Quasars Have Fewer Close Companions than Normal Galaxies

Ian D. McGreer; Jan-Torge Schindler; Minghao Yue; Xiaohui Fan; Yun-Hsin Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Quasars Have Fewer Close Companions than Normal Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Luminous quasars have significantly fewer close, roughly equal-mass companions than inactive galaxies, implying that a large fraction are triggered by major mergers that have already coalesced.

desk verdict First large-sample HST companion count for quasars, with a plausible but Poisson-fragile 3.7σ deficit of intermediate-mass companions; systematics from the no-K-correction mass cuts need to be quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00967 v1 pith:6CIUNHTW submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.GA

Minghao Yue , Xiaohui Fan , Jan-Torge Schindler , Ian D. McGreer , Yun-Hsin Huang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords quasarcompanionsgalaxymergersAGNtriggeringmajorabundancematchingcompanionfractionspace-telescopeimagingactivegalacticnuclei

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

Using 532 quasars with archival space-telescope imaging, this paper counts companion galaxies projected within 10–100 kpc and compares the counts with a redshift-matched sample of massive inactive galaxies. The central finding is that quasars have essentially no companions with inferred stellar masses between $10^{10}$ and $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ within 10–30 kpc: $0.004\pm0.021$ per quasar versus $0.087\pm0.008$ per galaxy, a 3.7σ deficit that persists to roughly 60 kpc. Faint and bright companions are equally common around quasars and galaxies, and the intermediate-companion deficit grows with quasar luminosity. The authors interpret this as evidence that a significant fraction of luminous quasars are triggered by major galaxy mergers that have already reached final coalescence, so the two progenitor galaxies no longer appear as a pair. If correct, this supports the merger-triggering picture for the most luminous active galactic nuclei and helps explain why morphology-based merger studies often find no excess of ongoing mergers around quasars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is abundance matching used to convert stellar-mass cuts into apparent-magnitude cuts in each observed band. For a given stellar mass $M_*$, the authors find the apparent magnitude $m(M_*)$ such that the number of galaxies brighter than $m(M_*)$ equals the number of galaxies more massive than $M_*$ in a redshift-matched slice of a deep-field galaxy catalog. Applying these cuts places companions into three bins: faint ($10^9$ to $10^{10}\,M_\odot$), intermediate ($10^{10}$ to $10^{11}\,M_\odot$), and bright (above $10^{11}\,M_\odot$), with the intermediate bin corresponding to roughly equal-mass (major-merger) partners. Companion counts are obtained by subtracting a model PSF and a host-galaxy profile from each quasar image, running source detection on the residual image, and subtracting the background object density measured across the full frame; the detection completeness is estimated by inserting simulated companions and exceeds 90–95% for all companions of interest.

