pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13843 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Galaxy Luminosity Functions in ASTRID: Predictions for LSST

Fatemeh Hafezianzadeh, Patrick LaChance, Paul Rogozenski, Rachel Mandelbaum, Rupert A. C. Croft, Simeon Bird, Tianqing Zhang, Tiziana Di Matteo, Yihao Zhou

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 17:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords luminosity functionsdust attenuationmock catalogsLSST predictionsSchechter parametersgalaxy number countsphotometric predictions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Calibrated dust attenuation in a hydrodynamical simulation reproduces observed galaxy luminosity functions from z=0 to z=1.5

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

This paper shows that a dust attenuation model based on metal surface density, after calibration with local galaxy data, produces luminosity functions that align with observations in multiple bands at intermediate redshifts. The successful match justifies using the same approach to generate extensive mock catalogs tailored for an upcoming large-scale astronomical survey. These catalogs include hundreds of millions of simulated galaxies and provide practical forecasts for how many objects will be seen at different brightness levels and survey stages.

Core claim

The central claim is that galaxy magnitudes from stellar population synthesis combined with dust attenuation scaling with metal surface density yield attenuated luminosity functions matching observed statistics across wavelengths and redshifts up to 1.5. This enables construction of LSST-ready mock photometric catalogs from z=0 to z=2 containing roughly 378 million galaxies, complete with predicted luminosity functions in ugrizy bands, Schechter fits, and number counts by depth.

What carries the argument

Dust attenuation prescription where optical depth scales with metal surface density

If this is right

  • Reproduction of observed statistics in rest-frame B, V, R, and I bands at z = 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5
  • Availability of apparent-magnitude luminosity functions in LSST ugrizy bands with best-fit Schechter parameters
  • Computation of differential and cumulative galaxy number counts from Year 1 to Year 10 survey depths
  • Mock catalogs spanning 0 ≤ z ≤ 2 with steps of Δz = 0.1 and containing ~378 million galaxies

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar dust modeling could be tested against data from other current surveys to check consistency.
  • Accurate predictions may help optimize survey strategies for detecting faint galaxies.
  • The framework suggests that metal content is a key driver of light attenuation in galaxies across cosmic time.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the relationship between optical depth and metal surface density calibrated at redshift zero holds accurately for galaxies at redshifts up to 1.5 and in the LSST wavelength bands.

