Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 121 references

Probing Environmental Dependence of High-Redshift Galaxy Properties with the Marked Correlation Function

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that UV magnitude and color of Lyman-break galaxies at $z \sim 3$–$5$ are strong environmental tracers, while stellar mass and star-formation rate are not.

desk verdict A genuinely new first measurement of MCFs for z~3-5 LBGs, but the UV magnitude and color marks are entangled with redshift inside broad photo-z windows, so the headline signal needs a control before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12573 v2 pith:OPVVYAG6 submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.CO

Emy Mons , Charles Jose This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords markedcorrelationfunctionLyman-breakgalaxiesgalaxyenvironmentUVluminositycolorstarformationratestellarmasshigh-redshiftclustering
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

The paper asks which observable properties of Lyman-break galaxies at redshifts 3 to 5 are tied to their surrounding environment, using marked correlation functions measured from large optical survey data. It finds that UV magnitude and UV dropout color are strong environmental tracers: galaxies with brighter UV light or with more extreme dropout colors are more likely to be found near similar galaxies at separations from a few arcseconds to hundreds of arcseconds, beyond what ordinary clustering predicts. Star-formation rate and stellar mass, by contrast, show only weak or marginal marked clustering, so they are poorer tracers of the environment at these redshifts. The signal is stronger for brighter samples, grows from $z \sim 5$ to $z \sim 3$ when samples are matched in absolute magnitude or halo mass, and is larger than $z \sim 0$ measurements, giving a survey-scale benchmark for how environment shapes young galaxies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rank-ordered marked correlation function, defined as $M(\theta) = (1+W(\theta))/(1+\omega(\theta)) \equiv WW(\theta)/DD(\theta)$, where each galaxy receives a mark equal to the percentile rank of a chosen property, rescaled to lie between 0 and 2. The ratio of weighted to unweighted pair counts cancels survey geometry and, to first order, the redshift distribution $N(z)$, allowing different galaxy properties to be compared on the same footing. A value above unity means that pairs with high mark values are overrepresented relative to ordinary angular clustering, and a value below unity means they are underrepresented.

What would settle it

Re-rank the galaxies by absolute UV magnitude or within narrow photometric-redshift bins and recompute the same marked correlation functions; if the UV-magnitude and color MCFs drop toward unity while the same pairs and the same redshift distribution are kept, the claimed environmental dependence would be shown to be a selection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in magnitude-selected Lyman-break galaxy samples at $z \sim 3$, $4$, and $5$, apparent UV magnitude and UV dropout color are strongly correlated with environment, while stellar mass and star-formation rate are not. Concretely, when galaxies are rank-ordered by UV magnitude or color and the marked correlation function is measured, the statistic significantly exceeds unity on scales up to roughly 400 arcseconds for the brightest samples, indicating an excess of pairs of similarly bright or similarly colored galaxies over the expectation from the two-point angular correlation function. The effect is stronger for brighter threshold samples at every redshift, persists after adding magnitude noise, and is robust to changing the lower-redshift interloper cut. The same-absolute-magnitude comparison shows the signal generally strengthens from $z \sim 5$ to $z \sim 3$, samples with the same effective halo mass also show stronger marked clustering at lower redshift, and samples matched in effective large-scale bias show comparable large-scale signals at $z \sim 4$ and $5$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ranking a dropout-selected galaxy sample by apparent UV magnitude and color orders galaxies by intrinsic brightness and color rather than by redshift; if the ranking mostly tracks redshift, the marked correlation signal could appear without any true environmental dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, UV magnitude and color can serve as practical environmental tracers for Lyman-break galaxies at $z \sim 3$–$5$ without relying on expensive spectroscopy.
  • The signals persisting to separations of hundreds of arcseconds imply that environmental influence on UV properties extends beyond individual dark matter halos, pointing to two-halo conformity or assembly bias.
  • The weak stellar-mass and star-formation marked clustering implies that, at these redshifts, photometrically derived mass and star-formation rate are not reliable indicators of environment, in contrast to the local Universe.
  • The observed trend that marked clustering strengthens from $z \sim 5$ to $z \sim 3$ for samples matched in absolute magnitude or halo mass suggests environmental correlations grow as cosmic structure develops.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that, because the samples are selected by apparent UV magnitude and dropout color and the photometric-redshift window is broad, the rank ordering itself may partly order galaxies by redshift; recomputing the MCF after splitting into narrow photometric-redshift slices, or ranking by absolute magnitude, would test whether the environmental signal is intrinsic.
  • A further inference is that the comparison with $z \sim 0$ marked correlation functions is not apples-to-apples, since the low-redshift studies use different marks, depths, and selection functions; part of the stronger high-redshift amplitude could reflect these methodological differences rather than true evolution.
  • One testable extension is to repeat the analysis with dust-corrected UV luminosities and infrared- or radio-based star-formation rates; if the weak SFR signal is caused by scatter in SED-derived values, the MCF for these alternative marks should rise toward the UV-magnitude signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper measures rank-ordered marked correlation functions (MCFs) for Lyman-break galaxies at z~3, 4, and 5, using HSC-SSP and CLAUDS data. Marks are apparent UV magnitude, dropout color, stellar mass, and star formation rate. The authors report that the UV magnitude and color MCFs deviate significantly above unity on scales from a few arcseconds to hundreds of arcseconds, with stronger signals in brighter samples, whereas the M* and SFR MCFs remain near unity. They also compare samples matched in absolute magnitude, effective large-scale bias, and effective halo mass across redshifts, finding redshift evolution in the marked clustering strength. The paper interprets these signals as evidence that UV magnitude and color are strong tracers of the high-redshift environment.

