Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The impact of medium-width bands on the selection, and subsequent luminosity function measurements, of high-z galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper shows that at 10-sigma significance JWST broad bands alone select z>7.5 galaxies with 80%+ completeness and under 4% contamination, while medium bands add about 10% completeness and only deeper blue bands fully suppress low-z…

desk verdict A careful, survey-design-useful study whose headline contamination number is a simulation estimate, not an empirical measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10282 v2 pith:X275DDSJ submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.GA

N. J. Adams , D. Austin , T. Harvey , C. J. Conselice , J. A. A. Trussler , Q. Li , L. Westcott , L. Ferreira
show 2 more authors
V. Rusakov C. M. Goolsby
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesphotometricredshiftsmedium-bandphotometryJWSTNIRCamgalaxyluminosityfunctionsamplecompletenesscontaminationLymanbreak
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 asks whether JWST's ultra-deep medium-width photometric bands justify their cost when the goal is a clean sample of galaxies at z>7.5. Using the 14-band JADES Origins Field, it shows that at 10-sigma and brighter, selections are already 80%+ complete and less than 4% contaminated using broad bands alone. Medium bands add roughly 10% completeness, mostly by pinning down emission-line positions for 8

What carries the argument

The controlling instrument is the JADES Origins Field itself: a single NIRCam pointing with 14 co-equal photometric bands (broad F090W through F444W plus medium F162M through F410M) reaching AB magnitudes of roughly 29.8-30.35, which lets the authors rerun one selection pipeline under different band combinations rather than comparing across surveys. The pipeline combines SExtractor photometry with EAZY photometric redshifts run twice, once allowing z up to 25 and once capped at z=6, so every candidate is scored by the chi-squared difference between its high-z solution and its best low-z Balmer-break alternative. Completeness and contamination are quantified by repeating the same experiments on JAGUAR semi-analytic mock catalogues (with z>11.5 sources up-weighted by a factor of 10 to match observed number densities) and by degrading the real images to probe the low signal-to-noise regime. The failure mode that carries the argument is the Balmer-Lyman break degeneracy: at z about 2-4.5, H-beta and O[III] emission falling inside broad filters can replicate the blue slope of a Lyman-break galaxy, a confusion that medium bands resolve only when they happen to straddle those lines.

