# Articles for week 2 2026 ## Star formation quenching precedes morphological transformation in COSMOS-WEB's richest galaxy groups [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06297v1) ### Authors - Z. Ghaffari / G. Gozaliasl / A. Biviano / G. Toni - S. Taamoli / M. Maturi / L. Moscardini / A. Zacchei - F. Gentile / M. Haas / H. Akins / R. C. Arango-Toro - Y. Cheng / C. Casey / M. Franco / S. Harish - H. Hatamnia / **O. Ilbert** / J. Kartaltepe / A. H. Khostovan - A. M. Koekemoer / D. Liu / G. A. Mamon / H. J. McCracken - J. McKinney / J. Rhodes / B. Robertson / M. Shuntov - L. Yang ### Summary We analyzed the 25 richest galaxy groups in COSMOS-Web at z = 0.18-3.65, identified via the AMICO algorithm. These groups contain 20-30 galaxies with high (>75%) membership probability. Our study reveals both passive-density and active-density relations: late-type galaxies (LTGs) prefer higher central overdensities than early-type galaxies (ETGs) across all groups, and many massive LTGs exhibit colors typical of quiescent galaxies. We identify red sequences (RS) in 5 groups, prominently established at z < 1, with early emergence in the RS locus up to z ~ 2.2. This suggests group environments represent a transitional phase where star formation quenching precedes morphological transformation, contrasting with the classical morphology-density relation in rich clusters. In the central regions (~33 arcsec / 100 kpc from centers), we identified 86 galaxies: 23 (~27%) ETGs and 63 (~73%) LTGs. High-mass galaxies (M_star > 10^10.5 M_sun) undergo rapid quenching over ~1 Gyr, becoming predominantly spheroidal ETGs. This indicates morphological transformation accelerates in massive systems during peak cosmic star formation. Intermediate-mass galaxies (10^9 < M_star/M_sun < 10^10.5) show mild quenching, while low-mass galaxies (M_star < 10^9 M_sun) remain largely star-forming; here, environmental processes suppress star formation without destroying disks, suggesting group quenching operates on longer timescales than mass quenching. Overall, mass-dependent quenching dominates the high-mass end, while environment shapes lower-mass systems. The HLAGN fraction for both groups and field increases with redshift, peaking at z ~ 2, with groups consistently showing higher fractions. We suggest AGN feedback partially drives rapid quenching in high-mass galaxies, while mergers may trigger AGN activity. ## Surveying exogenous species in Saturn with ALMA I. Detecting and Mapping CO [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05090v1) ### Authors - Deborah Bardet / Thierry Fouchet / Thibault Cavalié / Raphaël Moreno - Emmanuel Lellouch / Camille Lefour / **Bilal Benmahi** / Sandrine Guerlet ### Summary The origin of carbon monoxide (CO) in Saturn's stratosphere remains uncertain, with proposed sources including internal thermochemical production, cometary impacts, and exogenic material from the rings and icy moons (i.e. Enceladus). We aim to constrain the vertical and meridional distribution of stratospheric CO and assess the relative contributions of these potential sources. Here, we analysed high-spectral-resolution ALMA observations of the CO (J=3-2) line obtained on 25 May 2018, sampling Saturn's limb from 20°S to 69°N. CO vertical profiles were retrieved using a line-by-line radiative transfer model combined with spectral inversion techniques, testing multiple prior scenarios representative of different source hypotheses. CO is confined to a narrow layer between 0.1 and 1 mbar, with a robust negative vertical gradient and mean abundances of (3.7+/- 0.8) x 10$^{-8}$ at 0.1 mbar and (7.2 +/- 0.9) x 10$^{-8}$ at 1 mbar. The meridional distribution is statistically homogeneous, with a marginal enhancement near 60° N plausibly related to Enceladus. No significant