Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 144 references

Distinct origins of environmentally quenched galaxies in the core and outer virialised regions of massive clusters at $0.8<z<1.5$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The quiescent galaxies in massive z~1 galaxy clusters have two distinct origins: early mass-quenching built the core population, while environmental quenching of infalling field galaxies built the outer population.

desk verdict The radial SMF decomposition is a genuinely useful re-analysis, but the headline 'distinct origins' rests on a 2.1 sigma trend from a model the paper's own BIC does not prefer. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06434 v1 pith:E7YJHYUV submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.GA

Guillaume Hewitt , Florian Sarron , Michael L. Balogh , Gregory Rudnick , Yannick Bahé , Devontae C. Baxter , Gianluca Castignani , Pierluigi Cerulo
show 10 more authors
M. C. Cooper Ricardo Demarco Adit H. Edward Rose A. Finn Ben Forrest Adam Muzzin Julie Nantais Benedetta Vulcani Gillian Wilson Dennis Zaritsky
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersquenchingstellarmassfunctionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesGOGREENsurveyGCLASSquenchedfractionSchechter
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 paper asks why quiescent (non-star-forming) galaxies are so much more common inside massive galaxy clusters at 0.8

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is a Bayesian likelihood that fits one Schechter function per galaxy population while letting the low-mass slope $\alpha$ and characteristic mass $M^*$ vary linearly with cluster-centric radius and redshift, through terms such as $\alpha=\alpha_0+\alpha_R\,r'+\alpha_z\,z'+\alpha_{Rz}\,z'r'$ with $r'=R/R_{200}-1$ and $z'=z-z_0$. A projected NFW profile, with a separate concentration parameter for the quiescent and star-forming populations, supplies the radial dependence of the likelihood and fixes how the quenched fraction varies with radius; the quenched fraction itself is parameterised as a function of redshift and cluster velocity dispersion, giving 21 model parameters in total. The interpretive core is a toy model that decomposes the cluster quiescent SMF into a linear combination of the field quiescent SMF (coefficient $A_Q$, representing the early mass-quenching channel) and the field star-forming SMF (coefficient $B_{SF}$, representing mass-independent environmental quenching), and this decomposition is what assigns different origins to core and non-core galaxies.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to rerun the stellar mass function fits with Eddington bias included, using stellar-mass uncertainties measured separately for core and non-core galaxies and for star-forming and quiescent populations; if the ~0.24 dex elevation of the core characteristic mass is absorbed or drops below 2σ significance, the claim that early mass-quenching dominates the core loses its quantitative foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the shape of the quiescent stellar mass function in 0.8<z<1.5 clusters varies with cluster-centric radius while the star-forming mass function does not. Fitting Schechter functions whose slope $\alpha$ and characteristic mass $M^*$ vary smoothly with radius and redshift yields roughly $2\sigma$ evidence for a radial trend in the quiescent population: at the centre the quiescent SMF is similar in shape to the quiescent field but with $M^*$ elevated by about 0.24 dex, while at the cluster edge the quiescent SMF is similar in shape to the star-forming field. The Bayesian Information Criterion rates the addition of a radial term in either $\alpha$ or $M^*$ as moderately significant, though the two are degenerate when added together. The authors interpret this as evidence that the core is populated mainly by galaxies quenched early through a mass-dependent mechanism, while the outer virialised regions are populated by mass-independent environmental quenching of the infalling field population. A toy model that writes the cluster quiescent SMF as a linear combination of the field quiescent and field star-forming SMFs supports the interpretation: the edge is well reproduced with an unenhanced mass-quenching component and $B_{SF}\approx0.39$, while the core requires a strongly enhanced mass-quenching component ($A_Q\gg1$) with up to $B_{SF}\approx0.35$.

