pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15712 · v1 · pith:DZ77OQH6new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Early Emergence of Environmental Effects: Accelerated Galaxy Assembly in a z=2.96 Protocluster in the COSMOS Field

Shuaiyi Li , Zheng Cai , Yunjing Wu , Fujiang Yu , Xiaojing Lin , Jingyang Men , Xiaoyang Wei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 17:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords protoclustergalaxy assemblyenvironmental effectsstellar masshigh-redshift galaxiesCOSMOS fieldstar formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Protocluster members at z=2.96 show a +0.2 dex shift toward higher stellar masses than field galaxies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports the discovery of protocluster PC J1001+0214 at z=2.96 in the COSMOS field, identified through photometric and spectroscopic data with an overdensity of 2.66. Comparison to a mass-complete field sample at the same epoch reveals that protocluster galaxies have a statistically significant shift of +0.2 dex in their stellar mass distribution. This shift signals that dense environments already accelerate stellar mass assembly by z around 3. Low-mass galaxies in the structure show modestly higher star formation rates, yet the quiescent fraction remains low and matches the field, indicating that quenching has not yet become important. The overall picture is of a growth-dominated phase where environmental effects first appear through boosted mass buildup rather than suppression of star formation.

Core claim

The authors identify a highly significant protocluster at z=2.96 containing 131 galaxies, including 21 with spectroscopic confirmation. Analysis shows its member galaxies possess a stellar mass distribution shifted +0.2 dex higher than a comparable mass-complete sample drawn from the coeval field. The protocluster population largely follows the star-forming main sequence, with low-to-intermediate mass members displaying 0.11 to 0.15 dex higher star formation rates, while the quiescent fraction stays indistinguishable from the field. A preliminary size-mass relation also suggests greater compactness at fixed stellar mass. These observations together indicate accelerated mass assembly in the 3

What carries the argument

Comparative analysis of the stellar mass distribution between the 110 high-fidelity photometric plus 21 spectroscopic protocluster members and a mass-complete coeval field sample, which isolates the +0.2 dex offset as the signature of accelerated assembly.

If this is right

  • Dense environments accelerate stellar mass assembly as early as z~3.
  • Low-to-intermediate mass galaxies experience a measurable star formation rate boost of 0.11-0.15 dex.
  • The quiescent fraction remains as low as in the field, showing quenching has not yet become dominant.
  • Morphological compactness may already be elevated at fixed stellar mass inside the protocluster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Early mass assembly in protoclusters may contribute to the eventual buildup of massive cluster galaxies observed locally.
  • The absence of quenching at this stage suggests environmental suppression of star formation appears later than the acceleration of growth.
  • If confirmed, the compactness hint would imply that dense regions begin to influence galaxy structure before they quench star formation.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the 110 photometric members are correctly assigned to the protocluster with negligible contamination or projection effects.

