Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The First Photometric Evidence of a Transient/Variable Source at z>5 with JWST

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2023adya, a source in a z=5.274 galaxy, is the first JWST photometric transient beyond z=5, fading 0.19 mag in F356W.

desk verdict A real first-look at z>5 variability, but the two-survey, two-epoch design leaves a PSF-matching question a referee must press. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17007 v2 pith:SZ2BY3IX submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Christa DeCoursey , Eiichi Egami , Fengwu Sun , Arshia Akhtarkavan , Rachana Bhatawdekar , Andrew J. Bunker , David A. Coulter , Michael Engesser
show 22 more authors
Ori D. Fox Sebastian Gomez Kohei Inayoshi Benjamin D. Johnson Mitchell Karmen Conor Larison Xiaojing Lin Jianwei Lyu Seppo Mattila Takashi J. Moriya Justin D. R. Pierel Dávid Puskás Armin Rest George H. Rieke Brant Robertson Sepehr Salamat Louis-Gregory Strolger Sandro Tacchella Christian Vassallo Christina C. Williams Yossef Zenati Junyu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords transientsvariablesourceshigh-redshiftsupernovaeJWSTimagedifferencingactivegalacticnucleitidaldisruptioneventsGOODS-North
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

AT 2023adya is a source near the center of a spectroscopically confirmed $z_{\rm spec}=5.274$ galaxy in GOODS-N. In the F356W filter, the galaxy plus source faded from $m_{\rm F356W}=26.05\pm0.02$ mag to $m_{\rm F356W}=26.24\pm0.02$ mag between two JWST epochs one observer-frame year apart, about two rest-frame months; difference imaging yields a residual of $m_{\rm F356W}=28.01\pm0.17$ mag with $\mathrm{SN}_{\mathrm{var}}=6.09$, and the same change is recovered from direct science-image photometry. F090W and F115W show no rest-frame ultraviolet change, so the variation is red. The paper argues that this is the first JWST photometric evidence of a transient/variable source at $z>5$, extending transient science past the previous frontier of $z\sim4.8$ and toward the epoch of reionization. The physical nature of AT 2023adya is not settled: any bright core-collapse supernova subtype, and possibly an SN Ia, can match its rest-frame V-band magnitude $M_{\rm V}=-18.48$ mag, while a variable AGN or TDE is disfavored but not excluded.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-epoch, single-filter image-differencing search: F356W NIRCam mosaics from JADES (Epoch1, 2023) and CONGRESS (Epoch2, 2024), resampled onto a common $0.03\arcsec$ pixel grid, are subtracted to expose variable flux. Difference-image photometry in an $r=0.2\arcsec$ aperture measures the residual at the host position, and the result is cross-checked in two ways: direct aperture photometry on the two science images gives nearly the same residual magnitude ($28.04\pm0.14$ mag), and bootstrapped mosaics built from randomly dropped exposures keep the per-epoch fluxes consistent with the full mosaics. This combination is what lets a 0.19 mag fade in a galaxy's total light be attributed to a point-like transient/variable source at $z=5.274$.

