Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

VENUS: A Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy at $z\sim11-12$ behind the Galaxy Cluster MACS J0257.1-2325

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A strongly lensed galaxy at z~11-12 is resolved into multiple star-cluster-like clumps that hold most of its stellar mass.

desk verdict A solid, honest discovery of a z~11-12 lensed clumpy galaxy, but the quoted 10-70 pc clump radii rest on a size correction that ignores anisotropic magnification; worth a serious referee, though the size analysis needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.14483 v3 pith:VL4FEK6I submitted 2025-11-18 astro-ph.GA

Minami Nakane , Vasily Kokorev , Seiji Fujimoto , Masami Ouchi , Derek J. McLeod , Miriam Golubchik , Masamune Oguri , Adi Zitrin
show 70 more authors
Cecilia Bondestam Callum T. Donnan Gabriel Brammer Steven L. Finkelstein Chris Willott Gregor Rihtarsic Guillaume Desprez Angela Adamo Eros Vanzella Maruša Bradač Matteo Messa Hiroto Yanagisawa Fengwu Sun Henry C. Ferguson Ray A. Lucas Dan Coe Johan Richard Abdurro'uf Hollis B. Akins Joseph F. V. Allingham Ricardo O. Amorín Yoshihisa Asada Hakim Atek Rachel Bezanson Larry D. Bradley John Chisholm Christopher J. Conselice Pratika Dayal Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky Jose M. Diego Andreas L. Faisst Gavin Farley Qinyue Fei Brenda L. Frye Yoshinobu Fudamoto Lukas J. Furtak Yuichi Harikane Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao Yolanda Jiménez-Teja Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Tomokazu Kiyota Anton M. Koekemoer Claudia del P. Lagos Georgios E. Magdis Ashish Kumar Meena Lamiya Mowla Gaël Noirot Pascal A. Oesch Yoshiaki Ono Rafael Ortiz III Richard Pan Casey Papovich Justin D. Pierel Massimo Ricotti Luke Robbins Daniel Schaerer Raffaella Schneider Tommaso Treu Francesco Valentino Rogier A. Windhorst Franz E. Bauer Volker Bromm Eiichi Egami Mauro González-Otero Kotaro Kohno Ivo Labbe Jorryt Matthee Marcie Mun Rohan P. Naidu Roberta Tripodi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesstronggravitationallensingstarclustersgalaxyformationJWSTNIRCamz~11-12compactclumps
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a strongly lensed galaxy at z~11-12, named the Misty Moons, seen behind the cluster MACS J0257.1-2325. Gravitational magnification of ~20-30 resolves this intrinsically faint galaxy (M_UV ~ -18) into multiple stellar clumps with effective radii of 10-70 pc and stellar masses near 10^7 solar masses. These clumps account for more than 80% of the galaxy's stellar mass, a clustered mass fraction far above local dwarf galaxies, implying that star formation at this early epoch is clump-dominated. When the source-plane image is smeared by the NIRCam point-spread function, the galaxy looks like typical faint z>10 galaxies, suggesting that clumpy substructure may be common but unresolved in unlensed observations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is strong gravitational lensing by the foreground cluster, which magnifies the background galaxy by a factor of 20-30 and boosts both brightness and spatial resolution. Source-plane reconstruction, driven by a parametric lens model, converts the distorted image-plane morphologies into intrinsic clump positions and sizes. Clump identification uses contrast-map source extraction followed by multi-component Sersic profile fitting; intrinsic sizes are obtained by dividing image-plane radii by the square root of the magnification. A mock-image step, convolving the reconstructed source with the NIRCam PSF, tests how the galaxy would appear unlensed.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift placing the galaxy at z<9, or an independent lens model yielding magnification factors differing by more than a factor of two from the adopted values, would invalidate the derived clump masses, radii, and mass fractions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Misty Moons, a lensed galaxy at z~11-12, is resolved into four compact clumps in one image and three in the other, with intrinsic sizes of ~10-70 pc and stellar masses of ~10^7 solar masses each. The clumps dominate the stellar mass budget, contributing more than 80% of the total mass. The galaxy's intrinsic half-light radius (~180-200 pc) and UV luminosity (~-18 mag) place it among typical faint z>10 galaxies, and a mock PSF-convolved image matches the surface-brightness profiles of two well-known z~13 galaxies. The paper concludes that a clumpy, clustered mode of star formation is present in this early galaxy and may be representative of faint galaxies in the reionization era.

