Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 137 references

The COSMOS-Web deep galaxy group catalog up to $z=3.7$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A matched-filter search of the JWST COSMOS-Web field detects 1,678 galaxy group candidates out to z = 3.7, including 316 previously unknown protocluster cores at z ≥ 2.

desk verdict A solid, useful group catalog for COSMOS-Web up to z=3.7, but the headline purity numbers rest on mocks built from the detections themselves, so treat them as upper limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09060 v2 pith:ZJD7V3LS submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Greta Toni , Ghassem Gozaliasl , Matteo Maturi , Lauro Moscardini , Alexis Finoguenov , Gianluca Castignani , Fabrizio Gentile , Kaija Virolainen
show 36 more authors
Caitlin M. Casey Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Hollis B. Akins Natalie Allen Rafael C. Arango-Toro Arif Babul Malte Brinch Nicole E. Drakos Andreas L. Faisst Maximilien Franco Richard E. Griffiths Santosh Harish Günther Hasinger Olivier Ilbert Shuowen Jin Ali Ahmad Khostovan Anton M. Koekemoer Maarit Korpi-Lagg Rebecca L. Larson Jitrapon Lertprasertpong Daizhong Liu Georgios Magdis Richard Massey Henry J. McCracken Jed McKinney Louise Paquereau Jason Rhodes Brant E. Robertson Mark Sargent Marko Shuntov Masayuki Tanaka Sina Taamoli Elmo Tempel Sune Toft Eleni Vardoulaki Lilan Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxies:clusters:generalevolutiongroups:luminosityfunctionmasshigh-redshiftlarge-scalestructureofUniverseAMICO
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

The paper tries to establish that a matched-filter group finder calibrated on low-redshift clusters can be pushed into the protocluster era, yielding the largest ultra-deep group catalog built on JWST observations so far. Applied to the 0.45 deg² COSMOS-Web field, the search returns 1,678 group candidates from z = 0.08 to z = 3.7, including 316 previously unknown high-redshift cores and more than 500 spectroscopically confirmed groups. If the detections are real, the catalog spans about 12 Gyr of cosmic time and gives astronomers a coherent sample of groups, from the lowest-richness systems to assembling protoclusters, to study how environment shapes galaxy evolution.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the AMICO algorithm (Adaptive Matched Identifier of Clustered Objects), a linear optimal matched filter that convolves the galaxy catalog — positions, photometric redshifts, and F150W magnitudes — with an analytic model of the group signal, producing a three-dimensional amplitude map whose peaks are detections. The model combines a truncated Navarro–Frenk–White radial profile with a Schechter luminosity function, with parameters taken from the literature and the characteristic magnitude m* evolved with GALEV for a massive elliptical formed at z_f = 8. AMICO then assigns each galaxy a membership probability, yielding richness and amplitude mass proxies. Purity and completeness are calibrated with SinFoniA, a data-driven mock generator that reshuffles field and member galaxies from the catalog itself, avoiding simulation-based assumptions.

What would settle it

Measure spectroscopic redshifts for the AMICO-selected member galaxies of a sample of the 316 new 2 ≤ z ≤ 3.7 candidates; if the member galaxies' redshifts are not significantly clustered around the detection redshift — for instance, if the line-of-sight velocity dispersion is no smaller than that of random field galaxies — then the high-redshift detections are not physical structures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the AMICO matched filter, previously validated up to z = 2, can be pushed to z = 3.7 on JWST-quality photometry, and that its detections constitute the largest ultra-deep galaxy group catalog on JWST data to date. In the 0.45 deg² effective area of COSMOS-Web they report 1,678 group candidates with S/N_nocl > 6 and λ* > 2, with overall purity about 77% estimated from data-driven mocks. At 2 ≤ z ≤ 3.7, 205 detections are compatible with known protocluster structures while 316 are new candidates; a DBSCAN clustering of the high-z cores recovers 111 Mpc-scale protocluster systems, the largest of which, AmicOne, comprises 14 cores across z ≈ 2.5–3.0. Redshifts are anchored by spectroscopic counterparts: 535 detections have at least three spectroscopic members, with no significant global offset between photometric and spectroscopic group redshifts.