Load-bearing premise

The two-origin interpretation rests on the assumption that the measured excess of massive quiescent galaxies in the cluster core is real and not an artefact of stellar-mass measurement errors that differ between the dense core and the outer regions; the paper itself notes that neglecting such errors would weaken the conclusion if the errors are environment-dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier null result from the same sample, which found no difference between cluster and field SMF shapes, is explained as an effect of averaging over the whole cluster; the core/edge split reveals structure the ensemble average hid.
  • The core's quiescent population cannot be produced by direct quenching of the present-day field population: its SMF shape requires a mass-quenching channel that was already enhanced in the protocluster phase, with merger-driven feedback as a plausible accelerating mechanism.
  • Mass-independent environmental quenching, which converts star-forming galaxies into quiescent ones, is consistent with up to roughly 40 per cent of the quiescent population across the cluster, including a comparable contribution within the core itself.
  • The star-forming SMF is invariant with radius and redshift and matches the field, so infalling star-forming galaxies are not measurably reshaped by the cluster environment before they quench.
  • The quenched fraction shows little or no dependence on cluster velocity dispersion and only a weak, insignificant redshift trend, so cluster-to-cluster variation in quenching must be driven by properties the model does not yet include.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic: the radial pattern in quiescent SMF shape is effectively a fossil record of cluster assembly time, so calibrating it against simulations of protocluster accretion histories would let future wide-field surveys read assembly history directly from mass functions.
  • The toy-model coefficients $A_Q$ and $B_{SF}$ are tuned by eye rather than fitted; a full Bayesian fit of the decomposition against the unbinned data, with field-SMF uncertainties propagated, would replace the 'consistent with up to 40 per cent' statement with a measured posterior on the environmental-quenching fraction.
  • A testable extension: the early mass-quenching interpretation predicts that merger remnants or AGN signatures should be more common among massive quiescent galaxies in the core than among their edge counterparts at the same mass and redshift, which deep imaging of these and similar clusters could check.
  • Because the edge result rests mainly on the low-mass slope rather than on the $M^*$ offset, the environmental-quenching channel for the outskirts would likely survive even if the core offset were fully explained by mass-measurement errors; this asymmetry is implicit in the paper but never stated.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyses the stellar mass functions (SMFs) of quiescent and star-forming galaxies in 17 GOGREEN/GCLASS clusters at 0.8<z<1.5. A Bayesian model simultaneously fits Schechter-function parameters alpha and M* that vary linearly with cluster-centric radius and redshift, radial projected NFW profiles for each population, and a quenched-fraction parameterisation that depends on redshift and velocity dispersion. The main findings are that the star-forming SMF shows no radial or redshift dependence, while the quiescent SMF shows about 2-sigma evidence for radial dependence: the cluster core has a quenched fraction of about 70 per cent and a quiescent SMF similar in shape to the quiescent field but with a M* about 0.24 dex higher, whereas the outer virialised regions have a quenched fraction of about 40 per cent and a quiescent SMF similar to the star-forming field. The paper interprets this as the core being dominated by early mass-quenching and the non-core by mass-independent environmental quenching.

Significance. If the result is robust, it provides a spatial separation of quenching channels at z~1 that would reconcile the earlier null SMF-shape result of van der Burg et al. (2020) with local environmental-quenching expectations, and it demonstrates a useful joint modelling approach for cluster SMFs. The paper has concrete strengths: mock-data tests show that the 21-parameter model recovers input parameters, the BIC analysis does support individual radial terms for the quiescent alpha and M* (Delta BIC 3.27 and 5.97), the sample extends an existing survey with a newly characterised cluster, and field comparisons use externally published SMFs rather than being derived circularly from the cluster data. The main liability is that the combined radial model used for the headline 2.1-sigma claim is disfavoured by the paper's own BIC criterion, and the interpretive toy model is not fitted with uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 3, and Figure 12] The central claim of a radial dependence of the quiescent SMF shape is presented through the model 'Base + alpha_R,Q + M*_R,Q' (Figure 12), which yields the 2.1-sigma core-edge separation and the 0.24 dex M* shift, yet Table 3 reports Delta BIC = -0.92 for this model relative to Base and a BIC that is worse than either single-radial-term model (Delta BIC = +3.27 and +5.97). Since the paper itself uses BIC to decide which parameters are informative, the model used for the headline claim is disfavoured by the paper's own criterion. Please either present the radial-dependence evidence with a BIC-supported model (for example Base + M*_R,Q alone), or justify the combined model with a model-selection procedure that accounts for the degeneracy, and report a look-elsewhere-corrected significance across the 17 parameter combinations in Table 3.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (29), and Figure 15] The toy model underpinning the core/edge interpretation is not fitted statistically: the coefficients A_Q and B_SF are selected by eye so that the curves reproduce the observed SMFs, the normalisation is fixed by matching the integral, and no uncertainties are propagated. Consequently the statements that the core is 'well described primarily by early mass-quenching' and the edge 'better described through mass-independent environmental-quenching' are not quantitatively supported by this model. A likelihood fit or an explicit robustness analysis that varies the field SMFs within their uncertainties would be needed to make this interpretation load-bearing.
  3. [Section 5.4] The text acknowledges that Eddington bias is not included and that mass uncertainties could change the fit values of alpha and M*. The 0.24 dex increase in core M* is the key evidence for the early mass-quenching channel, so a quantitative estimate of the Eddington-bias effect on the radial M* gradient is needed; without it the central core/non-core distinction remains vulnerable to the plausible scenario that mass uncertainties correlate with environment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The sentence 'In this paper we fit the SMFs of 170.8< z <1.5 galaxy clusters' contains a typesetting error; it should read '17 galaxy clusters at 0.8<z<1.5'.
  2. [Figure 12 caption] The caption describes the radial model as showing 'a strong dependence with environment', while the body text reports a 2.1-sigma effect; the wording should match the statistical significance claimed.
  3. [Table 3] Adding a column with the number of parameters k for each model would make the BIC comparisons and the penalty term easier to interpret.
  4. [Section 4.3] The text should state explicitly which of the two individually supported radial terms (alpha_R,Q or M*_R,Q) is preferred by the data and how the radial trend differs between those two models, rather than presenting only the combined model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the derived radial SMF trend is a direct fit, and the only self-referential toy model is explicitly calibrated by the fit.

