Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Explaining ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3 < z < 5$ in the context of their environments

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conditioning the analysis of ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3<z<5$ on their overdense environments drops the model-data tension from about $5.7\sigma$ to $3.2\sigma$ or less, removing the need for near-100% star-formation…

desk verdict A transparent environment-conditioned EVS calculation that cuts the tension for three ultra-massive quiescent galaxies from 5–6σ to 2–3σ, with a plausible but partially circular conditioning step and missing uncertainty propagation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05340 v1 pith:CSSPTUMI submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

Christian K. Jespersen , Adam C. Carnall , Christopher C. Lovell This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords ultra-massivequiescentgalaxieshigh-redshiftextremevaluestatisticsgalaxyenvironmentoverdensitiescosmicvariancestarformationefficiency
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 argues that ultra-massive quiescent galaxies—massive galaxies that have stopped forming stars, seen only a few billion years after the Big Bang—are not a real crisis for galaxy formation models once you account for where they live. The three galaxies studied all sit inside extreme overdensities, and the paper extends the standard Extreme Value Statistics calculation, which treats every galaxy as living in an average field, to condition on that density. With environment included, the maximum tension between model and data drops from roughly $5.7\sigma$ to $3.2\sigma$ for ZF-UDS-7329 and from about $5\sigma$ to between $1.7\sigma$ and $2.4\sigma$ for the two EXCELS galaxies. The star-formation efficiency needed to grow them falls from near 100% to about 10% at the redshifts where the galaxies were most overmassive. The conclusion is that these objects can be explained without exotic physics, provided each extreme galaxy is analyzed as the expected occupant of the most extreme overdensity in the survey.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an environment-conditioned version of Extreme Value Statistics (EVS), the framework for computing the distribution of the maximum of a sample—here, the mass of the most massive galaxy in a survey volume. The paper's extension has three linked parts: (1) it identifies the overdense subvolume around each target galaxy by fitting a minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoid to the spectroscopic galaxies around it; (2) it estimates how extreme that overdensity is by treating its density percentile $u_\delta$ as the maximum of $N_\delta$ independent uniform draws, where $N_\delta$ is the number of such subvolumes that fit into the total survey volume; and (3) it builds a family of overdensity-dependent stellar mass functions by taking percentiles of a gamma-distributed galaxy count model whose cosmic variance is calibrated to simulated lightcones. Marginalizing over the density percentile, $P(M_{\rm max}|N_\delta) = \int_0^1 P(M_{\rm max}|u_\delta)\,P(u_\delta|N_\delta)\,du_\delta$, then gives the expected mass of the most massive galaxy conditioned on the environment being the most extreme of its kind.