What would settle it

A large spectroscopic follow-up campaign that measures redshifts for most photometric candidates and finds the stellar mass distribution difference vanishes or falls below statistical significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15712 by Fujiang Yu, Jingyang Men, Shuaiyi Li, Xiaojing Lin, Xiaoyang Wei, Yunjing Wu, Zheng Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stellar mass completeness in the log10(M⋆/M⊙) versus zphot plane. The background color map shows the galaxy number counts. The red markers indicate the stel￾lar mass completeness limits estimated in individual redshift bins following the method of L. Pozzetti et al. (2010). The black horizontal line marks the constant stellar mass thresh￾old of log10(M⋆/M⊙) = 8.0 used in this work. 2.3. JWST/NIRCam Grism S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Overdensity significance map in the zphot = 2.9–3.1 slice. The color scale shows the δ = (Ncorr − ⟨Ncorr⟩)/σ . The black circles indicate the masked regions excluded from the analysis. The white star marks the center of the selected overdense region, PC J1001+0214, at (R.A., decl.) = (150.2558◦ , 2.2432◦ ). This region reaches δ = 2.66 and is selected for subsequent spectroscopic validation and membe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Normalized stellar mass distributions of the protocluster members and field galaxies. The hatched red and blue histograms show the protocluster and field samples, respectively, while the solid curves indicate the Gaussian fits. The vertical dashed lines correspond to peak masses of the fitted distributions. Right: Stellar mass versus star formation rate averaged over the past 100 Myr derived from CIG… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective radius versus stellar mass for the pro￾tocluster and field samples. Gray diamonds show individ￾ual protocluster members with mass errorbar derived from 1σ photometric error and radius errorbar derived from from the S´ersic profile fitting in COSMOS2025 (M. Shuntov et al. 2025a). Red diamonds and blue squares mark the median Reff of the protocluster and field galaxies in different stellar mass bin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a spectroscopically confirmed member in PC J1001+0214 at zspec = 2.964 (ID 726593). The left panels show image cutouts in F444W, F356W, a color-composite image, and F200W. The upper-right panels present the original two-dimensional grism spectrum and the continuum-subtracted line-only spectrum from the F444W grism. The white dashed lines mark the extraction aperture, and the red circle indicates… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best-fit LEPHARE spectral energy distributions for two representative member galaxies in PC J1001+0214. The left panel shows the spectroscopically confirmed member ID 726593, and the right panel shows the photometric member ID 665455. In each panel, the black points denote the observed photometry. The vertical errorbars show the 1σ photometric uncertainties, and the horizontal bars indicate the wavelength … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit CIGALE spectral energy distributions for two representative member galaxies in PC J1001+0214. The left panel shows the spectroscopically confirmed member ID 726593, and the right panel shows the photometric member ID 665455. In each panel, the open purple circles denote the observed fluxes, and the filled red circles indicate the model fluxes integrated through the corresponding filters. The black… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the spectroscopically confirmed members and the coeval field population. Left: normalized stellar mass distributions with Gaussian fits overplotted. Right: SFR100 Myr–M⋆ relation. The gray symbols show individual spectroscopic members with measurement uncertainties, while the blue squares and red diamonds denote the median median SFRs of the spectroscopic members and field sample in diff… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs) of stellar mass for the protocluster members and the coeval field galaxies. A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test gives p = 0.002. Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 Brown, L. D., Cai, T. T., & DasGupta, A. 2001, Statistical Science, 16, 101 , doi: 10.1214/ss/1009213286 Bruzual, G., & Ch… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The redshift range z=2-4 marks a critical transition in large scale structure formation, where the dynamically unrelaxed progenitors of local massive clusters undergo rapid stellar mass assembly. We report the discovery and physical characterization of a highly significant protocluster, PC J1001+0214, at z=2.96 within the COSMOS field. Leveraging the multi-wavelength COSMOS2025 catalog with exceptional photometric precision in conjunction with JWST/NIRCam wide-field slitless spectroscopy (WFSS) from the COSMOS-3D program, we robustly identify a cosmic overdensity with $\delta=2.66$. The structure comprises 131 member galaxies, including 21 spectroscopically confirmed members (identified primarily via He I $\lambda10830$ emission) and 110 high-fidelity photometric members. A comparative analysis against a mass-complete coeval field sample reveals a statistically significant +0.2 dex shift in the stellar mass distribution of protocluster members, signaling accelerated mass assembly in the dense environment by $z\sim3$. While the protocluster population broadly follows the star-forming main sequence, low-to-intermediate mass galaxies ($\log_{10}(M_{*}/M_{\odot})\le9.7$) exhibit a measurable star formation rate (SFR) enhancement of +0.11 to +0.15 dex. Crucially, the quiescent fraction remains extremely low and indistinguishable from the field sample, implying that environmental quenching mechanisms have not yet become dominant. Furthermore, a preliminary size-mass analysis hints at elevated morphological compactness among protocluster members at fixed stellar mass. These results suggest that PC J1001+0214 represents a growth-dominated protocluster phase in which environmental effects are already detectable, primarily through accelerated stellar mass assembly and ongoing growth rather than through strong quenching.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of protocluster PC J1001+0214 at z=2.96 in the COSMOS field using the COSMOS2025 multi-wavelength catalog and JWST/NIRCam WFSS data from COSMOS-3D. The structure is identified as a significant overdensity (δ=2.66) containing 131 members (21 spectroscopic via He I λ10830 and 110 high-fidelity photometric). A mass-complete coeval field comparison shows a statistically significant +0.2 dex shift in the stellar mass distribution of protocluster members, interpreted as accelerated assembly by z∼3. Additional findings include SFR enhancement of +0.11 to +0.15 dex for low-to-intermediate mass galaxies (log M* ≤ 9.7), a quiescent fraction indistinguishable from the field, and a preliminary hint of increased morphological compactness at fixed mass.