What would settle it

Spectroscopically measure the handful of sources that enter the high-z sample only when the JOF images are degraded: if most turn out to be genuinely at z>7.5, the claimed 20-38% contamination in the 5-8.5-sigma regime is an overestimate caused by incorrect full-depth photo-z labels, whereas confirmation of z<6 solutions would validate both the contamination rates and the Balmer-Lyman degeneracy mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its conclusions, is that broad-band-only JWST imaging is already sufficient to select z>7.5 galaxies with high completeness (80%+ at 10-sigma) and low contamination (under 4%), and that the role of medium-width bands is real but secondary: the first medium band recovers about 10% of 8<z<10 sources whose photo-z's are systematically underestimated by strong emission lines boosting F444W, while contamination from z about 1.5-4.5 Balmer-break interlopers falls only when multiple medium bands cover the expected line positions. A parallel finding is that the measured faint end of the UV luminosity function at 8.5<z<13.5 is consistent whether or not medium bands are used, and agrees with earlier JWST results showing high number densities of moderately faint galaxies around M_UV about -18. The paper also demonstrates, by artificially degrading the JOF imaging by factors of 2-8, that the 5-8.5-sigma regime is where Balmer-Lyman degeneracy sets in: real degraded data yield 20-38% contamination there, slightly above the JAGUAR simulation-based expectations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the photometric redshifts computed from the full 14-band, full-depth images are correct when used to label sources newly selected in the degraded images as contaminants; if those faint full-depth photo-z's are wrong, the 20-38% contamination rates measured in the 5-8.5-sigma regime would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Broad-band-only surveys at JWST depth can build high-z galaxy samples that are more than 80% complete and less than 4% contaminated at 10-sigma and brighter, so large-area statistical studies do not need medium bands to be reliable.
  • Adding the first medium-width band (for example F410M) recovers about 10% of 8<z<10 galaxies by correcting systematically underestimated photometric redshifts, but contamination only drops when several medium bands jointly probe the emission lines of low-z interlopers.
  • In the 5-8.5-sigma regime, Balmer-Lyman degeneracy produces 20-38% contamination in degraded real data, so ultra-faint high-z candidates near the detection limit must be treated as provisional unless spectroscopy or line-constraining bands are available.
  • Deepening the blue bands F090W and F115W by about 0.4 magnitudes is at least as effective at suppressing contamination as adding more medium bands, and NIRCam can acquire that blue depth in parallel with redder medium bands.
  • UV luminosity function measurements at 8.5<z<13.5 are insensitive to the choice of band set once completeness and contamination are corrected, supporting the high number densities of M_UV about -18 galaxies reported by other JWST deep fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the blue-depth conclusion generalizes, the optimal survey design for high-z science is not simply more medium bands but a rebalancing of exposure time toward F090W and F115W; this is a testable prescription that future JWST observing programmes could adopt and evaluate.
  • The Appendix A template-swap results imply that the measured contamination floor is also a statement about the current SED template set; as templates improve for young, blue, strong-line emitters, the same 5-8.5-sigma sources may re-classify without any new observations.
  • The JAGUAR-based completeness curves suggest that faint-end UV luminosity function slopes measured from a single deep pointing carry a completeness-correction uncertainty of order 10-15% per bin, comparable to Poisson error in the faintest bins; propagating band-set choice into the Schechter alpha error budget across several independent fields would quantify this directly.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses the JADES Origins Field (JOF), a single NIRCam pointing with 14 broad- and medium-width bands, to assess how the inclusion or removal of medium-width photometric bands affects the selection completeness and contamination of high-redshift (z > 7.5) galaxy samples. The authors run the same band-removal experiments on real JOF data and on mock catalogues from the JAGUAR semi-analytic model, and they also degrade the real imaging by factors of 2, 4, and 8 to mimic shallower surveys. They report that at 10-sigma and above, completeness is high (80%+) and contamination low (<4%) even without medium bands, that medium bands increase completeness by about 10% but multiple medium bands are required to reduce contamination, that Balmer-Lyman degeneracies become common at 5-7 sigma, and that deeper blue broad bands (F090W/F115W) are important for reducing contamination. They then measure the UV luminosity function at 8.5 < z < 13.5 and find number densities consistent with other JWST studies. An appendix investigates the effect of changing the SED template set.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful empirical and simulation-based assessment of JWST filter-set choices for high-z surveys, with direct implications for survey design (e.g., the recommendation to invest in blue broad-band depth). The paper's strengths include the use of a uniquely deep 14-band field, a systematic comparison of band-removal and image-degradation experiments, an explicit external validation of photo-zs against 20 spectroscopic redshifts (19/20 consistent), a test of template-set dependence (Appendix A), and the public release of custom wisp templates and data products. The central qualitative result that medium bands help most in the 5-8 sigma regime and that blue broad-band depth is key is well supported by the real-data and simulation experiments. However, the headline quantitative claim of 'contamination low (<4%) at 10-sigma+ even without medium bands' relies entirely on the JAGUAR simulation, whose contaminant population has not been empirically calibrated, and the only real-data contamination measurement (20-38% at 5-8.5 sigma) is based on very small numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2] The claim that contamination is 'low (<4%) at 10-sigma+ even without medium bands' is derived from the JAGUAR simulation, but the JAGUAR contaminant population (low-z Balmer break and strong-line galaxies) is pre-JWST and has not been calibrated against the interlopers actually found in JWST samples. The up-weighting factor of 10 for z>11.5 sources corrects only the known under-density of true high-z galaxies; it does not correct any missing contaminant SEDs. The real-data contamination measurement in §5.2 gives 20-38% at 5-8.5 sigma and is described as 'slightly higher than initially anticipated' — a direction that does not support treating the simulated 10-sigma contamination rate as a reliable upper limit. Please provide an explicit calibration check of the JAGUAR contaminant SEDs against JWST spectroscopic samples, or reframe the 10-sigma contamination claim as a model-dependent prediction with clearly stated caveats.