equatorial enhancement is detected. The absence of a strong equatorial enhancement rules out a long-lived steady source associated with ring infall. The observations are most consistent with a relatively recent ($\approx$200-year-old or younger) cometary impact whose material has since been horizontally mixed, while any Cassini Grand Finale ring influx was either too recent or inefficient to affect CO abundances at the probed pressure levels. ## Euclid preparation. Galaxy 2-point correlation function modelling in redshift space [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04780v1) ### Authors - Euclid Collaboration / **M. Kärcher** / M.-A. Breton / **S. de la Torre** - A. Veropalumbo / A. Eggemeier / M. Crocce / E. Sefusatti - E. Sarpa / R. E. Angulo / B. Camacho Quevedo / L. Castiblanco - E. Castorina / A. Chudaykin / V. Desjacques / A. Farina - G. Gambardella / M. Guidi / D. Linde / F. Marulli - A. Moradinezhad Dizgah / M. Moresco / C. Moretti / K. Pardede - A. Pezzotta / M. Pellejero Ibañez / C. Porciani / A. Pugno - M. Zennaro / N. Aghanim / B. Altieri / L. Amendola - S. Andreon / N. Auricchio / C. Baccigalupi / M. Baldi - S. Bardelli / A. Biviano / E. Branchini / M. Brescia - S. Camera / G. Cañas-Herrera / V. Capobianco / C. Carbone - V. F. Cardone / J. Carretero / M. Castellano / G. Castignani - S. Cavuoti / K. C. Chambers / A. Cimatti / C. Colodro-Conde - G. Congedo / L. Conversi / Y. Copin / F. Courbin - H. M. Courtois / H. Degaudenzi / G. De Lucia / H. Dole - F. Dubath / X. Dupac / S. Dusini / A. Ealet - S. Escoffier / M. Farina / R. Farinelli / F. Faustini - S. Ferriol / F. Finelli / P. Fosalba / N. Fourmanoit - M. Frailis / E. Franceschi / M. Fumana / S. Galeotta - K. George / W. Gillard / B. Gillis / C. Giocoli - J. Gracia-Carpio / A. Grazian / F. Grupp / L. Guzzo - S. V. H. Haugan / W. Holmes / F. Hormuth / A. Hornstrup - K. Jahnke / M. Jhabvala / B. Joachimi / E. Keihänen - S. Kermiche / A. Kiessling / B. Kubik / M. Kümmel - M. Kunz / H. Kurki-Suonio / A. M. C. Le Brun / S. Ligori - P. B. Lilje / V. Lindholm / I. Lloro / G. Mainetti - D. Maino / E. Maiorano / O. Mansutti / S. Marcin - O. Marggraf / M. Martinelli / **N. Martinet** / R. J. Massey - E. Medinaceli / S. Mei / M. Melchior / Y. Mellier - M. Meneghetti / E. Merlin / G. Meylan / A. Mora - L. Moscardini / C. Neissner / S.-M. Niemi / C. Padilla - F. Pasian / J. A. Peacock / K. Pedersen / W. J. Percival - V. Pettorino / S. Pires / G. Polenta / M. Poncet - L. A. Popa / F. Raison / G. Riccio / E. Romelli - M. Roncarelli / C. Rosset / R. Saglia / Z. Sakr - A. G. Sánchez / D. Sapone / B. Sartoris / P. Schneider - T. Schrabback / A. Secroun / G. Seidel / S. Serrano - **P. Simon** / C. Sirignano / G. Sirri / L. Stanco - J. Steinwagner / P. Tallada-Crespí / A. N. Taylor / I. Tereno - N. Tessore / S. Toft / R. Toledo-Moreo / F. Torradeflot - I. Tutusaus / J. Valiviita / T. Vassallo / Y. Wang - J. Weller / G. Zamorani / F. M. Zerbi / E. Zucca - V. Allevato / M. Ballardini / M. Bolzonella / A. Boucaud - E. Bozzo / C. Burigana / R. Cabanac / M. Calabrese - A. Cappi / T. Castro / J. A. Escartin Vigo / L. Gabarra - J. García-Bellido / V. Gautard / J. Macias-Perez / R. Maoli - J. Martín-Fleitas / M. Maturi / N. Mauri / R. B. Metcalf - P. Monaco / M. Pöntinen / I. Risso / V. Scottez - M. Sereno / M. Tenti / M. Tucci / M. Viel - M. Wiesmann / Y. Akrami / I. T. Andika / G. Angora - M. Archidiacono / F. Atrio-Barandela / E. Aubourg / L. Bazzanini - J. Bel / D. Bertacca / M. Bethermin / F. Beutler - L. Blot / M. Bonici / S. Borgani / M. L. Brown - S. Bruton / A. Calabro / F. Caro / C. S. Carvalho - F. Cogato / **S. Conseil** / A. R. Cooray / S. Davini - G. Desprez / A. Díaz-Sánchez / S. Di Domizio / J. M. Diego - V. Duret / M. Y. Elkhashab / A. Enia / Y. Fang - A. G. Ferrari / P. G. Ferreira / A. Finoguenov / A. Fontana - F. Fontanot / A. Franco / K. Ganga / T. Gasparetto - E. Gaztanaga / F. Giacomini / F. Gianotti / G. Gozaliasl - A. Gruppuso / C. M. Gutierrez / A. Hall / H. Hildebrandt - J. Hjorth / S. Joudaki / J. J. E. Kajava / Y. Kang - V. Kansal / D. Karagiannis / K. Kiiveri / J. Kim - C. C. Kirkpatrick / S. Kruk / M. Lattanzi / J. Le Graet - L. Legrand / M. Lembo / F. Lepori / G. Leroy - G. F. Lesci / J. Lesgourgues / T. I. Liaudat / M. Magliocchetti - A. Manjón-García / F. Mannucci / C. J. A. P. Martins / L. Maurin - M. Migliaccio / M. Miluzio / A. Montoro / G. Morgante - S. Nadathur / K. Naidoo / P. Natoli / A. Navarro-Alsina - S. Nesseris / L. Pagano / D. Paoletti / F. Passalacqua - K. Paterson / L. Patrizii / R. Paviot / A. Pisani - D. Potter / G. W. Pratt / S. Quai / M. Radovich - K. Rojas / W. Roster / S. Sacquegna / M. Sahlén - D. B. Sanders / A. Schneider / D. Sciotti / E. Sellentin - L. C. Smith / J. G. Sorce / K. Tanidis / C. Tao - F. Tarsitano / G. Testera / R. Teyssier / S. Tosi - A. Troja / A. Venhola / D. Vergani / F. Vernizzi - G. Verza / **S. Vinciguerra** / N. A. Walton / A. H. Wright ### Summary The Euclid satellite will measure spectroscopic redshifts for tens of millions of emission-line galaxies. In the context of Stage-IV surveys, the 3-dimensional clustering of galaxies plays a key role in providing cosmological constraints. In this paper, we conduct a model comparison for the multipole moments of the galaxy 2-point correlation function (2PCF) in redshift space. We test state-of-the-art models, in particular the effective field theory of large-scale structure (EFT), one based on the velocity difference generating function (VDG$_{\infty}$), and different variants of Lagrangian perturbation theory (LPT) models, such as convolutional LPT (CLPT) and its effective-field-theory extension (CLEFT). We analyse the first three even multipoles of the 2PCF in the Flagship 1 simulation, which consists of four snapshots at $z\in\{0.9,1.2,1.5,1.8\}$. We study both template-fitting and full-shape approaches and find that with the template-fitting approach, only the VDG$_{\infty}$ model is able to reach a minimum fitting scale of $s_{\rm min}=20\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ at $z=0.9$ without biasing the recovered parameters. Indeed, the EFT model becomes inaccurate already at $s_{\rm min}=30\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. Conversely, in the full-shape analysis, the CLEFT and VDG$_{\infty}$ models perform similarly well, but only the CLEFT model can reach $s_{\rm min}=20\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ while the VDG$_{\infty}$ model is unbiased down to $s_{\rm min}=25\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ at the lowest redshift. Overall, in order to achieve the accuracy required by Euclid, non-perturbative modelling such as in the VDG$_{\infty}$ or CLEFT models should be considered. At $z=1.8$, the CLPT model is sufficient to describe the data with high figure of merit. This comparison selects baseline models that perform best in ideal conditions and sets the stage for an optimal analysis of Euclid data in configuration space. ## Gasflows in Barred Galaxies with Big Orbital Loops-A Comparative Study of Two Hydrocodes [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04319v1) ### Authors - Stavros Pastras / Panos A. Patsis / **E. Athanassoula** ### Summary We study the flow of gas in a barred-galaxy model, in which a considerable part of the underlying stable periodic orbits have loops where, close to the ends of the bar, several orbital families coexist and chaos dominates. Such conditions are typically encountered in a zone between the 4:1 resonance and corotation. The purpose of our study is to understand the gaseous flow