Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 140 references

Efficient Ionizers with Low H$\boldsymbol{\beta}$+[OIII] Equivalent Widths: JADES Spectroscopy of a Peculiar High-z Population

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxies with modest Hβ+[OIII] EWs (300–600 Å) can still be efficient ionizers, and low metallicity explains why.

desk verdict First spectroscopic sample of low-metallicity, high-xi_ion galaxies at z>2, with a real selection-bias message; the Te-based core holds up, the strong-line metallicity fractions need caution. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04542 v1 pith:EVFV5XFO submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.GA

Isaac H. Laseter , Michael V. Maseda , Charlotte Simmonds , Ryan Endsley , Daniel Stark , Andrew J. Bunker , Rachana Bhatawdekar , Kristan Boyett
show 10 more authors
Alex J. Cameron Stefano Carniani Mirko Curti Zhiyuan Ji Pierluigi Rinaldi Aayush Saxena Sandro Tacchella Chris Willott Joris Witstok Yongda Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ionizingphotonproductionefficiencyequivalentwidthsextremeemissionlinegalaxiesgas-phasemetallicityJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopyJADESsurveyhigh-redshiftgalaxyevolutionreionization
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

Using deep JWST NIRSpec spectroscopy from the JADES survey, this paper asks why some young, UV-faint galaxies at $z\gtrsim 2$ have surprisingly weak H$\beta$+[OIII] emission despite showing signs of recent star formation. It finds that a substantial subset of galaxies with modest H$\beta$+[OIII] equivalent widths of roughly $300$–$600$ Å are nonetheless highly efficient ionizers, with $\log \xi_{\rm ion} \gtrsim 25.5$ Hz erg$^{-1}$. The identifying clue is that these galaxies show strong H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ alongside weak [OIII], and spectroscopic metallicities place most of them below $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) \approx 7.7$, about 10% of the solar value. The paper concludes that low chemical enrichment, not high Lyman-continuum escape or a declining starburst, drives the suppressed [OIII], and that standard H$\beta$+[OIII] extreme-emission-line selections above $700$ Å systematically exclude these metal-poor efficient ionizers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ionizing photon production efficiency, $\xi_{\rm ion} = Q(\mathrm{H}^0)/L_{\rm UV}$, the rate of hydrogen-ionizing photons per unit non-ionizing UV luminosity. In the paper's HII-region variant, $\xi^{\rm HII}_{\rm ion}$, the numerator comes from H$\alpha$ luminosity through Equation 4 with Case B recombination and zero escape fraction, and the denominator is the dust-corrected rest-frame $1500$ Å luminosity. The argument is carried by comparing H$\alpha$ and [OIII] equivalent widths against $\xi^{\rm HII}_{\rm ion}$ across low, medium, and high H$\beta$+[OIII] EW samples, and by overlaying BPASS+CLOUDY photoionization models that vary ionization parameter, starburst age, and metallicity. The models show that metallicities below $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) \approx 7.7$ reproduce the observed leftward offset in [OIII] EW at fixed $\xi^{\rm HII}_{\rm ion}$, whereas H$\alpha$ EW and $\xi^{\rm HII}_{\rm ion}$ are governed mainly by starburst age and ionization parameter.