  2. [§5.2] The real-data contamination rates of 20-38% are based on only 12, 3, and 3 newly selected sources in the three degradation steps. The associated Poisson uncertainties are large (e.g., 6/12 has a 95% confidence interval of roughly 25-75%), yet the text presents these as a quantitative check on the simulation. Also, the calculation assumes that the full-depth photo-zs are correct for these sources; if any of the faint full-depth photo-zs are wrong, the measured contamination rate would be biased. Please report confidence intervals and explicitly discuss the robustness of the 20-38% estimate to the full-depth photo-z assumption.
  3. [§6] The completeness and contamination corrections applied to the real JOF UV luminosity function are taken from the JAGUAR simulation, so any systematic error in the simulated contamination rate propagates directly into the faint-end LF. Given the concern raised in §4.2.2 about uncalibrated contaminant SEDs, the agreement between LF measurements using different band combinations (C-ALL vs C-0/C-1/C-2) does not by itself validate the corrections, because all catalogues use the same JAGUAR-based corrections. Please test the sensitivity of the LF to an alternative contamination correction (e.g., one scaled to the real-data 20-38% rate), or explicitly state that the LF results inherit the simulation's contamination assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The sentence 'contamination is slightly higher than expected at 20-38%, through it is measured using a small number of sources' contains a typo: 'through' should be 'though'.
  2. [§2] The text says 'In Feburary of 2024' — 'Feburary' should be 'February'.
  3. [§3.2] The phrase 'more statistically probable' in Section 3.2(v) is informal; consider 'statistically preferred' or 'more probable under the model'.
  4. [§4.2.2] The completeness curves in Figure 8 show scatter of up to 4 percentage points across realisations; please state in the caption or text whether the quoted completeness values (e.g., 80% at 10-sigma) are the mean, median, or a single realisation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the completeness/contamination claims are simulation predictions checked against degraded real data and external surveys; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular by construction. The photo-z pipeline is validated against 20 spectroscopic redshifts (19/20 consistent, Section 3.1), and the completeness/contamination numbers in Conclusions (i) come from JAGUAR mock catalogues run through the same selection pipeline with randomized photometric scatter repeated five times (Section 4.2), not from fitting any parameter to the quantity being predicted. The factor-10 up-weighting of z>11.5 galaxies (Section 4.2.2) is an explicit correction for a stated under-density of true high-z galaxies relative to external observations, and it does not fix the contamination fraction by definition; indeed, the paper's real-data degraded-image experiment reports 20-38% contamination at 5-8.5 sigma, higher than the JAGUAR expectation, which shows the simulation prediction is falsifiable within the paper. The main stated assumption, 'Under the assumption that the photo-z is correct when using the full depth available' (Section 5.2), could bias the real-data contamination rates, but it is an empirical limitation rather than a circular reduction: the full-depth photometry is independent of the degraded photometry used for the selection under test. Self-citations to Adams et al. (2024) are used for the completeness-correction method and as one comparison dataset, but the LF results are also compared with independent surveys (e.g. Leung et al. 2023; Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2023; Donnan et al. 2024; Finkelstein et al. 2024; McLeod et al. 2024), so no load-bearing claim rests solely on a same-author citation. The paper therefore contains no step where a prediction reduces to its own input by definition or by fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the JAGUAR simulation for completeness and contamination corrections, on the chosen SED template sets, and on the assumption that full-depth photo-zs are reliable. The only numerical free parameters are the ad hoc factor-10 up-weighting and the LF fitting choices, both of which are disclosed. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • z>11.5 up-weighting factor in contamination calculations = 10
    Ad hoc compensation for JAGUAR under-predicting high-z number densities by ~20x; applied only to contamination estimates in Section 4.2.2.
  • Completeness and contamination cuts for LF inclusion = 30% / 30%
    Chosen threshold in Section 6: no galaxies used if assigned completeness below 30% or contamination above 30%; arbitrary but reasonable.
  • z=12.5 LF shape parameters = alpha=-2.1, M*=-21, beta=-4.6
    Fixed to z=10.5 best-fit values in Section 6.1 to stabilize fits with very few galaxies in the z=12.5 bin.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption JAGUAR semi-analytic model produces realistic galaxy colors in JWST photometric bands.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 to generate simulated catalogs used for completeness and contamination estimates. JAGUAR underpredicts z>11.5 number densities by ~20x, so its color distributions may also be imperfect.
  • domain assumption EAZY template sets (FSPS default plus Larson et al. 2023 sets) adequately span high-z and low-z galaxy SEDs.
    Section 3.1 relies on these templates for all photo-z fits. Appendix A shows that swapping to JADES templates changes the z=9 LF bright end by a factor of 3.5, indicating template sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Full-depth, 14-band photo-zs are correct when labeling contaminants in degraded data.
    Stated in Section 5.2: 'Under the assumption that the photo-z is correct when using the full depth available.' This underpins the real-data contamination rates.
  • standard math Madau (1995) IGM absorption and Calzetti et al. (2000) dust attenuation are appropriate for high-z SED fitting.
    Section 3.1 lists these as fixed components of the EAZY setup. They are standard in the field.
  • standard math Spectroscopic redshifts used for photo-z validation are correct.
    Section 3.1 compares against 20 spec-z from Barrufet et al. (2024) and 13 conservative JADES PRISM redshifts. Any systematic errors in those would propagate to the photo-z validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The impact of medium-width bands on the selection, and subsequent luminosity function measurements, of high-z galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X275DDSJ

