Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Exploring the IR-radio correlation in massive galaxy clusters at the end of cosmic noon

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cluster galaxies at $z\approx1$–$1.4$ show a modest radio excess relative to field galaxies.

desk verdict First multi-cluster IR-radio study at z~1-1.8 with new VLA data, but the claimed cluster/field offset is not robust until the censored non-detections and depth mismatch are properly handled. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02687 v1 pith:RIDPXA7J submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.GA

N. Samanso , J.B. Nantais , S. Alberts , U. Rescigno , W. Rujopakarn , G. R. Zeimann , J. Wagg This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords IR-radiocorrelationgalaxyclusterscosmicnoonenvironmentalquenchingradioexcessKolmogorov-Smirnovtestq24q160
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

This paper asks whether the dense environment of a massive galaxy cluster changes the ratio of infrared to radio emission in star-forming galaxies at $1

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two flux-ratio parameters: $q_{24}\equiv\log(S_{24}/S_{1.4})$ and $q_{160}\equiv\log(S_{160}/S_{6})$, where a lower value means more radio emission per unit infrared emission. The 3 GHz radio fluxes are rescaled to 1.4 and 6 GHz with a fixed spectral index $\alpha=-0.75$, and the two $q$ distributions are compared across cluster and field samples with two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. For the 51 radio-undetected cluster galaxies, radio upper limits are generated from star-forming galaxy templates, and these limits are plotted alongside the 78 detections in the KS comparisons. The redshift split at $z=1.37$, taken from the underlying cluster survey, separates the epoch when quenching begins from the epoch when it does not.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-sample KS tests using only the 78 galaxies with secure 3 GHz detections; if the cluster-field $p$-values rise above $0.05$ and the mean-$q$ difference disappears, the claimed environmental radio excess is produced by the template upper limits rather than by the cluster environment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the IR-radio correlation parameter in cluster galaxies is systematically lower than in field galaxies at $1<z<1.37$. For the full sample the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests return $p=0.02$ for $q_{24}$ and $p=0.01$ for $q_{160}$, both favouring distinct parent distributions; in the low-redshift bin the values are $p=0.03$ and $p=0.04$. Because the mean $q$ values are lower in the clusters, the offset is a radio excess rather than an infrared deficit. The high-redshift bin ($1.37<z<1.8$) shows no significant difference, which the authors read as the environment not yet having imprinted on the galaxies. No difference is found between AGN hosts and non-active galaxies, and all identified AGNs are radio quiet, so the excess is attributed to star-formation-related processes such as ram pressure stripping or galaxy interactions that accompany the onset of cluster quenching.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats the template-based radio upper limits for the 51 undetected cluster galaxies as data, even though those templates assume the very IR-radio correlation the paper is testing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the offset is real, the IR-radio correlation can serve as an observational tracer of the onset of environmental quenching at $z\sim1.4$.
  • At $z\gtrsim1.4$, cluster and field galaxies share the same $q$ distributions, so environmental effects have not yet altered the radio/IR balance at that epoch.
  • Because all identified AGNs are radio quiet, the radio excess cannot be blamed on active nuclei and is more likely tied to star-formation-related processes.
  • The absence of a radial gradient suggests the environmental imprint is not limited to cluster cores but affects the galaxy population across the cluster.
  • Larger samples will be needed to raise the $\sim2\sigma$–$3\sigma$ result to a definitive detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Excluding the 51 template-based upper limits and rerunning the KS tests on the 78 detections would provide a direct test of whether the claimed offset is a real environmental signal or an artifact of censoring and template assumptions.
  • Deeper VLA observations of the same clusters could convert those upper limits into detections; if the offset persists, it would strengthen the radio-excess interpretation, and if it dissolves, the claim would need revision.
  • If radio excess and quenching share a common cause, lower-redshift clusters should show progressively larger offsets; this can be checked by adding clusters at $z\approx1$.
  • A practical extension: use radio-excess selection from $q$ as a cheap quenching-stage indicator in wide-area cluster surveys that lack deep infrared data.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the infrared-radio correlation parameter q differs between galaxies in massive clusters at 1 < z < 1.8 and field galaxies. Using 24 and 160 micron photometry from Spitzer/Herschel and new VLA 3 GHz imaging for 129 cluster members from 11 clusters, the authors compute q24 and q160 and compare their distributions with GOODS-S field galaxies via two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. They report marginal differences for the full sample (p=0.02 for q24, p=0.01 for q160), find that this difference is driven by the low-redshift subsample (1<z<1.37), and interpret it as evidence for an environment-induced radio excess at the onset of widespread cluster quenching. They also report no significant q differences with projected clustercentric radius and no differences between AGN hosts and non-AGN star-forming galaxies. The conclusions are heavily hedged and the authors call for larger samples.