Significance. If the main claim is correct, this is one of the first measurements of the environmental dependence of LBG properties using the MCF at z~3-5, and it extends MCF studies from the local universe to high redshift with a much larger survey area than previous environment studies at these redshifts. The paper has several concrete strengths: the MCF is computed directly from pair counts with a random-catalogue-free estimator; the authors check robustness to low-z interloper cuts (Fig. 6, left) and to magnitude noise (Fig. 6, right and Fig. 7); and they compare samples matched in bias and halo mass across redshifts. However, the central interpretation depends on an unverified assumption that the apparent-magnitude and dropout-color marks trace intrinsic galaxy properties rather than redshift within the broad photometric-redshift selection windows. The paper does not currently establish this, which is a load-bearing gap for the main conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3 and §3.1, Eq. (5)] The central claim that UV magnitude and dropout color are effective tracers of environment is not yet secure against a redshift-mark covariance. Marks are assigned using apparent UV magnitude and dropout color across the full sample (Section 3.1), and both quantities correlate with redshift inside the broad photo-z windows: the sample is apparent-magnitude limited, and the Lyman-break color is itself a monotonic redshift indicator over the selection region (Eqs. 1-3). Since galaxies at similar redshift cluster angularly, pairs at small θ preferentially share similar marks, so the ratio WW(θ)/DD(θ) in Eq. (5) can exceed unity even if the intrinsic property has no environmental dependence. The statement in Section 2.3 that the MCF is 'less affected by N(z)' addresses only the overall normalization of the angular correlation function, not covariance between marks and redshift. The paper should test this directly, for example by re-ranking galaxies within narrow photo-z bins, using absolute UV magnitude as the mark, or shuffling redshifts in a mock sample; without such a test, the interpretation of the large MCF amplitudes as environmental dependence of intrinsic properties is not established.
  2. [§4.3-§4.5, Figs. 3-5] The redshift evolution of the MCF extracted by comparing samples with matched absolute magnitude, effective bias, or effective halo mass may also be affected by the mark-redshift covariance, because the width of N(z) and the photo-z scatter vary between the z~3, 4, and 5 samples (Section 2.1, Fig. 1). If the MCF excess is partly driven by redshift-sorted pairs, the differences in amplitude across redshifts could reflect differences in the N(z) width rather than genuine evolution of environmental dependence. The authors should either quantify this effect for their cross-redshift comparisons or restrict the cross-redshift comparison to a control test that removes the redshift-mark correlation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including the section title 'THE DATE' (should be 'THE DATA'), 'explicitely' (Section 3), and 'weighing' where 'weighting' is meant (Section 3). The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists multiple magnitude thresholds for each redshift but the mapping between panels and thresholds is not self-explanatory; please clarify which panel corresponds to which survey layer and threshold, or annotate the panels directly.
  3. [Section 4.1, paragraph on SFR] The discussion of why SFR does not trace environment is plausible but speculative; explicitly noting that the SFR/M* marks are measured with larger scatter (as acknowledged in Section 4.6) would help the reader weigh this argument before the explanation based on star-formation history.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MCF measurements are computed directly from observed pair counts, and the comparison samples defined by measured bias or halo mass are descriptive rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central estimator, M(θ) = WW(θ)/DD(θ) in Eq. (5), is computed directly from rank-ordered marks assigned to observed galaxies (Section 3.1) and weighted pair counts (Eq. 6). There is no parameter fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction; the MCF signal is a direct statistic of the galaxy catalogues. The effective large-scale bias (Eq. 9) and effective halo mass (Section 4.5) are measured from the same clustering data, but they are used only to define matched sub-samples for cross-redshift comparison, not to derive the MCF amplitudes themselves, so the comparisons are not forced by construction. Self-citations (Jose et al. 2013, 2017) appear as background for 1-halo clustering and halo mass evolution and are not load-bearing uniqueness premises or ansatz justifications. The reader's concern that apparent UV magnitude and dropout color may correlate with redshift within the broad N(z) window identifies a potential systematic effect or interpretational confound, but it is not a circular reduction: the MCF estimator would still measure mark clustering even if that clustering were driven by redshift rather than intrinsic environmental dependence. Such a concern belongs to correctness or systematics assessment, not to circularity of the derivation chain. The paper is self-contained against external data and previous measurements (e.g., consistency with Harikane et al. 2022 angular correlation functions), and no central claim reduces by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is modest: no invented entities and no fitted model parameters. The main entries are the standard MCF estimator, dropout selection and photo-z assumptions, and hand-chosen cuts used to build and clean the samples. The key unstated assumption is that apparent-magnitude and color marks are not dominated by redshift within the wide photo-z windows.

