Exploring Cosmic Dawn with PANORAMIC II: Cosmic Variance and Galaxy Clustering at $z\sim10$
Bibliographic record
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 ($σ_{\rm CV}$) in the number counts of Lyman break galaxies at $z\sim10$ which is directly related to their clustering strength. We find $σ_{\rm CV}=0.96^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$, $1.46^{+0.54}_{-0.44}$, 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 $σ_{\rm CV}$ 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 $σ_{\rm CV}$ by placing galaxies at fixed M$_{\rm UV}$ in lower mass halos, but to varying degrees. Combined constraints on $σ_{\rm CV}$ 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".