Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Deep Swift/UVOT Observations of GOODS-N and the Evolution of the Ultraviolet Luminosity Function at 0.2<z<1.2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep Swift/UVOT imaging of GOODS-N traces the ultraviolet luminosity function and star formation rate density from z=0.2 to z=1.2, finding the characteristic UV luminosity brightens by about 1.2 magnitudes with no strong trend in UV…

desk verdict New UVOT catalog and LF in GOODS-N, but the faint-end alpha constraints in the lowest bins rest on a point-source completeness assumption the paper's own test weakens. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14377 v1 pith:ZVYRAEGR submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.GA

Alexander Belles , Caryl Gronwall , Michael H. Siegel , Robin Ciardullo , Mat J. Page This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyevolutionultravioletluminosityfunctionSwift/UVOTGOODS-NstarformationratedensityUVspectralslopeSchechterdustattenuation
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 roughly 80 kiloseconds of Swift/UVOT imaging in four near-UV bands, this paper builds a 1011-galaxy catalog of the GOODS-N field and uses it to measure how the ultraviolet luminosity function evolves between z=0.2 and z=1.2. It reports that the characteristic UV luminosity M* brightens by about 1.2 magnitudes over this range, and that the faint-end slope can be constrained for the first time with UVOT data, finding $\alpha$ around -1.3 to -1.4 in the two lowest redshift bins. From the fitted luminosity functions it derives a star formation rate density that rises as (1+z)^3, consistent with earlier GALEX and HST results. It also finds that the UV spectral slope $\beta$ shows no strong trend with redshift or absolute magnitude at these redshifts, only large galaxy-to-galaxy scatter. The paper matters because it occupies the middle ground between shallow wide GALEX surveys and deep narrow HST fields, providing UV constraints in a redshift range where rest-frame UV data are scarce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Schechter luminosity function, $\phi(M)\,dM = 0.4\ln(10)\,\phi^*\,[10^{0.4(M^*-M)}]^{\alpha+1}\exp(-10^{0.4(M^*-M)})\,dM$, fitted two ways: a binned Vmax estimator with Fleming completeness curves, and an unbinned maximum-likelihood estimator whose likelihood, derived from Poisson statistics, is integrated over the survey volume with a 50%-completeness luminosity limit. Completeness curves come from injecting Gaussian point sources with the UVOT PSF into the mosaics and re-running the detection pipeline; this is the step that lets the faint end be corrected. For redshift-dependent K-corrections the paper fits a linear function of redshift to per-galaxy corrections, and for the dust-corrected star formation rate density it applies the Meurer IRX-$\beta$ relation to median $\beta$ values per bin.