@misc{pith2026250210282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The impact of medium-width bands on the selection, and subsequent luminosity function measurements, of high-z galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X275DDSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10282}
}
abstract

New, ultra-deep medium-width photometric coverage with JWST's NIRCam instrument provides the potential for much improved photo-z reliability at high redshifts. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of the JADES Origins Field, which contains 14 broad- and medium-width near-infrared bands, to assess the benefits of medium band photometry on high-z completeness and contamination rates. Using imaging reaching AB mag $29.8-30.35$ depth, we test how high-z selections differ when images are artificially degraded or bands are removed. In parallel, the same experiments are conducted on simulated catalogues from the JAGUAR semi-analytic model to examine if observations can be replicated. We find sample completeness is high ($80\%+$) and contamination low ($<4\%$) when in the $10\sigma+$ regime, even without the use of any medium-width bands. The addition of medium-width bands leads to increases in completeness ($\sim10\%$) but multiple bands are required to improve contamination rates due to the small redshift ranges over which they probe strong emission lines. Incidents of Balmer-Lyman degeneracy increase in the $5-7\sigma$ regime and this can be replicated in both simulated catalogues and degraded real data. We measure the faint-end of the UV LF at $8.5<z<13.5$, finding high number densities that agree with previous JWST observations. Overall, medium bands are effective at increasing completeness and reducing contamination, but investment in achieving comparable depths in the blue ($<1.5\mu$m) as achieved in the red is also found to be key to fully reducing contamination from high-z samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A comparison between NIRCam F150W, b4 module wisp models, with normalisation in the intensity scaling applied to match an aperture placed around the most intense region. Panel a) shows the original wisp template released by STScI in November 2022, panel b) shows the new wisp template developed as part of this work, panel c) shows the latest wisp template model (v3) produced by STScI in Summer 2024. We note that our … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A tour of an RGB image of the JOF field. The image was generated using the trilogy package (Coe et al. 2012) with the broadband images of the field. Bright, green regions in the NIRCam b4 module (lower left of the right side module) indicate masking of residual wisp artefacts. The red, cross-shaped pattern in each side of the image (caused by the blue module gaps) are similarly masked in our analysis. V3 (Summer 202… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A compariosn of the redshfits and 𝑀UV values obtained for the full 0.2as selected JOF sample vs the EPOCHS sample (Conselice et al. 2024) which compiled a number of wider area, but shallower surveys together. Here, we see the JOF field enables intrinsically fainter sources to be identified. (v) 𝛿𝜒2 ≥ 4 between high-z and low-z EAZY runs (where max￾imum redshift is set to 6). This ensures that the high-z solution is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SED fit for JADES+53.10762-27.86013 (known as JOF:718 in the our catalogues), the highest redshift robust candidate. Displayed are the EAZY fits to 0.32as photometry for the high-z solution, in orange, and low-z solution, in blue. The 0.2as photometry displays a si…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The SED fits for four example JOF sources that represent the primary categories of galaxies which are selected in catalogues that employ lower numbers of photometric bands, but become non-selected when all available information is utilised. Photometric data points colo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A break down of the photo-z performance on our simulated JAGUAR catalogues. Brighter objects (defined in blocks of sigma confidence in F200W) are grouped to the left and fainter objects grouped to the right. Results for the various filter combinations are shown vertica…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Completeness and Contamination fractions as measured by running simulated JAGUAR catalogs through our selection pipeline using the observational set up of the Jades Origins Field. The top component of each figure is completeness, while the lower component is contaminat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The SED fits applied to mock photometry of two example simulated galaxies from the JAGUAR Semi-Analytic Model which are low-z but selected as high-z with NIRCam photometry. In all plots, the grey line shows the original JAGUAR spectra, the blue line shows the EAZY SED …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An example of a source identified in the original JOF imaging as a Balmer break candidate at 𝑧 = 3.4 but is selected as a robust high-z candidate when the imaging is intentionally degraded by ∼ 0.7 mags. Blue lines show the best fitting 𝑧 < 6 solution while the orange…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The measured faint end of the UV Luminosity function within the redshift bins of 8.5 < 𝑧 < 9.5, 9.5 < 𝑧 < 11.5 and 11.5 < 𝑧 < 13.5. In the left column, we show the results from using either the 0.32as aperture catalogue, the 0.2as aperture catalogue or removing medium…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The measured UV Luminosity density and star formation rate density at 8 < 𝑧 < 14 from a compilations of HST and JWST-based studies plotted over the predictions from a selection of simulations and semi-analytical models. Observations include Oesch et al. (2013, 2018); …

