Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

COSMOS-Web: MIRI Data Reduction and Number Counts at 7.7$\mu$m using JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read COSMOS-Web MIRI F770W data release produces 7.7 micron number counts from 0.2 to 2300 microJy that agree with other JWST and Spitzer surveys.

desk verdict Solid COSMOS-Web MIRI data-release paper; fix Table 3 units and clarify the uniformity language, then accept. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03306 v1 pith:SYTD3BKF submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.GA

Santosh Harish , Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe , Daizhong Liu , Anton M. Koekemoer , Caitlin M. Casey , Maximilien Franco , Hollis B. Akins , Olivier Ilbert
show 14 more authors
Marko Shuntov Nicole E. Drakos Mike Engesser Andreas L. Faisst Ghassem Gozaliasl Crystal L. Martin Michaela Hirschmann Vasily Kokorev Erini Lambrides Henry Joy McCracken Jed McKinney Louise Paquereau Jason Rhodes Brant E. Robertson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords JWSTMIRIF770WnumbercountsCOSMOS-Webmid-infraredgalaxiesdatareductionsourcecatalog7.7micron
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 presents the MIRI F770W component of the COSMOS-Web survey, which maps roughly 0.2 square degrees of the COSMOS field in the mid-infrared with a single broad filter. The authors aim to show that their reduction, built on the standard JWST calibration pipeline plus a custom background subtraction, produces a reliable photometric catalog and galaxy number counts at 7.7 microns. They reach a 5-$\sigma$ point-source depth near $m_{F770W}\sim25.51$ AB mag, better than pre-flight predictions, and find F770W fluxes agree with Spitzer IRAC CH4 measurements to a median offset below 0.05 mag. Their completeness-corrected cumulative counts span about 0.2 to 2300 microJy and agree with other JWST surveys within 1 $\sigma$, with the largest area coverage of any JWST mid-infrared survey to date. These counts matter because they connect the faint JWST-selected population to brighter Spitzer-era measurements in a single field, and they provide a new mid-infrared constraint on galaxy formation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of the custom 'master background subtraction' step and the completeness-corrected number-count construction. The background step builds a time-resolved sky model from contemporaneous, source-masked exposures and subtracts it from each image, which is what allows the survey to reach depths roughly 0.7-0.8 mag better than exposure-time-calculator predictions. The number counts rest on Source Extractor photometry with empirical PSF aperture corrections and on injected-source completeness simulations that define the 80 percent completeness limit at the median 5-sigma depth.

What would settle it

Recompute the faint-end counts using only regions with four or more exposures and compare them with the fiducial counts; if the faintest flux bins shift by more than the quoted Poisson-plus-cosmic-variance errors, the uniform-area assumption is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the COSMOS-Web MIRI F770W reduction and catalog yield robust 7.7 micron number counts spanning five orders of magnitude in flux density, roughly 0.2 to 2300 microJy, and that these counts agree with estimates from other JWST surveys within their uncertainties while slightly underpredicting IRAC-based counts on the bright end. The claim is established by constructing a MIRI-selected catalog from F770W mosaics, applying empirical PSF aperture corrections, measuring completeness with injected-source simulations, and adding a cosmic-variance term of about 6.5 percent in quadrature to the Poisson errors. The authors explicitly note that COSMOS-Web is the only JWST survey to date that efficiently samples such a wide flux range over a large contiguous area.