free parameters (3)
  • Bright magnitude cutoff mUV >= 20 = 20
    Hand-chosen threshold, following Harikane et al. (2022), to remove bright spurious sources. It affects the bright end of every sample used in the MCF measurements.
  • Photometric-redshift interloper cuts = z95>2.8 (g-dropouts), z95>3.8 (r-dropouts), z68>2.3 and 2.6<=z<=3.4 (U-dropouts)
    Ad hoc thresholds, taken partly from Toshikawa et al. (2024), to remove low-z interlopers. Robustness is tested for g-dropouts, but the exact cuts set the sample and can change MCF amplitudes.
  • Angular range for effective bias integration = 100 to 500 arcsec
    Chosen in Eq. 9 as the range where b(theta) is approximately constant. This controls the effective bias and therefore the effective halo mass used for the comparison samples.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The MCF estimator WW/DD equals the ratio of weighted to unweighted angular correlation functions and does not require a random catalog (Eq. 5).
    Established in Skibba et al. (2013) and used throughout Section 3.
  • domain assumption Lyman-break color cuts select z~3-5 star-forming galaxies, with remaining low-z interlopers removed by photo-z cuts.
    Selection criteria in Eqs. 1-3 are taken from Harikane et al. (2022), and the photo-z cuts in Section 2.3 are assumed to yield a clean high-z sample.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from DEmP have small bias and can define the redshift distribution for Limber transforms and bias estimates.
    Section 2.1; photo-z scatter and outliers affect the absolute magnitude conversions and N(z) used in Sections 4.3-4.5.
  • domain assumption Limber approximation and linear dark-matter power spectrum with Planck 2020 cosmology are adequate for estimating omega_mm and galaxy bias.
    Section 4.4 uses Eqs. 8-9; the effective bias and effective halo mass used for sample matching depend on this.
  • domain assumption The Tinker et al. (2010) mass-bias relation converts effective large-scale bias to effective halo mass.
    Section 4.5; explicitly noted to be an approximate indicator, not an exact HOD mass.
  • standard math Rank-ordered marks remove dependence on the marginal distribution of the property, making MCFs comparable across properties and samples.
    Section 3.1, following Skibba et al. (2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Environmental Dependence of High-Redshift Galaxy Properties with the Marked Correlation Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPVVYAG6

