Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 101 references

CIBER $\times$ galaxy cross-correlations reveal a bright, low-redshift NIR background

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-correlating CIBER maps with galaxy catalogs reveals that the near-infrared background fluctuates far more at low redshift than standard models predict, pointing to clustered galaxies and diffuse intra-halo light as the dominant…

desk verdict Solid new measurement; the interpretation leans on an unpublished co-authored model, so the 'bright NIR background' headline is conditional until that baseline is independently benchmarked. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12116 v1 pith:DUNFHC2M submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Richard M. Feder , Grigory Heaton , James J. Bock , Yun-Ting Cheng , Yi-Kuan Chiang , Phillip M. Korngut , Shuji Matsuura , Jordan Mirocha
show 2 more authors
Kohji Tsumura Michael Zemcov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicinfraredbackgroundextragalacticlightcross-correlationtomographylarge-scalestructurenear-infraredhalomodelintra-halo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the first tomographic cross-correlation of near-infrared extragalactic background light (EBL) fluctuations with photometric galaxy catalogs, using CIBER 1.1 and 1.8 micron maps and galaxies from DESI Legacy Survey DR8 and Hyper-Suprime-Cam. It claims that on angular scales corresponding to multipoles $\ell < 2000$, the measured cross-power exceeds predictions from a standard integrated galaxy light (IGL) model, with the excess concentrated at $z\lesssim 0.6$. If correct, this identifies low-redshift clustered galaxies and intra-halo light as a major, previously underappreciated contributor to near-infrared background fluctuations that earlier CIBER auto-power measurements had left unexplained. The paper further argues that standard model predictions for the bias-weighted intensity kernel $b_I \times dI/dz$ are too low at $z<1$, requiring either brighter low-redshift galaxy light or a higher NIR background intensity than galaxy-count models allow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the two-halo ratio $C^{Ig,2h}_\ell / C^{gg,2h}_\ell \approx (b_I\,dI/dz)/(b_g\,dN/dz)$, which lets the authors convert measured galaxy-intensity cross-spectra into constraints on the bias-weighted intensity redshift kernel. The analysis decomposes the cross-power into one-halo, two-halo, and Poisson terms within a halo model, using Navarro-Frenk-White profiles and separate templates for star-forming and quiescent centrals, with a satellite luminosity fraction parameter $f^L_{\mathrm{sat}}$ to encode satellite and diffuse intra-halo light contributions. The CIBER intensity maps and galaxy overdensity fields are processed through a pseudo-$C_\ell$ pipeline validated on mocks, and the baseline comparison is the Ares semi-empirical IGL model, which generates galaxy populations calibrated to luminosity functions and star-forming main-sequence measurements.