Load-bearing premise

The same radial and luminosity distribution of galaxies used to model low-redshift clusters is assumed to still describe galaxy groups at z>2, where structures are still forming and may not be virialized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalog provides group candidates and member lists across 0.08 ≤ z ≤ 3.7, with members about two magnitudes deeper than the previous AMICO-COSMOS catalog, enabling consistent environmental studies from present-day groups to protocluster cores.
  • Because the S/N_nocl–purity relation is nearly redshift-independent, subsets with desired purity can be selected: about 670 candidates at 90% purity and about 1,400 at 80%.
  • More than half of the catalog (1,075 detections) have at least three spectroscopic members or a high-quality spectroscopic association, with no significant global photo-z bias (mean offset −0.011 in (1+z)), providing a firm anchor for the sample's redshifts.
  • At z ≥ 2, 205 detections coincide with known protocluster structures and 316 are new candidates; 111 Mpc-scale protocluster systems are assembled from clustered detections, one of which (AmicOne) contains 14 cores across z ≈ 2.5–3.0.
  • The catalog's flags (border, mask, AGN, spectroscopic mismatch, low richness) allow users to filter clean subsamples for follow-up studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the low-redshift cluster model remains valid at z>2, the 316 new candidates provide a first systematic census of protocluster cores in JWST data, and their richness distribution can be compared with dark-matter halo assembly to test how mass is distributed in high-z overdensities.
  • Applying the same matched-filter pipeline to hydrodynamical simulations at z>2 would test whether the detected cores correspond to bound, virialized substructures or merely to density peaks along filaments, clarifying the physical meaning of these candidates.
  • The near redshift-independence of the S/N–purity relation suggests the method could be pushed to even higher redshift or to deeper JWST surveys, provided the cluster model is revalidated there.
  • Cross-matching these groups with X-ray or Sunyaev–Zel'dovich data would test whether the richness–mass scaling relations calibrated at z<1.5 persist at z>2, an assumption the catalog does not itself test.
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 a galaxy group catalog constructed from the COSMOS-Web JWST photometric data using the AMICO matched-filter algorithm. The authors detect 1678 groups in the redshift range 0.08 ≤ z ≤ 3.7 over an effective area of 0.45 deg², provide member lists with membership probabilities and a flag system, and estimate purity and completeness via data-driven SinFoniA mocks. They also compile known protoclusters at z ≥ 2, match their detections to literature structures (205 matches), report 316 new high-redshift candidates, and identify 111 potential large-scale protoclusters via DBSCAN clustering, including the 14-core candidate 'AmicOne'.

