Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 113 references

Identifying a protocluster formation at z $\sim$ 4.5 in the COSMOS field: an extension of Taralay protocluster, traced by Ly-alpha emitters surrounding a submm galaxy

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Four overdense regions of Ly$\alpha$ emitters around the submillimeter galaxy J1000+0234 trace a large-scale structure at $z=4.54$ that is likely infalling toward the Taralay protocluster and may evolve into a moderate-mass cluster by…

desk verdict A careful, standard narrow-band LAE survey that convincingly maps a z~4.5 overdensity around J1000+0234 and links it to Taralay; the infall claim is speculative and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11804 v1 pith:KL3G4V35 submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Mariana Rubet , Karín Menéndez-Delmestre , Thiago Signorini Gonçalves , Felipe Almeida-Fernandes , Luidhy Santana-Silva , Peter L. Capak , Kartik Sheth This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords Ly-alphaemittersprotoclustersnarrow-bandimagingsubmillimetergalaxiesCOSMOSfieldgalaxyoverdensitieshigh-redshiftstructureformationTaralayprotocluster
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to test whether the submillimeter galaxy J1000+0234 at $z=4.54$ sits inside a forming galaxy cluster. Using deep narrow-band imaging centered on the Ly$\alpha$ line, the authors identify 80 Ly$\alpha$ emitter candidates around the source and measure how much denser these galaxies are than the average field. They find a mean overdensity of $\bar\delta = 3$ over a region of roughly $27 \times 20 \times 36$ cMpc$^3$, made up of four overdense subregions (S1--S4). Comparing the overdensities with simulations, they argue that the largest region should grow into a moderate-mass cluster of $3$--$10\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ by $z=0$, and that the most prominent peak sits about 10 cMpc from and is likely falling into the known Taralay protocluster. The broader claim is that a submillimeter source, though offset from the main density peak, can act as a tracer of a moderately massive, infalling structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is photometric selection of Ly$\alpha$ emitters: sources are detected in a narrow-band filter (676 nm, FWHM 6.5 nm) centered on Ly$\alpha$ at $z=4.54$, an observed equivalent-width cut of $\ge 137.5$ \AA{} plus a $3\sigma$ narrow-band excess selects line emitters, and COSMOS2020 photometric redshifts flag low-redshift interlopers ([OII], [OIII], H$\alpha$), reducing the sample to 76 candidates (54 with $z_{\rm phot}\sim4.5$ and 22 without matches). The overdensity map is made with a two-dimensional Gaussian KDE (FWHM 25 cMpc), converted to volume density with the volume probed by the narrow band and divided by the field Ly$\alpha$ density from an interpolated Schechter luminosity function; the resulting $1+\delta$ map is then compared with the protocluster thresholds and descendant-mass calibrations of Chiang et al. (2013) and Muldrew et al. (2015).

