Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

The Extended Mapping Obscuration to Reionization with ALMA (Ex-MORA) Survey: A Molecular Gas Line Search

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 577-square-arcminute ALMA Band 4 line search recovers 52 gas-rich galaxies between redshifts 0.5 and 5, dominated by massive main-sequence systems and including five transitional Green Valley galaxies.

desk verdict Solid survey paper; the catalog is the contribution, but the Green Valley peak in the abstract overreaches the evidence in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10165 v1 pith:YK5SRVYE submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.GA

V. Catán , J. González-López , M. Aravena , A.S. Long , C.M. Casey , D.L. Clements , E. da Cunha , M. Franco
show 4 more authors
A.M. Koekemoer A. Man J. Spilker E. Treister
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords moleculargasCOlineemission[CI]fine-structurelinesgalaxyevolutionmainsequencegreenvalleygalaxiesALMAsurveysfraction
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

Using the spectral axis of a 577 arcmin$^2$ ALMA Band 4 blank-field survey, this paper tries to build a census of cold molecular gas selected by gas emission rather than by starlight. Combining a blind line search with a targeted search at known spectroscopic redshifts, it detects 52 galaxies in CO or [CI] transitions across $0.5

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual search over the full spectral axis of the MORA and Ex-MORA ALMA Band 4 mosaics. A blind line-search algorithm convolves each cube with Gaussian kernels of various widths and assigns a conservative fidelity value by comparing positive detections with negative noise spikes; a targeted search then fits Gaussian profiles at the expected frequencies of CO or [CI] lines at positions with prior spectroscopic redshifts. Line luminosities are converted to molecular gas masses through metallicity-dependent conversion factors for CO and [CI], with metallicities taken from a stellar mass-metallicity relation and stellar masses from SED fitting with non-parametric star-formation histories. This conversion chain carries every gas fraction and depletion time reported in the paper.

What would settle it

Measure rest-frame optical gas-phase metallicities for the 52 galaxies, or at least the five Green Valley systems, and recompute the CO and [CI] conversion factors; if the Green Valley gas fractions no longer peak above the field near $z\approx2.4$, the feedback-heating interpretation loses its empirical support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a molecular-gas-selected sample built from ALMA Band 4 spectral cubes is both feasible and scientifically productive: 18 high-fidelity emitters from a blind search plus 34 galaxies recovered by targeting known spectroscopic redshifts give 52 galaxies (54 line detections) in CO and [CI] transitions between $z=0.5$ and $z=5$. These galaxies are mostly main-sequence systems with stellar masses near or above $10^{10.8}\,M_\odot$ and molecular gas masses typically above $10^{10}\,M_\odot$. The gas fraction rises with redshift among active galaxies, consistent with existing scaling relations, but the paper shows that the high-redshift trend is inflated by a gas-rich protocluster at $z\approx2.4$, while the overdensity at $z\approx0.73$ matches the field population. The five Green Valley galaxies show a peak in gas fraction at cosmic noon, which the authors interpret as evidence that stellar feedback can heat gas and suppress star formation without immediately consuming the reservoir, while explicitly cautioning that this need not hold for all Green Valley galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