What would settle it

The claim would be falsified by finding an ultra-massive quiescent galaxy at $3<z<5$ in an average-density environment, since the environment-conditioning step would not apply to it; more directly, the analysis would be undercut if a spectroscopic survey of the same field found an overdense subvolume richer than the ones analyzed here, because the paper's Monte Carlo check—which currently finds no such volume—is what justifies treating the chosen volumes as the most extreme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the masses of ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3<z<5$ do not represent significant tension with simple theoretical models of galaxy formation, once the analysis of any given galaxy is conditioned on its environment. To reach this, the paper computes, for each galaxy, the distribution of the most massive galaxy expected in a volume of the same size and density as the overdensity it inhabits, marginalizing over the unknown density percentile. If the claim is right, the maximum tension drops from $5.7\sigma$ to $3.2\sigma$ for ZF-UDS-7329, and from $5.7\sigma$ and $5.0\sigma$ to $2.4\sigma$ and $1.7\sigma$ for the two EXCELS galaxies, while the required star-formation efficiency drops from 100% to about 10% in the high-tension regime $6<z<10$. The claim is not that the tension vanishes entirely—one galaxy still sits at roughly $3\sigma$—but that the discrepancy stops being a significant theoretical challenge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the overdense regions drawn around the three galaxies really are the most extreme such regions in the whole survey, so their density percentile can be modeled as the maximum of many independent draws; if the extremeness is partly produced by drawing the region around the very galaxies being tested, the measured reduction in tension would be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the three galaxies studied, no exotic physics is required: with environment conditioning, pre-JWST star-formation efficiencies reproduce their masses.
  • The required star-formation efficiency at $6 < z < 10$ falls from about 100% to about 10%, an order-of-magnitude change.
  • Other extremely massive high-redshift galaxies should be checked for overdensities before being treated as evidence for modified physics.
  • The method gives a general recipe for asking how surprising the most massive galaxy in any survey is, when the survey's most extreme environments are known.
  • A residual tension of about $3.2\sigma$ remains for ZF-UDS-7329, so the environment explanation substantially reduces but does not fully erase the problem for that object.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The conditioning argument applies only to galaxies demonstrably living in extreme overdensities; a comparably massive quiescent galaxy found in a field-like environment would keep the original tension, a consequence the paper leaves implicit.
  • The same environment-conditioned extreme-value recipe could be applied to other extreme-object puzzles, such as overmassive black holes or overly luminous galaxies, where the question is whether a rare environment biases the expectation.
  • The main numerical lever is the cosmic-variance calibration: if future surveys measure galaxy bias at these masses and redshifts directly, the quoted sigma reductions will shift, up or down.
  • The residual $3\sigma$ for ZF-UDS-7329 suggests that combining environment with modest scatter in the halo-to-stellar-mass relation, or past merging, would likely absorb the remaining discrepancy; the paper mentions these routes but does not quantify them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Extreme Value Statistics (EVS) framework to account for galaxy environment, motivated by three ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at 3<z<5 in the UDS field. The authors identify two overdensities around these galaxies, estimate the number of similar subvolumes Nδ that fit in the survey, construct density-dependent stellar mass functions using a gamma distribution with cosmic variance, and compute P(Mmax|Nδ) by marginalizing over the density percentile of the most extreme overdensity. They report that conditioning on environment reduces the maximum tension from 5.7σ to 3.2σ for ZF-UDS-7329 and from 5.7σ/5.0σ to 2.4σ/1.7σ for the two EXCELS galaxies, and lowers the required star-formation efficiency from 100% to roughly 10% at 6<z<10. A modified EVS code is released with the paper.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful methodological point: extreme galaxies should not be compared with predictions for average fields when they are known to reside in extreme environments. The calculation is transparent, the volume-robustness check is convincing, and the public code release is a strength. However, the main quantitative conclusion rests on an assumption about the extremeness of the selected overdense volumes that is validated using a catalog containing the very galaxies being tested, so the significance of the claim is conditional on resolving that selection issue.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, Appendix B] The central assumption that the selected subvolumes are the most overdense of their kind is validated with a spectroscopic catalog that includes the target galaxies themselves. In the z≈4.62 fiducial volume, 2 of the 8 galaxies are PRIMER-EXCELS-109760 and PRIMER-EXCELS-117560; removing them lowers the richness from 8 to 6 and will change the Monte Carlo tail probability (Appendix B, p(8)≈8×10^-8) by an unknown but potentially large factor. Because P(uδ|Nδ) is sharply peaked near uδ=1 for Nδ=3.9×10^5, even a modest downward revision of uδ can materially reduce the expected maximum mass in Eq. (6) and thus the claimed tension reduction. I request a jackknife in which the target galaxies are removed from both the overdensity identification and the Appendix B sampling, with the resulting tensions reported.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (6), Table 1] Nδ counts all geometric subvolumes that fit in the survey, but density fluctuations in adjacent subvolumes are spatially correlated. The maximum of Nδ effectively independent uniform variates is not the right reference distribution when the effective number of independent cells is much smaller than Nδ. The paper acknowledges the independence assumption at the end of §3.2 but does not quantify its impact. The authors should test the sensitivity of P(Mmax|Nδ) to an effective Nδ substantially smaller than the geometric value, or otherwise demonstrate that spatial correlation does not alter the quoted σ reductions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2, §4.1] Negative σ values (e.g., -1.1σ for EXCELS-117560 with SBF=1) are not defined for a two-sided tension statistic; please clarify the convention or use absolute deviations.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (4), footnote 1] Baryon fraction, stellar baryon fraction, SFE, and ϵ*(z) are used interchangeably, but these quantities are conceptually different; please define each quantity once and use distinct notation.
  3. [§3.2] The distribution of the maximum of Nδ uniform draws is a Beta(Nδ,1) distribution; stating this explicitly would make the calculation easier to verify.
  4. [Appendix A] The caption of Table 2 states that SBF=0.8 in standard EVS gives almost the same results as the fiducial conditioned model, but the 0.8 row is not shown in the table; consider adding it or pointing to the code reproduction.
  5. [§6] The statement that the required SFE drops from 100% to about 10% relies on the Finkelstein et al. (2015b) ϵ*(z) relation, which is calibrated at 4≤z≤7 and then used outside that range; please state this extrapolation explicitly as a caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the environment-conditioned EVS calculation uses external mass functions, external cosmic variance calibrations, and no parameters fitted to the target galaxy masses.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The conditional mass distribution P(Mmax|Nδ) is built from Eq. 6 by marginalizing P(Mmax|uδ) (computed from a halo-mass-function-based stellar mass function with the external Finkelstein et al. 2015b SFE relation) over P(uδ|Nδ) (the standard uniform-maximum EVS distribution). No parameter is fitted to the observed masses of ZF-UDS-7329 or the two EXCELS galaxies; the tension reduction is instead a genuine output of applying the external SMF and cosmic variance model inside an extreme-value calculation. The main potential concern identified in the reader's take is the post-hoc conditioning on the selected volumes being the most extreme overdensities, with the Appendix B Monte Carlo using a catalog that includes the target galaxies. However, this is not circular in the formal sense: the environment is defined by galaxy number counts, not by the fitted stellar masses; the density percentile uδ is derived from the survey-volume ratio Nδ via uniform EVS, not from the target properties; and the Monte Carlo validation merely checks the stated assumption that the volumes are the most overdense by count. Conditioning on an environment that contains the objects under study is a legitimate conditional-probability statement, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the assumption ('one must be willing to condition on a given extreme galaxy residing in the most extreme overdensity in its field'). The self-citations (Lovell et al. 2023 for the base EVS code, Jespersen et al. 2025b for the gamma-distribution cosmic variance model) are backed by public code and calibration to the external UniverseMachine simulation, so they constitute independent evidence rather than a self-referential load-bearing chain. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The selection effect of post-hoc environment conditioning is a legitimate statistical caveat for the interpretation, but it does not amount to circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities, forces, or particles. The ledger entries are the free parameters (overdensity volume boundaries and cosmic variance calibration) and the modeling/domain assumptions that the central claim rests on, particularly the gamma-distribution-based SMF(uδ) construction and the most-extreme-overdensity postulate.

