Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 110 references

HST Imaging of the Ionizing Radiation from a Star-forming Galaxy at z = 3.794

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the direct detection of Lyman-continuum (LyC) radiation escaping from a star-forming galaxy at $z=3.794$, detected in two independent bandpasses, and shows that the ionizing emission emerges from a compact region offset…

desk verdict The paper's core science is real and the U-band detection is solid, but the F410M significance is overclaimed because the null test does not reproduce the peak-centered photometry. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00556 v2 pith:RIXLGBDV submitted 2019-08-01 astro-ph.GA

Zhiyuan Ji , Mauro Giavalisco , Eros Vanzella , Brian Siana , Laura Pentericci , Anne Jaskot , Teng Liu , Mario Nonino
show 12 more authors
Henry C. Ferguson Marco Castellano Filippo Mannucci Daniel Schaerer Johan Peter Uldall Fynbo Casey Papovich Adam C. Carnall Ricardo Amorin Raymond C. Simons Nimish Hathi Fergus Cullen Derek McLeod
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-continuumradiationescapefractionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesgalaxyreionizationHSTWFC3/UVISimagingIGMtransmissionstackedsample
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

This paper establishes that Ion1, a star-forming galaxy at $z=3.794$, emits Lyman-continuum (LyC) radiation that escapes into the intergalactic medium, detected in two independent bandpasses: HST/WFC3 F410M (rest-frame 820–890 Å, $m_{410}=27.60\pm0.36$) and VLT/VIMOS U-band (rest-frame 700–830 Å, $m_U=27.84\pm0.19$). A Monte Carlo null test gives a probability of 0.0006 that the F410M flux is a noise spike, and interloper checks rule out a foreground contaminant. The paper shows that the LyC centroid is offset by $0.85\pm0.21$ kpc from the non-ionizing UV center, is likely moderately resolved ($R_e\gtrsim240$ pc), and emerges from the bluer, less-obscured side of the galaxy — evidence for escape through low neutral-hydrogen 'cavities' in the interstellar medium. A stack of 107 spectroscopically confirmed Lyman-break galaxies at $3.40

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two elements. The first is the pair of deep, LyC-sensitive images — HST/WFC3 F410M and VLT/VIMOS U-band — whose photometric growth curves, Monte Carlo null tests, centroid offsets, and color maps establish the reality and the morphology of the escaping ionizing radiation. The second is the escape-fraction formalism of Steidel et al. (2001) and Siana et al. (2007), $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm rel} = (L_{\rm nLyC}/L_{\rm LyC})_{\rm int}/(f_{\rm nLyC}/f_{\rm LyC})_{\rm obs} \times e^{\tau_{\rm IGM}^{\rm LyC}}$, together with the Inoue et al. (2014) IGM transmission model and the Calzetti et al. (2000) dust attenuation law, which convert the measured flux ratios into relative and absolute escape fractions. The Monte Carlo null test (20,000 random apertures) and the interloper-rejection procedures (model subtraction, color ratios, and an a priori probability estimate) are what make the marginal $4\sigma$ F410M detection carry the weight of a robust LyC detection.

