Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

The PASSAGE survey has obtained more than ten thousand grism spectra in 63 unselected high-latitude fields, extending emission-line galaxy studies down to about 10 million solar masses at z~2.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The PASSAGE survey delivers over 10,000 JWST/NIRISS slitless spectra in 63 fields, pushing studies of star formation, metallicity, and dust down to very low-mass, high-redshift galaxies.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid survey overview; the 'unbiased' and low-mass claims need a completeness analysis in a companion paper. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.00596 v1 pith:CCU6YNFK submitted 2025-08-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution (PASSAGE): Survey Overview

Matthew A. Malkan , Vihang Mehta , Ayan Acharyya , Hollis Akins , Anahita Alavi , Hakim Atek , Ivano Baronchelli , Andrew J. Battisti
show 44 more authors
Kit Boyett Marusa Bradac Sean Tyler Bruton Andrew Bunker Adam J. Burgasser Caitlin Casey Nuo Chen James Colbert Y. Sophia Dai Max Franco Clea Hannahs Santosh Harish Farhanul Hasan Matthew James Hayes Alaina L. Henry Mason Huberty Jeyhan Kartaltepe Keunho J. Kim Nicha Leethochawalit Jacob Levine Sijia Li Yu-Heng Lin Yiaxiao Liu Charlotte Mason Daniel Masters Henry McCracken Takahiro Morishita Kalina Nedkova Marc Rafelski Vivasvaan Aditya Raj Guido Roberts-Borsani Axel Runnholm Michael James Rutkowski Alberto Saldana-Lopez Zahra Sattari Claudia Scarlata Kasper Borello Schmidt Marko Shuntov Harry Teplitz Michele Trenti Tommaso Treu Benedetta Vulcani Peter J. Watson Xin Wang Zhuyun Zhuang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords JWSTNIRISSslitless spectroscopygrismgalaxy evolutionemission-line galaxieslow-mass galaxiescosmic star formation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

PASSAGE is a JWST pure-parallel program that ran NIRISS slitless spectroscopy while other instruments observed elsewhere, collecting more than ten thousand near-infrared grism spectra of faint galaxies in 63 independent high-latitude fields. Its central claim is that this sample is effectively unbiased: because it does not pre-select galaxies by photometric brightness, it captures the common low-mass, strong-emission-line galaxies that targeted surveys tend to miss. If this claim holds, the survey provides the largest spectroscopic census of emission-line galaxies at redshifts 1 to 3.5, reaching stellar masses of a few times 10 million solar masses at z~2, and enables measurements of star formation, dust attenuation, and gas-phase metallicity on individual faint galaxies rather than stacked averages. The paper presents the survey design, data quality, and first science examples in these areas.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the PASSAGE program, despite receiving only about two thirds of its scheduled 591 hours, observed 63 high-latitude fields in pure-parallel mode with the NIRISS grisms, producing more than ten thousand grism spectrograms covering roughly 1.0 to 2.3 micrometers. Because slitless spectroscopy disperses every object in the field, the resulting galaxy sample is line-flux-limited rather than continuum-flux-limited, so it includes extreme emission-line galaxies with very faint continua and stellar masses down to about 10^7 solar masses at z~2. The authors report that this is by far the largest such sample assembled, and they demonstrate its use by measuring the star-forma

What carries the argument

The central object is NIRISS slitless grism spectroscopy in pure-parallel mode: the GR150R and GR150C grisms disperse light from the full field along two orthogonal directions, through the F115W, F150W, and F200W blocking filters, so every source in the field receives a spectrum with no target preselection. The Grizli software models and removes overlapping spectra to extract one-dimensional spectra, and the orthogonal grism orientations reduce contamination. The method's power is that emission lines are detected independently of continuum brightness, which is what lets the survey find very faint, low-mass, high-equivalent-width emitters.

Load-bearing premise

The unbiased nature of the sample rests on the unproven assumption that the roughly one-third of planned observations that never executed, plus the manual removal of spurious detections, left no systematic bias in which galaxies were included.

