pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.02220 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

The NIRISS PASSAGE Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog in COSMOS

Mason S. Huberty , Kalina V. Nedkova , Zahra Sattari , Vihang Mehta , Claudia Scarlata , Marc Rafelski , Matthew J. Hayes , Peter J. Watson
show 29 more authors
Ayan Acharyya Jacob Levine Benedetta Vulcani Alexandra Le Reste Farhanul Hasan James Colbert Michele Trenti Xin Wang Axel Runnholm Matthew A. Malkan Andrew J. Bunker Anahita Alavi Hakim Atek Andrew J. Battisti Y. Sophia Dai Keunho Kim Alaina Henry Michael J. Rutkowski Hollis Akins Caitlin M. Casey Maximilien Franco Santosh Harish Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Anton Koekemoer Daizhong Liu Henry McCracken Jason Rhodes Brant Robertson Marko Shuntov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords JWSTNIRISSCOSMOSspectroscopic redshiftsemission line galaxiesslitless spectroscopygalaxy catalogredshift validation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The PASSAGE catalog provides spectroscopic redshifts for 2183 emission-line sources in COSMOS from JWST NIRISS observations.

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

This paper introduces the PASSAGE spectroscopic redshift catalog derived from JWST NIRISS wide-field slitless spectroscopy in the COSMOS field. The authors use a custom line-finding algorithm and visual inspection to identify emission lines and measure redshifts for sources between redshift 0.08 and 4.7. They report excellent agreement between these spectroscopic redshifts and existing COSMOS photometric redshifts, particularly for strong multi-line emitters, while noting an approximate 18 percent misidentification rate for single-line sources. The catalog includes stellar mass estimates and is released publicly to support further research on galaxy evolution and to aid validation of future space-based spectroscopic surveys.

Core claim

The central discovery is a catalog of 2183 spectroscopic redshifts for emission line galaxies in the COSMOS field obtained through parallel NIRISS slitless spectroscopy. These redshifts span from 0.08 to 4.7 and demonstrate high fidelity with photometric redshifts when multiple strong lines are detected, enabling reliable stellar mass derivations that align with prior COSMOS-Web measurements.

What carries the argument

Custom line-finding algorithm followed by visual inspection to confirm emission lines and determine their identities for redshift calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The visual inspection process correctly identifies genuine emission lines and assigns accurate line identifications, especially for sources showing only a single line.