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. Central Concentration and Escape of Ionizing Photons in Galaxies at the Epoch of Reionization

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At z~7, low-mass galaxies show compact, recently bursty star formation, with the steepest UV slopes and highest inferred ionizing-photon escape fractions in their inner regions.

  2. Exploring Cosmic Dawn with PANORAMIC I: The Bright End of the UVLF at $z\sim9 -17$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bright galaxy number densities at z~10 match previous JWST results, but are lower at z~13, and the new z~17 upper limits imply a drop of at least a factor ~50 in UV luminosity density from z~10 to z~17.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    Adams N. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  3. [3]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.622..707A 622, 707

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  4. [4]

    Asada Y., et al., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21543

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2404.10751

    Austin D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240410751A p. arXiv:2404.10751

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10751 2024

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..12B 946, L12

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..12B 946, L12

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L...6B 965, L6

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L...6B 965, L6

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Balestra I., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..12B 512, A12

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2404.08052

    Barrufet L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240408052B p. arXiv:2404.08052

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...32B 799, 32

    Behroozi P. S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...32B 799, 32

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Hearin A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..160B 931, 160

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..160B 931, 160

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Bradley L., et al., 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    Carniani S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..318C 633, 318

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Carniani S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A..87C 696, A87

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Castellano M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938L..15C 938, L15

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    arXiv:2504.05893

    Castellano M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250405893C p. arXiv:2504.05893

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Shao A., Senthil Kumar G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201893C p

    Clausen T., Steinhardt C. L., Shao A., Senthil Kumar G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201893C p. arXiv:2412.01893

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Coe D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...22C 757, 22

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240714973C p

    Conselice C. J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240714973C p. arXiv:2407.14973

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21524.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2116C 425, 2116

    Cooper M. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21524.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2116C 425, 2116

    2012

  21. [29]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..622C 7, 622

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    arXiv:2404.06531

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240406531D p. arXiv:2404.06531

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    D'Silva J. C. J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250303431D p. arXiv:2503.03431

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dayal P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512..989D 512, 989

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Dunlop J

    Donnan C. T., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Cullen F., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250103217D p. arXiv:2501.03217

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602465E p

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230602465E p. arXiv:2306.02465

    doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    J., et al., 2023c, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023c, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p. arXiv:2310.12340

    doi

  30. [39]

    Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Dayal P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3986F 522, 3986

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    L., Bagley M

    Finkelstein S. L., Bagley M. B., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220702233F p. arXiv:2207.02233

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    arXiv:2502.02637

    Gandolfi G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.02637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202637G p. arXiv:2502.02637

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    Garilli B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.150G 647, A150

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    E., Matsuura S., Perrin M

    Giardino G., et al., 2022, in Coyle L. E., Matsuura S., Perrin M. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 121800X ( @eprint arXiv 2208...

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7dc3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..125H 892, 125

    Hainline K. N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7dc3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..125H 892, 125

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...71H 964, 71

    Hainline K. N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...71H 964, 71

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929....1H 929, 1

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    Harvey T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978...89H 978, 89

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240402211H p

    Heintz K. E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240402211H p. arXiv:2404.02211

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    L., Mack J., Avila R., Martlin C., Cohen Y., Bajaj V., 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    Hoffmann S. L., Mack J., Avila R., Martlin C., Cohen Y., Bajaj V., 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 216.02

    2021

  44. [53]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1067H 529, 1067

    Holwerda B. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1067H 529, 1067

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

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

    2007 doi

  46. [55]

    K., Shimizu I., Iwata I., Tanaka M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1805I 442, 1805

    Inoue A. K., Shimizu I., Iwata I., Tanaka M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1805I 442, 1805

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    Kannan R., Garaldi E., Smith A., Pakmor R., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4005K 511, 4005

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..67K 640, A67

    Kauffmann O. B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..67K 640, A67