What would settle it

Inject simulated emission-line galaxies with known line fluxes, sizes, and redshifts into copies of the PASSAGE grism exposures, run the full reduction and human artifact-removal pipeline, and measure the recovery fraction as a function of line flux, stellar mass, and field depth; if recovery differs strongly between shallow and deep fields or between executed and unexecuted scheduling opportunities, the claim of an unbiased sample fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The sample of roughly ten thousand emission-line galaxies will let astronomers map the star-formation main sequence and the gas-phase mass-metallicity relation at z~1 to 3.5 in individual low-mass galaxies, without requiring spectral stacking.
  • The 63 independent fields average over cosmic variance, making statistical statements about galaxy populations more representative than single-field surveys.
  • Balmer-decrement measurements in hundreds to thousands of low-mass galaxies will test whether the dust-attenuation versus stellar-mass relation continues below 10^9 solar masses, where past data were mostly stacks.
  • Hundreds of extreme emission-line galaxies found per field provide bright targets for detailed follow-up, including the [OIII] lambda4363 line that can check metallicity calibrations at high redshift.
  • Public fully processed data products allow the community to reuse the spectroscopy, complementing deeper but narrower JWST surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the missing third of the planned parallel time had been executed, the sample would grow by roughly half, suggesting that scheduling constraints, not telescope sensitivity, are the main limit on pure-parallel grism surveys.
  • The pipeline's reliance on human inspection to remove Grizli artifacts means the sample's selection function is not yet fully quantified; injecting synthetic emission-line galaxies through the same reduction and inspection path would yield completeness corrections and could shift the faint end of measured line luminosity functions.
  • PASSAGE grism metallicities could be cross-calibrated against JWST/NIRSpec follow-up of the brightest extreme emitters, testing whether low-redshift strong-line calibrations remain valid at z~2 to 3.5 and low stellar mass.
  • The deep F115W spectra also contain Lyman-break information at z>8, so even without detected emission lines the survey may contribute to the high-redshift galaxy census, as the paper's simulations suggest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the Cycle 1 JWST/NIRISS pure-parallel slitless spectroscopy survey PASSAGE: a 591-hour allocation of which about two-thirds was executed, yielding 63 high-latitude fields and more than ten thousand near-infrared grism spectrograms of faint galaxies. The authors describe the observing strategy, the Grizli-based reduction, sensitivity estimates, and several illustrative science applications (star-forming main sequence at z~1-2, Balmer-decrement dust measurements, extreme emission-line galaxies, gas-phase mass-metallicity relation, and high-redshift Ly-alpha/Lyman-break searches). The survey's stated advantages are unbiased spectroscopic selection without photometric preselection, many independent fields to beat cosmic variance, full 1.0-2.3 micron coverage, and public data with promised high-level products.

