pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.22046 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The NIKA2 cosmological legacy survey at 2 mm: catalogs, colors, redshift distributions, and implications for deep surveys

M. B\'ethermin , G. Lagache , C. Carvajal-Bohorquez , R. Adam , P. Ade , H. Ajeddig , S. Amarantidis , P. Andr\'e
show 49 more authors
H. Aussel A. Beelen A. Beno\^it S. Berta L.J. Bing A. Bongiovanni J. Bounmy O. Bourrion M. Calvo A. Catalano D. Ch\'erouvrier M. De Petris F.-X. D\'esert S. Doyle E.F.C. Driessen G. Ejlali A. Ferragamo A. Gomez J. Goupy C. Hanser S. Katsioli F. K\'eruzor\'e C. Kramer B. Ladjelate S. Leclercq J.-F. Lestrade J.F. Mac\'ias-P\'erez S.C. Madden A. Maury F. Mayet A. Monfardini A. Moyer-Anin M. Mu\~noz-Echeverr\'ia I. Myserlis A. Paliwal L. Perotto G. Pisano N. Ponthieu V. Rev\'eret A.J. Rigby A. Ritacco H. Roussel F. Ruppin M. S\'anchez-Portal S. Savorgnano K. Schuster A. Sievers C. Tucker R. Zylka
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 08:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dusty star-forming galaxiesmillimeter surveysredshift distributiongalaxy colorshigh-redshift galaxiescosmological surveys
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations at 2 mm reveal no exotic galaxy population and select for higher average redshifts than 1.2 mm surveys.

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

The paper examines galaxies detected in a deep 2 mm survey to understand their colors, redshifts, and how they compare to shorter wavelength selections. It finds that the ratio of fluxes at 2 mm to 1.2 mm shows a weak dependence on redshift but large scatter, making it less useful for picking the highest redshift objects than hoped. The data indicate that 2 mm selection misses some dusty galaxies at redshifts around 2, leading to a higher average redshift in the sample. This helps explain why longer wavelength surveys might probe further back in time without needing new types of galaxies.

Core claim

The survey data combined with modeling show a mean flux ratio of about 0.22 between 2 mm and 1.2 mm, with a mean redshift of around 3.2 to 3.6 depending on the field. The nine sources seen only at 2 mm are mostly consistent with noise or known types like radio galaxies, with no sign of an unusual population that shines only at 2 mm. The higher mean redshift arises because the 2 mm selection is less sensitive to the peak emission from galaxies at z~2.

What carries the argument

The flux density ratio between 2 mm and 1.2 mm, which serves as a color indicator for the spectral energy distribution of dusty galaxies and its relation to redshift.

If this is right

  • 2 mm samples will contain fewer galaxies at moderate redshifts around 2 compared to 1.2 mm samples.
  • Single-dish surveys at longer wavelengths can build high-redshift samples but with different selection biases.
  • The large dispersion in colors limits the use of simple color cuts for high-z selection.
  • Interferometric follow-up is needed to confirm candidates and reduce spurious detections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future surveys might combine multiple wavelengths to better separate redshift populations without relying on simulations.
  • Overdensities can affect mean redshifts in small fields, suggesting larger areas are needed for robust statistics.
  • These selection effects should be accounted for when comparing number counts across different millimeter surveys.

Load-bearing premise

That the modeling of galaxy distributions and detector effects accurately represents the real sky and instrument performance at these wavelengths.

