Chronos: A NIR spectroscopic survey to target the most important phases of galaxy evolution across cosmic time

A. M. Hopkins; A. Pasquali; C.J. Conselice; F. La Barbera; G. Bruzual; I. Ferreras; J. Bland-Hawthorn; J. Dunlop; J. Silk; M. Cropper

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 135 references

Chronos: A NIR spectroscopic survey to target the most important phases of galaxy evolution across cosmic time

T0 review · 5 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 space-based NIR spectrograph could capture a million galaxy spectra at the peak of cosmic star formation and cosmic dawn.

desk verdict A competent, honest ESA mission white paper whose central sensitivity claim is plausible but under-derived; worth refereeing as a concept study, not as a research result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08795 v1 pith:TVD4KL3I submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

I. Ferreras , M. Cropper , R. Sharples , J. Bland-Hawthorn , G. Bruzual , S. Charlot , C.J. Conselice , S. Driver

show 10 more authors

J. Dunlop A. M. Hopkins S. Kaviraj T. Kitching F. La Barbera O. Lahav A. Pasquali S. Serjeant J. Silk R. Windhorst

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

keywords near-infraredspectroscopygalaxyevolutioncosmicnoondawnreionizationmulti-objectspectrographspacemissionconceptVoyage2050

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This proposal argues that the key open questions in galaxy formation—how galaxies assemble their stellar mass, how star formation shuts off, how the first galaxies and black holes formed, and what reionized the Universe—cannot be answered by JWST, Euclid, WFIRST, or ground-based ELT-class telescopes because those facilities can gather only thousands of high-quality spectra, not the roughly one million needed. The paper's central claim is that a dedicated space-based near-infrared multi-object spectrograph (0.8–2 micron, resolution 1500–3000, multiplex above 5000, field of view above 0.2 square degrees) could obtain about one million spectra with continuum S/N around 20 down to H = 24–26 AB, covering a mass-limited sample at z ≈ 1–3 and at z > 6. Such a survey would give the community an SDSS-equivalent spectroscopic database for the epochs where galaxies were most active, allowing stellar populations, gas and stellar kinematics, chemical abundances, AGN activity, merging, and environment effects to be measured on individual galaxies rather than on tiny or stacked samples. The paper is a mission concept and feasibility case, not a new measurement, and it asserts that without this database the baryon physics of galaxy formation will remain poorly constrained.

What carries the argument

The central object is a proposed space-based multi-object near-infrared spectrograph, named Chronos, with spectral range 0.8–2 micron, spectral resolution R ~ 1500–3000, multiplex greater than 5000 simultaneous targets, field of view greater than 0.2 square degrees, operating in a wide survey (H = 24 AB over 100 square degrees) and a deep survey (H = 26 AB over 10 square degrees). The key enabling mechanisms are: (1) the low and stable zodiacal background in space, which makes continuum spectroscopy of ultra-faint galaxies feasible at all; (2) the high multiplex, which allows the million-spectrum sample to be collected within a five-year mission; and (3) the wide NIR window itself, which places the rest-frame optical region (with the 4000-Angstrom break and age/metallicity-sensitive absorption features) within reach at cosmic noon and the Lyman-alpha region within reach at cosmic dawn. The paper also surveys reconfigurable focal-plane technologies (digital micromirror arrays, configurable slit units, liquid-crystal masks), large-format integral-field units, HgCdTe NIR detectors, and astrophotonics concepts such as the photonic lantern as potential implementations of the multiplex requirement.

What would settle it

The central claim would be contradicted if a detailed end-to-end instrument simulation or a technology demonstration showed that, at the assumed zodiacal background and detector noise, a 3–6 m space telescope cannot reach continuum S/N = 20 at H = 26 AB within 100 ks exposure, or if the actual target density of galaxies at z = 1–3 with H < 26 AB turned out to be more than an order of magnitude below the assumed 1.2 × $10^{5}$ per square degree, making the proposed million-spectrum sample unattainable in a five-year mission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dedicated space-based NIR spectrograph with the stated specifications can produce about one million high-quality spectra of distant galaxies—down to H = 24 AB over 100 square degrees and H = 26 AB over 10 square degrees—enabling the equivalent of the SDSS spectroscopic census at the epochs of peak galaxy formation (z ≈ 1–3) and cosmic dawn (z > 6). Because the targets are faint, the survey requires the equivalent of one Hubble Ultra-Deep Field every fortnight for five years, and it must be done from space to escape atmospheric emission and absorption. The paper argues that no current or planned facility, including JWST/NIRSpec, Euclid, WFIRST, or 30–40 m ground-based telescopes, can match this combination of depth, multiplexing, field of view, and continuous spectral coverage, and that the data would be needed to solve the key open questions in galaxy formation.