Significance. If the survey performs as described, PASSAGE will be a major community resource: it is the largest NIRISS grism survey of faint galaxies, provides unbiased (modulo source detection) selection, and covers a wide redshift range with multiple rest-frame optical diagnostics. The paper's sensitivity predictions are checked against the ETC and against published NIRISS grism data, which is a concrete strength. The public-data commitment and planned HLSP release add legacy value. However, the headline claims of unbiased selection and extension to M* ~ 10^7 Msun at z~2 are not yet backed by a quantified selection function; the paper's own Figure 6 admits incompleteness at M* ~ 10^8. This is a load-bearing gap for a survey-overview paper making those claims, and it should be addressed before acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and §4.3] The claim that PASSAGE 'selects an emission-line flux-limited sample of galaxies, rather than a continuum-flux limited sample' (§4.3) is not yet supported. Section 3 states that Grizli identifies sources by running SEP on direct images with detection thresholds mAB = 26-30 and models spectra only for those detected sources. Thus genuinely high-EW galaxies whose continuum plus line flux falls below the direct-image threshold are not present in the standard products; the survey is jointly line- and continuum-flux limited. Please provide injection/recovery simulations that quantify selection as a function of emission-line flux, rest-frame EW, stellar mass, and local crowding, or explicitly reframe the survey claim as 'unbiased modulo direct-source detection.'
  2. [§3, final paragraph] The reduction depends on human intervention: Grizli 'picks up a significant number of artifacts ... which must be removed by (our) human intervention,' and overlapping spectra are often over-subtracted to negative flux. This undocumented editing step can in principle remove real objects, especially in crowded fields such as the 18 COSMOS fields. No inter-rater test, artifact rate, or recovery fraction is given. Please quantify the completeness/reliability of the human-edited sample, or state explicitly that the current high-level products are not selection-function corrected. This is needed before the 'unbiased' language in the Abstract and §5 is used.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6 states that 'flux incompleteness at low masses (M* ~ 10^8 M_sun) flattens the slope of the relation,' yet the Abstract and §4.1-4.2 claim that PASSAGE 'extends the mass regimes down to 10^7 M_sun at z~2.' As presented, the low-mass extension is an uncorrected detection, not a measurement; without completeness corrections the SFMS slope and dust-attenuation trends below ~10^9 M_sun are not secure. Please separate the survey-forecast reach from the currently demonstrated sample, and either apply completeness corrections or clearly identify which statements are predictions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'timscale' (§4.1), 'redenning' (§4.1), 'ration' (Figure 15), and the title appears as 'P ASSAGE' in the full text. These should be corrected.
  2. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: Atek et al. 2014a and 2014b appear to be the same paper, and He et al. 2024 is listed twice with identical bibliographic data. Please consolidate.
  3. [§2 and Figures 1-3] The text says the survey covers 'several dozen independent fields,' but 18 of the 63 fields lie within the COSMOS footprint and overlap on the sky. This should be qualified as 'independent sight lines' rather than fully independent fields, and the implications for cosmic-variance estimates should be stated.
  4. [Figure 4] The sensitivity figure would benefit from explicit labels of the representative fields and exposure times in the caption; currently the reader must infer which curves correspond to which integration times from the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: PASSAGE is an observational survey overview; the quoted sensitivity predictions, line-flux forecasts, and science examples rest on external calibrations and forward-modeled sensitivity, not on fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This paper is a survey overview rather than a derivation chain. The central claims are observational counts (more than ten thousand grism spectrograms), survey design properties (63 high-latitude fields, no photometric pre-selection), and forward-modeled sensitivity estimates. The sensitivity limits in Section 2 and Figure 4 are derived from the JWST Exposure Time Calculator and are independently checked against published NIRISS grism spectroscopy (Boyett et al. 2022), not against PASSAGE's own fitted values. The yield prediction in Figure 5 is a survey-sensitivity extrapolation, and the paper states it is "confirmed by our detailed inspection of the first PASSAGE fields," which is an empirical check rather than a circular validation. Science quantities are anchored to external calibrations: SFRs are computed with Kennicutt & Evans (2012), metallicities with Curti et al. (2017), and dust attenuation with Cardelli et al. (1989) and Gordon et al. (2003). None of these external inputs is derived from the PASSAGE results being presented. Self-citations to WISP and related prior work (e.g., Malkan & WISP Team 2013; Henry et al. 2021; Battisti et al. 2022) are used as comparison samples or literature context, not as load-bearing proof of PASSAGE's own claims. The paper itself flags genuine limitations: about two-thirds of the planned time was executed, Grizli artifacts require human intervention and removal (Section 3), and the Figure 6 caption admits flux incompleteness near M* ~ 10^8 Msun. These are completeness and selection-function risks that may affect the scientific interpretation, but they are not instances of a prediction reducing to its input by construction or of a fitted parameter being renamed a prediction. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to another by definition, and no central claim is supported solely by a self-citation. Under the standard that circularity requires a demonstrated reduction or equivalence, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. Its central claims depend on the external calibrations and instrument models listed above, plus the completeness of the executed field sample.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption NIRISS grism sensitivity, transmission, and flux calibration as delivered by the ETC and NGDEEP calibration files are correct.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and Section 3 to set the 5-sigma line sensitivity of 3-4e-18 erg/s/cm2 and to flux the spectra; the paper notes up to 20% systematic flux uncertainty.
  • domain assumption External calibrations relating emission lines to physical properties (Kennicutt & Evans 2012 for SFR, Curti et al. 2017 for metallicity, Faisst et al. 2018 for [NII]/H-alpha, Cardelli et al. 1989 for extinction) are valid for this galaxy population.
    Used throughout Section 4 to convert line fluxes to SFR, reddening, and metallicity; not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.3.
    Stated in Section 2.2 and used for luminosity distances and SFR limits.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution (PASSAGE): Survey Overview." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCU6YNFK