All gas masses and gas fractions rest on conversion factors whose metallicities are inferred from a stellar mass-metallicity relation, with no direct metallicity measurements for any of the 52 galaxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method works, existing wide-area ALMA continuum surveys can be re-mined as line searches, expanding the cosmic volume probed for cold gas without new observations.
  • Gas-selected samples can detect galaxies in transitional phases, meaning optical preselection may miss a population of gas-rich quasi-quiescent systems whose quenching is not caused by gas exhaustion.
  • Environmental overdensities such as the $z\approx2.4$ protocluster can dominate a line-selected sample's high-redshift gas-fraction trend, so environment must be accounted for when interpreting such trends.
  • The prevalence of rotating disks among resolved sources implies that massive gas-rich galaxies at these redshifts are largely rotationally supported, consistent with disk formation before cosmic noon.
  • Compared with the deeper pencil-beam ASPECS survey, the wide but shallower Ex-MORA search recovers more massive gas reservoirs, demonstrating a complementary selection function.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the heating interpretation would be to measure CO excitation ladders or [CI]/CO ratios in the five Green Valley galaxies: if feedback is heating the gas, higher-$J$ CO lines should be relatively bright compared with CO(2-1).
  • The targeted component's yield depends on the completeness of the spectroscopic catalog, so the true line-emitter population is probably richer; deeper blind searches over the same area would quantify how many gas-rich galaxies lack prior redshifts.
  • If this selection is as effective as claimed, future wide-band, large-area line surveys could construct near-complete gas-mass samples at fixed stellar mass, letting the molecular-gas scaling relations be measured without any luminosity or color preselection.
  • The use of [CI] alongside CO hints that some of the gas may be CO-dark; per-galaxy joint CO and [CI] detections could be used to map CO-dark fractions and check the metallicity dependence of the conversion factors.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Ex-MORA molecular line search: 577 arcmin^2 of ALMA Band 4 data in the COSMOS field are searched for CO and [CI] emission using a dual strategy of an unbiased line-search algorithm and a targeted search with spectroscopic redshift priors. The final sample contains 52 galaxies (54 line detections) at 0.5<z<5. The authors derive stellar masses and SFRs with CIGALE using non-parametric SFHs, convert CO and [CI] luminosities to molecular gas masses with metallicity-dependent conversion factors, and analyze gas fractions, depletion times, morphology, kinematics, and environmental effects. The main claims are that the sample is dominated by massive main-sequence galaxies with large gas reservoirs, that gas fractions increase with redshift for active populations, and that five Green Valley galaxies show a peak in molecular gas fraction at cosmic noon, possibly indicating stellar feedback that heats gas rather than depleting it.

Significance. If the results hold, this would be one of the largest molecular-gas-selected samples at 0.5<z<5, demonstrating the value of repurposing wide-area ALMA continuum surveys as line searches. The methodology is a real strength: the unbiased search uses SNR>=6 plus PPessimistic<0.5, the targeted search is calibrated by a random-frequency control test limiting contamination to 1%, and every unbiased line has a COSMOS-Web counterpart. These choices are transparent and justify confidence in the catalog itself. The physical interpretation, however, is much more uncertain because the gas masses inherit a chain of model assumptions (Sanders et al. 2021 metallicities, Tacconi et al. 2018 alpha_CO, Heintz & Watson 2020 alpha_[CI]) with no direct metallicity measurements, and the central astrophysical claim about Green Valley galaxies rests on only five sources with no significance test and a plausible environmental alternative. The paper would be a valuable contribution with a revised, more cautious framing of the GV peak.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 8.2 and Fig. 10; Abstract] The abstract states that 'Five Green Valley galaxies exhibit a μ_gas peak at cosmic noon' and links this to stellar feedback, but this is not established in the body. Section 8.2 says only that 'there is a trend for GV ... to have lower gas fractions' and that 'error bars are non-negligible'; no significance test is reported for the cosmic-noon GV point. Section 8.4 shows that the z~2.4 bin is biased by a gas-rich protocluster containing three sub-MS (GV-class) galaxies, so the elevated GV point is plausibly an environmental effect rather than an intrinsic evolutionary stage. This is the main new astrophysical conclusion beyond the catalog, so the claim must either be supported by a quantitative test (e.g., a bootstrap or permutation test comparing the GV μ_gas at z~2.3-2.5 with other bins or with field-only GV sources) or be explicitly downgraded to a tentative interpretation in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section 6.1 and Section 7] The molecular gas fractions are compared with the Tacconi et al. (2018) scaling relations, but the same Tacconi et al. (2018) relation is used to set alpha_CO, which enters M_mol and hence μ_gas. Since the metallicities used to derive alpha_CO come from the Sanders et al. (2021) mass-metallicity relation applied to the CIGALE stellar masses, the comparison is partially circular: any systematic offset in M_* propagates directly into M_mol through alpha_CO and then is compared against a relation that was calibrated with the same alpha_CO. The paper should quantify this coupling (e.g., by recomputing μ_gas with a fixed alpha_CO or an independent alpha_CO prescription) or explicitly discuss the direction and magnitude of the resulting bias.
  3. [Section 8.4 and Fig. 11] The discussion of the z~2.4 protocluster says that field galaxies at that redshift have 'significantly lower gas fractions' than overdensity members, but no significance test or uncertainty is reported for this comparison. Given that only four field galaxies are in that bin, the statement needs a quantitative measure (e.g., a two-sample test or resampling confidence interval) before it can support the conclusion that the protocluster 'significantly biases the results.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 9] Typo: 'posibility' should be 'possibility'.
  2. [Figure 10 and 11] The error bars in Figures 10 and 11 are large, and the figures would be more informative if individual galaxy points were overlaid, so that readers can see the sample sizes and the scatter behind each averaged bin.
  3. [Section 5] The paper says CIGALE v2025.1 is used and the SFH grid follows Arango-Toro et al. (2025) but with seven bins instead of ten; this change is not justified. A brief comment on why the default of seven was chosen would be useful.
  4. [Section 4.3] The final catalog is described as '54 high-fidelity emission detections' but elsewhere the paper says '52 galaxies (54 emission lines)'. This is consistent, but the wording in Section 4.3 could be clarified to state that two galaxies each contribute two lines, so the catalog contains 52 unique galaxies.
  5. [Appendix D] In Table D.1, some redshift entries have no quoted uncertainty (e.g., z = 2.29(1) vs z = 2.32(2)), and the meaning of the parenthetical digits should be stated; for spectroscopic redshifts the uncertainty appears to be in the last digits, but for some entries it is omitted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Catalog-level results are self-contained; only the mu_gas comparison with Tacconi et al. (2018) is mildly circular because the same Tacconi alpha_CO calibration enters the measured gas masses.