What would settle it

A deep spectrum of Ion1 spanning the observed wavelength 4360 Å (the rest-frame Lyman limit at $z=3.794$) would settle the nature of the F410M detection: if the continuum shows a sharp break at 912 Å rest, the ionizing-radiation detection is wrong, whereas a continuous spectrum into the LyC would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Ion1 is a compact, young star-forming galaxy (stellar mass $\sim10^9\,M_\odot$, SFR $\sim50\,M_\odot$/yr) whose ionizing radiation is detected in the HST F410M image with peak SNR 4.17 and in the VLT/VIMOS U-band image with peak SNR 6.7. The F410M detection is robust to a null hypothesis test (p=0.0006) and to a battery of interloper checks: a Sersic model subtraction in F435W, F606W, and F160W leaves no residual at the LyC position, and the probability of a foreground galaxy at the 0.12'' offset is $\sim10^{-5}$. The LyC centroid is offset from the non-ionizing UV centroid by $0.12''\pm0.03''$ ($0.85\pm0.21$ kpc), and the F410M growth curve is consistent with a source moderately resolved at $R_e\gtrsim240$ pc; the F435W$-$F606W color map shows the bluest light emerging from the same side of the galaxy as the LyC. The escape fraction, using the Inoue et al. (2014) IGM transmission and the Calzetti et al. (2000) dust law, is $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm abs}\approx5$%–11% for Ion1 depending on the assumed intrinsic luminosity ratio $(L_{1600}/L_{850})_{\rm int}$. The spectrum shows Ly$\alpha$ in absorption, strong low-ionization interstellar absorption, and a P-Cygni C IV profile; the co-existence of escaping LyC with Ly$\alpha$ absorption is new among known leakers. In the stacked sample of 107 LBGs, no LyC is detected, giving $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm abs}<0.63\%$ after IGM correction.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative escape fractions and the 0.63 percent stacking limit rest on the assumed intergalactic hydrogen absorption model and on assumed intrinsic ultraviolet luminosity ratios, so those numbers would shift if the intergalactic opacity or the galaxies' intrinsic UV spectra differ from what the paper adopts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ion1 joins a small set of $z\sim3$%u20134 galaxies with LyC detected in an HST image, adding a case with a spatially offset, probably resolved LyC region rather than a nucleated point-like leak.
  • The non-detection in the 107-galaxy stack, compared with the individual detections, implies that sources like Ion1 are at the bright end of the LyC luminosity function and that their detections are not primarily a result of unusually transparent foreground sightlines.
  • Ly$\alpha$ in absorption can occur in a galaxy with escaping LyC, so LyC-selection strategies that rely on strong Ly$\alpha$ emission will miss some real leakers.
  • The spatial offset between LyC and non-ionizing UV, together with the bluer F435W$-$F606W color at the LyC position, supports an escape mechanism in which stellar winds and supernovae open low-HI-column-density cavities through which ionizing photons escape.
  • The stacked upper limit of $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm abs}<0.63\%$ for UV-bright LBGs at $z\sim3.6$ is consistent with the mean escape fraction inferred from GRB afterglow measurements, strengthening the case that such bright galaxies contribute little to the ionizing background.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If LyC escape is as anisotropic and localized as Ion1's offset implies, then per-galaxy escape fractions measured along a single line of sight are subject to orientation bias, and population-level constraints from stacking are more representative of the true average.
  • The coexistence of Ly$\alpha$ absorption with LyC leakage suggests that indirect diagnostics for identifying reionization-era sources — such as Ly$\alpha$ profiles or [O III]/[O II] ratios — may have wider scatter than currently assumed; combining several diagnostics could recover leakers that current selections miss.
  • A targeted search for LyC in a sample of LBGs with Ly$\alpha$ in absorption would test whether Ion1 is rare or representative of a hidden population; if many such systems leak, the total ionizing photon budget from star-forming galaxies would be larger than current samples imply.
  • The stacked limit applies to UV-bright, spectroscopically confirmed LBGs; whether fainter galaxies have higher escape fractions — as inferred at lower redshift — remains an open question that this data set does not address, but it is the natural next step for JWST-era surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the detection of Lyman-continuum (LyC) radiation from the z = 3.794 star-forming galaxy Ion1 in two independent bandpasses: HST/WFC3 F410M, covering rest-frame 820–890 Å with m410 = 27.60 ± 0.36 AB and peak SNR = 4.17 in a 0.12 arcsec aperture, and VLT/VIMOS U-band, covering rest-frame 700–830 Å with mU = 27.84 ± 0.19 and peak SNR = 6.7. A 20-hour VANDELS spectrum yields z = 3.794 from C III] emission and shows low- and high-ionization ISM absorption, C IV P-Cygni, and Lyα in absorption. The F410M centroid is offset by 0.12 ± 0.03 arcsec from the non-ionizing UV centroid, and injection simulations suggest the LyC emission is moderately resolved. The paper also stacks 107 spectroscopically confirmed LBGs at 3.40 < z < 3.95 in the VIMOS U-band, detects no stacked LyC, and derives a 1σ upper limit on the absolute escape fraction of 0.63% under adopted IGM and dust assumptions. Extensive checks are presented against interloper contamination, including Sérsic subtraction, color maps, a low interloper probability of about 1e-5, and a Chandra non-detection.