What would settle it

Take spectra of all 22 LAE candidates without COSMOS2020 counterparts, plus a matched sample of the photo-z-selected candidates, targeting the 676 nm region to detect Ly$\alpha$ at $z\simeq4.54$. If the confirmed Ly$\alpha$ fraction among the unmatched candidates differs substantially from the assumed 46% interloper rate, the KDE map, $\bar\delta=3$, and the S1--S4 classifications change; if few candidates in S1 are confirmed at $z\simeq4.54$, the infall and cluster-mass interpretation loses its basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that the environment around J1000+0234 is not a typical field but an assembled large-scale structure at $z=4.54\pm0.03$. From 80 Ly$\alpha$ emitter candidates selected by narrow-band excess and an equivalent-width cut, after rejecting 46% of photometrically matched sources as low-redshift interlopers and randomly removing the same fraction from unmatched candidates, the authors build a Gaussian KDE overdensity map with four regions that meet protocluster criteria: S1 (the largest, $\bar\delta=3$ within a $(25\,\mathrm{cMpc})^3$ volume), S3 ($\bar\delta=3.8$), and the smaller S2 and S4. S1 lies at the same redshift and roughly 10 cMpc from the Taralay protocluster, which the authors read as a young halo infalling toward the larger, older structure. They conclude that S1 should evolve into a cluster of $3$--$10\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ by $z=0$, and that J1000+0234, located in the moderate overdensity S2, traces a potentially infalling protogroup rather than a cluster core.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the 46% low-redshift interloper fraction measured among LAE candidates with COSMOS2020 matches applies equally to the 22 candidates without photometric redshifts, so that randomly removing 46% of those unmatched candidates leaves an unbiased overdensity map.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the region enclosed by S1, S2, and S3 matches the expected extent of a high-mass ($>10^{15}\,M_\odot$) cluster progenitor at $z\sim4$, placing J1000+0234 in an active hierarchical assembly site.
  • The submillimeter source J1000+0234 would exemplify SMGs that trace moderately overdense, infalling structures rather than the main density peak, supporting their continued use as protocluster tracers.
  • The proximity of S1 to Taralay gives a concrete system in which to watch a newly assembled halo fall into an already massive protocluster, a stage that simulations predict but few observations resolve.
  • The same narrow-band excess method could map the LAE population inside Taralay itself, connecting young star-forming halos with the older continuum-bright galaxies in the same structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 46% interloper correction applied to the 22 unmatched candidates is the main quantitative lever; if those faint sources are preferentially real LAEs, then $\bar\delta=3$ and the S1--S4 peaks are underestimates, and the inferred descendant masses would shift upward.
  • A spectroscopic campaign targeting the 22 unmatched candidates could turn the statistical overdensity map into a kinematic one, measuring the infall velocity of S1 toward Taralay directly rather than inferring it from proximity.
  • The same approach could be applied to other submillimeter galaxies in COSMOS to test whether an offset from the density peak is a general property of SMGs at $z>4$ or specific to this field.
  • Comparing the spatial distribution of LAEs with the spectroscopically confirmed members of Taralay might reveal whether star-forming galaxies are quenched before they merge into the massive halo.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. Rubet et al. present deep IMACS narrow-band imaging of a 0.16 deg² region of COSMOS around the submillimeter galaxy J1000+0234 at z = 4.54. They select 76 Lyα emitter (LAE) candidates using narrow-band excess, an EW cut, COSMOS2020 photometric redshifts, and visual inspection, of which 7 have prior spectroscopic confirmation. They construct a KDE overdensity map, identify four overdense regions S1–S4, report a mean LAE number overdensity of δbar = 3 for S1 within a (25 cMpc)³ volume, and use the simulations of Chiang et al. (2013) and Muldrew et al. (2015) to argue that S1 may evolve into a 3–10 × 10¹⁴ M☉ cluster and that the structure is likely infalling toward the Taralay protocluster.

