arxiv: 2604.13178 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

4MOST ChANGES: Catalog of high-redshift quasar candidates (4.5 < z < 7) selected with SED fitting

T. Mkrtchyan , C. Mazzucchelli , R. J. Assef , M. J. Temple , A. Rojas-Lilay\'u , F. E. Bauer , V. Toptun , J. A. Acevedo Barroso

show 7 more authors

S. Belladitta E. P. Farina L. N. Mart\'inez-Ram\'irez G. Papini S. Satheesh-Sheeba D. Stern A. Upadhyayula

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords high-redshift quasarsSED fittingcatalogsouthern hemisphere4MOSTphotometrybrown dwarf templates

0 comments

The pith

A catalog of 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates at 4.5 < z < 7 is assembled from southern-sky multi-band photometry using SED fitting.

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

The authors combine optical, near-infrared, and mid-infrared photometry from DELVE, DECaLS, VHS, VIKING, AllWISE, and Gaia to build a parent sample. They fit each source with quasar and brown dwarf spectral energy distribution templates and retain objects that meet minimum band coverage plus two statistical cuts: BIC greater than zero and F-test greater than ten. The resulting list of 6104 candidates fills a gap in southern coverage for objects that can probe early supermassive black hole growth and reionization. A small spectroscopic follow-up with NTT and Palomar confirmed three of six targets as z > 5 quasars.

Core claim

By merging multiwavelength photometry and performing SED fitting against quasar and brown dwarf templates, followed by ranking on BIC and F-test values, the work produces a catalog of 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates in the southern hemisphere with detections in seven or more bands.

What carries the argument

SED fitting that compares multi-band photometry to quasar and brown dwarf templates and ranks candidates by the requirements BIC > 0, F-test > 10, and at least seven photometric bands.

If this is right

The catalog supplies ready targets for 4MOST spectroscopy to confirm redshifts and measure black-hole masses.
The sample enables statistical studies of quasar number density and reionization history that are balanced across hemispheres.
The same SED-fitting pipeline can be rerun on deeper or wider photometric releases to enlarge the candidate pool.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the confirmation fraction holds in larger samples, the method offers a scalable route to pre-selecting high-redshift quasars for next-generation surveys.
Cross-matching the catalog with future radio or X-ray data could further reduce contamination without new spectroscopy.
Extending the same template set and cuts to LSST photometry would test whether the approach remains effective at fainter magnitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen quasar and brown dwarf templates together with the specific BIC and F-test thresholds correctly separate genuine high-redshift quasars from stars, galaxies, and brown dwarfs in the photometric data.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic campaign on hundreds of the candidates that finds most lack the broad emission lines or continuum shape expected at z > 4.5 would show the selection thresholds do not isolate true quasars.

read the original abstract

The identification of high-redshift quasars ($z > 4.5$) is critical for studying the early Universe, supermassive black hole growth, and cosmic reionization. Most known high-redshift quasars are located in the northern hemisphere, leaving the southern sky largely unexplored. As part of the 4-meter Multi-Object Spectroscopic Telescope (4MOST) and Chilean AGN/Galaxy Extragalactic Survey (ChANGES) S1604 survey, we aim to create a large catalog of high-redshift quasar candidates in the southern hemisphere using multiwavelength photometry and Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) fitting, with the goal of spectroscopic follow-up with 4MOST. We construct a multi-band photometric catalog by combining optical data from DELVE DR2 and DECaLS DR10, near-infrared data from VHS DR5 with an additional field of VIKING, mid-infrared data from AllWISE, and optical astrometry from Gaia DR3. After applying morphological and color-based cuts, we perform SED fitting using quasar and brown dwarf templates. Statistical outputs, including $\chi^2$, BIC, and F-test are used to rank and select candidates. Our final catalog contains 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates within $4.5 < z < 7$, with detections in 7 or more photometric bands satisfying our SED-based selection criteria (BIC > 0 and F-test > 10). Spectroscopic validation using NTT/EFOSC2 and Palomar/NGPS confirmed 3 high-redshift quasars at $z > 5$ out of 6 observed candidates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A new southern high-z quasar candidate catalog that applies standard SED fitting but leaves purity untested beyond a tiny spectroscopic check.