What would settle it

Finding more than a handful of genuine 2 mm sources with no counterpart at 1.2 mm or other wavelengths that cannot be explained as radio galaxies or noise spikes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22046 by A. Beelen, A. Beno\^it, A. Bongiovanni, A. Catalano, A. Ferragamo, A. Gomez, A.J. Rigby, A. Maury, A. Monfardini, A. Moyer-Anin, A. Paliwal, A. Ritacco, A. Sievers, B. Ladjelate, C. Carvajal-Bohorquez, C. Hanser, C. Kramer, C. Tucker, D. Ch\'erouvrier, E.F.C. Driessen, F. K\'eruzor\'e, F. Mayet, F. Ruppin, F.-X. D\'esert, G. Ejlali, G. Lagache, G. Pisano, H. Ajeddig, H. Aussel, H. Roussel, I. Myserlis, J. Bounmy, J.-F. Lestrade, J.F. Mac\'ias-P\'erez, J. Goupy, K. Schuster, L.J. Bing, L. Perotto, M. B\'ethermin, M. Calvo, M. De Petris, M. Mu\~noz-Echeverr\'ia, M. S\'anchez-Portal, N. Ponthieu, O. Bourrion, P. Ade, P. Andr\'e, R. Adam, R. Zylka, S. Amarantidis, S. Berta, S.C. Madden, S. Doyle, S. Katsioli, S. Leclercq, S. Savorgnano, V. Rev\'eret.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the 2 to 1.2 mm color for the true N2CLS COS￾MOS catalog (red filled histogram, only S/N≥ 4.6 sources at both wave￾lengths) and various simulated catalogs based on SIDES. The solid black histogram corresponds to the simulated SIDES galaxy catalog af￾ter applying a flux cut similar to COSMOS data (see Sect. 3.1). The dotted histogram is based on a similar selection, but applied to the blob c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Redshift distribution of the GOODS-N high-reliability 2 mm sources. The red histogram is the distribution measured in the N2CLS. When sources are multiple, the redshift of the main component is used (see Sect. 3.4). The uncertainties correspond to a Poisson law. The grey histogram is derived from the SIDES galaxy catalog after applying a flux cut similar to the GOODS-N field (see Sect. 3.2). The uncertaint… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color as a function of the redshift in the COSMOS (top) and GOODS-N (bottom) fields. The left plots show the internal NIKA2 color (S2 mm/S1.2 mm) and the right ones show the ratio between the N2CLS 2 mm and the SCUBA2 850 µm fluxes from S2COSMOS (Simpson et al. 2017) and SUPER GOODS (Cowie et al. 2017). The filled blue circle are the N2CLS sources with spectroscopic redshifts, while the open red circles co… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the exMORA (x axis, Long et al. 2024) and N2CLS (y axis) 2 mm flux. The N2CLS sources with a single coun￾terpart are in blue and the multiple sources are in red. The black dashed line indicates the one-to-one relation. the full catalog with S/N≥3.98 For most of the sources without counterpart, we can observe a faint signal (1.5≤S/N≤3.9) in the N2CLS map at the Ex-MORA position: S/N=3.4 f… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift distribution of the sources predicted by the 117 deg2 SIDES simulation for flux cuts at 1.2 mm (blue filled histogram) and 2 mm (red open histogram) similar to N2CLS in GOODS-N. Similarly, we can also compare the 2 mm and the 850 µm observations. In the case of ALMA, the 2 mm (band 4, 150 GHz) observations are more effective than those at 850 µm (353 GHz, band 7, 0.16 mJy RMS on 1.5×1.5 arcmin2 ob… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean interstellar radiation field ⟨U⟩ as a function of redshift, as predicted by SIDES, illustrating the bias toward colder SEDs intro￾duced by millimeter flux selections. The mean radiation field is used in SIDES to parametrize the SEDs, and a higher ⟨U⟩ corresponds to a higher dust temperature. The solid lines are the mean evolutions as a function of redshift for the full star-forming sample (gray), and … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Millimeter galaxy surveys are particularly effective in detecting dusty star-forming galaxies at high redshift. While such observations are typically conducted at ~1mm, some studies suggest that 2mm may be better suited for selecting sources at even higher redshifts. We use the unprecedented 2mm data from the N2CLS, together with the SIDES simulation, to study and interpret the statistical properties of 2mm-selected galaxies. We use the N2CLS robust sample at 2mm, which contains 25 sources in the deep GOODS-N field and 90 sources in the wide COSMOS. The sources are matched with the N2CLS 1.2mm sources, the ancillary 850um sources, and redshift catalogs to study the colors and redshift distributions. We also produce end-to-end simulations based on SIDES and the observed N2CLS detector timelines to interpret the data. We find a mean S2/S1.2 color of 0.222$\pm$0.008 with a standard deviation of 0.070$\pm$0.010. We measure a mean redshift of $3.6\pm0.3$ in GOODS-N, which is marginally higher than expectations from SIDES ($2.9\pm0.2$) because of an overdensity at $z\sim5.2$, and $3.2\pm0.2$ in COSMOS, which agrees with the $3.2\pm0.2$ predicted by SIDES. We also show that the observed S2/S1.2 colors exhibit a weak dependence with redshift but a large dispersion, which limits its efficiency to select high-z sources. Finally, we studied the nine 2mm sources not detected at 1.2mm, and found that two of them are radiogalaxies, one is a z~2 galaxy, and the remaining six are compatible with the expected number of spurious detections. The N2CLS survey shows no evidence for any exotic 2mm-only galaxy population. Using SIDES, we show that 2mm samples have a higher mean redshift compared to 1.2mm because they miss z~2 dusty galaxies. Finally, we discuss the efficiency of single-dish and interferometric blind surveys to build samples of high-z dusty galaxies.