full rationale

No load-bearing circularity was found. The radial SMF dependence is the result of an unbinned Bayesian likelihood fit (Eqs. 11-27) to cluster data, with mock validation in Sec. 3.3. Field comparisons use the external McLeod et al. (2021) SMFs. The quenching-pathway toy model (Eq. 29) explicitly uses fitted quantities and is a consistency check, not a predictive derivation; the 0.24 dex M* shift is supplied by the direct fit, as the paper states. Self-citations to earlier GOGREEN/GCLASS analyses are contextual, not inputs to the fit. The BIC deficit for the combined radial model (Table 3, DeltaBIC = -0.92) is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity: it does not make the measurement equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 24 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central SMF analysis depends on 21 fitted model parameters plus two auxiliary fitted/calibrated numbers (the R200 normalisation A and the toy-model coefficients). The most important free parameters are the radial coefficients alpha_R,Q and M*_R,Q, which carry the core versus non-core distinction. The model also relies on standard Schechter and NFW forms, on UVJ classification, on membership and completeness corrections, and on an explicit neglect of Eddington bias. No new physical entities such as particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (24)
  • alpha_o_Q = -0.65 (+0.29/-0.26)
    Schechter low-mass slope for quiescent population at R=R200, z=1.1; fitted to cluster members.
  • alpha_o_SF = -1.23 (+0.20/-0.20)
    Schechter low-mass slope for star-forming population at R=R200, z=1.1; fitted.
  • alpha_R_Q = -0.33 (+0.42/-0.40)
    Radial coefficient for quiescent alpha; central to the radial dependence claim.
  • alpha_R_SF = -0.05 (+0.33/-0.34)
    Radial coefficient for star-forming alpha; consistent with zero.
  • alpha_z_Q = 1.54 (+1.55/-1.52)
    Redshift coefficient for quiescent alpha; not significant.
  • alpha_z_SF = 0.40 (+1.26/-1.14)
    Redshift coefficient for star-forming alpha; not significant.
  • alpha_Rz_Q = 1.20 (+2.23/-2.34)
    Radial-redshift cross term for quiescent alpha; not significant.
  • alpha_Rz_SF = 0.22 (+2.06/-1.99)
    Radial-redshift cross term for star-forming alpha; not significant.
  • Mstar_o_Q = 10.66 (+0.12/-0.12)
    Characteristic mass for quiescent population at R=R200, z=1.1; fitted.
  • Mstar_o_SF = 10.79 (+0.18/-0.15)
    Characteristic mass for star-forming population at R=R200, z=1.1; fitted.
  • Mstar_R_Q = -0.26 (+0.18/-0.18)
    Radial coefficient for quiescent M*; central to the core M* enhancement claim.
  • Mstar_R_SF = -0.24 (+0.30/-0.30)
    Radial coefficient for star-forming M*; consistent with no dependence.
  • Mstar_z_Q = -0.52 (+0.61/-0.61)
    Redshift coefficient for quiescent M*; not significant.
  • Mstar_z_SF = -0.26 (+0.84/-0.85)
    Redshift coefficient for star-forming M*; not significant.
  • Mstar_Rz_Q = -0.12 (+0.95/-0.90)
    Radial-redshift cross term for quiescent M*; not significant.
  • Mstar_Rz_SF = 0.42 (+1.58/-1.64)
    Radial-redshift cross term for star-forming M*; not significant.
  • c_Q = 5.98 (+1.09/-0.91)
    NFW concentration for quiescent radial profile; fitted.