@misc{pith2026241212573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Environmental Dependence of High-Redshift Galaxy Properties with the Marked Correlation Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPVVYAG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12573}
}
abstract

In hierarchical structure formation, correlations between galaxy properties and their environments reveal important clues about galaxy evolution, emphasizing the importance of measuring these relationships. We probe the environmental dependence of Lyman-break galaxy (LBG) properties in the redshift range of $3$ to $5$ using marked correlation function statistics with galaxy samples from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program and the Canada--France--Hawaii Telescope U-band surveys. We find that the UV magnitude and color of magnitude-selected LBG samples are strongly correlated with their environment, making these properties effective tracers of it. In contrast, the star formation rate and stellar mass of LBGs exhibit a weak environmental dependence. For UV magnitudes and color, the correlation is stronger in brighter galaxy samples across all redshifts and extends to scales far beyond the size of typical dark matter halos. This suggests that within a given sample, LBGs with high UV magnitudes or colors are more likely to form pairs at these scales than predicted by the two-point angular correlation function. Moreover, the amplitude of the marked correlation function is generally higher for LBG samples compared to that of $z \sim 0$ galaxies from previous studies.We also find that for LBG samples selected by the same absolute threshold magnitude or average halo mass, the correlation between UV magnitudes and the environment generally becomes more pronounced as the redshift decreases. On the other hand, for samples with the same effective large-scale bias at $z\sim 4$ and $5$, the marked correlation functions are similar on large scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Top panel: Normalized redshift distribution of U-, g- , and r-dropouts from CLAUDS/HSC-SSP deep survey. Bottom panel: The redshift distribution of g-, and r-dropouts from the wide survey of HSC-SSP. 2.3. Removal of bright spurious sources and low-z interlopers The presence of extremely bright spurious stellar sources in the data could introduce potential biases in the clustering measurements. To address this, we a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The MCF of LBGs obtained by rank-ordering galaxies using different properties at z ∼ 3, z ∼ 4, and z ∼ 5 for various threshold apparent magnitudes. the COSMOS2020 catalog (Weaver et al. 2022), where mUV reaches a depth of ∼ 27.5. The galaxy samples ana￾lyzed in this paper, derived from wide and deep surveys, are significantly brighter in UV magnitude compared to those used in these studies. Furthermore, while thei… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — The MCF for galaxies at z ∼ 3, z ∼ 4, and z ∼ 5 with the same threshold absolute magnitude across different redshifts. The left and right panels present the results for galaxies rank-ordered by UV luminosity and UV color, respectively. samples at every redshift, the marked clustering signal extends well beyond scales of 100′′, reaching up to 400′′ at z ∼ 4. This scale is an order of magnitude larger than the size … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Top panel: UV magnitude rank-ordered MCF for galaxy samples with effective galaxy bias, beff ∼ 5.5 at z ∼ 4 and 5. Bottom panel: The galaxy bias of samples as a function of angular separation. The dashed horizontal line is the effective galaxy bias. z ∼ 5 to ∼ 3 for …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The UV magnitude rank-ordered MCFs of galaxy samples with the similar average halo mass at different redshifts. The top panel corresponds to wide survey whereas middle and bottom panel corresponds to deep survey. sample, we first estimate the galaxy angular correlati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Left panel: The MCFs of a wide-area sample at z ∼ 4 for a magnitude threshold of 24.5, analyzed with different criteria for removing low-z interlopers. Right panel: The MCF for the same sample where a zero-mean Gaussian random noise with different standard deviation …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — The MCF for sample with log(Mh/M⊙) ∼ 12.3 at z ∼ 3 where noise with σUV = 0.2 has been added to the magnitudes together with MCFs at z ∼ 3 and z ∼ 4 without any added noise (same as the MCFs given in the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...8A 70, S8