Significance. If the overdensity is real, this paper provides a wide-field LAE view of an assembling structure at z ≈ 4.5 and strengthens the case that submillimeter galaxies can trace protocluster-scale environments. The strengths of the paper are the careful astrometric and photometric calibration using GaiaXPy synthetic photometry, the explicit cross-checks against multiple external field-density estimates (Ouchi et al. 2020; Sobral et al. 2018; Herrera et al. 2025), and the use of spectroscopic catalogs to confirm 7 of the candidates. The overdensity anchors are external, so I do not see a circularity problem. The main concern, which I share with the stress-test note, is that the central measurement depends on transferring an interloper fraction measured on COSMOS2020-matched candidates to a fainter, unmatched population, and on a field-density estimate whose full uncertainty is not propagated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1.2] The 46% low-redshift interloper fraction measured among the 99 LAE candidates with COSMOS2020 counterparts is applied to the 22 candidates without any photometric redshift, and the KDE map is produced by randomly removing 46% of those 22 candidates in each of 300 realizations. As the authors themselves note in Section 4.3, the unmatched candidates are fainter and lack broad-band counterparts, which is plausibly the population most likely to be genuine high-redshift LAEs. If those 22 candidates are preferentially genuine, the random removal suppresses the true overdensity and can erase S1–S4; if they are preferentially interlopers, it inflates them. Please provide a robustness test that recomputes the map and δbar under (i) no interloper removal, (ii) removal of all 22 unmatched candidates, and (iii) interloper fractions of 0.2 and 0.7, and report whether the existence and significance of S1–S4 survive.
  2. [Section 5.1.1] The field density n′ is estimated by interpolating the Schechter parameters L⋆, Φ⋆, and α to z = 4.5 from Ouchi et al. (2020), a redshift at which that compilation does not provide a direct measurement, and by convolving the luminosity function with a completeness function f(L) fitted to the narrow-band number counts. The quoted uncertainty on n′ of (5.5 ± 3.6) × 10⁻⁴ cMpc⁻³ propagates only the uncertainties in Φ⋆ and L⋆ via Monte Carlo; it does not include the interpolation error, the uncertainty in α, or the uncertainty in the f(L) fit shown in Figure B.1. Because δ = (n − n′)/n′ is directly inversely proportional to n′, this underpropagated error budget is load-bearing for the headline δbar = 3. Please provide a full error budget for n′, or show explicitly that the S1–S4 classifications and the δbar values are unchanged under the extremes of the allowed n′ range.
  3. [Section 5.1.2, Figure 11] The 6σ and 8σ contours in Figure 11 are defined relative to a σ value obtained by iteratively sigma-clipping the KDE density distribution itself. This is not an independent significance estimate, because the same random interloper removal and mask-filling procedure that generates the map also enters the clipping statistics. With only 76 candidates total (54 with photo-z, 22 unmatched), the effective number of sources inside a (25 cMpc)³ cell is small, and the Poisson floor alone makes δbar = 3 a low-S/N measurement. Please add a bootstrap or jackknife resampling of the candidate list, or an analytic Poisson estimate, to quantify the significance of each peak and of the mean overdensity in S1.
  4. [Appendix C and Section 5.2] The effective radius R_e and the resulting descendant-mass estimates adopt the stellar mass from COSMOS2020 as a proxy for halo mass. At z ≈ 4.5, LAEs are low-stellar-mass galaxies, and the scatter between stellar mass and halo mass is large; no calibration or abundance-matching test is provided. Because the Chiang et al. (2013) probabilities are stated for halo-mass-weighted radii, the conclusion that S1 is a 3–10 × 10¹⁴ M☉ cluster progenitor is conditional on this proxy. Please test the sensitivity of R_e and the final mass estimate to a plausible stellar-to-halo-mass relation with scatter, or state the result explicitly as conditional on the adopted proxy.
  5. [Section 5.3 and abstract] The claim that the most prominent overdensity is 'likely infalling towards Taralay' is based on projected proximity of about 10 cMpc and overlapping redshift range. The paper presents no dynamical evidence for infall, such as velocity offsets, caustics, or filamentary connectivity among the seven spectroscopically confirmed sources. Please soften this to 'consistent with belonging to the same large-scale structure' unless a kinematic analysis is added.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6] The conclusions state 'A total of 80 LAE candidates are identified', while Section 4.3 reports 76 genuine candidates after cutout inspection; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section 4.4 and references] The DEIMOS 10k survey is attributed to 'Le Fevre et al. 2015b' in the text and reference list; the correct attribution appears to be Hasinger et al. (2018).
  3. [Figure 11] The caption describes Taralay as 'pink boxes' while the figure legend says 'pink squares'; please make the figure and caption consistent.
  4. [Equation (5)] The zero-point 'ZP' used in Equation (5) is not explicitly defined as the narrow-band zero-point; please define it in the text.
  5. [Section 5.1.2] The sentence describing random placement of data points inside COSMOS masks is unclear: it does not specify whether the random positions are drawn from a uniform distribution or from the observed LAE positions, and this choice affects the variance of the KDE map.
  6. [Appendix B] The completeness function f(L) is shown only as a figure, with no functional form or uncertainty; since it enters the field-density integral in Equation (8), please provide the fitted function and its errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the overdensity measurement and its interpretation are anchored to external luminosity functions, simulations, and spectroscopic catalogs, not to the paper's own fitted parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs: NB excess + EW + S/N selection (Eqs. 3-5) yields 147 candidates; COSMOS2020 photo-zs remove 46% of the 99 matched candidates as low-z interlopers, leaving 54 z~4.5 candidates plus 22 unmatched; the field density n' is obtained by integrating the Ouchi et al. (2020) luminosity function interpolated to z=4.5 against the NB completeness function f(L) (Eq. 8), giving (5.5 +/- 3.6) x 10^-4 cMpc^-3, consistent with Sobral et al. (2018) and Herrera et al. (2025); the overdensity is defined by delta = (n - n')/n' and mapped with a KDE; S1-S4 are classified with the external Lemaux et al. (2022) threshold, and their z=0 masses are read from external Chiang et al. (2013) tables and Muldrew et al. (2015) sizes. Every load-bearing anchor is external to this paper. The 46% interloper fraction transferred to the 22 unmatched candidates is a stated statistical assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: it can bias the map either way but does not determine delta by construction, and the paper explicitly notes in Section 4.2 that 'Spectroscopic observations of our LAE candidates are still required to confirm the nature of the sources, especially of the fainter ones.' The completeness function f(L) is fit to the NB number counts, but it only corrects the expected field density and is not derived by demanding that the field density reproduce the observed counts, so delta is not tautological. Co-author Capak appears in citations supplying the SMG redshift (Capak et al. 2008), the AzTEC3 protocluster context (Capak et al. 2011), and DEIMOS spectra (Hasinger et al. 2018); these are independent external measurements, and the redshift is independently corroborated by the seven spectroscopic confirmations (VUDS, DEIMOS 10k, Jimenez-Andrade et al. 2023) reported in Section 4.4. No equation reduces to its own input, and the authors demonstrate robustness by recomputing overdensities under the Herrera et al. (2025) and Sobral et al. (2018) field densities, which strengthens S3 but leaves the scenario unchanged.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on several external calibration steps (interpolated luminosity function, photo-z reliability, simulation-based mass predictors) and one internal ad hoc correction (transfer of the 46% interloper fraction to unmatched candidates). No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • EW selection threshold = 137.5 Å (rest-frame ~25 Å)
    Chosen by hand following Ouchi et al. (2008); sets which sources count as LAE candidates and therefore changes the overdensity map.
  • NB excess S/N threshold S = 3
    Chosen to balance contamination and sample size; yields the initial 147 LAE candidates before photo-z cleaning.
  • KDE kernel FWHM = 0.19 deg (~25 cMpc at z~4.5)
    Chosen to match protocluster scales; determines whether S1, S2, S3 merge into one structure in the density map.
  • Interloper fraction for unmatched candidates = 46%
    Measured among the 99 COSMOS2020-matched LAE candidates and applied by random removal to the 22 unmatched candidates; directly shapes the KDE map and delta-bar values.
  • Completeness fit slope and intercept = y = 0.34 x - 5.45
    Linear fit to the narrow-band number counts used to define the 60% completeness limit and the function f(L) that enters the field density integral.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Interpolated Schechter luminosity function parameters at z=4.5 (from Ouchi et al. 2020 review) give the correct field LAE density.
    Section 5.1.1 interpolates between z=3.7 and z=5.7; if the true z~4.5 LF differs, the field density and all overdensities shift.
  • domain assumption COSMOS2020 photometric redshifts are sufficiently accurate to exclude low-redshift interlopers at the stated 1.5 sigma window.
    Section 4.2 relies on catalog scatter sigma=0.044 at mag i<27; photo-z degeneracies between Lyman and Balmer breaks can still misplace high-z sources.
  • ad hoc to paper The 46% low-redshift interloper fraction measured among COSMOS2020-matched candidates applies to the 22 candidates without any photometric redshift.
    Section 5.1.2 applies this fraction by random removal with no independent check; it is load-bearing for the overdensity amplitudes.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar mass from COSMOS2020 is a reliable proxy for halo mass when computing the effective radius and final cluster mass.
    Appendix C uses stellar masses as halo mass proxies; LAEs are low-mass galaxies that may not trace halos one-to-one.
  • domain assumption A flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_m=0.3, and Omega_Lambda=0.7 was used for distance and volume conversion.
    The paper states 'flat ΛCDM' with 'Omega_Lambda=0', which is not flat. If Omega_Lambda=0 was actually adopted, the comoving scales and densities would be incorrect; the relevant paragraph is in Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying a protocluster formation at z $\sim$ 4.5 in the COSMOS field: an extension of Taralay protocluster, traced by Ly-alpha emitters surrounding a submm galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KL3G4V35