in the aforementioned environment and trace the morphology of the shocks that form. We use two conceptually different hydrodynamic schemes for our calculations, namely, the mesh-free Lagrangian SPH method and the adaptive mesh refinement code RAMSES. This allows us to compare responses by means of the two algorithms. We find that the big loops of the orbits, mainly belonging to the x1 stable periodic orbits, do not help the shock loci to approach corotation. They deviate away from the regions occupied by the loops, bypass them and form extensions at an angle with the straight-line shocks. Roughly at the distance from the center at which we start to observe the big loops, we find characteristic "tails" of dense gas streaming towards the straight-line shocks. The two codes give complementary information for understanding the hydrodynamics of the models. ## Morphologies arising from the gas flow in the innermost kiloparsec of barred galaxy models [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04306v1) ### Authors - Stavros Pastras / Panos A. Patsis / **E. Athanassoula** ### Summary Context. We study a series of response models to investigate the formation of specific morphological features in the central 1 kpc region of the gas component in barred spiral galaxies. Aims. We aim to understand how structures, such as nuclear rings and spirals, form by varying the parameters of a general gravitational potential and gas properties. Our goal is to determine how much the shape of these structures is driven by the orbital dynamics of the models compared to the influence of the hydrodynamics of the gas. In particular, we examine the effects of the bar strength, bar shape, pattern speed, and central density, as well as their mutual interdependence. Methods. We modeled the gas flow using hydrodynamical simulations run with the Eulerian RAMSES code. The underlying gravitational potential was a two-dimensional Ferrers bar and the gas was considered to be isothermal. Alongside analyzing the gas response to the imposed gravitational potentials, we carried out orbital studies for all models. This involved assessing the shapes and stability of periodic orbits and analyzing the distribution of regular versus chaotic regions within the systems. Results. The parameters of the gravitational potential alone are insufficient to accurately predict the gas dynamics in a system. The morphology of the gaseous response varies substantially with changes in sound speed, emphasizing the fundamental role of hydrodynamic processes in determining the structure of the gas within the central region. We identify the factors that affect the morphology of nuclear rings and trailing and leading nuclear spirals. The best alignment between our models and structures observed in local barred galaxies is achieved by assuming a sound speed of $c_s=20\,\rm{km\,s^{-1}}$. ## GRB 180728A and SN 2018fip: the nearest high-energy cosmological gamma-ray burst with an associated supernova [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04179v1) ### Authors - A. Rossi / L. Izzo / K. Maeda / P. Schady - D. B. Malesani / D. A. Kann / S. Klose / L. Amati - P. D'Avanzo / **A. de Ugarte Postigo** / K. E. Heintz / A. Kumar - V. Lipunov / A. Martin-Carrillo / A. Melandri / A. M. Nicuesa Guelbenzu - S. R. Oates / S. Schulze / J. Selsing / R. L. C. Starling - G. Stratta / D. Vlasenko / P. Balanutsa / R. Brivio - V. D'Elia / B. Milvang-Jensen / E. Palazzi / D. A. Perley - A. Rau / J. Sollerman / N. R. Tanvir / T. Zafar ### Summary The long GRB 180728A, at a redshift of $z = 0.1171$, stands out due to its high isotropic energy of $E_{γ,iso} \sim 2.