Load-bearing premise

That a cryogenic, high-multiplex multi-object near-infrared spectrograph in space can be built and operated to reach the assumed sensitivity (H = 26 AB continuum at S/N = 20 in about 100 kiloseconds) with the assumed survey speed and target densities, which rest on detector performance and zodiacal-background estimates that have not yet been demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A successful Chronos survey would provide the spectroscopic foundation for measuring star formation histories, chemical abundances, and stellar kinematics of individual galaxies at z ≈ 1–3, breaking degeneracies that photometry alone cannot resolve.
The proposed sample would allow the first statistically robust measurements of galaxy merger rates, including minor mergers down to mass ratios of 1:30 at z > 1, and of quenching timescales as a function of environment and stellar mass.
For cosmic dawn, the survey would deliver spectroscopically confirmed Lyman-break and Lyman-alpha-selected galaxies over many square degrees, allowing measurements of the evolving luminosity function, clustering, and the reionization state of the intergalactic medium.
The combination of deep spectroscopy with Euclid and WFIRST imaging would support precision cosmology by calibrating baryon-feedback effects on small scales, improving dark energy and modified gravity constraints from Euclid alone.
The survey would complement 21-cm reionization experiments by mapping the ionizing sources and the growth of ionized bubbles, providing the source census those radio surveys cannot supply.

Reading between the lines

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

If the assumed sensitivity is reached, the same spectrograph design could be applied to stellar-population studies of more distant passive galaxies than currently feasible, potentially pushing continuum-based stellar population analysis to z > 4 for the most massive systems.
The one-million-spectrum scale implies that rare sub-populations—post-starburst galaxies at z ~ 1, AGN host galaxies at cosmic noon, and the faintest confirmed Lyman-alpha emitters—would be sampled in numbers sufficient for environmental and mass-binned comparisons, effectively turning galaxy formation studies into a population-statistics science rather than a single-object science.
The technology path highlighted by the paper (cryogenic MEMS focal-plane masks, large-format HgCdTe detectors, and photonic-lantern spectrographs) has plausible spin-off applications for future ground-based multiplexed surveys, where atmospheric background remains the limiting factor.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know going in: this is an ESA Voyage 2050 mission proposal, not a research paper. There are no new data, no new equations, no falsifiable predictions. Its value is as a comprehensive and clearly written science case for a dedicated NIR space spectrograph.

What it does well: it makes a solid argument that the combination of depth (H=24–26), multiplex (>5000), resolution (R~1500–3000), and area (100+10 deg2) is genuinely unique compared with JWST, Euclid, WFIRST, and ELT-class telescopes. The science drivers—stellar populations at cosmic noon, reionization, environment, mergers, AGN feedback—are well posed and grounded in the literature. The authors are also honest about technology gaps: in VI.1 they state plainly that all three candidate multi-object selector technologies are not yet space-qualified at the required multiplex. They cite the earlier SPACE concept and their own Ferreras et al. 2013 rather than overclaiming novelty. That is good scholarly practice and I credit it.

The soft spots are real, but they are the soft spots of a mission proposal, not of a measurement. The stress-test note is on target. Section V.1 says an H=26 source yields about 30 photons per hour per resolution element in a perfect 3 m telescope; that is roughly 800 source photons in a 100 ks exposure. To reach S/N=20, the total noise must be close to source photon noise, which requires the zodiacal background and detector noise to be nearly negligible in the extraction aperture. The paper quotes the zodiacal sky brightness but never combines it with a PSF-matched aperture, throughput, slit losses, read noise, dark current, and flat-field systematics into an end-to-end error budget. For a diffraction-limited 3 m aperture the sky contribution is of order the source, so S/N=20 sits right at the edge; factor-of-two degradations break the five-year survey. The claim in Section IV of a tenfold improvement on dark energy constraints appears without any calculation and should be removed or supported. The target densities are extrapolated from shallower surveys and carry unknown systematics. None of this makes the mission impossible, but it does mean the quantitative promises in the executive summary are weaker than they look.

Who is this for? Anyone writing a future mission proposal, or a referee wanting a compact survey of the galaxy-evolution science case for NIR space spectroscopy. It would make a reasonable 'concept study' article in a venue like Experimental Astronomy, but it is not a regular astrophysics result and should not be evaluated as one.