Load-bearing premise

The number counts assume the survey's effective area is the same for every flux bin, even though about 15 percent of the area has only two exposures and is shallower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 7.7 micron counts provide a single contiguous-field census from about 0.2 to 2300 microJy, bridging faint JWST surveys and bright Spitzer-era counts.
  • The released mosaics and MIRI-selected catalog let other teams study source populations in the COSMOS field that are faint or absent in NIRCam imaging.
  • The agreement with the SHARK and SPRITZ model predictions, and the mild overprediction of faint counts by some other models, gives galaxy-formation models a new mid-infrared constraint.
  • The small median offset with IRAC CH4 photometry supports the independent calibration of the two instruments and offers a cross-check for filter-dependent SED effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the faintest bins of the number counts could be tested by recomputing them using only the deeper four-or-more-exposure area; if the two-exposure region contributes a disproportionate share of faint sources, the stated uniform-area assumption would not hold.
  • The same reduction and completeness machinery could be applied to the overlapping PRIMER MIRI coverage, effectively doubling the surveyed area and providing an independent check on the 6.5 percent cosmic-variance estimate.
  • The MIRI-selected catalog may reveal a population of mid-infrared-only sources whose optical and near-infrared counterparts are too faint for reliable redshift fitting; the authors note this as a direction for future work.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents the data reduction, catalog construction, and source number counts from the MIRI F770W parallel imaging in the COSMOS-Web survey. The authors describe a custom background subtraction that suppresses large-scale gradients, measure survey depths as a function of exposure count, construct an SE-based catalog, validate photometry against IRAC CH4, and derive completeness-corrected 7.7 μm cumulative number counts over roughly 0.2–2300 μJy. They compare the counts to other JWST surveys and to galaxy formation models.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable dataset and reference: it is the largest MIRI F770W imaging program to date, with a detailed reduction description and a public data release. The number counts span five orders of magnitude at 7.7 μm, beyond any other JWST survey, and provide a useful cross-check of model predictions. The photometric comparison with IRAC is an independent validation. The analysis is largely standard and transparent, with empirical completeness simulations and clearly reported statistical uncertainties. However, the issues discussed below (effective-area uniformity and a likely units error in the counts table) affect the interpretation of the faint end and the reported numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Table 1] The assumption that the effective survey area is uniform across flux bins is not supported by the depth map. Table 1 shows that 89 arcmin^2 (13% of the 683 arcmin^2 footprint) has only two exposures with a 5σ depth of 25.15 AB (≈0.32 μJy), whereas the faintest cumulative bin in Table 3 reaches 0.22 μJy. In this shallow region, sources at 0.22 μJy lie below the 5σ threshold, so their completeness is far below the 80% cutoff applied for the usable sample. If the counts are normalized by the full geometric area instead of a flux-dependent effective area A_eff(S) = Σ_i A_i C_i(S), the faintest bins will be biased low by roughly 10% or more. This exceeds the 6.5% cosmic variance added in quadrature and affects the claimed five-order-of-magnitude range and the agreement with CEERS/SMILES at Sν ≲ 1 μJy. Please recompute the counts using the exposure/weight map or demonstrate that the residual bias is negligible.
  2. [Table 3] The cumulative counts in Table 3 appear to have a units error. With the header '(10^-6 sr^-1)', the first entry N(>0.22 μJy) = 705.76 × 10^-6 sr^-1 = 7.06 × 10^-4 sr^-1, which multiplied by the survey solid angle (~6.1 × 10^-5 sr for 0.2 deg^2) yields about 4 × 10^-8 sources, an impossible value. If the unit in the header were '10^6 sr^-1', the first entry would correspond to roughly 4.3 × 10^4 sources over the survey, which is plausible. Please correct the header and verify all entries and error bars.
  3. [Sec. 5.3.1 and Table 3] The reported uncertainties combine only Poisson and cosmic-variance terms. The completeness correction, photometric zero-point, and the effective-area treatment introduce systematic uncertainties that are not captured in Table 3. In particular, the faintest bins may be affected by the area issue discussed above, and the quoted errors (e.g., ±3.4 on 705.76) appear to be purely statistical. The authors should quantify and include systematic error contributions, or at least discuss their expected magnitude, before the counts can be considered robust over the full stated flux range.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Figure 2] The median astrometric offset in RA is stated as 0.53 mas in the text but 0.35 mas in the Figure 2 caption; please reconcile the two values.
  2. [Sec. 5.1 and Figure 6] The IRAC CH4 magnitude limit is 22.5 in the text and 22.3 in the figure caption; please unify the value and definition.
  3. [Sec. 2 and Table 1] The total MIRI area is given as 722 arcmin^2 in the text, but the areas in Table 1 sum to 683 arcmin^2; please clarify what the additional area corresponds to (e.g., gaps or the coronagraphic field).
  4. [Sec. 3.4 and Abstract] The abstract quotes the depth for 0.3'' circular apertures, while Section 3.4 uses 0.27'' radius (FWHM) apertures; please ensure the quoted aperture size is consistent throughout.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The completeness simulations inject only point sources; while the justification is reasonable, the authors could state the expected magnitude of the bias for marginally extended sources at intermediate fluxes.
  6. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (1)] The fitted values of the noise-model parameters α and β are not reported; please provide them for reproducibility.
  7. [Appendix note] The sentence about repeat visits #154 and #167 is confusing and appears to contain a typo; please rephrase to clarify which visits share reference positions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 7.7 micron number counts are direct measurements, completeness-corrected by independent injection-recovery simulations, and compared with external surveys and external model predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: raw MIRI exposures -> JWST pipeline plus custom background subtraction -> mosaics -> SE-based F770W catalog -> completeness from injected sources using ComEst/GalSim -> cumulative number counts with Poisson and cosmic-variance errors -> comparison with CEERS (Yang et al. 2023b), SMILES/JADES (Stone et al. 2024), IRAC/SDWFS (Ashby et al. 2009), and external model predictions (GALFORM+GRASIL, SHARK, SPRITZ, Rowan-Robinson, Kokorev et al. 2021). No parameter is fitted to force agreement with prior number-count estimates; the completeness correction is an empirical calibration using simulated sources injected onto source-free images, not a quantity that is defined by the final counts. The one assumption that could be questioned, Section 5.3's statement that 'we assume that our coverage is largely uniform across visits, so the total effective area as a function of flux bins remains the same,' is an acknowledged approximation that could affect the faintest bins given the 13% two-exposure area in Table 1. That is a correctness or systematics concern, not circularity: the assumed uniform area is not equivalent to the measured counts by construction, and the paper's own Table 1 and Figure A1 expose the depth structure. Self-citations (Casey et al. 2023 for survey design; Shuntov et al. in prep and Franco et al. in prep for companion catalogs; Kokorev et al. 2021 for a model prediction) are present but none is load-bearing in the sense of providing the only support for the number-count result; the result is benchmarked against independent JWST and Spitzer measurements. The paper is therefore self-contained for its central claim, and no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central measurement depends on standard photometric and statistical choices. The main assumptions are about PSF fidelity, completeness simulation applicability, and area uniformity.