What would settle it

Re-reduce both epochs with matched point-spread functions, a single astrometric solution, and identical background treatment, then re-measure the F356W flux at the host position; if the 0.19 magnitude drop disappears or falls below a signal-to-noise of about 6, the central claim fails. A third JWST epoch showing continued fading or complete disappearance would confirm the change was intrinsic rather than a reduction artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is AT 2023adya: a point-like variable source coincident with the center of the $z_{\rm spec}=5.274$ host galaxy JADES-GN+189.12004+62.23867 in GOODS-N. The host plus source was 19% brighter in the F356W band in the JADES Epoch1 image (2023) than in the CONGRESS Epoch2 image (2024), fading from $26.05\pm0.02$ to $26.24\pm0.02$ mag over roughly two rest-frame months; the Epoch1-minus-Epoch2 difference image shows a residual of $m_{\rm F356W}=28.01\pm0.17$ mag at the galaxy center, while F090W and F115W difference images show no significant emission. The authors interpret the brightness change as intrinsic to a source at $z=5.274$, making it the highest-redshift transient/variable source with a photometric brightness change found so far with JWST. They test the detection with bootstrapped mosaics and with independent science-image photometry, then use the implied absolute magnitude, the narrow H$\alpha$ line, and event-rate arguments to argue that a bright core-collapse supernova is the most plausible explanation, with SN Ia, variable AGN, and TDE possibilities disfavored to varying degrees but not fully excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the assumption that the 0.19 magnitude drop in F356W light is happening in the distant galaxy itself, not on small differences in how the two survey images were aligned, smoothed, or background-subtracted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection holds, JWST can find $z>5$ transients and variables using just two epochs separated by one observer-frame year, so existing two-epoch deep fields can be mined for a high-redshift sample.
  • The absence of $z>5$ transients in the earlier JADES Transient Survey becomes evidence that such events are rare on a one-year baseline, not that JWST is blind to them.
  • If AT 2023adya is a core-collapse supernova, it adds to the hint that high-redshift CCSNe are more luminous, with the lack of rest-frame UV change pointing to a dusty or intrinsically red explosion.
  • The follow-up Cycle-4 program with multi-epoch, multi-filter JWST observations can separate supernovae from AGN variability and may catch exotic objects such as Population III supernova candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A third epoch would discriminate cleanly between a fading supernova and a flickering AGN, because a supernova should continue to fade or disappear while an AGN may vary again in either direction.
  • The red-only variability and the absence of AGN signatures in the host's spectral energy distribution suggest that searches requiring multi-band variability may systematically miss the most common $z>5$ transients.
  • With one event in roughly 38 square arcminutes, the implied rate has large Poisson uncertainty; simply counting additional $z>5$ variables in comparable JWST fields would test whether the discovery is representative.
  • A moderate-depth NIRSpec spectrum targeting rest-frame optical lines could settle the AGN question that the NIRCam grism data leave open, because the narrow H$\alpha$ detection only rules out an AGN-dominated continuum.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of AT 2023adya, a transient/variable source candidate in GOODS-North detected by comparing two epochs of JWST/NIRCam imaging taken one observer-frame year apart by the JADES and CONGRESS programs. The source is coincident with the center of a z_spec = 5.274 galaxy and exhibits a 0.19 mag fading in F356W (from 26.05 to 26.24 mag), while showing no significant change in F090W or F115W. The authors support the variability with difference-image photometry, science-image aperture photometry, bootstrap-resampled mosaics, and an SN_var of 6.09. They discuss possible origins including core-collapse supernovae, Type Ia supernovae, variable AGNs, and tidal disruption events, and conclude that although the nature cannot be determined, the source is the first photometric evidence of a z > 5 transient/variable source with JWST.

Significance. If the measured F356W variability is intrinsic, this is a milestone: it pushes JWST transient science beyond z = 5 for the first time, with implications for high-redshift supernova rates, AGN variability, and tidal disruption event rates. The paper is appropriately cautious in not over-claiming the classification and makes useful quantitative comparisons to published supernova luminosity functions, AGN spectral signatures, and TDE models. The data are public and the analysis pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproduced. However, the central claim rests entirely on the robustness of the two-epoch photometric difference, and the current analysis does not fully exclude systematic differences between the two independent survey reductions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2] The agreement between the difference-image photometry (m_F356W = 28.01 ± 0.17 mag) and the difference of the science-image photometry (28.04 ± 0.14 mag) does not constitute an independent verification of the variability, because both measurements are derived from the same pair of mosaics. Any systematic difference in PSF shape, astrometric registration, or background subtraction between the Epoch1 (JADES) and Epoch2 (CONGRESS) reductions would produce a residual in the difference image and a corresponding offset in the aperture photometry. The bootstrap test in this section only randomizes which individual exposures are used to construct each epoch's mosaic; it cannot reveal a coherent PSF or WCS offset between the two surveys. I request a PSF-matched image subtraction using empirical PSFs from isolated stars in each mosaic, together with an explicit test of the sensitivity of the measured F356W flux change to plausible PSF FWHM differences (e.g., a few percent) and sub-pixel astrometric shifts. This is the load-bearing test for the central claim that AT 2023adya is a genuine transient/variable source.
  2. [Section 3.3] The source is located within ~0.02 arcsec of the host center, i.e., about one third of a native long-wavelength pixel. At this position the surface brightness gradient of the host is maximal, so small PSF mismatches or registration errors produce the largest possible spurious residuals. The current paper does not quantify the expected residual from such systematics. The F090W and F115W non-detections are encouraging, but they are not conclusive because the PSF sizes and the host morphology differ between filters, and a systematic artifact could in principle affect the long-wavelength band differently. Please add an estimate of the expected spurious signal at the transient position from a PSF mismatch or astrometric error, and show that the observed F356W residual exceeds it by a comfortable margin.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] There is a typo: 'spectral energy distrubtion' should be 'spectral energy distribution'.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text refers to 'AT 2024adya's host' in the sentence about Sun et al. (2024); this should be 'AT 2023adya's host'.
  3. [Figure 1] In the RGB difference image, consider adding a clearer label or marker for the residual signal, as the current crosshairs may blend with galaxy light at the printed scale.
  4. [Table 1] For clarity, the table note could state explicitly that the SNvar values in row 4 are computed from the science-image photometry (Eq. 1), since the difference-image magnitudes in row 3 are not used for SNvar.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the 'not a subtraction artifact' check; central z>5 detection otherwise rests on external data and an independent spectroscopic redshift.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Photometry (paragraph 2)]
    "The difference between the F356W Epoch1 and Epoch2 science image photometry yields nearly the exact same value as the photometry measured from the difference image (mF356W = 28.04±0.14 mag), demonstrating that the F356W variability is real and not a subtraction artifact."