What would settle it

Measure the Lyman-continuum escape fraction or the Balmer-line optical depths for the 46 galaxies with sub-Case B Balmer ratios: if their escape fractions are high, the H$\alpha$-based $\log \xi_{\rm ion}$ values are inflated and the efficient-ionizer classification fails, while if density-bounded or optically thick Balmer conditions are confirmed, the H$\alpha$ luminosities are lower limits and the classification survives. A second decisive check is to find a galaxy with H$\beta$+[OIII] EW near $400$ Å and $\log \xi_{\rm ion}$ above $25.5$ whose spectroscopic metallicity is well above $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=7.7$, which would break the claimed metallicity driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the high-redshift galaxy population contains a class of extremely metal-poor, efficient ionizers whose [OIII] lines are subdued precisely because the gas is so pristine. These objects sit at H$\beta$+[OIII] equivalent widths near $300$–$600$ Å yet reach H$\alpha$-based $\log \xi_{\rm ion}$ values above $25.5$ and have H$\alpha$ equivalent widths comparable to the sample's strongest emitters. Low metallicity is identified as the cause: below $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) \approx 7.7$, [OIII] emission drops non-linearly while Balmer emission and ionizing photon production remain strong, so H$\beta$+[OIII] understates their ionization efficiency. It follows that EELG selections on H$\beta$+[OIII] EW greater than $700$ Å preferentially keep chemically enriched systems with $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) \approx 7.8$–$8.3$ and older starbursts, while H$\alpha$ equivalent width, through specific star-formation rate, selects the metal-poor efficient ionizers more faithfully.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that H$\alpha$ luminosity, converted through Case B recombination with zero escape fraction, faithfully measures each galaxy's ionizing photon production rate; for the 26% of the sample with Balmer ratios below the Case B value, that premise is directly strained and no dust correction is applied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Samples selected by H$\beta$+[OIII] EW above about $700$ Å miss a meaningful share of the ionizing photons available during reionization, because the most metal-poor efficient producers sit below that threshold.
  • H$\alpha$ equivalent width is a more faithful observational proxy for $\xi_{\rm ion}$ at high redshift than [OIII]-based metrics, and the updated H$\alpha$–$\xi_{\rm ion}$ relation is 37% shallower with roughly 43% more scatter than the earlier $z\sim2$ relation.
  • Extremely metal-poor efficient ionizers can be identified photometrically through their elevated H$\alpha$ relative to H$\beta$+[OIII], or through their specific star-formation rate, without requiring metallicity measurements.
  • Linear [OIII] EW–$\xi_{\rm ion}$ scaling relations systematically underestimate $\xi_{\rm ion}$ for the lowest-metallicity galaxies by up to about 0.5 dex, so they should not be used to budget ionizing photons at high redshift.
  • Within the medium-EW sample, 37% of galaxies have H$\alpha$ EWs statistically indistinguishable from the high-EW sample while their [OIII] EWs are significantly lower, so standard EELG classifications conceal a substantial starbursting population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the metallicity interpretation is correct, photometric SED fits that tie nebular emission strength to [OIII] will systematically misassign ages and star-formation histories for the most metal-poor galaxies; adding H$\alpha$-based priors should reduce that bias.
  • The same logic implies that current reionization budgets may underestimate the faint end of the UV luminosity function's photon output, since low-metallicity, high-$\xi_{\rm ion}$ systems are exactly those missed by [OIII]-selected samples.
  • A direct observational extension would be to stack spectra of purely UV-selected galaxies at $z>6$ and compare H$\alpha$ to H$\beta$+[OIII] strength as a function of magnitude; if the population is metal-poor, the ratio should rise toward fainter objects.
  • The sub-Case B Balmer emitters discussed in the appendix might be a distinct physical population with density-bounded nebulae or optically thick Balmer lines, in which case their H$\alpha$-based $\xi_{\rm ion}$ values are lower limits and the paper's classification is conservative rather than inflated.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses JADES NIRSpec spectroscopy of 174 z > 2 galaxies to measure H-alpha, H-beta, and [OIII] 5007 equivalent widths, UV luminosities, and the ionizing photon production efficiency xi_HII_ion. The sample is divided into low, medium, and high H-beta+[OIII] EW bins. The central finding is that a substantial fraction of the medium-EW bin (EW ~300-600 A) has log xi_HII_ion > 25.5 and H-alpha EWs comparable to the high-EW bin, while their [OIII] EWs are systematically lower. Combining direct electron-temperature metallicities for 31 [OIII] 4363 emitters, Rhat/R3 strong-line metallicities for the rest, and BPASS+CLOUDY models, the authors argue that metallicities below 12+log(O/H) ~7.7 suppress [OIII] EW without suppressing xi_HII_ion, and that H-beta+[OIII] EELG selections above 700 A preferentially miss these metal-poor efficient ionizers. The paper closes with an updated H-alpha EW versus xi_HII_ion relation and a discussion of Case B departures.