What would settle it

Rerun the companion counts using only quasars whose images are in the same filter as the control sample, with K-corrections applied from template SEDs, or assign companion stellar masses from multi-band photometry or grism spectroscopy instead of single-band abundance matching; if the 10–30 kpc deficit of $10^{10}$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$ companions drops below about 2σ, the claimed evidence for merger-triggered quasars fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, at projected separations of 10–30 kpc, quasars show a 3.7σ deficit of intermediate companions — companions with inferred stellar masses between $10^{10}$ and $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ — compared with inactive galaxies of similar redshift and stellar mass. The average number of such companions is $0.004\pm0.021$ per quasar versus $0.087\pm0.008$ per control galaxy, with the deficit extending out to roughly 60 kpc, while faint and bright companions show no significant difference. The authors also find that the number of intermediate companions around quasars decreases with quasar luminosity, and that quasar companion counts show little evolution with redshift. They interpret the missing intermediate companions as the signature of quasars whose host galaxies have already passed through the final coalescence stage of a major merger; under a simple toy model in which merger-triggered quasars have no close companions and secular-triggered quasars resemble inactive galaxies, they infer a major-merger-triggered fraction of $\alpha = 0.95\pm0.25$ for intermediate-mass companions, with a 3σ lower limit of 0.22.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that a single-filter brightness cutoff labels the same companion stellar masses for quasars (observed in eight different filters without K-corrections) as for control galaxies (observed in one filter), and that the two samples are equally complete at those faint magnitudes; a systematic slip in either would move companions across the $10^{10}$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$ boundary and make the deficit appear or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the paper's toy model, the intermediate-companion deficit translates into a major-merger-triggered quasar fraction of $\alpha = 0.95\pm0.25$, implying that a substantial, possibly dominant, fraction of luminous quasars are lit by roughly equal-mass mergers.
Because the deficit appears for intermediate-mass companions but not for faint or bright ones, the paper concludes that major mergers contribute significantly to quasar triggering while minor mergers contribute little.
The observed decrease of intermediate companions with quasar luminosity supports the claim that the merger-triggered fraction rises with AGN luminosity, and the paper shows this is consistent with previous estimates that merging systems are more likely to host AGNs by a factor $R\gtrsim2.4$.
The companion-counting method does not require superb angular resolution, so the paper argues that wide-area ground-based surveys can apply the same technique to measure the merger-triggered fraction as a function of luminosity and redshift with much smaller statistical errors.

Reading between the lines

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

If the coalescence interpretation is correct, quasar host galaxies should show post-merger relics — tidal debris, shells, or young central stellar populations — more often than inactive galaxies of the same mass; deep imaging or integral-field spectroscopy could test this directly.
The result implies that pair-count based merger-rate estimates for quasars are systematically biased low, because the quasar phase in a merger-triggered system appears after the two progenitor galaxies have merged; corrections for the timing of the quasar relative to coalescence would be needed.
A sharper test of the major-merger interpretation would be to derive companion stellar masses from multi-band photometry or spectroscopy rather than a single-band abundance-matching cut; if the $10^{10}$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$ boundary is shifted by even a few tenths of a magnitude, the reported deficit could move to a different companion-mass bin.
The paper reports that radio-loud quasars have more faint companions than radio-quiet ones (a 2.4σ difference); this hints that radio activity may trace a different triggering channel, a possibility the paper does not pursue but larger samples could test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — here's the quick read. This is the first companion-count measurement around ~500 luminous quasars from HST archival images, and it reports a 3.7σ deficit of intermediate-mass (10^10–10^11 M_sun) close companions relative to a redshift-matched galaxy control. That is a genuinely new observational result and, if it holds, it supports the merger-triggering picture for luminous quasars. But treat the 3.7σ as provisional: the quasar-side signal is only about 1.4 companions, and the quoted errors are Poisson only.

What the paper does well: the sample is large (532 quasars, 354 in the flux-limited sample), the PSF subtraction is careful, and the completeness simulations are thoughtful — they test point sources and exponential disks and get >90–95% completeness even for faint companions at small radii. The control sample from 3D-HST is reasonably constructed. The authors are transparent that the merger-fraction estimate in §5.2 is a toy model with strong assumptions, and they give the raw counts separately. They also put the data on GitHub.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The abundance-matching magnitude cuts in §4.1 use Eq. 3, which corrects only for luminosity distance — no K-correction, no SED-dependent bandpass term. Quasars are observed across eight different ACS filters; the control sample uses F814W only. The m(10^10) and m(10^11) boundaries are derived from UDS photometry with average color conversions. A modest shift in those boundaries — from, say, photometric-redshift scatter or SED differences — would move companions across the mass bins and could weaken or erase the deficit. Because the quasar-side count is so small (~1.4 companions), the 3.7σ is not robust to that systematic. I would like to see the authors vary the mass cuts by ±0.2 dex or restrict to a single band as a robustness check. They also don't quantify cosmic variance from the five 3D-HST fields; the control sample is drawn from a small total area.

The citation pattern looks fair; the comparison with previous AGN merger studies in §5.3 is even-handed. The math is straightforward counting plus background subtraction, and I don't see a circularity.