  1. other [Section 6.1 (alpha_CO adoption) and Section 7 / Fig. 7 (comparison baseline)]
    "Following the determination of L′CO(1−0) values, these were multiplied by αCO, which was derived using the metallicity-dependent relation from Tacconi et al. (2018). This approach enables direct comparison with their results. ... Figure 7 compares µgas values to the main sequence galaxy scaling relations extrapolated by Tacconi et al. (2018)."

    The molecular gas mass that defines mu_gas is not measured independently of the comparison relation: alpha_CO is adopted from Tacconi et al. (2018), with metallicity from Sanders et al. (2021) and M* from CIGALE, so M_mol inherits the Tacconi et al. calibration. The same Tacconi et al. (2018) scaling relation is then used as the baseline in Fig. 7 to conclude that mu_gas increases with redshift as expected. Part of the apparent agreement is therefore built in through the redshift/metallicity dependence of alpha_CO. It is only partial, because the observed L′CO values still dominate the dynamic range, but the comparison is not a fully independent test.

full rationale

The line search, catalog construction, and detection claims are self-contained: Lineseeker fidelity is estimated from positive/negative noise statistics, the targeted search uses an external spectroscopic compilation, and the sample is compared with external datasets (PHIBSS, A3COSMOS, ASPECS). I find no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness-imported-from-authors step, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The one partial circularity is the mu_gas analysis: using Tacconi et al. (2018) alpha_CO to compute M_mol and then comparing mu_gas with the Tacconi et al. (2018) scaling relation makes the comparison share a calibration input; this raises the score above 2 but does not invalidate the catalog. Separately, the abstract's claim that five GV galaxies 'exhibit a mu_gas peak at cosmic noon' is not established in the body: Section 8.2 says the error bars are non-negligible and the difference may not be significant, and Section 8.4 shows the z~2.4 bin is biased by a gas-rich protocluster containing three sub-MS galaxies. That is an overinterpretation/robustness concern, not a circularity, so I do not count it as a circular step beyond the shared-calibration issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or parameters. The load-bearing assumptions are observational and empirical: the conversion-factor chain (rJ1, alpha_CO, alpha_[CI], R) and the mass-metallicity relation. The free parameters are inherited from the literature, not fitted in this paper, but they set the absolute scale of every gas mass and gas fraction. The detection thresholds and SED grid choices are additional free choices that affect the sample and derived properties.