What would settle it

Cross-correlate an independent near-infrared intensity map with a different instrument and systematics against DESI-LS galaxies at $300<\ell<2000$ and $z<0.6$; if the recovered $b_I \times dI/dz$ matches the Ares IGL prediction rather than the CIBER excess, the central claim collapses. A direct measurement of the $z<0.6$ galaxy luminosity function, satellite luminosity fractions, and intra-halo light fractions from deep complete catalogs could also falsify the inferred deficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that CIBER 1.1 and 1.8 $\mu$m maps cross-correlated with $z<1$ galaxy samples from DESI-LS and HSC show significantly more power on scales $304<\ell<2000$ than the standard IGL model predicts, at $7-13\sigma$ significance depending on band and tracer. The excess is strongest in redshift bins $0.1<z<0.5$, where the measured cross-power exceeds predictions by factors of 5-10, and it appears in both one-halo and two-halo terms of a parametric halo model decomposition. Cluster member galaxies contribute 15-20% of the large-angle cross-power despite being fewer than 4% of the sample, but most of the signal comes from group- and galaxy-scale halos. Converting the two-halo fits to $b_I \times dI/dz$ shows that even an intensity bias as high as that of large SZ clusters cannot reconcile the standard IGL model with the measurements, implying that the low-redshift NIR intensity kernel is underpredicted. Finally, a coherence-based reconstruction shows that correlated large-scale structure at $z<1$ accounts for a substantial fraction of the CIBER auto-power previously reported, meaning the long-standing auto-power excess is largely a low-redshift clustering signal rather than an exotic high-redshift component.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the Ares semi-empirical model being a correct standard-baseline description of integrated galaxy light, including its low-redshift galaxy luminosity function, satellite fractions, and intra-halo light; if that baseline is too faint, the reported excess and the inferred deficiency in $b_I \times dI/dz$ are inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Correlated large-scale structure at $z<1$ accounts for a substantial portion of the CIBER auto-power excess on scales $300<\ell<2000$ when combined with stellar and diffuse Galactic light estimates.
  • Both one-halo and two-halo clustering are detected in the cross-spectra at high significance, with the one-halo amplitude similar between DESI-LS and the deeper HSC catalog, pointing to satellites and/or diffuse intra-halo light in lower-mass halos.
  • Cluster member galaxies contribute 15-20% of the large-angle cross-power, so groups and galaxy-scale halos rather than massive clusters dominate the signal.
  • Standard IGL predictions for $b_I \times dI/dz$ at $z<0.6$ fall below the measurements even with a tSZ-like intensity bias, implying a higher $dI/dz$ that tensions with galaxy-count and gamma-ray EBL constraints but aligns with absolute photometric measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the excess is real, future full-sky near-infrared intensity mappers cross-correlated with dense spectroscopic samples should localize the signal to specific halo masses and redshifts, potentially separating satellite galaxies from diffuse intra-halo light through the shape of the one-halo term.
  • A testable corollary of the similar one-halo amplitudes between shallow and deep catalogs is that flux-weighted cross-correlations split by stellar mass should show stronger signal in lower-mass bins than standard halo-occupation models predict.
  • The inferred higher $dI/dz$ at $z<0.6$ predicts a specific spectral energy distribution; multi-band cross-correlations could check whether the excess has a stellar-continuum shape, distinguishing extra galaxy light from more exotic contributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first tomographic cross-correlation analysis of near-infrared extragalactic background light (EBL) anisotropies, combining CIBER 1.1 and 1.8 μm imaging with photometric galaxy samples from DESI-LS and HSC over z<1. The authors report significant cross-power detections at ℓ<2000, exceeding predictions of the 'Ares' semi-empirical integrated galaxy light (IGL) model by factors of several, with the excess concentrated at z≲0.6. Halo-model fits separate one- and two-halo components, and the inferred bias-weighted intensity kernel b_I×dI/dz is claimed to exceed Ares-based predictions even for an intensity bias as high as that of large SZ clusters. The paper also reconstructs a lower bound on the CIBER auto-power contributed by z<1 large-scale structure, arguing that it explains a substantial fraction of the excess auto-power reported in earlier CIBER work. The pseudo-Cℓ pipeline is validated on 500 mock realizations, with additional Gaia cross-correlation checks and field-consistency tests.