Verdict: I'd send this to a serious referee. The measurement is new, the paper is honest, and the central result is plausible. What needs work is the systematic budget; the conclusion currently rides on errors that are too small. A revised version that quantifies the boundary systematics could make this a solid, citable result.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses HST ACS/WFC archival images of 532 quasars at 0.3<z<3 to count projected companions at 10-100 kpc. After PSF subtraction and background subtraction, companions are divided into faint, intermediate, and bright bins using abundance-matching magnitude limits. Compared with a redshift-matched control sample of massive galaxies from 3D-HST, the authors find similar numbers of faint and bright companions but a 3.7σ deficit of intermediate (10^10-10^11 Msun) companions within 30 kpc. They interpret this as evidence that a significant fraction of luminous quasars are merger-triggered and have already reached final coalescence, and they derive a toy-model merger fraction alpha(intermediate) ~ 0.95±0.25.

Significance. If the central observational claim is correct, it is an important result: it uses the largest HST-based quasar companion sample to date and provides a relatively clean, morphology-independent test of merger triggering of luminous quasars. The paper's strengths include the large archival sample, explicit completeness simulations for PSF-subtracted companion detection, a control sample drawn from 3D-HST, and checks on selection effects using the 402 quasars observed in AGN-unrelated programs. The public data link and clear presentation also help reproducibility. However, the headline deficit rests on a small number of companions and on magnitude-to-mass conversions that are not yet demonstrated to be robust; the significance of the claim depends on resolving the systematic concerns below.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] The central 3.7σ deficit rests on the abundance-matching magnitude limits m(10^10 Msun) and m(10^11 Msun), but the derivation of these limits uses a distance-only correction and no SED-dependent K-correction, and the limits are applied to quasar companions observed in eight different ACS filters while the control sample is measured in F814W only. A shift of m(10^10 Msun) or m(10^11 Msun) by a few tenths of a magnitude from the UDS BVRI-to-ACS conversions, photometric-redshift scatter, or the absence of K-corrections would move objects across the 10^10-10^11 Msun boundary; because the quasar intermediate count is Ncomp,Q(intermediate)=0.004±0.021 (Eq. 4), corresponding to roughly 1.4 companions in the whole sample, the 3.7σ significance is not robust to such a shift. Please quantify this by recomputing Eqs. (4)-(5) with K-corrections or with the conversion uncertainty propagated, and report the resulting systematic error on the deficit.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The background subtraction as written uses Nbkg as the total number of objects detected over the whole image, with no statement that the same magnitude cut applied to companions is applied to the background objects. If the background count includes sources fainter than the companion magnitude limit, deeper archival images will have larger background densities and the subtraction will systematically reduce the estimated physical companion counts; because the quasar images come from heterogeneous programs with different depths and filters, this could create a spurious deficit of intermediate companions. Please specify the magnitude limits used for the background counts and show that the headline deficit survives when the background is measured with the same magnitude cut as the companions, for example by recomputing the intermediate-companion counts with a fixed F814W-equivalent limiting magnitude.
[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The quoted uncertainties are Poisson errors only, and the paper does not propagate systematic uncertainties from the photometric-redshift and stellar-mass estimates in the UDS catalog, the BVRI-to-ACS filter conversions, the differing depths of the eight ACS filters, or the field-to-field depth differences in the 3D-HST control sample. Since the headline claim is a 3.7σ deficit built on a small number of companions, the absence of a quantitative systematic error budget makes the significance of the central claim uncertain. A table listing the dominant systematic terms and their effect on the intermediate-companion difference would be needed to support the quoted significance.

minor comments (4)