@misc{pith2026250711804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying a protocluster formation at z $\sim$ 4.5 in the COSMOS field: an extension of Taralay protocluster, traced by Ly-alpha emitters surrounding a submm galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KL3G4V35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11804}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of a large-scale structure containing multiple overdensities at $z= 4.54 \pm 0.03$ in the COSMOS field, with the most prominent one likely infalling towards the recently identified Taralay protocluster. We use combined wide-band and narrow-band optical photometry to identify Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) within a 21 cMpc radius from the submm source J1000+0234, at $z= 4.54$, to identify typical star-forming galaxies that may trace an underlying structure. Our approach selects line emitters as narrow-band excess objects and we use the COSMOS2020 photometric redshift catalog to eliminate potential low-redshift interlopers whose line emission (e.g. [OIII] at $z\sim 0.3$) might be responsible for the observed excess in the narrow band. In comparison with the LAE density in the field, our results point to a mean LAE number overdensity of $\bar\delta = 3$ spanning a region of $27 \times 20 \times 36$ cMpc$^3$, probably evolving into a moderate-mass cluster ($3 - 10 \times 10^{14} \, M_\odot$) at $z\sim 0$. This work supports the idea that submm sources, although offset from the major overdensity peaks, serve as traces of moderately massive, potentially infalling structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IMACS image, obtained with the narrow-band filter (λc = 6760˚A), of a section of the COSMOS field, centered on the coordinates of the submm source J1000+0234 (also known as AzTEC/C17), (RA, DEC) = (10:00:54,+02:34:35), marked by the red circle at the center of the field. The image shows a field of view (FOV) of 27.4 ar￾cmin for the IMACS camera. a Hubble constant H0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 , to￾tal matter density Ωm = 0.3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transmission curves of narrow-band fil￾ter (in blue) and r+ filter from SuprimeCam (in orange). The vertical dotted lines mark the lim￾its of the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the narrow-band filter, centered at 6760˚A, which correspond to the observed Lyα wavelength when emitted at the redshifts z = 4.51 and z = 4.57 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Astrometry verification: Difference be￾tween COSMOS2020 (Weaver et al. 2022) and NB sky positions, along with the histograms for ∆α and ∆δ, for 2243 matches. We obtain a mean value of ∆α = 0.02” and ∆δ = 0.016”, with both standard deviations of 0.06”. 16.25 16.50 16.75 17.00 17.25 17.50 17.75 18.00 GXp NB 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 N B - G X p N B = 0.00 = 0.07 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photometric verification: Difference be￾tween our calibrated NB magnitudes (NB) and Ga￾iaXPy synthetic NB magnitudes (GXpNB). We note that 83% of the sources have magnitude off￾sets smaller than 0.1 mag, and 50% smaller than 0.05 mag. The zero-point (ZP) error, estimat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photometry verification: Difference between our calibrated r+ magnitudes (rp) and the values in COSMOS2020 catalog (Weaver et al. 2022) (SCrp). 76% of the sources have magnitude offsets smaller than 0.1 mag (red dashed line), and 71% smaller than 0.05 mag (gray dashed …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Logarithmic plot of the number of NB detections. The magenta line represents a lin￾ear fit given by y = 0.34 x - 5.45. At mag NB = 25.6, the sample shows a completeness of 60%, es￾timated by taking the ratio of the number of NB sources detected in the sample (979) over…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Color-magnitude diagram of all detected sources in our field. LAE candidates are marked with colored symbols. Blue triangles are LAE candidates with photometric redshifts from COSMOS2020 catalog (Weaver et al. 2022) at zphot ∼ 4.5 and green triangles are LAE candidates…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized difference between the NB and Lyα luminosities. On average, the difference between these luminosities is on the order of 0.01 of the NB luminosity. Considering the standard deviation of the Gaussian fit to the distribution, the variations are typically betw…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Density map of our field displaying, the proximity between our galaxy overdensity, and the neighboring Taralay structure, shown as pink squares. Orange, indigo and yellow contours indicate LAE overdensities of 2, 6 and 8σ significance respectively. Values of (1 + δ) a…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 17 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]

