Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Exploring Cosmic Dawn with PANORAMIC II: Cosmic Variance and Galaxy Clustering at $z\sim10$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At z=10, cosmic variance—not Poisson noise—dominates the uncertainty in galaxy number counts, reaching 100–240% per JWST field.

desk verdict First z~10 cosmic variance measurement from 34 sightlines is a genuinely useful new observable, but the model-ranking claim in the abstract rests on a tension statistic that ignores σ_CV. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.14212 v2 pith:XKE7NCME submitted 2025-12-16 astro-ph.GA

Andrea Weibel , Christian Kragh Jespersen , Pascal A. Oesch , Christina C. Williams , Rachel Bezanson , Gabriel Brammer , Aidan P. Cloonan , Pratika Dayal
show 5 more authors
Anne Hutter Zhiyuan Ji Michael V. Maseda Marko Shuntov Katherine E. Whitaker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicvariancegalaxyclusteringz~10galaxiesLymanbreakbiasUVluminosityfunctionpureparallelimagingdawn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper measures the field-to-field scatter in the number of bright galaxies seen at z~10 by JWST. Using 34 widely separated sightlines, it finds that this cosmic variance is 0.96, 1.46, and 1.71 (fractional) for M_UV < -19.5, -20, and -20.5 respectively, implying a 100–240% uncertainty in counts from a single NIRCam pointing. Converting this to a galaxy bias gives b_g,CV ~30–50, meaning these galaxies must live in very massive, strongly clustered halos. Comparing the measured variance and abundance to simple models, the paper tentatively rules out models that raise star formation efficiency globally or boost scatter, and prefers models that decrease the mass-to-light ratio or scale star formation efficiency with halo mass.

What carries the argument

Central is sigma_CV, the fractional field-to-field variance in completeness-corrected galaxy counts, sigma_CV^2 = (sigma^2_total - sigma^2_Poisson)/mu^2, where sigma^2_Poisson = <N>. The fiducial measurement fits a Gamma distribution to counts across 34 independent lines of sight via MCMC, which is robust to rare overdense outliers. sigma_CV is converted to a galaxy bias b_g,CV = sigma_CV/sigma_DM, with sigma_DM=0.031 computed for the NIRCam survey volume. Because small non-linear scales dominate such a small field, b_g,CV exceeds the linear bias by 3–5x; the UniverseMachine simulation is used to calibrate this non-linear enhancement and to translate the b_g,CV measurements into linear bias.

What would settle it

A revised measurement from a substantially larger set of independent pointings (e.g., ~100) that yields sigma_CV close to the Poisson expectation at M_UV<-20 — or a direct 2PCF measurement showing linear bias around 5 rather than the corrected ~10–14 — would falsify the claim that bright z~10 galaxies are this strongly clustered.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 34 independent sightlines, the paper finds z~10 Lyman-break galaxy counts vary with sigma_CV = 0.96, 1.46, and 1.71 per NIRCam pointing (M_UV<-19.5, -20, -20.5) — a 100–240% fractional scatter, implying b_g,CV~30–50. Combining this clustering signal with the UV luminosity function disfavors global star-formation-efficiency boosts and increased UV scatter models, favoring lower mass-to-light ratios or halo-mass-dependent SFE. This makes cosmic variance a new diagnostic that can break degeneracies among models for the overabundance of bright z~10 galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 34 lines of sight (28 pure-parallel pointings plus randomly placed mock pointings on legacy fields) are independent and statistically equivalent surveys, so that the observed spread in their counts is dominated by true cosmic variance rather than by field selection or residual large-scale correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cosmic variance, not Poisson noise, dominates the uncertainty in single- or few-field JWST counts of bright z~10 galaxies; UVLF estimates from small-area surveys can be off by factors of ~2–4.
  • The implied galaxy bias b_g,CV ~30–50 (linear bias ~10–14 after correction) means bright z~10 galaxies are hosted by very massive, strongly clustered halos, a datum any successful model of early galaxy formation must reproduce.
  • Models that raise global star-formation efficiency or increase the scatter in the UV–halo mass relation (e.g., bursty star formation) are disfavored relative to models that lower the mass-to-light ratio or make SFE grow with halo mass.
  • Adding ~50 independent NIRCam pure-parallel pointings would allow the method to distinguish between the remaining model families at >3 sigma significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper itself flags that its measurements may be biased high (a consequence of the skewed count distribution), the true sigma_CV could be lower; if future data confirm lower values, the tentative model ranking could shift back toward bursty/scatter models.
  • The same technique can be applied at z~13–17, where the UVLF is even more uncertain; measuring sigma_CV there would test whether the steep drop in galaxy number density from z~10 to z~17 is real or partly a cosmic-variance artifact.
  • The non-linear enhancement factor calibrated from the simulation is strong: b_g,CV / b_lin ~3–5 for NIRCam-sized fields. Direct 2PCF measurements in wide JWST fields could calibrate this factor empirically, removing the current reliance on the simulation's small-scale clustering.
  • If the high bias is real, targeted spectroscopy of the most overdense sightlines might reveal protocluster-scale overdensities at z~10, linking the variance measurement to large-scale structure formation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper measures the cosmic variance (σ_CV) of z~10 Lyman-break galaxies using 34 independent NIRCam-pointing-sized fields, combining PANORAMIC pure parallels and legacy fields with mock pointings. Two estimators — bootstrap and MCMC Gamma-distribution fitting — give σ_CV ≈ 0.96–1.71 depending on M_UV limit, implying per-field cosmic-variance uncertainties of 100–240% and a large cosmic-variance-based galaxy bias. The authors compare with the fiducial UniverseMachine, which reproduces σ_CV but underproduces the abundance by a factor ≳5. They then implement simple UniverseMachine variants (global/halo-dependent M_UV boosts, constant/power-law SFE, global/halo-dependent scatter) and use the σ_CV–μ plane plus a 'combined model tension' statistic to argue that global SFE and enhanced-scatter models are disfavored relative to a power-law SFE model. Future prospects with additional parallel pointings are discussed.