Significance. If the claimed environmental offset in q is real, this would be one of the first multi-cluster results extending the local radio-excess phenomenon to z~1-1.4, with implications for how cluster environments modify the star-formation and radio emission of galaxies during the quenching epoch. The paper's strengths include the homogeneous treatment of 11 clusters, use of new VLA data, multi-wavelength AGN identification, and comparison against a well-studied field sample. However, the central statistical evidence is only at the 2-2.5 sigma level, and the analysis has unresolved issues with censored data and depth mismatches that could plausibly manufacture the reported offsets. The result is therefore interesting but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, §4.1] The KS tests in §4.1 do not state how the 51 radio-undetected cluster galaxies are treated. §2.3 explains that for these galaxies the radio flux 'upper limits' were computed by scaling IR-detected fluxes and reading predicted radio fluxes from Rieke et al. (2009) SFG templates, which encode the very IR-radio correlation under study. The histograms in Figs. 4 and 5 appear to include these template-derived lower limits as if they were measured point values. Two-sample KS tests require uncensored observations, and pooling model-dependent lower limits with detections can artificially pull the cluster q distribution toward the assumed template and can only bias the test. Please state explicitly the number of detections and limits entering each KS test, rerun the comparison using only the 78 secure radio detections, and (ideally) apply a censored-data test such as the Peto-Prentice or log-rank test that treats the lower limits as censored values.
  2. [§2.4, Table 1] The claim in §2.4 that the GOODS-S depth is 'equivalent to that of our data' is contradicted by the numbers quoted in the manuscript itself: the GOODS-S 3 GHz image has RMS 0.75 microJy/beam at the pointing center, while the cluster images have measured RMS values of 4-10 microJy/beam (Table 1); GOODS-S 24 micron reaches 5 sigma at 20 microJy, whereas the cluster 24 micron depths are 3 sigma at 36-156 microJy (§2.1). The cluster sample is therefore shallower in both bands, and the radio non-detections preferentially remove radio-faint, high-q galaxies from the cluster distribution. This censoring alone can produce a spurious low-q offset between cluster and field. The comparison should be repeated using a GOODS-S subsample that is flux-limited to match the cluster depths, or the analysis should explicitly model the selection function.
  3. [§4.2, §4.3, §6] The statistical reporting is internally inconsistent and some statements overstate the results. In §4.2, KS p-values of 0.28 and 0.35 are described as 'low p values' that are 'highly suggestive of the null hypothesis'; these are high p-values (they fail to reject the null, which is not the same as evidence for the null), and the phrasing should be corrected. In §4.3, the sentence 'we tested if the q values that plotted as a function of projected radius from cluster center are different in two sub-samples' is confused and does not match the section title 'q values as a function of redshift'; please rewrite to state clearly which comparison is being made. Finally, §6 says 'We reject the null hypothesis ... at the 95% and 99% significance level', which is stronger than the marginal p-values (0.02 and 0.01) and contradicts the careful hedging elsewhere in the paper; this sentence should be softened to match the reported significance.
  4. [§4.1] The paper does not report the sample sizes of the GOODS-S field comparison in each redshift bin or the number of AGN excluded from each q24 subsample. Without these counts the reader cannot evaluate whether the KS p-values are driven by small-number statistics or by asymmetric sample sizes. Please provide N for the full sample and for every redshift bin, for both the cluster and field samples, and for both q24 and q160, and state how many of the cluster sample points in each bin are detections versus lower limits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3] The sentence 'Since the estimated depths of the radio images are in the range of 2.0-7.0 microJy, we found that our observed data did not reach the expected RMS values' is confusing because the measured RMS values in Table 1 are 4-10 microJy/beam; please clarify the expected versus measured depths.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that sources detected only in the IR are lower limits and are shown with 'upper gray arrows'; if these are lower limits in q, the arrows should point downward rather than upward, or the caption should be reworded to avoid confusion.
  3. [§4.2] There is a duplicated phrase in the first sentence: 'we considered the variations in the local density by plotting in Fig. 6 the IR-radio the IR-radio correlation'; please remove the repetition.
  4. [Table 1] The table caption says 'number of detected sources', but the column sums to 129, the total number of cluster members in the sample; clarify whether this column lists the number of cluster members per cluster or the number of radio detections.
  5. [§2.5] The sentence 'One hundred and eleven sources are detected at 24 and 160 micron, respectively' is ambiguous; specify whether these are 111 sources detected in each band or 111 sources detected in both bands.
  6. [§7, conclusion 6] Conclusion 6 states that the radio excess scenario 'causes the lower correlation values in galaxy clusters', which is stronger than the marginal KS evidence and the 'consistent with' language used elsewhere; please rephrase to 'is consistent with' or similar.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Cluster/field q offset is partly manufactured by template-imputed radio fluxes for 51 radio-undetected cluster members.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (radio upper limits) and Section 4.1 (KS tests using the q24/q160 distributions shown in Figs. 4–5)]
    "We therefore performed a 3 GHz flux density prediction using SED templates of SFGs to calculate the upper limits of the flux density. We first scaled the observed flux density of IR-detected sources into their rest frame wavelength. Then, we read out the predicted radio 3 GHz flux density at the IR rest frame wavelength using the template from Rieke et al. 2009. Our sample of 129 cluster member galaxies includes 78 detections in radio 3GHz. We used the template to calculate upper limits in radio flux for the remaining 51 radio-undetected galaxies. ..."