My recommendation: if the venue publishes mission concept papers, send it to peer review. The referee should demand an end-to-end noise model, a survey-speed calculation, and a derivation of any cosmology claims before acceptance. The proposal is serious, the team is credible, and the science case is worth engaging with even though the central feasibility number is currently asserted rather than demonstrated.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript, submitted as a response to ESA's Voyage 2050 call, proposes a dedicated space-based near-infrared (0.8–2 μm) multi-object spectrograph ("Chronos") capable of obtaining roughly one million galaxy spectra with continuum S/N ~ 20 down to H = 24–26 AB, at R ~ 1500–3000, with multiplex > 5000 and field of view > 0.2 deg². The scientific case centers on stellar population studies at z ~ 1–3 (cosmic noon), the first galaxies and reionization at z > 6, AGN feedback, mergers, environment, and small-scale cosmology, with the argument that JWST, Euclid, WFIRST, and ELT-class facilities cannot deliver a database of this size and quality. The paper presents survey specifications (Fig. 13), a discussion of three reconfigurable focal-plane technologies, detector and photonics options, and initial sensitivity estimates in §V.1.

Significance. The paper's value lies in articulating a coherent and ambitious science case and in framing the instrument trade space (DMDs, configurable slits, liquid crystal masks, IFUs, photonics) for a future large mission. If the stated sensitivity and yields were firmly established, the proposed survey would be transformative for galaxy formation studies and would provide a genuinely SDSS-like spectral database at z = 1–3. The manuscript is also honest in declaring that several load-bearing technologies are not yet at spaceflight readiness (§VI.1), that mass/power/data-rate budgets are unexplored (§VI.2), and that detector systematics remain to be characterized (§VI.3). However, the central feasibility claim — that H = 24–26 AB continuum spectroscopy at S/N = 20 is achievable at the proposed exposure times — is not backed by an end-to-end error budget, and several numerical expectations (dark-energy figure of merit, LAE counts) are asserted rather than derived. These gaps are correctable in a revision but are load-bearing for the proposal's core promise.

major comments (5)

[V.1, Fig. 13] The central sensitivity claim (S/N=20 continuum at H=26 AB in 100 ks, and the line limits of 5×10^-19 and 8×10^-20 erg cm^-2 s^-1) is not supported by a transparent noise model. The text gives a source-photon rate (~30 photons per hour per resolution element at R=2000) and the zodiacal sky brightness (~21.5 AB mag arcsec^-2), but it never combines these quantities with an extraction aperture, point-spread function size, spectral bin, total throughput, slit losses, read noise, dark current, and flat-field systematics. With the quoted photon rate, the total noise must be almost source-limited to reach S/N=20 in 100 ks; the zodiacal background alone can contribute a comparable number of photons in a matched aperture, so any realistic degradation (e.g., 50% throughput, poorer PSF) pushes the required exposure beyond 100 ks. Without this error budget, the survey-speed claims in §V.7 and the line-sensitivity numbers in Fig. 13 are unverified.
[IV] The statement that small-scale baryonic-physics calibration from Chronos would give "up to a ten fold improvement on dark energy constraints than from Euclid alone" is made without a forecast, figure of merit, or supporting calculation. A factor-of-ten claim is exactly the kind of quantitative assertion that a mission proposal must justify; as written, the reader cannot reproduce it or identify its assumptions about survey area, redshift range, and parameter priors.
[III.2] The predicted yield of "~10,000 LAEs at z>6.5" from the combined surveys is asserted without showing the scaling from the LAE luminosity function, the Ly-α fraction of LBGs as a function of redshift and environment, and the line-flux limits quoted in Fig. 13. Because the LAE yield is a headline number for the cosmic-dawn science case and depends sensitively on the still-uncertain noise budget, it needs a transparent derivation.
[V.7, Fig. 13] The target densities of 4.8×10^4 (z=1–3, deg^-2) and 1.2×10^5 (deg^-2) are quoted without specifying the limiting stellar mass, redshift distribution, or source-catalog assumptions. These numbers are what justify the >5000 multiplex and the 100+10 deg² split; if the actual densities are lower by a factor of two, either the multiplex or the survey area would need to change, and the "one million high-quality spectra" goal in the abstract would not be met.
[VI.1–VI.3] The manuscript itself acknowledges that the key precursor technology is not ready: the DMD devices need radiation-hardening, cryogenic operation, and NIR windows (VI.1); the configurable-slit approach requires "substantial miniaturization" and an order-of-magnitude multiplex increase; "mass, power and data rate budgets remain to be explored" (VI.2); and detector persistence/cross-talk "need to be characterised in exquisite detail" (VI.3). These admissions are honest, but they undercut the feasibility claim that the survey can be executed within a five-year L-class mission; the proposal should either provide a technology-development plan with realistic TRL timelines, or temper the stated mission specifications accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[II.1] In §II.1, "perfomed" should be "performed".
[III.1] In §III.1, "interelated" should be "interrelated".
[References] In the reference list, "Allingon-Smith" should be "Allington-Smith"; also, the two distinct 2013 Ferreras items (MNRAS 429, L15 and arXiv:1306.6333) should be cross-checked so that citations resolve to the intended paper.
[V.3] In §V.3, "overal properties" should be "overall properties"; the table in Fig. 13 is cited as "Fig. 13 (right)", but the right panel is a table, which would be clearer as a separate figure or a proper table.
[VI.4] In §VI.4, "ESAs Voyage 2035-2050 long-term plan" is inconsistent with the "Voyage 2050" naming used throughout the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Chronos is a mission-concept proposal whose sensitivity figures and survey parameters are stated inputs, not fitted outputs, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a Voyage 2050 mission proposal, not a measurement or derivation paper, so the standard circularity failure modes do not arise. There is no fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction, no equation that defines a claimed result in terms of its own inputs, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The central numbers, such as the photon rate of about 30 photons per hour per resolution element for an H=26 source at R=2000 and the zodiacal background of about 21.5 mag arcsec^-2, are presented as external sensitivity inputs; the proposal then argues qualitatively that these inputs require a space-based facility. The target galaxy densities and survey areas are extrapolations from existing surveys and are used as survey-planning quantities rather than as first-principles predictions, so their uncertainty is a feasibility concern, not a circularity concern. The Ferreras et al. (2013) citations appear as context for the baseline concept and for the argument that ground-based facilities cannot provide the needed continuum spectra, but the paper does not rest any numerical result on those citations, and it independently quotes atmospheric and zodiacal backgrounds and JWST's field-of-view limitations. Because the proposal is self-contained in the sense that its claims are not derived from its own assumptions by construction, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