Load-bearing premise

The physical conclusions assume that the image-plane clumps are real source-plane structures and that the parametric lens model correctly recovers the magnification and source-plane geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If star formation is indeed clump-dominated at z>10, stellar mass builds up in dense sub-galactic units rather than in a smooth disk.
  • The observed clump properties bridge high-redshift star-forming clumps and local young massive or nuclear star clusters, possibly tracing globular-cluster progenitors.
  • The PSF-smearing test implies that many apparently smooth faint z>10 galaxies may hide similar clumpy substructure.
  • The high clustered mass fraction, compared with local dwarfs, supports a top-down, clustered star formation mode in the early Universe.
  • Confirming the three predicted counter-images would further validate the lens model and sharpen the derived clump properties.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the lens model holds, the derived clump densities (up to ~10^4 solar masses per square parsec) rival the densest known star clusters, which would push star-formation models toward a top-heavy IMF or very high cluster formation efficiencies.
  • The paper's 'representative' conclusion rests on a single sightline; a fair test would search for similar lensed clumpy galaxies in other cluster fields and compare their clump mass fractions.
  • A direct testable extension: high-resolution integral-field spectroscopy of the clumps could measure velocity dispersions and decide whether they are gravitationally bound clusters or transient giant clumps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of 'Misty Moons,' a strongly lensed galaxy at z~11–12 behind the cluster MACS J0257.1-2325, identified in VENUS JWST/NIRCam imaging. Two highly magnified images, ID1 and ID2, show F150W dropouts, blue UV slopes, and consistent photometric redshifts from EAZY and Prospector (z~11 with IGM absorption, z~12 with Lyα emission; P(z>10)~1). Two independent lens models predict five multiple images, with the fainter ID4/ID5 predicted at F200W~29 and not detected — an out-of-sample consistency check. After lens modeling, the galaxy is claimed to be resolved into multiple clumps with intrinsic effective radii ~10–70 pc, stellar masses ~1e7 M_sun, and clustered mass fractions ≳80%, and a PSF-convolved mock image is argued to resemble typical z>10 JADES galaxies.