Significance. If the model-dependence of the comparison is resolved, these are important measurements: they constitute the first tomographic EBL-galaxy cross-spectra in the near-infrared, with a validated pipeline, stellar-foreground checks, and internal consistency tests. The claim that low-redshift clustered galaxies and intra-halo light contribute significantly to NIR EBL fluctuations is falsifiable and has direct implications for CIBER-2, SPHEREx, and EoR foreground studies. However, the central quantitative claims are currently conditional on an unpublished co-authored model, so the headline 'bright, low-redshift NIR background' interpretation is not yet independently supported. The underlying cross-power measurements are likely robust and valuable regardless of the model comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 and §7.1] The central claim that the cross-power is 'significantly higher than expectations from an IGL model' is made relative to the Ares semi-empirical model [58], which is unpublished and developed by a co-author. The quoted significances (7.4σ/6.2σ for DESI-LS and 4.3σ/5.3σ for HSC at ℓ<2000) are conditional on the Ares two-halo, one-halo, and Poisson predictions, but no model uncertainty is propagated. Since the one-halo templates are generated from the same model, the comparison of fitted A_1h amplitudes to 'predictions' is partly a self-consistency check. If Ares underpredicts the low-redshift luminosity function, satellite fraction, or intra-halo light, the measured 'excess' and the inferred deficiency in b_I×dI/dz would be inflated. The paper should quantify model uncertainties and/or show that the excess persists against an independent IGL baseline (e.g., Helgason et al. 2012 or Driver et al. 2016) before claiming a bright low-redshift NIR background.
  2. [§8.2, Table 3] The fiducial model gives statistically unacceptable fits in several bins that drive the main conclusions. For CIBER×DESI-LS in z∈[0.2,0.4), Table 3 reports χ²=30.1 (1.1 μm) and 34.6 (1.8 μm) for 13 degrees of freedom, corresponding to χ²_red=2.31 and 2.66; for z∈[0.6,0.8) at 1.8 μm, χ²=37.6 (χ²_red=2.89). These are PTE<0.001 fits, yet Appendix C states that 'our halo model provides acceptable fits to the data' and these same fits provide the A_2h amplitudes that feed the b_I×dI/dz constraints. Model misspecification at this level can bias the inferred amplitudes. The paper should either improve the model for these bins, report the poor fit quality as a caveat on the interpretation, or restrict quantitative conclusions to bins with acceptable χ².
  3. [§8.2.4, Fig. 11] The argument that 'standard IGL predictions underestimate our measurements, even when assuming an intensity bias as high as 3' only varies b_I while holding the Ares dI/dz fixed. The four curves in Fig. 11 correspond to different b_I assumptions, not to different dI/dz; therefore the conclusion that 'a higher dI/dz is required' is conditional on the Ares emissivity kernel. To make this claim robust, the paper should compare the derived b_I×dI/dz values with independent dI/dz estimates from galaxy counts (e.g., Driver et al. 2016; Helgason et al. 2012) and propagate their uncertainties. Without such a comparison, the discrepancy is a statement about the Ares model rather than about the NIR background.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The text refers to 'Appendix 4.2' for the random catalog construction, but the relevant appendix is A.3 (and A.4 for HSC).
  2. [§8.2.1] Equation (8.1) uses P_ℓ for the Gaussian damping factor, but P_ℓ was already used for the Poisson component in §2.3; please use a distinct symbol (e.g., D_ℓ) to avoid confusion.
  3. [Fig. 7] The label 'DESI-LS CMGs with CMGs removed' in the left panel is confusing; it presumably means 'DESI-LS with CMGs removed'.
  4. [§5.2.3 and Eq. (5.8)] The symbol n_g appears as a comoving density in Eq. (5.2) and as an angular density in Eq. (5.8); please define these separately to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Abstract and §1] The claim of 'first tomographic analysis' should be qualified in light of earlier EBL-tomography work cited as [15] and [19]; please clarify the novel element, e.g., the first measurement with NIR intensity maps rather than the first method development.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured cross-power is independent of the Ares IGL baseline, and the model comparison, though dependent on a co-authored in-prep model, is not equivalent to the fitted parameters by construction.