Significance. If the detection holds, Ion1 is one of the very few robust, spatially resolved LyC emitters at z ≈ 3.8, and the combination of HST morphology, centroid offset, ISM absorption, and Lyα in absorption provides a distinctive data point for models of LyC escape. The stacked-sample upper limit is also a useful constraint on the average escape fraction of LBGs at z ≈ 3.6. The paper is careful in several respects: the SED fit excludes the LyC bands; the interloper tests are thorough; the U-band detection is independent and substantially stronger than the F410M detection; and the Monte Carlo injection tests for photometric biases are a genuine effort to quantify systematic errors. The main weakness is the statistical significance of the F410M detection, which rests on a null test that does not reproduce the peak-centering used in the actual photometry.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.5] The Monte Carlo null test does not reproduce the measurement procedure. The observed F410M photometry is obtained by fixing the aperture centroid at the pixel of peak flux (Section 3.3), while the 20,000 null realizations place apertures at random positions without recentering on local image maxima. A pure noise fluctuation that happens to be near the aperture edge will be measured as fainter and with a lower peak SNR than it would be if the aperture were first centered on that fluctuation. The quoted p = 0.0006 therefore compares the observed peak-centered SNR against a null distribution that is narrower than the one actually relevant to the measurement, and the claim of 99.94% confidence is not supported as written. I request a corrected null test in which random apertures are either centered on the local F410M maximum within a small search region, or measured at the fixed F435W/F606W centroid without recentering. The revised p-value should be reported, and the statements in the Abstract, Section 3.5, and Section 4.1 that rely on p = 0.0006 should be adjusted accordingly. This is load-bearing because the independent HST confirmation, the centroid offset, and the morphology discussion all depend on the significance of the F410M detection.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 4.4] The quantitative escape fractions are conditional on a chain of model assumptions, and the presentation should make this hierarchy of uncertainties more explicit. The individual lower limits use the maximum IGM transmission among 10,000 realizations (T = 0.548) and an intrinsic luminosity ratio in the range 1.5–7; the maximum over realizations is not a confidence bound on the true sightline transmission, and the intervening z = 3.491 absorber discussed in Section 4.2 could further reduce the actual transmission. The stacked upper limit f_abs^esc < 0.63% in Section 4.4 similarly adopts the Inoue et al. (2014) mean transmission (⟨T⟩ = 0.157) and (L1500/L900)_int = 3; a redder intrinsic spectrum or a more opaque IGM/CGM model would raise the limit. These assumptions are acknowledged in the text, but the abstract and summary should state that the 0.63% limit is model-dependent rather than a direct observational upper limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Summary] There are typographical errors in the summary: 'P-Cyngi' should be 'P-Cygni', and 'VIMOUS' should be 'VIMOS'.
  2. [Figure 4] The right-panel axis label reads 'Aperture Radius' and should be 'Aperture Radius'; the left-panel y-axis label and the text also use inconsistent forms of 'aperture'.
  3. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'a r = 0.12 arcsec aperture' is grammatically awkward; consider 'an aperture of radius r = 0.12 arcsec'.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement that 'if we toss at random Ion1 on the celestial sphere p^-1_i times' is awkward; the meaning would be clearer if phrased as 'among p^-1_i random placements, one is expected to fall within 0.12 arcsec of a foreground galaxy.'
  5. [Section 4.4] The 32.5 magnitude 1σ flux limit should explicitly state that it is in the AB system and refer to the r = 1 arcsec aperture used for the stacked photometry, for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  6. [Section 3.5] The sentence 'The meaning of the asymmetric error bars is that it represents the 1-σ dispersion (68% of the realizations) from the simulations' should be reworded, since the 16th–84th percentile range describes the distribution of recovered magnitudes rather than the uncertainty on the true intrinsic magnitude.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LyC detections rest on new HST photometry and external IGM/SED models, with the SED fit explicitly excluding the LyC bands.