Significance. If the metallicity interpretation holds, this is an important result: it identifies a population of efficient ionizers that standard [OIII]-based EELG selections miss, with direct implications for reionization photon budgets and for the interpretation of JWST photometric samples. The paper has real strengths: the direct Te metallicities for 31 objects are a valuable resource; the line-fitting and Monte Carlo error propagation are clearly described; the authors are unusually transparent about the JADES selection function and about the 26% of the sample with sub-Case B Balmer ratios; and the BPASS+CLOUDY tracks are used as comparison physics rather than as a fitted model. The central claim is not circular: xi_HII_ion is measured from H-alpha and UV luminosity, and metallicity is measured directly for a key subsample. The main risk is that the population-level metallicity claim rests on strong-line calibrations with a branch degeneracy that is not yet demonstrated to be robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Figures 6-7] The population-level claim, including the 71% low-metallicity fraction and the metallicity gradient in Figure 5, depends on Rhat/R3 metallicities for the 143 galaxies without direct Te detections, but both calibrations are double-valued and the branch choice is set by [OII] 2-sigma upper limits for most objects. The paper does not report how many galaxies are assigned to each branch, how many have [OII] detections versus upper limits, or a robustness test in which the high-metallicity branch is adopted for all upper-limit objects. Because the [OIII] 4363 subset is itself biased toward high electron temperature and thus low metallicity, this leaves the central metallicity claim dependent on an unquantified branch-assignment assumption. Please provide the branch statistics and rerun the key figures with an alternative branch choice.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 5, and Section 7.1] The BPASS+CLOUDY model tracks are quoted as xi*_ion while the data are xi_HII_ion, and the text notes in Section 7.1 that the two quantities diverge above log xi ~25.5, exactly where the medium-EW efficient ionizers sit. Please convert the model tracks to the observed xi_HII_ion definition using Equation 4, or demonstrate explicitly that the 0.7 dex metallicity-driven offset in [OIII] EW at fixed xi is unchanged under the conversion. As written, the central model comparison is plotted on different y-axis definitions for data and models, which weakens the quantitative support for the metallicity interpretation.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Appendix A] The Case B concern is less damaging than it first appears because the non-Case B mechanisms discussed (density-bounded nebulae, optically thick Balmer lines) suppress H-alpha relative to the ionizing photon rate, making the quoted xi values conservative lower limits; I agree with the authors on this point. However, the quantitative sample medians and the fitted relation in Equation 5 mix corrected and uncorrected galaxies. Please state how many of the 46/174 sub-Case B objects lie in the medium-EW high-xi subsample and confirm that the main conclusions are unchanged if these objects are assigned their maximum possible dust correction or are removed. This is a robustness check rather than a request to change the physical interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.1] The sentence beginning 'These extremely metal-poor galaxies then reside in EWH-beta+[OIII] distributions of more evolved systems that have begun to lose their most massive stars, resulting in a separation with xi_HII_ion' is repeated almost verbatim two sentences later; remove the duplication.
  2. [Figure 7] The bottom panel lacks an explicit y-axis label; it should state that the percentage is the same quantity as in the top panel.
  3. [Section 7.2, Equation 5] The text says the new slope is 37% shallower than Tang et al. (2019), but the T19 slope is not quoted in the text; please give the comparison value so the reader can verify the statement.
  4. [Figure 3] The 'Max Dust Effect' arrow with <A_v> = 0.13 is shown in the figure but not derived in the text; a sentence in Section 3.1 or Section 4 explaining how this value is obtained would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: xi_ion is measured from Halpha/UV and the low-metallicity claim is anchored by a direct-Te subsample; the only self-cited calibration is explicitly interchangeable and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Equation 4 defines xi_ion purely from L_Halpha and L_UV; the Hbeta+[OIII] EW used to define the high/medium/low samples does not enter the definition, so the finding that moderate-EW galaxies can have log xi_ion > 25.5 is an empirical measurement rather than a tautology. The medium-versus-high EW comparison in Halpha and [OIII] space is made from measured fluxes and EWs, with statistical tests performed on those data. The metallicity claim is anchored by 31 [OIII]4363 emitters with direct electron-temperature metallicity measurements, independent of strong-line calibrations; the reported 71% fraction below 12+log(O/H)=7.7 is measured in that Te subsample. BPASS+CLOUDY models are external synthesis/photoionization tracks used as comparison loci, not fitted to the data to force the result. The main self-citation with interpretive weight is the Rhat calibration from Laseter et al. (2023), but the paper explicitly states 'Our following conclusions are unaffected by interchanging these calibrations' and also uses the independent R3 calibration from Sanders et al. (2023b), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The Case B / fesc=0 assumption is a modeling choice rather than a circular step; the appendix argues that plausible non-Case B mechanisms would make the Halpha-based xi_ion values conservative lower limits, which does not manufacture the claimed trend. A methodological caveat remains for the non-Te majority, whose strong-line metallicities may partly encode the same [OIII]/Hbeta ratio that drives the [OIII] EW axis; this is a systematic uncertainty, not a definitional equivalence, because the central population claim does not rest on those galaxies alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new postulated entities. It fits one empirical relation (Equation 5) and adopts standard Case B recombination, a dust law, zero fesc, and photoionization model assumptions. Its most robust metallicity evidence comes from 31 direct Te measurements, which are independent of the adopted strong-line calibrations.