full rationale

The central claim is that the measured CIBER×galaxy cross-power exceeds the Ares-based IGL prediction. The measurement itself (pseudo-Cℓ pipeline, Eq. 6.1) is derived directly from CIBER maps and DESI-LS/HSC catalogs, with no Ares input. Ares enters only as the theoretical baseline: it supplies the two-halo template amplitude normalized by b_I=1 and dI/dz, the one-halo templates, and the Poisson level. The parametric fits (Eq. 8.1) allow A2h, A1h, fpop, and Poisson to float, so the data could have returned A2h=0 or A2h=1; finding A2h significantly larger than the model's unit amplitude is a comparison of an independent measurement to a model, not a self-consistency check. The conversion to b_I×dI/dz is a rescaling of the fitted A2h by the model's dI/dz; both the measured points and the model curves in Fig. 11 share this dI/dz, so the conclusion that dI/dz must be larger is conditional on the assumed model, but the comparison is not equivalent to the input by construction. The Ares model is calibrated to external galaxy data (stellar mass functions, UV luminosity functions, star-forming main sequence), not to the CIBER cross-power, so the self-citation (ref [58], in prep) is not a circular import; it is a robustness and reproducibility concern to be resolved when the model is published. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The auto-power reconstruction in §8.3 is a lower bound derived from independently measured cross- and auto-spectra. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the halo model decomposition parameters (A_2h, A_1h, f_pop, A_Poisson) and on the Ares IGL baseline, which is an in-preparation model by a co-author. The galaxy bias polynomial and damping width are fitted to external data, while satellite fractions are adopted by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • A_2h = 0.090 ± 0.024 (example, 1.1 μm DESI-LS 0.4<z<0.6)
    Fitted amplitude rescaling the linear two-halo template in Eq. (8.1); the b_I×dI/dz estimates in §8.2.4 are derived from these fits.
  • A_1h = Reported as DIg_1h(ℓ=5000), e.g., 0.326 ± 0.079 nW m-2 sr-1 (1.1 μm DESI-LS 0.4<z<0.6)
    Fitted amplitude rescaling the one-halo template; the one-halo power shown in Fig. 10 is derived from it.
  • f_pop = 0.431 ± 0.193 (example, 1.1 μm DESI-LS 0.4<z<0.6)
    Fitted linear weighting between quiescent and star-forming one-halo templates in Eq. (8.1); partly degenerate with A_1h.
  • A_Poisson = 0.44 ± 0.08 × 10^-7 (example, 1.1 μm DESI-LS 0.4<z<0.6)
    Fitted constant Poisson amplitude in Eq. (8.1) that absorbs the unresolved-source shot noise.
  • b_g(z) polynomial coefficients = b_g(z) = 0.94 - 0.21z + 1.22z^2 (Eq. 5.1)
    Effective galaxy bias for DESI-LS, fitted to Tomographer cross-correlation measurements; used in two-halo predictions and in converting A_2h to b_I×dI/dz.
  • sigma_damp = 2.3 arcsec (1.1 μm), 2.1 arcsec (1.8 μm)
    Gaussian damping width characterizing astrometric alignment error, fitted to CIBER×Gaia cross-spectra (App. D.2); applied to all cross-spectrum models.
  • f_sat and <j_sat>/<j_cen> = f_sat = {0.12, 0.17}; <j_sat>/<j_cen> = 0.5
    Adopted satellite fractions and emissivity ratio from literature, used to set the Poisson level in the IGL predictions (§5.2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Limber approximation is accurate for ℓ≥300
    Invoked in §2.1 when projecting 3D power spectra to angular power spectra.
  • domain assumption Halo model decomposition with NFW profiles and Tinker & Wetzel sub-halo mass function describes the one-halo and two-halo terms
    Used throughout §2 and §5.2.2 to construct templates for the fits and predictions.
  • domain assumption Galaxy overdensity and intensity fields are linearly biased tracers of the matter field on two-halo scales, with r_Ig≈1
    Central to the b_I×dI/dz estimates and to the coherence-based auto-power reconstruction in §8.3 (Eq. 8.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Ares model predictions for galaxy luminosity functions and SEDs are accurate over the relevant mass and redshift range
    The Ares model is cited as 'Mirocha, J. et al. 2026, in prep.' (§5.1, reference [58]); it defines the baseline IGL predictions, but is not independently published.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift distributions from Tomographer (DESI-LS) and DNNz (HSC) are accurate within the Δz=0.2 bins
    Used in §4.1 to define tomographic galaxy samples and in §8.2 for the halo model fits.
  • domain assumption Source alignment errors are described by a Gaussian damping with fitted sigma_damp
    Fitted from CIBER×Gaia cross-spectra (App. D) and applied to all cross-spectrum models; the fitted width is small relative to the CIBER pixel size.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CIBER $\times$ galaxy cross-correlations reveal a bright, low-redshift NIR background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUNFHC2M

@misc{pith2026260812116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CIBER $\times$ galaxy cross-correlations reveal a bright, low-redshift NIR background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUNFHC2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12116}
}
abstract

We perform the first tomographic analysis of near-IR extragalactic background light (EBL) anisotropies, cross-correlating CIBER 1.1 and 1.8 $\mu$m imager data with photometric galaxy catalogs from DESI Legacy Survey DR8 and Hyper-Suprime-Cam Ultra-Deep Survey. We measure significantly higher cross-power than expectations from an integrated galaxy light (IGL) model on scales $\ell < 2000$, concentrated at low redshift ($z\lesssim 0.6$). Cluster member galaxies and associated structure account for 15-20\% of the large-angle cross-power, indicating that group- and galaxy-scale halos contribute the bulk of the signal. Through a parametric halo model decomposition, we detect two-halo and one-halo clustering in cross-power at high significance, with amplitudes that decline smoothly across $z=0{-}1$. The inferred one-halo cross-power is of similar amplitude between DESI-LS and the deeper HSC catalog, implying a scenario in which low-redshift EBL fluctuations are amplified by contributions from lower-mass halos with satellites and/or diffuse intra-halo light (IHL). Converting our two-halo fits into estimates of $b_I \times dI/dz$, we find that standard IGL predictions underestimate our measurements, even when assuming an intensity bias as high as 3, similar to that of large SZ clusters, suggesting that a higher $dI/dz$ is required to reconcile observed discrepancies. Lastly, we find that correlated large-scale structure (LSS) at $z<1$ accounts for a substantial fraction of the CIBER auto-power reported in earlier work. These results identify low-redshift LSS as a significant and previously unappreciated contributor to near-IR EBL fluctuation measurements, setting the stage for cross-correlation science with CIBER-2, SPHEREx and a variety of LSS tracers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    Mirocha, J. et al. 2026, in prep