What would settle it

Significant mismatch between the predicted and observed galaxy luminosity functions or number counts in the LSST ugrizy filters once survey data is collected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13843 by Fatemeh Hafezianzadeh, Patrick LaChance, Paul Rogozenski, Rachel Mandelbaum, Rupert A. C. Croft, Simeon Bird, Tianqing Zhang, Tiziana Di Matteo, Yihao Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Galaxy luminosity functions at z = 0 in the SDSS u, g, r, i, z and near-infrared Y, J, H, K bands. Gray curves show intrinsic ASTRID predictions, while blue curves show dust-attenuated luminosity functions. Observational measurements from Loveday et al. (open squares) and Driver et al. (filled circles) are overplotted. in u and −0.68 in g, decreasing to −0.50, −0.43, and −0.36 in r, i, and z, respectively.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SDSS-g band luminosity function at z = 0 comparing observational measurements from Loveday et al. (2012) and Driver et al. (2012) with ASTRID predictions computed using different photometric apertures: 20 kpc, 30 kpc, and 2Rhalf. cating a significant population of low-luminosity galaxies that are currently below observational detection thresh￾olds. To quantify potential systematic effects associated with t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Rest-frame B, V , R, and I luminosity functions at z = 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. Gray curves show intrinsic simulation predictions, while blue curves include dust attenuation. Observational measurements from Ilbert et al. (2005), Gabasch et al. (2004), Dahlen et al. (2005), and Ramos et al. (2011) are overplotted for comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Four different color–color relations comparing the simulation (purple) and observational data from the GAMA survey (gray). All galaxies are selected in the redshift range 0.002 ≤ z < 0.1 and with stellar masses M⋆ ≥ 108.5 M⊙. The number of galaxies used in each panel is indicated in the top-right corner. The two-dimensional distributions are estimated using a kernel density estimate (KDE); contours corresp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example LSST-like mock galaxy images from the ASTRID simulation. From top to bottom: blue oblate (disk-like), red spherical, blue prolate, and red prolate galaxies. Green ellipses show the projected galaxy shapes. Each panel also lists the stellar mass (M∗), color (g − r), and r-band absolute magnitude (Mr). 3.2.1. Luminosity Function From these catalogs, we construct apparent￾magnitude LFs in all six LSST… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Apparent-magnitude number densities in the LSST ugrizy bands. Each panel shows the number density of galaxies as a function of observed magnitude at multiple redshifts. Vertical lines indicate the LSST 5σ limiting depths: the solid line corresponds to the first-year coadded depth, dotted lines denote intermediate coadded depths from two to nine years, and the dashed line marks the 10-year coadded depth [P… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit Schechter function parameters for appar￾ent-magnitude luminosity functions in LSST bands at differ￾ent redshifts. Uncertainties represent 1σ errors derived from Poisson statistics of the galaxy counts in each magnitude bin. puted by taking the average of galaxies with signal-to￾noise ratios equal to 5, or magnitude errors at ∼ 0.217. The magnitude errors are attached in the data products. The top … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Differential galaxy number counts, N(m), in the LSST u, g, r, i, z, and y bands for 0 ≤ z ≤ 2, in units of galaxies arcmin−2 mag−1 . Vertical dashed lines indicate the LSST Year 1 and Year 10 5σ depths. Bottom panels: Cumulative number of detectable galaxies predicted for LSST. Left: Integrated galaxy counts per arcmin2 as a function of survey year for 0 < z ≤ 2, computed by integrating the diff… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the distribution of galaxy g −r colors as a function of redshift, where the color scale represents log10(N + 1). At low redshift (z ≲ 0.5), a clear bimodal structure is visible. Two distinct sequences emerge: a red population centered around g − r ∼ 0.6–0.8, cor￾responding to quenched, passive galaxies, and a bluer population around g − r ∼ 0.2–0.4, corresponding to actively star-forming systems. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Color-Magnitude histogram of Astrid galaxies above M∗ ≥ 109.5M⊙ with the simple red/blue cut of this analysis as a black dashed line. large number of stellar particles per galaxy, we re￾strict our analysis to galaxies with stellar masses above M∗ ≥ 109.5M⊙. To test whether ASTRID reproduces the expected CMR behavior for LSST, we apply a color–magnitude split in Mg − Mr and Mr space using the relation de￾f… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Probability distribution of projected elliptici￾ties of the ASTRID red and blue samples using LSST colors alongside COSMOS2020 measured ellipticities using similar color-magnitude and stellar-mass cuts. Weaver et al. (2022). 4. DISCUSSION In this work, we constructed and validated forward￾modelled galaxy photometric catalogs for LSST us￾ing the ASTRID cosmological hydrodynamical simu- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present validated and forward-modelled galaxy luminosity functions and photometric predictions for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time using the ASTRID cosmological hydrodynamical simulation. Galaxy magnitudes are computed by combining stellar population synthesis modeling with a physically motivated dust attenuation prescription in which the optical depth scales with metal surface density. The dust model is calibrated at z = 0 using SDSS luminosity functions and tested at intermediate redshifts (z = 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5) in rest-frame B, V , R, and I bands. We find that the attenuated luminosity functions reproduce observed galaxy statistics across multiple wavelengths and redshifts. Using this calibrated framework, we construct LSST-ready mock photometric catalogs over 0 <= z <= 2 in steps of Delta z = 0.1, containing ~378 million galaxies. We provide predicted apparent-magnitude luminosity functions in the LSST ugrizy bands, derive best-fit Schechter parameters as a compact analytic representation, and compute differential and cumulative galaxy number counts as a function of survey depth from Year 1 to Year 10.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents galaxy luminosity functions derived from the ASTRID cosmological hydrodynamical simulation, with galaxy magnitudes obtained via stellar population synthesis combined with a dust attenuation model in which optical depth scales with metal surface density. The dust model is calibrated at z=0 against SDSS data and tested at z=0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 in rest-frame B, V, R, and I bands; the authors report that the attenuated luminosity functions reproduce observed statistics across wavelengths and redshifts. They then generate LSST-ready mock photometric catalogs spanning 0 ≤ z ≤ 2 (Δz=0.1 steps) containing ~378 million galaxies, provide predicted apparent-magnitude luminosity functions in the ugrizy bands, derive best-fit Schechter parameters, and compute differential and cumulative number counts versus survey depth from Year 1 to Year 10.