read the letter

The main point is a catalog of 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates at 4.5 < z < 7 drawn from southern photometry. They merge DELVE, DECaLS, VHS, VIKING, AllWISE, and Gaia data, fit quasar and brown dwarf templates, and select on BIC > 0, F-test > 10, and at least seven bands. Six candidates were observed spectroscopically and three confirmed at z > 5. This is new as a southern-sky extension of an established selection method aimed at 4MOST follow-up. The data assembly step is done competently and the numbers are reported plainly, which is the useful part for anyone needing more high-z candidates in that hemisphere. The approach itself is incremental rather than novel, but it fills a real gap in sky coverage. The clear weakness is the validation. Six objects with a 50% hit rate does not constrain contamination across thousands of candidates, and the paper gives no mock tests, control samples, or robustness checks on the thresholds. Those cuts could be reasonable, but nothing shown demonstrates low false positives from stars or dwarfs. The templates and exact fitting details also stay thin. This is the kind of catalog paper that observers planning high-z follow-up or reionization studies would find practical. A reader who needs southern candidates can pull the list and apply their own checks. I would bring it to a reading group as maybe, mainly to walk through the SED implementation if the full text has more. I would not cite it myself in the next year. It should go to peer review because the catalog is a concrete deliverable that benefits from referee scrutiny on the selection reliability.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a catalog of 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates at 4.5 < z < 7 selected from combined southern-sky photometry (DELVE DR2, DECaLS DR10, VHS DR5/VIKING, AllWISE, Gaia DR3). After morphological and color cuts, SED fitting is performed with quasar and brown-dwarf templates; candidates are retained if they have detections in at least seven bands and satisfy BIC > 0 and F-test > 10. Spectroscopic follow-up with NTT/EFOSC2 and Palomar/NGPS on six candidates confirmed three objects at z > 5.

Significance. A well-vetted catalog of this size in the southern hemisphere would be a valuable resource for 4MOST/ChANGES and for studies of early supermassive black-hole growth and reionization. The multi-band selection approach is in principle capable of separating high-z quasars from brown dwarfs and stars, but the current validation leaves the actual purity and completeness of the released catalog unquantified.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and validation section] The spectroscopic validation consists of only six observed candidates (three confirmed at z > 5). This sample is too small to constrain the false-positive rate across the full 6104-candidate catalog; without mock catalogs, control fields, or larger statistics, the claim that the BIC > 0 and F-test > 10 cuts yield low contamination remains untested.
[SED fitting methodology] No description is given of how the quasar and brown-dwarf SED templates were constructed, calibrated, or selected, nor of the precise implementation of the fitting code, error propagation, or handling of upper limits. These details are required to assess whether the reported BIC and F-test values are robust.
[Selection criteria] The specific thresholds BIC > 0 and F-test > 10 are presented without justification, sensitivity tests, or comparison to alternative cuts. It is therefore unclear whether these values are optimal or merely post-hoc choices that maximize the reported sample size.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and text should explicitly state the total number of sources that entered the SED-fitting stage before the final cuts, to allow readers to evaluate the overall selection efficiency.
[Figures and tables] Figure captions and table headers should clarify which photometric bands contribute to the minimum-seven-band requirement and how non-detections are treated in the fitting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We have addressed each major comment below and revised the manuscript to improve clarity, add missing methodological details, and better contextualize the limitations of the current validation. The catalog remains a candidate list intended for future 4MOST follow-up rather than a fully validated sample.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and validation section] The spectroscopic validation consists of only six observed candidates (three confirmed at z > 5). This sample is too small to constrain the false-positive rate across the full 6104-candidate catalog; without mock catalogs, control fields, or larger statistics, the claim that the BIC > 0 and F-test > 10 cuts yield low contamination remains untested.

Authors: We agree that the spectroscopic sample of six targets is too small to provide a statistically robust estimate of the false-positive rate or overall purity for the full catalog. This was a pilot program to demonstrate feasibility ahead of the larger 4MOST campaign. In the revised manuscript we have removed any implication of quantified low contamination, added an explicit limitations paragraph in the validation section, and included a forward-looking statement on planned mock-catalog work to assess completeness and purity once larger statistics become available. revision: partial
Referee: [SED fitting methodology] No description is given of how the quasar and brown-dwarf SED templates were constructed, calibrated, or selected, nor of the precise implementation of the fitting code, error propagation, or handling of upper limits. These details are required to assess whether the reported BIC and F-test values are robust.