    2026

  2. [1]

    2018, Publ

    Aihara, H., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 70, S8, doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  3. [2]

    2022, Publ

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 74, 247, doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  4. [3]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.23107

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Andr´ es, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.23107. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23107

    arXiv 2026

  5. [4]

    On Cross-Correlating Line Intensity Maps from SPHEREx during Reionization

    Ambrose, A. E., Visbal, E., & McQuinn, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10005, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.10005

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10005 2026

  6. [5]

    G., Kashlinsky, A., Moseley, S

    Arendt, R. G., Kashlinsky, A., Moseley, S. H., & Mather, J. 2016, Astrophys. J., 824, 26, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/26

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/1/26 2016

  7. [6]

    2005, Astrophys

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

    doi:10.1086/426733 2005

  8. [7]

    D., Ajello, M., et al

    Banerjee, A., Finke, J. D., Ajello, M., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 1003, 86, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae581a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae581a 2026

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, Astrophys. J., 770, 57, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  2. [9]

    2013, Astrophys

    Bock, J., Sullivan, I., Arai, T., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 207, 32, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/32

    2013 doi

  3. [10]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02985, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.02985

    2025 doi

  4. [11]

    T., Buitrago, P., Hanna, E., et al

    Brown, S. T., Buitrago, P., Hanna, E., et al. 2021, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2021: Evolution Across All Dimensions, PEARC ’21 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi:10.1145/3437359.3465593

    2021

  5. [12]

    A., O’Brien, R., et al

    Carleton, T., Windhorst, R. A., O’Brien, R., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.06347. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06347

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D., Carleton, T., Henningsen, D

    Carter, D. D., Carleton, T., Henningsen, D. J., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 283, 21, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3721

    2026 doi

  7. [14]

    Cheng, Y.-T., & Bock, J. J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.13712. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13712

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    2022, Astrophys

    Cheng, Y.-T., & Chang, T.-C. 2022, Astrophys. J., 925, 136, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee

    2022 doi

  9. [16]

    2021, Astrophys

    Cheng, Y.-T., Arai, T., Bangale, P., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 919, 69, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f5b

    2021 doi

  10. [17]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, doi:10.1038/s41550-026-02798-6

    Chiang, Y.-K. 2026, Nature Astronomy, doi:10.1038/s41550-026-02798-6

    2026 doi

  11. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05384, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.05384

    Chiang, Y.-K., Makiya, R., & M´ enard, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05384, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.05384

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [19]

    2019, Astrophys

    Chiang, Y.-K., M´ enard, B., & Schiminovich, D. 2019, Astrophys. J., 877, 150, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    V., Lin, Y.-R., Taghizadeh-Popp, M., & M´ enard, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Ng, Y. V., Lin, Y.-R., Taghizadeh-Popp, M., & M´ enard, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2608.03415.https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03415

    2026 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Choppin de Janvry, J., Gontcho, S. G. A., Seljak, U., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.18133, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.18133

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [22]

    2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150555, doi:10.1098/rsos.150555 – 42 –

    Cooray, A. 2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150555, doi:10.1098/rsos.150555 – 42 –

    2016 doi

  16. [23]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1210.6031, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1210.6031

    Cooray, A., Smidt, J., De Bernardis, F., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1210.6031, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1210.6031

    2012 doi arXiv

  17. [24]

    J., Chen, S.-S., Kang, J

    Cukierman, A. J., Chen, S.-S., Kang, J. H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25790, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.25790

    2026 doi

  18. [25]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12353, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.12353

    Das, S., Chiang, Y.-K., & Mathur, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12353, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.12353

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [26]

    G., et al

    DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, Astron. J., 171, 285, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43

    2026 doi

  20. [27]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, Astron. J., 157, 168, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  21. [28]

