Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Explaining the "too massive" high-redshift galaxies in JWST data: numerical study of three effects and a simple relation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A top-heavy initial mass function can make high-redshift JWST galaxies appear up to ten times more massive than they really are, potentially explaining the 'too massive' galaxy problem without new physics.

desk verdict A useful back-of-envelope formula for IMF-driven mass corrections, but the exponential fit is specific to a one-parameter IMF family and the paper's broader 'too many' claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21409 v1 pith:UMRF2PTV submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Joshua J. Ziegler , Katherine Freese , Jonathan Lozano , Gabriele Montefalcone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords initialmassfunctionstarformationefficiencyhigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTSEDfittingtop-heavyIMFstellarpopulationsynthesisgalaxy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the 'too massive' and 'too numerous' high-redshift galaxies seen by JWST may not require exotic star formation or new cosmology. Using the Pégase stellar population code, it shows that three common assumptions — a Salpeter-like initial mass function, a constant star formation history, and low initial metallicity — can bias stellar mass estimates upward. The central result is a simple exponential relation between the high-mass IMF slope $\alpha$ and the inferred star formation efficiency: $\epsilon(\alpha) \approx \epsilon_{\rm fid} e^{2.66(\alpha-2.35)}$. If the high-mass IMF is as top-heavy as $M^{-1.35}$, the inferred stellar mass drops by about a factor of 10, easing the tension with $\Lambda$CDM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mass-to-light ratio $\beta = M_{\rm lum}/L_{\rm filter}$, which connects an observed JWST luminosity to a stellar mass and hence to the star formation efficiency $\epsilon = \beta L_{\rm filter}/(M_b f_{\rm filter})$. The paper computes this ratio numerically with the Pégase 3 population synthesis code, summing single stellar populations with a given IMF (high-mass slope $\alpha$ in $dN/dM \propto M^{-\alpha}$), star formation history, and initial metallicity, and integrating the dust-processed spectrum over a simplified NIRCam-style filter. The central identity that carries the argument is the empirical fit $\epsilon(\alpha)/\epsilon_{\rm fid} \approx \exp[2.66(\alpha-2.35)]$, which condenses the numerical results for galaxy ages $150 \lesssim t \lesssim 250$ Myr into a one-parameter rule of thumb.

What would settle it

Find a $z\gtrsim10$ galaxy whose Salpeter-IMF inferred mass exceeds the baryonic budget of its dark-matter halo, determine its true high-mass IMF slope independently (for example from Wolf-Rayet to O-star spectral features or supernova rates), and check whether $\epsilon_{\rm fid} e^{2.66(\alpha-2.35)}$ brings the galaxy below the halo baryon limit; if it does not, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the apparent overabundance and over-massiveness of JWST's high-$z$ galaxies can be substantially reduced by varying three ingredients of spectral fitting: the initial mass function, the star formation history, and the initial metallicity. Their key discovery is that, for a constant star formation rate, the ratio of the star formation efficiency inferred under a top-heavy IMF to that under a Salpeter IMF is well described by $\epsilon/\epsilon_{\rm fid} \approx \exp[2.66(\alpha-2.35)]$, where $\alpha$ is the power-law slope of the high-mass IMF ($dN/dM \propto M^{-\alpha}$). Equivalently, the inferred stellar mass for a fixed observed luminosity scales the same way. They find reductions up to a factor of about 15 for the most top-heavy IMF at late times, and a factor about 10 for $\alpha = 1.35$, which they argue helps resolve both the 'too massive' and 'too many' galaxy puzzles.