What would settle it

Re-run the completeness simulation in the 0.2<z<0.4 bin injecting artificial galaxies with Sersic profiles and half-light radii drawn from the Yang et al. catalog instead of PSF Gaussians, then refit the luminosity function; if the 50% completeness magnitude shifts by the roughly 0.8 mag seen in the paper's own 2x-PSF UVM2 test, the reported free-fit alpha of -1.31 would flatten and the local UV luminosity density would drop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that deep, repeated Swift/UVOT observations can measure the UV luminosity function and its evolution at 0.2<z<1.2 with enough depth to constrain all three Schechter parameters in the lower-redshift bins. Specifically, M* evolves from about -18.0 at z~0.3 to -19.2 at z~1 (with $\alpha$ fixed to GALEX values), in agreement with previous work; with $\alpha$ free, the faint-end slope is approximately -1.31 and -1.40 in the 0.2-0.4 and 0.4-0.6 bins. The observed UV luminosity density grows as (1+z)^{3.04+/-1.38}, and the dust-corrected star formation rate density agrees with prior measurements once the Meurer IRX-$\beta$ correction is applied. The paper also claims that the UV spectral slope $\beta$, measured from the four UVOT bands, is roughly constant in the median, with no significant dependence on redshift or absolute magnitude, because galaxy-to-galaxy scatter dominates any trend.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness corrections treat all detected galaxies as Gaussian point sources with the UVOT PSF width; if many galaxies in the lowest redshift bin are actually extended, the correction overestimates how many faint galaxies are detected, which would bias the faint-end slope and normalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The UV luminosity density evolves as (1+z)^3 over 0.2<z<1.2, matching the rise seen by GALEX and putting the local star formation rate density anchor on firmer footing.
  • Because alpha is now constrained in the two lowest redshift bins rather than fixed, the integrated luminosity density there depends less on an assumed faint-end slope, tightening the local SFRD measurement.
  • The absence of a beta-MUV or beta-z trend implies that dust corrections based on a single IRX-beta law applied globally will misestimate individual galaxy SFRs; scatter, not slope, is the dominant uncertainty at z<1.2.
  • The catalog of 1011 UV-selected galaxies with UVOT colors and Yang et al. photometric and spectroscopic redshifts provides a reference sample for SED fitting and for comparisons with deeper HST UV imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the authors leave implicit is to repeat the completeness simulation using Sersic profiles matched to the Yang et al. half-light radii in the lowest redshift bin; their own 2x-PSF test suggests the 50% limit would drop by about 0.8 mag, which would flatten the fitted alpha and lower the local UV luminosity density.
  • If dust attenuation is applied per galaxy before fitting the LF, as the paper notes is possible, the effect would land mainly on L* and could flatten alpha because UV-faint galaxies may be heavily obscured, thereby reducing the corrected SFRD normalization.
  • The large beta scatter suggests that combining UVOT photometry with the IR data already available in GOODS-N could separate attenuation-curve shape from stellar population age, a step that would connect this low-z sample to the IRX-beta relations used at z~2 and above.
  • A combined multi-field analysis using CDF-S, GOODS-N, and COSMOS OM or UVIT data could reduce cosmic variance and decide whether the roughly 0.5 mag discrepancy in M* between UVOT samples is a selection effect or real field-to-field variation.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Swift/UVOT observations of GOODS-N in four near-UV filters, a catalog of 1011 extragalactic sources after cross-matching with Yang et al. (2014), UV galaxy number counts, and a Schechter-function analysis of the UV luminosity function in four redshift bins over 0.2<z<1.2. The authors fit the LF with both a Vmax method and an MLE approach, derive star formation rate densities from the fitted LFs, and examine the UV spectral slope beta as a function of redshift and absolute magnitude. The main quantitative claims are that M* brightens by roughly 1.2 mag from z~0.3 to z~1, that the faint-end slope alpha can be constrained in the two lowest redshift bins, and that the derived SFRD evolution is consistent with previous measurements.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a useful dataset that sits between the wide, shallow GALEX surveys and the deep, narrow HST fields: four-filter UVOT photometry of GOODS-N with a machine-readable catalog, explicit completeness simulations, and both binned and unbinned LF fitting. The analysis is transparent about many limitations, including the faint-end turn-down, cosmic variance, and the uncertainty in dust corrections. However, the new faint-end slope constraints and the M* evolution claim are conditional on a point-source completeness assumption that the paper's own tests show is questionable at the faint end, and cosmic variance is not included in the quoted uncertainties. These issues need to be addressed before the central evolutionary claims can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3.2, Table 3] The point-source assumption used to build the completeness corrections is load-bearing for