free parameters (7)
  • Noise model normalization α = fitted per visit, not reported
    Fit parameters in Eq. 1 (σ_N = σ1 α N^β) for photometric uncertainties; affects catalog errors and number count error bars.
  • Noise model power-law index β = fitted per visit, not reported
    Same fit as α; determines how noise scales with aperture pixel count.
  • Moffat PSF β = 4.5
    GalSim point-source profile used in completeness simulations (Section 4.3); completeness corrections depend on this choice.
  • Kron factor K = 2.5
    SExtractor AUTO photometry scaling; affects total fluxes and aperture corrections.
  • Detection threshold = 1.5σ
    SExtractor DETECT_THRESH and ANALYSIS_THRESH; influences catalog completeness and source counts.
  • Simulated source density = 30 per arcmin^2
    Density of injected sources in completeness simulations (Section 4.3); high density could affect completeness due to crowding.
  • Completeness simulation flux range = 0.01 to 2500 μJy
    Range of injected fluxes; the faint end determines the completeness at the detection limit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption JWST Science Calibration Pipeline and CRDS context 1130 produce correctly calibrated MIRI rate and cal images.
    The reduction relies on pipeline defaults and reference files (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The empirical PSF from Libralato et al. (2024) accurately represents the F770W point-spread function, including the cruciform artifact.
    Used for aperture corrections in Section 4.1; errors in the PSF propagate to photometry and number counts.
  • domain assumption Completeness derived from injected point sources with a Moffat profile applies to the real galaxy population at faint fluxes.
    Section 4.3; if faint galaxies are extended, completeness corrections are overestimated.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective survey area is uniform across all flux bins used in the number counts.
    Section 5.3 states this assumption despite 15% of the area having only two exposures and shallower depth.
  • domain assumption The cosmic variance estimate from Driver & Robotham (2010) is applicable to the COSMOS-Web MIRI geometry.
    Section 5.3.1 uses this to add 6.5% uncertainties to the number counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COSMOS-Web: MIRI Data Reduction and Number Counts at 7.7$\mu$m using JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SYTD3BKF

@misc{pith2026250603306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COSMOS-Web: MIRI Data Reduction and Number Counts at 7.7$\mu$m using JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SYTD3BKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03306}
}
abstract