Significance. If the quantitative clump properties are correct, this is an important discovery: it would push resolved studies of star-cluster-scale structures from z~6–9 to z~11–12 and provide a direct constraint on clustered star formation in the early Universe. The paper has genuine strengths: the high-redshift nature of the source is robust; two independent lens models are used; the non-detection of ID4/ID5 is a falsifiable prediction; ID1/ID2 provide an internal consistency check; and Monte Carlo uncertainties are propagated for fluxes. However, the headline numbers for clump sizes, surface densities, and mass fractions depend on a size correction and a source-plane reconstruction that are not currently validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and Table 2] The intrinsic radii are obtained as r_eff,int = r_eff / sqrt(μ_Glafic). This is valid only for isotropic magnification. Near a cluster critical curve the lensing tensor is anisotropic: for a GALFIT major-axis r_eff the image-plane radius scales as μ_t R_s while μ = μ_t μ_r, so the quoted r_eff,int overestimates the true radius by sqrt(μ_t/μ_r), or biases it differently if another radius convention is used. The paper does not state whether r_eff is the GALFIT semi-major-axis or a circularized radius, does not report clump axis ratios, and does not quote local magnification eigenvalues. The 10–70 pc radii, the derived Σ* and ΣSFR values, and the Fig. 6 comparisons to NSCs/YMCs all rest on this unverified scalar correction. Please redo the size analysis with source-plane forward modeling or with the magnification tensor at each clump, and check both lens models.
  2. [§4 and Fig. 5] The clump sizes are close to the NIRCam resolution limit. At z~11.5, the 0.03 arcsec pixel corresponds to ~70 pc, and the image-plane r_eff values in Table 2 are 83–347 pc (≈1–5 pixels); the compact clumps A.1/A.2 are near the PSF FWHM. Measuring Sérsic radii at this scale requires accurate PSF subtraction/deconvolution, but no injection-recovery test of the GALFIT fitting is presented. I request such tests — fitting PSF-convolved models with known radii, including pixelation and PSF mismatch — before the exact 10–70 pc range is used in the discussion.
  3. [§4 and §5.2] The source-plane reconstruction is shown for ID1 and ID2, and the text states their morphologies are 'highly similar.' This is a qualitative statement, and the same Glafic model is used to produce both source planes. A quantitative comparison of clump positions, fluxes, and radii between ID1 and ID2, plus an independent source-plane reconstruction with the Zitrin-Analytic model, would test whether the clump decomposition and the derived ≳80% clustered mass fraction are robust rather than partly a consequence of the chosen lens model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] 'Balamer break/jump' should read 'Balmer break/jump.'
  2. [§5.1] 'log M*,int = 4.5 +2.7 −1.7 × 10^7 M⊙' is malformed; it should be written as M* = (4.5^{+2.7}_{−1.7}) × 10^7 M⊙.
  3. [Table 2] State explicitly whether r_eff is the GALFIT major-axis effective radius and define any circularization. As written the quantity is ambiguous, which matters for the size-correction discussion.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] 'galxies' should be 'galaxies.'
  5. [§5.2] 'In gathered sample at all redshift' should be 'In the gathered sample at all redshifts.'
  6. [§4] The clump identification uses a Gaussian smoothing kernel of σ=6 pixel; a sentence justifying this choice and showing the dependence of the clump list on the smoothing scale would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lensing, photometric, and SED analyses are measured quantities with out-of-sample checks; the size correction is a model-dependent transformation, not a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on measured photometry, SED fitting, and lens modeling, not on a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The photometric redshifts (z~11-12) are derived from EAZY and Prospector fits to observed fluxes, and the lens models are constrained by multiple image systems including ID1 and ID2; the predicted ID4/ID5 magnitudes (F200W~29) are an out-of-sample check that matches non-detection. The intrinsic clump sizes are obtained by the standard transformation reff,int = reff / sqrt(mu_Glafic), which is an assumption about the magnification tensor rather than a definitional identity that makes the 'prediction' equal to the input. The paper explicitly notes that source-plane morphologies of ID1 and ID2 are 'highly similar', but this is a consistency check, not a circular reduction. Citations to Glafic, Zitrin-Analytic, and prior high-z clump studies are methodology or comparative references, not load-bearing self-citations used to force a conclusion. The mock NIRCam image comparison with JADES galaxies is a forward-modeling exercise from the reconstructed source plane, not a retrodiction of the same fitted values. Any concerns about the validity of the sqrt(mu) size correction are scientific caveats about lens-model assumptions, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central physical claims (delensed clump radii, masses, mass fractions) depend on a chain of chosen parameters: lens-model magnification, fixed photometric redshift, clump-detection thresholds, Sérsic n=1, and SPS assumptions. None of these are fitted to the final conclusions directly, but they are not externally pinned down either.

free parameters (5)
  • Lensing magnification μ (ID1/ID2) = μ_ID1 ≈ 28–31, μ_ID2 ≈ 21–35 (Glafic and Zitrin-Analytic models)
    Delensed radii, masses, SFR surface densities, and absolute magnitudes are all divided by this model-derived factor; it is not directly measured for this source and has systematic uncertainty between models.
  • Misty Moons redshift for lens model and clump SED fitting = z = 12 (Zitrin model); z = 11.5 (fixed clump SED fitting); phot-z 11.1–12.4
    The paper sets or fixes the redshift rather than measuring it spectroscopically; the lens model and clump SED fits use these values.
  • Clump detection threshold and smoothing scale = S/N = 2; Gaussian σ = 6 pixels
    Chosen by hand; these control how many clumps are found and therefore the clustered mass fraction.
  • Sérsic index n for clumps = n = 1 (fixed)
    GALFIT clump radii and fluxes assume n=1 for all individual clumps with separate diffuse light; a different n changes reff and fluxes.
  • Lens model structural parameters = e.g., dark matter halo positions, NFW/dPIE/PIEMD parameters, external shear in Glafic
    These are fitted to multiple-image positions in the cluster and determine the magnifications and source-plane geometry; their uncertainties propagate to all delensed quantities.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard flat ΛCDM cosmology with ΩΛ=0.7, Ωm=0.3, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Adopted in §1; all distances, luminosities, and masses depend on it.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (BPASS/FSPS with MIST isochrones, MILES library; Bruzual & Charlot in Bagpipes) and Chabrier IMF correctly describe high-z stellar populations
    SED fitting with Prospector/Bagpipes converts photometry into stellar masses, ages, and SFRs; these calibrations are not directly validated at z~11-12.
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation laws (Charlot & Fall; Calzetti) and IGM/CGM absorption models (Madau; Asada et al.) are appropriate at z~11-12
    Used in §2.3 and §4; the redshift solution depends on whether Lyα emission is included or IGM absorption assumed.
  • domain assumption Parametric lens models (dPIE/PIEMD member galaxies + NFW or PIEMD dark halos, optional external shear) represent the cluster mass distribution
    §3.1-3.2; both models are parametric and may share systematic biases; magnification estimates rely on profile choices.
  • domain assumption The five predicted images are all of the same background source; ID1/ID2 colors and morphologies correspond to the same intrinsic clumps
    §3-4; if ID1 and ID2 are not the same source, the source-plane reconstruction and multiplicity claims fail.
  • domain assumption Clump SEDs fitted at fixed z=11.5 with a dynamic SFH prior represent the same age/metallicity population
    §4; clump ages, masses, and mass fractions depend on these priors.
  • domain assumption Local comparison samples (Norris, Adamo, Cook, etc.) and CFE/Σ_SFR relations from the literature are comparable to high-z clumps
    §5.2; differences could be due to selection effects or evolutionary mass loss not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VENUS: A Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy at $z\sim11-12$ behind the Galaxy Cluster MACS J0257.1-2325." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VL4FEK6I