Significance. If the measurement holds, this is one of the first direct cosmic-variance measurements at z~10, using a novel combination of pure-parallel and legacy sightlines. The consistency between two independent estimators and with UniverseMachine strengthens the empirical result. The model-comparison framework is a useful proof-of-concept for using σ_CV to break degeneracies among UV-bright-galaxy models. However, the quantitative model-ranking claim is weakened by the fact that the 'combined model tension' statistic is computed only from mean counts, not from σ_CV; the abstract's 'combined constraints on σ_CV and the UVLF' therefore overstates what the statistic demonstrates. With a corrected joint statistic or more carefully qualified claims, the paper would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Figure 4] The 'combined model tension' m is defined as (μ_model − μ_data)(Σ_model + Σ_data)^−1(μ_model − μ_data)^T, where μ is the mean galaxy count per field in distinct M_UV bins. This statistic contains no term involving σ_CV. Section 5 confirms that the tension is computed 'across distinct M_UV bins (i.e. along the UVLF).' Consequently, the quantitative rankings in Figure 4 — B2 best, C1/C2/B1 disfavored at ≳2σ — are driven solely by abundance/UVLF constraints. The abstract's statement that 'combined constraints on σ_CV and the UVLF' disfavor these models is not supported by this statistic. Either build a joint statistic over (μ, σ_CV) using the full posteriors, or state explicitly that the quantitative ranking is UVLF-only and that σ_CV contributes only qualitative ~1σ support. As written, the headline model-discrimination claim is not demonstrated by the paper's own statistic.
  2. [§2.4, §3.1.2] The fiducial MCMC σ_CV values use a single random placement of one mock NIRCam pointing in each legacy field. The bootstrapping estimator (§2.4.1) re-samples new mock pointings, but the MCMC estimator (which provides the fiducial values) does not propagate the uncertainty arising from the choice of pointing position within the irregular legacy footprints. Because the legacy fields dominate the area and the mock pointings are treated as independent equal-area sightlines, a different realization of mock pointings could shift the inferred σ_CV. Please quantify this by re-running the MCMC fit over many mock-pointing realizations, and/or by reporting a PANORAMIC-only measurement. This is directly relevant to the claimed precision of the central σ_CV measurement.
  3. [§4.1–4.2] The conversion from the measured b_g,CV to a linear bias uses the ratio b_g,CV/b_g,lin measured from the fiducial UniverseMachine. The quoted conversion-factor uncertainties reflect only the scatter among UniverseMachine light cones; they do not include the systematic uncertainty in UniverseMachine's small-scale, non-linear clustering or in the assumed M_UV–M_halo relation. Since the conversion is then used to compare with literature linear-bias values, the comparison in §4.2 is model-dependent. I would ask the authors to state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, estimate the systematic error using an alternative clustering model or by varying the halo-occupation assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5] The sentence 'A direct measurement of σ_UV at z∼10...' appears to be a typo; the paper measures σ_CV, not σ_UV.
  2. [§3.3 and §5] There is an inconsistency in identifying the best-fitting model: §3.3 and Figure 4 refer to the sharp DMSFE model with SFE∝M_halo^0.6 as best, while §5 states the best model has SFE∝M_halo^0.5. Please correct.
  3. [§3.3] Typo: 'difavored' should be 'disfavored'.
  4. [§2.4.2] The description of the Negative Binomial likelihood as an 'outlier-resistant Poisson-likelihood' is confusing. The Negative Binomial is the Gamma-Poisson mixture; the robustifying behavior should be explained more precisely.
  5. [§2.4.2] The exclusion of one of the five UniverseMachine light cones as 'unexplainable and significantly lower typical number densities' deserves more justification. Since the model comparison uses these light cones to estimate σ_CV and μ, a brief discussion of whether this light cone could instead be a rare fluctuation would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the σ_CV measurement is empirical and the model σ_CV tracks are genuine predictions; the §3.3 tension statistic is UVLF-only, a correctness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central σ_CV measurement is not circular: Eq. 4 and the MCMC Gamma-distribution fit operate on observed completeness-corrected counts per field, with no σ_CV input fed into the estimator that is then reported as the measurement. The bootstrap and MCMC agree within uncertainties, and the MCMC prior/likelihood choices are stated and motivated by Jespersen et al. (2025c), a published, reproducible method paper; the paper explicitly notes alternative distributions (negative binomial) are equally adequate, so no ansatz is smuggled by citation. The sample from W25 is a standard self-use of a companion catalog, not a definitional input: σ_CV is not defined by W25's UVLF values. The model comparison is also not circular in its σ_CV content: the UniverseMachine-based models are tuned to the UVLF (μ) and then their σ_CV is computed and compared to the data, so σ_CV is an independent prediction; the baseline UniverseMachine is a calibrated external simulation. The one real flaw is in §3.3: the 'combined model tension' m is explicitly a function of μ_model and μ_data only, with no σ_CV term, and §5 confirms the ranking is 'along the UVLF.' Thus Figure 4 and the relative model significances do not actually include σ_CV, contradicting the abstract's 'combined constraints on σ_CV and the UVLF' wording. This is a missing/incomplete statistic and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the empirical σ_CV measurement and the qualitative joint contours (Figures 2/3) remain independent. Appendix B's caveat that quoted uncertainties ignore model misspecification further weakens the quantitative rankings, again a statistical limitation rather than circularity. Overall: no load-bearing step reduces a prediction to its fitted input; minor self-citations (W25, Jespersen et al. 2025c) are not load-bearing. Score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central measurement is empirical; the main extra assumptions are the statistical model for number counts, UniverseMachine as a clustering/non-linear benchmark, and the simplified model implementations. The 8 fitted model parameters in Table 1 are the only numbers tuned to the data.