The COSMOS-Web survey is the largest JWST Cycle 1 General Observer program covering a contiguous ~0.54 deg$^2$ area with NIRCam imaging in four broad-band filters and a non-contiguous ~0.2 deg$^2$ with parallel MIRI imaging in a single broad-band filter, F770W. Here we present a comprehensive overview of the MIRI imaging observations, the data reduction procedure, the COSMOS-Web MIRI photometric catalog, and the first data release including the entire COSMOS-Web MIRI coverage. Data reduction is predominantly based on the JWST Science Calibration Pipeline with an additional step involving custom background subtraction to mitigate the presence of strong instrumental features and sky background in the MIRI images. We reach 5$\sigma$ (point source) limiting depths ($m_{F770W}$~25.51 based on $r$~0.3'' circular apertures) that are significantly better than initial expectations. We create a COSMOS-Web MIRI catalog based on the images presented in this release and compare the F770W flux densities with the Spitzer/IRAC CH4 measurements from the COSMOS2020 catalog for CH4 detections with S/N $>5$. We find that these are in reasonable agreement with a small median offset of $<0.05$ mag. We also derive robust 7.7$\mu$m number counts spanning five orders of magnitude in flux ($\sim$0.2-2300 $\mu$Jy) $\unicode{x2013}$ making COSMOS-Web the only JWST survey to date to efficiently sample such a large flux range $\unicode{x2013}$ which is in good agreement with estimates from other JWST and IRAC surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03306 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example MIRI F770W image based on the default pipeline output (left) and the same with our master background subtraction procedure applied (right) as detailed in Section 3.3. The stretch in both images are the same. This ensures that the large-scale temporal variation of the 2D background is well captured by merging multi￾ple exposures/visits observed contemporaneously. Care was taken to ensure that holes (where sou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Astrometric offsets between MIRI F770W detec￾tions (S/N ⩾ 5) and their HST/ACS F814W counterparts, which are aligned to Gaia DR3, assuming a cross-match ra￾dius of 1′′. Shown for reference are dashed circles with radii 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3′′ centered on (0,0), depicting the relative po￾sitional offsets of all MIRI sources. The median offsets in RA and Dec. are 0.35 and 6 mas respectively (MIRI native pixel scale is 110… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The COSMOS-Web MIRI F770W mosaic. The zoomed-in areas show 45′′× 45′′matched regions in both MIRI F770W and IRAC CH4 from different parts of the mosaic. These cutouts highlight the significant improvement in sensitivity (∼50×) and resolution (∼7×) of MIRI observations compared to IRAC. The montage of cutouts is shown with the same stretch for direct comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Completeness fraction as a function of MIRI F770W flux. The uncertainties (shaded region) shown here are purely Poisson errors. The 80% completeness limit (hor￾izontal dashed line) as well as the average 5σ limiting depth (vertical dotted line) are shown for reference.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photometric comparison of MIRI F770W detections with IRAC CH4 measurements from the COSMOS2020 catalog. For the sake of accuracy, we compare MIRI photometry with IRAC CH4 for only sources with SNRCH4 ⩾ 5 and magCH4 ⩽ 22.3 in the COSMOS2020 catalog(brown-black points). …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Photometric redshift distribution of the 7.7µm MIRI-selected sources from the COSMOS-Web catalog. Left: Redshift distribution for the sub-samples based on two different brightness thresholds. The bright end (mF 770W < 22) is dominated by low redshift sources (z < 2) wh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative number counts at 7.7µ from COSOMS-Web in comparison with model predictions (left) and other JWST and IRAC number counts from literature (right). Uncertainties for the COSMOS-Web number counts are a combination of Poisson and cosmic variance errors added in q…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST+ALMA reveal the ISM kinematics and stellar structure of MAMBO-9, a merging pair of DSFGs in an overdense environment at $z=5.85$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA and JWST resolve two merging dusty galaxies at z=5.85, measure a 1:5 mass ratio, find star formation hidden in A_V>10 clouds, and infer metal-rich gas inside a possible protocluster.

  2. Physical properties of galaxies and the UV Luminosity Function from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim14$ in COSMOS-Web

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 3,099-galaxy JWST sample at z~6-14 shows a bright-end UV luminosity function excess at z~9-12 relative to evolving Schechter-function predictions, with non-evolving blue UV slopes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15972, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15972 ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Crespo G´ omez, A., Colina, L., et al

    Alberts, S., Lyu, J., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15972, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15972 ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Crespo G´ omez, A., Colina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245400

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15972 2024

  4. [4]

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

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

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Stern, D., Brodwin, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 428, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/428 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collabora...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/428 2009

  6. [6]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  7. [7]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  8. [8]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 461

    2020

  2. [10]

    2021, A&A, 651, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039909

    Bisigello, L., Gruppioni, C., Feltre, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039909

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.9.0, 1.9.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.9.0, 1.9.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 99, doi: 10.1086/519081

    Capak, P., Aussel, H., Ajiki, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 99, doi: 10.1086/519081

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

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

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, Astronomy and Computing, 16, 79, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.04.005

    Chiu, I., Desai, S., & Liu, J. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 16, 79, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.04.005

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    2000

  10. [18]

    Lacey, C. G. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2897

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2004, ApJ, 617, 746, doi: 10.1086/425569

    Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Renzini, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 746, doi: 10.1086/425569

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/83 20

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Shivaei, I., et al

    Dicken, D., Mar ´ ın, M. G., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449451