  • c_SF = 2.07 (+0.42/-0.39)
    NFW concentration for star-forming radial profile; fitted.
  • f_q_o = 0.49 (+0.03/-0.03)
    Normalisation of the quenched fraction at z=1.1, sigma=500 km/s; fitted.
  • q_a = -0.41 (+0.25/-0.23)
    Redshift power-law index for quenched fraction; fitted.
  • q_b = 0.00 (+0.01/-0.01)
    Velocity dispersion dependence coefficient for quenched fraction; fitted, consistent with zero.
  • A_normalization_R200 = 2.91 +/- 1.76
    Normalisation in Eq. 1 used to estimate R200 for SpARCS-1033; fit to 14 clusters with MAMPOSSt radii.
  • Delta_logMstar_core_shift = 0.24 dex
    Shift applied to the field M* in the toy model to reproduce the core quiescent SMF; matched by hand to the observed difference, not independently constrained.
  • Toy_model_A_Q_BSF = A_Q 1.0 to 8.4, B_SF 0.0 to 0.39 across scenarios
    Coefficients in Eq. 29 chosen manually to compare early mass-quenching and environmental-quenching contributions; not fitted with uncertainties.
assumptions (11)
  • standard math Schechter function form for stellar mass functions (Eq. 6)
    Assumed to describe the quiescent and star-forming galaxy mass distributions.
  • standard math Projected NFW profile with concentration parameters (Eq. 22)
    Assumed radial surface density profile for each galaxy population.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear expansion of alpha and M* in radius and redshift (Eqs. 11-12)
    Chosen functional form; the true radial and redshift dependence is not known a priori.
  • ad hoc to paper Quenched fraction parameterisation f_q(z,sigma) (Eq. 21)
    Assumed dependence on redshift and velocity dispersion; other dependencies may exist.
  • domain assumption UVJ colour classification separates quiescent and star-forming galaxies (Eq. 2)
    Rest-frame UVJ selection is used to define the two populations.
  • domain assumption Membership correction via five nearest spectroscopic neighbours (Eq. 3)
    Assumes the local photometric-to-spectroscopic correction is valid across mass and radius.
  • domain assumption Completeness weight based on Ks-band recovery (Eq. 4)
    Assumes the recovery completeness curve accurately corrects the photometric sample.
  • domain assumption Neglect of Eddington bias, assuming mass uncertainties are not environment-dependent
    Stated in Section 5.4; if mass errors vary with environment, the M* radial difference could change.
  • domain assumption Cluster velocity dispersion as a proxy for dynamical mass
    Used in the f_q parameterisation and in comparing cluster masses.
  • domain assumption External R200 values from Biviano, McNab, and Eq. 1 for SpARCS-1033
    The radial scaling of the sample depends on these virial radius measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper Toy model in Eq. 29: cluster quiescent SMF = A_Q * field quiescent SMF + B_SF * field star-forming SMF
    Assumes the two quenching pathways combine linearly with a single normalisation constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distinct origins of environmentally quenched galaxies in the core and outer virialised regions of massive clusters at $0.8<z<1.5$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7YJHYUV