free parameters (8)
  • ΔM_UV (global boost, model A1) = 1.02^{+0.08}_{-0.07} mag
    Fitted to match observed z~10 number counts and σ_CV constraints; Table 1.
  • ΔM_UV (halo mass > 10^10 M_sun, model A2) = 1.01^{+0.08}_{-0.08} mag
    Fitted to match observed number counts; Table 1.
  • ΔM_UV (halo mass > 10^10.5 M_sun, model A2) = 0.93^{+0.13}_{-0.19} mag
    Fitted to match observed number counts; Table 1.
  • SFE (global constant, model B1) = 0.098^{+0.004}_{-0.006}
    Fitted to match observed number counts and σ_CV; Table 1.
  • SFE_peak (DMSFE slope 0.5, model B2) = 0.63^{+0.03}_{-0.02}
    Fitted to match observed number counts and σ_CV; Table 1.
  • SFE_peak (DMSFE slope 0.6, model B2) = 0.94^{+0.06}_{-0.06}
    Fitted to match observed number counts and σ_CV; Table 1.
  • σ_UV (global scatter, model C1) = 1.21^{+0.04}_{-0.04} mag
    Fitted to match observed number counts and σ_CV; Table 1.
  • σ_UV,norm (halo-mass dependent scatter, model C2) = 1.11^{+0.06}_{-0.05} mag
    Fitted to match observed number counts and σ_CV; Table 1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with WMAP9 parameters (h=0.6932, Ω_m,0=0.2865) is assumed throughout.
    Used for all physical scales, σ_DM, and UniverseMachine comparisons (§1).
  • domain assumption The F115W-dropout color selection isolates a pure z~10 LBG sample; the 18/18 spectroscopic confirmation rate is taken as evidence of high purity.
    Underlies all counts; contamination would dilute clustering (§2.2, §4.5).
  • domain assumption Field-to-field galaxy number counts follow a Gamma distribution with variance = mean + μ²σ_CV², and the Negative-Binomial likelihood down-weights outliers.
    Core statistical model for MCMC σ_CV inference (§2.4.2), justified by Jespersen et al. 2025c.
  • domain assumption UniverseMachine light cones reproduce small-scale/non-linear clustering at z~10 well enough to convert b_g,CV to linear bias and to serve as the fiducial comparison.
    Used throughout §3.2–§4.2; if UniverseMachine clustering is wrong, the non-linear correction factors (2.8–5.4) are wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper The simple UniverseMachine modifications (uniform ΔM_UV, constant SFE, power-law SFE, global/halo-dependent σ_UV) faithfully represent the proposed physical model classes.
    New simplified models in §3.2 are proxies for top-heavy IMF/dust/AGN, DMSFE, and burstiness; they are not full physical implementations.
  • ad hoc to paper Dropping one UniverseMachine CANDELS light cone with 'unexplainable and significantly lower typical number densities' is valid; the remaining 32 lines of sight are representative.
    Data-selection choice in §2.4.2; dropping an unfavorable realization can bias the model comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Cosmic Dawn with PANORAMIC II: Cosmic Variance and Galaxy Clustering at $z\sim10$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKE7NCME