full rationale

The central claim is a set of new photometric measurements: the F410M HST detection (m410=27.60±0.36, peak SNR=4.17) and the VIMOS U-band detection (mU=27.84±0.19, peak SNR=6.7). Neither is derived from the other or from a fitted parameter. The escape-fraction analysis uses Eq. (1)-(2) with the external Inoue et al. (2014) IGM model and stellar-population intrinsic ratios; the SED fit that supplies A1600 and (L1600/L850)_int explicitly excludes the LyC bands ('The photometric bands covering the rest-frame LyC emission of Ion1, i.e. VLT/VIMOS, F410M and F435W, were excluded from the SED fitting'), so the dust correction is not fit to the quantity being predicted. The stacked 107-LBG upper limit is likewise an observed non-detection converted with external average IGM transmission and intrinsic luminosity ratios. Self-citations to Vanzella et al. (2010b, 2012, 2015) supply the prior identification of Ion1 and an interloper probability, but the new HST data, the new 20-hr VANDELS redshift, and the external IGM/SED models carry the central argument, so those citations are not load-bearing. The Monte Carlo null test (p=0.0006) is an internal significance estimate; whether the random apertures fully mimic the peak-centered photometry is a statistical-validity concern, not a circularity. The paper itself flags IGM/SED systematics in f_abs^esc (Section 4.3.2), which underscores dependence on external assumptions rather than self-derived inputs. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The raw detection is relatively assumption-light, but the escape-fraction numbers depend on external IGM transmission models, assumed intrinsic UV SED ratios, and SED-fitting choices (dust attenuation, nebular emission). These are clearly stated in Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 4.4.

free parameters (4)
  • E(B-V) (Calzetti dust attenuation) = 0.21±0.01 (SED fit without nebular emission; ~0.105 with nebular emission)
    Derived from Prospector SED fitting to non-LyC photometry (Section 3.1) and used in Eq. (2) to convert relative to absolute escape fraction via A1600=2.09±0.10; the choice affects f_abs^esc by a factor 2.6.
  • (L1600/L850)_int intrinsic luminosity ratio = 2.2 (best-fit SED); range 1.5-7 considered
    Assumed from stellar population synthesis models (Section 3.4); directly scales f_rel^esc and f_abs^esc. Not fitted to the LyC detection, but an input chosen by hand within the model range.
  • (L1500/L900)_int for stacked sample = 3 (adopted from Grazian et al. 2017)
    Used in Section 4.4 to convert the stacked flux ratio upper limit to f_rel^esc and then f_abs^esc; a different intrinsic ratio would shift the 0.63% limit.
  • Mean E(B-V) of stacked sample = 0.16
    Average dust reddening of the 107 LBGs, used in the conversion f_abs^esc = f_rel^esc / 4.59 (Eq. 5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Inoue et al. (2014) IGM transmission model accurately describes the distribution of LyC opacity; the maximum realization (T=0.548) provides a valid lower limit for Ion1, and the mean ⟨T⟩=0.157 applies to the stacked sample.
    Used in Eq. (1) for f_esc and in Section 4.4 for the stack; if the true sightline transmission is lower, f_esc values increase and the stacked upper limit becomes less constraining.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (Leitherer et al. 1999; Steidel et al. 2018) predict the intrinsic (L1600/L850)_int ratio within 1.5-7.
    Basis for the assumed intrinsic UV slope in the escape fraction derivation.
  • domain assumption Prospector/FSPS/CLOUDY SED models with Kroupa IMF, Calzetti dust law, delay-tau SFH, and solar metallicity provide unbiased estimates of stellar mass, age, and dust.
    Underlies the E(B-V) and (L1600/L850)_int values used in f_abs^esc; different assumptions (e.g., nebular emission on/off) change f_abs^esc by factor 2.6.
  • domain assumption The noise statistics in the F410M image can be represented by aperture photometry at random positions after masking F160W-detected sources.
    The Monte Carlo null test (Section 3.5) that rejects the noise hypothesis at p=0.0006 assumes this model.
  • domain assumption The redshift z=3.794 (from C III] emission) places the rest-frame 820-890 Å and 700-830 Å light below the Lyman limit.
    If the redshift were incorrect, the F410M/U-band flux would not be LyC; the redshift is based on a single emission line at SNR≈6 in a R≈580 spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HST Imaging of the Ionizing Radiation from a Star-forming Galaxy at z = 3.794." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIXLGBDV

@misc{pith2026190800556,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HST Imaging of the Ionizing Radiation from a Star-forming Galaxy at z = 3.794},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIXLGBDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00556}
}
abstract