[Figures 3 and 4] Several figure labels omit minus signs: Figure 3 shows 'Mabs = 19' and Figure 4 axis labels should read Mabs = -19, -20, and -21.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption refers to 'F184W' where 'F814W' is intended.
[Equation (1)] The completeness symbol C(d_i,d_i+1) is used in Eq. (1) but is not defined explicitly before the equation; please define it in the text.
[Footnote 2] The data availability link is a GitHub repository; please provide a persistent DOI or archival version for long-term access.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: companion counts are image measurements, the stellar-mass magnitude cuts come from an external 3D-HST/UDS catalog, and the merger-fraction inference is an explicitly stated model interpretation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observational comparison: projected companions are counted in HST ACS/WFC images after PSF subtraction, corrected by a background density via Eq. 1, and binned by magnitude limits m(M*) derived with abundance matching from the external 3D-HST UDS catalog using Eq. 3. The quasar and galaxy companion numbers in Eqs. 4 and 5 are measured counts, not fitted parameters, and the abundance-matching conversion uses an external catalog rather than the quasar companion data, so the companion deficit is not forced by construction. The later merger-fraction estimate alpha in Eq. 7 is an interpretation under explicit assumptions about secular versus merger-triggered quasars, and the paper candidly discusses the assumptions and their effects in Sec. 5.2; this is model interpretation, not circularity. Self-citations such as Fan et al. 2016 and Yue et al. 2018 are contextual references and are not load-bearing for the measurement or the subtraction of the background. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no authoritative self-citation chain invoked to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged systematics, such as the absence of K-corrections in converting between bands and the small number of intermediate quasar companions, are correctness and robustness concerns rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central 3.7 sigma claim depends on hand-chosen mass cuts and distance limits that define 'intermediate close companions,' on the assumption that abundance-matching magnitude cuts place quasar and control companions into the same stellar mass bins, and on the unstated assumption that the two imaging pipelines measure companion counts equivalently. The merger-fraction interpretation adds two strong model assumptions, N_QM about 0 and N_QS about N_G. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Stellar mass bin boundaries = 10^9, 10^10, 10^11 solar masses
The faint/intermediate/bright classification and the reported 3.7 sigma deficit depend on these hand-chosen cuts; shifting them could move companions across bins and change the significance.
Projected companion distance limits = 10 kpc < d < 100 kpc; close defined as 10 to 30 kpc
The close companion statistic that produces the 3.7 sigma result uses these limits, adopted from earlier pair studies rather than derived.
Control sample stellar mass cut = M* > 10^10 solar masses
Control galaxies are limited to massive galaxies to match quasar hosts; this choice affects the normalization of the galaxy companion counts.
Power-law SED index for PSF model = -2
Input spectrum to TinyTim for PSF subtraction; a different SED changes PSF residuals and could affect companion completeness near the quasar.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
Used to convert angular separations to projected kiloparsec distances and to compute luminosity distances in Equation 3.
domain assumption Abundance matching monotonicity: the number of galaxies more massive than M* equals the number brighter than m(M*)
Invoked in Section 4.1 to convert stellar mass cuts into apparent magnitude cuts; no scatter is included, so the bins may be contaminated.
domain assumption Quasar companions follow the same stellar mass and flux distribution as normal galaxies
Stated in Section 5.1 as necessary for the mass-to-magnitude conversion; if quasars modify their companions, the mass bins are biased.
ad hoc to paper Merger-triggered quasars have no close companions (Ncomp,QM about 0)
Assumed in Section 5.2 to derive alpha; the paper notes this is oversimplified and says relaxing it strengthens the conclusion.
ad hoc to paper Secular-evolution-triggered quasars have the same number of companions as normal galaxies (Ncomp,QS about Ncomp,G)
Assumed in Section 5.2 to derive alpha from the observed companion deficit.
domain assumption Photometric redshifts in the 3D-HST and UDS catalogs are accurate enough for redshift matching and distance corrections
Both the control sample construction and the m(M*) conversion in Section 4.1 rely on zphot values; photo-z scatter can blur the mass bins.
domain assumption TinyTim PSF with a power-law SED of index -2 approximates the true quasar PSF
Used in Section 3.1 for PSF subtraction; residual errors from an inaccurate PSF model could hide or create companions at small separations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasars Have Fewer Close Companions than Normal Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CIUNHTW

