LATIS: Galaxy–Environment Relations at Cosmic Noon and the Role of Sample Selection

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract We investigate the environmental dependence of galaxy properties at z ∼ 2.5 using the Ly α Tomography IMACS Survey (LATIS), which provides high-resolution three-dimensional maps of intergalactic medium (IGM) overdensity via Ly α forest tomography. Our analysis focuses on a UV-selected spectroscopic sample of 2185 galaxies from LATIS and a complementary set of 1157 galaxies from heterogeneous spectroscopic surveys in the COSMOS field. We compare these data sets to forward-modeled mock catalogs constructed from the IllustrisTNG300-1 simulation, incorporating realistic selection functions to match both LATIS and the literature sample. While the mass-complete simulation predicts strong environmental trends—more massive and quiescent galaxies preferentially occupy overdense regions—we find that such trends are significantly weaker or absent in the observed samples. The LATIS galaxies show no measurable correlation between specific star formation rate (sSFR) and IGM overdensity, a result reproduced by LATIS-like mock catalogs, confirming that UV selection systematically excludes passive and dusty galaxies in dense environments. The literature compilation, despite improved high-mass coverage, remains incomplete and affected by similar biases. We also analyze a mass-complete photometric sample from the COSMOS-Web catalog at z ∼ 2.5 and find no detectable sSFR–environment relation, a null result that our simulations indicate can be explained by photometric redshift uncertainties. In particular, we find no evidence for a reversal of the sSFR–density relation at cosmic noon. These results demonstrate that observed correlations can be heavily shaped by selection effects and caution against inferring physical trends from incomplete spectroscopic samples. Deeper, more representative spectroscopic surveys are needed to robustly characterize environmental effects at this epoch.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.