free parameters (6)
  • rJ1 line excitation ratios = r21=0.83, r31=0.58, r41=0.76, r51=0.59, r71=0.19
    The CO excitation ratios are not measured for each source of this sample; they are adopted from stacked CO SLEDs in two redshift bins from Boogaard et al. (2020), or from Kirkpatrick et al. (2019) for AGN. They directly set the CO(1-0) luminosity and hence M_mol for every galaxy (Eq. 1, Section 6.1).
  • alpha_CO conversion factor = 2.4 to 3.5 Msun (K km/s pc2)^-1
    alpha_CO is derived from the Tacconi et al. (2018) metallicity-dependent relation, itself an empirical fit from PHIBSS data. It sets the absolute scale of all CO-based gas masses and gas fractions. The paper states the values are below the Milky Way value for high-mass galaxies.
  • alpha_[CI] conversion factor = 10.37 to 33.7 Msun (K km/s pc2)^-1
    alpha_[CI] is adopted from the Heintz & Watson (2020) empirical relation, and it sets the scale of the [CI]-based gas masses. The range spans a factor of three, which directly propagates into the gas fractions of the [CI] sources.
  • [CI](2-1)/(1-0) excitation correction R = 0.44 +/- 0.03
    For sources detected only in [CI](2-1), the brightness temperature ratio from Valentino et al. (2020) is applied to standardize to [CI](1-0). The ratio is an empirical average from the literature and carries a ~7% uncertainty, which propagates to M_mol for those sources.
  • CIGALE non-parametric SFH bin configuration = 7 bins, 2000 SFHs, continuity-burst prior
    The SFH shape is parameterized by bin values with a continuity-burst prior; the choice of seven bins versus the ten bins used by Arango-Toro et al. (2025) is a modeling choice that affects stellar mass and SFR estimates. This choice is not a single number but a set of effectively free parameters in the SED fitting.
  • dust attenuation E(B-V) grid range = 0 to 1.8 mag
    The Calzetti-modified starburst attenuation grid is sampled in 10 values up to E(B-V)=1.8. This range is a modeling choice that can affect inferred stellar masses and SFRs, especially for heavily obscured systems.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math The fiducial flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 is correct.
    Adopted in Section 1 to convert observed line fluxes to luminosities and interpret volumes. It is a standard assumption in extragalactic astronomy, but a different cosmology would shift luminosities and masses slightly.
  • domain assumption A Chabrier (2003) initial mass function applies at all redshifts of the sample.
    Stellar masses and SFRs from CIGALE assume a Chabrier IMF, stated in Section 1. An alternative IMF would rescale stellar masses and SFRs, hence also gas fractions and depletion times.
  • domain assumption The CO and [CI] lines are optically thin enough that the standard luminosity-to-mass conversions are valid.
    Section 6 states that molecular gas masses depend on excitation, optical depths, and chemical abundances; the adopted alpha factors encode an assumption that the lines trace the bulk H2 even though some gas may be CO-dark or optically thick.
  • domain assumption The Sanders et al. (2021) mass-metallicity relation is valid for the sample galaxies at 0.5<z<5.
    Section 6.1 and 6.2 use stellar masses to infer metallicities through this relation because no direct metallicities exist. All alpha_CO and alpha_[CI] values depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Line-to-line excitation ratios derived from stacked samples (Boogaard et al. 2020; Kirkpatrick et al. 2019) apply to individual galaxies in the sample.
    Section 6.1 applies redshift-split average rJ1 values to each individual galaxy. The paper notes that high-redshift galaxies have more excited CO SLEDs, but individual scatter is not propagated.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshift priors in the Khostovan et al. (2025) compilation are accurate and correctly matched within 0.6 arcsec.
    Sections 2.2.2 and 4.2 rely on quality-flagged redshifts with confidence over 85% for the targeted search. A wrong redshift or a spurious counterpart would misidentify the line species and contaminate the sample.
  • domain assumption The random-frequency control test accurately measures the false-positive rate of the targeted search.
    Section 4.2 uses random redshifts at random positions to set a dynamic SNR threshold with 1% contamination. The test assumes that noise statistics at random points and random frequencies match the statistics at real galaxy positions.
  • domain assumption The spectral cubes are well-calibrated and the noise is Gaussian after the auto-multithresh deconvolution.
    Section 3 describes the CASA pipeline; the unbiased search's p-values assume that residual noise spikes can be modeled as Gaussian noise. Residual calibration errors would change the detection statistics.
  • domain assumption The adopted alpha_CO relation and rJ1 excitation ratios are not biased by the selection of the sample.
    The alpha_CO from Tacconi et al. (2018) was calibrated on MS galaxies, but the sample includes starbursts and Green Valley galaxies. The paper does not apply a starburst alpha_CO for the 22 SB-classified galaxies, which likely overestimates their gas masses if they have lower alpha_CO.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Extended Mapping Obscuration to Reionization with ALMA (Ex-MORA) Survey: A Molecular Gas Line Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YK5SRVYE