@misc{pith2026250900596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution (PASSAGE): Survey Overview},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCU6YNFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00596}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

During the second half of Cycle 1 of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), we conducted the Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution (PASSAGE) program. PASSAGE received the largest allocation of JWST observing time in Cycle 1, 591 hours of NIRISS observations to obtain direct near-IR imaging and slitless spectroscopy. About two thirds of these were ultimately executed, to observe 63 high-latitude fields in Pure Parallel mode. These have provided more than ten thousand near-infrared grism spectrograms of faint galaxies. PASSAGE brings unique advantages in studying galaxy evolution: A) Unbiased spectroscopic search, without prior photometric pre-selection. By including the most numerous galaxies, with low masses and strong emission lines, slitless spectroscopy is the indispensable complement to any pre-targeted spectroscopy; B) The combination of several dozen independent fields to overcome cosmic variance; C) Near-infrared spectral coverage, often spanning the full range from 1.0--2.3 $\mu$m, with minimal wavelength gaps, to measure multiple diagnostic rest-frame optical lines, minimizing sensitivity to dust reddening; D) JWST's unprecedented spatial resolution, in some cases using two orthogonal grism orientations, to overcome contamination due to blending of overlapping spectra; E) Discovery of rare bright objects especially for detailed JWST followup. PASSAGE data are public immediately, and our team plans to deliver fully-processed high-level data products. In this PASSAGE overview, we describe the survey and data quality, and present examples of these accomplishments in several areas of current interest in the evolution of emission-line galaxy properties, particularly at low masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00596 by Adam J. Burgasser, Alaina L. Henry, Alberto Saldana-Lopez, Anahita Alavi, Andrew Bunker, Andrew J. Battisti, Axel Runnholm, Ayan Acharyya, Benedetta Vulcani, Caitlin Casey, Charlotte Mason, Clea Hannahs, Daniel Masters, Farhanul Hasan, Guido Roberts-Borsani, Hakim Atek, Harry Teplitz, Henry McCracken, Hollis Akins, Ivano Baronchelli, Jacob Levine, James Colbert, Jeyhan Kartaltepe, Kalina Nedkova, Kasper Borello Schmidt, Keunho J. Kim, Kit Boyett, Marc Rafelski, Marko Shuntov, Marusa Bradac, Mason Huberty, Matthew A. Malkan, Matthew James Hayes, Max Franco, Michael James Rutkowski, Michele Trenti, Nicha Leethochawalit, Nuo Chen, Peter J. Watson, Santosh Harish, Sean Tyler Bruton, Sijia Li, Takahiro Morishita, Tommaso Treu, Vihang Mehta, Vivasvaan Aditya Raj, Xin Wang, Yiaxiao Liu, Y. Sophia Dai, Yu-Heng Lin, Zahra Sattari Claudia Scarlata, Zhuyun Zhuang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sky locations of the final observed 63 PASSAGE fields, shown in Equatorial coordinates. Note that some fields overlap on the scale of this diagram. In particular, the 18 PASSAGE fields in the COSMOS field all overlap in a single yellow box in this low-resolution sky map. These are resolved in the COSMOS region zoom shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Zoom-in on PASSAGE fields located in and around the COSMOS field. The background is the Hubble ACS mosaic of the COSMOS field (Scoville et al. 2007; Koekemoer et al. 2007), along with the deep CANDELS survey as red outline (Grogin et al. 2011; Koekemoer et al. 2011). The orange outline shows the UltraVISTA imaging survey footprint of the COSMOS field (McCracken et al. 2012). The blue and green outline is t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pie chart showing the distribution of overlap percentages across different JWST filters (F115W, F150W, F200W) used in PASSAGE. The inner ring divides the observations into 1-, 2-, and 3-filter spectra. The outer rings further separate these observations into those observed with a single grism (“1 PA”, signifying that the spectra are dispersed at a single position angle), and those observed with both the GR… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emission Line flux sensitivity in typical PASSAGE observations. The 5-σ detection limits, in erg/sec/cm2 are shown for point sources in several representative fields, with integration times ranging from our shortest to our longest exposures. fluxes may sometimes be systematically uncertain by up to 20%. The fluxing uncertainty is worse at the blue and red edges of each spectrum. Grizli does not accurately … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total predicted multiple emission line NIRISS galaxies for the 63 fields from PASSAGE, Cycle 