Significance. If the catalog is reliable, it is a valuable resource for studying galaxy groups and protocluster cores at z > 2, a regime where few deep samples exist. The paper ships a publicly usable catalog with member lists, detection flags, and a two-magnitude deeper input galaxy catalog than the previous AMICO-COSMOS analysis, which are concrete assets. However, the quantitative purity and completeness claims rest on a mock-based validation that is partially circular, and the high-redshift detection model is extrapolated from low-redshift calibrations; these issues must be addressed before the catalog's headline numbers can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The SinFoniA mock-based purity and completeness estimates are not independent of the detection method. The mock 'truth' catalog is built directly from the AMICO output: mock groups are created by drawing members from stacks of AMICO detections using the AMICO membership probability P_i,j, and original detection positions are randomly shuffled by at most 0.25 Mpc/h before AMICO is rerun. A spurious high-z detection caused by a photo-z artifact or chance alignment is therefore reinserted (with slightly perturbed members) into the mock and will be re-detected, so it is scored as a true match. The statement in §4.1 that 'the generated mocks are not based on any model or assumption' is inaccurate: the mocks inherit the AMICO cluster model through the membership probabilities and the low-redshift-calibrated filter. Consequently, the purity curves (Figs. 10–12) and the completeness curves (Fig. 11) cannot independently validate the high-redshift sample; they only demonstrate internal self-consistency of the AMICO pipeline. This is load-bearing for the abstract's '~77% purity' claim and for the S/N-purity cuts proposed in §4.1. The authors should either reframe these results as a self-consistency test, supplement them with an independent truth catalog (e.g., from cosmological simulations or a different cluster finder), or explicitly quantify the impact of the circularity on the stated purity numbers.
  2. [§5.1] The AMICO cluster model used for the detection is calibrated on low-redshift galaxy clusters (NFW profile with concentration from Ragagnin et al. 2021, Schechter luminosity function with faint-end slope from Andreon et al. 2014, and m* from a GALEV model of a massive elliptical formed at zf=8). The paper correctly acknowledges in §5.1 that 'we are relying on our knowledge of how galaxies are distributed in clusters and groups at low redshift, which might not be what we actually see at z>1.5', but this caveat is not propagated into the quantitative claims about the 316 new z≥2 candidates. Since structures at z>2 may not be virialized, the assumed NFW profile and Schechter function may not describe protocluster cores. The impact of this prior is not tested; a simple test would be to rerun the detection with alternative m* evolution models (e.g., the zf=5 no-burst model shown in Fig. 3) or with different concentration prescriptions and examine whether the high-z detections and the purity estimates change substantially. As written, the high-redshift scientific claims rest on an untested extrapolation.
  3. [§4.2, Abstract] The abstract states that 'more than 500 groups have their redshift confirmed by assigning spectroscopic counterparts', but the text in §4.2 defines several nested criteria: 535 detections have at least three members with spec-z, 948 have at least one member with Q>70%, and 1075 have either at least three spectroscopic members or Q>70%. The consistency check is only applied to the latter subset, and the test is a loose 3% offset in (1+z), not a confirmation of physical association for every group. The wording 'confirmed' overstates the evidence; 'supported by' or 'consistent with' would be more precise. The abstract and conclusion should be adjusted to avoid giving the impression that the entire sample is spectroscopically confirmed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The paragraph introducing the mock generation states that the CDF of the group sample is used to extract detections 'using the CDF at their signal-to-noise ratios as the probability to be extracted', but it is unclear whether this probability is applied independently to each detection or normalized to the total number of detections; please clarify the exact sampling procedure.
  2. [§4.3, Table A.1] The table caption says 'Table A' while the body refers to 'Table A.1'; please unify the labeling. Also define the symbol '⊘' and '⋆' used in Table 1 within the table notes.
  3. [§5.2] The paragraph describing the DBSCAN clustering uses a minimum of two members per cluster and a clustering scale of 0.05 deg and 0.02(1+z). Given that the protocluster matching in §5.2 allows radial separations of 1 Mpc/h, the difference between the two scales should be discussed to justify the choice of DBSCAN parameters.
  4. [§2.3] The sentence describing the removal of 'extremely small radius' objects with a threshold of ~0.01 arcsec says this 'divides into two distinct groups the sources in the mF150W–radius plane'; please rephrase to make clear that this is a visual separation rather than an automatic bimodal fit.
  5. [§3] In the description of the model, the paper refers to 'the two main mass-proxies returned by AMICO' but the group catalog also lists amplitude A and lambda and lambda*; please ensure the terminology is consistent throughout (e.g., apparent vs. intrinsic richness).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Purity assessment is circular: SinFoniA builds its 'truth table' from AMICO's own detections and membership probabilities, so the ~77% purity estimate measures self-consistency, not independent validation.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Purity and completeness of the sample with SinFoniA' (mock catalog construction, after Eq. 1)]
    "The idea is to generate mocks based on the input dataset used for the creation of our candidate catalog, which is already divided into field and group galaxies via the association probability returned by AMICO. After this, the AMICO algorithm is applied to the mock galaxy catalog in the same way as was done for the real data, and the list of generated mock groups is used as a 'truth table' to study the resulting group catalog."

    The 'truth table' is not an independent reference: mock groups are built by drawing from the AMICO detections themselves, with member galaxies sampled using the AMICO membership probability P_i,j of Eq. (1) and the field selected using AMICO's field probability F_i. The algorithm is then rerun on this mock and matched to the original detections, with mock positions and redshifts only shuffled by <0.25 Mpc/h and 0.01. Any spurious detection produced by a photo-z artifact or by the low-redshift-calibrated filter is reinserted into the mock and will be re-detected and counted as a true match. Consequently the purity and completeness curves of Figs. 10-12 and the quoted ~77% purity measure AMICO's self-consistency, not the physical reality of the 316 new z>2 candidates.

full rationale

The catalog construction itself is not circular: AMICO is applied to the COSMOS-Web photometric catalog, and external anchors provide genuine independent support — more than 500 groups have spectroscopic redshift confirmation, about 1075 detections have robust spec-z associations with ~80% redshift consistency, and 205 high-z detections match independently published protoclusters or protocluster cores. The circularity is concentrated in the SinFoniA purity estimation, which is the central quality metric used to define the sample cuts (e.g., S/N_nocl~10 for 90% purity, ~7 for 80% purity). Because the mock 'truth' is constructed from the same AMICO detections and membership probabilities that are being validated, the purity numbers are forced by construction and cannot independently validate the high-redshift candidate cores. The circularity is partial rather than total: the detection catalog and the external spec-z and protocluster matches retain independent content, but the headline purity and the associated sample selection thresholds reduce to a self-consistency test. This warrants a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalog depends on a cluster model from low-z literature (NFW + Schechter with parameters from Hennig 2017, Ragagnin 2021, Andreon 2014, GALEV m*), hand-chosen detection thresholds (S/N_nocl>6, lambda*>2), and a photo-z input catalog. The main external checks are spectroscopic counterparts and known protocluster matches. The purity validation is partially self-referential because SinFoniA mocks are built from the detections themselves. No new physical entities are introduced; AmicOne is a named candidate structure, not a new phenomenon.