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 reports results from the NIKA2 2 mm cosmological legacy survey (N2CLS) using robust samples of 25 sources in GOODS-N and 90 sources in COSMOS. It measures a mean S2/S1.2 color of 0.222 ± 0.008 (dispersion 0.070 ± 0.010), mean redshifts of 3.6 ± 0.3 (GOODS-N, marginally higher than SIDES due to z ~ 5.2 overdensity) and 3.2 ± 0.2 (COSMOS, matching SIDES), examines nine 2 mm sources undetected at 1.2 mm (finding two radio galaxies, one z ~ 2 galaxy, and six consistent with spurious detections), and concludes there is no evidence for an exotic 2 mm-only population. Using SIDES end-to-end simulations, it argues that 2 mm samples exhibit higher mean redshifts than 1.2 mm samples because they miss z ~ 2 dusty galaxies, while noting limited efficiency of the color for high-z selection.

Significance. If the results hold, this provides direct empirical constraints on mm-wave colors and redshift distributions of dusty star-forming galaxies, clarifying selection biases in 2 mm vs. 1.2 mm surveys. The data-driven measurements of colors and redshifts, combined with ancillary matching and end-to-end noise modeling from observed timelines, offer a robust basis for interpreting why 2 mm surveys can access higher redshifts, with practical implications for designing future deep single-dish and interferometric surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion of selection effects and redshift distributions] The interpretation that 2 mm samples have higher mean redshift than 1.2 mm samples because they miss z ~ 2 dusty galaxies (abstract and discussion section) rests on SIDES accurately reproducing mm flux ratios and selection at z ~ 2. While observed mean color (0.222 ± 0.008) and redshifts are direct measurements, the causal explanation would be strengthened by explicit sensitivity tests to dust temperature, emissivity, or luminosity function assumptions in SIDES, as these directly affect which z ~ 2 galaxies are predicted to be detected at 1.2 mm but not 2 mm.
  2. [Redshift distribution results] In the redshift distribution analysis, the GOODS-N mean redshift (3.6 ± 0.3) is described as marginally higher than SIDES (2.9 ± 0.2) due to a z ~ 5.2 overdensity. The paper should report the number of sources in the z ~ 5.2 bin, the Poisson or bootstrap significance of the overdensity relative to the field, and whether removing those sources brings the mean into agreement with SIDES to confirm this as the sole cause.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sample selection] Clarify in the methods or results section whether the reported robust samples (25 in GOODS-N, 90 in COSMOS) include all cuts for reliability or if further filtering was applied before color and redshift analysis.
  2. [Figures] Ensure figure captions for color-redshift plots and histograms explicitly distinguish observed data points from SIDES predictions and include error bars or uncertainty bands for the mean values.
  3. [Color measurements] The abstract states the color dispersion as 0.070 ± 0.010; confirm this uncertainty is propagated correctly from the individual source measurements and reported consistently in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We have addressed each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements into the revised manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The interpretation that 2 mm samples have higher mean redshift than 1.2 mm samples because they miss z ~ 2 dusty galaxies (abstract and discussion section) rests on SIDES accurately reproducing mm flux ratios and selection at z ~ 2. While observed mean color (0.222 ± 0.008) and redshifts are direct measurements, the causal explanation would be strengthened by explicit sensitivity tests to dust temperature, emissivity, or luminosity function assumptions in SIDES, as these directly affect which z ~ 2 galaxies are predicted to be detected at 1.2 mm but not 2 mm.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity tests would further strengthen the causal link between the observed higher mean redshift in 2 mm samples and the missing z ~ 2 population. Although the SIDES model used in our analysis has been validated against a broad set of multi-wavelength constraints, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section presenting results from additional end-to-end simulations. These will vary dust temperature by ±5 K, emissivity index by ±0.2, and luminosity function parameters within published uncertainties, confirming that the conclusion regarding missed z ~ 2 galaxies remains robust. The revised manuscript will include these tests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the redshift distribution analysis, the GOODS-N mean redshift (3.6 ± 0.3) is described as marginally higher than SIDES (2.9 ± 0.2) due to a z ~ 5.2 overdensity. The paper should report the number of sources in the z ~ 5.2 bin, the Poisson or bootstrap significance of the overdensity relative to the field, and whether removing those sources brings the mean into agreement with SIDES to confirm this as the sole cause.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for greater transparency. In the revised manuscript we will report the exact number of sources in the z ~ 5.2 bin for the GOODS-N sample, quantify the overdensity significance using Poisson statistics relative to the SIDES field expectation, and present the mean redshift obtained after removing those sources. This will demonstrate that the overdensity accounts for the difference and that the remaining distribution aligns with the simulation within uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Core results are direct data measurements independent of the simulation; SIDES used only for interpretation and expected-value benchmarks