@misc{pith2026250606434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distinct origins of environmentally quenched galaxies in the core and outer virialised regions of massive clusters at $0.8<z<1.5$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7YJHYUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06434}
}
abstract

High-redshift ($z\sim1$) galaxy clusters are the domain where environmental quenching mechanisms are expected to emerge as important factors in the evolution of the quiescent galaxy population. Uncovering these initially subtle effects requires exploring multiple dependencies of quenching across the cluster environment, and through time. We analyse the stellar-mass functions (SMFs) of 17 galaxy clusters within the GOGREEN and GCLASS surveys between $0.8<z<1.5$, and with $\log{(M/{\rm{M_\odot}})}>9.5$. The data are fit simultaneously with a Bayesian model that allows the Schechter function parameters of the quiescent and star-forming populations to vary smoothly with cluster-centric radius and redshift. The model also fits the radial galaxy number density profile of each population, allowing the global quenched fraction to be parameterised as a function of redshift and cluster velocity dispersion. We find the star-forming SMF to not depend on radius or redshift. For the quiescent population however, there is $\sim2\sigma$ evidence for a radial dependence. Outside the cluster core ($R>0.3\,R_{\rm200}$), the quenched fraction above $\log{(M/{\rm{M_\odot}})}=9.5$ is $\sim40{\rm\;per\,cent}$, and the quiescent SMF is similar in shape to the star-forming field. In contrast, the cluster core has an elevated quenched fraction ($\sim70{\rm\;per\,cent}$), and a quiescent SMF similar in shape to the quiescent field population. We explore contributions of 'early mass-quenching' and mass-independent 'environmental-quenching' models in each of these radial regimes. The core is well-described primarily by early mass-quenching, which we interpret as accelerated quenching of massive galaxies in protoclusters, possibly through merger-driven feedback mechanisms. The non-core is better described through mass-independent, environmental-quenching of the infalling field population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram of the line-of-sight velocity of spectroscopically con￾firmed cluster members of SpARCS-1033 and non-members within 1 Mpc. The dashed lines show the velocity dispersion range of the cluster (see § 2.1.1), and the solid line is a Gaussian distribution with this width. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 R200/Mpc (Equation 1) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 M A M P O S St R200/M p c (Bivia n o + 2 0 2 1) [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of 𝑅200 values calculated using MAMPOSSt, and their equivalent 𝑅200 values calculated using Eq. 1. The value of the 𝐴 parameter (see § 2.1.1) was fit to minimise the difference between the two methods of calculation (𝐴 = 2.91 ± 1.76). The blue points correspond to the 14 clusters analysed in Biviano et al. (2021). The red diamond shows the radius of SpARCS-1033 predicted from Eq. 1 (note that it is not in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. For the spectroscopic sample, we compare their photometric and spectroscopic redshift offsets with respect to their clusters. Green and yellow points represent galaxies that are identified as spectroscopically-confirmed cluster members, as shown by the vertical dashed lines. The horizontal dashed lines represent the broader selection of candidate cluster members based on photometric redshifts. Red points are false p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The red and blue points show the surface number density of cluster galaxies in our sample as a function of cluster-centric radius for the quies￾cent and star-forming populations, respectively. The shaded curves show the results of our full model and 1𝜎 confidence regio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the quenched fraction within 𝑅200 of the sample as a function of stellar mass. There is a strong correlation such that the quenched fraction increases from ∼20 per cent at the mass limit of the sample, to almost entirely quenched at the highest masses. This trend…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quenched fraction as a function of cluster-centric radius. The sample is split into two bins based on the mean redshift of the sample (𝑧 ≃ 1.12). For clarity, the high redshift points are slightly horizontally offset. The quenched fraction profiles (Eq. 18) are evaluat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Binned number density of star-forming galaxies against their stellar mass for two radial bins and three redshift bins. Overlaid is the comparison of the complete model (the dark-blue ‘Full Model’ fit) evaluated at the mean 𝑧 and 𝑅/𝑅200 of each group (which are stated i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The best-fit 𝛼 and 𝑀∗ values and their 1-𝜎 and 2-𝜎 uncertainties for the star-forming population. The parameter values are evaluated for the mean radial and redshift values of the four edge sub-populations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same form of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same form of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same form as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The total SMFs of the cluster centre (brown) and the cluster edge (green) with their respective 1-𝜎 uncertainties. Also shown in black is the total field SMF based on the fits from McLeod et al. (2021). All three SMFs are normalised to have the same integrated SF SMF …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Best-fit values for quiescent 𝑀∗ (left) and 𝛼 (right) parameters in various environments through redshift. This figure is an adaptation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A simple experiment to observe the significance of two independent quenching pathways in different 𝑧 ∼ 1 cluster environments. The first component (enhanced mass quenching) is represented by a multiple of the field quiescent SMF, and the second (environmental quenchin…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Muzzin A., Bah \'e Y

    Ahad S. L., Muzzin A., Bah \'e Y. M., Hoekstra H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.6329A 528, 6329

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae341 2024

  2. [2]

    Annunziatella M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..80A 571, A80

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424102 2014

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R

    Baldry I. K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Lupton R. H., Nichol R. C., Szalay A. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..681B 600, 681

    doi:10.1086/380092 2004

  5. [6]

    L., Navarro J

    Balogh M. L., Navarro J. F., Morris S. L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..113B 540, 113

    doi:10.1086/309323 2000

  6. [8]

    L., Baldry I

    Balogh M. L., Baldry I. K., Nichol R., Miller C., Bower R., Glazebrook K., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615L.101B 615, L101

    doi:10.1086/426079

  7. [9]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4364B 456, 4364

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4364B 456, 4364

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2949 2016

  8. [10]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4168B 470, 4168

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4168B 470, 4168

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1370 2017

Show all 144 references
  1. [11]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..358B 500, 358

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..358B 500, 358

    2021 doi

  2. [12]

