Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Magnification bias reveals severe contamination in Hubble Frontier Field photo-z catalogs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnification-bias analysis finds that more than half of the z~4 galaxies in Hubble Frontier Fields cluster catalogs are low-redshift contaminants.

desk verdict A useful, referee-worthy paper that makes a strong qualitative case for cluster-member contamination in HFF photo-z catalogs, but the headline ~56% number is not yet pinned down because the paper's own control test shows the same excess that the estimator labels as contamination. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09142 v1 pith:YIW6HRBP submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Jiashuo Zhang , Jeremy Lim , Tom Broadhurst , Sung Kei Li , Man Cheung Li , Giorgio Manzoni , Rogier Windhorst This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationallensingmagnificationbiasphotometricredshiftsgalaxyluminosityfunctionHubbleFrontierFieldshigh-redshiftgalaxiesclustermembersLymanbreak
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

Gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters should reveal more faint high-redshift galaxies than blank fields see, and photometric-redshift catalogs from the Hubble Frontier Fields survey indeed show an excess of $z\gtrsim4$ candidates in the cluster fields. This paper argues that most of that excess is not a lensing gift but a catalog artifact: low-redshift cluster members whose Balmer/4000 Å breaks are mistaken for the Lyman break of distant star-forming galaxies. Using magnification bias, the authors compare the lensed galaxy density predicted from the blank-field ultraviolet luminosity function with the density actually cataloged, and estimate that $56.9\pm11.8\%$ of sources with photometric redshifts $3.5\le z_{\rm phot}\le5.5$ are interlopers. If this is right, faint-end galaxy counts in cluster-lensing catalogs are heavily polluted, which would create artificial upturns in ultraviolet luminosity functions and could hide genuine faint-end turnovers predicted by cosmological models.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the magnification-bias relation $n_{\rm len}(z,\mu_z,m_{\rm lim}) = \Gamma\bigl(<(m_{\rm lim}+2.5\log_{10}\mu_z),z\bigr)/\mu_z$, where $\Gamma$ is the cumulative ultraviolet luminosity function measured from the parallel blank fields, $m_{\rm lim}$ is the completeness-corrected detection threshold, and $\mu_z$ is the local lensing magnification. The numerator accounts for lensing lowering the effective detection threshold; the denominator accounts for the lensed sky being spread over a larger area. Combining this prediction with magnification maps from three independent cluster lens models, the paper divides the cluster fields into magnification bins and attributes any observed excess over prediction to contamination. The luminosity function itself is obtained by fitting Schechter/Gamma functions to parallel-field number counts and extrapolating to fainter magnitudes, with redshift-dependent parameters given in Equations (2)–(4).