@misc{pith2026251114483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VENUS: A Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy at $z\sim11-12$ behind the Galaxy Cluster MACS J0257.1-2325},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VL4FEK6I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.14483}
}
abstract

We present the discovery of a strongly lensed galaxy at $z\sim11-12$, dubbed the ``Misty Moons'', identified in the JWST Treasury Survey, Vast Exploration for Nascent, Unexplored Sources (VENUS). The Misty Moons is gravitationally lensed by the galaxy cluster MACS J0257.1-2325 at $z=0.505$, and has five multiple images suggested by two independent lensing models. Two of the five images, ID1 and ID2 ($\mu\sim 20-30$), are very bright (F200W$\sim26$ AB mag) and exhibit blue SEDs with prominent Ly$\alpha$ breaks. In the source plane, the Misty Moons is a sub-$L^*$ galaxy ($M_{\rm UV}\sim-18.0$ mag) resolved into multiple stellar clumps, each of which has an effective radius of $r_\mathrm{eff}\sim 10-70$ pc and a stellar mass of $\sim10^7\ M_\odot$. These clumps dominate the stellar mass budget of the Misty Moons ($\gtrsim80\%$), similar to other high-$z$ clumps, which suggests a highly clustered mode of star formation in the early Universe, unlike seen in local dwarf galaxies. We convolve the source-plane image with the JWST/NIRCam point-spread function to produce a mock NIRCam image of the Misty Moons without lensing magnification, and find that the intrinsic galaxy has a radial surface-brightness profile comparable to those of $z\gtrsim10$ faint galaxies, such as JADES-GS-z13-0 and JADES-GS-z14-1, indicating that the Misty Moons represents a typical $z\gtrsim10$ faint galaxy. The Misty Moons, a lensed galaxy with resolved internal structures, provides an ideal laboratory for exploring the early stages of galaxy formation at $z\gtrsim10$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.14483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NIRCam color image (R: F356W+F444W, G: F200W+F277W, B: F115W+F150W) of the MACS J0257.1-2325 cluster field. The white curve indicates the critical curve at z = 11 − 12. The white squares show the positions of ID1-ID5 of the Misty Moons predicted by our independent lensing models while the colored circles denote the z ∼ 1 − 8 multiple images used to constrain the lensing models (see Section 3). The 3′′ ×3 ′′ cutout i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. JWST + HST images and SED fitting results for the entire systems of ID1 (top) and ID2 (bottom) of the Misty Moons. The upper panels show the 1. ′′5 × 1. ′′5 cutout images of 13 filters (F435W, F555W, F814W, F090W, F115W, F150W, F200W, F210M, F277W, F300M, F356W, F410M, and F444W). The lower left and right panels present the results from EAZY and Prospector fitting, respectively. The black circles indicate observed f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Absolute UV magnitude as a function of redshift. The red filled circles and squares indicate ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12), respectively. The magenta filled circles represent highly magnified galaxies of the Cos￾mic Gems arc (zspec = 9.63; Adamo et al. 2024; Bradley et al. 2024; Messa et al. 2025b) and BulletArc-z11 (zspec = 11.10; Bradaˇc et al. 2025). The small filled symbols show the indi￾vidua… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection images (F200W + F277W + F356W + 444W) of ID1 and ID2 in the image plane (left) and source plane (right). The white lines indicate the isophotal regions where the entire systems and individual clumps are detected. the redshift of the Misty Moons to be z = 12 2…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Clump modeling results for ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons system. From left to right, the 1. ′′5×1. ′′5 cutout images, best-fit model images, and residual images divided by the 1σ error maps are presented. Misty Moons, the model predicts three more images at RA,Dec : (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Physical properties of individual clumps. Left: stellar mass and size relation. The star symbols indicate the entire systems while the circles are individual clumps. The red, blue, green, orange, brown, and purple symbols show the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12; This wor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the appearance of faint galaxies with and without lensing magnification. The leftmost panel presents the source plane image for ID1 of the Misty Moons. The second panel shows the mock image convolved with the NIRCam PSF. The third and rightmost figures re…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: mass fraction in clustered stellar systems as a function of stellar mass. The red star symbols indicate ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12). The blue, green, purple, and magenta star symbols show the BulletArc-z11 (zspec = 11.10; Bradaˇc et al. 2025)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Gas-Phase Metallicity and Nitrogen Abundances in Low-Mass Galaxies Down to $M_\star\simeq10^{5.7}\,M_\odot$ at $z\simeq4.5$--$10.1$ from JWST Lensing Cluster Surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST lensing-cluster spectra push the z~6 mass–metallicity relation to M*~10^6.6 Msun and reveal a UV-vs-optical nitrogen discrepancy suggesting local nitrogen enhancement, possibly from Wolf-Rayet stars.