@misc{pith2026190900967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasars Have Fewer Close Companions than Normal Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CIUNHTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00967}
}

abstract

We investigate the distribution of companion galaxies around quasars using {\em Hubble Space Telescope} ({\em HST}) Advanced Camera for Surveys Wide Field Camera (ACS/WFC) archival images. Our master sample contains 532 quasars which have been observed by {\em HST} ACS/WFC, spanning a wide range of luminosity $(-31<M_i(z=2)<-23)$ and redshift ($0.3<z<3$). We search for companions around the quasars with projected distance of $10\text{ kpc}<d<100\text{ kpc}$. PSF subtraction is performed to enhance the completeness for close companions. The completeness is estimated to be high $(>90\%)$ even for the faintest companions of interest. The number of physical companions is estimated by subtracting a background density from the number density of projected companions. We divide all the companions into three groups (faint, intermediate and bright) according to their fluxes. A control sample of galaxies is constructed to have similar redshift distribution and stellar mass range as the quasar sample using the data from {\em HST} deep fields. We find that quasars and control sample galaxies have similar numbers of faint and bright companions, while quasars show a $3.7\sigma$ deficit of intermediate companions compared to galaxies. The numbers of companions in all three groups do not show strong evolution with redshift, and the number of intermediate companions around quasars decreases with quasar luminosity. Assuming that merger-triggered quasars have entered the final coalescence stage during which individual companions are no longer detectable at large separations, our result is consistent with a picture in which a significant fraction of quasars is triggered by mergers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00967 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The redshift and luminosity distributions of the quasars in our master sample. This sample contains 532 quasars which show up in 687 HST ACS/WFC archival images. selection are referred to as “good” images in rest of the paper. The final master sample contains 532 quasars in 687 good images. Among the 532 quasars, 402 of them were observed in programs that were not related to AGN studies. The fact that most quasars … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Number of quasars observed in each band. Note that one quasar can be observed by multiple bands. observed. This sample is constructed as a “pure” observational result that can be directly compared with simulations without any further assumption. We convert the absolute magnitude Mabs = −19 to an apparent magnitude m(Mabs = −19) assuming that the companions have the same redshift as the quasar, and require that the i… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The completeness of companion detection estimated by simulated companions. The simulated objects are generated as point sources. We estimated that the fraction of missed companions is less than 10% for all the companions of interest. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 20< Mabs < 19 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 Average Companion Number 21< Mabs < 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Projected Distance (kpc) 0.05 0.00 0.0… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The average companion numbers of sample A quasars. Each data point corresponds to a distance bin of ∆d = 10 kpc. All the error bars represent 1σ error assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of companions (same for all the other figures) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The detected fraction of quasar companions which have a magnitude of m(109M ), m(1010M ) and m(1011M ), estimated by simulated images. The detected fraction is higher than 95% for all the companions of interest. spondingly, we use Sample B throughout §4. Since most qua…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The average number of companions of quasars and the control sample galaxies. Each data point corresponds to a distance bin of ∆d = 10kpc. Small x-axis offsets are added to the error bars to make them distinguishable. We calculate the number of faint, intermediate and …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The redshift evolution of average number of companions around quasars. The average number of companions of galaxies in the control sample is also included. 25< Mi(z=2) < 23 27< Mi(z=2) < 25 Mi(z=2)< 27 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Average Companion Number Faint Comp…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The evolution of the average number of companions around quasars with quasar luminosity. 3. Infrared (IR) brightness. We match our quasar catalog with the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE; e.g., Wright et al. 2010) ALLWISE source catalog. Since WISE W3 and W…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Images of on-going merging systems in our master sample. The image sizes are 100kpc × 100kpc at the redshift of the object. We present both the original image (left) and the PSF-subtracted image (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...
[3]