@misc{pith2026251214212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Cosmic Dawn with PANORAMIC II: Cosmic Variance and Galaxy Clustering at $z\sim10$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKE7NCME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14212}
}
abstract

Observational campaigns with JWST have revealed a higher-than-expected abundance of UV-bright galaxies at $z\gtrsim10$, with various proposed theoretical explanations. A powerful complementary constraint to break degeneracies between different models is galaxy clustering. In this paper, we combine PANORAMIC pure parallel and legacy imaging along 34 independent sightlines to measure the cosmic variance ($\sigma_{\rm CV}$) in the number counts of Lyman break galaxies at $z\sim10$ which is directly related to their clustering strength. We find $\sigma_{\rm CV}=0.96^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$, $1.46^{+0.54}_{-0.44}$, and $1.71^{+0.72}_{-0.59}$ per NIRCam pointing ($\sim9.7\,{\rm arcmin}^2$, $\lesssim1.5\,{\rm pMpc}$ at $z\sim10$) for galaxies with M$_{\rm UV}<-19.5$, $-20$, and $-20.5$. Comparing to galaxies in the fiducial UniverseMachine, we find that $\sigma_{\rm CV}$ is consistent with our measurements, but that the number densities are a factor $\gtrsim5$ lower. We implement simple models in the UniverseMachine that represent different physical mechanisms to enhance the number density of UV-bright galaxies. All models decrease $\sigma_{\rm CV}$ by placing galaxies at fixed M$_{\rm UV}$ in lower mass halos, but to varying degrees. Combined constraints on $\sigma_{\rm CV}$ and the UVLF thus tentatively disfavor models that globally increase the star formation efficiency (SFE) or the scatter in the M$_{\rm UV}$-$M_{\rm halo}$ relation, while models that decrease the mass-to-light ratio, or assume a power-law scaling of the SFE with $M_{\rm halo}$ agree better with the data. We show that with sufficient additional independent sightlines, robust discrimination between models is possible, paving the way for powerful constraints on the physics of early galaxy evolution through NIRCam pure parallel imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cosmic variance σCV in the galaxy number count at z ∼ 10 for a NIRCam pointing sized survey (9.7 arcmin2 ). We plot values inferred through two different methods: boot￾strapping Equation 4 over 34 independent fields (crosses), and MCMC-fitting to the distribution of number counts per field (stars). The secondary y-axis shows the galaxy bias in￾ferred by cosmic variance, as defined in Equation 2. Measure￾ments are sh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Combined constraints on the abundance of galaxies at z ∼ 10, quantified as the mean number of galaxies per field (i.e. per NIRCam pointing), µ, and their clustering, quantified by the cosmic variance σCV. Each row of panels corresponds to a simple model implemented in the UniverseMachine to represent a class of models invoked to explain the abundance of UV-bright galaxies at z ∼ 10. From left to right, panels corres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Combined model tension, calculated as the equivalent posterior distance in Gaussian units, across three distinct MUV bins (−20 < MUV < −19.5, −20.5 < MUV < −20, and MUV < −20.5), for the different models presented in Section 3.2. The secondary y-axis on the right shows…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Galaxy bias bg, CV, as defined in Equation 2, as a function of the field side length in arcmin for MUV < −19.5, -20, and -20.5, measured from the UniverseMachine at z ∼ 10. The secondary x-axis corresponds to the phys￾ical scale for the respective field side length in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined constraints µ and σCV in analogy to Figures 2 and 3. The gray contours and red star represent our measurement in the MUV < −20 bin. The blue contours are derived assuming that our measurements represent the ground truth and simulating the constraining power of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distributions of the MCMC-fitting described in Section 2.4.2. The fitted quantities are the mean and variance. Contours correspond to 0.5, 1 , 1.5 and 2σ confidence regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