    P., Andrews, S

    Driver, S. P., Andrews, S. K., Davies, L. J., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 827, 108, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/108

    2016 doi

  22. [29]

    Duncan, K. J. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys DR8 photometric redshifts (Duncan, 2022), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/292. Originally published in: 2022MNRAS.512.3662D

    2022

  23. [30]

    R., et al

    Euclid Collaboration, Cao, Y., Cooray, A. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21111, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.21111

    2026 doi arXiv

  24. [31]

    M., Bock, J

    Feder, R. M., Bock, J. J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17932, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.17932

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17933, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.17933

    —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17933, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.17933

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [33]

    2019, Astrophys

    Feng, C., Cooray, A., Bock, J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 875, 86, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d8e

    2019 doi

  27. [34]

    R., Komatsu, E., Iliev, I

    Fernandez, E. R., Komatsu, E., Iliev, I. T., & Shapiro, P. R. 2010, Astrophys. J., 710, 1089, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1089

    2010 doi

  28. [35]

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

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

    2016 doi

  29. [36]

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

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

    2013 doi

  30. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 674, A1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  31. [38]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, Astron. Astrophys., 436, 895, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042352

    2005 doi

  32. [39]

    2024, Astrophys

    Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., & Nievas Rosillo, M. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 975, L18, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad85c9

    2024 doi

  33. [40]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14908, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.14908

    Greene, J., Bezanson, R., Ouchi, M., Silverman, J., & the PFS Galaxy Evolution Working Group. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14908, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.14908

    2022 doi arXiv

  34. [41]

    J., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Qu, F. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19745, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.19745

    2026 doi arXiv

  35. [42]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  36. [43]

    G., & Dwek, E

    Hauser, M. G., & Dwek, E. 2001, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 39, 249, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.249

    2001 doi

  37. [44]

    2012, Astrophys

    Helgason, K., Ricotti, M., & Kashlinsky, A. 2012, Astrophys. J., 752, 113, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/113 – 43 –

    2012 doi

  38. [45]

    W., & Scott, D

    Hill, R., Masui, K. W., & Scott, D. 2018, Applied Spectroscopy, 72, 663, doi:10.1177/0003702818767133

    2018 doi

  39. [46]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 480, 800, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  40. [47]

    E., et al

    Huang, S., Leauthaud, A., Greene, J. E., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 475, 3348, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3200

    2018 doi

  41. [48]

    2020, Astrophys

    Ishikawa, S., Kashikawa, N., Tanaka, M., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 904, 128, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd95

    2020 doi

  42. [49]

    J., Kim, J., et al

    Joo, H., Jee, M. J., Kim, J., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J., 990, 96, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4d0

    2025 doi

  43. [50]

    M., Bock, J

    Korngut, P. M., Bock, J. J., Condon, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29835, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.29835

    2026 doi

  44. [51]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, Astron. J., 139, 1782, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  45. [52]

    R., Postman, M., Weaver, H

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 906, 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc881

    2021 doi

  46. [53]

    R., Postman, M., Spencer, J

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 927, L8, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac573d

    2022 doi

  47. [54]

    2011, Astrophys

    Matsuura, S., Shirahata, M., Kawada, M., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J., 737, 2, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/2

    2011 doi

  48. [55]

    J., et al

    Matsuura, S., Arai, T., Bock, J. J., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 839, 7, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6843

    2017 doi

  49. [56]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4722, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1303.4722

    M´ enard, B., Scranton, R., Schmidt, S., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4722, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1303.4722

    2013 doi arXiv

  50. [57]

    2016, Astrophys

    Merritt, A., van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., & Zhang, J. 2016, Astrophys. J., 830, 62, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/62

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7945, doi:10.1038/ncomms8945

    Mitchell-Wynne, K., Cooray, A., Gong, Y., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7945, doi:10.1038/ncomms8945

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2018, Publ

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 70, S1, doi:10.1093/pasj/psx063

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    L., Aird, J., et al

    Moustakas, J., Coil, A. L., Aird, J., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 767, 50, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, Astrophys. J., 490, 493, doi:10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  55. [63]

    G., Windhorst, R

    O’Brien, R., Arendt, R. G., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 1000, 6, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4512

    2026 doi

  56. [64]

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

    Page, M. J., Dwelly, T., McHardy, I., et al. 2025, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 536, 518, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2498