Load-bearing premise

The relation assumes that a top-heavy IMF changes only the high-mass slope $\alpha$, while the low-mass IMF slope stays fixed at $\alpha=1.3$ for $M<0.5\,M_\odot$ and the break mass does not move; if the real high-redshift IMF is shaped differently, the exponential fit would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the relation holds, SED-fitting pipelines that assume a Salpeter IMF will overestimate the stellar masses of high-redshift JWST galaxies by up to an order of magnitude when the true IMF is top-heavy.
  • Observers can use $\epsilon(\alpha)/\epsilon_{\rm fid} \approx e^{2.66(\alpha-2.35)}$ as a fast correction factor when testing alternative IMFs, without rerunning full spectral fits.
  • Because low-mass galaxies are more numerous than high-mass ones, the same luminosity boost makes the bright end of the mass and luminosity functions appear overpopulated, linking the 'too massive' and 'too many' anomalies to a single cause.
  • Star formation histories with a declining rate push inferred efficiencies upward and can offset the top-heavy IMF reduction, while peaked histories make a given galaxy appear unusually bright at some epochs and faint at others, potentially creating apparent piles of bright galaxies at specific redshifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduction is real, the cosmic star formation rate density at $z>10$ may be lower than current estimates, which would also shift models of reionization and metal enrichment.
  • A strong test would compare the predicted mass correction against independent dynamical masses for high-$z$ galaxies (e.g., from CO or [CII] kinematics) once those become available; the paper itself does not perform such a check.
  • The same mass-to-light logic applies to any photometric survey, so future 'overly massive' galaxy candidates should be examined for IMF assumptions before being interpreted as new physics.
  • If the low-mass IMF slope also hardens in metal-poor environments, the exponential relation would need a second parameter; the fixed low-mass slope is a hidden lever arm that could change the magnitude of the effect.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Pegase stellar population synthesis code to compute how three modeling choices—a top-heavy IMF, non-constant star formation histories, and high initial metallicities—change the stellar mass inferred from a fixed JWST-observed luminosity. All results are presented as ratios of the inferred star formation efficiency (or stellar mass) relative to a fiducial Salpeter-IMF, constant-SFH, low-metallicity model. The central result is a fitted exponential relation, Eq. (3), epsilon(alpha) approximately epsilon_fid e^{2.66(alpha-2.35)}, from which the authors conclude that a high-mass IMF slope of alpha=1.35 could lower inferred masses by about an order of magnitude. The paper also shows that exponentially declining SFHs raise the inferred efficiency relative to the constant-SFH case, while metallicity variations do not qualitatively change the IMF-driven reduction.