Q?bsp2 B v@g s8 =+63l;=3 6 N# yk@ zB `b!n

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017
[4]

Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S4

work page 2018
[5]

E., & Hernquist, L

Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E.\ 1991, , 370, L65

work page 1991
[6]

H., White, R

Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J.\ 1995, , 450, 559

work page 1995
[7]

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S.\ 1996, , 117, 393

1996
[8]

B., van Dokkum, P

Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., et al.\ 2012, , 200, 13

work page 2012

Show all 70 references

[9]

J., et al.\ 2011, , 726, 57

Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K. J., et al.\ 2011, , 726, 57

2011
[10]

Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al.\ 2014, , 562, A21

2014
[11]

J., Springel, V., White, S

Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al.\ 2006, , 365, 11

2006
[12]

de Ravel, L., Le F \`e vre, O., Tresse, L., et al.\ 2009, , 498, 379

2009
[13]

Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L.\ 2005, , 433, 604

2005
[14]

S., McLure, R

Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., et al.\ 2003, , 340, 1095

2003
[15]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W.\ 2008, , 135, 1877

2008
[16]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M.\ 2011, , 418, 2043

2011
[17]

L., Mendel, J

Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., & Scudder, J. M.\ 2013, , 435, 3627

2013
[18]

Fan, L., Han, Y., Fang, G., et al.\ 2016, , 822, L32

2016
[19]

J., & White, R

Glikman, E., Helfand, D. J., & White, R. L.\ 2006, , 640, 579

2006
[20]

A., Conselice, C

Grogin, N. A., Conselice, C. J., Chatzichristou, E., et al.\ 2005, , 627, L97

2005
[21]

Gonzaga, S., & et al.\ 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook, HST Data Handbook,

2012
[22]

D., Greene, J

Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al.\ 2017, arXiv:1706.07436

2017 arXiv
[23]

Hern \'a n-Caballero, A., Hatziminaoglou, E., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al.\ 2016, , 463, 2064

2016
[24]

C., Mullaney, J

Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al.\ 2014, , 782, 9

2014
[25]

F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al.\ 2006, , 163, 1

2006
[26]

F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kere s , D.\ 2008, , 175, 356-389

2008
[27]

F., & Hernquist, L.\ 2009, , 694, 599

Hopkins, P. F., & Hernquist, L.\ 2009, , 694, 599

2009
[28]

F., & Quataert, E.\ 2010, , 407, 1529

Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E.\ 2010, , 407, 1529

2010
[29]

F., Kocevski, D

Hopkins, P. F., Kocevski, D. D., & Bundy, K.\ 2014, , 445, 823

2014
[30]

K., & Ammon, K.\ 2006, , 460, 339

Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., & Ammon, K.\ 2006, , 460, 339

2006
[31]

J., & Bonfield, D.\ 2014, , 439, 861

Karouzos, M., Jarvis, M. J., & Bonfield, D.\ 2014, , 439, 861

2014
[32]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al.\ 2004, , 353, 713

2004
[33]

E., Hook, R

Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F.\ 2011, , 8127, 81270J

2011
[34]

D., Faber, S

Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., Mozena, M., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 148

2012
[35]

C.\ 2013, , 51, 511

Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C.\ 2013, , 51, 511

2013
[36]

G., Tissera, P

Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., & Coldwell, G.\ 2003, , 346, 1189

2003
[37]

M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R.\ 2010, , 404, 575

2010
[38]

LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration 2012, arXiv:1211.0310

2012 arXiv
[39]

Man, A. W. S., Toft, S., Zirm, A. W., Wuyts, S., & van der Wel, A.\ 2012, , 744, 85

2012
[40]

A., Price, T

Matsuoka, Y., Strauss, M. A., Price, T. N., III, & DiDonato, M. S.\ 2014, , 780, 162

2014
[41]

G., Brammer, G

Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al.\ 2016, , 225, 27

2016
[42]

Newton, R. D. A., & Kay, S. T.\ 2013, , 434, 3606

2013
[43]

