text:   of High-Redshift Galaxies",8,"[""New paper!  <LINK> .  We postprocess massive zooms with RT to make 'observables' -- Non-parametric merger indicators G-M20 and C-A work super well at low-z, but the complex morphology from highly clustered evirons makes measures fail at high-z 4 massive gals."", ""So for things that might end up as centrals in z=0 groups/clusters, our current non-parametric methods don't perform much better than randomly guessing."", 'Extra fun fact:  paper is my first-ever student led one, and by a super awesome former @haverfordedu  undergraduate!', ""@conselice Thanks for the comments Chris!  The replies are somewhat multifaceted.  First, these simulations are cosmological zooms, which means we follow individual galaxies at high-res, but don't have statistics.  So we can't generate statistics for merger rates."", ""@conselice Second, part of the point of the paper is that G-M20 and C-A may not have success at determining merger rates, at least for very massive systems at high-z.   Of course there are other methods for determining merger rates, though I can't speak to their accuracy in this regime."", ""@conselice The point being -- it's not clear that we can compare the rates from the simulations to the observations when the false positive rate from observations may be significant."", '@conselice Finally, a bit of a philosophical point:  should it matter what the rate normalization is?  Ideally, a merger identifier should identify mergers regardless of the rate, with a minimal false positive rate.', ""@conselice On the Petrosian radii, I'll point you to the 7 pages of methods!  Not to defer, but it's nontrivial to summarize in N characters or less :)   But will be very happy to hear your comments on them.""]",18,03,1677