    The difference image is constructed by subtracting Epoch2 from Epoch1, so aperture photometry on that difference image is, by construction, the same quantity as the Epoch1 aperture flux minus the Epoch2 aperture flux. The near-exact agreement is therefore an algebraic identity of the two measurements, not an independent test of astrophysical variability. It cannot rule out PSF-mismatch, astrometric offset, or background-residual artifacts between the two mosaics, because both photometric routes share the same two input images and would agree even if the residual were purely systematic. The quoted 'demonstration' thus overstates what the test can establish; the actual detection remains the difference-image residual itself.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a photometric variability detection between two JWST epochs in GOODS-N. The F356W brightness change is measured directly from public JADES (Epoch1) and CONGRESS (Epoch2) mosaics, and no model parameter is fitted to produce the claimed residual. The z>5 identification rests on the zspec=5.274 host redshift from Sun et al. (2024), which is an external spectroscopic measurement based on FRESCO F444W and CONGRESS F356W grism emission lines (H-alpha and [O III]); although there is author overlap, that redshift is not conditioned on AT 2023adya's variability and constitutes independent support rather than a self-referential premise. The classification discussion compares the observed absolute magnitude to literature SN luminosity functions (Richardson et al. 2014), AGN line diagnostics (Greene & Ho 2005), and published TDE and rate models, none of which are derived from the transient photometry. The paper also explicitly concedes that the source's nature cannot be determined from two-epoch single-band photometry, and the remaining concerns about PSF, astrometry, and background residuals are systematic-uncertainty risks rather than circular reasoning. The only identified circular element is the internal consistency check in Section 3.2, which is tautological because difference-image photometry and science-image photometry are two reductions of the same two mosaics. That step is not load-bearing for the external detection or the host redshift, so the overall circularity is minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard cosmology, the measured host redshift, and published models and rate functions for supernovae, AGN, and TDEs. The team-cited inputs (Sun et al. 2024 for redshift; Sun et al. in prep. for LSF) are used as external measurements, not as part of a fitted derivation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_L=0.7 is adopted for distance and absolute magnitude calculations.
    Used in Section 3.2 and 4.1 to convert photometry to rest-frame absolute magnitude; standard external inputs, not fitted here.
  • domain assumption The spectroscopic redshift z_spec=5.274 from NIRCam grism lines (Sun et al. 2024) is accurate.
    This places the host at z>5 and is used for rest-frame analysis. It is an external measurement relying on H-alpha and [O III] lines, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The NIRCam grism line spread function calibration (Sun et al., in prep.) correctly models the instrumental profile.
    Used in Section 4.2.1 to quantify the H-alpha FWHM and assess the presence of a broad line. If the calibration were wrong, the disfavoring of the Type 1 AGN scenario would be weakened.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First Photometric Evidence of a Transient/Variable Source at z>5 with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZ2BY3IX