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    arXiv:2401.09981

    Kokorev V., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240109981K p. arXiv:2401.09981

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Labb \'e I., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 , 616, 266

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..141L 958, 141

    Larson R. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..141L 958, 141

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..79L 576, A79

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

    LeF\` e vre O., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322179 , 559, A14

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    Leung G. C. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..46L 954, L46

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    Levenberg K., 1944, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2, 164

    1944

  56. [65]

    Madau P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...441...18M 441, 18

    1995 doi

  57. [66]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    2014 doi

  58. [67]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    Marley M. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    W., 1963, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11, 431

    Marquardt D. W., 1963, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11, 431

    1963

  60. [69]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1047M 516, 1047

    Marshall M. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1047M 516, 1047

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    Mascia S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450493 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A...2M 690, A2

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    Matthee J., et al., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05448

    2023 arXiv

  63. [72]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5004M 527, 5004

    McLeod D. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5004M 527, 5004

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    Merlin E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..22M 649, A22

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    A., Barrufet L., Boogaard L

    Meyer R. A., Barrufet L., Boogaard L. A., Naidu R. P., Oesch P. A., Walter F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681L...3M 681, L3

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    Momcheva I. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..178M 149, 178

    Morris A. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..178M 149, 178

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...75O 773, 75

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...75O 773, 75

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Bouwens R

    Oesch P. A., Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Labb \'e I., Stefanon M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..105O 855, 105

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...1P 951, L1

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...1P 951, L1

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    D., Soummer R., Elliott E

    Perrin M. D., Soummer R., Elliott E. M., Lallo M. D., Sivaramakrishnan A., 2012, in Clampin M. C., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., Oschmann Jacobus M. J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentati...

    2012 doi

  73. [82]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan A., Lajoie C.-P., Elliott E., Pueyo L., Ravindranath S., Albert L., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M

    Perrin M. D., Sivaramakrishnan A., Lajoie C.-P., Elliott E., Pueyo L., Ravindranath S., Albert L., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M. J., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9143, Space Telesco...

    2014 doi

  74. [83]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240803920P p

    Price S. H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240803920P p. arXiv:2408.03920

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465.1099R 465, 1099

    Ravikumar C. D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465.1099R 465, 1099

    2007 doi

  76. [85]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..269...16R 269, 16

    Rieke M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..269...16R 269, 16

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Robertson B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...31R 970, 31

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    Robotham A. S. G., D'Silva J. C. J., Windhorst R. A., Jansen R. A., Summers J., Driver S. P., Wilmer C. N. A., Bellstedt S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acea42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135h5003R 135, 085003

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..297S 203, 297

    1976 doi

  80. [89]

    arXiv:2502.01610

    Schouws S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250201610S p. arXiv:2502.01610

    2025 doi arXiv

  81. [90]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976..101S 976, 101

    Suess K. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976..101S 976, 101

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    P., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..155..271S 155, 271

    Szokoly G. P., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..155..271S 155, 271

    2004 doi

  83. [92]

    C., Furlanetto S

    Trapp A. C., Furlanetto S. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2401T 499, 2401

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    Treu T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..110T 935, 110

    2022 doi

  85. [94]

    Ulm K., 1990, @doi [American Journal of Epidemiology] 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115507 , 131, 373

    1990 doi

  86. [95]

    Vanzella E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...478...83V 478, 83

    2008 doi

  87. [96]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    Wang B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe07 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..34W 957, L34

    2023 doi

  89. [98]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..270....7W 270, 7

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..270....7W 270, 7

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...16W 244, 16

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...16W 244, 16

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    arXiv:2501.00984

    Whitler L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250100984W p. arXiv:2501.00984

    2025 doi

  92. [101]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.08065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231108065W p

    Wilkins S. M., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.08065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231108065W p. arXiv:2311.08065

    2023 doi arXiv

  93. [102]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    Williams C. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    2018 doi

  94. [103]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..268...64W 268, 64

    Williams C. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..268...64W 268, 64

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...74W 966, 74

    Willott C. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...74W 966, 74

    2024 doi

  96. [105]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...13W 165, 13

    Windhorst R. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...13W 165, 13

    2023 doi

  97. [106]

    Yung L. Y. A., Somerville R. S., Finkelstein S. L., Wilkins S. M., Gardner J. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5929Y 527, 5929

    2024 doi

  98. [107]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943L...9Z 943, L9

    Zavala J. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943L...9Z 943, L9

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    de Graaff A., et al., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05948

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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