full rationale

The paper reports direct observational quantities extracted from the N2CLS 2 mm catalog, 1.2 mm matches, ancillary 850 μm data, and redshift catalogs: the mean S2/S1.2 color (0.222 ± 0.008), the measured mean redshifts (3.6 ± 0.3 in GOODS-N, 3.2 ± 0.2 in COSMOS), and the classification of the nine 1.2 mm non-detections (two radio galaxies, one z ~ 2 source, six consistent with spurious). These values are obtained without reference to any model. SIDES enters only in the interpretive layer to supply comparison predictions and to illustrate selection effects (e.g., missing z ~ 2 galaxies). No equation or central claim reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or unverified self-citation; the simulation functions as an external benchmark rather than a definitional input. This yields a minor self-citation score of 2 with no load-bearing circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the SIDES simulation being a faithful representation of real galaxy populations and survey selection; primary observational results do not depend on fitted parameters beyond standard data reduction.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The SIDES simulation and end-to-end detector timeline modeling accurately reproduce the expected colors, redshift distributions, and spurious detection rates for 2mm and 1.2mm observations.
    Invoked to interpret the observed mean redshifts, color dispersion, and the conclusion of no exotic population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6299 in / 1295 out tokens · 40244 ms · 2026-05-19T08:15:25.574577+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The NIKA2 Cosmological Legacy Survey in COSMOS: Final 1.2mm and 2mm source catalogs and redshift distribution of dusty star-forming galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 accept novelty 4.0

    The NIKA2 survey delivers catalogs of 323 mm-selected sources in COSMOS with redshifts peaking at z=2.8, including 66 at z>4, matching SIDES simulations but inconsistent with four other galaxy evolution models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adam, R., Adane, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A115

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1989 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Asboth, V ., Conley, A., Sayers, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1989 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A., Bouwens, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3926

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    M., Lacey, C

    Baugh, C. M., Lacey, C. G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1191

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    2025, A&A, 696, A193

    Berta, S., Lagache, G., Beelen, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A193

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    & Zylka, R

    Berta, S. & Zylka, R. 2019-2024, Welcome to the PIIC, https://www.iram. fr/~gildas/dist/piic.pdf Béthermin, M., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2015a, A&A, 573, A113 Béthermin, M., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, L23 Béthermin, M., De Breuck, C., Sargent, M., & Daddi, E. 2015b, A&A, 576, L9 Béthermin, M., Fudamoto, Y ., Ginolfi, M., et al. 202...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    2023, A&A, 677, A66

    Bing, L., Béthermin, M., Lagache, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A66

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    J., Beelen, A., Lagache, G., et al

    Bing, L. J., Beelen, A., Lagache, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A232

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    W., Smail, I., Ivison, R

    Blain, A. W., Smail, I., Ivison, R. J., Kneib, J.-P., & Frayer, D. T. 2002, Phys. Rep., 369, 111

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    L., et al

    Bourrion, O., Benoit, A., Bouly, J. L., et al. 2016, Journal of Instrumentation, 11, P11001

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    2017, A&A, 608, A15

    Brisbin, D., Miettinen, O., Aravena, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A15

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    2020, A&A, 637, A32

    Burgarella, D., Nanni, A., Hirashita, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A32

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 816

    Calvo, M., Benoît, A., Catalano, A., et al. 2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 816

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 99

    Capak, P., Aussel, H., Ajiki, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 99

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Casey, C. M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 68

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al

    Casey, C. M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, L33

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, Phys. Rep., 541, 45

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Aravena, M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.13331

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 215

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    C., Blain, A

    Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Ivison, R. J., & Smail, I. R. 2003, Nature, 422, 695

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 159

    Chen, C.-C., Liao, C.-L., Smail, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 159

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    R., Casey, C

    Cooper, O. R., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 32

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    L., Barger, A

    Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., & Bauer, F. E. 2023, ApJ, 952, 28

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    L., Barger, A

    Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., Hsu, L. Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 139

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    M., et al

    Daddi, E., Valentino, F., Rich, R. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A78

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    2018, A&A, 614, A33

    Donevski, D., Buat, V ., Boone, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A33

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    D., Conley, A., Glenn, J., et al

    Dowell, C. D., Conley, A., Glenn, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 75

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    S., McLure, R

    Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Biggs, A. D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 861

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    L., Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P