We report on the HST detection of the Lyman-continuum (LyC) radiation emitted by a galaxy at redshift z=3.794, dubbed Ion1 (Vanzella et al. 2012). The LyC from Ion1 is detected at rest-frame wavelength 820$\sim$890 \AA with HST WFC3/UVIS in the F410M band ($m_{410}=27.60\pm0.36$ magnitude (AB), peak SNR = 4.17 in a circular aperture with radius r = 0.12'') and at 700$\sim$830 \AA with the VLT/VIMOS in the U-band ($m_U = 27.84\pm0.19$ magnitude (AB), peak SNR = 6.7 with a r = 0.6'' aperture). A 20-hr VLT/VIMOS spectrum shows low- and high-ionization interstellar metal absorption lines, the P-Cygni profile of CIV and Ly$\alpha$ in absorption. The latter spectral feature differs from what observed in known LyC emitters, which show strong Ly$\alpha$ emission. An HST far-UV color map reveals that the LyC emission escapes from a region of the galaxy that is bluer than the rest, presumably because of lower dust obscuration. The F410M image shows that the centroid of the LyC emission is offset from the centroid of the non-ionizing UV emission by 0.12''$\pm$0.03'', corresponding to 0.85$\pm$0.21 kpc (physical), and that its morphology is likely moderately resolved. These morphological characteristics favor a scenario where the LyC photons produced by massive stars escape from low HI column-density "cavities" in the ISM, possibly carved by stellar winds and/or supernova. We also collect the VIMOS U-band images of a sample of 107 Lyman-break galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts at $3.40<z<3.95$, i.e. sampling the LyC, and stack them with inverse-variance weights. No LyC emission is detected in the stacked image, resulting in a 32.5 magnitude (AB) flux limit (1$\sigma$) and an upper limit of absolute LyC escape fraction $f_{esc}^{abs} < 0.63\%$. LyC emitters like Ion1 are very likely at the bright-end of the LyC luminosity function.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904 Alexandroff, R

    Adamo, A., ¨Ostlin, G., & Zackrisson, E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904 Alexandroff, R. M., Heckman, T. M., Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., & Leitherer, C. 2015, ApJ, 810, 104 Amor´ ın, R., Fontana, A., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0052

    2011

  2. [2]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 69

    Atek, H., Richard, J., Jauzac, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 69

    2015

  3. [3]

    2010, A&A, 512, A12

    Balestra, I., Mainieri, V., Popesso, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A12

    2010

  4. [4]

    J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R

    Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 13

    2016

  5. [5]

    2006, A&A, 448, 513

    Bergvall, N., Zackrisson, E., Andersson, B.-G., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 513

    2006

  6. [6]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  7. [7]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L12

    Bian, F., Fan, X., McGreer, I., Cai, Z., & Jiang, L. 2017, ApJL, 837, L12

    2017

  8. [8]

    2013, WFC3 Post-Flash Calibration, Tech

    Biretta, J., & Baggett, S. 2013, WFC3 Post-Flash Calibration, Tech. rep

    2013

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    M., Leitherer, C., & Overzier, R

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., & Overzier, R. A. 2014, Science, 346, 216

    2014

  2. [10]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 41

    Boutsia, K., Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 41

    2011

  3. [11]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 140

    2015

  4. [12]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44

    2017

  5. [13]

    G., Romano, D., & D’Ercole, A

    Calura, F., Few, C. G., Romano, D., & D’Ercole, A. 2015, ApJL, 814, L14

    2015

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  7. [15]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582

    1994

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJL, 823, L40

    Castellano, M., Yue, B., Ferrara, A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 823, L40

    2016

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 50

    Cen, R., & Kimm, T. 2014, ApJ, 794, 50

    2014

  10. [18]

    X., & Gnedin, N

    Chen, H.-W., Prochaska, J. X., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2007, ApJ, 667, L125 23

    2007

  11. [19]

    R., Bayliss, M., et al

    Chisholm, J., Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.04314

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2018, A&A, 616, A30

    Chisholm, J., Gazagnes, S., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A30

    2018

  13. [21]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, FSPS: Flexible Stellar Population Synthesis, , , ascl:1010.043

    2010

  14. [22]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    2009

  15. [23]

    L., Barger, A

    Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., & Trouille, L. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1476

    2009

  16. [24]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 2478

    Monaco, P. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2478

    2016

  17. [25]