Significance. If the dust-attenuation extrapolation holds, the work supplies a large, publicly usable set of LSST mock catalogs together with compact analytic Schechter representations and depth-dependent number counts; these are directly usable for survey planning, completeness estimates, and cosmological forecasts. The physically motivated dust prescription and the scale of the mocks (~378 million galaxies) constitute concrete strengths that would be valuable to the LSST community.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and validation section] Abstract and the validation section: the dust attenuation model (optical depth ∝ metal surface density) is calibrated exclusively at z=0 against SDSS luminosity functions and tested only in rest-frame optical bands (BVR I) at z≤1.5. For the LSST ugrizy predictions at z=1–2 the observed bands sample rest-frame UV (e.g., u-band at z=1.5 probes ~140 nm), where the extinction curve and dust-to-metal scaling are known to differ; no quantitative validation metrics or UV-specific tests are reported, directly affecting the reliability of the faint-end slopes and cumulative counts in the mock catalogs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts that the attenuated LFs 'reproduce observed galaxy statistics' without supplying any quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics, error bars, or tabulated comparison values; adding these would strengthen the claim.
  2. [Catalog construction] The description of the mock catalog construction would benefit from explicit statements of the magnitude limits, selection criteria, and any additional observational cuts applied to the ~378 million galaxies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the major comment on the scope of the dust model validation below, providing an honest assessment of the limitations while outlining how we will strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and validation section] Abstract and the validation section: the dust attenuation model (optical depth ∝ metal surface density) is calibrated exclusively at z=0 against SDSS luminosity functions and tested only in rest-frame optical bands (BVR I) at z≤1.5. For the LSST ugrizy predictions at z=1–2 the observed bands sample rest-frame UV (e.g., u-band at z=1.5 probes ~140 nm), where the extinction curve and dust-to-metal scaling are known to differ; no quantitative validation metrics or UV-specific tests are reported, directly affecting the reliability of the faint-end slopes and cumulative counts in the mock catalogs.

    Authors: We agree that the calibration is performed exclusively at z=0 against SDSS and that the explicit tests are limited to rest-frame optical bands (B, V, R, I) at z ≤ 1.5. The manuscript does not report UV-specific luminosity function comparisons or quantitative attenuation metrics at rest-frame wavelengths shorter than ~400 nm. The dust prescription relies on a physically motivated scaling of optical depth with metal surface density combined with a fixed extinction curve; while this framework is applied uniformly to generate the LSST ugrizy predictions, the extrapolation to rest-UV at z=1–2 is indeed an assumption rather than a directly validated result. We will revise the validation section to state the tested wavelength range explicitly, add a dedicated paragraph discussing the implications for UV extrapolation (including possible effects on faint-end slopes), and insert appropriate caveats in the abstract, results, and mock catalog description. These changes constitute a partial revision; we cannot add new observational comparisons or re-run the dust model with UV-specific tuning without additional work beyond the scope of the current study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external calibration and independent validation

full rationale

The paper calibrates the dust attenuation prescription (optical depth scaling with metal surface density) exclusively against external SDSS luminosity functions at z=0, then tests the attenuated LFs against independent observations at z=0.5/1.0/1.5 in rest-frame optical bands before applying the fixed model to generate LSST ugrizy predictions. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked, and the central claims rest on comparison to external benchmarks rather than renaming or fitting the target quantities themselves. The ASTRID simulation outputs are treated as input and validated externally, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained, non-circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ASTRID simulation accurately capturing galaxy formation physics and the dust model calibrated at low redshift extrapolating reliably to higher redshifts and LSST bands.

free parameters (1)
  • dust attenuation scaling parameters
    Optical depth scaling with metal surface density is calibrated to match SDSS luminosity functions at z=0.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The ASTRID cosmological hydrodynamical simulation produces realistic galaxy populations and stellar metallicities.
    The entire framework depends on the simulation's fidelity to real galaxy formation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1419 out tokens · 73505 ms · 2026-05-14T17:38:03.215047+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., et al

    Acero Cuellar, T., Acosta, E., Adair, C. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv

    2026

  2. [2]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3799

    Alarcon, A., Aldoroty, L., Beltz-Mohrmann, G., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3799

    2025

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x 2006

  4. [4]

    K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, 681

    2004

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  6. [6]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A191

    Blanchard, A., Camera, S., Carbone, C., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A191

    2020

  7. [7]

    R., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 186

    2003

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  9. [9]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  10. [10]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  11. [11]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2154

    Chisari, N., Codis, S., Laigle, C., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2154