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. 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.

  2. Tilting at the Turnover: Modeling the Faint-End of the UV Luminosity Function Behind Abell s1063 with JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using lensed JWST data behind Abell S1063, the UVLF at z~6-11 is fit with gradual quadratic turnover, yielding no evidence for turnover to M_UV=-13.5 at z=6, exclusion limits on turnover models, and lower bounds showi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3347 2023

  2. [2]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  3. [3]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03124

    Asada, Y., Willott, C., Muzzin, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03124. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03124

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Wang, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1998 2023

  5. [5]

    L., Trenti, M., Wyithe, J

    Barone-Nugent, R. L., Trenti, M., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/17

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/17 2014

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, ApJ, 575, 587, doi: 10.1086/341469

    doi:10.1086/341469 2002

  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 116 references
  1. [9]

    A., Lira, P., Barrientos, L

    Blanc, G. A., Lira, P., Barrientos, L. F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1099, doi: 10.1086/588018

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 67, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/67

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10900

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10900

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2023, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8370018

    Brammer, G. 2023, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8370018

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 1503 Budav´ ari, T., Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 595, 59, doi: 10.1086/377168

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3069

    Velden, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3069

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Carrasco, D., Trenti, M., Mutch, S., & Oesch, P. A. 2018, PASA, 35, e022, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.17

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13160, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13160

    Carvajal-Bohorquez, C., Ciesla, L., Laporte, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13160, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13160

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Shuntov, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6c

    Genel, S. 2024, ApJ, 965, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6c

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. 2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al

    Cueto, E. R., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349017

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2006

    Dalmasso, N., Leethochawalit, N., Trenti, M., & Boyett, K. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2006

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    S., & Pacucci, F

    Dayal, P., Ferrara, A., Dunlop, J. S., & Pacucci, F. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1848

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    T., Dunlop, J

    Donnan, C. T., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., McLeod, D. J., & Cullen, F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03217, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03217

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2037

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al

    Feldmann, R., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2633

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    R., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b36

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 123, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/123 —

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 123, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/123 —. 2018, PASJ, 70, S11, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx097 19

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw840

    Campbell, D., & Tollerud, E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw840

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Furlanetto, S

    Hegde, S., Wyatt, M. M., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/025

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, A&A, 498, 725, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    Hildebrandt, H., Pielorz, J., Erben, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 725, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D

    Hogg, D. W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1008.4686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1008.4686

    2010 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    R., Dayal, P., et al

    Hutter, A., Cueto, E. R., Dayal, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A254, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452460

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, ApJ, 841, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d64

    Ishikawa, S., Kashikawa, N., Toshikawa, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d64

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    1946, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Jeffreys, H. 1946, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 186, 453

    1946

  46. [54]

    K., Carnall, A

    Jespersen, C. K., Carnall, A. C., & Lovell, C. C. 2025a, ApJL, 988, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb7c

    doi

  47. [55]

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

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

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    K., Melchior, P., Spergel, D

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

    doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lovell, C. C. 2025c, ApJ, 982, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb422

    doi

  50. [58]

    M., Lacey, C

    Jose, C., Baugh, C. M., Lacey, C. G., & Subramanian, K. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1014