    For the 51 radio-undetected cluster members, the radio flux is not measured but read off from Rieke et al. (2009) SFG templates, which encode the very IR-radio correlation that q is meant to test. The resulting q values are therefore, by construction, the template's assumed q; any true radio-faint (high-q) outlier is forced back onto the correlation. Section 4.1 then runs two-sample KS tests on 'the q24 distributions' of cluster versus GOODS-S without stating that these lower limits are excluded, and Figs. 4-5 plot histograms that include them. Pooling these template-imputed values with the 78 genuine detections means the reported cluster/field offsets (q24 p=0.02, q160 p=0.01, low-z bin p=0.03/0.04) are partially manufactured by the template assumption rather than by the environment.

full rationale

The 78 radio-detected cluster galaxies are measured directly as flux ratios, and the comparison against the external GOODS-S sample is not inherently circular. However, the paper's own Section 2.3 describes computing the 'upper limits' for the 51 radio-undetected members by reading the predicted 3 GHz flux from Rieke et al. (2009) SFG templates, which assume the IR-radio correlation under study. Section 4.1 then uses KS tests on q distributions that are plotted (Figs. 4-5) without excluding these lower limits, so the headline p-values are statistically contaminated by values that are, by construction, equal to the template's assumed q. The depth-equivalence claim in Section 2.4 is also not supported by the quoted numbers (GOODS-S 3 GHz RMS 0.75 microJy/beam vs cluster 4-10 microJy/beam; 24 micron depths differ by factors of several), which is a correctness/validity concern rather than a circularity concern, but it increases the number of non-detections and thus the leverage of the template imputation. No other load-bearing circularity (e.g., self-citation chains or renamed known results) was found; the paper's central measurements for detected sources are independent. The score reflects that a central claimed result (cluster/field difference) is partially circular because roughly 40% of the cluster q values are template-imputed inputs rather than measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on cluster membership and redshift catalogs, the field control sample, the radio spectral-index assumption, and the treatment of censored radio non-detections; all are adopted from prior work or assumed without new calibration. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Redshift split z = 1.37 = 1.37
    Adopted from Alberts et al. 2016 to divide the sample into low- and high-redshift bins; the conclusion that the cluster/field difference is driven by the low-redshift subsample depends on this split.
  • Projected radius cut R = 1 Mpc = 1 Mpc
    Chosen as an approximate virial radius to define inner and outer cluster galaxies; the null result for radial dependence is conditional on this cut.
  • Radio spectral index alpha = -0.75
    Fixed from Delvecchio et al. 2021 to scale 3 GHz fluxes to 1.4 and 6 GHz. Both samples are scaled identically, so it affects absolute q values more than the cluster/field comparison.
  • AGN Fgal threshold = 0.5
    From Alberts et al. 2016 to separate AGN-dominated from host-dominated galaxies; the q24 analysis excludes AGNs based on this threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cluster membership and redshift assignments from ISCS/IDCS catalogs are correct.
    Section 2.1 assigns membership using spectroscopic redshifts within 2000 km/s and 2 Mpc, and photometric-redshift PDF constraints. Contamination would blur any true cluster/field difference.
  • domain assumption GOODS-S is a valid field control at equivalent depth and selection.
    Section 2.4 claims equivalent depth, but the quoted 3 GHz RMS is 0.75 microJy for GOODS-S versus 4 to 10 microJy for the cluster images, making this assumption questionable.
  • ad hoc to paper Rieke et al. 2009 SED templates give reliable radio upper limits for IR-detected but radio-undetected galaxies.
    Section 2.3 uses templates that encode the IR-radio relation to estimate radio 'upper limits', which risks imposing the very relation being tested on 51 of 129 galaxies.
  • ad hoc to paper KS tests can be applied to the q distributions without explicit treatment of censored lower limits.
    Sections 4.1 to 4.3 report KS p-values without stating whether q lower limits are included as measured values; no survival-analysis or censoring correction is mentioned.
  • domain assumption The spectral index alpha = -0.75 holds for all galaxies in the sample.
    Section 4 adopts the scaling from Delvecchio et al. 2021; a redshift- or mass-dependent alpha would shift q values, though likely for both samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the IR-radio correlation in massive galaxy clusters at the end of cosmic noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIDPXA7J