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

The proposal relies on standard astrophysical assumptions about the need for space-based NIR observations and the diagnostic power of spectral lines. No new physical entities are introduced. The stated target densities and sensitivities are assumptions extrapolated from prior surveys, not fitted parameters in a derivation.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Space-based observations are required to avoid atmospheric OH emission and telluric absorption in the NIR.
This is the physical justification for a space mission, invoked throughout Section V and VI, but it is presented as self-evident rather than quantified.
domain assumption The Lyman-alpha line visibility is a reliable tracer of the reionization state of the intergalactic medium.
Used in Section III.2 to argue that clustering of LAEs will reveal the topology of reionization; this depends on uncertain radiative transfer and escape fraction.
domain assumption JWST/NIRSpec will obtain at most about 1,000 comparable galaxy spectra.
This estimate (Section V.2, citing Rieke et al. 2019) is used to justify the need for Chronos, but the exact number depends on JWST time allocation and target selection, which were not known at the time.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chronos: A NIR spectroscopic survey to target the most important phases of galaxy evolution across cosmic time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVD4KL3I

@misc{pith2026190808795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chronos: A NIR spectroscopic survey to target the most important phases of galaxy evolution across cosmic time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVD4KL3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08795}
}

read the original abstract

(Abridged summary) Responding to ESA's Voyage 2050 call to define the long-term plan for the future space missions that will address the astrophysics science questions during the 2035-2050 cycle, we propose a dedicated, ultra-deep spectroscopic survey in the near infrared (NIR), that will target a mass-limited sample of galaxies during two of the most fundamental epochs of cosmic evolution: the formation of the first galaxies (at z>6; cosmic dawn), and at the peak of galaxy formation activity (between redshift z=1 and 3; cosmic noon). By way of NIR observations, it is possible to study the Lyman-alpha region in the former, and the optical rest-frame in the latter, allowing us to extract fundamental observables such as gas and stellar kinematics, chemical abundances, and ages, providing a unique legacy database covering these two crucial stages of cosmic evolution. A dedicated, space-based facility will overcome the challenges faced by ground-based telescopes, no matter how large the aperture, or the reduced field of view and low multiplex factor of the best space-based instrument in the near future, namely NIRSpec at the JWST. Our project (codename Chronos) aims to produce about 1 million high quality spectra, with a high S/N in the continuum, where information about the underlying stellar populations is encoded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08795 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cosmic star formation history: This diagram shows the redshift evolution of the star formation rate density. Note that detailed spectroscopic optical galaxy surveys exist only out to z <∼ 1, whereas the epochs of maximum star formation (z∼1–3), and the first stages of formation (z >∼ 7) are poorly understood (from Hopkins & Beacom 2006; see also Madau & Dickinson 2014) regarding the efficiency of star formation, the… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Schematics of galaxy evolution from the blue cloud to the red sequence. Three different scenarios are considered, as labelled, with the black arrows representing evolution through wet mergers and quenching, and white arrows symbolising stellar mass growth through dry mergers (adapted from Faber et al., 2007) However, such studies are complicated by the fact that the underlying stellar populations span a wide range o… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Correlation between black hole mass and velocity dispersion in local galaxies, from direct measurements of the SMBH mass (from Heckman & Best, 2014). II.4 Galaxy growth through mergers One of the main methods by which galaxies form is through the merger process, whereby separate galaxies combine together to form a new system. Merging is a significant channel of galaxy