the new faint-end slope constraints. The paper's own extended-source test in §3.1 shifts the 50% completeness limit by about 0.8 mag in UVM2 at twice the PSF FWHM, and the median Kron radius of real sources (5.5 arcsec) lies between the point-source (4.5 arcsec) and extended-source (7.5 arcsec) values. In the lowest redshift bin, where angular sizes are largest, the text admits that completeness may be overestimated at the faint end. Because the correction factor 1/C enters the Vmax estimator directly and sets Lmin(z) in the MLE, overestimated completeness lowers the corrected faint-end number densities, which flattens alpha and explains the turn-down in the faintest bins of Figure 7. The alpha values quoted for the 0.2<z<0.4 and 0.4<z<0.6 bins in Table 3 are therefore not robust, and the alpha-M* degeneracy means the M* evolution claim could shift as well. Please quantify this systematic by repeating the fits with extended-source completeness curves, or by restricting the sample to magnitudes where the point-source and extended-source completeness agree.
  2. [§3.1, Table 3, §3.5] Cosmic variance is estimated in §3.1 to be roughly twice the Poisson error, but it is not included in any of the quoted uncertainties. This matters because GOODS-N contains known overdensities at z~0.5 and z~0.9 (§3.2), and because Table 3, Figure 3, and Figure 8 present Poisson or MCMC errors as the final uncertainties. The Schechter parameters and the luminosity-density evolution index n=3.04±1.38 therefore have underestimated error bars. Please add a cosmic-variance term (for example, a density-floor systematic) to the reported uncertainties, or clearly tabulate Poisson and cosmic-variance contributions separately.
  3. [Table 3, §4.1.2] The evidence for M* evolution in Conclusion 1 is partly derived from fits in the two highest redshift bins where alpha is fixed to the Arnouts et al. (2005) values (Table 3). Because alpha and M* are degenerate in the Schechter function, a different but equally plausible alpha in the 0.6<z<0.8 or 0.8<z<1.2 bins would change M* and could alter the claimed brightening. The free-alpha fits are available only in the two lowest bins, so the evolution claim is conditional on external alpha priors. Please show robustness by marginalizing over alpha with a literature-based prior, fitting alpha freely with upper and lower limits in all bins, or demonstrating that M* shifts by less than the quoted errors over the range of alpha values in the literature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Table 2] The text and Figure 3 say the number counts are shown down to the 50% completeness limit, but Table 2 includes bins with completeness values as low as 0.246; please clarify which bins enter the LF fitting and whether the sub-50% points are used only for illustration.
  2. [§3.4] The luminosity-density equation integrates from 0 to infinity, while the text immediately says a lower limit of 0.03 L* is adopted; state explicitly that the tabulated values use the incomplete gamma function with this lower limit.
  3. [§3.3.2, Figure 5] The linear K-correction fit shown in Figure 5 is described only qualitatively; please provide the fitted slope and intercept so that the MLE calculation is reproducible.
  4. [§4.3, Abstract] The abstract and Section 4.3 conclude there is no trend between UV attenuation and redshift or absolute magnitude, but the paper measures the UV slope beta and then infers attenuation via the Meurer relation; the wording should distinguish the measured quantity from the inferred attenuation.
  5. [Table 3, Figure 7] It would help to state explicitly that the full-sample Vmax and MLE alpha values differ by about 0.18 (alpha=-1.086 vs -1.267), and to note in the Figure 7 caption that the shaded region uses only the M* and phi* errors with alpha fixed, not the full covariance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LF parameters are fitted to observed counts, and the luminosity density/SFRD are explicitly derived from those fits rather than presented as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational and self-contained. Completeness is measured by injecting artificial point sources and fitting a Fleming curve (Eq. 1); the Vmax estimator (Eq. 3) and the MLE likelihood (Eq. 4) use this independently measured completeness together with the K-correction regression shown in Figure 5. The Schechter parameters are fitted to the observed magnitudes and redshifts, and the luminosity density and SFRD are explicitly post-fit integrals (Section 3.4), not disguised predictions. The paper is transparent about fixing alpha to Arnouts et al. (2005) in some bins and reports free-alpha fits for the two bins where alpha is constrained. The point-source completeness assumption is supported by an external empirical result (Page et al. 2021) and by the paper's own Kron-radius test; the authors also flag the residual risk of overestimated faint-end completeness in the lowest redshift bin (Sections 3.1 and 3.3.2), which is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. No equation reduces to its input by construction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are standard Schechter function parameters, completeness-curve parameters, and a K-correction linear fit, all fitted to the data. The main domain assumptions are the point-source completeness approximation and the use of external photometric redshifts and dust corrections.