    Bartelmann M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9602053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..697B 313, 697

    1996 doi arXiv

  3. [13]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.5479B 515, 5479

    Baxter D. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.5479B 515, 5479

    2022 doi

  4. [14]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3716B 526, 3716

    Baxter D. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3716B 526, 3716

    2023 doi

  5. [15]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  6. [16]

    Bialas D., Lisker T., Olczak C., Spurzem R., Kotulla R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A.103B 576, A103

    2015 doi

  7. [17]

    Biviano A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.105B 650, A105

    2021 doi

  8. [18]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..186B 594, 186

    2003 doi

  9. [19]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  10. [20]

    B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    2011 doi

  11. [21]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476...12B 476, 12

    Bremer M. N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476...12B 476, 12

    2018 doi

  12. [23]

    Brodwin M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721...90B 721, 90

    2010 doi

  13. [24]

    arXiv:2001.11067

    Brough S., et al., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2001.11067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200111067B p. arXiv:2001.11067

    2020 doi arXiv

  14. [25]

    Bufanda E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2531B 465, 2531

    2017 doi

  15. [26]

    Bundy K., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651..120B 651, 120

    2006 doi

  16. [27]

    A., Thomas D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...34B 851, 34

    Bundy K., Leauthaud A., Saito S., Maraston C., Wake D. A., Thomas D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...34B 851, 34

    2017 doi

  17. [28]

    M., Vulcani B., Fasano G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3141C 432, 3141

    Calvi R., Poggianti B. M., Vulcani B., Fasano G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3141C 432, 3141

    2013 doi

  18. [29]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  19. [31]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  20. [32]

    A., Gebhardt K., Henriques B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844L..23C 844, L23

    Chiang Y.-K., Overzier R. A., Gebhardt K., Henriques B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844L..23C 844, L23

    2017 doi

  21. [33]

    Cicone C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..21C 562, A21

    2014 doi

  22. [34]

    A., Hatch N

    Cooke E. A., Hatch N. A., Muldrew S. I., Rigby E. E., Kurk J. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3262C 440, 3262

    2014 doi

  23. [35]

    J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    Croton D. J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    2006

  24. [36]

    Davidzon I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..23D 586, A23

    2016 doi

  25. [37]

    J., Pontzen A., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Pontzen A., Crain R. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1430D 515, 1430

    2022 doi

  26. [38]

    Dekel A., Silk J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303...39D 303, 39

    1986 doi

  27. [39]

    Demarco R., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711.1185D 711, 1185

    2010 doi

  28. [40]

    Dressler A., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...236..351D 236, 351

    1980 doi

  29. [42]

    S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    Eddington A. S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    1913 doi

  30. [43]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8598E 527, 8598

    Edward A. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8598E 527, 8598

    2024 doi

  31. [44]

    Elbaz D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...33E 468, 33

    2007 doi

  32. [45]

    Espinoza Ortiz M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..42E 692, A42

    2024 doi

  33. [46]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A..59E 693, A59

    2025 doi

  34. [47]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    2012 doi

  35. [48]

    Fan L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..32F 822, L32

    2016 doi

  36. [49]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...86F 731, 86

    Foley R. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...86F 731, 86

    2011 doi

  37. [50]

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

    2016 doi

  38. [51]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  39. [52]

    arXiv:2503.04913

    Giddings F., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250304913G p. arXiv:2503.04913

    2025 doi

  40. [53]

    Guglielmo V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.112G 625, A112

    2019 doi

  41. [54]

    Gully H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3058G 539, 3058

    2025 doi

  42. [55]

    E., Gott J

    Gunn J. E., Gott J. Richard I., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...176....1G 176, 1

    1972 doi

  43. [56]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...97H 754, 97

    Haines C. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...97H 754, 97

    2012 doi

  44. [57]

    P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..101H 806, 101

    Haines C. P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..101H 806, 101

    2015 doi

  45. [58]

    Hashiguchi A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psad066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASJ...75.1246H 75, 1246

    2023 doi

  46. [59]

    A., Kurk J

    Hatch N. A., Kurk J. D., Pentericci L., Venemans B. P., Kuiper E., Miley G. K., R \"o ttgering H. J. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18735.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2993H 415, 2993

    2011

  47. [60]

    Hill R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.4352H 512, 4352

    2022 doi

  48. [61]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..356H 175, 356

    2008 doi

  49. [62]

    F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3522H 421, 3522

    Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3522H 421, 3522

    2012

  50. [63]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  51. [64]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709..644I 709, 644