formation, and needs to be measured with high … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Redshift evolution of the merger rate, R(z), as measured by Mundy et al. (2017). The observational constraints, shown as points with different symbols, are in stark contrast with respect to state-of-the-art predictions from the Illustris numerical simulations of galaxy…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mechanism proposed by Barro et al. (2013) to explain the size evolution of massive galaxies. The grey contour shows the galaxy distribution at low redshift. Two main growth channels are proposed, involving a mixture of processes such as merging, star formation quenchi…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The stellar age of galaxies less massive than 1010M h −2 is shown as a function of infall time. Galaxies are colour-coded regarding halo mass: red circles, orange squares and yellow triangles identify galaxies in clusters, rich groups and low-mass groups, respectively.…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Measures of the neutrality 1 − QHII of the intergalactic medium as a function of redshift. Shown are the observational constraints, along with model predictions of the evolving IGM neutral fraction (in red). The bottom panel shows the IGM neutral fraction near the e…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The geometry of the epoch of reionization, as illustrated by a slice through a (165 Mpc)3 simulation volume at z=9. Shown are the density (green/yellow), ionized fraction (red/orange), and ionizing sources (dark dots) (Iliev et al., 2012). The necessity of a deep, ne…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: shows the sensitivity of three beyond-Euclid cosmological models to small-scale information. The deep redshift range would also constrain early-dark energy models, complementing the Euclid cosmology objectives using techniques such as those used by Mandelbaum et al. (…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Stellar mass of a range of stellar populations with respect to redshift, with apparent magnitude H=24AB and H=26AB (from the synthetic models of Bruzual & Charlot, 2003, for a Chabrier IMF, at solar metallicity). The shaded regions extend from old stellar populations …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The red lines are model predictions from (Bruzual & Charlot, 2003) for two age-sensitive (left) and two metallicity sensitive (right) line strengths for a galaxy with velocity dispersion σ =200 km s−1 , as a function of age and metallicity, respectively (the bottom …

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Left: Photomicrograph of tilted DMD micromirrors. The neighbouring mirrors have been removed to reveal the substructure (courtesy ASME/Texas Instruments). Right: General specifications of the proposed survey. 3. Liquid Crystal Masks: Liquid crystal (LC) masks are wide…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: As seen above, the PIMMS concept has been demonstrated at the telescope (Cvetojevic et al., 2012), on a balloon (2012) and onboard the Inspire cubesat (2017-8) flown by the University of Sydney (Cairns et al., 2019). 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

R., et al., 2006, MNRAS 371, 380

Allingon-Smith, J. R., et al., 2006, MNRAS 371, 380

2006
[2]

Amendola, L., et al., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 023501

2013
[3]

Balogh, M.L., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2303

2011
[4]

Baldi, M., et al.., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 75

2014
[5]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., Terlevich, R., 1981, PASP , 93, 5 Barro G., et al., 2013, ApJ, 765, 104

1981
[6]

Becker, R., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2850

2001
[7]

S., Conroy, C., Wechsler, R

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

2010
[8]

W., et al., 2008, Pro‘c

Beletic, J. W., et al., 2008, Pro‘c. SPIE, Vol 7021, 70210H

2008

Show all 135 references

[9]

F., et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 752

Bell, E. F., et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 752

2004
[10]

M., et al., 2014, Proc

Birkmann, S. M., et al., 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9143, 08

2014
[11]

& Horton, A

Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Horton, A. J., 2006, SPIE, 6269, 10.1117/12.670931

2006 doi
[12]

, 2010, 7735, 10.1117/12.856347

Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. , 2010, 7735, 10.1117/12.856347

