ner_tags: O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O B-Wavelength O O O O B-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey B-Survey B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Observatory O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength B-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O B-ObservationalTechniques I-ObservationalTechniques O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Observatory B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-ObservationalTechniques I-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O B-Survey O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques I-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques I-ObservationalTechniques I-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: the normalized results from Chapman et al. ( 2005 ; black, dashed), Wardlow et al. ( 2011 ; blue, solid), and Danielson et al. ( 2017 ; green, dotted). For the sample with robust and tentative counterpart identifications, the median redshifts are and , respectively. These results are in reasonable agreement with those from Chapman et al. ( 2005 ; median z = 2.2 ± 0.1 for a radio pre-selected sample); from the LABOCA Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS) submillimeter survey (LESS; Wardlow et al. 2011 ; median z = 2.2 ± 0.1); and also with the more recent ALMA surveys of Danielson et al. ( 2017 ; median z = 2.4 ± 0.1) and Brisbin et al. ( 2017 ; median z = 2.48 ± 0.05). In our photometric redshift distribution, there is a comparatively larger fraction of sources at z > 3, and the high-redshift tail extends farther out than that of the LESS distribution including one SMG with z phot ∼ 4.9. The existence of this tail is consistent with the millimeter spectroscopic confirmation of a growing number of SMGs at (e.g., Capak et al. 2008 ; Smolčić et al. 2012 ; Weiß et al. 2013 ; Smolčić et al. 2015 ; Strandet et al. 2016 ), and with the spectroscopic and photometric redshift distributions obtained by Danielson et al. ( 2017 ) and Brisbin et al. ( 2017 ) for samples of SMGs observed at the spatial resolution of ALMA. Su et al. ( 2017 ) also estimate photometric redshifts for nine strongly lensed DSFGs selected by ACT at 218 GHz (1.4 mm) and obtain a higher median redshift , which is expected since the highest-redshift sources remain bright at this lower frequency due to the negative K -correction. Our photometric redshift estimates support the existence of a SMG population, but it is unclear whether these sources’ number counts are consistent with the predictions of cosmological models. For example, semianalytic models that assume a top-heavy IMF and star formation driven by merger-triggered starbursts (Baugh et al. 2005 ) predict a redshift distribution centered at z ∼ 2, with very few sources at much higher redshifts. As a reference, the expected redshift distribution from Baugh et al. ( 2005 ) predicts that only ∼5% of SMGs with S 850 = 8 mJy ( S 870 ∼ 7.5 mJy) lie at z > 4, so for our subset of 25 SMGs with robust counterpart identifications, we would expect only one to two objects in this redshift range, in contrast to the ∼5 that we estimate (Table 5 ). Additional data are critical to confirm the existence and abundance of very high- z SMGs in our sample and confirm or refute our preliminary results; in particular, high-resolution submillimeter imaging is key to confirm counterpart identification for SMGs that are undetected at radio wavelengths. 6.3. Gravitational Magnification The detection of SMGs in LASCAR may be facilitated by the foreground galaxy clusters acting as gravitational lenses, but the resulting flux magnifications also affect the analysis of the intrinsic counts distribution and enhance the scatter in the contamination of