    2010 doi

  52. [65]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..55I 556, A55

    2013 doi

  53. [66]

    Jian H.-Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7de2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845...74J 845, 74

    2017 doi

  54. [67]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  55. [68]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...54K 341, 54

    2003

  56. [69]

    Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., Heckman T. M., M \'e nard B., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..713K 353, 713

    2004

  57. [70]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817....9K 817, 9

    2016 doi

  58. [71]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..134K 847, 134

    2017 doi

  59. [72]

    Kawinwanichakij L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892....7K 892, 7

    2020 doi

  60. [73]

    D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744..148K 744, 148

    Kocevski D. D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744..148K 744, 148

    2012 doi

  61. [74]

    Koulouridis E., Bartalucci I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623L..10K 623, L10

    2019 doi

  62. [75]

    Koulouridis E., Gkini A., Drigga E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.111K 684, A111

    2024 doi

  63. [76]

    Kova c K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..717K 438, 717

    2014 doi

  64. [77]

    Koyama Y., Kodama T., Tadaki K.-i., Hayashi M., Tanaka M., Smail I., Tanaka I., Kurk J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1551K 428, 1551

    2013 doi

  65. [78]

    G., Labb \'e I., Franx M., Illingworth G

    Kriek M., van Dokkum P. G., Labb \'e I., Franx M., Illingworth G. D., Marchesini D., Quadri R. F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..221K 700, 221

    2009 doi

  66. [79]

    Krishnan C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2170K 470, 2170

    2017 doi

  67. [80]

    B., Tinsley B

    Larson R. B., Tinsley B. M., Caldwell C. N., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..692L 237, 692

    1980 doi

  68. [81]

    Lee S.-K., Im M., Kim J.-W., Lotz J., McPartland C., Peth M., Koekemoer A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...90L 810, 90

    2015 doi

  69. [82]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765...87L 765, 87

    Lehmer B. D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765...87L 765, 87

    2013 doi

  70. [83]

    L., Mamon G

    okas E. L., Mamon G. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04007.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..155L 321, 155

    2001

  71. [84]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..154L 773, 154

    Lotz J. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..154L 773, 154

    2013 doi

  72. [85]

    M., Oke J

    Lubin L. M., Oke J. B., Postman M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124.1905L 124, 1905

    2002 doi

  73. [86]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...24M 180, 24

    2020 doi

  74. [87]

    M., Kriss G

    Malumuth E. M., Kriss G. A., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308...10M 308, 10

    1986 doi

  75. [88]

    A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3079M 429, 3079

    Mamon G. A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3079M 429, 3079

    2013 doi

  76. [89]

    Martini P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768....1M 768, 1

    2013 doi

  77. [90]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10565.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..721M 370, 721

    Mateus A., Sodr \'e L., Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Schoenell W., Gomes J. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10565.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..721M 370, 721

    2006

  78. [91]

    McConachie I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...37M 926, 37

    2022 doi

  79. [92]

    L., Balogh M

    McGee S. L., Balogh M. L., Wilman D. J., Bower R. G., Mulchaey J. S., Parker L. C., Oemler A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18189.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..996M 413, 996

    2011

  80. [93]

    L., Bower R

    McGee S. L., Bower R. G., Balogh M. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442L.105M 442, L105

    2014 doi

  81. [94]

    J., McLure R

    McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Cullen F., Carnall A. C., Duncan K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4413M 503, 4413

    2021 doi

  82. [95]

    McNab K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..157M 508, 157

    2021 doi

  83. [96]

    Mechtley M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..156M 830, 156

    2016 doi

  84. [97]

    Mignoli M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493...39M 493, 39

    2009 doi

  85. [98]

    Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., Dressler A., Oemler A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/379613a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.379..613M 379, 613

    1996 doi

  86. [99]

    Moore B., Lake G., Katz N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..139M 495, 139

    1998 doi

  87. [100]

    I., Hatch N

    Muldrew S. I., Hatch N. A., Cooke E. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2335M 473, 2335

    2018 doi

  88. [101]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1934M 698, 1934

    2009 doi

  89. [102]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..188M 746, 188

    2012 doi

  90. [103]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...18M 777, 18

    2013 doi

  91. [104]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.161N 592, A161

    Nantais J. B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.161N 592, A161

    2016 doi

  92. [105]

    B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L.104N 465, L104

    Nantais J. B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L.104N 465, L104

    2017 doi

  93. [106]

    R., Hoessel J

    Oegerle W. R., Hoessel J. G., Ernst R. M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986AJ.....91..697O 91, 697