@misc{pith2026250417007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First Photometric Evidence of a Transient/Variable Source at z>5 with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZ2BY3IX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17007}
}
abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) discovered 79 transients out to $z$$\sim$4.8 through the JADES Transient Survey (JTS), but the JTS did not find any $z$$>$5 transients. Here, we present the first photometric evidence of a $z$$>$5 transient/variable source with JWST. The source, AT 2023adya, resides in a $z_{\mathrm{spec}}$$=$5.274 galaxy in GOODS-N, which dimmed from $m_{\rm F356W}$$=$26.05$\pm$0.02 mag to 26.24$\pm$0.02 mag in the rest-frame optical over approximately two rest-frame months, producing a clear residual signal in the difference image ($m_{\rm F356W}$$=$28.01$\pm$0.17 mag; SN$_\mathrm{var}$$=$6.09) at the galaxy center. Shorter-wavelength bands (F090W/F115W) show no rest-frame ultraviolet brightness change. Based on its rest-frame V-band absolute magnitude of M$_\mathrm{V}$$=$$-$18.48 mag, AT 2023adya could be any core-collapse supernova (SN) subtype or an SN Ia. However, due to low SN Ia rates at high redshift, the SN Ia scenario is unlikely. Alternatively, AT 2023adya may be a variable active galactic nucleus (AGN). However, the JWST NIRCam/Grism spectrum shows no broad H$\alpha$ emission line (FWHM$=$130$\pm$26 km s$^{-1}$), disfavoring the variable AGN scenario. It is also unlikely that AT 2023adya is a tidal disruption event (TDE) because the TDE models matching the observed brightness changes have low event rates. Although it is not possible to determine AT 2023adya's nature based on the two-epoch single-band photometry alone, this discovery indicates that JWST can push the frontier of transient/variable science past $z$$=$5 and towards the epoch of reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NIRCam images of AT 2023adya, with red crosshairs indicating AT 2023adya’s position. Top: The Epoch2 (CONGRESS; 2024) F090W, F115W, and F356W NIRCam images. The right-most panel shows the F356W/F115W/F090W Epoch2 red-green-blue (RGB) image, with AT2023adya’s host labeled. In these Epoch2 images, AT 2023adya has either faded or disappeared. Middle: The Epoch1 (JADES; 2023) F090W, F115W, and F356W NIRCam images (and F… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AT 2023adya host’s SED measured from the Epoch1 JWST/NIRCam JADES photometry and HST/ACS HLF photometry. The red circles show the observed photometry with uncertainties, the teal squares show the model photometry, the black curve shows the best-fit model spectrum, and the gray curves show the filter transmission curves. The model spectrum arises solely from stellar contributions, showing no evidence of an AGN presen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Gaussian distributions of peak absolute B￾band magnitudes from Richardson et al. (2014) for SNe Ib (dark blue), Ic (light blue), IIP (green), IIL (orange), IIn (purple), and Ia (red). The vertical black dashed line shows AT 2023adya’s rest-frame 567 nm (approximately V-band) absolute magnitude. It is unlikely that AT 2023adya was exactly at its V-band peak in Epoch1 and AT 2023adya may still be present in Epoch2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NIRCam grism spectra of the Hα (left; with FRESCO F444W) and [O III] λ5008 (right; with CONGRESS F356W) emission lines of AT 2023adya’s host, shown as solid black lines with uncertainties in gray shades. Line spread functions (Sun, F. et al., in prep.) at line centroid…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Infrared Echoes of Precessing Tidal Disruption Events

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Theoretical framework for precessing TDE disks predicts variable IR dust echo light curves showing double-to-single peaked profile transitions due to viewing and precession angle changes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  2. [2]

    P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M

    Anderson, J. P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244401

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244401 2024

  3. [3]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    Ashall, C., Mazzali, P., Sasdelli, M., & Prentice, S. J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1214 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 Col...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1214 2016

  5. [5]

    J., Voevodkin, A., Carson, D

    Barth, A. J., Voevodkin, A., Carson, D. J., & Wo´ zniak, P. 2014, AJ, 147, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/12 2014

  6. [6]

    T., Riello, M., Cappellaro, E., et al

    Botticella, M. T., Riello, M., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 479, 49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078011

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078011 2008

  7. [7]

    T., Trundle, C., Pastorello, A., et al

    Botticella, M. T., Trundle, C., Pastorello, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 717, L52, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L52

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/l52 2010

  8. [8]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0, 1.12.0, Zenodo

    work page 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    CONGRESS

    Cartier, R., Lira, P., Coppi, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/164 CONGRESS Team. 2025, The Complete NIRCam Grism Redshift Survey (“CONGRESS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/6RFK-6S81

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05513

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    G., et al

    Dahlen, T., Strolger, L.-G., Riess, A. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/70 De Cicco, D., Paolillo, M., Covone, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424906 de Jaeger, T., Zheng, W., Stahl, B. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2799, do...

