Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A compact galaxy at z=4.444 appears to be leaking most of its ionizing radiation, with escape fractions of 75–82 percent.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:34 UTC pith:TR72JJGR

load-bearing objection A serious z>4 LyC candidate with real independent detections, but the headline f_esc values rest on truncated MC and a single-line redshift. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.01487 v3 pith:TR72JJGR submitted 2026-03-02 astro-ph.GA

LCEz4-M1: A Lyman Continuum Emitter Candidate at z = 4.444 in the MUSE Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Shuairu Zhu , Zhen-Ya Zheng , Fuyan Bian , Fang-Ting Yuan , Chunyan Jiang , Xiaer Zhang , Ruqiu Lin , Yucheng Guo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman continuum emittersescape fractionLyman-alpha galaxiesreionizationhigh-redshift galaxiesMUSE Hubble Ultra Deep FieldJWST/NIRCamSED fitting
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.

LCEz4-M1 is a compact galaxy at redshift z=4.444 whose Lyman-continuum (ionizing) emission is detected independently in HST/ACS F435W imaging and VLT/MUSE spectroscopy, at about 3.7σ and 2.8–3.0σ. The paper argues this makes it one of the highest-redshift Lyman-continuum emitter candidates known, and infers conservative lower-limit escape fractions of 0.82 and 0.75 under maximum intergalactic-medium transmission. Under the preferred JWST-based interpretation the galaxy is not an extreme compact starburst; its low Lyα equivalent width, weak optical nebular lines, and recent decline in star formation point to a post-burst, geometry-dominated leaking phase. If correct, this is a direct example of a reionization-era galaxy letting most of its ionizing photons out, which matters for understanding what reionized the universe.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LCEz4-M1 is a genuine Lyman-continuum emitter at z=4.444. The redshift rests on a single asymmetric emission line at 6620 Å interpreted as Lyα; the low-redshift alternatives ([OII] at z≈0.78 and [OIII] at z≈0.32) are argued against by the line profile and by non-detections of the expected companion lines. The ionizing signal is seen in F435W (rest-frame ~660–900 Å) and in the MUSE spectrum (rest-frame 864–912 Å), spatially coincident with the JWST/NIRCam continuum within astrometric uncertainty, and an empirical false-positive test over control LAEs gives a joint false-positive chance of roughly 0.05%. With maximum IGM transmission, the inferred escape fract

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the identification of the 6620 Å line as Lyα, which shifts the Lyman limit to ~4960 Å so that HST F435W and MUSE probe rest-frame 660–912 Å ionizing light. The escape-fraction estimator combines the observed 1500 Å-to-LyC flux ratio with an intrinsic luminosity ratio from stellar-population synthesis, dust attenuation, and an assumed maximum IGM transmission of T_IGM=0.3334; a Monte Carlo propagation yields the lower-limit values. The line's asymmetric red-skewed profile, the centroid match between Lyα narrowband and continuum image, and the non-detection of [OIII] under the [OII] hypothesis carry the redshift argument.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 6620 Å line is Lyα at z=4.444; if it were [OII] at z≈0.78 (or [OIII] at z≈0.32), the F435W/MUSE signal would be ordinary rest-UV continuum from a low-redshift galaxy and the Lyman-continuum interpretation would collapse.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic observation that detects [OIII] λ5007 and Hβ at z=4.444 would confirm the line identification, while detection of a resolved [OII] doublet at z≈0.78 with the correct 2.7 Å separation, or the expected [OIII] lines at the [OII] redshift, would refute it. On the LyC side, a deeper F435W image or MUSE exposure showing the 3.7σ/3.0σ fluxes are PSF artifacts, background fluctuations, or contamination from the nearby foreground source would refute the detection.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If LCEz4-M1 is a genuine z=4.444 leaker, star-forming galaxies near the end of reionization can channel most of their ionizing photons into the intergalactic medium rather than absorbing them internally.
  • The high inferred escape fractions make this source an anchor point for calibrating indirect LyC diagnostics (like Lyα equivalent width and line ratios) at redshifts where direct LyC detection is usually impossible.
  • The post-burst interpretation implies that some high-redshift LCEs will be missed by selection criteria that require extreme starburst or high-EW emission-line signatures.
  • The joint false-positive probability of about 0.05% across two independent data sets strengthens the case for a small population of z>4 LCEs discoverable in deep archival data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the single-line redshift is the hinge; a decisive test would be deep spectroscopy targeting Hβ and [OIII] at z=4.444, or the [OII] doublet at z≈0.78, both within reach of JWST/NIRSpec at this source's brightness.
  • Editorial inference: if the post-burst picture is right, the galaxy's LyC output should decline on ~10 Myr timescales as the burst ages; comparing the F435W flux to the same measurement in a few years would test whether the leakage is transient.
  • Editorial inference: the source sits near several fainter galaxies and a possible companion; a larger sample of z>4 LCEs could test whether local overdensities are a precondition for LyC escape, since tidal interactions may clear neutral gas along the line of sight.
  • Editorial inference: the independent re-reduction of archival HST data with substantially higher S/N suggests the field may contain more such leakers than current shallow reductions underestimate; a systematic re-reduction of F435W in deep fields could raise the census.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Lyman-continuum (LyC) emitter candidate at z=4.444, LCEz4-M1, identified from a single asymmetric emission line at 6620 Å in the MUSE-HUDF data cube and interpreted as Lyα. The LyC signal is claimed to be detected independently in HST/ACS F435W at ~3.7σ and in the MUSE spectrum at ~2.8–3.0σ, with a contemporaneous independent analysis reporting a 10.3σ F435W detection. Using a Monte Carlo approach with maximum IGM transmission, the authors derive lower-limit escape fractions f_esc(F435W)=0.82 and f_esc(MUSE)=0.75. The paper further characterizes the source with JWST/NIRCam SED fitting, morphology, and environment, and interprets it as a possible post-burst LyC leaker. The central claim is explicitly conditional on the Lyα identification: if the 6620 Å line is instead [OII] at z≈0.78 or [OIII] at z≈0.32, the LyC interpretation collapses.