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  2. [2]

    Aihara H., et al., 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 114

    2019

  3. [3]

    Aihara H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psab122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74..247A 74, 247

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  4. [4]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3627A 478, 3627

    Armijo J., Cai Y.-C., Padilla N., Li B., Peacock J. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3627A 478, 3627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1335 2018

  5. [5]

    Arnold L., 1995, @doi [ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik] https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19950750815 , 75, 614

    work page doi:10.1002/zamm.19950750815 1995

  6. [6]

    Arnouts S., Ilbert O., 2011, LePHARE: Photometric Analysis for Redshift Estimate , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.009

    2011

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2110.13767

    Aviles A., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2110.13767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211013767A p. arXiv:2110.13767

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13767 2021

  8. [8]

    L., Winther H

    Aviles A., Koyama K., Cervantes-Cota J. L., Winther H. A., Li B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...01..006A 2020, 006

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/006 2020

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    H., Hearin A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Beisbart C., Kerscher M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...545....6B 545, 6

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, Astronomy and astrophysics supplement series, 117, 393

    1996

  4. [12]

    Bosch J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...5B 70, S5

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Berlind A

    Calderon V. F., Berlind A. A., Sinha M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2031C 480, 2031

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526505 , 593, A9

    Cassarà L. P., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526505 , 593, A9

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Chartab N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890....7C 890, 7

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Best P

    Cochrane R. K., Best P. N., Sobral D., Smail I., Geach J. E., Stott J. P., Wake D. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3730C 475, 3730

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..153C 672, 153

    Coil A. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..153C 672, 153

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Cooke J., Omori Y., Ryan-Weber E., 2013, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 208.07

    2013

  11. [19]

    C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12613.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383.1058C 383, 1058

    Cooper M. C., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12613.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383.1058C 383, 1058

    2008

  12. [20]

    Coupon J., Czakon N., Bosch J., Komiyama Y., Medezinski E., Miyazaki S., Oguri M., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S7

    2018

  13. [21]

    Darvish B., Mobasher B., Sobral D., Scoville N., Aragon-Calvo M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..121D 805, 121

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Desprez G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..82D 670, A82

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Christensen C

    Dom \' nguez A., Siana B., Brooks A. M., Christensen C. R., Bruzual G., Stark D. P., Alavi A., 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 451, 839

    2015

  17. [25]

    Durkalec A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..42D 612, A42

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..31E 644, A31

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..164F 756, 164

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..164F 756, 164

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al., 2021, Mon

    Flores Vel \'a zquez J. A., et al., 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 501, 4812

    2021

  21. [29]

    Furusawa H., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S3

    2018

  22. [30]

    Giavalisco M., 2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40, 579

    2002

  23. [31]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    Grogin N. A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Gu Y., Fang G., Yuan Q., Lu S., Liu S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ce0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...60G 921, 60

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Guo H., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..122G 767, 122

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S11

    2018

  27. [35]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..142H 883, 142

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 20

    2022

  29. [37]

    Harker G., Cole S., Helly J., Frenk C., Jenkins A., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 367, 1039

    2006

  30. [38]

    R., Cowley M

    Hartzenberg G. R., Cowley M. J., Hopkins A. M., Allen R. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2023.42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...43H 40, e043

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Li B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4824H 479, 4824

    Hern \'a ndez-Aguayo C., Baugh C. M., Li B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4824H 479, 4824

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Hsieh B., Yee H., 2014a, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 102

  33. [41]

    C., Yee H

    Hsieh B. C., Yee H. K. C., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792..102H 792, 102

    doi

  34. [42]

    Huang S., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S6

    2018

  35. [43]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/8 , 772, 8

    Johnson B. D., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/8 , 772, 8

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Jose C., Subramanian K., Srianand R., Samui S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.2333J 429, 2333

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Lacey C

    Jose C., Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G., Subramanian K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4428J 469, 4428

