Wuyts S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701.1765M 701, 1765

    2009 doi

  83. [99]

    Matharu J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..595M 484, 595

    2019 doi

  84. [100]

    Matharu J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..222M 923, 222

    2021 doi

  85. [101]

    McConachie I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...37M 926, 37

    2022 doi

  86. [102]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    McCracken H. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    2012 doi

  87. [103]

    McNab K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..157M 508, 157

    2021 doi

  88. [104]

    W., Rosenbluth M

    Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., Teller E., 1953, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1699114 , 21, 1087

    1953 doi

  89. [105]

    Milvang-Jensen B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..94M 560, A94

    2013 doi

  90. [106]

    Originally published in: 2012A&A...544A.156M

    Moneti A., et al., 2023, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The fourth UltraVISTA data release (DR4) (Moneti+, 2019) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/373. Originally published in: 2012A&A...544A.156M

    2023

  91. [107]

    Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., Dressler A., Oemler A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/379613a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.379..613M 379, 613

    1996 doi

  92. [108]

    Moretti A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925....4M 925, 4

    2022 doi

  93. [109]

    G., Stadtmuller U., 1999, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Muller H. G., Stadtmuller U., 1999, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 61, 439

    1999

  94. [110]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1934M 698, 1934

    2009 doi

  95. [111]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..188M 746, 188

    2012 doi

  96. [112]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...18M 777, 18

    2013 doi

  97. [113]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...65M 796, 65

    2014 doi

  98. [114]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.161N 592, A161

    Nantais J. B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.161N 592, A161

    2016 doi

  99. [116]

    Padilla C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..246P 157, 246

    2019 doi

  100. [117]

    Papovich C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...30P 854, 30

    2018 doi

  101. [118]

    Parzen E., 1962, @doi [The Annals of Mathematical Statistics] 10.1214/aoms/1177704472 , 33, 1065

    1962

  102. [119]

    G., Holden B

    Patel S. G., Holden B. P., Kelson D. D., Franx M., van der Wel A., Illingworth G. D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748L..27P 748, L27

    2012 doi

  103. [120]

    Peng Y.-j., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..193P 721, 193

    2010 doi

  104. [121]

    J., Renzini A., Carollo M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757....4P 757, 4

    Peng Y.-j., Lilly S. J., Renzini A., Carollo M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757....4P 757, 4

    2012 doi

  105. [122]

    Pintos-Castro I., Yee H. K. C., Muzzin A., Old L., Wilson G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...40P 876, 40

    2019 doi

  106. [123]

    Pozzetti L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..13P 523, A13

    2010 doi

  107. [124]

    Presotto V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A..55P 539, A55

    2012 doi

  108. [125]

    Quadri R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134.1103Q 134, 1103

    2007 doi

  109. [126]

    D., Parker L

    Roberts I. D., Parker L. C., Joshi G. D., Evans F. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448L...1R 448, L1

    2015 doi

  110. [127]

    Rosenblatt M., 1956, @doi [The Annals of Mathematical Statistics] 10.1214/aoms/1177728190 , 27, 832

    1956

  111. [128]

    Rowan-Robinson M., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/138.4.445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968MNRAS.138..445R 138, 445

    1968 doi

  112. [129]

    Rowe B. T. P., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&C....10..121R 10, 121

    2015 doi

  113. [130]

    Rudnick G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1559R 700, 1559

    2009 doi

  114. [131]

    Sawicki M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5202S 489, 5202

    2019 doi

  115. [132]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..297S 203, 297

    1976 doi

  116. [133]

    Schirmer M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209...21S 209, 21

    2013 doi

  117. [134]

    Schmidt M., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..393S 151, 393

    1968 doi

  118. [135]

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

    Silverman B. W., 1986, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis . Chapman & Hall/CRC monographs on statistics and applied probability, Chapman and Hall, London, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1070306

    1986

  119. [136]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    Skelton R. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    2014 doi

  120. [137]

    R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748L..21S 748, L21

    Spitler L. R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748L..21S 748, L21

    2012 doi

  121. [138]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..164S 753, 164

    Stanford S. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..164S 753, 164

    2012 doi

  122. [139]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  123. [140]

    Tanaka M., Finoguenov A., Ueda Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716L.152T 716, L152

    2010 doi

  124. [141]

    Tanaka M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...59T 970, 59

    2024 doi

  125. [142]

    Taniguchi Y., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....9T 172, 9

    2007 doi

  126. [143]

    Taniguchi Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67..104T 67, 104

    2015 doi

  127. [144]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3512T 472, 3512

    Tomczak A. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3512T 472, 3512

    2017 doi

  128. [145]

    Vulcani B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17904.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412..246V 412, 246

    2011

  129. [146]

    Vulcani B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..58V 550, A58

    2013 doi

  130. [147]

    M., Smith R., Moretti A., Jaff \'e Y

    Vulcani B., Poggianti B. M., Smith R., Moretti A., Jaff \'e Y. L., Gullieuszik M., Fritz J., Bellhouse C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...91V 927, 91

    2022 doi

  131. [148]

    Wang T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...56W 828, 56

    2016 doi

  132. [149]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    2022 doi

  133. [150]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A.184W 677, A184

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A.184W 677, A184

    2023 doi

  134. [151]

    Webb K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5317W 498, 5317

    2020 doi

  135. [152]

    M., van den Bosch F

    Weinmann S. M., van den Bosch F. C., Yang X., Mo H. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366....2W 366, 2

    2006

  136. [153]

    M., Pasquali A., Oppenheimer B

    Weinmann S. M., Pasquali A., Oppenheimer B. D., Finlator K., Mendel J. T., Crain R. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21931.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.2797W 426, 2797

    2012

  137. [154]

    V., Hatch N

    Werner S. V., Hatch N. A., Muzzin A., van der Burg R. F. J., Balogh M. L., Rudnick G., Wilson G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..674W 510, 674

    2022 doi

  138. [155]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    2011 doi

  139. [156]

    J., Quadri R

    Williams R. J., Quadri R. F., Franx M., van Dokkum P., Labb \'e I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1879W 691, 1879

    2009 doi

  140. [157]

    Wilson G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1943W 698, 1943

    2009 doi

  141. [158]

    Wuyts S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655...51W 655, 51

    2007 doi

  142. [159]

    J., Wang J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab855b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..248....1Y 248, 1

    Yuan Z., Jarvis M. J., Wang J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab855b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..248....1Y 248, 1

    2020 doi

  143. [160]

    V., Nagai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3654Z 475, 3654

    Zinger E., Dekel A., Kravtsov A. V., Nagai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3654Z 475, 3654

    2018 doi

  144. [161]

    C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H. J., Pasquali A., McIntosh D. H., Weinmann S. M., Kang X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387...79V 387, 79

    2008

  145. [162]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..15V 557, A15

    2013 doi

  146. [163]

    van der Burg R. F. J., Muzzin A., Hoekstra H., Wilson G., Lidman C., Yee H. K. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...561A..79V 561, A79

    2014 doi

  147. [164]

    van der Burg R. F. J., McGee S., Aussel H., Dahle H., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Muzzin A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A.140V 618, A140

    2018 doi

  148. [165]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.112V 638, A112

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.