free parameters (6)
  • S/N_nocl detection threshold = 6.0
    Chosen as lower limit for detection; directly sets sample size and purity.
  • Intrinsic richness cutoff lambda* = >2
    Adopted to reject single/pair systems; affects the catalog.
  • m_star evolution model = z_f=8, exponentially declining burst
    Chosen between two GALEV models to match the magnitude-redshift trend; the other model (z_f=5, no burst) was rejected. This choice sets the matched-filter luminosity model.
  • Magnitude cut m_F150W = 27.3 mag
    Mode of magnitude distribution, defining the input galaxy sample depth.
  • DBSCAN clustering scale = 0.05 deg and 0.02(1+z), min 2 members
    Hand-chosen parameters for grouping high-z detections into protocluster candidates.
  • Matching tolerances for protocluster match = dr=1.0 Mpc/h, dz=0.05(1+z)
    Chosen based on literature, affects which detections are considered matched to known structures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LambdaCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, h=0.7
    Assumed throughout the paper for distances and masses.
  • domain assumption The cluster model (NFW profile and Schechter LF) calibrated at low redshift remains valid up to z=3.7
    The AMICO filter uses this model; the paper acknowledges it may not describe high-z structures (Sect. 5.1).
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from LePhare are accurate to the stated precision and free of large-scale systematic biases at z>2
    The group search uses photo-z as input; catastrophic failures (~10% at faint end) directly affect detection purity.
  • domain assumption SinFoniA mocks built from the AMICO detections themselves are a valid reference for estimating purity and completeness
    The mock 'truth table' is constructed from the same detections, so it inherits algorithm biases; the paper asserts this captures data complexity without model assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The COSMOS-Web deep galaxy group catalog up to $z=3.7$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJD7V3LS

@misc{pith2026250109060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The COSMOS-Web deep galaxy group catalog up to $z=3.7$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJD7V3LS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09060}
}
abstract