What would settle it

Spectroscopically confirm every $3.5\le z\le5.5$ candidate in one Hubble Frontier Fields cluster field down to the catalog's completeness limit: the paper's claim predicts that a majority will turn out to have Balmer breaks at $z\lesssim1.5$, whereas the lensing interpretation predicts Lyman breaks at the photometric redshifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that more than half of the $3.5\le z_{\rm phot}\le5.5$ galaxies in the photometric-redshift catalogs built from the Hubble Frontier Fields cluster fields are not distant galaxies at all, but low-redshift interlopers—most likely cluster members whose redshifted Balmer/4000 Å breaks are mistaken for the Lyman break of star-forming galaxies at $z\sim3.5$–$5.5$. The evidence has two layers. First, the apparent $z\gtrsim4$ excess is absent from the parallel blank fields, and the candidates in cluster fields are redder, concentrated on the cluster red sequence, and radially clustered like cluster members. Second, a quantitative magnification-bias test predicts the lensed density from the parallel-field ultraviolet luminosity function; the observed excess above that prediction is attributed entirely to contamination, giving $59.4\pm11.1\%$ with one parametric lens model, $53.5\pm10.3\%$ with a free-form model, $59.5\pm18.5\%$ with internal models, and an average of $56.9\pm11.8\%$. The paper therefore concludes that the cluster-field excess previously interpreted as lensing-revealed faint galaxies is predominantly a misidentification artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The entire contamination estimate rests on the blank parallel fields being a faithful measure of the intrinsic galaxy population behind the clusters, so if the parallel-field luminosity function is not representative—for instance if its faint-end slope is too shallow or those fields are themselves contaminated—the reported contamination fractions could be substantially too high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ultraviolet luminosity functions built from these cluster-field catalogs without removing interlopers will overestimate the faint end, producing artificial upturns like those shown in the paper's Figure 15.
  • Faint-end turnover tests of cosmological models—whether baryonic feedback or warm or wave dark matter—are not reliable on cluster-lensing data unless the contaminants are individually removed.
  • Applying standard Lyman-break-galaxy color cuts reduces the inferred contamination to $11.0\pm11.8\%$ on average, but leaves only about one third of the UV-bright sample, so the cleaned sample is also less complete.
  • The same magnification-bias analysis applied to $1.2\le z\le2.4$ reproduces the expected negative bias with little excess, which the paper treats as validation that the method behaves as intended where contamination should not be severe.
  • Deeper JWST imaging and spectroscopy that samples the rest-frame Balmer break offers the practical route to identifying and removing the interlopers individually.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same test could be run on any cluster-lensing photometric catalog that has a blank-field luminosity function and lens models; it doubles as a general validation statistic for photo-z catalogs in lensing fields.
  • If the high contamination rate extends to other Hubble-era cluster-lensing catalogs, earlier published constraints on the faint-end ultraviolet luminosity function—and on dark-matter models that predict turnovers—may need downward revision, although the paper itself does not recompute those constraints.
  • Applying the magnification-bias test to JWST-era catalogs, where near-infrared photometry samples rest-frame 4000 Å for $z\sim4$, would provide a sharp test of whether deeper data actually removes the interlopers or merely shifts their estimated redshifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the excess of 3.5<z_phot<5.5 galaxies in the Hubble Frontier Fields cluster catalogs relative to parallel fields is dominated by misidentified low-redshift cluster members, not by lensing. It first presents qualitative diagnostics (redder colors, concentration toward the cluster red sequence, and radially concentrated distributions) and then quantifies the effect using magnification bias: predicted lensed densities from parallel-field UV luminosity functions and three lens models are compared with observed densities, and the total observed-minus-predicted excess is attributed to contamination. The reported contamination fractions are 59.38±11.12% (CATS), 53.48±10.33% (WSLAP+), and 59.53±18.52% (internal glafic models), with an average of 56.87±11.84%. The paper also applies LBG-like selection criteria and finds a much lower contamination of 11.04±11.79%, at the cost of completeness.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is correct, the paper has major implications: it would call into question photo-z-based high-redshift samples in lensing fields, explain nonphysical faint-end turn-ups in cluster-field UV luminosity functions, and affect tests of dark matter and reionization that rely on those LFs. The paper has several genuine strengths: the use of lensing-invariant diagnostics (color and surface brightness), consistency across three independent lens models, a forward-modeling approach that is not a simple fit with a contamination normalization, and an explicit, falsifiable LBG-like selection test that yields a much lower contamination fraction. However, the central quantitative result is undermined by the behavior of the paper's own control sample at 1.2<z<2.4, which shows the same type of high-magnification excess that is elsewhere interpreted as contamination. The qualitative conclusion that contamination is severe remains plausible; the specific majority fraction is not yet convincingly established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 13] The 1.2<z<2.4 control does not validate the excess-to-contamination mapping. The text states that the observed densities follow the predicted negative-bias trend "but may with a systematic offset," and that data in some magnification bins, especially at μ>10, are "severely deviating from the predicted level, suggesting we have contamination in those bins." Since the 3.5–5.5 contamination fraction is computed as the total observed-minus-predicted excess summed over magnification bins, the presence of the same high-μ excess in a supposedly uncontaminated control means the estimator cannot uniquely separate contamination from other systematics that depress predicted densities at high μ (e.g., lens-model magnification overestimates near cluster centers, residual incompleteness, or photo-z outliers). The quoted uncertainties (10–18%) propagate only LF-fitting covariance and Poisson/variance terms; they do not include this control-systematic. Please quantify the control offset, incorporate it into the systematic error budget, or restrict the claim to a qualitative statement.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (5)] The prediction requires extrapolating the parallel-field Gamma function from the data-complete limit m_lim=27.5 down to m_lim+2.5 log10 μ; at μ>10 this reaches roughly 2.5 magnitudes below the data, where the fitted faint-end slope α=−1.886±0.142 (Table 1) is least constrained. A steeper true faint-end slope raises N_pred and lowers the inferred contamination fraction. The shaded uncertainty in Fig. 14 propagates the LF-fitting covariance, but it does not test sensitivity to the assumed functional form or to alternative α values from the literature. Please add a robustness test, for example adopting the Bouwens et al. (2021) faint-end slopes or truncating the μ>10 bins and recomputing the contamination fraction.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4] The treatment of inner-cluster incompleteness is not internally consistent. Section 3.1 notes a residual brightness rise in the innermost region, and Sec. 4 argues that the non-uniform, shallower detection threshold means the lensed galaxy count is over-predicted, so the actual contamination may be higher. Yet the control test in Fig. 13 shows observed densities in high-magnification bins exceeding predictions, which is the opposite of the suppression expected from incompleteness. These two effects have opposite signs and are invoked without quantification. Please provide a quantitative completeness correction for the high-μ bins and reconcile the two statements, since the direction of the correction affects the 56% estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Table 2] The text says region masking leaves about 30% of the sample in cluster fields and 40% in parallel fields, but Table 2 gives 2087/4564≈46% and 1368/2488≈55% for 3.5–5.5, and 2988/8778≈34% and 5084/10906≈47% for 1.2–2.4. Please correct the text or the table.
  2. [Sec. 4, Figs. 13 and 14] The captions refer to the "CLF-redshift relations," which appears to be a typo for "LF-redshift relations."
  3. [Sec. 5] The weighted-average contamination of 56.87±11.84% is reported without specifying the weights or the formula used to combine the CATS, WSLAP+, and internal glafic estimates; please state the weighting explicitly so the reader can reproduce the average.
  4. [Sec. 5.2] When comparing the LBG-like selected contamination of 11.04±11.79% with the main 56.87% result, the paper uses the Bouwens et al. (2021) blank-field LF as the prediction baseline rather than the parallel-field LF used elsewhere; this baseline change should be more prominently highlighted so that the comparison is not read as apples-to-apples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 56% contamination estimate is a residual against an independently fitted parallel-field LF, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The contamination fraction is computed as (N_obs - N_pred)/N_obs, where N_pred comes from the forward model of Eq. (5): the parallel-field Gamma-function LF (Eqs. 2-4, Table 1) combined with lens-model magnification maps. No parameter is fitted to the cluster-field counts that are then labeled as contaminated. The sentence in Sec. 3.3, 'We then test for contaminants as any excess population observed in the cluster fields,' is an operational definition of the test statistic rather than a fitted input; the quantitative output could in principle have been zero or negative had the model matched the data. The 1.2<z<2.4 control excess in high-magnification bins is a validation concern about systematics such as magnification overestimates, incompleteness, or photo-z outliers, but the paper does not use the control to calibrate any free parameter or to define the 3.5-5.5 excess, so it is not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Leung et al. 2018 for the F160W masking threshold and magnitude conversion; Diego et al. for WSLAP+; Li et al. 2024 for the internal glafic models) are present but not load-bearing: the masking choice is a peripheral data cut, and the central estimate is reproduced across three independent lens-model families, including external CATS and WSLAP+ models. The paper also openly states limitations, including shallower inner detection thresholds and unquantified blank-field contamination, which cuts against any impression of a forced result. Overall, no identifiable step makes a prediction equal to its input by construction, so circularity is minimal.