    M., et al

    Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 93 de Barros, S., Vanzella, E., Amor´ ın, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A51

    2013

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 71

    Dijkstra, M., Gronke, M., & Venkatesan, A. 2016, ApJ, 828, 71

    2016

  19. [27]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    1998

  20. [28]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137

    2013

  21. [29]

    L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36

    2019

  22. [30]

    J., Tang, M., Robertson, B

    Fletcher, T. J., Tang, M., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 87

    2019

  23. [31]

    S., Paris, D., et al

    Fontana, A., Dunlop, J. S., Paris, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A11

    2014

  24. [32]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  25. [33]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Jakobsson, P., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2009, ApJS, 185, 526

    2009

  26. [34]

    2018, A&A, 616, A29

    Gazagnes, S., Chisholm, J., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A29

    2018

  27. [35]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1946

    Georgakakis, A., Aird, J., Buchner, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1946

    2015

  28. [36]

    2015, A&A, 578, A83

    Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., Fiore, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A83

    2015

  29. [37]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93

    2004

  30. [38]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    Gonzaga, S., & et al. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    2012

  31. [39]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 113

    Grasha, K., Calzetti, D., Adamo, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 113

    2017

  32. [40]

    2016, A&A, 585, A48

    Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., Gerbasi, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A48

    2016

  33. [41]

    2017, A&A, 602, A18

    Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., Paris, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A18

    2017

  34. [42]

    P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., et al

    Grimes, J. P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 891

    2007

  35. [43]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35

    2011

  36. [44]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 24

    2013

  37. [45]

    M., Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 5

    2011

  38. [46]

    Howell, S. B. 1989, PASP, 101, 616

    1989

  39. [47]

    Inoue, A. K. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1325

    2010

  40. [48]

    K., & Iwata, I

    Inoue, A. K., & Iwata, I. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1681

    2008

  41. [49]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805

    2014

  42. [50]

    E., Dowd, T., Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., Dowd, T., Oey, M. S., Scarlata, C., & McKinney, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.09763

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E., & Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., & Oey, M. S. 2013, ApJ, 766, 91

    2013

  44. [52]

    E., Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., Oey, M. S., Scarlata, C., & Dowd, T. 2017, ApJL, 851, L9

    2017

  45. [53]

    E., & Ravindranath, S

    Jaskot, A. E., & Ravindranath, S. 2016, ApJ, 833, 136

    2016

  46. [54]

    P., Oey, M

    Keenan, R. P., Oey, M. S., Jaskot, A. E., & James, B. L. 2017, ApJ, 848, 12

    2017

  47. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    2014

  48. [56]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36

    2011

  49. [57]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  50. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 131

    Lee, B., Giavalisco, M., Whitaker, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 131

    2018

  51. [59]

    2013, A&A, 553, A106

    Leitet, E., Bergvall, N., Hayes, M., Linn´ e, S., & Zackrisson, E. 2013, A&A, 553, A106

    2013

  52. [60]

    2011, A&A, 532, A107

    Leitet, E., Bergvall, N., Piskunov, N., & Andersson, B.-G. 2011, A&A, 532, A107

    2011

  53. [61]

    C., & Oey, M

    Leitherer, C., Hernandez, S., Lee, J. C., & Oey, M. S. 2016, ApJ, 823, 64

    2016

  54. [62]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

    1999

  55. [63]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2

    2017

  56. [64]

    F., et al

    Ma, X., Kasen, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 960

    2015

  57. [65]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 878

    Malkan, M., Webb, W., & Konopacky, Q. 2003, ApJ, 598, 878

    2003

  58. [66]

    2018, A&A, 614, A11

    Marchi, F., Pentericci, L., Guaita, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A11

    2018

  59. [67]

    K., Yamada, T., et al

    Mawatari, K., Inoue, A. K., Yamada, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3951

    2017

  60. [68]

    H., Jaskot, A

    McKinney, J. H., Jaskot, A. E., Oey, M. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 52

    2019

  61. [69]

    J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al

    McLure, R. J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1213

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    Holden, B. P. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 791

    2018

  63. [71]

    S., Robertson, B

    Nakajima, K., Ellis, R. S., Robertson, B. E., Tang, M., & Stark, D. P. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.07396