Galaxy groups with $M_{tot} \lesssim 10^{14}$ $M_\odot$ and up to a few tens of members are the most common galaxy environment, marking the transition between field and massive clusters. Identifying groups plays a crucial role in understanding structure formation and galaxy evolution. Modern deep surveys allow us to build well-characterized samples of groups up to the regime where structures were taking shape. We aimed to build the largest deep catalog of galaxy groups to date over the COSMOS-Web field effective area of 0.45 deg$^2$, leveraging the deep high quality data of the new COSMOS-Web photometric catalog resulted from the James Webb Space Telescope observations of the COSMOS-Web field. We performed the group search with the AMICO algorithm, a linear matched filter based on an analytical model for the group signal. AMICO has already been tested in wide and deep field surveys, including COSMOS data up to $z=2$. In this work, we tested the algorithm performances at even higher redshift and searched for protocluster cores at $z>2$. We compiled a list of known protoclusters in COSMOS at $2 \leq z \leq 3.7$, matched them with our detections and studied the clustering of the detected cores. We estimated purity and completeness of our sample by creating data-driven mocks with the SinFoniA code and linked signal-to-noise to purity. We detected 1678 groups in the COSMOS-Web field up to $z=3.7$, including lists of members extending nearly two magnitudes deeper than the previous AMICO-COSMOS catalog. 756 groups were detected with purity of 80\%. More than 500 groups have their redshift confirmed by assigning spectroscopic counterparts. This group catalog offers a unique opportunity to explore galaxy evolution in different environments spanning $\sim$12 Gyr and to study groups, from the least rich population to the formation of the most massive clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST rgb (F444W as r, [F150W, F277W] as g, F115W as b) color-composite image of the most massive group in the COSMOS-Web field. The JWST image is overlapped with the X-ray extended emission (pink) from the combined XMM-Newton and Chandra 0.5–2 keV wavelet￾filtered image. flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7, and h = H0 / (100 km/s/Mpc) = 0.7. 2. Data 2.1. Photometric catalog The COSMOS-Web Survey (PIs: J. Kar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution in magnitude (top panel) and redshift up to z = 4 (bottom panel) of the cleaned galaxy catalog used as input for the group search. dimensions, while on the contrary, the inclusion of badly char￾acterized galaxies with uncertain and inaccurate photo-zs can contaminate the sample with spurious detections, for instance, in correspondence with artifacts. For this reason, we addition￾ally kept only the galax… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnitude and redshift of the galaxies of the input catalog (or￾ange density contours) and evolution with redshift of the characteristic magnitude of the luminosity function, m⋆, for two different models with different formation redshifts and star formation burst, as shown in the legend. The model with zf = 8 and past burst is the one used for the model in this work, marked by the solid purple line. This model bette… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Redshift distribution (left panel) and normalized cumulative signal-to-noise distribution (right panel) for all the detections in the COSMOS￾Web group catalog. In orange, we show the richest detections, with λ⋆ > 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intrinsic richness, λ⋆, for the sample of detected groups and its trend with redshift, in three different S/Nnocl bins as indicated in the plot. studies. However, when referring to group galaxies in this pa￾per, we will make use of the membership probability directly r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four examples of detections present in the group catalog, at different redshifts. Circles indicate member galaxies, color-coded with mem￾bership probability and with their redshift printed next to each circle. Purple-to-yellow contours mark the density of galaxies and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of S/Nnocl, in different bins of redshifts (color bar on the right), used to select detections the mocks are based on, instead of using a sharp signal-to-noise cut. of the original detections. Maturi et al. in prep. discuss the ne…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Distribution of matched detections in the redshift scatter, |∆z|/(1+z) - radial separation, ∆r [Mpc/h] plane for an initial matching with maximum separation dz = 0.05(1+z) and dr = 0.5 Mpc/h. Most of the matched detections are concentrated in the rectangula…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative scatter of the three observables (O, i.e., λ, λ⋆ and A, from left to right) between the detected observables, Odet, and the true observables as in the mocks, (Otrue). The scatter is here expressed by ∆O = Odet − Otrue. Different colors mark different redshift …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Completeness of the group sample evaluated against the mock catalog produced with SinFoniA. The two panels show the redshift de￾pendence of completeness referred to two different proxies of mass re￾turned by AMICO: amplitude (top) and intrinsic richness, λ⋆ (bottom) …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relation between minimum S/Nnocl and purity of the sample. In correspondence with some reference values of purity, we report the number of selected detections. ICO algorithm on a hybrid galaxy sample using also the spectro￾scopic redshifts, when available. This applic…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two examples of high-z detections not known in the literature. Stamps are JWST color-composite images, annotations are the same as described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, , 825, 72

    Alberts, S., Pope, A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2016, , 825, 72

    2016

  2. [2]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, , 49, 409

    2011

  3. [3]

    B., Trinchieri, G., et al

    Andreon, S., Newman, A. B., Trinchieri, G., et al. 2014, , 565, A120

    2014

  4. [4]

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

    Arango-Toro , R. C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv.2410.05375

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    2002, , 329, 355

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, , 329, 355

    2002

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., Vecchia, C. D., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 857

    2022

  7. [7]

    L., van der Burg , R

    Balogh, M. L., van der Burg , R. F. J., Muzzin, A., et al. 2021, , 500, 358

    2021

  8. [8]

    P., Nichol, R

    Bamford, S. P., Nichol, R. C., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, , 393, 1324

    2009

Show all 137 references
  1. [9]

    C., Cooper, M

    Baxter, D. C., Cooper, M. C., Balogh, M. L., et al. 2023, , 526, 3716

    2023

  2. [10]

    2011, , 413, 1145

    Bellagamba, F., Maturi, M., Hamana, T., et al. 2011, , 413, 1145

    2011

  3. [11]

    2018, , 473, 5221

    Bellagamba, F., Roncarelli, M., Maturi, M., & Moscardini, L. 2018, , 473, 5221

    2018

  4. [12]

    2022, Astrophys

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2022, Astrophys. Source Code Libr., ascl:2212.018

    2022

  5. [13]

    P., Haines, C

    Bianconi, M., Smith, G. P., Haines, C. P., et al. 2018, , 473, L79

    2018

  6. [14]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

    1996

  7. [15]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, , 118, 517

    2006

  8. [16]

    A., Gonzalez, A

    Brodwin, M., Stanford, S. A., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2013, , 779, 138

    2013

  9. [17]

    & Charlot, S

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

    2003

  10. [18]

    G., Ellis, R

    Capak, P., Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2007 a , , 172, 284

    2007

  11. [19]

    2007 b , , 172, 99

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

    2007

  12. [20]

    2022, 240, 203.02

    Casey, C., Kartaltepe, J., & Cosmos-Web . 2022, 240, 203.02

    2022

  13. [21]