    d*>;s 0 Z

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2019, , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  5. [5]

    2021, , 646, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039227

    \'A lvarez Crespo , N., Smoli \'c , V., Finoguenov , A., Barrufet , L., & Aravena , M. 2021, , 646, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039227

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039227 2021

  6. [6]

    2009, , 507, 147, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912299

    Andreon , S., Maughan , B., Trinchieri , G., & Kurk , J. 2009, , 507, 147, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912299

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912299 2009

  7. [7]

    2010, , 708, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L36

    Aravena , M., Bertoldi , F., Carilli , C., et al. 2010, , 708, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/l36 2010

  8. [8]

    W., Aguilar , E., et al

    Aretxaga , I., Wilson , G. W., Aguilar , E., et al. 2011, , 415, 3831, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18989.x

    arXiv 2011

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    2002, , 329, 355, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    Arnouts , S., Moscardini , L., Vanzella , E., et al. 2002, , 329, 355, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    2002

  2. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel , C. Arviset , D. Ponz , & S. Enrique , 112

    2006

  4. [12]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    Bertin , E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068. 1010.068

    2010

  5. [13]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Kneib , J

    Blain , A. W., Kneib , J. P., Ivison , R. J., & Smail , I. 1999, , 512, L87, 10.1086/311879

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Smail , I., Ivison , R

    Blain , A. W., Smail , I., Ivison , R. J., Kneib , J. P., & Frayer , D. T. 2002, , 369, 111, 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00134-5

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Rawlings, S

    Blundell, K. M., & Rawlings, S. 1999, Nature, 399, 330

    1999

  9. [17]

    2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Boylan-Kolchin , M., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., Jenkins , A., & Lemson , G. 2009, , 398, 1150, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15191.x

    2009

  11. [20]