2010 doi
[13]

Bluck, A., et al., 2012, ApJ, 747, 34

2012
[14]

Bouwens, R., et al., 2010, ApJ, 709, 133

2010
[15]

Bowler, R.A.A., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2772

2012
[16]

Bruzual, G., Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

2003
[17]

Burkert, A., et al., 2016, ApJ, 826, 214

2016
[18]

H., et al., 2019, Space Science Reviews, sub- mitted

Cairns, I. H., et al., 2019, Space Science Reviews, sub- mitted

2019
[19]

Capak, P .,et al., 2015, Nature, 522, 455

2015
[20]

2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

Cappellari, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

2011
[21]

Ceverino, D, et al., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2151

2010
[22]

Cimatti, A., et al.., 2004, Nature, 430, 184

2004
[23]

et al., 2009, Exp

Cimatti, A. et al., 2009, Exp. Astron., 23, 39

2009
[24]

et al., 2018, Messenger, 145, 11

Cirasuolo, M. et al., 2018, Messenger, 145, 11

2018
[25]

J., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 962

Conselice, C. J., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 962

2007
[26]

Curtis-Lake, E., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1425

2012
[27]

Cvetojevic, N., et al., 2012, A&A, 544, L1

2012
[28]

Daddi, E., et al., 2005, ApJ, 626, 680

2005
[29]

Dalton, G., 2016, in Skillen, I., Balcells, M., Trager, S., eds, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 507, 97

2016
[30]

S., et al., 2013, AJ, 145, 10

Dawson, K. S., et al., 2013, AJ, 145, 10

2013
[31]

& Silk, J., 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

Dekel, A. & Silk, J., 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

1986
[32]

& Birnboim, Y., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

2006
[33]

2009, Nat., 457, 451 de la Rosa, I

Dekel, A., et al. 2009, Nat., 457, 451 de la Rosa, I. G., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1916 De Lucia, G., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1277 DESI Collaboration, et al., 2016, arXiv:1611.00036

2009 arXiv
[34]

P ,et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971 Driver S

Driver, S. P ,et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971 Driver S. P ., et al., 2019, Messenger, 175, 46

2011
[35]

S., 2013, ASSL, 396, 223

Dunlop, J. S., 2013, ASSL, 396, 223

2013
[36]

M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

Faber, S. M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

2007
[37]

& Kere ˘s, D., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 118

Fan, X., et al., 2006, ARA&A, 44, 415 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Kere ˘s, D., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 118

2006
[38]

Ferguson, A. M. N., et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 1452

2002
[39]

Ferreras, I., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1573

2009
[40]

Ferreras, I., et al., 2012, AJ, 144, 47

2012
[41]

Ferreras, I., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, L15

2013
[42]

Ferreras, I., et al., 2013, arXiv:1306.6333

2013 arXiv
[43]

Ferreras, I., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 906

2014
[44]

Fontana, A., et al., 2006, A&A, 459, 745

2006
[45]

Gallazzi, A., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

2005
[46]

Genzel, R., et al., 2014, ApJ 796, 7

2014
[47]

B., et al., 2018, JATIS, 4, 026001

Giallongo, E., et al., 2015, A&A, 578, 83 Goebel S. B., et al., 2018, JATIS, 4, 026001

2015
[48]

Guzzo, L., et al., 2014, A&A, 566, 108

2014
[49]

M., Best, P

Heckman, T. M., Best, P . N., 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589

2014
[50]

M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 809, 147

Heckman, T. M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 809, 147

2015
[51]

Hopkins, A. M. & Beacom, J. F., 2006, ApJ, 651, 142

2006
[52]

Hopkins, A., 2018, PASA, 35, 39

2018
[53]

Ilbert, O., et al., 2010, ApJ, 709, 644

2010
[54]

T., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2222 Ivezi´ c,˘Z., Beers, T

Iliev, I. T., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2222 Ivezi´ c,˘Z., Beers, T. C., Juri´ c, M., 2012, ARA&A, 50, 251 Jiménez, R., et al., 2010, JCAP , 05, 035

2012
[55]

G., et al., 2016, ApJ, 826, L11

Kacprzak, G. G., et al., 2016, ApJ, 826, L11

2016
[56]

Kauffmann, G., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 487

1996
[57]

Kauffmann, G., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54

2003
[58]

Khochfar, S., & Silk, J., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 506

2009
[59]

Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C., 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

2013
[60]