    1986 doi

  94. [107]

    Oh S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aacd47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...14O 237, 14

    2018 doi

  95. [108]

    Paccagnella A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...816L..25P 816, L25

    2016 doi

  96. [109]

    Pandas Development Team 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2024 doi

  97. [110]

    Papovich C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...30P 854, 30

    2018 doi

  98. [111]

    Peng Y.-j., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..193P 721, 193

    2010 doi

  99. [112]

    Peng Y., Maiolino R., Cochrane R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.521..192P 521, 192

    2015 doi

  100. [113]

    Pintos-Castro I., Yee H. K. C., Muzzin A., Old L., Wilson G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...40P 876, 40

    2019 doi

  101. [114]

    M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..188P 642, 188

    Poggianti B. M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..188P 642, 188

    2006 doi

  102. [115]

    V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..547P 465, 547

    Pontzen A., Tremmel M., Roth N., Peiris H. V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..547P 465, 547

    2017 doi

  103. [116]

    Raftery A., 1995, @doi [Sociological Methodology] 10.2307/271063 , 25, 111

    1995 doi

  104. [117]

    Renzini A., Peng Y.-j., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801L..29R 801, L29

    2015 doi

  105. [118]

    D., Parker L

    Roberts I. D., Parker L. C., Brown T., Joshi G. D., Hlavacek-Larrondo J., Wadsley J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...42R 873, 42

    2019 doi

  106. [119]

    Rowe B. T. P., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&C....10..121R 10, 121

    2015 doi

  107. [120]

    Rudnick G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1559R 700, 1559

    2009 doi

  108. [121]

    H., Tran K.-V., Papovich C., Momcheva I., Willmer C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...14R 755, 14

    Rudnick G. H., Tran K.-V., Papovich C., Momcheva I., Willmer C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...14R 755, 14

    2012 doi

  109. [122]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..297S 203, 297

    1976 doi

  110. [123]

    Schwarz G., 1978, Annals of Statistics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AnSta...6..461S 6, 461

    1978

  111. [124]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..107S 904, 107

    Shah E. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..107S 904, 107

    2020 doi

  112. [125]

    arXiv:2411.13655

    Sif \'o n C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241113655S p. arXiv:2411.13655

    2024 doi arXiv

  113. [126]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998 doi arXiv

  114. [127]

    Smith R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2502S 454, 2502

    2015 doi

  115. [128]

    A., Wild V., Maltby D

    Socolovsky M., Almaini O., Hatch N. A., Wild V., Maltby D. T., Hartley W. G., Simpson C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1242S 476, 1242

    2018 doi

  116. [129]

    Stalder B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...93S 763, 93

    2013 doi

  117. [130]

    C., Adelberger K

    Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Shapley A. E., Erb D. K., Reddy N. A., Pettini M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626...44S 626, 44

    2005 doi

  118. [131]

    P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2659S 511, 2659

    Stott J. P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2659S 511, 2659

    2022 doi

  119. [132]

    Straatman C. M. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830...51S 830, 51

    2016 doi

  120. [133]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  121. [134]

    Tanaka M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...59T 970, 59

    2024 doi

  122. [135]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...85T 783, 85

    Tomczak A. R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...85T 783, 85

    2014 doi

  123. [136]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3512T 472, 3512

    Tomczak A. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3512T 472, 3512

    2017 doi

  124. [137]

    Vito F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.130V 689, A130

    2024 doi

  125. [138]

    Vulcani B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..58V 550, A58

    2013 doi

  126. [139]

    Webb K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5317W 498, 5317

    2020 doi

  127. [140]

    V., Hatch N

    Werner S. V., Hatch N. A., Muzzin A., van der Burg R. F. J., Balogh M. L., Rudnick G., Wilson G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..674W 510, 674

    2022 doi

  128. [141]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    2011 doi

  129. [142]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379...52W 379, 52

    1991 doi

  130. [143]

    Wild V., Almaini O., Dunlop J., Simpson C., Rowlands K., Bowler R., Maltby D., McLure R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..832W 463, 832

    2016 doi

  131. [144]

    Wilson G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1943W 698, 1943

    2009 doi

  132. [145]

    Xie L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad380a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966L...2X 966, L2

    2024 doi

  133. [146]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..15V 557, A15

    2013 doi

  134. [147]

    van der Burg R. F. J., McGee S., Aussel H., Dahle H., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Muzzin A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A.140V 618, A140

    2018 doi

  135. [148]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037754 , 638, A112

    2020 doi

  136. [149]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.