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 900

    Nakajima, K., & Ouchi, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 900

    2014

  65. [73]

    2009, ApJS, 183, 244

    Nonino, M., Dickinson, M., Rosati, P., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 244

    2009

  66. [74]

    Oh, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 499 ¨Ostlin, G., Marquart, T., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A55

    2001

  67. [75]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2544

    Paardekooper, J.-P., Khochfar, S., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2544

    2015

  68. [76]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097

    2010

  69. [77]

    J., Garilli, B., et al

    Pentericci, L., McLure, R. J., Garilli, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A174 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A108

    2018

  70. [78]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 978

    Plat, A., Charlot, S., Bruzual, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 978

    2019

  71. [79]

    2009, A&A, 494, 443

    Popesso, P., Dickinson, M., Nonino, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 494, 443

    2009

  72. [80]

    I., Gardner, J

    Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., Gardner, J. P., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 31 Retzlaff, J., Rosati, P., Dickinson, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A50

    2015

  73. [81]

    E., Dahle, H., Gronke, M., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, L4

    2017

  74. [82]

    E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 738

    2019

  75. [83]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., & Pettini, M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 146

    2013

  76. [84]

    J., Scarlata, C., Henry, A., et al

    Rutkowski, M. J., Scarlata, C., Henry, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L27

    2017

  77. [85]

    2003, A&A, 397, 527

    Schaerer, D. 2003, A&A, 397, 527

    2003

  78. [86]

    I., Nakajima, K., et al

    Schaerer, D., Izotov, Y. I., Nakajima, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L14

    2018

  79. [87]

    I., Verhamme, A., et al

    Schaerer, D., Izotov, Y. I., Verhamme, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, L8 24

    2016

  80. [88]

    Erb, D. K. 2006, ApJ, 651, 688

    2006

  81. [89]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L24

    2016

  82. [90]

    I., Colbert, J., et al

    Siana, B., Teplitz, H. I., Colbert, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 62

    2007

  83. [91]

    I., Ferguson, H

    Siana, B., Teplitz, H. I., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 241

    2010

  84. [92]

    E., Kulas, K

    Siana, B., Shapley, A. E., Kulas, K. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 17

    2015

  85. [93]

    C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 123

    2018

  86. [94]

    C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 665

    2001

  87. [95]

    R., Fynbo, J

    Tanvir, N. R., Fynbo, J. P. U., de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5380

    2019

  88. [96]

    I., Rafelski, M., Kurczynski, P., et al

    Teplitz, H. I., Rafelski, M., Kurczynski, P., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 159

    2013

  89. [97]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 224

    Trebitsch, M., Blaizot, J., Rosdahl, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 224

    2017

  90. [98]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5607 van der Wel, A., Bell, E

    Trebitsch, M., Volonteri, M., Dubois, Y., & Madau, P. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5607 van der Wel, A., Bell, E. F., H¨ aussler, B., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 24

    2018

  91. [99]

    2005, A&A, 434, 53 —

    Vanzella, E., Cristiani, S., Dickinson, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 434, 53 —. 2006, A&A, 454, 423 —. 2008, A&A, 478, 83

    2005

  92. [100]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 70

    Vanzella, E., Guo, Y., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 70

    2012

  93. [101]

    2014, A&A, 569, A78

    Vanzella, E., Fontana, A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A78

    2014

  94. [102]

    2015, A&A, 576, A116

    Vanzella, E., de Barros, S., Castellano, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A116

    2015

  95. [103]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 41

    Vanzella, E., de Barros, S., Vasei, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 41

    2016

  96. [104]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L15

    Vanzella, E., Nonino, M., Cupani, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L15

    2018

  97. [105]

    B., Calura, F., et al

    Vanzella, E., Caminha, G. B., Calura, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1093

    2020

  98. [106]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7

    2015

  99. [107]

    2017, A&A, 597, A13

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13

    2017

  100. [108]

    H., Demchenko, V

    Wise, J. H., Demchenko, V. G., Halicek, M. T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2560

    2014

  101. [109]

    X., O’Meara, J

    Worseck, G., Prochaska, J. X., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1745

    2014

  102. [110]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 115

    Yue, B., Castellano, M., Ferrara, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 115

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.