free parameters (2)
  • Overdensity volume boundary (fiducial and extended) = Fiducial z=4.622: rz=0.006, rRA=130.6", rDEC=6", V=0.09 pMpc^3, Nδ=3.9e5; extended: V=2.7, Nδ=1.3e4.
    The spheroidal volumes are grown manually until a 'clear break' in galaxy number counts (Section 3.1). The boundary choice is subjective and directly sets Nδ, which controls how extreme the density percentile is. The paper tests robustness to this choice and finds limited impact, but it is a hand-chosen parameter.
  • Cosmic variance σCV calibration = Calibrated to 32 UniverseMachine lightcones, per mass/redshift/volume bin, with interpolation corrections from…
    σCV sets the variance of the gamma distribution (Eq. 5) and therefore controls how much the high-density SMF(uδ) is boosted at the high-mass end. It is not fitted to the target galaxy masses, but it is a modeling input from a simulation tuned to clustering, and different calibrations would change the predicted tension values.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Extreme value statistics for IID variables: Φ(Xmax ≤ x; N) = [F(x)]^N (Eq. 2-3).
    The paper applies the standard EVS formula for the maximum of N draws. This is a mathematical identity used to derive P(uδ,max|Nδ).
  • domain assumption Galaxy number counts in a volume follow a gamma distribution with mean μ and variance μ + σCV^2 μ^2 (Eq. 5).
    The gamma distribution is adopted following Steinhardt et al. 2021 and Jespersen et al. 2025b. It is a modeling choice that allows super-Poissonian variance, and it is central to building SMF(uδ).
  • domain assumption Subvolumes used for Nδ are statistically independent for the EVS of the density percentile.
    Section 3.2 explicitly states the subvolumes are assumed independent, acknowledging galaxy properties correlate with environment on Mpc scales. The authors argue the survey volume is large enough that this is reasonable, but it remains an approximation.
  • domain assumption The selected subvolumes are the most overdense of their kind in the survey, so uδ is drawn from the distribution of the maximum of Nδ uniform percentiles.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B: this is a postulate that underlies the entire conditioning. The Monte Carlo test supports it for number counts, but the catalog includes the target galaxies and the volumes are defined around them.
  • domain assumption One-to-one mapping between stellar mass and halo mass via M*(z) = fb * ϵ*(z) * Mhalo, with ϵ*(z) = 0.051 + 0.024(z-4) from Finkelstein et al. 2015b (Eq. 4).
    Section 3.3: the mean SMF is linked to the halo mass function through a single stellar baryon fraction. This assumes no scatter in the M*-Mhalo relation (scatter is considered later as a sensitivity test) and uses a pre-JWST calibration of ϵ*(z).
  • domain assumption The density-dependent SMF(uδ) is constructed by taking the uδ-th percentile of the gamma distribution in each mass bin.
    Section 3.3: this is the key modeling step that converts cosmic variance into a set of conditional SMFs. It is a postulate, not derived from simulations or observations, and it drives the high-mass boost at high uδ that reduces the tension.
  • domain assumption The mean SMF is derived from the Behroozi et al. 2013 halo mass function, which is accurate for massive halos at z<10.
    Section 3.3: the halo mass function is taken from Behroozi et al. 2013. The paper notes most HMFs agree for the relevant mass and redshift range, citing Yung et al. 2024 for uncertainty at ultra-high z.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explaining ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3 < z < 5$ in the context of their environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSSPTUMI

@misc{pith2026250705340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explaining ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3 < z < 5$ in the context of their environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSSPTUMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05340}
}
abstract

The swift assembly of the earliest galaxies poses a significant challenge to our understanding of galaxy formation. Ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at intermediate redshifts ($3 < z < 5$) currently present one of the most pressing problems for theoretical modeling, since very few mechanisms can be invoked to explain how such galaxies formed so early in the history of the Universe. Here, we exploit the fact that these galaxies all reside within significant overdensities to explain their masses. To this end, we construct and release a modified version of the Extreme Value Statistics (EVS) code which takes into account galaxy environment by incorporating clustering in the calculation. With this new version of EVS, we find that ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at $3<z<5$ do not present as serious a tension with simple models of galaxy formation when the analysis of a given galaxy is conditioned on its environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: The 3D distribution of galaxies at 3 < z < 5 with spectroscopic redshifts within the PRIMER UDS area. Strong clustering is visible, with two prominent overdensities (marked in grey). The overdensities host ultra-massive galaxies (blue stars), which have been proposed to challenge galaxy formation models. Bottom: Further identification of possible concentrated and extended overdensities. Left: Two possible z ≈ 4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A graphical demonstration of our method for the fiducial subvolume at z ≈ 3.21. The SMF is varied across different density levels, parametrized by the “density percentile”, uδ (left panel). Each SMF(uδ) has a corresponding distribution for the mass of the most massive galaxy, P(Mmax|uδ) (not explicitly shown). We can then combine P(Mmax|uδ) and P(uδ|Nδ), the distribution of maximum density percentiles given that we … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inferred stellar mass histories of the EXCELS ultra-massive quiescent galaxies (blue, dotted) along with different potential theoretical models for their masses (red and grey). Modelling extreme galaxies in the context of their environments (red) raise their expected masses relative to the standard EVS framework (grey), which does not take environment into account. In general, none of the galaxies seem extremely ove… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of galaxy counts within 106.5 randomly sampled ellipsoids (red points with error bars) at z ≈ 4.62 (left) and z ≈ 3.21 (right). Dashed vertical lines show the number of galaxies in the fiducial overdense volumes, which are unmatched in the sampling. Grey …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Is Gvwwlx'v[< EQdmmM4M UUʕ+m4HXt: ,8R֭[ ^nuu] 8v]וv-V߮ʵkפV CbJpcVJT[(r s mh4D?F & ih4DUU)Jp 8!