free parameters (8)
  • Schechter M* (full sample MLE) = -19.04 ± 0.11 AB mag
    Characteristic magnitude fitted to the UV LF of the full sample via MLE; Table 3.
  • Schechter phi* (full sample MLE) = 3.21 ± 0.48 x 10^-3 Mpc^-3
    Normalization fitted alongside M*; Table 3.
  • Schechter alpha (full sample MLE) = -1.267 ± 0.071
    Faint-end slope fitted for full sample; Table 3.
  • M* per redshift bin (fixed-alpha fits) = -18.00 ± 0.17, -18.81 ± 0.14, -19.37 ± 0.18, -19.23 ± 0.14
    Fitted in each bin with alpha fixed to Arnouts et al. (2005); Table 3.
  • phi* per redshift bin (fixed-alpha fits) = 4.29, 4.23, 2.13, 3.26 x 10^-3 Mpc^-3
    Fitted normalization per bin; Table 3.
  • alpha in lowest two bins (free) = -1.31 ± 0.20 and -1.40 ± 0.23
    Fitted faint-end slope where constrained; Table 3.
  • Completeness f50 per band = 24.7, 24.66, 24.25, 23.85 AB mag (UVW2, UVM2, UVW1, u)
    50% completeness flux fitted to Fleming function from injection simulations; Section 3.1, Figure 2.
  • K-correction linear fit parameters = Not tabulated; shown as linear regression in Figure 5
    Linear fit of K-correction versus redshift used to compute absolute magnitudes; Section 3.3.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Galaxies are point sources with Gaussian profile of FWHM equal to UVOT PSF for completeness simulations
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive completeness corrections; may overestimate completeness for extended low-redshift galaxies.
  • domain assumption UVM2 apparent magnitude traces rest-frame FUV after K-correction
    Used to construct UV LF; assumes kcorrect-derived K-corrections are accurate.
  • standard math The Schechter function describes the UV luminosity function
    Adopted functional form (Equation 2).
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from Yang et al. (2014) are accurate with Qz<1
    Used for luminosity distances and K-corrections; NMAD 0.026 for non-X-ray sources at z<1.
  • domain assumption Meurer et al. (1999) IRX-beta relation applies to these galaxies
    Used to correct SFRD for dust attenuation; paper discusses alternate relations and scatter.
  • ad hoc to paper Alpha values from Arnouts et al. (2005) are valid for higher redshift bins
    Fixed alpha in two highest bins from external work because free fits were unconstrained; affects derived luminosity density.
  • ad hoc to paper Luminosity density integrated down to 0.03 L*
    Adopted lower integration limit to avoid divergence of the Schechter integral; Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Swift/UVOT Observations of GOODS-N and the Evolution of the Ultraviolet Luminosity Function at 0.2<z<1.2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVYRAEGR

@misc{pith2026241214377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Swift/UVOT Observations of GOODS-N and the Evolution of the Ultraviolet Luminosity Function at 0.2<z<1.2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVYRAEGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14377}
}
abstract

We present Swift Ultraviolet Optical Telescope (UVOT) observations of the deep field GOODS-N in four near-UV filters. A catalog of detected galaxies is reported, which will be used to explore galaxy evolution using ultraviolet emission. Swift/UVOT observations probe galaxies at $z \lesssim 1.5$ and combine a wide field of view with moderate spatial resolution; these data complement the wide-field observations of GALEX and the deep, high angular resolution observations by HST. Using our catalog of detected galaxies, we calculate the UV galaxy number counts as a function of apparent magnitude and compute the UV luminosity function and its evolution with redshift. From the luminosity function fits in various redshift bins, we calculate the star formation rate density as a function of redshift and find evolution consistent with past works. We explore how different assumptions such as dust attenuation corrections can dramatically change how quickly the corrected star formation rate density changes with redshift. At these low redshifts, we find no trend between UV attenuation and redshift or absolute magnitude with significant scatter in the UV spectral slope $\beta$. This dataset will complement the extensive observations of GOODS-N already in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GOODS-N as observed using the Swift/UVOT UVM2 filter. The UVM2 image is shown due to its low background compared to the other filters. The green circle marks the region where we detected the sources presented here. Sources outside this region were excluded due to the lower effective exposure time at the edge of the mosaicked field. were combined into a single mosaic. UVOT has a field of view of 17 arcminutes and poi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Completeness curves for the four UVOT bands. Detectability is a complex function of exposure time, filter transmission curve, surface brightness, and detection algo￾rithm. We artificially inject point sources of known flux into our images and determine if they are recovered by SExtrac￾tor and at what magnitude. This is repeated to build up statistics on the recovery fraction. The completeness curves are show as well… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Galaxy number counts as a function of apparent magnitude using Swift/UVOT down to the 50% complete￾ness limit. We bin our sample in steps of 0.25 mag and calculate the number of galaxies detected per square degree per magnitude and corrected for completeness. The error bars are the Poisson noise associated with each bin (Gehrels 1986). We do not increase the error bars to compensate for the effects of cosmic varianc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the UV number counts here com￾pared to prior works and there is good agreement at the ∼ 10% level. Our values here have larger errors than the Xu et al. (2005) values due to the different survey sizes (266 arcminutes here versus many square degrees in Xu et al. 2…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The K-correction as a function of redshift for galaxies above the 50% completeness threshold. We see that the K-correction shows a slight redshift dependence with scatter. We fit a linear function (blue line), which is a good fit to the running average (red dashed line…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The diagnostic corner plot shows the Schechter function parameter estimates for the entire sample of galaxies across the whole redshift range. This diagnostic plot shows the covariances between the different parameters. However, the one dimensional posteriors are well …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The UV LF in four different redshift bins as determined using UVOT observations of GOODS-N. The black dots are from the Vmax method with errors from bootstrap resampling. The faintest bins are only comprised of a handful of galaxies due to incompleteness. As a result, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the luminosity density in the four dif￾ferent redshift bins as well as lines showing different rates of evolution. We fit a power law and find that the observed luminosity density evolves as (1 + z) 3.04±1.38 with the observed luminosity density log(ρ) = 25.44 ± …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Our observed luminosity density (black stars) as a function of redshift compared to Wyder et al. (2005) (blue), Schiminovich et al. (2005) (yellow), Hagen et al. (2015) (pur￾ple), Sharma et al. (2022b) (green), and Sun et al. (2023) (red). We see good agreement across …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The UV spectral slope β as a function of absolute UV magnitude and redshift. We plot the measured UV slopes of each galaxy used in calculating the LF (black points), the median value in a given bin (blue points), and the 16th and 84th percentiles (blue errorbars). The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56

    Alavi, A., Siana, B., Richard, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/56 2016

  2. [2]

    M., Bauer, F

    Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 539, doi: 10.1086/376473

    doi:10.1086/376473 2003

  3. [3]

    2015, A&A, 574, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425010

    Antonucci, M., Talavera, A., Vagnetti, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425010

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425010 2015

  4. [4]

    2005, ApJL, 619, L43, doi: 10.1086/426733

    Arnouts, S., Schiminovich, D., Ilbert, O., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L43, doi: 10.1086/426733

    doi:10.1086/426733 2005

  5. [5]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Willner, S. P., Fazio, G. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Colla...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/80 2013

  6. [6]

    G., Cava, A., et al

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab23f2 2019

  7. [7]

    R., & Meyer, M

    Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  8. [8]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/98