Significance. If the relation in Eq. (3) holds for real high-redshift galaxies, it provides a simple way to quantify IMF-related systematics in SED fitting and offers a physically motivated partial resolution of the JWST 'too massive' galaxy tension. The paper is honest in presenting Eq. (3) as a parametrization of its own Pegase results rather than a first-principles derivation, and the use of a documented population synthesis code is a strength. The main quantitative deliverable—a one-line mapping from high-mass IMF slope to inferred mass—is potentially useful, but its domain of validity is currently limited by the specific one-parameter IMF family and the simplified JWST filter treatment, and the abundance-related claims in the abstract are not backed by a number-count calculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The central relation Eq. (3) is obtained by varying only the high-mass IMF slope alpha while keeping the low-mass slope fixed at 1.3 below 0.5 M_sun. The fitted exponent 2.66 is therefore specific to this one-parameter broken-power-law family. Because low-mass stars contribute negligible light but a substantial fraction of the mass, changing the low-mass slope or the break mass changes the mass-to-light ratio and hence the inferred stellar mass for fixed luminosity. The paper provides no test of robustness of the exponent to these IMF-shape parameters, so the domain of validity of the headline factor-of-~10 statement is not established. Please add tests varying alpha_low and the break mass, or explicitly restrict the claim to this family.
  2. [Section 4] The JWST NIRCam filters are approximated by a single constant-transmission top-hat over 83.3-416.7 nm. The inferred mass-to-light ratio depends on which part of the SED is observed, especially as age, metallicity, and IMF shift the spectrum. No test is shown of how the exponent 2.66 changes if a realistic filter response or multiple NIRCam bands are used. Since Eq. (3) is a quantitative fitting formula, this approximation needs to be validated or its uncertainty quantified.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 5.1] The definition of the fiducial IMF is inconsistent: Section 5 states alpha=1.3 for M★<M_sun, while Section 5.1 states alpha=1.3 for M★<0.5 M_sun. The break mass sets the normalization between low- and high-mass stars and directly affects the stellar mass-to-light ratio. This ambiguity must be corrected, and the sensitivity of Eq. (3) to the break-mass choice should be tested.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusions claim that the studied effects may explain both the 'too massive' galaxies and the 'profusion' of high-mass galaxies. The paper demonstrates the mass-to-light rescaling, but it does not compute a luminosity function or galaxy number counts; the 'more low mass galaxies than high mass galaxies' argument is qualitative, and Section 5.2 explicitly leaves such a study to future work. The number-count claim should either be backed by a calculation or removed from the abstract.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] With L★∝M^3.5, the mass-to-light ratio scales as M^{-2.5}, not M^{2.5}; as written, Eq. (5) gives exponents and dimensions inconsistent with a mass-to-light ratio. Since this equation is illustrative and not used in the numerical analysis, please correct or remove it.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'instaneous' should be 'instantaneous' (Sections 2.2 and 5.2), 'correllated' should be 'correlated' (Section 3), 'reddhift' should be 'redshift' (Section 4), and 'inefficint' should be 'inefficient' (Section 2.1).
  3. [Figure 1, right panel] The right panel is described as showing a color gradient from yellow to red for galaxy age, but the mapping of ages to colors is not shown in the figure. Please add a visible colorbar or explicit legend entries for the age values.
  4. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The exponent 2.66 is quoted without an uncertainty. The footnote reports that the best-fit exponential varies by about 7% over different age ranges, but the paper should give the formal fit uncertainty and the scatter of the numerical points around the relation.
  5. [References] Several references are cited only by arXiv identifiers (e.g., Chworowsky et al. 2023; Woodrum et al. 2023; Trinca et al. 2024). These should be updated to published versions where available.
  6. [Article header] The header still contains the placeholder 'MNRAS000, 1-10 (2025)'. The volume and page numbers should be updated at the proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (3) is an explicitly labeled fit to Pégase numerical outputs, not a first-principles prediction derived from its own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central relation, Eq. (3), is presented as 'a good approximation to the numerical results' and later as a relation that 'can be parametrized as' (Section 6); it is not advertised as an externally derived law. The exponent 2.66 is obtained from Pégase stellar population synthesis runs across a one-parameter family of high-mass IMF slopes with constant SFH and Z_ini = 0.001 Z_sun, and the ratio epsilon/epsilon_fid is computed from the model's stellar mass and luminosity. Thus Eq. (3) summarizes the model output rather than fitting a parameter to JWST data and then predicting that same data. The factor-of-about-10 statement is a direct evaluation of Eq. (3) at alpha = 1.35 and is honestly derived from the model. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the only code citation is to the external Pégase code (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 2019), and prior IMF studies are cited as context rather than as an authority that forces the result. The paper also identifies the relation's domain of validity (roughly 150 Myr < t < 250 Myr) and checks that the best-fit exponential varies by only about 7% when the fitting window is extended. The fixed low-mass IMF shape (alpha = 1.3 for M < 0.5 M_sun) limits the generality of Eq. (3), but that is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction: Eq. (3) is not equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The central claim is therefore a self-contained numerical result rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a forward-modeling parameter study, so its central numerical claims rest entirely on the Pegase code, the Padova tracks, the dust model, and a set of hand-chosen parameters (IMF slopes, SFH shapes, metallicities, formation redshift, filter approximation). The only fitted quantity is the 2.66 exponent in the headline relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Exponent 2.66 in epsilon(alpha) relation = 2.66
    Fitted to the Pegase epsilon/epsilon_fid versus alpha curves for galaxy ages 150-250 Myr (Eq. 3, right panel of Fig. 1). No uncertainty quoted; the text notes the fit changes by about 7% if wider age ranges are used.
  • Low-mass IMF slope = 1.3
    Fixed by hand for all models at M < 0.5 M_sun; the exponential relation depends on this choice and is not tested against other low-mass slopes (Section 5.1).
  • IMF break mass = 0.5 M_sun
    Boundary between the fixed low-mass slope and the variable high-mass slope; chosen rather than derived (Section 5.1).
  • Star formation history timescales = tau = 10, 100 Myr
    Chosen for the exponential and peaked SFR forms (Section 2.2); results are said to be qualitatively similar for the two timescales.
  • Initial metallicities = 0.001, 0.1, 1 Z_sun
    Fiducial plus two values the authors call unphysically large, used to demonstrate metallicity dependence (Section 2.3).
  • Formation redshift = z = 13.5
    Adopted for all runs (Section 4); the authors argue that results are insensitive to this choice for dust-poor galaxies, but do not quantify the insensitivity.
  • JWST filter approximation = constant transmission 83.3-416.7 nm
    Used to compute L_filter at z = 11 (Section 4); a more realistic NIRCam filter response could shift the epsilon ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pegase 3 population synthesis code with Padova stellar tracks correctly models spectra, stellar masses and metallicities of high-z, metal-poor, top-heavy populations.
    All numerical results derive from this code (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Dust absorption and emission are described by the Bare_GR_S model of Zubko et al. (2004).
    Used to compute the filter-band luminosity after dust processing (Section 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The IMF is a single power law above 0.5 M_sun and retains the same low-mass slope for all values of alpha.
    The central exponential fit varies only the high-mass slope; the paper does not test alternative low-mass behaviors (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Individual stellar luminosity scales roughly as L proportional to M^3.5.
    Used to motivate why top-heavy IMFs lower inferred masses (Sections 1 and 2.1); acknowledged as an approximation.
  • domain assumption Standard LCDM halo mass functions and the cosmic baryon fraction relate stellar mass to halo mass via M_lum = epsilon f_b M_halo.
    Eq. (1) and the Press-Schechter discussion; this is the framework in which the 'too massive' tension is defined.
  • domain assumption Results are insensitive to formation redshift and to the total baryonic mass (up to rescaling).
    Stated in Section 4 without a quantitative demonstration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explaining the "too massive" high-redshift galaxies in JWST data: numerical study of three effects and a simple relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UMRF2PTV