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    Kawanomoto S., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 66

    2018

  39. [48]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    1998 doi

  40. [49]

    Koyama Y., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..21K 70, S21

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231203244L p

    Lai L. M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231203244L p. arXiv:2312.03244

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    D., Szalay A

    Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 412, no. 1, p. 64-71., 412, 64

    1993

  43. [52]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...87L 836, 87

    Law-Smith J., Eisenstein D. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...87L 836, 87

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..79L 576, A79

    2015 doi

  45. [54]

    C., Somerville R

    Lee S.-K., Ferguson H. C., Somerville R. S., Wiklind T., Giavalisco M., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1644 , 725, 1644–1651

    2010 doi

  46. [55]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..33L 662, A33

    Lemaux B. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..33L 662, A33

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    Li X., et al., 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 421

    2022

  48. [57]

    N., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...117..134L 117, 134

    Limber D. N., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...117..134L 117, 134

    1953 doi

  49. [58]

    Lin X., Fang G., Cai Z.-Y., Wang T., Fan L., Kong X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875...83L 875, 83

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    Madau P., Pozzetti L., Dickinson M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..106M 498, 106

    1998 doi

  51. [60]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S25

    2018

  52. [61]

    M., Suzuki T

    Mao Z., Kodama T., P \'e rez-Mart \' nez J. M., Suzuki T. L., Yamamoto N., Adachi K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.141M 666, A141

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    J., Arnalte-Mur P., Stoyan D., 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 513, A22

    Martinez V. J., Arnalte-Mur P., Stoyan D., 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 513, A22

    2010

  54. [63]

    N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvL.126a1301M 126, 011301

    Massara E., Villaescusa-Navarro F., Ho S., Dalal N., Spergel D. N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvL.126a1301M 126, 011301

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    Massara E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951...70M 951, 70

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Lacey C

    Mitchell P. D., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., 2013, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 435, 87

    2013

  57. [66]

    Miyazaki S., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S1

    2018

  58. [67]

    arXiv:2405.20901

    Morales A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.20901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240520901M p. arXiv:2405.20901

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    L., Cooper M., Davis M., Newman J

    Mostek N., Coil A. L., Cooper M., Davis M., Newman J. A., Weiner B. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...89M 767, 89

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    I., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19922.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2670M 419, 2670

    Muldrew S. I., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19922.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2670M 419, 2670

    2012

  61. [70]

    J., Hsieh B.-C., Tanaka M., Takata T., 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01511

    Nishizawa A. J., Hsieh B.-C., Tanaka M., Takata T., 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01511

    2020 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Norberg P., et al., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05348.x , 332, 827

    2002

  63. [72]

    M., Gaztanaga E., Croton D

    Norberg P., Baugh C. M., Gaztanaga E., Croton D. J., 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 19

    2009

  64. [73]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5987O 493, 5987

    Old L. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5987O 493, 5987

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Ono Y., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S10

    2018

  66. [75]

    G., Pahwa I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3030P 454, 3030

    Paranjape A., Kova c K., Hartley W. G., Pahwa I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3030P 454, 3030

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe

    1980

  68. [77]

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

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

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    D., Barbhuiyan R

    Riggs S. D., Barbhuiyan R. W. Y. M., Loveday J., Brough S., Holwerda B. W., Hopkins A. M., Phillipps S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506...21R 506, 21

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    H., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 84

    Rutherford T. H., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 84

    2021

  72. [81]

    Satpathy S., A C Croft R., Ho S., Li B., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2148

    2019

  73. [82]

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

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    Astrophys., 549, A4

    Schaerer D., de Barros S., Sklias P., 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 549, A4

    2013

  75. [84]

    Scranton R., et al., 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 579, 48

    2002

  76. [85]

    K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09609.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..796S 364, 796

    Sheth R. K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09609.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..796S 364, 796

    2005

  77. [86]

    K., Tormen G., 2004a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 1385

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 2004a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 1385

  78. [87]

    K., Tormen G., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07733.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1385S 350, 1385