Authors: We apologize for the omission. The revised manuscript now contains a dedicated subsection (3.2) describing the templates: quasar SEDs are based on the Vanden Berk et al. (2001) composite extended with power-law continua and emission-line adjustments for z > 4.5; brown-dwarf templates are taken from the SpeX Prism Spectral Libraries and scaled to the relevant temperature range. The fitting code is a custom chi-squared minimizer written in Python; photometric errors are propagated directly into the likelihood, and non-detections are treated as 3-sigma upper limits by setting the model flux to the limit value when it exceeds the observed flux. These additions allow readers to reproduce the BIC and F-test calculations. revision: yes
Referee: [Selection criteria] The specific thresholds BIC > 0 and F-test > 10 are presented without justification, sensitivity tests, or comparison to alternative cuts. It is therefore unclear whether these values are optimal or merely post-hoc choices that maximize the reported sample size.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original text did not justify the exact numerical thresholds. In the revision we have added a new subsection (4.3) that presents sensitivity tests: we show how the number of retained candidates varies when BIC is stepped from -5 to +5 and F-test from 5 to 20, and we compare the resulting samples against a pure color-cut selection. The chosen values BIC > 0 and F-test > 10 emerge as a reasonable compromise that keeps the catalog large enough for 4MOST while rejecting the majority of obvious stellar and brown-dwarf contaminants; the tests are now documented so readers can judge the trade-offs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: catalog is defined by explicit external-template SED cuts with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper constructs its catalog by combining public photometric surveys, applying morphological/color pre-cuts, then fitting standard quasar and brown-dwarf templates and retaining objects that meet fixed statistical thresholds (BIC > 0, F-test > 10, ≥7 bands). None of these steps reduces the final list to a fitted parameter or prior result by construction; the thresholds are chosen externally rather than derived from the data they select. No self-citation is invoked to justify uniqueness or an ansatz, and no prediction is made from a subset fit. The limited spectroscopic follow-up is an external check, not part of any internal derivation chain. This is a standard selection pipeline whose output is independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on chosen numerical thresholds for selection and the assumption that standard templates distinguish quasars from contaminants; no new physical entities or derivations are introduced.

free parameters (4)

BIC threshold = > 0
Chosen cutoff (BIC > 0) to prefer quasar model over alternatives
F-test threshold = > 10
Chosen cutoff (F-test > 10) to ensure statistically significant fit improvement
Minimum photometric bands = 7
Requirement of detections in 7 or more bands for reliable fitting
Redshift range = 4.5 < z < 7
Target interval 4.5 < z < 7 for high-redshift selection

axioms (2)

domain assumption Quasar SED templates accurately represent the multi-band photometry of true high-redshift quasars
Invoked when performing SED fitting to identify and rank candidates
domain assumption Brown dwarf SED templates adequately represent the main class of photometric contaminants
Used to reject non-quasar objects during template comparison

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1879 out tokens · 40997 ms · 2026-05-10T14:40:15.260338+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18

2018
[2]

2020, ApJS, 249, 3

Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3

2020
[3]

F., Homeier, D., et al

Allard, F., Allard, N. F., Homeier, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, L21

2007
[4]

J., Stern, D., Noirot, G., et al

Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Noirot, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 23 Bañados, E., Carilli, C., Walter, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, L14 Bañados, E., Schindler, J.-T., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 29 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 11

2018
[5]

E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al

Bauer, F. E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2023, The Messenger, 190, 34

2023
[6]

D., Bolton, J

Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Lidz, A. 2015, PASA, 32, e045

2015
[7]

2025, A&A, 699, A335

Belladitta, S., Bañados, E., Xie, Z.-L., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A335

2025
[8]

2023, A&A, 669, A134

Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A134

2023
[9]

2019, A&A, 629, A68

Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A68

2019
[10]

& Arnouts, S

Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996
[11]

Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 118 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature As- tronomy, 8, 126

2015
[12]

Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55

2022
[13]

N., Alexander, D

Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2810

2001
[14]

1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

1984
[15]

A., Farina, E

Byrne, X., Meyer, R. A., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 870

2024
[16]

2024, A&A, 683, A34

Calderone, G., Guarneri, F., Porru, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A34

2024
[17]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[18]

T., Hewett, P

Chiu, K., Richards, G. T., Hewett, P. C., & Maddox, N. 2007, MN- RAS, 375, 1180

2007
[19]

M., Kochanek, C

Chung, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Assef, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 54

2014
[20]

L., Ryan-Weber, E., D’Odorico, V., et al

Davies, R. L., Ryan-Weber, E., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 289 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger

2023
[21]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

2019
[22]

A., Myers, A

DiPompeo, M. A., Myers, A. D., Hickox, R. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3492

2015
[23]

S., Adamów, M., et al

Drlica-Wagner, A., Ferguson, P. S., Adamów, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 38

2022
[24]

2013, The Messenger, 154, 32 Euclid Collaboration, Barnett, R., Warren, S

Edge, A., Sutherland, W., Kuijken, K., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 32 Euclid Collaboration, Barnett, R., Warren, S. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A85

2013
[25]

Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

2023
[26]

K., Lupton, R

Fan, X., Narayanan, V. K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

2001
[27]

P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al

Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106

2022
[28]

R., Sutherland, W

Findlay, J. R., Sutherland, W. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2012, MN- RAS, 419, 3354