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

The analysis rests on the LF measured from parallel fields, the lens model magnification maps, and the assumed photo-z error distribution. None of these is independently verified within the paper beyond internal consistency checks; in particular, the control test at 1.2<z<2.4 shows unexplained offsets.

free parameters (5)
  • Faint-end slope alpha (3.5-5.5) = -1.886 ± 0.142 (Table 1); alpha(z) = (-0.127±0.045)z + (-1.237±0.103)
    Used to extrapolate the UV LF to faint magnitudes in the magnification bias prediction; a steeper slope would increase predicted lensed counts and lower the contamination estimate.
  • Characteristic magnitude M* (3.5-5.5) = -21.468 ± 0.232 (Table 1)
    Controls the exponential cutoff of the LF; affects predicted counts in magnification bins.
  • LF amplitude phi (3.5-5.5) = 0.459 ± 0.198 x 1e-3 /mag/Mpc^3
    Overall normalization of the LF; directly scales predicted lensed densities.
  • Photo-z scatter coefficient = 0.062, i.e., z_RMS ~ 0.062(1+z)
    Used to define redshift windows for comparing observed and predicted densities; if scatter is larger, the sample selection changes.
  • Completeness threshold in F814W = 27.25 mag
    Adopted to define UV-bright sample; choice affects sample size and measured densities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UV luminosity function in parallel fields is representative of the intrinsic LF behind the cluster fields.
    The predicted lensed densities in Sec. 3.3 are based on this LF; no correction for cosmic variance or environmental dependence between cluster lines of sight and blank fields is made.
  • domain assumption The lens models (CATS, WSLAP+, glafic) accurately provide magnification factors on the image plane at the positions of the galaxies.
    The assigned magnification bins for both predictions and observations rely on these models; uncertainties are partly addressed by using three models.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift errors are characterized by a single Gaussian scatter z_RMS ~ 0.062(1+z) as measured from spec-z galaxies.
    Used to select redshift windows and to integrate predictions; catastrophic photo-z outliers (the very contaminants being studied) may not follow this Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_Lambda=0.7.
    Adopted for distance and LF calculations; a different cosmology would shift absolute magnitudes and densities slightly.
  • domain assumption The S18 catalog with use_phot=1 flag selects galaxies with reasonable photometric redshifts.
    The analysis uses this flag to define the sample; if the flag itself biases the sample, the results could be affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnification bias reveals severe contamination in Hubble Frontier Field photo-z catalogs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIW6HRBP