@misc{pith2026260810165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Extended Mapping Obscuration to Reionization with ALMA (Ex-MORA) Survey: A Molecular Gas Line Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YK5SRVYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10165}
}
abstract

Current investigations of cold gas in the interstellar medium face selection biases, as optical/near-infrared surveys favor massive, low-obscuration galaxies and miss gas-rich passive or inefficient star-forming systems. Overcoming this requires large-volume line surveys selected by molecular gas rather than stellar luminosity. We present a molecular gas census across $0.5 < z < 5$ using ALMA Band 4 observations from the Extended Mapping of Obscuration to Reionization Survey (Ex-MORA), covering 577 arcmin$^2$. Combining an unbiased search for bright emitters with a targeted search using spectroscopic redshift priors, we detect 52 galaxies in CO or \ci transitions (two showing two lines). Physical properties were derived via \texttt{CIGALE} with non-parametric star-formation histories, and gas masses were estimated using metallicity-dependent conversion factors. The sample is dominated by main-sequence (MS) galaxies with high stellar masses (median $\log M_*/\text{M}_{\odot} = 10.83$) and large gas reservoirs ($>10^{10}\,\text{M}_{\odot}$). Gas fraction ($\mu_{\text{gas}}$) increases with redshift for active populations, though high-redshift trends are influenced by a gas-rich protocluster at $z \approx 2.4$. Conversely, an overdensity at $z \approx 0.73$ mirrors the field population. Five Green Valley (GV) galaxies exhibit a $\mu_{\text{gas}}$ peak at cosmic noon, suggesting stellar feedback may suppress star formation by heating gas rather than rapidly depleting it in at least some transitional systems. Resolved kinematics show a prevalence of rotating disks. These results demonstrate that wide-area line searches effectively recover massive gas reservoirs across diverse evolutionary stages

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10165 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Line luminosity limits for our sample as a function of red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The colored regions indicate the coverage of the Ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral and spatial characteristics of a representative unbiased detection from this work. The right panel shows the extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same caption as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of spectroscopic redshifts and detected line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Galaxy MS for each redshift bin of our sample. Individual galaxies from our sample are shown as filled circles, color-coded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Molecular gas fraction in terms of stellar mass. Individual detections from our survey are represented by filled circles, color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Depletion time in terms of redshift for four redshift bins. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized distribution of physical properties for the galaxy sample. The panels show stellar mass (log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of average molecular gas fractions (µ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al

    Arango-Toro, R. C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A159

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 136

    Aravena, M., Decarli, R., Gónzalez-López, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 136

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    G., Papadopoulos, P

    Bisbas, T. G., Papadopoulos, P. P., & Viti, S. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 803, 37

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    G., van Dishoeck, E

    Bisbas, T. G., van Dishoeck, E. F., Papadopoulos, P. P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 90

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 207

    2013

  6. [6]

    A., van der Werf, P., Weiss, A., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., van der Werf, P., Weiss, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 109

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A103

    2019

  8. [8]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000

    2003

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, The Astro- physical Journal, 533, 682

    2000

  2. [10]

    & Walter, F

    Carilli, C. & Walter, F. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 105

    2013

  3. [11]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 31

    2023

  4. [12]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 215 Catán, V ., González-López, J., Solimano, M., et al. 2024, As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 692, A215

    2021

  5. [13]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    2003

  6. [14]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A191

    Ciesla, L., Gómez-Guijarro, C., Buat, V ., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A191

    2023

  7. [15]

    C., Zamorani, G., et al

    Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 619, A49

    2018

  8. [16]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, The Astro- physical Journal, 784, 83

    2014

  9. [17]

    2020, The Astro- physical Journal, 902, 110

    Decarli, R., Aravena, M., Boogaard, L., et al. 2020, The Astro- physical Journal, 902, 110

    2020

  10. [18]

    2016, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 833, 70

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Aravena, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 833, 70

    2016

  11. [19]

    2017, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 602, A3

    Delvecchio, I., Smol ˇci´c, V ., Zamorani, G., et al. 2017, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 602, A3

    2017

  12. [20]

    M., Akins, H

    Franco, M., Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., et al. 2025, Physical Properties of Galaxies and the UV Luminosity Function from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim14$ in COSMOS-Web González-López, J., Bauer, F. E., Romero-Cañizales, C., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 597, A41 González-López, ...