1. All lines are detected at 5σ. The height of each box is the expected number of emitters and the width is the span of redshift. Each box is labeled with the set of multiple emission lines it represents. Not all possible line combinations are shown. There will also be many more multiple emission line sources where… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Massive galaxies follow the main sequence SFR-M⋆ relation (SFMS) at z ≈ 1, but low-mass galaxies scatter upward to very high Hα equivalent widths. Flux incompleteness at low-masses (M⋆ ∼ 108M⊙) flattens the slope of the relation. In addition to expanding the low-mass sample size by an order of magnitude, PASSAGE extends the mass regimes down to 107M⊙ at z ∼ 2. The colored squares show detections from a sin… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlation of gas extinction (i.e., from Balmer decrement) with stellar mass. Error bars show the statistical uncertainties. Most PASSAGE dwarf galaxies have small or negligible extinction, but a significant minority are substantially dusty. On average, our new low-mass galaxies continue the trends found in somewhat more massive galaxies by the WISP survey and substantially more massive galaxies in MOSDEF… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the reddening on the stellar continuum UV slope based on an SED fit, βSED (Fλ ∝ λ β rest; 1258˚A ≤ λrest ≤ 2580˚A),relative to the Balmer decrement, Hα/Hβ for two galaxies at z = 1.9 in Par28. Left panels show an SED fit (black line) to COSMOS2020 photometry (red symbols; Weaver et al. 2022) using MAGPHYS (da Cunha et al. 2008; Battisti et al. 2020, mainly to demonstrate the wide rest-frame S… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of an extreme emission line galaxy (EELG) from the Par 1 field. The upper left panel shows the broadband direct image, 1.28′′ on a side (32 × 32 pixels at 0.04′′/pixel), drizzled with grizli and oriented with North up. The lower rectangular panel shows the two-dimensional spectrogram at the native 0.066′′/pixel scale, and the upper right displays the extracted one-dimensional spectrum. The flux sca… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Another example of an extreme emission line galaxy, displayed in the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A line-rich EELG from the Par 28 field, shown in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A clumpy or interacting EELG from Par 28, displayed in the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A compact galaxy at z ≈ 3 from Par 28, shown in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A high-redshift (z ≈ 4.6) compact galaxy from Par 28, shown in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: PASSAGE measurements of the reddening-sensitive Balmer to Paschen emission line ratio in a small sample of galaxies at z ≤ 0.7. These are plotted as a function of Hα line flux, in cgs units. The dotted horizontal line shows the predicted intrinsic ration of Hα/Paβ for Case B recombination with no extinction AHα = 0. Some detections and upper limits are consistent with the Hα to Paβ ratio of 10, which is e… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gas-phase mass-metallicity relation of individual galaxies from one PASSAGE field compared to stacked results from the literature (Curti et al. 2017; Sanders et al. 2021; Henry et al. 2021; Li et al. 2022; Curti et al. 2023). A single PASSAGE field already extends the relation to low stellar mass objects at 1.7 ≤ z ≤ 3.4. Prior to JWST, these regimes had not been constrained because of the low number and … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: PASSAGE is able to measure Lyα emission (LAE) with rest-frame EW > 50˚A in spectroscopically confirmed z > 8 galaxies. The lower left-side panel shows simulated z = 8.2 LAE spectra with mF115W = 27.5 (deep) with rest-frame EW(Lyα) of 30 ˚A (top row) and 50 ˚A (middle row). These are predicted to have clear Lyα detections. The bottom sub-panel shows the simulated 1D spectra along with their noise for a ran… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: PASSAGE can distinguish between z > 8 Lyman break galaxies (LBG) and low-redshift contaminants. A simulated z = 8.2 LBG is shown in the top row, detected by its Lyman-alpha break (rest-frame 1216˚A) in the deep observations. The slitless 2D spectra for the F115W, F150W, F200W filters run from left to right. The spatial (vertical) scale is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56 Amor ´ ın, R., Fontana, A., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al

    Alavi, A., Siana, B., Richard, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56 Amor ´ ın, R., Fontana, A., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0052, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0052