free parameters (2)
  • Equation 5 slope = 0.63 +/- 0.14
    Error-weighted linear fit of log xi_ion versus log(EW Halpha) for the JADES sample; presented as an updated relation relative to Tang et al. (2019).
  • Equation 5 intercept = 23.64 +/- 0.35
    Same error-weighted fit as the slope, used to predict xi_ion from Halpha EW.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination at T=1e4 K sets intrinsic Halpha/Hbeta=2.86 and underlies the Halpha-to-Q(H0) conversion.
    Section 3.1 and Equation 4; 26% of the sample has Balmer ratios below Case B, yet the authors return to Case B for dust correction.
  • domain assumption fesc=0 and no dust absorption of ionizing photons when computing Q(H0).
    Section 4 states these are set for self-comparison; the choice affects absolute xi_ion values.
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2000) attenuation curve with E(B-V)stellar=0.44 E(B-V)gas.
    Section 3.2; used for dust-corrected UV luminosities and Balmer-derived E(B-V).
  • domain assumption BPASS+CLOUDY instantaneous-burst models with the v2.2.1 imf135_300 setup are representative of the high-z galaxies.
    Section 5.2; used to interpret age and metallicity effects in Figure 5.
  • domain assumption The R-hat and R3 strong-line calibrations remain valid at high-z for galaxies without detected [OIII]4363.
    Section 5; needed for metallicities of the broader sample, with degeneracies broken by [OII] measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Ionizers with Low H$\boldsymbol{\beta}$+[OIII] Equivalent Widths: JADES Spectroscopy of a Peculiar High-z Population." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVFV5XFO

@misc{pith2026241204542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Ionizers with Low H$\boldsymbol\beta$+[OIII] Equivalent Widths: JADES Spectroscopy of a Peculiar High-z Population},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVFV5XFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04542}
}
abstract

Early JWST photometric studies discovered a population of UV faint ($\rm <L^{*}_{UV}$) $z \sim 6.5-8$ Lyman break galaxies with spectral energy distributions implying young ages ($\sim10$ Myr) yet relatively weak H$\beta$+[OIII] equivalent widths ($\rm EW_{H\beta+[OIII]} \approx 400$\r{A}). These galaxies seemingly contradict the implicit understanding that young star-forming galaxies are ubiquitously strong H$\beta$+[OIII] emitters, i.e., extreme emission line galaxies (EW $\rm \gtrsim 750$\r{A}). Low metallicities, high Lyman continuum escape fractions, and rapidly declining star-formation histories have been proposed as primary drivers behind low H$\beta$+[OIII] equivalent widths, but the blend of H$\beta$+[OIII] in photometric studies makes proving one of these scenarios difficult. We aim to characterize this peculiar population with deep spectroscopy from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES). We find that a significant subset of these galaxies at $z\gtrsim2$ with modest H$\beta$+[OIII] equivalent widths ($\rm \approx 300-600$\r{A}) have high ionization efficiencies ($\rm \log \xi_{ion} \gtrsim 25.5~[Hz~erg^{-1}]$). Suppressed [OIII] EW values yet elevated H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ EW values imply that the level of chemical enrichment is the primary culprit, supported by spectroscopic measurements of metallicities below 12+log(O/H)$\rm \approx 7.70~(10\%Z_{\odot})$. We demonstrate that integrated H$\beta$+[OIII] selections (e.g., H$\beta$+[OIII] EW $> 700$\r{A}) exclude the most metal-poor efficient ionizers and favor 1) more chemically enriched systems with comparable extreme radiation fields and 2) older starbursting systems. In contrast, metallicity degeneracies are reduced in H$\alpha$ space, enabling the identification of these metal-poor efficient ionizers by their specific star-formation rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The redshift distribution of our high (≥ 750˚A), medium (200 − 750˚A), and low (≤ 200˚A) Hβ+[OIII] EW samples. We include the median redshift of our respective samples (zHigh = 5.80, zMedium = 3.62, and zLow = 2.59) and complete sample (black line; zTotal = 3.69). The complexity of the JADES selection function is prevalent, and thus we emphasize the current work is not intended as a magnitude￾limited population stud… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top Left: NIRCam F444W, F200W, and F090W (RGB) image of JADES-GN+189.20968+62.20725 (z = 5.18256) with NIRSpec MSA shutters overlaid. Bottom: R100 spectrum of JADES-GN+189.20968+62.20725. We identify our UV range as green and our derived β slope as purple. We shade a 100˚A bin centered at 1500˚A to demonstrate the common SED-derived UV slopes spectral range. Towards redder wavelengths, we identify the continuum rang… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Correlation between log ξ HII ion and Hα EW for our high, medium, and low EW samples. We include the HST￾derived z ∼ 2 relation with 68% confidence intervals from T19. We largely agree with the relation found from T19, but there is a clear overlap between our medium and high EW sample at higher Hα EWs. We identify our Case B departure systems as triangles and note the maximum dust effect taken from the average… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: JWST/NIRSpec R1000 spectrum for our newly reported [OIII]λ4363 emitter JADES-GN+189.16215+62.26381 with a metallicity of 12+log(O/H)= 7.30 ± 0.12 at z = 6.3. The lines of interest (located at the vertical dotted lines) shown from left to right are [OII]λλ3727, 3729, Hγ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top Left: Change in age of starburst at fixed log(U)=-2 with BPASS+CLOUDY models including dust in Hα EW space; we indicate the respective model metallicity changes as well. As assumed, metallicity is minor compared to the effect of log(U) between Hα EW and ξ HII ion .…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation between ξ HII ion and Hα EW (Left), [OIII] EW (Center ), and Hβ+[OIII] EW (Right) with data color￾coded to their Te-derived or R-derived metallicities. Equation ˆ 5 and our Hβ+[OIII] derived linear relation (see Section 7.2) are overlaid with 68% confidence…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: EWHα and the contributing percentage of extremely metal-poor (12+log(O/H< 7.7; purple) and enriched (12+log(O/H> 7.7; green) efficient ionizers (log ξ HII ion ≳ 25.3 [Hz erg−1 ]). Metallicity subsamples contribute comparable amounts to the Hα EW and ξ HII ion dist…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [5]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15972