    J., Warren , S

    Bunker , A. J., Warren , S. J., Hewett , P. C., & Clements , D. L. 1995, , 273, 513, 10.1093/mnras/273.2.513

    1995 doi

  12. [21]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220

    Bădescu, T., Yang, Y., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    2023, , 678, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346200

    Calvi , R., Castignani , G., & Dannerbauer , H. 2023, , 678, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346200

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    L., Lee , N., et al

    Capak , P., Carilli , C. L., Lee , N., et al. 2008, , 681, L53, 10.1086/590555

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    L., Riechers , D., Scoville , N

    Capak , P. L., Riechers , D., Scoville , N. Z., et al. 2011, , 470, 233, 10.1038/nature09681

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    2022, , 657, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040141

    Castignani , G., Combes , F., Jablonka , P., et al. 2022, , 657, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040141

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    B., Casey , C

    Champagne , J. B., Casey , C. M., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10437, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10437

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    C., Blain , A., Ibata , R., et al

    Chapman , S. C., Blain , A., Ibata , R., et al. 2009, , 691, 560. 0809.1159

    2009 arXiv

  19. [28]

    C., Bertoldi, F., Smail, I., et al

    Chapman, S. C., Bertoldi, F., Smail, I., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 951, 10.1093/mnras/stv1618

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    2013, , 779, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang , Y.-K., Overzier , R., & Gebhardt , K. 2013, , 779, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    2016, , 819, 62, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    Civano , F., Marchesi , S., Comastri , A., et al. 2016, , 819, 62, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/62

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    A., Hatch, N

    Cooke, E. A., Hatch, N. A., Muldrew, S. I., Rigby, E. E., & Kurk, J. D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 3262

    2014

  23. [32]

    M., Wardlow , J., Wade , H., et al

    Cornish , T. M., Wardlow , J., Wade , H., et al. 2024, , 533, 2399, 10.1093/mnras/stae1868

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    1980, , 236, 351

    Dressler , A. 1980, , 236, 351

    1980

  25. [34]

    J., et al

    Dressler, A., Augustus Oemler, J., Couch, W. J., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 577, 10.1086/304890

    1997 doi

  26. [35]

    e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A

    Dudzevi c i \= u t \. e , U., Smail , I., Swinbank , A. M., et al. 2020, , 494, 3828, 10.1093/mnras/staa769

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2024, , 683, A205, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348038

    Epinat , B., Contini , T., Mercier , W., et al. 2024, , 683, A205, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348038

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    2004, , 56, 29, 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    Fujita , Y. 2004, , 56, 29, 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    2004 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, , 674, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243709

    Gaia Collaboration , Montegriffo , P., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2023, , 674, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243709

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 278

    Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 278

    2007

  31. [40]

    D., & Yee , H

    Gladders , M. D., & Yee , H. K. C. 2000, , 120, 2148, 10.1086/301557

    2000 doi

  32. [41]

    2018, , 856, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab206

    G \'o mez-Guijarro , C., Toft , S., Karim , A., et al. 2018, , 856, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab206

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    R., Bertoldi , F., Smail , I., et al

    Greve , T. R., Bertoldi , F., Smail , I., et al. 2005, , 359, 1165, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08979.x

    2005

  34. [43]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 255, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    Guaita, L., Gawiser, E., Padilla, N., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 255, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    2022, , 660, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142384

    Guaita , L., Aravena , M., Gurung-Lopez , S., et al. 2022, , 660, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142384

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    2018, , 858, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    Hasinger , G., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al. 2018, , 858, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    F., Prochaska, J

    Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., & Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779

    2015

  38. [47]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.17824, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17824

    Herrera , D., Gawiser , E., Benda , B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.17824, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17824

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    C., Wardlow, J

    Hickox, R. C., Wardlow, J. L., Smail, I., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2012

  40. [49]

    A., et al

    Hill , R., Chapman , S., Phadke , K. A., et al. 2022, , 512, 4352, 10.1093/mnras/stab3539

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    Hu , W., Wang , J., Infante , L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, , 941, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea4

    Huang , Y., Lee , K.-S., Cucciati , O., et al. 2022, , 941, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea4

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    J., et al

    Ilbert , O., Arnouts , S., McCracken , H. J., et al. 2006, , 457, 841, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    2006 doi

  44. [53]

    2009, , 690, 1236, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236

    Ilbert , O., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al. 2009, , 690, 1236, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Ilbert , O., McCracken , H. J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2013, , 556, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    F., Cantalupo , S., Magnelli , B., et al