    2025

  13. [21]

    C., et al

    Gururajan, G., Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2025, Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 698, A312

    2025

  14. [22]

    2007, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 254

    Guzzo, L., Cassata, P., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2007, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 254

    2007

  15. [23]

    A., Péroux, C., et al

    Hamanowicz, A., Zwaan, M. A., Péroux, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 34

    2023

  16. [24]

    S., Liu, D., et al

    Harish, S., Kartaltepe, J. S., Liu, D., et al. 2025, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 992, 45

    2025

  17. [25]

    Heintz, K. E. & Watson, D. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, L7

    2020

  18. [26]

    Hodge, J. A. & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556

    2020

  19. [27]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Khostovan, A. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Salvato, M., et al. 2025, COSMOS Spectroscopic Redshift Compilation (First Data Release): 488k Redshifts Encompassing Two Decades of Spectroscopy

    2025

  20. [28]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 41

    Kirkpatrick, A., Sharon, C., Keller, E., & Pope, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 41

    2019

  21. [29]

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

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, The As- trophysical Journal Supplement Series, 172, 196

    2007

  22. [30]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 3

    2019

  23. [31]

    2019, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 887, 235

    Liu, D., Schinnerer, E., Groves, B., et al. 2019, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 887, 235

    2019

  24. [32]

    S., Casey, C

    Long, A. S., Casey, C. M., McKinney, J., et al. 2024, The Ex- tended Mapping Obscuration to Reionization with ALMA (Ex-MORA) Survey: 5$\sigma$ Source Catalog and Redshift Distribution

    2024

  25. [33]

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

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 544, A156

    2012

  26. [34]

    2026, The Astro- physical Journal, 998, 42

    Narita, K., Hatsukade, B., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2026, The Astro- physical Journal, 998, 42

    2026

  27. [35]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, The As- trophysical Journal, 660, L43

    2007

  28. [36]

    A., Ivison, R

    Oteo, I., Zwaan, M. A., Ivison, R. J., Smail, I., & Biggs, A. D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 36

    2016

  29. [37]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 1526

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 1526

    2023

  30. [38]

    & Catinella, B

    Saintonge, A. & Catinella, B. 2022, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 60, 319

    2022

  31. [39]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, The Astro- physical Journal, 914, 19

    2021

  32. [40]

    2007, The Astrophysi- cal Journal Supplement Series, 172, 1

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, The Astrophysi- cal Journal Supplement Series, 172, 1

    2007

  33. [41]

    B., Paquereau, L., et al

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, COS- MOS2025: The COSMOS-Web Galaxy Catalog of Photom- etry, Morphology, Redshifts, and Physical Parameters from

    2025

  34. [42]

    F., et al

    Solimano, M., González-López, J., Barrientos, L. F., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 655, A42

    2021

  35. [43]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 15

    2014

  36. [44]

    2012, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, 18, 3

    Stalevski, M. 2012, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, 18, 3

    2012

  37. [45]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2288

    Stalevski, M., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2288

    2016

  38. [46]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, The Astro- physical Journal, 853, 179

    2018

  39. [47]

    Taniguchi, Y ., Kajisawa, M., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 104

    2015

  40. [48]

    C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Team, T. C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    2022

  41. [49]

    E., Daddi, E., et al

    Valentino, F., Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., et al. 2020, The Astro- physical Journal, 890, 24

    2020

  42. [50]

    2020, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 902, 111

    Walter, F., Carilli, C., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 902, 111

    2020

  43. [51]

    2016, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 833, 67

    Walter, F., Decarli, R., Aravena, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 833, 67

    2016

  44. [52]

    26" 24" 22

    Zavala, J. A., Casey, C. M., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 165 Article number, page 14 of 17 V . Catán et al.: Ex-MORA Survey: A Molecular Gas Line Search Appendix A: Morphological classification Galaxies were classified into four categories: Dis...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.