    Alberts , S., Lyu , J., Shivaei , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15972

    arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    O., P \'e rez-Montero , E., & V \' lchez , J

    Amor \' n , R. O., P \'e rez-Montero , E., & V \' lchez , J. M. 2010, , 715, L128

    2010

  6. [7]

    D., Bolton , J

    Becker , G. D., Bolton , J. S., Madau , P., et al. 2015, , 447, 3402

    2015

  7. [8]

    A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F

    Blanc , G. A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F. P. A., & Dopita , M. A. 2015, , 798, 99

    2015

  8. [9]

    The Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on the James Webb Space Telescope V. Optimal algorithms for planning multi-object spectroscopic observations

    Bonaventura , N., Jakobsen , P., Ferruit , P., Arribas , S., & Giardino , G. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10957

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 140 references
  1. [10]

    Bosman , S. E. I., Davies , F. B., Becker , G. D., et al. 2022, , 514, 55

    2022

  2. [11]

    J., Illingworth , G

    Bouwens , R. J., Illingworth , G. D., Franx , M., et al. 2009, , 705, 936

    2009

  3. [12]

    J., Illingworth , G

    Bouwens , R. J., Illingworth , G. D., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2010, , 708, L69

    2010

  4. [13]

    2015, , 803, 34

    ---. 2015, , 803, 34

    2015

  5. [14]

    2022, , 940, L52

    Boyett , K., Mascia , S., Pentericci , L., et al. 2022, , 940, L52

    2022

  6. [15]

    J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al

    Boyett , K., Bunker , A. J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.16934

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    J., Saxena , A., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Saxena , A., Cameron , A. J., et al. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07256

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    J., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Cameron , A. J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02467

    2023 arXiv

  9. [18]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  10. [19]

    J., Katz , H., Rey , M

    Cameron , A. J., Katz , H., Rey , M. P., & Saxena , A. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10142

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    J., Katz , H., Witten , C., et al

    Cameron , A. J., Katz , H., Witten , C., et al. 2024,

    2024

  12. [21]

    J., Saxena , A., Bunker , A

    Cameron , A. J., Saxena , A., Bunker , A. J., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.04298

    2023 arXiv

  13. [22]

    2017, , 466, 798

    Cappellari , M. 2017, , 466, 798

    2017

  14. [23]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.14974

    ---. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.14974

    2022 arXiv

  15. [24]

    2009, , 399, 1191

    Cardamone , C., Schawinski , K., Sarzi , M., et al. 2009, , 399, 1191

    2009

  16. [25]

    2016, , 462, 1415

    Chevallard , J., & Charlot , S. 2016, , 462, 1415

    2016

  17. [26]

    2018, , 479, 3264

    Chevallard , J., Charlot , S., Senchyna , P., et al. 2018, , 479, 3264

    2018

  18. [27]

    2016, , 823, 102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

    2016

  19. [28]

    2024, , 529, 3751

    Choustikov , N., Katz , H., Saxena , A., et al. 2024, , 529, 3751

    2024

  20. [29]

    G., & Lind , K

    Conroy , C., Villaume , A., van Dokkum , P. G., & Lind , K. 2018, , 854, 139

    2018

  21. [30]

    2023 a , , 518, 425

    Curti , M., D'Eugenio , F., Carniani , S., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 425

    2023

  22. [31]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.08516

    Curti , M., Maiolino , R., Carniani , S., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.08516