Laureijs, R., et al., 2011, Euclid Deﬁnition Study Re- port, arXiv:1110.3193 Le Fèvre, O., et al., 2005, A&A, 439, 845

2011 arXiv
[61]

Leon-Saval, S., Birks, T. A. & Bland-Hawthorn, J., 21 CHRONOS – ESA Voyage 2050 proposal 2005, Opt Lett, 30, 2545 Li, et al., 2007, Proc. SPIE, 6687, 668709

2005
[62]

J., et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 70

Lilly, S. J., et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 70

2007
[63]

SPIE, 7100, 12

Lobb, D., et al., 2008, Proc. SPIE, 7100, 12

2008
[64]

K., et al., 2016, arXiv:1608.03892 López-Sanjuan, C., et al., 2011, A&A, 548, 7

Lofthouse, E. K., et al., 2016, arXiv:1608.03892 López-Sanjuan, C., et al., 2011, A&A, 548, 7

2016 arXiv
[65]

J.,et al.., 2004, ApJ, 614, L9

McCarthy, P . J.,et al.., 2004, ApJ, 614, L9

2004
[66]

W., et al., 2016, arXiv:1606.00060

McConnachie, A. W., et al., 2016, arXiv:1606.00060

2016 arXiv
[67]

McGee, S., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 996

2011
[68]

J., et al

McLure, R. J., et al. , 2013, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:1212.5222)

2013 arXiv
[69]

McQuinn, M., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 75 Madau P ., Dickinson M., 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

2007
[70]

& Haardt, F., 2015, ApJ, 813, L8

Madau, P . & Haardt, F., 2015, ApJ, 813, L8

2015
[71]

C., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 173, 342

Martin, D. C., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 173, 342

2007
[72]

Marshall, J., et al., 2019, arXiv:1907.07192

2019 arXiv
[73]

J., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3507 Silk J., Mamon G

Mundy, C. J., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3507 Silk J., Mamon G. A., 2012, RAA, 12, 917

2017
[74]

Mandelbaum, R., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1518

2012
[75]

Markovic, K., et al., 2011, JCAP , 01, 022

2011
[76]

C, et al., 2016, arXiv:1606.05350

Marsan, Z. C, et al., 2016, arXiv:1606.05350

2016 arXiv
[77]

Mortlock, A., et al., 2011, Nature, 474, 616

2011
[78]

Muzzin, A., et al., 2012, ApJ, 746, 188

2012
[79]

Muzzin, A., et al., 2013, ApJ, 777, 18

2013
[80]

Naab, T., et al., 2009, ApJ, 699, L178

2009
[81]

Nakamura, E., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2579

2011
[82]

SPIE Vol

Nelms, N., et al., 2016, Proc. SPIE Vol. 9915, 991502

2016
[83]

Ocvirk, P .,et al., 2006, MNRAS; 365, 46

2006
[84]

Ono, Y., et al., 2010, ApJ, 724, 1524

2010
[85]

SPIE, 8446, 5RP

Ouchi, M., et al., 2010, ApJ, 723, 869 Ownsworth, et al., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2198 Pares et al., 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8446, 5RP

2010
[86]

Pasquali, A., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 38

2009
[87]

Pasquali, A., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 937

2010
[88]

Pasquali, A., 2015, AN, 336, 505

2015
[89]

G.,et al., 2008, ApJ, 675, 234 Planck collaboration, et al., 2015, arXiv:1502.01589

Pasquali, A., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1702 Pérez-González, P . G.,et al., 2008, ApJ, 675, 234 Planck collaboration, et al., 2015, arXiv:1502.01589

2019 arXiv
[90]

M., et al., 2006, ApJ, 642, 188

Poggianti, B. M., et al., 2006, ApJ, 642, 188

2006
[91]

M., et al., 2013, ApJ, 762, 77

Poggianti, B. M., et al., 2013, ApJ, 762, 77

2013
[92]

J., Ostriker, J

Rees, M. J., Ostriker, J. P ., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 541

1977
[93]

E., et al.,2003, AJ, 125, 1006

Rhoads, J. E., et al.,2003, AJ, 125, 1006

2003
[94]

T., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 2766

Richards, G. T., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 2766

2006
[95]

Rieke, M., et al., 2019, BAAS, 51, 45

2019
[96]

G & Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2012, SPIE, 8446, 10.1117/12.924937

Robertson, J. G & Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2012, SPIE, 8446, 10.1117/12.924937

2012 doi
[97]

E., et al., 2015, ApJ, 802, 19

Robertson, B. E., et al., 2015, ApJ, 802, 19

2015
[98]