@misc{pith2026250502687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the IR-radio correlation in massive galaxy clusters at the end of cosmic noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIDPXA7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02687}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the effect of the environment on the infrared and radio emission of cluster galaxies during the transition epoch at 1 < z < 2 when they first start to quench consistently in the majority of galaxy clusters. We considered a sample of 129 cluster member galaxies from 11 massive clusters at a confirmed redshift of 1.0-1.8 from the IRAC Shallow Cluster Survey (ISCS), the IRAC Distant Cluster Survey (IDCS), and new 3 GHz images from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). We calculated the IR-radio correlation slope parameter, q, in order to identify differences in the ratios of IR to radio of cluster galaxies and field galaxy comparison samples at different redshifts. Active galactic nuclei (AGNs) were identified and analyzed to search for any effect on the IR-radio correlation. The correlation parameter values were also compared by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with field galaxies. Our comparison of the IR-radio correlation in cluster galaxies to the control sample of field galaxies reveals a marginally to modestly significant difference in the correlation slope parameter at the ~2sigma-3sigma level. A split of the clusters into low-redshift (1 < z < 1.37) and high-redshift (1.37 < z < 1.8) bins indicates a more significant difference in the correlation parameter in the lower redshift cluster subsample, where widespread quenching begins. We find no difference in the IR-radio correlation between galaxies that host AGNs and non-active star-forming galaxies either. This suggests that our AGNs are overwhelmingly radio quiet and therefore do not affect the results we described above. We conclude that further investigations based on larger datasets are needed to constrain the impact of the cluster environment on the IR-radio correlation better.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rest-frame 3 GHz luminosities of our sample as a function of redshift shown as filled green circles. The luminosities of the GOODS sample are represented as filled blue circles. The solid gray line indi￾cates the 3σ detection limit. 3. AGN identification Our main objective is to understand how the environment af￾fects the star formation of galaxies that result in different ra￾tios of the emission in the IR and radio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IR-radio correlation values of the full sample of 11 massive galaxy clusters vs. redshift. Sources with detections in the IR and radio were used to determine the values of q24 (left) and q160 (right) that are shown as blue and green points, respectively. Sources that were only detected in the IR are lower limits and are shown as light blue and light green points with upper gray arrows. The error bars were derived fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. q24 and q160 of the GOODS-S field galaxy comparison sample are represented by filled orange and pink squares, respectively. The flux ratios were calculated using the same method as applied to our sample. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 q24 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of galaxies GOODS q24 mean value This work q24 mean value GOODS q24 This work q24 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 q24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of galaxies 1 < z < 1.37 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of the q24 values of the entire selected sample (left), the low-redshift sample (middle), and the high-redshift sample (right). The dashed blue lines represent the mean values of q24 that belong to our subsamples, and the dashed orange lines show the mean va…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of the q160 values of the entire selected sample (left), the low-redshift sample (middle), and the high-redshift sample (right). The dashed green lines represent the mean values of q160 in our cluster galaxy subsamples. The dashed pink lines show the mean va…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: q24 (left) and q160 (right) values of two redshift bins as a function of R. Low-z galaxies are plotted as filled blue squares, and high-z galaxies are plotted as filled violet circles. The lower limit of the q values of the low-z sample is plotted as filled light blue …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: IR-radio correlation values of the full sample of 11 massive galaxy clusters vs. redshift for q24 (left) and q160 (right). The symbols and lines are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 72