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/56 2016

  2. [2]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/104

    Atek, H., Malkan, M., McCarthy, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/104 2010

  3. [3]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/121

    Atek, H., Siana, B., Scarlata, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/121 2011

  4. [4]

    2014a, ApJ, 789, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96 —

    Atek, H., Kneib, J.-P., Pacifici, C., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 789, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96 —. 2014b, ApJ, 789, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/96

  5. [5]

    E., Trump, J

    Backhaus, B. E., Trump, J. R., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1520

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1520 2024

  6. [6]

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

    Bagley, M. B., Scarlata, C., Henry, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/11 2017

  7. [7]

    B., Scarlata, C., Mehta, V., et al

    Bagley, M. B., Scarlata, C., Mehta, V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9828 20 Malkan et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9828 2020

  8. [8]

    M., Maiolino, R., Belfiore, F., et al

    Baker, W. M., Maiolino, R., Belfiore, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3594

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3594 2023

  9. [9]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  10. [10]

    J., da Cunha, E., Shivaei, I., & Calzetti, D

    Battisti, A. J., da Cunha, E., Shivaei, I., & Calzetti, D. 2020, ApJ, 888, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdd 2020

  11. [11]

    J., Bagley, M

    Battisti, A. J., Bagley, M. B., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1052

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1052 2022

  12. [12]

    J., Bagley, M

    Battisti, A. J., Bagley, M. B., Rafelski, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae911

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae911 2024

  13. [13]

    D., Davies, F

    Becker, G. D., Davies, F. B., Furlanetto, S. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacc73

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacc73 2018

  14. [14]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  15. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f17

    Boyett, K., Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f17 2022

  16. [16]

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

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2430 Bradaˇ c, M., Strait, V., Mowla, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e73

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2430 2024

  17. [17]

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

    Brammer, G. 2023, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146904

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1146904 2023

  18. [18]

    J., Warren, S

    Bunker, A. J., Warren, S. J., Hewett, P. C., & Clements, D. L. 1995, On Near-Infrared H-Alpha Searches for High-Redshift Galaxies, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/273.2.513

    doi:10.1093/mnras/273.2.513 1995

  19. [19]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  20. [20]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  21. [21]

    C., McLure, R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  22. [22]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  23. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20cc

    Chen, N., Motohara, K., Spitler, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad20cc 2024

  24. [24]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Colbert, J., Mehta, V., Alavi, A., et al. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 56, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 325.02

    2024

  25. [25]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2766 2017

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., & Elbaz, D

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., & Elbaz, D. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1595, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Dav´ e, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., &

    arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx108 2017

  28. [28]

    2024, snowblind, 0.2.1

    Davies, J. 2024, snowblind, 0.2.1. https://github.com/mpi-astronomy/snowblind De Rossi, M. E., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., Schaye, J., &

    2024

  29. [29]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2158

    Theuns, T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2158

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2158 2017

  30. [30]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Dom ´ ınguez, A., Siana, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1001 Dom ´ ınguez, A., Siana, B., Henry, A. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/145

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  31. [31]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b 2023

  32. [32]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJL, 672, L107, doi: 10.1086/527296

    doi:10.1086/527296 2008

  33. [33]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1368 Euclid Collaboration, Gabarra, L., Mancini, C., et al

    Estrada-Carpenter, V., Sawicki, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1368 Euclid Collaboration, Gabarra, L., Mancini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346177

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1368 2024

  34. [34]

    L., Masters, D., Wang, Y., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Masters, D., Wang, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1fc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab1fc 2018

  35. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5713

    Gburek, T., Siana, B., Alavi, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5713

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5713 2019

  36. [37]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    doi:10.1086/376774 2003

  37. [38]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  38. [40]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

    He, X., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd 2024

  39. [41]

    2013, ApJL, 776, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L27

    Henry, A., Scarlata, C., Dom ´ ınguez, A., et al. 2013, ApJL, 776, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L27

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/l27 2013

  40. [42]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1105

    Henry, A., Rafelski, M., Sunnquist, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1105

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1105 2021

  41. [43]