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 264, 1

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 264, 1

    2024

  5. [13]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8fab

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Complete NIRCam Grism Redshift Survey (CONGRESS), JWST Proposal

    Egami, E., Sun, F., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, Complete NIRCam Grism Redshift Survey (CONGRESS), JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3577

    2023

  8. [16]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    V., Richmond, M

    Filippenko, A. V., Richmond, M. W., Branch, D., et al. 1992, AJ, 104, 1543, doi: 10.1086/116339 FRESCO Team. 2023, The First Reionization Epoch Spectroscopically Complete Observations (“FRESCO”)

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    doi

  12. [20]

    L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Secunda, A

    Furtak, L. J., Secunda, A. R., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.07875, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07875 Garc´ ıa-Gonz´ alez, J., Alonso-Herrero, A., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2204

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae949

    Graur, O. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae949

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts718

    Graur, O., & Maoz, D. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts718

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Hawkins, M. R. S. 2004, A&A, 424, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041127

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Mullaney, J

    Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/9 12 HLF Team. 2015, Hubble Legacy Fields (“HLF”), v2.5, STScI/MAST. https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/hlf/

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c JADES Team

    Inayoshi, K., Kashiyama, K., Li, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c JADES Team. 2024, The JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (“JADES”), STScI/MAST, doi: doi:10.17909/8tdj-8n28

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf0d

    Jin, H., Yoon, S.-C., & Blinnikov, S. 2023, ApJ, 950, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf0d

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13248

    Karmen, M., Gezari, S., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13248. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13248

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    2007, ApJ, 665, 225, doi: 10.1086/519442

    Klesman, A., & Sarajedini, V. 2007, ApJ, 665, 225, doi: 10.1086/519442

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    Kokubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04777

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, ApJ, 941, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Brandt, T. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3282, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x

    2012

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    I., Baklanov, P

    Moriya, T., Tominaga, N., Blinnikov, S. I., Baklanov, P. V., & Sorokina, E. I. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18689.x

    2011

  38. [46]

    J., Quimby, R

    Moriya, T. J., Quimby, R. M., & Robertson, B. E. 2022, ApJ, 925, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac415e

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Coulter, D

    Moriya, T. J., Coulter, D. A., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08969, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08969

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    B., & Gunn, J

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

    1983 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E

    Palicio, P. A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E. 2024, A&A, 689, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449740

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Volonteri, M., et al

    Pfister, H., Dai, J. L., Volonteri, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3471

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 971, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908

    doi

  46. [54]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 967, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c43

    doi

  47. [55]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024c, ApJL, 967, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4648

    doi

  48. [56]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb1d9 Pusk´ as, D., Tacchella, S., Simmonds, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01721, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01721

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L

    Richardson, D., Jenkins, III, R. L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L. 2014, AJ, 147, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/118

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2023

  52. [60]

    G., & Livio, M

    Riess, A. G., & Livio, M. 2006, ApJ, 648, 884, doi: 10.1086/504791

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Riess, A

    Rodney, S. A., Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/13 S´ anchez, P., Lira, P., Cartier, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9188

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    H., et al

    Sesar, B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 2236, doi: 10.1086/521819

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c32

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

    1987

  57. [65]

    A., et al

    Strolger, L.-G., Dahlen, T., Rodney, S. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/93

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, nircam grism, v3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14052875

    Sun, F. 2024, nircam grism, v3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14052875

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c

    Sun, F., Egami, E., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Egami, E., et al

    Sun, F., Helton, J. M., Egami, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2008, A&A, 488, 73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809884

    Puccetti, S. 2008, A&A, 488, 73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809884

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    1999, ApJ, 514, 180, doi: 10.1086/306909

    Ulmer, A. 1999, ApJ, 514, 180, doi: 10.1086/306909

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 13 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    1997 doi

  64. [72]

    M., & Grogin, N

    Villforth, C., Koekemoer, A. M., & Grogin, N. A. 2010, ApJ, 723, 737, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/737

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D

    Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D. N. 2021, ApJ, 913, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3be

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    Yan, H., Ma, Z., Sun, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6423

    Yuk, H., Dai, X., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6423

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02895

    Zhang, J., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02895

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., Liu, W., & Ho, L. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02729, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02729

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.