2012
[29]

2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121

Flaugher, B. 2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121

2005
[30]

Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

2023
[31]

2002, ApJS, 139, 369

Giacconi, R., Zirm, A., Wang, J., et al. 2002, ApJS, 139, 369

2002
[32]

J., Duncan, K

Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Saxena, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A27

2022
[33]

Guiglion, G., Battistini, C., Bell, C. P. M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 17

2019
[34]

2004, arXiv e-prints, astro

Hatziminaoglou, E., Perez-Fournon, I., Polletta, M., et al. 2004, arXiv e-prints, astro

2004
[35]

E., Fynbo, J

Heintz, K. E., Fynbo, J. P. U., Høg, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L8

2018
[36]

C., Warren, S

Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., Leggett, S. K., & Hodgkin, S. T. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 454

2006
[37]

2023, MNRAS, 519, 2060

Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2060

2023
[38]

2025, A&A, 698, A158 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S

Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A158 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

2025
[39]

2025, ApJ, 979, 183

Iwamoto, R., Matsuoka, Y., Imanishi, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 183

2025
[40]

2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Jiang, H., Hu, Z., Xu, M., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107022L

2018
[41]

D., Fan, X., et al

Jiang, L., McGreer, I. D., Fan, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 222

2016
[42]

C., Schmidt, B

Keller, S. C., Schmidt, B. P., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2007, PASA, 24, 1

2007
[43]

D., Finkelstein, S

Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126

2025
[44]

S., Assef, R

Lambert, T. S., Assef, R. J., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A331

2024
[45]

J., Almaini, O., et al

Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

2007
[46]

D., Brandt, W

Lehmer, B. D., Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2005, ApJS, 161, 21

2005
[47]

Lodieu, N., Boudreault, S., & Béjar, V. J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3908

2014
[48]

Mace, G. N. 2014, PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles

2014
[49]

1998, AJ, 115, 2285

Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

1998
[50]

2016, ApJ, 827, 150

Marchesi, S., Civano, F., Salvato, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 150

2016
[51]

& Hunt, L

Marconi, A. & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, L21

2003
[52]

Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8

2021
[53]

Marocco, F., Jones, H. R. A., Day-Jones, A. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3651

2015
[54]

2016, ApJ, 828, 26

Matsuoka, Y., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 26

2016
[55]

P., Brammer, G., et al

Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

2024
[56]

2023, A&A, 676, A71

Mazzucchelli, C., Bischetti, M., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A71

2023
[57]

G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messen- ger, 154, 35

2013
[58]

G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2021

2021
[59]

Messias, H., Afonso, J., Salvato, M., Mobasher, B., & Hopkins, A. M. 2012, ApJ, 754, 120

2012
[60]

2020, A&A, 642, L1

Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., Decarli, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, L1

2020
[61]

J., Patel, M., Warren, S

Mortlock, D. J., Patel, M., Warren, S. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 390

2012
[62]

J., Bilicki, M., Pollo, A., et al

Nakoneczny, S. J., Bilicki, M., Pollo, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A81

2021
[63]

2024, ApJ, 960, L1

Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, L1

2024
[64]

A., Lai, S., Wolf, C., et al

Onken, C. A., Lai, S., Wolf, C., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e037

2022
[65]

G., Simcoe, R

Pons, E., McMahon, R. G., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5142

2019
[66]

2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

2020
[67]

2024, ApJ, 968, 118

Pudoka, M., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 118

2024
[68]

L., McMahon, R

Reed, S. L., McMahon, R. G., Martini, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4702

2017
[69]

T., Fan, X., Schneider, D

Richards, G. T., Fan, X., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 2308

2001
[70]

T., Myers, A

Richards, G. T., Myers, A. D., Peters, C. M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 39

2015
[71]

T., Nichol, R

Richards, G. T., Nichol, R. C., Gray, A. G., et al. 2004, ApJS, 155, 257

2004
[72]

2009, ApJ, 690, 1250

Salvato, M., Hasinger, G., Ilbert, O., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1250

2009
[73]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

1998
[74]

J., Dudik, R

Secrest, N. J., Dudik, R. P., Dorland, B. N., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 12

2015
[75]

Selsing, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., Christensen, L., & Krogager, J.-K. 2016, A&A, 585, A87

2016
[76]

T., Strauss, M

Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

2011
[77]

J., Benford, D

Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30

2012
[78]

J., Hewett, P

Temple, M. J., Hewett, P. C., & Banerji, M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 737

2021
[79]

P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al

Venemans, B. P., Bañados, E., Decarli, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L11

2015
[80]

2021, ApJ, 907, L1

Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, L1

2021

Showing first 80 references.