@misc{pith2026250709142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnification bias reveals severe contamination in Hubble Frontier Field photo-z catalogs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIW6HRBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09142}
}
abstract

Gravitational lensing by massive galaxy clusters enables faint distant galaxies to be more abundantly detected than in blank fields, thereby allowing one to construct galaxy luminosity functions (LFs) to an unprecedented depth at high redshifts. Intriguingly, photometric redshift catalogs (e.g. Shipley et al. (2018)) constructed from the Hubble Frontier Fields survey display an excess of z$\gtrsim$4 galaxies in the cluster lensing fields and are not seen in accompanying blank parallel fields. The observed excess, while maybe a gift of gravitational lensing, could also be from misidentified low-z contaminants having similar spectral energy distributions as high-z galaxies. In the latter case, the contaminants may result in nonphysical turn-ups in UV LFs and/or wash out faint end turnovers predicted by contender cosmological models to $\Lambda$CDM. Here, we employ the concept of magnification bias to perform the first statistical estimation of contamination levels in HFF lensing field photometric redshift catalogs. To our great worry, while we were able to reproduce a lower-z lensed sample, it was found $\sim56\%$ of $3.5 < z_{phot} < 5.5$ samples are likely low-z contaminants! Widely adopted Lyman Break Galaxy-like selection rules in literature may give a 'cleaner' sample magnification bias-wise but we warn readers the resulting sample would also be less complete. Individual mitigation of the contaminants is arguably the best way for the investigation of faint high-z Universe, and this may be made possible with JWST observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of SED in Hubble Frontier Fields filters of a zspec=0.29 galaxy (blue curve) with a zspec=3.95 galaxy (orange curve). The values are taken from S18 cata￾log and the SED for low spec-z source is scaled up by a factor of 2.75 for a better comparison of shapes. The scaled SEDs are seen to be very similar in shape, which leads to misidenti￾fication problem of the low-z sources as is demonstrated here by their… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of photometric redshifts in HFF cluster fields (orange) compared with respective parallel fields (blue) from S18 catalog. Following Shipley et al. (2018), here we have only used sources that are non-stellar objects, with reasonable photometric redshift fitting, i.e. sources flagged with use phot=1. For a better visual comparison, we plot also the difference between histograms as shaded black steps. The sha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of intrinsic properties between 3.5 ≤ zphit ≤ 5.5 high-z candidates in the cluster and parallel fields, using only use phot=1 galaxies from S18 catalogs. Here we focus dominantly on lensing invariant observables: color F814-F160 capturing the SED redwards of the Lyman break, and F160W band surface brightness capturing their intrinsic brightness. In both figure (a) and (b), color-surface brightness distrib… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color-magnitude diagram for the UV-bright sample with Muv < −18.4 to test the plausibility of misidentified cluster members as a source of contamination. Red dots are galaxies in the cluster fields with photo-z falling in zclu ± 0.15, and are plotted to indicate the po…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized surface Number density in different radial bins over 3.5 ≤ z ≤ 5.5 (black data points for all use phot=1, red data points for only UV-bright galaxies with Muv < −18.4) compared with that for cluster members (blue step). Here by cluster members, we refer to s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exclusion and common region for cluster field of M0416. To attain a more uniform detection threshold, we follow Leung et al. (2018) and mask out bright regions above 0.005e/s on smoothed F160 images from analysis. These re￾gions are enclosed by red contours. Cyan conto…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Compare different choice to define bright regions. wide redshift intervals such as 3.5 ≤ z ≤ 5.5, as red￾shift variation in UV LF could affect the accuracy of magnification bias predicted. In order to perform mag￾nification bias over arbitrarily narrow redshift interva…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Integrated UV LFs at different redshifts ex￾tracted from our fitted LF-redshift relations. The color bar reflects the redshift which ranges from z=1.2 to z=5.5. Black dashed line joins the position of M∗ at different redshift. relations are akin to what Bouwens et al.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Galaxy number counts over redshift 1.2-2.4 (blue) and 3.5-5.5 (orange). Each data point denote the unlensed density of all sources brighter than the corresponding mag￾nitude down to data completeness threshold, where magni￾tudes are from the bands (indicated in legend)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spec-z plotted against reported photo-z for galaxies from S18 catalogs (combining all HFF cluster fields) to determine zRMS. The normalized deviations (zphot − zspec)/(1 + zspec) are provided in the bottom panel, and the scatter range is seen well captured by the blac…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Color-color after different stage of selection. sis sample thus comprise of galaxies brighter than data completeness thresholds in the respective band. The corresponding sample sizes are listed in the Complete￾ness column of Table.2 for both redshift ranges. Again, in…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Magnification bias analysis over 1.2 < z < 2.4 for S18 catalogs. Predicted magnification bias (black line) as function of magnification factor µ compared with derived densities (red data points) when adopting glafic, WSLAP+ and cATS models respectively. Data points ar…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Magnification bias analysis over 3.5 ≤ z ≤ 5.5 for S18 catalogs. Predicted surface density is seen to decrease as magnification increases, indicating a negative magnification bias. On the other hands, the cataloged sources are seen to be more populated in the higher m…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cumulative UV LF implied by the cluster field densities compared with deeper parallel field measurements from Bouwens et al. (2021) over redshifts (a) 3.5-4.5 and (b) 4.5-5.5. The implied values are obtained by multiplying measured surface number density in each magni…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023a, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Wang, B., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1998