  2. Cosmic CORALS: Timing the Universe with high-z star clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Star clusters at z=9.6 combined with local globular cluster ages give H0=70(+27,-16) km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.33(+0.37,-0.21), with a forecast that ~300 clusters could reach 4% precision.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19377.x

    Adamo, A., ¨Ostlin, G., & Zackrisson, E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19377.x

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Adamo, A., Zeidler, P., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 69, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  4. [4]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1134, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 2025

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Asada, Y., Desprez, G., Willott, C. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc388 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc388 2025

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    M., Windhorst, R

    Berkheimer, J. M., Windhorst, R. A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.03883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.03883

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.03883 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7 Bradaˇ c, M., Strait, V., Mowla, L., et al

    Boyett, K., Trenti, M., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7 Bradaˇ c, M., Strait, V., Mowla, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e73 Bradaˇ c, M., Judeˇ z, J., Willott, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20446

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20446 2024

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acecfe

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10770

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2023a, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146904 —

    Brammer, G. 2023a, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146904 —. 2023b, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8370018

    doi

  5. [13]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    Brown, G., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2907

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  8. [16]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 Calabr` o, A., Daddi, E., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935778

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Sabbi, E., et al

    Calzetti, D., Lee, J. C., Sabbi, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/51

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b

    Coe, D., Salmon, B., Bradaˇ c, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    O., Lee, J

    Cook, D. O., Lee, J. C., Adamo, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3748

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112 Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy atz∼11−12 17 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., & Adamo, A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112 Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy atz∼11−12 17 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348636

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 El ´ ıasd´ ottir,´A., Limousin, M., Richard, J., et al. 2007, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0710.5636, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0710.5636

    2017 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed45

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    R., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1627

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Zitrin, A., Richard, J., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Richard, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1943

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Garcia, F. A. B., Ricottai, M., Sugimura, K., & Park, J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1092

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Garcia, F. A. B., Ricotti, M., & Sugimura, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 146, doi: 10.33232/001c.145064

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al

    Hainline, K. N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8447

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    E., Reina-Campos, M., Koekemoer, A

    Harris, W. E., Reina-Campos, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dc

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    Y.-Y., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    2023a, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    doi

  46. [55]

    2023b, ApJ, 959, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 959, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be

    doi

  47. [56]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056

    Isobe, Y., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056

    2025 doi

  48. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505

    Ji, X., Belokurov, V., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505

    2025 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    C., Seth, A

    Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 33, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/33

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    Keeton, C. R. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0102341

    2001 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  54. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03156

    Kiyota, T., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03156

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    Kokorev, V., Brammer, G., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2025a, ApJL, 983, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc458

    Kokorev, V., Atek, H., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 983, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc458

    doi

  57. [66]