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

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

    2015

  14. [22]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

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

    2023

  15. [23]

    2014, , 792, 114

    Castignani, G., Chiaberge, M., Celotti, A., Norman, C., & De Zotti, G. 2014, , 792, 114

    2014

  16. [24]

    2019, , 623, A48

    Castignani, G., Combes, F., Salom \'e , P., et al. 2019, , 623, A48

    2019

  17. [25]

    2013, , 436, 34

    Catinella, B., Schiminovich, D., Cortese, L., et al. 2013, , 436, 34

    2013

  18. [26]

    E., et al

    Chartab, N., Mobasher, B., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2021, , 908, 120

    2021

  19. [27]

    2014, , 782, L3

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2014, , 782, L3

    2014

  20. [28]

    A., Gebhardt, K., et al

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2015, , 808, 37

    2015

  21. [29]

    2016, , 819, 62

    Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, , 819, 62

    2016

  22. [30]

    2018, Astrophys

    Coupon, J. 2018, Astrophys. Source Code Libr., ascl:1802.002

    2018

  23. [31]

    2018, , 70, S7

    Coupon, J., Czakon, N., Bosch, J., et al. 2018, , 70, S7

    2018

  24. [32]

    C., Zamorani, G., et al

    Cucciati, O., Lemaux, B. C., Zamorani, G., et al. 2018, , 619, A49

    2018

  25. [33]

    C., et al

    Cucciati, O., Zamorani, G., Lemaux, B. C., et al. 2014, , 570, A16

    2014

  26. [34]

    M., Valentino, F., et al

    Daddi, E., Rich, R. M., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, , 926, L21

    2022

  27. [35]

    M., et al

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

    2021

  28. [36]

    2016, , 825, 113

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, , 825, 113

    2016

  29. [37]

    Z., Martin, C., et al

    Darvish, B., Scoville, N. Z., Martin, C., et al. 2020, , 892, 8

    2020

  30. [38]

    2014, , 796, 51

    Darvish, B., Sobral, D., Mobasher, B., et al. 2014, , 796, 51

    2014

  31. [39]

    2017, , 466, 181

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Bonamigo, M., Limousin, M., & Tormen, G. 2017, , 466, 181

    2017

  32. [40]

    J., Knobel, C., et al

    Diener, C., Lilly, S. J., Knobel, C., et al. 2013, , 765, 109

    2013

  33. [41]

    J., Ledoux, C., et al

    Diener, C., Lilly, S. J., Ledoux, C., et al. 2015, , 802, 31

    2015

  34. [42]

    2023, , 945, L28

    Dong, C., Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Horowitz, B., & Momose, R. 2023, , 945, L28

    2023

  35. [43]

    1980, , 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, , 236, 351

    1980

  36. [44]

    H., Balogh, M

    Edward, A. H., Balogh, M. L., Bah \'e , Y. M., et al. 2024, , 527, 8598

    2024

  37. [45]

    R., Baugh, C

    Eke, V. R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., et al. 2004, , 348, 866

    2004

  38. [46]

    1996, A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise , 226--331

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise , 226--331

    1996

  39. [47]

    2019, , 627, A23

    Euclid Collaboration , Adam, R., Vannier, M., et al. 2019, , 627, A23

    2019

  40. [48]

    2007, , 172, 182

    Finoguenov, A., Guzzo, L., Hasinger, G., et al. 2007, , 172, 182

    2007

  41. [49]

    C., Shah, E., et al

    Forrest, B., Lemaux, B. C., Shah, E., et al. 2023, , 526, L56

    2023

  42. [50]

    Franck, J. R. & McGaugh, S. S. 2016, , 833, 15

    2016

  43. [51]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  44. [52]

    2011, , 415, 1549

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., D'Ercole, A., & Melioli, C. 2011, , 415, 1549

    2011

  45. [53]

    E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R

    Geach, J. E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R. C., et al. 2012, , 426, 679

    2012

  46. [54]

    R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al

    George, M. R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al. 2012, , 757, 2

    2012

  47. [55]

    R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al

    George, M. R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al. 2011, , 742, 125

    2011

  48. [56]

    2009, , 703, 982

    Giodini, S., Pierini, D., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2009, , 703, 982

    2009

  49. [57]

    2024, , 690, A315

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Babul, A., et al. 2024, , 690, A315

    2024

  50. [58]

    2019, , 483, 3545

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Tanaka, M., et al. 2019, , 483, 3545

    2019

  51. [59]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, , 176, 1

    1972

  52. [60]

    2018, , 858, 77

    Hasinger , G., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al. 2018, , 858, 77