@misc{pith2026250721409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explaining the "too massive" high-redshift galaxies in JWST data: numerical study of three effects and a simple relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UMRF2PTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21409}
}
abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope has discovered high luminosity galaxies that appear to be "too many" and "too massive" compared to predictions of the Standard LCDM cosmology, suggesting that star formation in the early universe is more rapid than previously anticipated. In this paper we examine in detail the following three effects which can instead provide alternative explanations for these observations: (1) a "top heavy" initial mass function (IMF) for the stars, (2) a variety of star formation histories (constant, exponentially decreasing, and peaked star formation rates), and (3) a variety of initial metallicities. Due to any of these three effects, galaxies of a given luminosity in JWST may be interpreted as having a larger stellar mass than they actually do. Our results are obtained using the Pegase stellar population code, and are presented as the ratio of the modified star formation efficiency relative to the fiducial one (which uses a Salpeter IMF and constant star formation rate). As an example, if the high-mass end of the IMF goes as $M^{-1.35}$, the star formation efficiency and inferred stellar galactic mass could be lower by a factor of $\sim 10$ than in the fiducial case. Our examination (keeping the star formation rate constant) of a top-heavy IMF with slope $\alpha$ leads to a simple relation that is a good approximation to the numerical results, $\epsilon(\alpha) \approx \epsilon_{\rm fid}e^{2.66(\alpha -2.35)}$. Since there are more low mass galaxies than high mass galaxies, these effects may result in a large number of seemingly overly massive galaxies compared to the expectations. Thus, the effects studied in this paper may explain both puzzling observations regarding high luminosity galaxies in JWST: the apparently overly massive galaxies as well as the profusion of apparently high mass galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Evolution of the star formation efficiency ratio 𝜖 /𝜖fid (equivalently the inferred mass ratio 𝑀lum/𝑀fid) as a function of the age of a galaxy 𝑡 for various top-heavy IMFs 𝑑𝑁/𝑑𝑀 ∝ 𝑀−𝛼 characterized by different high-mass power-law slopes 𝛼 ranging from 2.35 (Salpeter-like IMF) to 1.35. Each IMF is represented by a distinct color as indicated by the colorbar to the right of the panel. All simulations assume an … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of varying Star Formation Histories on Star Formation Efficiency (equivalently stellar galactic mass) inferred from JWST galaxy data. Left: Same as the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. What becomes of JWST/NIRCam-selected high-redshift massive galaxies?

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

    Observational JWST/NIRCam selections recover almost none of TNG300's M⋆≥10^11 M⊙ galaxies at z~5 and their descendants rarely become the most massive systems at z=0 unless they experience late merger growth.