    A., Taylor, A

    Kokorev, V., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 988, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5

    doi

  58. [67]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    1980 doi

  59. [68]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3008, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x

    2012

  60. [69]

    J., Richard, J., Ebeling, H., et al

    Lagattuta, D. J., Richard, J., Ebeling, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad803

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    L., Hutchison, T

    Larson, R. L., Hutchison, T. A., Bagley, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    2008, A&A, 489, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809646

    Limousin, M., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809646

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    1995 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1971

    Marconcini, C., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1971

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9931

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Boone, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9931

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfe

    Adamo, A. 2025, ApJL, 981, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfe

    2025 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    K., & Bagla, J

    Meena, A. K., & Bagla, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3632

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2403

    Messa, M., Adamo, A., ¨Ostlin, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2403

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    2025a, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 18Nakane et al

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2025a, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 18Nakane et al. —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18705, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18705

    doi

  72. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08696

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08696

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.11263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.11263

    2025 doi

  75. [84]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d0b

    Nakazato, Y., Ceverino, D., & Yoshida, N. 2024, ApJ, 975, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d0b

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    2025, A&A, 693, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090

    2025 doi

  77. [86]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  78. [87]

    A., Kannappan, S

    Norris, M. A., Kannappan, S. J., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1186

    2014 doi

  79. [88]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017 —

    Oguri, M. 2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017 —. 2021, PASP, 133, 074504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac12db

    2010 doi

  80. [89]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  81. [90]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08885, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08885 ¨Ostlin, G., Amram, P., Bergvall, N., et al

    Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08885, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08885 ¨Ostlin, G., Amram, P., Bergvall, N., et al. 2001, A&A, 374, 800, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010832

    2025 doi arXiv

  82. [91]

    L., Diego, J., et al

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Diego, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9316

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  84. [93]

    Pfeffer, J., Bastian, N., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1714, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2721

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    2024

  87. [96]

    2024, A&A, 687, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450721

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Xiao, M., & Korber, D. 2024, A&A, 687, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450721

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10751, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10751

    Scholtz, J., Parlanti, E., Carniani, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10751, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10751

    2025 doi

  89. [98]

    J., Ormerod, K., et al

    Schouws, S., Bouwens, R. J., Ormerod, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf1b

    2025 doi

  90. [99]

    P., et al

    Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235e

    2024 doi

  91. [100]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  92. [101]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0159

    Stiavelli, M., Morishita, T., Chiaberge, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0159

    2023 doi

  93. [102]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad499a

    Yajima, H. 2024, ApJ, 970, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad499a

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    Tuvikene, T. 2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    2012 doi

  95. [104]

    P., Mason, C

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08245, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08245

    2025 doi

  96. [105]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Senchyna, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae682 —. 2025, ApJ, 980, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada95c

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    2022, A&A, 659, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141590

    Vanzella, E., Castellano, M., Bergamini, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141590

    2022 doi

  98. [107]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18699

    Vanzella, E., Messa, M., Adamo, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18699

    2025 doi

  100. [109]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  101. [110]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba99

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba99

    2023 doi

  102. [111]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0846

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0846

    2024 doi

  103. [112]

    R., Cutler, S

    Weaver, J. R., Cutler, S. E., Pan, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0

    2024 doi

  104. [113]

    E., Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86

    2011 doi

  105. [114]

    L., Chen, W., et al

    Williams, H., Kelly, P. L., Chen, W., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 416, doi: 10.1126/science.adf5307

    2023 doi

  106. [115]

    2025, Nature, 639, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08779-5

    Witstok, J., Jakobsen, P., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, Nature, 639, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08779-5

    2025 doi

  107. [116]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82dd

    Xu, Y., Ouchi, M., Yajima, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82dd

    2024 doi

  108. [117]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecd

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcecd

    2025 doi

  109. [118]

    A., Bakx, T., Mitsuhashi, I., et al

    Zavala, J. A., Bakx, T., Mitsuhashi, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8f38

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 1939, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17574.x

    Zitrin, A., Broadhurst, T., Barkana, R., Rephaeli, Y., & Ben ´ ıtez, N. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1939, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17574.x

    2011

  111. [120]

    Zitrin, A., Fabris, A., Merten, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/44 Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy atz∼11−12 19 APPENDIX A.PHOTOMETRY In Table A1, we list the photometry of the entire systems and individual clumps for ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons. T...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.