    2018

  53. [61]

    2007, , 172, 29

    Hasinger, G., Cappelluti, N., Brunner, H., et al. 2007, , 172, 29

    2007

  54. [62]

    Hausman, M. A. & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, , 224, 320

    1978

  55. [63]

    J., Zenteno, A., et al

    Hennig, C., Mohr, J. J., Zenteno, A., et al. 2017, , 467, 4015

    2017

  56. [64]

    C., Cucciati , O., et al

    Hung , D., Lemaux , B. C., Cucciati , O., et al. 2025, , 980, 155

    2025

  57. [65]

    2015, , 579, A2

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc'h, E., et al. 2015, , 579, A2

    2015

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, , 457, 841

    2006

  59. [67]

    2009, , 690, 1236

    Ilbert, O., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2009, , 690, 1236

    2009

  60. [68]

    J., Le F \`e vre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F \`e vre, O., et al. 2013, , 556, A55

    2013

  61. [69]

    2023, , 945, L9

    Ito, K., Tanaka, M., Valentino, F., et al. 2023, , 945, L9

    2023

  62. [70]

    S., Sanders, D

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Sanders, D. B., Le Floc'h, E., et al. 2010, , 721, 98

    2010

  63. [71]

    S., Sanders, D

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Sanders, D. B., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2015, , 806, L35

    2015

  64. [72]

    D., Sanders, D., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Sanders, D., et al. 2019, , 241, 10

    2019

  65. [73]

    A., Kartaltepe , J

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

    2025

  66. [74]

    2025, , 980, 104

    Kiyota , T., Ando , M., Tanaka , M., et al. 2025, , 980, 104

    2025

  67. [75]

    J., Iovino, A., et al

    Knobel, C., Lilly, S. J., Iovino, A., et al. 2012, , 753, 121

    2012

  68. [76]

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

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, , 172, 196

    2007

  69. [77]

    2009, , 396, 462

    Kotulla, R., Fritze, U., Weilbacher, P., & Anders, P. 2009, , 396, 462

    2009

  70. [78]

    Koyama, Y., Polletta, M. d. C., Tanaka, I., et al. 2021, , 503, L1

    2021

  71. [79]

    L., McCarthy, I

    Kukstas, E., Balogh, M. L., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2023, , 518, 4782

    2023

  72. [80]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24

    2016

  73. [81]

    2018, , 474, 5437

    Laigle, C., Pichon, C., Arnouts, S., et al. 2018, , 474, 5437

    2018

  74. [82]

    2011, Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, Euclid Definition Study Report

    2011

  75. [83]

    F., Stark, C., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Hennawi, J. F., Stark, C., et al. 2014, , 795, L12

    2014

  76. [84]

    F., White, M., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Hennawi, J. F., White, M., et al. 2016, , 817, 160

    2016

  77. [85]

    2012, , 545, A104

    Lietzen, H., Tempel, E., Hein \"a m \"a ki, P., et al. 2012, , 545, A104

    2012

  78. [86]

    J., Le Brun, V., Maier, C., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le Brun, V., Maier, C., et al. 2009, , 184, 218

    2009

  79. [87]

    J., Le F \`e vre, O., Renzini, A., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le F \`e vre, O., Renzini, A., et al. 2007, , 172, 70

    2007

  80. [88]

    Lovisari, L., Ettori, S., Gaspari, M., & Giles, P. A. 2021, Universe, 7, 139

    2021

  81. [89]

    J., et al

    Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Cool, R. J., et al. 2006, , 372, 758

    2006

  82. [90]

    2019, , 485, 498

    Maturi, M., Bellagamba, F., Radovich, M., et al. 2019, , 485, 498

    2019

  83. [91]

    Maturi, M., Finoguenov, A., Lopes, P. A. A., et al. 2023, , 678, A145

    2023

  84. [92]

    2005, , 442, 851

    Maturi, M., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Dolag, K., & Moscardini, L. 2005, , 442, 851

    2005

  85. [93]

    G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, , 406, 822

    2010

  86. [94]

    2022, , 926, 37

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2022, , 926, 37

    2022

  87. [95]

    2025, , 978, 17

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2025, , 978, 17

    2025

  88. [96]

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

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

    2012

  89. [97]

    L., Balogh, M

    McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2009, , 400, 937

    2009

  90. [98]

    L., van der Burg , R

    McNab, K., Balogh, M. L., van der Burg , R. F. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 157

    2021

  91. [99]

    2018, 42, E1.16

    Mellier, Y., Racca, G., & Laureijs, R. 2018, 42, E1.16

    2018

  92. [100]