What would settle it

Follow-up observations with ground-based spectroscopy on a subset of the single-line emitters to check the assigned redshifts against the visual classifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02220 by Alaina Henry, Alexandra Le Reste, Anahita Alavi, Andrew J. Battisti, Andrew J. Bunker, Anton Koekemoer, Axel Runnholm, Ayan Acharyya, Benedetta Vulcani, Brant Robertson, Caitlin M. Casey, Claudia Scarlata, Daizhong Liu, Farhanul Hasan, Hakim Atek, Henry McCracken, Hollis Akins, Jacob Levine, James Colbert, Jason Rhodes, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Kalina V. Nedkova, Keunho Kim, Marc Rafelski, Marko Shuntov, Mason S. Huberty, Matthew A. Malkan, Matthew J. Hayes, Maximilien Franco, Michael J. Rutkowski, Michele Trenti, Peter J. Watson, Santosh Harish, Vihang Mehta, Xin Wang, Y. Sophia Dai, Zahra Sattari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panels: typical PASSAGE 5σ detection limits for emission lines in PASSAGE (including both point-sources and extended sources), in erg/sec/cm2 for the F115W (upper-left), F150W (upper-right), and F200W (bottom). The color of the lines corresponding to their integration times, with a darker color indicating a longer integration time. Right panel: locations of the 15 PASSAGE fields analyzed in this work,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visual interface of the emission line-finding algorithm for an example galaxy at z = 1.87 in Par028 seen in all three filters in both grism orientations. The top panel shows the combined 1D spectrum for the galaxy (black), the contamination model (pink), Gaussian fits of emission lines (red) corresponding to the observed wavelength of the lines marked as vertical blue lines. Gaps between the grism filters … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the photometric redshifts from COSMOS-Web (top panel) and COSMOS2020 (bottom panel) with the spectroscopic redshift from the PASSAGE line-finding efforts. The color indicates the quality flag on the redshift. The solid line represents an exact match in redshift. The dashed (dotted) line traces the redshifts where the PASSAGE team would have identified a line as Hα, but the corresponding redsh… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectroscopic redshift comparison between the PASSAGE redshifts and the ancillary spectroscopic redshifts compiled in A. A. Khostovan et al. (2025). Only high quality spectroscopic redshifts from A. A. Khostovan et al. (2025) (Qf = 3, 4) and PASSAGE (flag 1, 2, and 1.5) are included in this comparison. and F444W, it does not include F200W coverage. A common configuration for sources in this region of pa￾ra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the finalized PASSAGE spectro￾scopic redshifts, zbest. The stacked histogram is broken up by flag. We identify sources covering a redshift range of 0.08 ≲ zspec ≲ 4.7. nent gaps in the redshift distribution at z ∼ 1, z ∼ 1.6, and z ∼ 2.4 correspond to redshift ranges where Hα, [O iii], and [O ii] fall into the ∼ 13,000,˚A and ∼ 17,000,˚A gaps between the F115W/F150W and F150W/F200W filter band… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: stellar mass - redshift comparison for the PASSAGE galaxies. The lower mass limit on PASSAGE observations increases with redshift, as the least massive galaxies are harder to observe with increasing distance. Right panel: stellar mass comparison between the COSMOS-Web derived massed and the PASSAGE derived masses. The color-bar indicates the discrepancy between the COSMOS-Web and PASSAGE redshi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of a PASSAGE source with off-center emission in Par029, which has F150W imaging (center insert) and F115W and F150W GRISMR spectra (right panels). The assigned spectroscopic redshift of the source varies depending on which set of peaks are assigned Hα and [O iii], emphasizing the challenge of determining the redshift of sources with off-center emission. In the 1D spectra, the emission lines are ali… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: same as figure 4, except all spectroscopic redshifts from A. A. Khostovan et al. (2025) and PASSAGE (regardless of quality flag) are included in this comparison. Right panel: an example source where PASSAGE can provide a more accurate spectroscopic redshift than was previously available [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution (PASSAGE) spectroscopic redshift catalog in the COSMOS field. PASSAGE is a JWST Cycle 1 Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) wide-field slitless spectroscopy (WFSS) pure-parallel survey, obtaining near-infrared spectra of thousands of extragalactic sources. 15 out of 63 PASSAGE fields fall within the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) COSMOS footprint, of which 11 overlap with COSMOS-Web, a JWST treasury survey providing additional space-based photometry. We present our custom line-finding algorithm and visual inspection effort used to identify emission lines and derive the spectroscopic redshifts for line-emitting sources in PASSAGE. The line-finding algorithm identifies between ~200 and 950 line-emitting candidates per field, of which typically 47% were identified as true emission lines post visual inspection. We identify 2183 emission line sources at 0.08<z<4.7, 1896 of which have available COSMOS photometric redshifts. We find excellent redshift agreement between the COSMOS photometric redshifts and the PASSAGE spectroscopic redshifts for strong (S/N>5), multi-line emitting sources. This agreement weakens for PASSAGE single-line emitters with ambiguous identities. These single-line emitters are likely mis-identified around 18% of the time based on comparisons to photometric redshifts. We derive stellar masses using PASSAGE photometry and spectroscopic redshifts, in broad agreement with existing COSMOS-Web stellar masses, but with some discrepancy driven by redshift disagreements. We publicly release this spectroscopic redshift catalog, which will enable community-led science in prime extragalactic fields and serve as a crucial dataset for validating Euclid and Roman spectroscopy.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the PASSAGE spectroscopic redshift catalog from JWST NIRISS wide-field slitless spectroscopy in the COSMOS field. A custom line-finding algorithm combined with visual inspection identifies 2183 emission-line sources at 0.08 < z < 4.7; for the 1896 sources with COSMOS photometric redshifts, excellent agreement is reported for strong (S/N > 5) multi-line emitters while single-line emitters show an estimated 18% misidentification rate based on photo-z discrepancies. Stellar masses derived from PASSAGE photometry and spectroscopic redshifts are compared to COSMOS-Web values, and the catalog is publicly released.

Significance. If the reported redshift assignments hold, the catalog constitutes a useful public resource for galaxy evolution studies in COSMOS and a benchmark dataset for validating Euclid and Roman spectroscopy. The quantitative agreement demonstrated for multi-line sources and the empirical misidentification estimate for single-line cases are concrete strengths that enhance the catalog's immediate usability.