Robotham, A. S. G., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2640

2011
[99]

Ryan, R. E. Jr., et al., 2008,ApJ, 678, 751

2008
[100]

P .,et al., 2016, ApJ, 818, 47

Saglia, R. P .,et al., 2016, ApJ, 818, 47

2016
[101]

Schawinski, K., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

2007
[102]

Schawinski, K., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889

2014
[103]

Schenker, M., et al., 2012, ApJ, 744, 179

2012
[104]

Silk, J., Rees, M., 1998, A&A, 331, 1

1998
[105]

SPIE Vol

Smith, R., et al., 2019, ApJ, 876, 145 Spanoudakis et al., 2007, Proc. SPIE Vol. 7018, 70180I

2019
[106]

Spergel, D., et al., 2015, WFIRST-AFTA SDT report, arXiv:1503.03757

2015 arXiv
[107]

Stark, D., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1628

2010
[108]

Sullivan, P . W. & Simcoe, R. A., 2012, PASP , 124, 1336

2012
[109]

Takada, M., et al., 2014, PASJ, 66, 1

2014
[110]

Tasca, L. A. M., et al., 2014, A&A, 565, 10

2014
[111]

Tasca, L. A. M., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, 54

2015
[112]

N., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2144

Taylor, E. N., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2144

2015
[113]

Thomas, D., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 621, 673

2005
[114]

C., et al., 2000, AJ, 119, 1645

Trager, S. C., et al., 2000, AJ, 119, 1645

2000
[115]

1995, PASP , 107, 1133

Trimble, V . 1995, PASP , 107, 1133

1995
[116]

Trujillo, I., et al., 2006, ApJ, 650, 18

2006
[117]

G., 2011, MN- RAS, 415, 3903 van Daalen, M

Trujillo, I., Ferreras, I., de la Rosa, I. G., 2011, MN- RAS, 415, 3903 van Daalen, M. P .,et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649 van den Bosch, F.C., Pasquali, A., et al. , 2008, arXiv:0805.0002 van der Wel, A., et al., 2016, ApJS, 223, 29V

2011 arXiv
[118]

Vanzella, E., et al., 2011, ApJ, 730, L35

2011
[119]

Vazdekis, A., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 157

2012
[120]

Vazdekis, A., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1177

2015
[121]

Vogelsberger, M., et al.2014, MNRAS, 444, 1518

2014
[122]

Vulcani, B., et al., 2010, ApJ, 710, L1

2010
[123]

Weinmann, S.M., van den Bosch, F.C., Yang, X., Mo, H.J., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2

2006
[124]

Wetzel, A.R., Tinker, J.L., Conroy, C., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232 22 CHRONOS – ESA Voyage 2050 proposal

2012
[125]

Wetzel, A.R., Tinker, J.L., Conroy, C., van den Bosch, F.C., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

2013
[126]

Wild, V .,et al., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 44

2009
[127]

Wilman, D.J., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 71

2005
[128]

Wisnioski, E., et al., 2015, ApJ, 799, 209 Wurtz & Stocke, 1992, PASP 104, 931

2015
[129]

Wuyts, S., et al., 2016, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1603.03432

2016 arXiv
[130]

Yajima, H., et al., 2015, ApJ, 801, 52

2015
[131]

Yang, X., et al., 2007, ApJ, 671, 153

2007
[132]

G., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

York, D. G., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

2000
[133]

Zamkotsian, F. et al. , 2011, Proc. SPIE Vol. 7932, 79320A

2011
[134]

et al., 2017, SPIE1, 10562, 105620X

Zamkotsian, F. et al., 2017, SPIE1, 10562, 105620X

2017
[135]

Zhao, G.-B., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2038 23

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

R., et al., 2006, MNRAS 371, 380

Allingon-Smith, J. R., et al., 2006, MNRAS 371, 380

2006

[2] [2]

Amendola, L., et al., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 023501

2013

[3] [3]

Balogh, M.L., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2303

2011

[4] [4]

Baldi, M., et al.., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 75

2014

[5] [5]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., Terlevich, R., 1981, PASP , 93, 5 Barro G., et al., 2013, ApJ, 765, 104

1981

[6] [6]

Becker, R., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2850

2001

[7] [7]

S., Conroy, C., Wechsler, R

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

2010

[8] [8]

W., et al., 2008, Pro‘c

Beletic, J. W., et al., 2008, Pro‘c. SPIE, Vol 7021, 70210H

2008