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    Andreon , S., & Hurn , M. A. 2010, , 404, 1922, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16406.x

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al

    Baker , W. M., Lim , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf475

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf475 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Cullen , F., et al

    Begley , R., McLure , R. J., Cullen , F., et al. 2025, , 537, 3245, 10.1093/mnras/staf211

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf211 2025

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin , A

    Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143, 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Wechsler , R

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

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2000, , 545, 6, 10.1086/317788

    Beisbart , C., & Kerscher , M. 2000, , 545, 6, 10.1086/317788

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Somerville , R

    Bhowmick , A. K., Somerville , R. S., Di Matteo , T., et al. 2020, , 496, 754, 10.1093/mnras/staa1605

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    C., McLeod , D

    Carnall , A. C., McLeod , D. J., McLure , R. J., et al. 2023 a , , 520, 3974, 10.1093/mnras/stad369

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023 b , , 619, 716, 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Cullen , F., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., Cullen , F., McLure , R. J., et al. 2024, , 534, 325, 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, , 633, 318, 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani , S., Hainline , K., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2024, , 633, 318, 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Lin , Y.-T., Ho , S., & Genel , S

    Chuang , C.-Y., Jespersen , C. K., Lin , Y.-T., Ho , S., & Genel , S. 2024, , 965, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6c

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 944, 207, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f3

    Chuang , C.-Y., & Lin , Y.-T. 2023, , 944, 207, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f3

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    E., & White , M

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

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Conroy , C., White , M., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 708, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 2087, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18286.x

    Davis, O., Devriendt, J., Colombi, S., Silk, J., & Pichon, C. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2087, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18286.x

    2011

  15. [23]

    J., Brammer , G., et al

    de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., Brammer , G., et al. 2025 a , Nature Astronomy, 9, 280, 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    2025 b , , 697, A189, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186

    de Graaff , A., Brammer , G., Weibel , A., et al. 2025 b , , 697, A189, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Birnboim , Y., Mandelker , N., & Li , Z

    Dekel , A., Sarkar , K. C., Birnboim , Y., Mandelker , N., & Li , Z. 2023, , 523, 3201, 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, The CANDELS-Area Prism Epoch of Reionization Survey (CAPERS) , JWST Proposal

    Dickinson , M., Amorin , R., Arrabal Haro , P., et al. 2024, The CANDELS-Area Prism Epoch of Reionization Survey (CAPERS) , JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. \#6368

    2024

  19. [27]

    P., Whitler , L., et al

    Endsley , R., Stark , D. P., Whitler , L., et al. 2024, , 533, 1111, 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Dunlop, J., Fevre, O

    Finkelstein, S. L., Dunlop, J., Fevre, O. L., & Wilkins, S. 2015 a , arXiv:1512.04530. http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04530

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L., Song, M., Behroozi, P., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., Song, M., Behroozi, P., et al. 2015 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 95

    2015

  22. [30]

    S., White , S

    Frenk , C. S., White , S. D. M., Davis , M., & Efstathiou , G. 1988, , 327, 507, 10.1086/166213

    1988 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, , 628, 277, 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9

    Glazebrook , K., Nanayakkara , T., Schreiber , C., et al. 2024, , 628, 277, 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Gumbel, E. J. 1958, Statistics of extremes (Columbia University Press)

    1958

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al

    Heintz , K. E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, 10.1126/science.adj0343

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Hu , W., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2003, , 584, 702, 10.1086/345846

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Angeloudi , E., et al

    Huertas-Company , M., Iyer , K. G., Angeloudi , E., et al. 2024, , 685, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346800

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, C omputing in S cience & E ngineering, 9, 90

    2007

  30. [38]

    2024, , 964, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512

    Ito , K., Valentino , F., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 964, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2512

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, , 697, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    Ito , K., Valentino , F., Farcy , M., et al. 2025, , 697, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453211

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Pacifici , C., Calistro-Rivera , G., & Lovell , C

    Iyer , K. G., Pacifici , C., Calistro-Rivera , G., & Lovell , C. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17680, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17680

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jespersen, C. K. 2025, Code for Extreme Value Statistics conditioned on environment, 0.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15742371

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Cranmer , M., Melchior , P., et al

    Jespersen , C. K., Cranmer , M., Melchior , P., et al. 2022, , 941, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b18

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    K., Melchior , P., Spergel , D

    Jespersen , C. K., Melchior , P., Spergel , D. N., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03816, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03816

    2025 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    K., Steinhardt , C

    Jespersen , C. K., Steinhardt , C. L., Somerville , R. S., & Lovell , C. C. 2025 b , , 982, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb422