P., et al.\ 2017, , 597, A79

P \^a ris, I., Petitjean, P., Ross, N. P., et al.\ 2017, , 597, A79

2017
[44]

P \^a ris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg, E., et al.\ 2017, arXiv:1712.05029

2017 arXiv
[45]

Y., Ho, L

Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W.\ 2002, , 124, 266

2002
[46]

J., Kova c , K., et al.\ 2010, , 721, 193

Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kova c , K., et al.\ 2010, , 721, 193

2010
[47]

S., Tadhunter, C

Ramos Almeida, C., Bessiere, P. S., Tadhunter, C. N., et al.\ 2012, , 419, 687

2012
[48]

T., Strauss, M

Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al.\ 2006, , 131, 2766

2006
[49]

T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al.\ 2006, , 166, 470

2006
[50]

B., Soifer, B

Sanders, D. B., Soifer, B. T., Elias, J. H., et al.\ 1988, , 325, 74

1988
[51]

L., McAlpine, W., et al.\ 2014, , 441, 1297

Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al.\ 2014, , 441, 1297

2014
[52]

M., et al.\ 2011, , 727, L31

Schawinski, K., Treister, E., Urry, C. M., et al.\ 2011, , 727, L31

2011
[53]

P., Richards, G

Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., Hall, P. B., et al.\ 2010, , 139, 2360

2010
[54]

L.\ 1968, Cordoba, Argentina: Observatorio Astronomico, 1968,

Sersic, J. L.\ 1968, Cordoba, Argentina: Observatorio Astronomico, 1968,

1968
[55]

C.\ 1989, , 338, 45

Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C.\ 1989, , 338, 45

1989
[56]

D., Kampczyk, P., Jahnke, K., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 2

Silverman, J. D., Kampczyk, P., Jahnke, K., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 2

2011
[57]

J., Ben \' tez, N., et al.\ 2005, , 117, 1049

Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Ben \' tez, N., et al.\ 2005, , 117, 1049

2005
[58]

E., Whitaker, K

Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al.\ 2014, , 214, 24

2014
[59]

J., Lintott, C

Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al.\ 2017, , 469, 3670

2017
[60]

Spacek, A., Scannapieco, E., Cohen, S., Joshi, B., & Mauskopf, P.\ 2016, , 819, 128

2016
[61]

Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L.\ 2005, , 361, 776

2005
[62]

M., & Simmons, B

Treister, E., Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., & Simmons, B. D.\ 2012, , 758, L39

2012
[63]

E., Schneider, D

Vanden Berk, D. E., Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., et al.\ 2005, , 129, 2047

2005
[64]

G., et al.\ 2014, , 788, 28

van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al.\ 2014, , 788, 28

2014
[65]

V \'e ron-Cetty, M.-P., & V \'e ron, P.\ 2010, , 518, A10

2010
[66]

M., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 812

Villforth, C., Hamilton, T., Pawlik, M. M., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 812

2017
[67]

E., McIntosh, D

Weston, M. E., McIntosh, D. H., Brodwin, M., et al.\ 2017, , 464, 3882

2017
[68]

L., Becker, R

White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Gregg, M. D.\ 1997, , 475, 479

1997
[69]

L., Eisenhardt, P

Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al.\ 2010, , 140, 1868

2010
[70]

Yue, M., Jiang, L., Shen, Y., et al.\ 2018, , 863, 21

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

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

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

[3] [3]

Q?bsp2 B v@g s8 =+63l;=3 6 N# yk@ zB `b!n

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017

[4] [4]

Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S4

work page 2018

[5] [5]

E., & Hernquist, L

Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E.\ 1991, , 370, L65

work page 1991

[6] [6]

H., White, R

Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J.\ 1995, , 450, 559

work page 1995

[7] [7]

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S.\ 1996, , 117, 393

1996

[8] [8]

B., van Dokkum, P

Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., et al.\ 2012, , 200, 13

work page 2012