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2154 2015

  12. [12]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  13. [13]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  14. [14]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 291–337, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 2014

  15. [15]

    F., Kalmbach, J

    Crenshaw, J. F., Kalmbach, J. B., Gagliano, A., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad54bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad54bf 2024

  16. [16]

    S., et al

    Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 126 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827

    2005

  17. [17]

    M., Hadzhiyska, B., Bose, S., et al

    Delgado, A. M., Hadzhiyska, B., Bose, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5899, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1781

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1781 2023

  18. [18]

    The Buzzard Flock: Dark Energy Survey Synthetic Sky Catalogs

    DeRose, J., Wechsler, R. H., Becker, M. R., et al. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02401

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz712 2019

  20. [20]

    P., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., Kelvin, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 3244

    2012

  21. [21]

    2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    Pedersen, C. 2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1451799 2018

  22. [22]

    MNRAS , volume =

    Fortuna, M. C., Hoekstra, H., Joachimi, B., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3802

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3802 2021

  23. [23]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, 41

    Gabasch, A., Bender, R., Seitz, S., et al. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, 41

    2004

  24. [24]

    E., Bilicki, M., et al

    Georgiou, C., Chisari, N. E., Bilicki, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A252, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554134 2025

  25. [25]

    Guidi, G., Scannapieco, C., & Walcher, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2050

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2050 2015

  26. [26]

    The K correction

    Hogg, D. W., Baldry, I. K., Blanton, M. R., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0210394

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  27. [27]

    2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 439, 863

    Ilbert, O., Tresse, L., Zucca, E., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 439, 863

    2005

  28. [28]

    LSST: from Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 556, A55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2013

  29. [29]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1424

    Jagvaral, Y., Singh, S., & Mandelbaum, R. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1424

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1424 2022

  30. [30]

    E., et al

    Joachimi, B., Semboloni, E., Bett, P. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt172

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt172 2013

  31. [31]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  32. [32]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 26

    Korytov, D., Hearin, A., Kovacs, E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 26

    2019

  33. [33]

    MNRAS , volume =

    Krause, E., Eifler, T., & Blazek, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 207–222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2615 2015

  34. [34]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.129991 2025

  35. [35]

    K., et al

    Loveday, J., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 1239

    2012

  36. [36]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415 17

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415 17

    2014

  37. [37]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3: Blue Shear

    McCullough, J., Amon, A., Legnani, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22272, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22272

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.22272 2024

  38. [38]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy color bimodality

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624–647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2017

  39. [39]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  40. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10666

    Ni, Y., Chen, N., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10666

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.10666 2024

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351 NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory Team,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac351 2022

  42. [42]

    2025, RTN-095: The Vera C

    Acero-Cuellar, T., Acosta, E., et al. 2025, RTN-095: The Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory Technical Report, doi: 10.71929/RUBIN/2570536

    work page doi:10.71929/rubin/2570536 2025

  43. [43]

    M., Kravtsov, A., et al

    Pan, Y., Simpson, C. M., Kravtsov, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3663 2023

  44. [44]

    Pei, Y. C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 130, doi: 10.1086/171637

    work page doi:10.1086/171637 1992

  45. [45]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2018

  46. [46]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 2

    Potter, D., Stadel, J., & Teyssier, R. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 2

    2017

  47. [47]

    2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 41

    Ramos, B., Pellegrini, P., Benoist, C., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 41

    2011

  48. [48]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 637–664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2520

    Samuroff, S., Mandelbaum, R., & Blazek, J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 637–664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2520

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2520 2021

  49. [49]

    A., et al

    Samuroff, S., Blazek, J., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2197 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2197 2019

  50. [50]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521

    2015

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Secco, L., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.023515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515 2022

  52. [52]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 51–113, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  53. [53]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 1861

    2001

  54. [54]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 2668–2680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1823

    Tenneti, A., Mandelbaum, R., & Di Matteo, T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 2668–2680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1823

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1823 2016

  55. [55]

    H., et al

    To, C.-H., DeRose, J., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 59

    2024

  56. [56]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 2022

  57. [57]

    M., Feng, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al

    Wilkins, S. M., Feng, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx841

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx841 2017

  58. [58]

    2025, lsst-sims/sims featureScheduler runs5.0: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15832326

    Yoachim, P. 2025, lsst-sims/sims featureScheduler runs5.0: Initial Release, 1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15832326

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15832326 2025

  59. [59]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 41

    Zhou, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 41

    2026