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07733.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1385S 350, 1385

    2004

  79. [88]

    K., Connolly A

    Sheth R. K., Connolly A. J., Skibba R., 2005, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0511773

    2005 arXiv

  80. [89]

    K., Jimenez R., Panter B., Heavens A

    Sheth R. K., Jimenez R., Panter B., Heavens A. F., 2006a, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, L25

  81. [90]

    K., Jimenez R., Panter B., Heavens A

    Sheth R. K., Jimenez R., Panter B., Heavens A. F., 2006b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650L..25S 650, L25

    doi

  82. [91]

    Shi K., Malavasi N., Toshikawa J., Zheng X., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...39S 961, 39

    2024 doi

  83. [92]

    Shibuya T., Ouchi M., Harikane Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219...15S 219, 15

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    Shimakawa R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1977S 473, 1977

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    K., Connolly A

    Skibba R., Sheth R. K., Connolly A. J., Scranton R., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 68

    2006

  86. [95]

    A., et al., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 1485

    Skibba R. A., et al., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 1485

    2012

  87. [96]

    A., Sheth R

    Skibba R. A., Sheth R. K., Croton D. J., Muldrew S. I., Abbas U., Pearce F. R., Shattow G. M., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 458

    2013

  88. [97]

    N., Smail I., Geach J

    Sobral D., Best P. N., Smail I., Geach J. E., Cirasuolo M., Garn T., Dalton G. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17707.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..675S 411, 675

    2011

  89. [98]

    Song M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825....5S 825, 5

    2016 doi

  90. [99]

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

    Steidel C. C., Giavalisco M., Pettini M., Dickinson M., Adelberger K. L., 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 462, L17

    1996

  91. [100]

    H., Banerjee A., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221003203S p

    Storey-Fisher K., Tinker J., Zhai Z., DeRose J., Wechsler R. H., Banerjee A., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221003203S p. arXiv:2210.03203

    2022 doi arXiv

  92. [101]

    Sureshkumar U., et al., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A35

    2021

  93. [102]

    Sureshkumar U., et al., 2023a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A27

  94. [103]

    Sureshkumar U., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..27S 669, A27

    doi

  95. [104]

    Sureshkumar U., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..40S 686, A40

    2024 doi

  96. [105]

    O., Beltz-Mohrmann G

    Szewciw A. O., Beltz-Mohrmann G. D., Berlind A. A., Sinha M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...15S 926, 15

    2022 doi

  97. [106]

    arXiv:2312.10222

    Taamoli S., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.10222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231210222T p. arXiv:2312.10222

    2023 doi arXiv

  98. [107]

    Tanaka M., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S9

    2018

  99. [108]

    L., Robertson B

    Tinker J. L., Robertson B. E., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Warren M. S., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..878T 724, 878

    2010 doi

  100. [109]

    Toshikawa J., et al., 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S12

    2018

  101. [110]

    Toshikawa J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.6276T 527, 6276

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

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

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

    2022 doi

  103. [112]

    White M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JCAP...11..057W 2016, 057

    2016 doi

  104. [113]

    White M., Padmanabhan N., 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 2381

    2009

  105. [114]

    M., Gonzalez-Perez V., Lacey C

    Wilkins S. M., Gonzalez-Perez V., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 427, 1490

    2012

  106. [115]

    Woo J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3306W 428, 3306

    2013 doi

  107. [117]

    Xiao X., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..595X 513, 595

    doi

  108. [118]

    Yang Y., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35b , 900, 6

    2020 doi

  109. [119]

    Zehavi I., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/431891 , 630, 1

    2005 doi

  110. [120]

    Zehavi I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...59Z 736, 59

    2011 doi

  111. [121]

    J., Guo H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5538Z 523, 5538

    Zhai Z., Percival W. J., Guo H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5538Z 523, 5538

    2023 doi

  112. [122]

    Zhang Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.4893Z 512, 4893

    2022 doi

  113. [123]

    Zu Y., Mandelbaum R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1637Z 476, 1637

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.