    Faisst, A. L., Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4192

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    2022, MOC: Multi-Order Coverage map Version 2.0, IVOA Recommendation 27 July 2022

    Fernique, P., Nebot, A., Durand, D., et al. 2022, MOC: Multi-Order Coverage map Version 2.0, IVOA Recommendation 27 July 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 620, A152

    Franco, M., Elbaz, D., Béthermin, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 620, A152

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    A., Schouws, S., et al

    Fudamoto, Y ., Oesch, P. A., Schouws, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 597, 489

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 670, A16

    Gkogkou, A., Béthermin, M., Lagache, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A16

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8

    Gruppioni, C., Béthermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    C., Sparre, M., Chapman, S

    Hayward, C. C., Sparre, M., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2922

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Hodge, J. A. & da Cunha, E. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.00934

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    S., Robson, E

    Holland, W. S., Robson, E. I., Gear, W. K., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 659

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    H., Serjeant, S., Dunlop, J., et al

    Hughes, D. H., Serjeant, S., Dunlop, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 241

    work page 1998

  40. [40]

    E., et al

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 144

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    E., et al

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A3

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    B., Hodge, J., et al

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Hodge, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, L16

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    2021, A&A, 649, A152

    Khusanova, Y ., Bethermin, M., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A152

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    2004, ApJS, 154, 112

    Lagache, G., Dole, H., Puget, J.-L., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 112

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    2025, sub

    Lagache, G., Xiao, M., Beelen, A., et al. 2025, sub. to A&A

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2546

    Laloux, B., Georgakakis, A., Andonie, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2546

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    T., Aguirre, J

    Laurent, G. T., Aguirre, J. E., Glenn, J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 742

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    F., Combes, F., Salomé, P., et al

    Lestrade, J. F., Combes, F., Salomé, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, L4

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    R., Baker, A

    Lindner, R. R., Baker, A. J., Omont, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 83

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    2019, ApJS, 244, 40

    Liu, D., Lang, P., Magnelli, B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 40

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Long, A. S., Casey, C. M., McKinney, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14546

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    C., Geach, J

    Lovell, C. C., Geach, J. E., Davé, R., Narayanan, D., & Li, Q. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 772

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 6

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 45 Michałowski, M

    Magnelli, B., Karim, A., Staguhn, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 45 Michałowski, M. J. 2015, A&A, 577, A80

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    2017, A&A, 606, A17

    Miettinen, O., Delvecchio, I., Smolˇci´c, V ., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A17

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 122

    Mitsuhashi, I., Matsuda, Y ., Smail, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 122

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    2014, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 176, 787

    Monfardini, A., Adam, R., Adane, A., et al. 2014, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 176, 787

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    F., et al

    Perotto, L., Ponthieu, N., Macías-Pérez, J. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A71

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    2025, A&A in press

    Ponthieu, N., Désert, F.-X., Beelen, A., et al. 2025, A&A in press

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    2023, A&A, 679, A129

    Rizzo, F., Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A129

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

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

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

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    T., Bondi, M., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Sargent, M. T., Bondi, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 384

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    2018, A&A, 609, A30

    Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., Pannella, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A30

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    S., Wilson, G

    Scott, K. S., Wilson, G. W., Aretxaga, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 575

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    M., Smail, I., Dudzeviˇci¯ut˙e, U., et al

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Dudzeviˇci¯ut˙e, U., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3409

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 58

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    M., Swinbank, A

    Simpson, J. M., Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 125

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    J., & Blain, A

    Smail, I., Ivison, R. J., & Blain, A. W. 1997, ApJ, 490, L5 Smolˇci´c, V ., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A1

    work page 1997

  72. [72]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3122

    Sommovigo, L., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3122

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    G., Kovács, A., Arendt, R

    Staguhn, J. G., Kovács, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 77

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    L., Weiss, A., De Breuck, C., et al

    Strandet, M. L., Weiss, A., De Breuck, C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, L15

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 23 van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J

    Talia, M., Cimatti, A., Giulietti, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 23 van der Vlugt, D., Hodge, J. A., Jin, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 131

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    D., Marrone, D

    Vieira, J. D., Marrone, D. P., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 344

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    P., Sun, G., Chung, D

    Viero, M. P., Sun, G., Chung, D. T., Moncelsi, L., & Condon, S. S. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, L30

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    2019, Nature, 572, 211

    Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 211

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11 Weiß, A., De Breuck, C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 88

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    A., Aretxaga, I., & Hughes, D

    Zavala, J. A., Aretxaga, I., & Hughes, D. H. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2384

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.