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    P., & Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., & Robotham, A. S. G. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2131, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17028.x

    2010

  15. [23]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10, doi: 10.1086/422843

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Bagley, M., Song, M., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., Song, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 579, doi: 10.1086/305576

    Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Sturm, E., et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, 579, doi: 10.1086/305576

    1998 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Bauwens, E., et al

    Glasse, A., Rieke, G. H., Bauwens, E., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 686, doi: 10.1086/682259

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    W., & Driver, S

    Graham, A. W., & Driver, S. P. 2005, PASA, 22, 118, doi: 10.1071/AS05001

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    M., Rieke, G

    Helton, J. M., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02503-z

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Alexander, D

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Soifer, B

    Houck, J. R., Soifer, B. T., Weedman, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 622, L105, doi: 10.1086/429405

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    J., et al

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

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Steinz, J

    Kessler, M. F., Steinz, J. A., Anderegg, M. E., et al. 1996, A&A, 315, L27

    1996

  28. [36]

    M., et al

    Kirkpatrick, A., Pope, A., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/139

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    I., Magdis, G

    Kokorev, V. I., Magdis, G. E., Davidzon, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18ce Labb´ e, I., Gonz´ alez, V., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 716, L103, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L103 Labb´ e, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777,...

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Baugh, C

    Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1888

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Tobar, R. J., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2440

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Robotham, A. S. G., Trayford, J. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2427

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24 Le Floc’h, E., Papovich, C., Dole, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 169, doi: 10.1086/432789

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Leger, A., & Puget, J. L. 1984, A&A, 137, L5

    1984

  36. [44]

    2024, PASP, 136, 034502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad2551

    Libralato, M., Argyriou, I., Dicken, D., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 034502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad2551

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Wu, C

    Ling, C.-T., Kim, S. J., Wu, C. K. W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2716

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al

    Morrison, J. E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acdea6

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Somerville, R

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

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    2007, PASJ, 59, S369, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.sp2.S369

    Murakami, H., Baba, H., Barthel, P., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S369, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.sp2.S369

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJL, 278, L1, doi: 10.1086/184209

    1984 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129 ¨Ostlin, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Melinder, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19686

    2016 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    A., Dickinson, M., et al

    Papovich, C., Moustakas, L. A., Dickinson, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 92, doi: 10.1086/499915

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    W., Yang, G., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Yang, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc948 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 969, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad517b P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024b, ...

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B¨ oker, T., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 584, doi: 10.1086/682252

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Kelly, D., & Horner, S

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D., & Horner, S. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5904, Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI, ed. J. B. Heaney & L. G. Burriesci, 1–8, doi: 10.1117/12.615554

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    I., Costantin, L., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Costantin, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc27

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2001, ApJ, 549, 745, doi: 10.1086/319450 21 —

    Rowan-Robinson, M. 2001, ApJ, 549, 745, doi: 10.1086/319450 21 —. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14339.x —. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3848

    2001

  52. [60]

    Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04437, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04437

    Sajkov, L., Sajina, A., Pope, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04437, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04437

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    2011, ApJ, 742, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/61

    Salvato, M., Ilbert, O., Hasinger, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/61

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    B., & Mirabel, I

    Sanders, D. B., & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.749

    1996 doi

  56. [64]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

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

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L

    Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103, doi: 10.1086/306476

    1998 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Gilmore, R

    Somerville, R. S., Gilmore, R. C., Primack, J. R., & Dom ´ ınguez, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1992, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20490.x

    2012

  59. [67]

    P., Ellis, R

    Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Richard, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 10, doi: 10.1086/518098

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Alberts, S., Rieke, G

    Stone, M. A., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6308

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Camps, P., Theuns, T., et al

    Trayford, J. W., Camps, P., Theuns, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1051

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    R., Kauffmann, O

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

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1, doi: 10.1086/422992

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    S., Rieke, G

    Wright, G. S., Rieke, G. H., Glasse, A., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acbe66

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Wu, C. K. W., Ling, C.-T., Goto, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1769

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2005, ApJL, 632, L79, doi: 10.1086/497961

    Wu, H., Cao, C., Hao, C.-N., et al. 2005, ApJL, 632, L79, doi: 10.1086/497961

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    I., Papovich, C., et al

    Yang, G., Caputi, K. I., Papovich, C., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 950, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd639

    doi

  70. [78]

    B., et al

    Yang, G., Papovich, C., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 956, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfaa0

    doi

  71. [79]

    A., Castellano, M., Akins, H

    Zavala, J. A., Castellano, M., Akins, H. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 155, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02397-3

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.