    Alberts, S., Pope, A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 72

    2016

  2. [2]

    H., Jagannathan, P., & Nyland, K

    Alberts, S., Rujopakarn, W., Rieke, G. H., Jagannathan, P., & Nyland, K. 2020, ApJ, 901, 168

    2020

  3. [3]

    & Owen, F

    Andersen, V . & Owen, F. N. 1995, AJ, 109, 1582

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794

    2003

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 686, A82

    Biava, N., Bonafede, A., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A82

    2024

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1079

    Bonzini, M., Mainieri, V ., Padovani, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1079

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517

    2006

  8. [8]

    Brodwin, M., Brown, M. J. I., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 791

    2006

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    H., et al

    Brodwin, M., McDonald, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 122

    2016

  2. [10]

    A., Gonzalez, A

    Brodwin, M., Stanford, S. A., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 138

    2013

  3. [11]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 33 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Brodwin, M., Stern, D., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 33 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    2011

  4. [12]

    C., Blain, A

    Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 772

    2005

  5. [13]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Chung, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Assef, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 54

    2014

  6. [14]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575

    1992

  7. [15]

    J., Anderson, M

    Condon, J. J., Anderson, M. L., & Helou, G. 1991, ApJ, 376, 95

    1991

  8. [16]

    C., Newman, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1058

    2008

  9. [17]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156 Del Moro, A., Alexander, D

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156 Del Moro, A., Alexander, D. M., Mullaney, J. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A59

    2007

  10. [18]

    T., et al

    Delvecchio, I., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A123

    2021

  11. [19]

    2017, A&A, 602, A3

    Delvecchio, I., Smolˇci´c, V ., Zamorani, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A3

    2017

  12. [20]

    & Prodanovi´c, T

    Donevski, D. & Prodanovi´c, T. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 638

    2015

  13. [21]

    L., Koekemoer, A

    Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 142

    2012

  14. [22]

    L., Rieke, G

    Donley, J. L., Rieke, G. H., Rigby, J. R., & Pérez-González, P. G. 2005, ApJ, 634, 169

    2005

  15. [23]

    Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Brodwin, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 905

    2008

  16. [24]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33

    2007

  17. [25]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119

    2011

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 1408

    Giulietti, M., Massardi, M., Lapi, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1408

    2022

  19. [27]

    T., & Rowan-Robinson, M

    Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJ, 298, L7

    1985

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Hilton, M., Lloyd-Davies, E., Stanford, S. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 133

    2010

  21. [29]

    J., Magnelli, B., Ibar, E., et al

    Ivison, R. J., Magnelli, B., Ibar, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L31

    2010

  22. [30]

    J., Smith, D

    Jarvis, M. J., Smith, D. J. B., Bonfield, D. G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 92

    2010

  23. [31]

    J., Dawson, K

    Jee, M. J., Dawson, K. S., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 59

    2011

  24. [32]

    S., Daddi, E., Coogan, R

    Kalita, B. S., Daddi, E., Coogan, R. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1174

    2021

  25. [33]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 123

    Kirkpatrick, A., Pope, A., Charmandaris, V ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 123