    Lehmer, B., & Gronwall, C. 2011, ApJ, 739, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/98 2011

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R

    Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R. R. 2017, ApJ, 851, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a43

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.01903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.01903

    Bhattacharya, S., Saha, K., & Mondal, C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.01903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.01903

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    R., & Roweis, S

    Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734, doi: 10.1086/510127

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1928

    Bogdanoska, J., & Burgarella, D. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1928

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Franx, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 936, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/936 20

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    B., van Dokkum, P

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

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Curran, P

    Breeveld, A. A., Curran, P. A., Hoversten, E. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1687, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x

    2010

  10. [18]

    J., Roming, P

    Brown, P. J., Roming, P. W. A., Milne, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1608, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1608

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Calzetti, D. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falc´ on-Barroso & J. H. Knapen, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1208.2997

    2013 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    1994 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Hu, E

    Capak, P., Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 180, doi: 10.1086/380611

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Scoville, N

    Casey, C. M., Scoville, N. Z., Sanders, D. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/95

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Ciardullo, R., Gronwall, C., Adams, J. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/83

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Hogg, D

    Cohen, J. G., Hogg, D. W., Blandford, R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, 29, doi: 10.1086/309096

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz805

    Decleir, M., De Looze, I., Boquien, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz805

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Eddington, A. S. 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359

    1913 doi

  23. [31]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117239

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Papovich, C., Salmon, B., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., Papovich, C., Salmon, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    Fleming, D. E. B., Harris, W. E., Pritchet, C. J., & Hanes, D. A. 1995, AJ, 109, 1044, doi: 10.1086/117340

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/10

    Galametz, A., Grazian, A., Fontana, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/10

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  31. [39]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Hagen, L. M. Z., Hoversten, E. A., Gronwall, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/178

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Gronwall, C., Vanden Berk, D

    Hoversten, E. A., Gronwall, C., Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1462, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1462

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a7

    Hsu, L.-T., Lin, L., Dickinson, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a7

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Magee, D., Oesch, P

    Illingworth, G. D., Magee, D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Wang, W. H. 2010, ApJS, 186, 94, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/94

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  43. [51]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    Kong, X., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., & Fall, S. M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07556.x

    2004

  46. [54]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    1980 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Hutchings, J., et al

    Kumar, A., Ghosh, S. K., Hutchings, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84431N, d...

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    2014, ApJL, 793, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L5 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kurczynski, P., Gawiser, E., Rafelski, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L5 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Treu, T., et al

    Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Treu, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1410, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1410

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 21

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 21

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.05996, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.05996

    Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.05996, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.05996

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000044

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    Mitchell, N. P. 2015, ApJ, 808, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/109

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Heckman, T

    Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64, doi: 10.1086/307523

    1999 doi

  56. [64]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    A., & Jansen, R

    Mondal, C., Saha, K., Windhorst, R. A., & Jansen, R. A. 2023a, ApJ, 946, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc110

    doi

  58. [66]

    2023b, ApJS, 264, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca7c4

    Mondal, C., Saha, K., Bhattacharya, S., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 264, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca7c4

    doi

  59. [67]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa706

    Moutard, T., Sawicki, M., Arnouts, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa706

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    2018a, ApJ, 869, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed25

    Popping, G. 2018a, ApJ, 869, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed25

    doi

  62. [70]

    D., et al

    Narayanan, D., Dav´ e, R., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 474, 1718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2860

    doi

  63. [71]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L150, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L150

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Montes, M., Reddy, N., et al

    Oesch, P. A., Montes, M., Reddy, N., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb30

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    B., & Gunn, J

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

    1983 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Heckman, T

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T. M., Wang, J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 726, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L7

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Dwelly, T., McHardy, I., et al

    Page, M. J., Dwelly, T., McHardy, I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1638

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    S., Breeveld, A

    Poole, T. S., Breeveld, A. A., Page, M. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x