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    D., & Finlator , K

    Dav \'e , R., Oppenheimer , B. D., & Finlator , K. 2011, , 415, 11

    2011

  24. [33]

    R., Simons , R

    Davis , K., Trump , J. R., Simons , R. C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.07799

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    J., Scholtz , J., et al

    D'Eugenio , F., Cameron , A. J., Scholtz , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    T., McLeod , D

    Donnan , C. T., McLeod , D. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023, , 518, 6011

    2023

  27. [36]

    Dors , O. L. 2021, , 507, 466

    2021

  28. [37]

    1993, , 278, 199

    Dreizler , S., & Werner , K. 1993, , 278, 199

    1993

  29. [38]

    Duncan , K., & Conselice , C. J. 2015, , 451, 2030

    2015

  30. [39]

    J., Johnson , B

    Eisenstein , D. J., Johnson , B. D., Robertson , B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340

    2023

  31. [40]

    J., & Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., & Stanway , E. R. 2009, , 400, 1019

    2009

  32. [41]

    2020, , 895, 116

    Emami , N., Siana , B., Alavi , A., et al. 2020, , 895, 116

    2020

  33. [42]

    P., Whitler , L., et al

    Endsley , R., Stark , D. P., Whitler , L., et al. 2023 a , , 524, 2312

    2023

  34. [43]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05295

    ---. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05295

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    P., Bunker , A

    Eyles , L. P., Bunker , A. J., Ellis , R. S., et al. 2007, , 374, 910

    2007

  36. [45]

    P., Bunker , A

    Eyles , L. P., Bunker , A. J., Stanway , E. R., et al. 2005, , 364, 443

    2005

  37. [46]

    Ferland , G. J. 1999, , 111, 1524

    1999

  38. [47]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385

    2017

  39. [48]

    2022, , 661, A81

    Ferruit , P., Jakobsen , P., Giardino , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A81

    2022

  40. [49]

    L., Ryan , Russell E., J., Papovich , C., et al

    Finkelstein , S. L., Ryan , Russell E., J., Papovich , C., et al. 2015, , 810, 71

    2015

  41. [50]

    C., Koekemoer , A

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

    2004

  42. [51]

    J., et al

    Gonz \'a lez , V., Labb \'e , I., Bouwens , R. J., et al. 2010, , 713, 115

    2010

  43. [52]

    Gr \"a fener , G., Koesterke , L., & Hamann , W. R. 2002, , 387, 244

    2002

  44. [53]

    Groves , B., Brinchmann , J., & Walcher , C. J. 2012, , 419, 1402

    2012

  45. [54]

    2016, , 462, 1757

    Gutkin , J., Charlot , S., & Bruzual , G. 2016, , 462, 1757

    2016

  46. [55]

    2017, , 608, A10

    Hashimoto , T., Garel , T., Guiderdoni , B., et al. 2017, , 608, A10

    2017

  47. [56]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz , K. E., Brammer , G. B., Watson , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02211

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    L., & Erb , D

    Henry , A., Scarlata , C., Martin , C. L., & Erb , D. 2015, , 809, 19

    2015

  49. [58]

    F., Richards , G

    Hopkins , P. F., Richards , G. T., & Hernquist , L. 2007, , 654, 731

    2007

  50. [59]

    E., & Oey , M

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

    2013

  51. [60]

    J., et al

    Katz , H., Saxena , A., Cameron , A. J., et al. 2023, , 518, 592

    2023

  52. [61]

    J., Saxena , A., et al

    Katz , H., Cameron , A. J., Saxena , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03189

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    J., Dopita , M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Leitherer , C., et al. 2013, , 774, 100

    2013

  54. [63]

    2024, , 962, L6

    Kobayashi , C., & Ferrara , A. 2024, , 962, L6

    2024

  55. [64]

    Z., Weiss , A., & Charlot , S

    Kong , X., Cheng , F. Z., Weiss , A., & Charlot , S. 2002, , 396, 503

    2002

  56. [65]

    J., et al

    Labb \'e , I., Gonz \'a lez , V., Bouwens , R. J., et al. 2010, , 716, L103

    2010

  57. [66]

    A., Bouwens , R

    Labb \'e , I., Oesch , P. A., Bouwens , R. J., et al. 2013, , 777, L19

    2013

  58. [67]

    J., Labb \'e , I., et al

    Lam , D., Bouwens , R. J., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2019, , 627, A164

    2019

  59. [68]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047

    Lambrides , E., Garofali , K., Larson , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    H., Maseda , M

    Laseter , I. H., Maseda , M. V., Curti , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03120