    Hicks, E. K. S., Malkan, M. A., Teplitz, H. I., McCarthy, P. J., & Yan, L. 2002, ApJ, 581, 205, doi: 10.1086/344224

    work page doi:10.1086/344224 2002

  42. [44]

    A., et al

    Kashikawa, N., Shimasaku, K., Malkan, M. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 7, doi: 10.1086/504966

    work page doi:10.1086/504966 2006

  43. [45]

    2011, ApJ, 734, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/119

    Kashikawa, N., Shimasaku, K., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/119

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/119 2011

  44. [46]

    Kennicutt, R. C., J. 1983, ApJ, 272, 54, doi: 10.1086/161261 PASSAGE Overview 21

    doi:10.1086/161261 1983

  45. [47]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  46. [48]

    C., & Evans, N

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  47. [49]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086

    doi:10.1086/520086 2007

  48. [50]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  49. [51]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  50. [52]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01382, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.01382

    Li, M., Cai, Z., Bian, F., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01382, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.01382

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.01382 2022

  51. [53]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 2013

  52. [54]

    E., et al

    Lorenz, B., Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de8 2024

  53. [55]

    A., Kashikawa, N., et al

    Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/63 —. 2007, ApJ, 657, 738, doi: 10.1086/510828

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/63 2012

  54. [56]

    A., Treu, T., et al

    Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Treu, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1410, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1410

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1410 2009

  55. [57]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2659

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2659 2016

  56. [58]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  57. [59]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3685

    Maheson, G., Maiolino, R., Curti, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3685

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3685 2024

  58. [60]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  59. [61]

    2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Malkan, M., & WISP Team. 2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 477, Galaxy Mergers in an Evolving Universe, ed. W. H. Sun, C. K

    2013

  60. [62]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    arXiv 2010

  61. [63]

    J., Yan, L., Freudling, W., et al

    McCarthy, P. J., Yan, L., Freudling, W., et al. 1999, ApJ, 520, 548, doi: 10.1086/307491

    doi:10.1086/307491 1999

  62. [64]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 2012

  63. [65]

    V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al

    Nedkova, K. V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1744

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1744 2021

  64. [66]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    doi:10.1086/517926 2007

  65. [67]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., & Smith, G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95

    doi:10.1093/mnras/189.1.95 1979

  66. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429c

    Pirzkal, N., Rothberg, B., Papovich, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad429c 2024

  67. [69]

    2023, NIRISS Commissioning Results: NIS-015 – NIRISS GR150C R Flux Calibration (NGAS CAR-699, APT 1089), Technical Report JWST-STScI-008328, STScI, Baltimore

    Ravindranath, S., et al. 2023, NIRISS Commissioning Results: NIS-015 – NIRISS GR150C R Flux Calibration (NGAS CAR-699, APT 1089), Technical Report JWST-STScI-008328, STScI, Baltimore

    2023

  68. [70]

    A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A

    Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 259, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/259

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/259 2015

  69. [71]

    A., Shapley, A

    Reddy, N. A., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb674

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb674 2020

  70. [72]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c Rihtarˇ siˇ c, G., Bradaˇ c, M., Desprez, G., et al

    Revalski, M., Rafelski, M., Henry, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c Rihtarˇ siˇ c, G., Bradaˇ c, M., Desprez, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451117

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c 2024

  71. [73]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e6e

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Morishita, T., Treu, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e6e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e6e 2022

  72. [74]

    The BoRG-JWST Survey: Program Overview and First Confirmations of Luminous Reionization-Era Galaxies from Pure-Parallel Observations

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Bagley, M., Rojas-Ruiz, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.17551

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.17551 2024

  73. [75]

    J., Mehta, V., et al

    Runnholm, A., Hayes, M. J., Mehta, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc008

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc008 2025

  74. [76]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 61, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18823.x

    Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Wang, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 61, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18823.x

    arXiv 2011

  75. [77]

    C., Dav´ e, R., & Dickinson, M

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Dav´ e, R., & Dickinson, M. 2015, ApJ, 808, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/25 2015

  76. [78]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbd 2018

  77. [79]

    L., Jones, T., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Jones, T., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5d40

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5d40 2020

  78. [80]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 2021

  79. [81]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    doi:10.1086/516585 2007

  80. [82]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.03241, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.03241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.03241 2023

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.