Significance. If the membership assignments and field comparison hold, the work provides timely evidence that environmental effects on galaxy growth can emerge by z∼3 through accelerated stellar mass assembly, prior to the onset of strong quenching. The combination of high-precision photometry and JWST spectroscopy for membership is a strength, as is the focus on a growth-dominated phase rather than quenching.

major comments (3)
  1. [Membership Selection] Membership Selection section: The central +0.2 dex stellar-mass offset depends critically on the 110 photometric members having negligible mass-dependent line-of-sight contamination. The manuscript must show the mass distribution and offset when restricted to the 21 spectroscopic members alone, and must quantify the expected contamination fraction versus stellar mass given the photo-z precision of COSMOS2025 + JWST WFSS at z=2.96.
  2. [Field Sample Construction] Field Sample Construction section: The mass-complete coeval field sample must be defined with explicit completeness limits, redshift matching criteria, and any post-selection cuts; without these, it is impossible to rule out that the reported offset arises from differences in sample construction rather than environment.
  3. [Statistical Results] Statistical Results section: The statistical significance of the +0.2 dex shift (including the exact test used and p-value) and the error propagation on the cumulative mass distributions should be reported explicitly; the abstract states the shift but does not detail how uncertainties from photometric redshifts or stellar-mass estimates are incorporated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Identification] The overdensity value δ=2.66 is stated without reference to the precise formula, aperture, or background subtraction method used to compute it.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for stellar mass (log10(M*/M⊙)) should be used consistently in text, tables, and figure labels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We agree that additional details on membership robustness, field sample definition, and statistical methodology will strengthen the paper and improve clarity. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate these points as outlined below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Membership Selection] Membership Selection section: The central +0.2 dex stellar-mass offset depends critically on the 110 photometric members having negligible mass-dependent line-of-sight contamination. The manuscript must show the mass distribution and offset when restricted to the 21 spectroscopic members alone, and must quantify the expected contamination fraction versus stellar mass given the photo-z precision of COSMOS2025 + JWST WFSS at z=2.96.

    Authors: We agree that verifying the mass offset with only spectroscopic members is important for robustness. In the revised manuscript, we will add the stellar mass distribution and measured offset restricted to the 21 spectroscopic members. We will also quantify the expected contamination fraction versus stellar mass, using the photo-z precision of COSMOS2025 combined with JWST WFSS constraints at z=2.96 and our photometric selection criteria. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Field Sample Construction] Field Sample Construction section: The mass-complete coeval field sample must be defined with explicit completeness limits, redshift matching criteria, and any post-selection cuts; without these, it is impossible to rule out that the reported offset arises from differences in sample construction rather than environment.

    Authors: We will expand the Field Sample Construction section in the revision to explicitly state the stellar mass completeness limits, the redshift matching criteria used to ensure the field sample is coeval with the protocluster, and any post-selection cuts applied. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Statistical Results] Statistical Results section: The statistical significance of the +0.2 dex shift (including the exact test used and p-value) and the error propagation on the cumulative mass distributions should be reported explicitly; the abstract states the shift but does not detail how uncertainties from photometric redshifts or stellar-mass estimates are incorporated.

    Authors: We will revise the Statistical Results section to report the exact statistical test used, the associated p-value for the +0.2 dex shift, and details of error propagation on the cumulative distributions, including contributions from photometric redshift and stellar mass uncertainties. We will also update the abstract to briefly reference these aspects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct observational comparisons

full rationale

The paper identifies the protocluster via photometric and spectroscopic membership in the COSMOS field, computes an overdensity δ=2.66, and reports a +0.2 dex stellar-mass offset plus SFR trends by direct comparison to an independent mass-complete field sample at the same redshift. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are shown that reduce the reported mass shift or environmental signals to quantities defined by the same inputs. Membership selection and field comparison remain independent steps without self-definitional loops or fitted-input predictions. This is a standard observational analysis whose central results are not forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard assumptions about photometric redshift accuracy and the fairness of the field comparison sample. No new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters include the precise definition of the overdensity threshold and the mass-completeness cut used for the comparative statistics.

free parameters (2)
  • overdensity threshold
    The reported δ=2.66 depends on the exact spatial and redshift window chosen to define the structure.
  • mass completeness limit
    The log M* = 9.7 threshold used to isolate the low-mass SFR enhancement is a data-driven cut.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from the COSMOS2025 catalog are sufficiently accurate to assign 110 galaxies as protocluster members with low contamination.
    This underpins the total member count and the statistical comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5894 in / 1461 out tokens · 93474 ms · 2026-05-20T17:18:01.435758+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Alberts, A