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    2018, Mon

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 473, 4077, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Parker, J

    Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Parker, J. W., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 972, 95, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ffc – 44 –

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Lagos, C

    Proctor, K. L., Lagos, C. d. P., Ludlow, A. D., & Robotham, A. S. G. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12584.https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12584

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    W., Bullock, J

    Purcell, C. W., Bullock, J. S., & Zentner, A. R. 2007, Astrophys. J., 666, 20, doi:10.1086/519787

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    2012, Astrophys

    Pyo, J., Matsumoto, T., Jeong, W.-S., & Matsuura, S. 2012, Astrophys. J., 760, 102, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/102

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., et al

    Qu, F. J., Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19744, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.19744

    2026 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    2012, Mon

    Raue, M., & Meyer, M. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 426, 1097, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21744.x

    2012

  64. [72]

    2025, Phys

    Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 103512, doi:10.1103/lqbj-wcqj

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Mihos, J

    Rudick, C. S., Mihos, J. C., & McBride, C. K. 2011, Astrophys. J., 732, 48, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/48

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 173, 267, doi:10.1086/519218

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., et al

    Sanderson, R. E., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 869, 12, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb33

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed

    Sano, K., Nakagawa, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, Vol. 13092, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130920W, doi:10.1117/12.3014708

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2021, Phys

    Schaan, E., Ferraro, S., Amodeo, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 063513, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063513

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, Mon

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 526, 4978, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2026, Mon

    Schaye, J., Chaikin, E., Schaller, M., et al. 2026, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 548, stag375, doi:10.1093/mnras/stag375

    2026 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed

    Takimoto, K., Hirose, Y., Iwaki, T., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, Vol. 13092, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130920X, doi:10.1117/12.3016614

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    2018, Publ

    Tanaka, M., Coupon, J., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2018, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 70, S9, doi:10.1093/pasj/psx077

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., Rieke, M., & Kennicutt, R

    Thompson, R. I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., Rieke, M., & Kennicutt, R. C. 2007, Astrophys. J., 657, 669, doi:10.1086/511380

    2007 doi

  75. [83]

    L., & Wetzel, A

    Tinker, J. L., & Wetzel, A. R. 2010, Astrophys. J., 719, 88, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/88

    2010 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Quadri, R

    Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 783, 85, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/85

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    2016, Astrophys

    —. 2016, Astrophys. J., 817, 118, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/118

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Driver, S

    Tompkins, S. A., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03412, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.03412

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    2013, Astrophys

    Tsumura, K., Arai, T., Battle, J., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 207, 33, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/33

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    Varnish, T. W. O., Wu, X., Pearson, C., Clements, D. L., & Parmar, A. 2025, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 539, 347, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf318 – 45 –

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    P., Wang, L., Zemcov, M., et al

    Viero, M. P., Wang, L., Zemcov, M., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 772, 77, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/77

    2013 doi

  82. [90]

    P., Moncelsi, L., Quadri, R

    Viero, M. P., Moncelsi, L., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 809, L22, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L22

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Galloway, M., Gjerløw, E., et al

    Watts, D. J., Galloway, M., Gjerløw, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01491, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.01491

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    L., & Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., & Han, J. L. 2024, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 272, 39, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad409d

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 795, 104, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/104

    2014 doi

  86. [94]

    C., Curtis-Lake, E., Hainline, K

    Williams, C. C., Curtis-Lake, E., Hainline, K. N., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 236, 33, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    S., Jing, Y

    Xu, K., Frenk, C. S., Jing, Y. P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29331, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.29331

    2026 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    J., & van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2003, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 339, 1057, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06254.x

    2003

  89. [97]

    2013, Astrophys

    Zemcov, M., Arai, T., Battle, J., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 207, 31, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/31

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    2014, Science, 346, 732, doi:10.1126/science.1258168

    Zemcov, M., Smidt, J., Arai, T., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 732, doi:10.1126/science.1258168

    2014 doi

  91. [99]

    J., Cooray, A., et al

    Zemcov, M., Bock, J. J., Cooray, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05210, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.05210

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Zheng, Z., Berlind, A. A., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 633, 791, doi:10.1086/466510

    2005 doi

  93. [101]

    A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou, R., Newman, J. A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 501, 3309, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3764 – 46 –

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.