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al

    Looser , T. J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02470

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    2024, , 629, 53

    ---. 2024, , 629, 53

    2024

  63. [72]

    H., et al

    Lyu , J., Alberts , S., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2024, , 966, 229

    2024

  64. [73]

    2019, , 27, 3

    Maiolino , R., & Mannucci , F. 2019, , 27, 3

    2019

  65. [74]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230

    Maiolino , R., Scholtz , J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    2024, , 627, 59

    Maiolino , R., Scholtz , J., Witstok , J., et al. 2024, , 627, 59

    2024

  67. [76]

    2023, , 679, A12

    Markov , V., Gallerani , S., Pallottini , A., et al. 2023, , 679, A12

    2023

  68. [77]

    J., Cullen , F., et al

    M \'a rmol-Queralt \'o , E., McLure , R. J., Cullen , F., et al. 2016, , 460, 3587

    2016

  69. [78]

    V., van der Wel , A., Rix , H.-W., et al

    Maseda , M. V., van der Wel , A., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2014, , 791, 17

    2014

  70. [79]

    V., Bacon , R., Franx , M., et al

    Maseda , M. V., Bacon , R., Franx , M., et al. 2018, , 865, L1

    2018

  71. [80]

    V., Bacon , R., Lam , D., et al

    Maseda , M. V., Bacon , R., Lam , D., et al. 2020, , 493, 5120

    2020

  72. [81]

    V., Lewis , Z., Matthee , J., et al

    Maseda , M. V., Lewis , Z., Matthee , J., et al. 2023, , 956, 11

    2023

  73. [82]

    P., Puls , J., & Pauldrach , A

    Massey , P., Bresolin , F., Kudritzki , R. P., Puls , J., & Pauldrach , A. W. A. 2004, , 608, 1001

    2004

  74. [83]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859

    McClymont , W., Tacchella , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859

    2024

  75. [84]

    Mitra , S., Ferrara , A., & Choudhury , T. R. 2013, , 428, L1

    2013

  76. [85]

    J., Condon , J

    Murphy , E. J., Condon , J. J., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2011, , 737, 67

    2011

  77. [86]

    2010, , 62, 1455

    Nagamine , K., Ouchi , M., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2010, , 62, 1455

    2010

  78. [87]

    S., Iwata , I., et al

    Nakajima , K., Ellis , R. S., Iwata , I., et al. 2016, , 831, L9

    2016

  79. [88]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713

    1983

  80. [89]

    2010, , 724, 1524

    Ono , Y., Ouchi , M., Shimasaku , K., et al. 2010, , 724, 1524

    2010

  81. [90]

    E., & Ferland , G

    Osterbrock , D. E., & Ferland , G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  82. [91]

    2015, , 451, 2544

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

    2015

  83. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915

    Pacucci , F., & Narayan , R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15915

    2024 arXiv

  84. [93]

    2023, , 677, L4

    Pallottini , A., & Ferrara , A. 2023, , 677, L4

    2023

  85. [94]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  86. [95]

    A., Topping , M

    Reddy , N. A., Topping , M. W., Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., & Brammer , G. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11397

    2023 arXiv

  87. [96]

    A., Shapley , A

    Reddy , N. A., Shapley , A. E., Sanders , R. L., et al. 2018 a , , 869, 92

    2018

  88. [97]

    A., Oesch , P

    Reddy , N. A., Oesch , P. A., Bouwens , R. J., et al. 2018 b , , 853, 56

    2018

  89. [98]

    E., Wold , I

    Rhoads , J. E., Wold , I. G. B., Harish , S., et al. 2023, , 942, L14

    2023

  90. [99]

    J., Robertson , B., Tacchella , S., et al

    Rieke , M. J., Robertson , B., Tacchella , S., et al. 2023, , 269, 16

    2023

  91. [100]

    I., Costantin , L., et al

    Rinaldi , P., Caputi , K. I., Costantin , L., et al. 2023, , 952, 143

    2023

  92. [101]

    I., Iani , E., et al

    Rinaldi , P., Caputi , K. I., Iani , E., et al. 2024, , 969, 12

    2024

  93. [102]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07103

    Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., Shapley , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07103

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    E., Furlanetto , S

    Robertson , B. E., Furlanetto , S. R., Schneider , E., et al. 2013, , 768, 71

    2013

  95. [104]

    L., Shapley , A

    Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., Topping , M. W., Reddy , N. A., & Brammer , G. B. 2023 a , , 955, 54

    2023

  96. [105]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08149

    ---. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08149

    2023 arXiv

  97. [106]

    L., Shapley , A

    Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., Kriek , M., et al. 2018, , 858, 99