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg, in contrast with most events at redshift $z<0.2$. We analyze the properties of GRB 180728A's prompt emission, afterglow, and associated supernova SN 2018fip, comparing them with other GRB-SN events. This study employs a dense photometric and spectroscopic follow-up of the afterglow and the SN up to 80 days after the burst, supported by image subtraction to remove the presence of a nearby bright star, and modelling of both the afterglow and the supernova. GRB 180728A lies on the $E_{p,i}-E_{γ,iso}$ plane occupied by classical collapsar events, and the prompt emission is one of the most energetic at $z < 0.2$ after GRB 030329 and GRB 221009A. The afterglow of GRB 180728A is less luminous than that of most long GRBs, showing a shallow early phase that steepens around 5 hours (0.2 days). The GRB exploded in an irregular, low-mass, blue, star-forming galaxy, typical of low-z collapsar events. Because of the relatively faint afterglow, the light curve bump of SN 2018fip dominates the optical emission already after $\sim$3 days and is one of the best sampled to date. The strong suppression below $\sim$ 4000 angstrom and a largely featureless continuum in the early 6--9 days spectra favor aspherical two-component ejecta with a high-velocity collimated component ($> 20,000 km s^{-1}$), dominant early-on, and a more massive, low-velocity component, which dominates at much later epochs. Our findings indicate that asymmetries need to be considered in order to better understand GRB-SNe. In any case, SN 2018fip shares many characteristics with typical GRB-SNe. Its kinetic energy is below the common range of $10^{52}-10^{53}$ erg and does not correlate with the high energy of the GRB, highlighting the diversity of the GRB-SN energy budget partition. ## Transient Large-Scale Anisotropy in TeV Cosmic Rays due to an Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02801v1) ### Authors - Zhen Cao / F. Aharonian / Y. X. Bai / Y. W. Bao - D. Bastieri / X. J. Bi / Y. J. Bi / W. Bian - A. V. Bukevich / C. M. Cai / W. Y. Cao / Zhe Cao - J. Chang / J. F. Chang / A. M. Chen / E. S. Chen - G. H. Chen / H. X. Chen / Liang Chen / Long Chen - M. J. Chen / M. L. Chen / Q. H. Chen / S. Chen - S. H. Chen / S. Z. Chen / T. L. Chen / X. B. Chen - X. J. Chen / Y. Chen / N. Cheng / Y. D. Cheng - M. C. Chu / M. Y. Cui / S. W. Cui / X. H. Cui - Y. D. Cui / B. Z. Dai / H. L. Dai / Z. G. Dai - Danzengluobu / Y. X. Diao / X. Q. Dong / K. K. Duan - J. H. Fan / Y. Z. Fan / J. Fang / J. H. Fang - K. Fang / C. F. Feng / H. Feng / L. Feng - S. H. Feng / X. T. Feng / Y. Feng / Y. L. Feng - S. Gabici / B. Gao / C. D. Gao / Q. Gao - W. Gao / W. K. Gao / M. M. Ge / T. T. Ge - L. S. Geng / G. Giacinti / G. H. Gong / Q. B. Gou - M. H. Gu / F. L. Guo / J. Guo / X. L. Guo - Y. Q. Guo / Y. Y. Guo / Y. A. Han / O. A. Hannuksela - M. Hasan / H. H. He / H. N. He / J. Y. He - X. Y. He / Y. He / S. Hernández-Cadena / B. W. Hou - C. Hou / X. Hou / H. B. Hu / S. C. Hu - C. Huang / D. H. Huang / J. J. Huang / T. Q. Huang - W. J. Huang / X. T. Huang / X. Y. Huang / Y. Huang - Y. Y. Huang / X. L. Ji / H. Y. Jia / K. Jia - H. B. Jiang / K. Jiang / X. W. Jiang / Z. J. Jiang - M. Jin / S. Kaci / M. M. Kang / I. Karpikov - D. Khangulyan / D. Kuleshov / K. Kurinov / B. B. Li - Cheng Li / Cong Li / D. Li / F. Li - H. B. Li / H. C. Li / Jian Li / Jie Li - K. Li / L. Li / R. L. Li / S. D. Li - T. Y. Li / W. L. Li / X. R. Li / Xin Li - Y. Li / Y. Z. Li / Zhe Li / Zhuo Li - E. W. Liang / Y. F. Liang / S. J. Lin / B. Liu - C. Liu / D. Liu / D. B. Liu / H. Liu - H. D. Liu / J. Liu / J. L. Liu / J. R. Liu - M. Y. Liu / R. Y. Liu / S. M. Liu / W. Liu - X. Liu / Y. Liu / Y. Liu / Y. N. Liu - Y. Q. Lou / Q. Luo / Y. Luo / H. K. Lv - B. Q. Ma / L. L. Ma / X. H. Ma / J. R. Mao - Z. Min / W. Mitthumsiri / G. B. Mou / H. J. Mu - A. Neronov / K. C. Y. Ng / M. Y. Ni / L. Nie - L. J. Ou / P. Pattarakijwanich / Z. Y. Pei / J. C. Qi - M. Y. Qi / J. J. Qin / A. Raza / C. Y. Ren - D. Ruffolo / A. Sáiz / D. Semikoz / L. Shao - O. Shchegolev / Y. Z. Shen / X. D. Sheng / Z. D. Shi - F. W. Shu / H. C. Song / Yu. V. Stenkin / V. Stepanov - Y. Su / D. X. Sun / H. Sun / Q. N. Sun - X. N. Sun / Z. B. Sun / N. H. Tabasam / J. Takata - P. H. T. Tam / H. B. Tan / Q. W. Tang / R. Tang - Z. B. Tang / W. W. Tian / C. N. Tong / L. H. Wan - C. Wang / G. W. Wang / H. G. Wang / J. C. Wang - K. Wang / Kai Wang / Kai Wang / L. P. Wang - L. Y. Wang / L. Y. Wang / R. Wang / W. Wang - X. G. Wang / X. J. Wang / X. Y. Wang / Y. Wang - Y. D. Wang / Z. H. Wang / Z. X. Wang / Zheng Wang - D. M. Wei / J. J. Wei / Y. J. Wei / T. Wen - S. S. Weng / C. Y. Wu / H. R. Wu / Q. W. Wu - S. Wu / X. F. Wu / Y. S. Wu / S. Q. Xi - J. Xia / J. J. Xia / G. M. Xiang / D. X. Xiao - G. Xiao / Y. L. Xin / Y. Xing / D. R. Xiong - Z. Xiong / D. L. Xu / R. F. Xu / R. X. Xu - W. L. Xu / L. Xue / D. H. Yan / T. Yan - C. W. Yang / C. Y. Yang / F. F. Yang / L. L. Yang - M. J. Yang / R. Z. Yang / W. X. Yang / Z. H. Yang - Z. G. Yao / X. A. Ye / L. Q. Yin / N. Yin - X. H. You / Z. Y. You / Q. Yuan / H. Yue - H. D. Zeng / T. X. Zeng / W. Zeng / X. T. Zeng - M. Zha / B. B. Zhang / B. T. Zhang / C. Zhang - F. Zhang / **H. Zhang** / H. M. Zhang / H. Y. Zhang - J. L. Zhang / Li Zhang / P. F. Zhang / P. P. Zhang - R. Zhang / S. R. Zhang / S. S. Zhang / W. Y. Zhang - X. Zhang / X. P. Zhang / Yi Zhang / Yong Zhang - Z. P. Zhang / J. Zhao / L. Zhao / L. Z. Zhao - S. P. Zhao / X. H. Zhao / Z. H. Zhao / F. Zheng - W. J. Zhong / B. Zhou / H. Zhou / J. N. Zhou - M. Zhou / P. Zhou / R. Zhou / X. X. Zhou - X. X. Zhou / B. Y. Zhu / C. G. Zhu / F. R. Zhu - H. Zhu / K. J. Zhu / Y. C. Zou / X. Zuo ### Summary Large- or medium-scale cosmic ray anisotropy at TeV energies has not previously been confirmed to vary with time. Transient anisotropy changes have been observed below 150 GeV, especially near the passage of an interplanetary shock and coronal mass ejection containing a magnetic flux rope ejected by a solar storm, which can trigger a geomagnetic storm with practical consequences. In such events, cosmic rays provide remote sensing of the magnetic field properties. Here we report the observation of transient large-scale anisotropy in TeV cosmic ray ions using data from the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO). We analyze hourly skymaps of the transient cosmic ray intensity excess or deficit, the gradient of which indicates the direction and magnitude of transient large-scale anisotropy across the field of view. We observe enhanced anisotropy above typical hourly fluctuations with $>$5$σ$ significance during some hours of November 4, 2021, in separate data sets for four primary cosmic ray energy ranges of median energy from $E$=0.7 to 3.1 TeV. The gradient varies with energy as $E^γ$, where $γ\approx-0.5$. At a median energy $\leq$1.0 TeV, this gradient corresponds to a dipole anisotropy of at least 1\%, or possibly a weaker anisotropy of higher order. This new type of observation opens the opportunity to study interplanetary magnetic structures using air shower arrays around the world, complementing existing in situ and remote measurements of plasma properties. ## Euclid: Improving redshift distribution reconstruction using a deep-to-wide transfer function [Link to the paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02005v1) ### Authors - Y. Kang / S. Paltani / W. G. Hartley / M. Bolzonella - A. H. Wright / F. Dubath / F. J. Castander / D. C. Masters - W. d'Assignies / H. Hildebrandt / **O. Ilbert** / M. Manera - W. Roster / S. A. Stanford / N. Aghanim / B. Altieri - S. Andreon / N. Auricchio / H. Aussel / C. Baccigalupi - M. Baldi / S. Bardelli / P. Battaglia / A. Biviano - E. Branchini / M. Brescia / J. Brinchmann / S. Camera - G. Cañas-Herrera / V. Capobianco / C. Carbone / V. F. Cardone - J. Carretero / S. Casas / M. Castellano / G. Castignani - S. Cavuoti / K. C. Chambers / A. Cimatti / C. Colodro-Conde - G. Congedo / L. Conversi / Y. Copin / **A. Costille** - F. Courbin / H. M. Courtois / M. Cropper / H. Degaudenzi - G. De Lucia / H. Dole / C. A. J. Duncan / X. Dupac - S. Dusini / A. Ealet / S. Escoffier / M. Farina - R. Farinelli / S. Farrens / F. Faustini / S. Ferriol - F. Finelli / N. Fourmanoit / M. Frailis / E. Franceschi - M. Fumana / S. Galeotta / K. George / B. Gillis - C. Giocoli / J. Gracia-Carpio / A. Grazian / F. Grupp - S. V. H. Haugan / H. Hoekstra / W. Holmes / F. Hormuth - A. Hornstrup / P. Hudelot / K. Jahnke / M. Jhabvala - B. Joachimi / E. Keihänen / S. Kermiche / A. Kiessling - B. Kubik / M. Kümmel / M. Kunz / H. Kurki-Suonio - R. Laureijs / A. M. C. Le Brun / S. Ligori / P. B. Lilje - V. Lindholm / I. Lloro / G. Mainetti / D. Maino - E. Maiorano / O. Mansutti / S. Marcin / O. Marggraf - M. Martinelli / **N. Martinet** / F. Marulli / R. J. Massey - E. Medinaceli / S. Mei / Y. Mellier / M. Meneghetti - E. Merlin / G. Meylan / A. Mora / M. Moresco - L. Moscardini / R. Nakajima / C. Neissner / S.-M. Niemi - C. Padilla / F. Pasian / K. Pedersen / V. Pettorino - S. Pires / G. Polenta / M. Poncet / L. A. Popa - L. Pozzetti / F. Raison / A. Renzi / J. Rhodes - G. Riccio / E. Romelli / M. Roncarelli / R. Saglia - Z. Sakr / A. G. Sánchez / D. Sapone / B. Sartoris - P. Schneider / T. Schrabback / A. Secroun / G. Seidel - S. Serrano / **P. Simon** / C. Sirignano / G. Sirri - L. Stanco / J. Steinwagner / P. Tallada-Crespí / A. N. Taylor - I. Tereno / N. Tessore / S. Toft / R. Toledo-Moreo - F. Torradeflot / I. Tutusaus / J. Valiviita / T. Vassallo - A. Veropalumbo / Y. Wang / J. Weller / G. Zamorani - F. M. Zerbi / I. A. Zinchenko / E. Zucca / J. García-Bellido - J. Martín-Fleitas / V. Scottez / M. Viel / R. Teyssier ### Summary The Euclid mission seeks to understand the Universe expansion history and the nature of dark energy, which requires a very accurate estimate of redshift distribution. Achieving this accuracy relies on reference samples with spectroscopic redshifts, together with a procedure to match them to survey sources for which only photometric redshifts are available. One important source of systematic uncertainty is the mismatch in photometric properties between galaxies in the Euclid survey and the reference objects. We develop a method to degrade the photometry of objects with deep photometry to match the properties of any shallower survey in the multi-band photometric space, preserving all the correlations between the fluxes and their uncertainties. We compare our transfer method with more demanding image-based methods, such as Balrog from the Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. According to metrics, our method outperforms Balrog. We implement it in the redshift distribution reconstruction, based on the self-organising map approach of arXiv:1509.03318, and test it using a realistic sample from the Euclid Flagship Simulation. We find that the key ingredient is to ensure that the reference objects are distributed in the colour space the same way as the wide-survey objects, which can be efficiently achieved with our transfer method. In our best implementation, the mean redshift biases are consistently reduced across the tomographic bins, bringing a significant fraction of them within the Euclid accuracy requirements in all tomographic bins. Equally importantly, the tests allow us to pinpoint which step in the calibration pipeline has the strongest impact on achieving the required accuracy. Our approach also reproduces the overall redshift distributions, which are crucial for applications such as angular clustering.