  2. How galaxies acquire their stellar mass at high redshift: High star formation efficiencies and the relative roles of dust and initial mass function

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive galaxies at z≳9 built stellar mass in bursty episodes with star-formation efficiencies of 0.8–0.9; dust pushes efficiencies above unity unless a top-heavy IMF is allowed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354..644B 354, 644

    Bazan G., Mathews G. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354..644B 354, 644

    work page doi:10.1086/168721 1990

  2. [2]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 , 7, 731–735

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 2023

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    Casey C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 2024

  4. [4]

    Chworowsky K., et al., 2023, Evidence for a Shallow Evolution in the Volume Densities of Massive Galaxies at z=4 to 8 from CEERS ( @eprint arXiv 2311.14804 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14804

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    R., Hutter A., Dayal P., Gottlöber S., Heintz K

    Cueto E. R., Hutter A., Dayal P., Gottlöber S., Heintz K. E., Mason C., Trebitsch M., Yepes G., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349017 , 686, A138

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349017 2024

  6. [6]

    Fioc M., Rocca-Volmerange B., 2019, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833556 , 623, A143

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833556 2019

  7. [7]

    Guo Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945L..10G 945, L10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb 2023

  8. [8]

    Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-3034-3

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution, 2 edn. Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-3034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-3034-3 2012

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Labb \'e I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.616..266L 616, 266

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Lapi A., et al., 2024, Constraining the Initial Mass function in the Epoch of Reionization from Astrophysical and Cosmological data ( @eprint arXiv 2403.07401 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07401

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S., Bose S., Lacey C

    Lu S., Frenk C. S., Bose S., Lacey C. G., Cole S., Baugh C. M., Helly J. C., 2024, A comparison of pre-existing CDM predictions with the abundance of JWST galaxies at high redshift ( @eprint arXiv 2406.02672 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02672

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    McKinney J., et al., 2024, SCUBADive I: JWST+ALMA Analysis of 289 sub-millimeter galaxies in COSMOS-Web ( @eprint arXiv 2408.08346 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08346

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H., Lancaster L., Burkhart B., Somerville R

    Menon S. H., Lancaster L., Burkhart B., Somerville R. S., Dekel A., Krumholz M. R., 2024, The Interplay between the IMF and Star Formation Efficiency through Radiative Feedback at High Stellar Surface Densities ( @eprint arXiv 2405.00813 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00813

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C., Dame T

    Myers P. C., Dame T. M., Thaddeus P., Cohen R. S., Silverberg R. F., Dwek E., Hauser M. G., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...301..398M 301, 398

    1986 doi

  7. [15]

    Offner S. S. R., Clark P. C., Hennebelle P., Bastian N., Bate M. R., Hopkins P. F., Moraux E., Whitworth A. P., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 53--75 ( @eprint arXiv 1312.5326 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780...

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pacifici C., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acacff , 944, 141

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Pallottini A., Ferrara A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677L...4P 677, L4

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Peters T., Schleicher D. R. G., Smith R. J., Schmidt W., Klessen R. S., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1097 , 442, 3112

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    1974 doi

  12. [20]

    H., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.2245R 135, 2245

    Rieke G. H., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.2245R 135, 2245

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  14. [22]

    Shen X., Vogelsberger M., Boylan-Kolchin M., Tacchella S., Kannan R., 2023, The impact of UV variability on the abundance of bright galaxies at z 9 ( @eprint arXiv 2305.05679 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05679

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Shuntov M., et al., 2025, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570 , 695, A20

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Steinhardt C

    Speagle J. S., Steinhardt C. L., Capak P. L., Silverman J. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...15S 214, 15

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6 , 951, L40

    Steinhardt C. L., Kokorev V., Rusakov V., Garcia E., Sneppen A., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6 , 951, L40

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Shen X., Wetzel A., Cochrane R

    Sun G., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Hayward C. C., Shen X., Wetzel A., Cochrane R. K., 2023, Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn ( @eprint arXiv 2307.15305 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15305

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Trinca A., Schneider R., Valiante R., Graziani L., Zappacosta L., Shankar F., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac062 , 511, 616

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Trinca A., Schneider R., Valiante R., Graziani L., Ferrotti A., Omukai K., Chon S., 2024, Exploring the nature of UV-bright z 10 galaxies detected by JWST: star formation, black hole accretion, or a non-universal IMF? ( @eprint arXiv 2305.04944 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04944

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vanderbeke J., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2012 , 437, 1734

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Woodrum C., et al., 2023, JADES: Using NIRCam Photometry to Investigate the Dependence of Stellar Mass Inferences on the IMF in the Early Universe ( @eprint arXiv 2310.18464 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18464

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..152..211Z 152, 211

    Zubko V., Dwek E., Arendt R. G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..152..211Z 152, 211

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.