    2013

  26. [34]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.6483 Kovács, A., Chapman, S. C., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 592

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2024, A&A, 686, A55

    Lee, W., Pillepich, A., ZuHone, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A55

    2024

  28. [36]

    & Rieke, G

    Low, F. & Rieke, G. 1972, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 4, 223

    1972

  29. [37]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, ApJ, 941, 191

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Magnelli, B., Ivison, R. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A45

    2015

  31. [39]

    L., Gonzalez, A

    Mancone, C. L., Gonzalez, A. H., Brodwin, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 284

    2010

  32. [40]

    D., Brodwin, M., et al

    Martini, P., Miller, E. D., Brodwin, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 1

    2013

  33. [41]

    C., Carroll, C

    Masini, A., Hickox, R. C., Carroll, C. M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 2

    2020

  34. [42]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  35. [43]

    Miller, N. A. & Owen, F. N. 2001, AJ, 121, 1903

    2001

  36. [44]

    & Ra fferty, D

    Mohan, N. & Ra fferty, D. 2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source

    2015

  37. [45]

    C., Sargent, M

    Finder, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1502.007 Molnár, D. C., Sargent, M. T., Leslie, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 118

    2021

  38. [46]

    2023, A&A, 672, A98

    Mountrichas, G. 2023, A&A, 672, A98

    2023

  39. [47]

    Murphy, E. J. 2009, ApJ, 706, 482

    2009

  40. [48]

    Murphy, E. J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 58

    2013

  41. [49]

    J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B

    Murphy, E. J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 97

    2012

  42. [50]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67

    2011

  43. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3061

    Nantais, J., Wilson, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3061

    2020

  44. [52]

    B., Muzzin, A., van der Burg, R

    Nantais, J. B., Muzzin, A., van der Burg, R. F. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L104

    2017

  45. [53]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 35 Pavlovi´c, , M., Prodanovi´c, & , T

    Padovani, P. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 35 Pavlovi´c, , M., Prodanovi´c, & , T. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4557

    2017

  46. [54]

    B., Cochrane, R

    Ponnada, S. B., Cochrane, R. K., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 135

    2025

  47. [55]

    2011, A&A, 532, A145

    Popesso, P., Rodighiero, G., Saintonge, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A145

    2011

  48. [56]

    M., Crawford, S

    Randriamampandry, S. M., Crawford, S. M., Cress, C. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 168

    2015

  49. [57]

    Reddy, N. A. & Yun, M. S. 2004, ApJ, 600, 695

    2004

  50. [58]

    H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B

    Rieke, G. H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 556

    2009

  51. [59]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 659

    Sajina, A., Yan, L., Lutz, D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 659

    2008

  52. [60]

    2010, A&A, 518, L154

    Santini, P., Maiolino, R., Magnelli, B., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L154

    2010

  53. [61]

    T., Schinnerer, E., Murphy, E., et al

    Sargent, M. T., Schinnerer, E., Murphy, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L190

    2010

  54. [62]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 3 Smolˇci´c, V ., Karim, A., Miettinen, O., et al

    Scoville, N., Arnouts, S., Aussel, H., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 3 Smolˇci´c, V ., Karim, A., Miettinen, O., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A127

    2013

  55. [63]

    2005, A MIPS Study of Star Formation in a Protocluster at z=2.1, Spitzer Proposal ID 20593

    Stanford, S., Chary, R.-R., Eisenhardt, P., et al. 2005, A MIPS Study of Star Formation in a Protocluster at z=2.1, Spitzer Proposal ID 20593

    2005

  56. [64]

    H., Papovich, C., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tran, K.-V . H., Papovich, C., Saintonge, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, L126 van der Kruit, P. C. 1971, A&A, 15, 110 van der Kruit, P. C. 1973, A&A, 29, 263 V oelk, H. J. 1989, A&A, 218, 67 V ollmer, B., Soida, M., Beck, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A116 V ollmer, B., Soida, M., Ch...

    2010

  57. [65]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803

    2001

  58. [66]

    R., Stanford, S

    Zeimann, G. R., Stanford, S. A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 137 Article number, page 10 of 10

    2013

Pith tools

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