    2018

  98. [107]

    L., Shapley , A

    Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., Topping , M. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05273

    2024 arXiv

  99. [108]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03931

    Sandles , L., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03931

    2023 arXiv

  100. [109]

    J., Jones , G

    Saxena , A., Bunker , A. J., Jones , G. C., et al. 2024, , 684, A84

    2024

  101. [110]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09015

    Scarlata , C., Hayes , M., Panagia , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09015

    2024 arXiv

  102. [111]

    2009, , 502, 423

    Schaerer , D., & de Barros , S. 2009, , 502, 423

    2009

  103. [112]

    2010, , 515, A73

    ---. 2010, , 515, A73

    2010

  104. [113]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731

    Scholtz , J., Maiolino , R., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731

    2023 arXiv

  105. [114]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Shen , X., Hopkins , P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2020, , 495, 3252

    2020

  106. [115]

    2023, , 523, 5468

    Simmonds , C., Tacchella , S., Maseda , M., et al. 2023, , 523, 5468

    2023

  107. [116]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01286

    Simmonds , C., Tacchella , S., Hainline , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01286

    2024 arXiv

  108. [117]

    J., Labb \'e , I., et al

    Smit , R., Bouwens , R. J., Labb \'e , I., et al. 2014, , 784, 58

    2014

  109. [118]

    R., McMahon , R

    Stanway , E. R., McMahon , R. G., & Bunker , A. J. 2005, , 359, 1184

    2005

  110. [119]

    P., Auger , M., Belokurov , V., et al

    Stark , D. P., Auger , M., Belokurov , V., et al. 2013, , 436, 1040

    2013

  111. [120]

    P., Walth , G., Charlot , S., et al

    Stark , D. P., Walth , G., Charlot , S., et al. 2015, , 454, 1393

    2015

  112. [121]

    P., Ellis , R

    Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Charlot , S., et al. 2017, , 464, 469

    2017

  113. [122]

    C., Strom , A

    Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Pettini , M., et al. 2016, , 826, 159

    2016

  114. [123]

    C., & Shen , X

    Sun , G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Hayward , C. C., & Shen , X. 2023 a , , 526, 2665

    2023

  115. [124]

    C., et al

    Sun , G., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.15305

    2023 arXiv

  116. [125]

    2022, , 513, 2904

    Tacchella , S., Smith , A., Kannan , R., et al. 2022, , 513, 2904

    2022

  117. [126]

    P., Chevallard , J., & Charlot , S

    Tang , M., Stark , D. P., Chevallard , J., & Charlot , S. 2019, , 489, 2572

    2019

  118. [127]

    J., Barger , A

    Taylor , A. J., Barger , A. J., & Cowie , L. L. 2022, , 939, L3

    2022

  119. [128]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Senchyna , P., et al. 2024 a , , 529, 3301

    2024

  120. [129]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2024 b , , 529, 4087

    2024

  121. [130]

    R., Haro , P

    Trump , J. R., Haro , P. A., Simons , R. C., et al. 2023, , 945, 35

    2023

  122. [131]

    N., Rix , H

    Van der Wel , A., Straughn , A. N., Rix , H. W., et al. 2011, , 742, 111

    2011

  123. [132]

    M., Neistein , E., & Dekel , A

    Weinmann , S. M., Neistein , E., & Dekel , A. 2011, , 417, 2737

    2011

  124. [133]

    Welch, B. L. 1947, Biometrika, 34, 28

    1947

  125. [134]

    M., Bunker , A

    Wilkins , S. M., Bunker , A. J., Stanway , E., Lorenzoni , S., & Caruana , J. 2011, , 417, 717

    2011

  126. [135]

    M., Lovell , C

    Wilkins , S. M., Lovell , C. C., Fairhurst , C., et al. 2020, , 493, 6079

    2020

  127. [136]

    C., Tacchella , S., Maseda , M

    Williams , C. C., Tacchella , S., Maseda , M. V., et al. 2023, , 268, 64

    2023

  128. [137]

    J., Delorme , P., Reyl \'e , C., et al

    Willott , C. J., Delorme , P., Reyl \'e , C., et al. 2010, , 139, 906

    2010

  129. [138]

    R., & Eldridge , J

    Xiao , L., Stanway , E. R., & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, , 477, 904

    2018

  130. [139]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.20118

    Yanagisawa , H., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.20118

    2024 arXiv

  131. [140]

    2010, , 716, 574

    Zheng , Z., Cen , R., Trac , H., & Miralda-Escud \'e , J. 2010, , 716, 574

    2010

  132. [141]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14804

    Zhu , Y., Alberts , S., Lyu , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14804

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.