major comments (2)
  1. [redshift validation and single-line emitter discussion] The 18% misidentification rate for single-line emitters (reported in the redshift comparison analysis) is derived exclusively from discrepancies with COSMOS photometric redshifts. Because photo-z uncertainties are known to be larger for strong-emission-line galaxies and can correlate with the same SED features used for line identification, this leaves the purity of the single-line subset without an independent spectroscopic anchor (e.g., zCOSMOS, DEIMOS, or overlapping JWST programs).
  2. [line-finding algorithm description] The line-finding algorithm flags 200–950 candidates per field, of which ~47% survive visual inspection, but no injection-recovery simulations or completeness/purity metrics independent of the visual step are provided. This makes the overall catalog completeness difficult to quantify for science applications that require a well-characterized selection function.
minor comments (3)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states 'excellent redshift agreement' for multi-line sources; adding the specific outlier fraction or normalized median absolute deviation would make the claim more precise.
  2. [stellar mass derivation section] In the stellar-mass comparison, the text attributes discrepancies to redshift differences but does not report the fraction of sources with mass offsets exceeding a stated threshold (e.g., 0.3 dex).
  3. [figures] Figure captions for the redshift comparison plots should explicitly state the S/N threshold and line multiplicity criteria used to define the 'strong multi-line' subsample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive recommendation of minor revision. Their comments correctly identify key limitations in our validation approach and selection characterization. We address each point below and have incorporated clarifications and expanded discussion into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The 18% misidentification rate for single-line emitters (reported in the redshift comparison analysis) is derived exclusively from discrepancies with COSMOS photometric redshifts. Because photo-z uncertainties are known to be larger for strong-emission-line galaxies and can correlate with the same SED features used for line identification, this leaves the purity of the single-line subset without an independent spectroscopic anchor (e.g., zCOSMOS, DEIMOS, or overlapping JWST programs).

    Authors: We agree that the ~18% misidentification estimate for single-line emitters rests on photometric redshift comparisons, which carry correlated uncertainties for strong line emitters. Limited cross-matches with zCOSMOS and other available spectroscopic redshifts exist but are too few for the single-line subset to provide an independent purity anchor. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation, framing the 18% figure as an empirical estimate rather than a definitive purity metric and noting the value of future cross-validation with additional overlapping JWST programs. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The line-finding algorithm flags 200–950 candidates per field, of which ~47% survive visual inspection, but no injection-recovery simulations or completeness/purity metrics independent of the visual step are provided. This makes the overall catalog completeness difficult to quantify for science applications that require a well-characterized selection function.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the absence of injection-recovery simulations prevents a fully quantitative, visual-inspection-independent completeness and purity assessment. The manuscript already reports the candidate-to-confirmed fraction (~47%) and describes the algorithm thresholds, but we agree this is insufficient for applications needing a rigorous selection function. In revision we will expand the algorithm section with additional details on detection thresholds and inspection criteria, and we will explicitly state the limitation while deferring full injection-recovery analysis to a future paper on the survey selection function. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: redshifts computed directly from observed line wavelengths

full rationale

The paper derives spectroscopic redshifts from measured emission-line wavelengths in JWST NIRISS spectra using standard rest-frame identifications (e.g., H-alpha, [OIII]). For multi-line sources the identification is unambiguous; for single-line sources the 18% misidentification estimate is obtained by external comparison to independent COSMOS photometric redshifts rather than by any internal fit or self-referential equation. No derivation step reduces a reported quantity (redshift, stellar mass, or catalog purity) to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The catalog is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard spectroscopic redshift determination from emission lines and visual confirmation rather than new physical models; no free parameters are fitted to produce the redshifts themselves, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Emission lines detected in NIRISS slitless spectra can be correctly identified and assigned redshifts via automated detection followed by visual inspection.
    Invoked throughout the line-finding and redshift derivation process described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5800 in / 1450 out tokens · 42836 ms · 2026-05-16T17:45:55.460254+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Validating z > 7.5 Lyman Break Galaxy candidates in the COSMOS field with JWST/PASSAGE

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    Spectroscopic confirmation of one luminous z=7.96 Lyman break galaxy in a 4.8 arcmin² COSMOS field implies a surface density of 0.21 arcmin⁻², about 10 times higher than wide-area surveys and hinting at a z~8 overdensity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., Vulcani, B., et al

    Acharyya, A., Watson, P. J., Vulcani, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.05335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.05335

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05335 2025

  2. [2]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  3. [3]

    R., Tout, C

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy ...