    Alberts, S., & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  2. [2]

    Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., Chevallard, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321768 13 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 log10 (M * /M ⊙ ) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Cumulative Fraction p=0.002 field protocluster members Figure 10.Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs) of stellar mass for the protocluster members a...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321768 2013

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  4. [4]

    , author Saltelli, A

    Brown, L. D., Cai, T. T., & DasGupta, A. 2001, Statistical Science, 16, 101 , doi: 10.1214/ss/1009213286

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1009213286 2001

  5. [5]

    M., White, S

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  8. [8]

    Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  9. [9]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/127 2013

  10. [10]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx047

    Coupon, J., Czakon, N., Bosch, J., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx047

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx047 2018

  11. [11]

    C., Zamorani, G., et al

    Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833655

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833655 2018

  12. [12]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121

    Aragon-Calvo, M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/121 2015

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    work page doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  14. [14]

    H., Balogh, M

    Edward, A. H., Balogh, M. L., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3751

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3751 2024

  15. [15]

    C., Shah, E., et al

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L56, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad114

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad114 2023

  16. [16]

    C., Shah, E

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78 G´ omez, P. L., Nichol, R. C., Miller, C. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210, doi: 10.1086/345593

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e78 2024

  17. [17]

    2020, A&A, 640, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935855

    Guaita, L., Pompei, E., Castellano, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935855

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935855 2020

  18. [18]

    2016, ApJL, 826, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L28

    Hayashi, M., Kodama, T., Tanaka, I., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L28

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/l28 2016

  19. [19]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 2024

  20. [20]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  21. [21]

    Accurate photometric redshifts for the CFHT Legacy Survey calibrated using the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  22. [22]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  23. [23]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb49b 2023

  24. [24]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x 2004

  25. [25]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, ApJS, 142, 35, doi: 10.1086/341326

    work page doi:10.1086/341326 2002

  26. [26]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1cb9 2026

  27. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts133

    Koyama, Y., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts133 2013

  28. [28]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae225e

    Lin, X., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae225e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae225e 2026

  29. [29]

    C., Thomas, P

    Lovell, C. C., Thomas, P. A., & Wilkins, S. M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3090 2018

  30. [30]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Monson, E. B., Lehmer, B. D., Doore, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f84 2021

  32. [32]

    B., Qezlou, M., Rudie, G

    Newman, A. B., Qezlou, M., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade0b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade0b2 2025

  33. [33]

    Oke, J. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 21, doi: 10.1086/190287 14

    work page doi:10.1086/190287 1974

  34. [34]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 2016

  35. [35]

    A., Marchesini, D., et al

    Pan, R., Suess, K. A., Marchesini, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7ab

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7ab 2025

  36. [36]

    Pei, Y. C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 130, doi: 10.1086/171637

    work page doi:10.1086/171637 1992

  37. [37]

    2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913020 2010

  38. [38]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Sattari, Z., Mobasher, B., Chartab, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a3 2021

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Shi, K., Toshikawa, J., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe62e 2021

  41. [41]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv051 2015

  42. [42]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 1977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2494

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Hayashi, M., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 1977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2494

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2494 1977

  43. [43]

    Shimakawa, R., Koyama, Y., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 481, 5630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2618

  44. [44]

    , keywords =

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025a, A&A, 704, A339, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555799

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2025b, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

  46. [46]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A344, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557857

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557857 2026

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c

    Sun, F., Egami, E., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c 2023

  48. [48]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Sun, F., Fudamoto, Y., Lin, X., et al. 2025 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15587

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986

    Sun, H., Wang, T., Xu, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986 2024

  50. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316

    Tanaka, M., Onodera, M., Shimakawa, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316 2024

  51. [51]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S12, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx102

    Toshikawa, J., Uchiyama, H., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S12, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx102

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx102 2018

  52. [53]

    2025b, MNRAS, 537, 3561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf197

    Toshikawa, J., Wuyts, S., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 537, 3561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf197

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf197

  53. [54]

    Wang, et al., Discovery of a Galaxy Cluster with a Violently Starbursting Core at z = 2.506

    Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/56 2016

  54. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974

    Wang, X., Li, Z., Cai, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974 2022

  55. [56]

    , keywords =

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 2022

  56. [57]

    R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245581 2023