    J., Hudelot, W., et al

    Moneti, A., McCracken, H. J., Hudelot, W., et al. 2023, VizieR Online Data Cat., 2373, II/373

    2023

  93. [101]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10980

    Morishita , T., Liu , Z., Stiavelli , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10980

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    2023, , 947, L24

    Morishita , T., Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., et al. 2023, , 947, L24

    2023

  95. [103]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493

    1997

  96. [104]

    B., Rudie , G

    Newman , A. B., Rudie , G. C., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2022, , 606, 475

    2022

  97. [105]

    S., Gupta, P., & Kumar, H

    Paul, S., John, R. S., Gupta, P., & Kumar, H. 2017, , 471, 2

    2017

  98. [106]

    2021, , 654, A121

    Polletta, M., Soucail, G., Dole, H., et al. 2021, , 654, A121

    2021

  99. [107]

    2021, , 645, A9

    Puddu, E., Radovich, M., Sereno, M., et al. 2021, , 645, A9

    2021

  100. [108]

    2021, , 500, 5056

    Ragagnin, A., Saro, A., Singh, P., & Dolag, K. 2021, , 500, 5056

    2021

  101. [109]

    Reeves, A. M. M., Balogh, M. L., van der Burg , R. F. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 3364

    2021

  102. [110]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, , 135, 028001

    2023

  103. [111]

    M., Mart \'i nez, H

    Salerno, J. M., Mart \'i nez, H. J., & Muriel, H. 2019, , 484, 2

    2019

  104. [112]

    & Conselice, C

    Sarron, F. & Conselice, C. J. 2021, , 506, 2136

    2021

  105. [113]

    2019, , 489, 5202

    Sawicki, M., Arnouts, S., Huang, J., et al. 2019, , 489, 5202

    2019

  106. [114]

    1976, , 203, 297

    Schechter, P. 1976, , 203, 297

    1976

  107. [115]

    2013, , 206, 3

    Scoville, N., Arnouts, S., Aussel, H., et al. 2013, , 206, 3

    2013

  108. [116]

    2007, , 172, 1

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, , 172, 1

    2007

  109. [117]

    S \'e rsic, J. L. 1963, Boletin Asoc. Argent. Astron. Plata Argent., 6, 41

    1963

  110. [118]

    Shimakawa, R., Koyama, Y., R \"o ttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2018, , 481, 5630

    2018

  111. [119]

    2025, , 695, A20

    Shuntov , M., Ilbert , O., Toft , S., et al. 2025, , 695, A20

    2025

  112. [120]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, , 690, A55

    2024

  113. [121]

    D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al. 2015, , 220, 12

    2015

  114. [122]

    2017, , 602, A1

    Smol c i \'c , V., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017, , 602, A1

    2017

  115. [123]

    R., Labb \'e , I., Glazebrook, K., et al

    Spitler, L. R., Labb \'e , I., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2012, , 748, L21

    2012

  116. [124]

    2024, , 977, 263

    Taamoli , S., Nezhad , N., Mobasher , B., et al. 2024, , 977, 263

    2024

  117. [125]

    J., et al

    Tanaka, M., Finoguenov, A., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2012, , 64, 22

    2012

  118. [126]

    Taniguchi, Y., Kajisawa, M., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2015, , 67, 104

    2015

  119. [127]

    2024, , 687, A56

    Toni, G., Maturi, M., Finoguenov, A., Moscardini, L., & Castignani, G. 2024, , 687, A56

    2024

  120. [128]

    Tully, R. B. 1987, , 321, 280

    1987

  121. [129]

    M., Jaff \'e , Y

    Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., Jaff \'e , Y. L., et al. 2018, , 480, 3152

    2018

  122. [130]

    2016, , 828, 56

    Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., et al. 2016, , 828, 56

    2016

  123. [131]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, , 258, 11

    2022

  124. [132]

    J., Balogh, M

    Wilman, D. J., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2005, , 358, 71

    2005

  125. [133]

    H., Sabatke, D., & Telfer, R

    Wright, R. H., Sabatke, D., & Telfer, R. 2022, 12180, 121803P

    2022

  126. [134]

    G., et al

    Yuan, T., Nanayakkara, T., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2014, , 795, L20

    2014

  127. [135]

    E., Pacaud, F., & Reiprich, T

    Zhang, C., Ramos-Ceja , M. E., Pacaud, F., & Reiprich, T. H. 2020, , 642, A17

    2020

  128. [136]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  129. [137]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.