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x 2002

  4. [4]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  5. [5]

    M., Rodighiero, G., et al

    Baronchelli, I., Scarlata, C. M., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9a3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9a3a 2020

  6. [6]

    M., Rodr´ ıguez-Mu˜ noz, L., et al

    Baronchelli, I., Scarlata, C. M., Rodr´ ıguez-Mu˜ noz, L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac250c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac250c 2021

  7. [7]

    J., Bagley, M

    Battisti, A. J., Bagley, M. B., Rafelski, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae911

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae911 2024

  8. [8]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  9. [9]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 461

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    J., Chevallard, J., et al

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Chevallard, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2065

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2065 2024

  12. [12]

    2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, 1.3.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    Brammer, G., & Matharu, J. 2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, 1.3.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5012699 2021

  13. [13]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 99, doi: 10.1086/519081

    Capak, P., Aussel, H., Ajiki, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 99, doi: 10.1086/519081

    work page doi:10.1086/519081 2007

  16. [16]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  17. [17]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    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

  18. [18]

    W., Teplitz, H., Atek, H., et al

    Colbert, J. W., Teplitz, H., Atek, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/34 2013

  19. [19]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b 2023

  20. [20]

    A., & Lin, S

    Du, P., Kibbe, W. A., & Lin, S. M. 2006, Bioinformatics, 22, 2059, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl355

    work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl355 2006

  21. [21]

    2024, SAPPHIRES: Slitless Areal Pure-Parallel High-Redshift Emission Survey,, JWST Proposal

    Egami, E., Fan, X., Sun, F., et al. 2024, SAPPHIRES: Slitless Areal Pure-Parallel High-Redshift Emission Survey,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6434

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb64

    Estrada-Carpenter, V., Sawicki, M., Abraham, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb64 2025

  23. [23]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3 2025

  24. [24]

    M., Koekemoer, A

    Franco, M., Casey, C. M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03256

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03256 2025

  25. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  26. [26]

    C., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J

    Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. 1983, Understanding robust and exploratory data anlysis

    work page 1983

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

    J., et al

    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

  29. [29]

    2024, COSMOS-3D: A Legacy Spectroscopic/Imaging Survey of the Early Universe,, JWST Proposal

    Kakiichi, K., Egami, E., Fan, X., et al. 2024, COSMOS-3D: A Legacy Spectroscopic/Imaging Survey of the Early Universe,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5893

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    2024, POPPIES: The Public Observation Pure Parallel Infrared Emission-Line Survey,, JWST Proposal

    Kartaltepe, J., Rafelski, M., Alavi, A., et al. 2024, POPPIES: The Public Observation Pure Parallel Infrared Emission-Line Survey,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5398

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc588 2023

  32. [32]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.00120, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00120

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00120 2025

  33. [33]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086 K¨ ummel, M.,´Alvarez-Ayll´ on, A., Bertin, E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.02428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.02428

    work page doi:10.1086/520086 2007

  34. [34]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  35. [35]

    A., Mehta, V., Acharyya, A., et al

    Malkan, M. A., Mehta, V., Acharyya, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae00bb 2025

  36. [36]

    E., Lacey , C

    Massey, R., Stoughton, C., Leauthaud, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 371, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15638.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15638.x 2010

  37. [37]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 2012

  38. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1019 23

    Noirot, G., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1019 23

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1019 2023

  39. [39]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  40. [40]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    work page doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  41. [41]

    S., Weaverdyck, N., et al

    Ratajczak, J., Dawson, K. S., Weaverdyck, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.09286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.09286

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.09286 2025

  42. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c

    Revalski, M., Rafelski, M., Henry, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c 2024

  43. [43]

    J., Mehta, V., et al

    Runnholm, A., Hayes, M. J., Mehta, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc008

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc008 2025

  44. [44]

    B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al

    Sanders, D. B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86, doi: 10.1086/517885

    work page doi:10.1086/517885 2007

  45. [45]

    Sarrouh, G. T. E., Asada, Y., Martis, N. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21685, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21685

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21685 2025

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2522

    Sawicki, M., Arnouts, S., Huang, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2522 2019

  47. [47]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    work page doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  48. [48]

    B., Paquereau, L., et al

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03243

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03243 2025

  49. [49]

    W., & Roche , P

    Storey, P. J., & Zeippen, C. J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03184.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03184.x 2000

  50. [50]

    Taniguchi, Y., Kajisawa, M., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2015, PASJ, 67, 104, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv106

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psv106 2015

  51. [51]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 2022

  52. [52]

    Methods17, 261–272, DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020)

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0846

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0846

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad0846 2024

  54. [54]

    J., Vulcani, B., Werle, A., et al

    Watson, P. J., Vulcani, B., Werle, A., et al. 2025a, A&A, 699, A365, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452348

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452348

  55. [55]

    J., Vulcani, B., Treu, T., et al

    Watson, P. J., Vulcani, B., Treu, T., et al. 2025b, A&A, 699, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554954

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554954

  56. [56]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    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

  57. [57]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac5158 2022