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    G., & Baugh, C

    Jose, C., Lacey, C. G., & Baugh, C. M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1702

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottl¨ ober, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    Kravtsov, A., & Belokurov, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04578

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3265

    Roberts-Borsani, G., & Treu, T. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3265

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    P., et al

    Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Jing, Y. P., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 21, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10066.x

    2006

  56. [64]

    C., et al

    Li, Z., Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348727

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09618, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.09618

    Schaye, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09618, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.09618

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/71 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Cenarro, A

    Lin, L., Dickinson, M., Jian, H.-Y., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/71 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Cenarro, A. J., Hern´ andez-Monteagudo, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526731

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Bose, S., et al

    Lu, S., Frenk, C. S., Bose, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2646

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

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

    Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2015, ApJ, 813, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/21 —. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad035

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    G., et al

    Mauerhofer, V., Dayal, P., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554042

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Wolk, M., Colombi, S., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Wolk, M., Colombi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv305

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    2009, A&A, 505, 463, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912314

    Meneux, B., Guzzo, L., de la Torre, S., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 463, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912314

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3150

    Mirocha, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3150

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.347

    1996 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Kreilgaard, K

    Morishita, T., Mason, C. A., Kreilgaard, K. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbdc

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    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 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Mirocha, J., Furlanetto, S., & Sabti, N. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad115

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.11263. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11263

    2025

  70. [78]

    A., & Davis, M

    Newman, J. A., & Davis, M. 2002, ApJ, 564, 567, doi: 10.1086/324148

    2002 doi

  71. [79]

    A., & Moster, B

    Newman, J. A., & Moster, B. P. 2014, QUICKCV: Cosmic variance calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.012

    2014

  72. [80]

    M., Hawkins, E., et al

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

    2002

  73. [81]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb´ e, I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  75. [83]

    K., & Loeb, A

    Pacucci, F., Dayal, P., Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., & Loeb, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac035

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    J., et al

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11674, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11674 20 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Costantin, L., Langeroodi, D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., ...

    2025 doi

  77. [85]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    Robertson, B. E. 2010, ApJL, 716, L229, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L229 Rodr ´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Behroozi, P., Primack, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1705

    2010 doi

  79. [87]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Kannan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2508

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Naidu, R. P. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1932

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Toft, S., et al

    Shuntov, M., Oesch, P. A., Toft, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14280, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14280

    2025 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04410

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04410

    2025 doi

  83. [91]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H

    Somerville, R. S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L171, doi: 10.1086/378628

    2004 doi

  85. [93]

    S., Yung, L

    Somerville, R. S., Yung, L. Y. A., Lancaster, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05442, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05442

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    L., Ashby, M

    Song, M., Finkelstein, S. L., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/5

    2016 doi

  87. [95]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  88. [96]

    L., Jespersen, C

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

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    C., et al

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85a

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    Johnson, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e0

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    L., Robertson, B

    Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 878, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878

    2010 doi

  92. [100]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae651

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae651

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

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

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    A., Whitaker, K

    Wake, D. A., Whitaker, K. E., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/46

    2011 doi

  95. [103]

    R., Cutler, S

    Weaver, J. R., Cutler, S. E., Pan, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    A., Barrufet, L., et al

    Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Barrufet, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1891

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    A., Williams, C

    Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Williams, C. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06292. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06292

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853

    2019 doi

  99. [107]

    P., Topping, M

    Whitler, L., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.00984, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00984

    2025 doi

  100. [108]

    C., Giavalisco, M., Porciani, C., et al

    Williams, C. C., Giavalisco, M., Porciani, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/92

    2011 doi

  101. [109]

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

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

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    C., Oesch, P

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

    2025 doi

  103. [111]

    J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al

    Willott, C. J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    F., Jespersen, C

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

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    Ye, I., Bull, P., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1651

    2025 doi

  106. [114]

    M., & Gardner, J

    Wilkins, S. M., & Gardner, J. P. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3484

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 1, doi: 10.1086/431891

    2005 doi

  108. [116]

    R., Hearin, A., van den Bosch, F

    Zentner, A. R., Hearin, A., van den Bosch, F. C., Lange, J. U., & Villarreal, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz470 21 APPENDIX A.POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE COSMIC V ARIANCE FITS Figure 8 shows the posterior distributions of the MCMC-fits to the completen...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.