    Jim \'e nez-Andrade , E. F., Cantalupo , S., Magnelli , B., et al. 2023, , 521, 2326, 10.1093/mnras/stad594

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    V., & Borgani , S

    Kravtsov , A. V., & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Ilbert , O., et al

    Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., Ilbert , O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

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

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

    2010 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Crampton , D., & Dickinson , M

    Le Fevre , O., Deltorn , J. M., Crampton , D., & Dickinson , M. 1996, , 471, L11, 10.1086/310319

    1996 doi

  51. [61]

    2015 b , , 576, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829

    ---. 2015 b , , 576, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829

    2015 doi

  52. [62]

    2020, , 643, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936965

    Le F \`e vre , O., B \'e thermin , M., Faisst , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936965

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    2014, , 796, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126

    Lee , K.-S., Dey , A., Hong , S., et al. 2014, , 796, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/126

    2014 doi

  54. [64]

    C., Le F \`e vre , O., Cucciati , O., et al

    Lemaux , B. C., Le F \`e vre , O., Cucciati , O., et al. 2018, , 615, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730870

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    C., Cucciati , O., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Lemaux , B. C., Cucciati , O., Le F \`e vre , O., et al. 2022, , 662, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039346

    2022 doi

  56. [66]

    J., Eales, S

    Lilly, S. J., Eales, S. A., Gear, W. K. P., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 518, 641

    1999

  57. [67]

    2016, , 595, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628714

    Lindegren , L., Lammers , U., Bastian , U., et al. 2016, , 595, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628714

    2016 doi

  58. [68]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Brambila, D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 527, L19, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad134

    2023 doi

  59. [69]

    2012, , 539, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118312

    Magnelli , B., Lutz , D., Santini , P., et al. 2012, , 539, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118312

    2012 doi

  60. [70]

    B., Abdulla, Z., Carlstrom, J

    Mantz, A. B., Abdulla, Z., Carlstrom, J. E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 157, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/157

    2014 doi

  61. [71]

    2016, , 817, 34, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    Marchesi , S., Civano , F., Elvis , M., et al. 2016, , 817, 34, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    2016 doi

  62. [72]

    V., Lewis , Z., Matthee , J., et al

    Maseda , M. V., Lewis , Z., Matthee , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.08511. 2304.08511

    2023 arXiv

  63. [73]

    2006, , 640, L123, 10.1086/503362

    Matsuda , Y., Yamada , T., Hayashino , T., Yamauchi , R., & Nakamura , Y. 2006, , 640, L123, 10.1086/503362

    2006 doi

  64. [74]

    2004, , 128, 569, 10.1086/422020

    Matsuda , Y., Yamada , T., Hayashino , T., et al. 2004, , 128, 569, 10.1086/422020

    2004 doi

  65. [75]

    2017, , 602, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730443

    Miettinen , O., Novak , M., Smol c i \'c , V., et al. 2017, , 602, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730443

    2017 doi

  66. [76]

    I., Hatch , N

    Muldrew , S. I., Hatch , N. A., & Cooke , E. A. 2015, , 452, 2528, 10.1093/mnras/stv1449

    2015 doi

  67. [77]

    J., Barger , A

    Nicandro Rosenthal , M. J., Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., et al. 2025, , 979, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c67

    2025 doi

  68. [78]

    J., Bock , J., Altieri , B., et al

    Oliver , S. J., Bock , J., Altieri , B., et al. 2012, , 424, 1614, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20912.x

    2012

  69. [79]

    2020, , 58, 617, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi , M., Ono , Y., & Shibuya , T. 2020, , 58, 617, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    2020 doi

  70. [80]

    2008, , 176, 301, 10.1086/527673

    Ouchi , M., Shimasaku , K., Akiyama , M., et al. 2008, , 176, 301, 10.1086/527673

    2008 doi

  71. [81]

    I., Francis , P

    Palunas , P., Teplitz , H. I., Francis , P. J., Williger , G. M., & Woodgate , B. E. 2004, , 602, 545, 10.1086/381145

    2004 doi

  72. [82]

    Postman , M., & Geller , M. J. 1984, , 281, 95, 10.1086/162078

    1984 doi

  73. [83]

    Postman, M., Franx, M., Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 721, 10.1086/428881

    2005 doi

  74. [84]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Dey, A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/86

    2012 doi

  75. [85]

    H., et al

    Ramakrishnan , V., Moon , B., Im , S. H., et al. 2023, , 951, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd341

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    C., et al

    Ramakrishnan , V., Lee , K.-S., Artale , M. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08645, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08645