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Magdis , G

    Jin , S., Sillassen , N. B., Magdis , G. E., et al. 2024, , 683, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 -- 90

    2016

  39. [47]

    C., Harrison , I., Harikane , Y., Tacchella , S., & Wilkins , S

    Lovell , C. C., Harrison , I., Harikane , Y., Tacchella , S., & Wilkins , S. M. 2023, , 518, 2511, 10.1093/mnras/stac3224

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Thomas , P

    Lovell , C. C., Thomas , P. A., & Wilkins , S. M. 2018, , 474, 4612, 10.1093/mnras/stx3090

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Vijayan, A. P., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2127, 10.1093/mnras/staa3360

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    1984, The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, Vol

    Lyotard, J.-F. 1984, The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, Vol. 10 (U of Minnesota Press)

    1984

  43. [51]

    A., Trenti , M., & Treu , T

    Mason , C. A., Trenti , M., & Treu , T. 2023, , 521, 497, 10.1093/mnras/stad035

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, , 982, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    Morishita , T., Liu , Z., Stiavelli , M., et al. 2025, , 982, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb30f

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Somerville , R

    Moster , B. P., Somerville , R. S., Newman , J. A., & Rix , H.-W. 2011, , 731, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/113

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    2013, HMFcalc: An Online Tool for Calculating Dark Matter Halo Mass Functions

    Murray, S., Power, C., & Robotham, A. 2013, HMFcalc: An Online Tool for Calculating Dark Matter Halo Mass Functions. 1306.6721

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara , T., Glazebrook , K., Jacobs , C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Hawkins , E., et al

    Norberg , P., Baugh , C. M., Hawkins , E., et al. 2002, , 332, 827, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05348.x

    2002

  49. [57]

    Overzier , R. A. 2016, , 24, 14, 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    P., & Pisani , A

    Pan , Y., Teyssier , R., Steinwandel , U. P., & Pisani , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02938, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02938

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    J., et al

    Paquereau , L., Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11674, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11674

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, , 618, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833070

    Schreiber , C., Glazebrook , K., Nanayakkara , T., et al. 2018, , 618, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833070

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Gavazzi , R., et al

    Shuntov , M., McCracken , H. J., Gavazzi , R., et al. 2022, , 664, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243136

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, , 695, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    Shuntov , M., Ilbert , O., Toft , S., et al. 2025, , 695, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    L., Capak, P., Masters, D., & Speagle, J

    Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P., Masters, D., & Speagle, J. S. 2016, ApJ, 824, 21, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/21

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Jespersen , C

    Steinhardt , C. L., Jespersen , C. K., & Linzer , N. B. 2021, , 923, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a2f

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Kokorev , V., Rusakov , V., Garcia , E., & Sneppen , A

    Steinhardt , C. L., Kokorev , V., Rusakov , V., Garcia , E., & Sneppen , A. 2023, , 951, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Lovell , C

    Thomas , P. A., Lovell , C. C., Maltz , M. G. A., et al. 2023, , 524, 43, 10.1093/mnras/stad1819

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 767, 10.1086/528674

    Trenti, M., & Stiavelli, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 767, 10.1086/528674

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    Valentino , F., Brammer , G., Gould , K. M. L., et al. 2023, , 947, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    E., Brammer , G., et al

    Valentino , F., Heintz , K. E., Brammer , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01990, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01990

    2025 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2010, , 401, 35, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15709.x

    Wang , L., & Rowan-Robinson , M. 2010, , 401, 35, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15709.x

    2010

  65. [73]

    R., Davidzon , I., Toft , S., et al

    Weaver , J. R., Davidzon , I., Toft , S., et al. 2023, , 677, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    C., Oesch , P

    Williams , C. C., Oesch , P. A., Weibel , A., et al. 2025, , 979, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad97bc

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    F., & Jespersen , C

    Wu , J. F., & Jespersen , C. K. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.12327, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.12327

    2023 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    F., Jespersen , C

    Wu , J. F., Jespersen , C. K., & Wechsler , R. H. 2024, , 976, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bb3

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Yee , H. K. C., & Ellingson , E. 2003, , 585, 215, 10.1086/345929

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    Yung , L. Y. A., Somerville , R. S., Nguyen , T., et al. 2024, , 530, 4868, 10.1093/mnras/stae1188

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.