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Shuntov, M., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 519, 1201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3144

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3144

  3. [3]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04026 16Zhang et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.04026 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 931, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac618c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac618c

  5. [5]

    2022b, ApJ, 940, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

    Stefanon, M. 2022b, ApJ, 940, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

  6. [6]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Franx, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 936, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/936

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/936 2009

  7. [7]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/115 2014

  8. [8]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acecfe

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Stanway, E

    Bunker, A. J., Stanway, E. R., Ellis, R. S., & McMahon, R. G. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 374, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08326.x

    2004

  3. [11]

    B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al

    Caminha, G. B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527670 —. 2017, A&A, 600, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629297

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, A&A, 590, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527514

    Castellano, M., Amor ´ ın, R., Merlin, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527514

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, ApJ, 800, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/84

    Coe, D., Bradley, L., & Zitrin, A. 2015, ApJ, 800, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/84

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Agarwal, S., Marsh, D

    Corasaniti, P. S., Agarwal, S., Marsh, D. J. E., & Das, S. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 083512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083512 Di Criscienzo, M., Merlin, E., Castellano, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731172

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2015a, MNRAS, 447, 3130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2660

    Lim, J. 2015a, MNRAS, 447, 3130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2660

    doi

  8. [16]

    M., Broadhurst, T., Wong, J., et al

    Diego, J. M., Broadhurst, T., Wong, J., et al. 2016a, MNRAS, 459, 3447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw865

    doi

  9. [17]

    M., Broadhurst, T., Zitrin, A., et al

    Diego, J. M., Broadhurst, T., Zitrin, A., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 451, 3920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1168

    doi

  10. [18]

    M., Broadhurst, T., Chen, C., et al

    Diego, J. M., Broadhurst, T., Chen, C., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 456, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2638

    doi

  11. [19]

    M., Schmidt, K

    Diego, J. M., Schmidt, K. B., Broadhurst, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2609

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Le F` evre, O., Ilbert, O., et al

    Hathi, N. P., Le F` evre, O., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526012

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw069

    Jauzac, M., Richard, J., Limousin, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw069

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Richard, J., Cl´ ement, B., et al

    Lagattuta, D. J., Richard, J., Cl´ ement, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1079

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Lam, D., Broadhurst, T., Diego, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/98

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdad

    Leung, E., Broadhurst, T., Lim, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdad

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Diego, J

    Li, S. K., Diego, J. M., Kelly, P. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08571, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08571

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2016, A&A, 588, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527638

    Limousin, M., Richard, J., Jullo, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527638

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Finkelstein, S

    Livermore, R. C., Finkelstein, S. L., & Lotz, J. M. 2017, ApJ, 835, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/113

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1971

    Mahler, G., Richard, J., Cl´ ement, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1971

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, A&A, 590, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527513

    Merlin, E., Amor ´ ın, R., Castellano, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527513

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Furlanetto, S

    Robertson, B. E., Furlanetto, S. R., Schneider, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/71

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    V., Lange-Vagle, D., Marchesini, D., et al

    Shipley, H. V., Lange-Vagle, D., Marchesini, D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaacce

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al

    Willott, C. J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 025002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac5158

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Cohen, S

    Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Jansen, R. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.