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [87]

    A., Carilli , C

    Riechers , D. A., Carilli , C. L., Capak , P. L., et al. 2014, , 796, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/84

    2014 doi

  78. [88]

    2002, , 40, 539, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.120401.150547

    Rosati , P., Borgani , S., & Norman , C. 2002, , 40, 539, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.120401.150547

    2002

  79. [89]

    L., Capak, P., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Carilli, C. L., Capak, P., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L5, 10.1086/595680

    2008 doi

  80. [90]

    S., Austermann , J

    Scott , K. S., Austermann , J. E., Perera , T. A., et al. 2008, , 385, 2225, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12989.x

    2008

  81. [91]

    2007, , 172, 1, 10.1086/516585

    Scoville , N., Aussel , H., Brusa , M., et al. 2007, , 172, 1, 10.1086/516585

    2007 doi

  82. [92]

    D., et al

    Seymour, N., Stern, D., Breuck, C. D., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 171, 353, 10.1086/517887

    2007 doi

  83. [93]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 490, L5, 10.1086/311017

    Smail, I., Ivison, R., & Blain, A. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 490, L5, 10.1086/311017

    1997 doi

  84. [94]

    P., Treu, T., Ellis, R

    Smith, G. P., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Moran, S. M., & Dressler, A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 78, 10.1086/426930

    2005 doi

  85. [95]

    2015, , 576, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424996

    Smol c i \'c , V., Karim , A., Miettinen , O., et al. 2015, , 576, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424996

    2015 doi

  86. [96]

    2017, , 597, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526989

    Smol c i \'c , V., Miettinen , O., Tomi c i \'c , N., et al. 2017, , 597, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526989

    2017 doi

  87. [97]

    2018, , 476, 4725, 10.1093/mnras/sty378

    Sobral , D., Santos , S., Matthee , J., et al. 2018, , 476, 4725, 10.1093/mnras/sty378

    2018 doi

  88. [98]

    N., et al

    Sobral , D., Smail , I., Best , P. N., et al. 2013, , 428, 1128, 10.1093/mnras/sts096

    2013 doi

  89. [99]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 1242, 10.1093/mnras/stw3090

    Sobral, D., Matthee, J., Best, P., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 1242, 10.1093/mnras/stw3090

    2016 doi

  90. [100]

    S., & White , S

    Springel , V., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 2006, , 440, 1137, 10.1038/nature04805

    2006 doi

  91. [101]

    C., Forrest , B., et al

    Staab , P., Lemaux , B. C., Forrest , B., et al. 2024, , 528, 6934, 10.1093/mnras/stae301

    2024 doi

  92. [102]

    M., Smail , I., Amvrosiadis , A., et al

    Stach , S. M., Smail , I., Amvrosiadis , A., et al. 2021, , 504, 172, 10.1093/mnras/stab714

    2021 doi

  93. [103]

    M., Egami , E., et al

    Sun , F., Helton , J. M., Egami , E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.04529, 10.48550/arXiv.2309.04529

    2023 doi arXiv

  94. [104]

    M., Chapman, S

    Swinbank, A. M., Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 465, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10673.x

    2006

  95. [105]

    2014, , 782, 68, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    Toft , S., Smol c i \'c , V., Magnelli , B., et al. 2014, , 782, 68, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    2014 doi

  96. [106]

    K., Yamada , T., Kajisawa , M., et al

    Uchimoto , Y. K., Yamada , T., Kajisawa , M., et al. 2012, , 750, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/116

    2012 doi

  97. [107]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70

    Uchiyama, H., Toshikawa, J., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70

    2017

  98. [108]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    2019 doi

  99. [109]

    van Dokkum , P. G. 2001, , 113, 1420, 10.1086/323894

    2001 doi

  100. [111]

    P., R \"o ttgering , H

    Venemans , B. P., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Miley , G. K., et al. 2007, , 461, 823, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941

    2007 doi

  101. [112]

    2015, , 580, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526374

    Vilella-Rojo , G., Viironen , K., L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C., et al. 2015, , 580, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526374

    2015 doi

  102. [113]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  103. [114]

    R., Kauffmann , O

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

    2022 doi

  104. [115]

    2010, , 719, 1654, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1654

    Yang , Y., Zabludoff , A., Eisenstein , D., & Dav \'e , R. 2010, , 719, 1654, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1654

    2010 doi

  105. [116]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.00680, 10.48550/arXiv.2011.00680

    Zhang , J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.00680, 10.48550/arXiv.2011.00680

    2020 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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