    2008

  69. [77]

    A., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 48, doi: 10.1086/521105

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Oesch, P

    Reddy, N. A., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e7

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, astropy/reproject: v0.10.0, v0.10.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7584411

    Robitaille, T., Ginsburg, A., Mumford, S., et al. 2023, astropy/reproject: v0.10.0, v0.10.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7584411

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  74. [82]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf88a

    Salim, S., & Boquien, M. 2019, ApJ, 872, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf88a

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 212, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0478-0

    Salvato, M., Ilbert, O., & Hoyle, B. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 212, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0478-0

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    1976 doi

  78. [86]

    2005, ApJL, 619, L47, doi: 10.1086/427077

    Schiminovich, D., Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L47, doi: 10.1086/427077

    2005 doi

  79. [87]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  81. [89]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    1968 doi

  82. [90]

    J., & Breeveld, A

    Sharma, M., Page, M. J., & Breeveld, A. A. 2022a, MNRAS, 511, 4882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac356

    doi

  83. [91]

    J., Ferreras, I., & Breeveld, A

    Sharma, M., Page, M. J., Ferreras, I., & Breeveld, A. A. 2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.00215, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.00215

    doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    J., Symeonidis, M., & Ferreras, I

    Sharma, M., Page, M. J., Symeonidis, M., & Ferreras, I. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae135

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e

    Shivaei, I., Reddy, N., Rieke, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    H., Porterfield, B

    Siegel, M. H., Porterfield, B. L., Linevsky, J. S., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/131

    2014 doi

  87. [95]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    W., Yan, L., & Cohen, J

    Smail, I., Hogg, D. W., Yan, L., & Cohen, J. G. 1995, ApJL, 449, L105, doi: 10.1086/309647

    1995 doi

  89. [97]

    S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H

    Somerville, R. S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L171, doi: 10.1086/378628

    2004 doi

  90. [98]

    I., et al

    Sun, L., Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.15664, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.15664

    2023 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    T., Yuan, F.-T., Ikeyama, A., Murata, K

    Takeuchi, T. T., Yuan, F.-T., Ikeyama, A., Murata, K. L., & Inoue, A. K. 2012, ApJ, 755, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/144

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8451

    2017 doi

  93. [101]

    I., Siana, B., Brown, T

    Teplitz, H. I., Siana, B., Brown, T. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 853, doi: 10.1086/505685

    2006 doi

  94. [102]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 767, doi: 10.1086/528674

    Trenti, M., & Stiavelli, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 767, doi: 10.1086/528674

    2008 doi

  95. [103]

    2011, Ap&SS, 331, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    Walcher, J., Groves, B., Budav´ ari, T., & Dale, D. 2011, Ap&SS, 331, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    2011 doi

  96. [104]

    2010, ApJS, 187, 251, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/251

    Ting, H.-C. 2010, ApJS, 187, 251, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/251

    2010 doi

  97. [105]

    I., Sun, L., et al

    Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., Sun, L., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 26, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1f6f 22

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    E., Blacker, B., Dickinson, M., et al

    Williams, R. E., Blacker, B., Dickinson, M., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 1335, doi: 10.1086/118105

    1996 doi

  99. [107]

    K., Treyer, M

    Wyder, T. K., Treyer, M. A., Milliard, B., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L15, doi: 10.1086/424735

    2005 doi

  100. [108]

    K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al

    Xu, C. K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L11, doi: 10.1086/425252

    2005 doi

  101. [109]

    K., Shupe, D., Buat, V., et al

    Xu, C. K., Shupe, D., Buat, V., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 432, doi: 10.1086/516641

    2007 doi

  102. [110]

    Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W

    Xue, Y. Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 15, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/15

    2016 doi

  103. [111]

    Q., Luo, B., et al

    Yang, G., Xue, Y. Q., Luo, B., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 27, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/27

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.