Significance. If the redshift identification holds, LCEz4-M1 would be among the highest-redshift LyC emitter candidates known, providing a valuable datapoint for understanding LyC escape near the reionization epoch. The paper's strengths include the independent detection of LyC flux in two datasets, an empirical false-positive control using 29 matched LAEs, and an explicit acknowledgment of key model dependencies. The authors also cite and engage a contemporaneous independent analysis reporting a much higher F435W significance. These features make the LyC detection itself plausible and worth pursuing. However, the scientific impact is heavily moderated by two load-bearing caveats that the paper itself states: the redshift rests on a single emission line with no secure independent confirmation, and the escape-fraction Monte Carlo must be truncated at f_esc<1 because more than 90% of draws imply f_esc>1 under the fiducial model. The physical interpretation (post-burst, low Σ_SFR) is also contingent on a JWST-only SED fit that is in open tension with the HST photometry. The candidate status is defensible, but the quantitative f_esc values and the post-burst scenario need substantial revision before

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Redshift Validation] The redshift is the foundation of the entire LyC interpretation, yet it rests on a single emission line at 6620 Å identified as Lyα. The supporting high-ionization lines (SiIV+OIV], CIV) are only ~2σ and are dismissed as likely false positives, while the JADES photometric redshift is z_phot=0.42. The low-redshift alternatives are rejected mainly by non-detections of [OIII]λ4959 (for the z≈0.32 [OIII] scenario) and [OIII]λ5007 (for the z≈0.78 [OII] scenario), and by a line-profile fit whose resolving power (R≈1800, ~170 km/s) is comparable to the [OII] doublet separation (~224 km/s). Given that the paper itself states in §3.1 that the available evidence favors Lyα only 'if the emission line originates from LCEz4-M1 itself,' the summary statement in §5 that the redshift is 'confirmed' is too strong. The authors should provide a quantitative model comparison on existing data—e.g., SED fits
  2. [§4.1, Escape Fraction Monte Carlo] The escape-fraction estimation is not a statistically valid posterior. The text states that with maximum IGM transmission, 'many mock SED realizations imply f_esc>1' and that the quoted medians come from the physically allowed subset with f_esc<1, comprising only 2.52% (F435W) and 5.53% (MUSE) of the MC samples. Truncating at f_esc=1 when the majority of the posterior mass lies above unity biases all quoted values upward and makes the stated uncertainties meaningless. The problem is not merely cosmetic: with the adopted maximum T_IGM, a conservative lower limit should not exceed unity; the fact that >90% of draws do exceed unity indicates an internal inconsistency between the observed LyC-to-UV ratio and the fiducial stellar-population/dust model. The authors should report the untruncated distribution, the fraction of draws with f_esc>1, and a sensitivity analysis to T_IGM and the intrin
  3. [§4.2–4.4, HST/JWST Photometric Tension and Physical Interpretation] The fiducial physical properties—age 45.9 Myr, E(B−V)=0.049, Σ_SFR=0.38, and the resulting post-burst interpretation—are derived exclusively from JWST-only photometry after excluding HLF ACS fluxes because of a systematic tension in the 0.8–1.6 μm overlap region. The HST-only fit gives a qualitatively different solution (age 5.9 Myr, E(B−V)=0.186, Σ_SFR=6.59), and the paper does not identify the cause of the tension. Section 4.4 explicitly concedes that the post-burst scenario 'depends on adopting the fiducial JWST-only photometry.' This does not invalidate the LyC detection, but it undermines the physical characterization that is a major part of the paper's conclusions. The authors should either perform a combined fit with an explicit photometric-offset parameter to quantify the tension, or present both SED solutions symmetrically and downgrade the post-burst and Σ_SFR claims accordingl
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, MUSE LyC measurement] The text mentions that contamination from the nearby source HLF ID 109498 may affect the MUSE spectral extraction, but provides no quantitative estimate. Since the MUSE LyC significance is only 2.8–3.0σ, please estimate the contamination fraction or justify that it is negligible for the adopted aperture.
  2. [Table 1, HST-only SFR values] The HST-only SFR_10Myr and SFR_100Myr are identical (12.38±9.31), implying a ratio of exactly 1. This is likely an artifact of the SFH prior; please clarify whether this is intentional and what it means for the HST-only SFH constraints.
  3. [§4.1, Equation (1)] The flux-density ratio (f_1500/f_LyC) should be defined explicitly as per-unit-frequency or per-unit-wavelength; the text uses mixed notation (e.g., f_λ in Table 1 vs. f_1500 in the equation). Please make the units consistent throughout.
  4. [§3.2, False-positive test] The joint false-positive probability of 0.0479% is derived by assuming independence between F435W and MUSE. Given that both probes trace the same physical LyC emission and share astrometric/systematic errors, the independence assumption should be stated more cautiously.
  5. [Facilities list] The facilities line includes 'Spizter (IRAC)' but no Spitzer data are used in the analysis. Please correct the typo or remove the entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LyC detection and f_esc derivation are independent of the SED fit, and the single-line redshift weakness is acknowledged, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a z=4.444 Lyman-continuum candidate with high escape fraction—does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The LyC signal is detected independently in HST/ACS F435W and in the MUSE spectrum, with a spatial coincidence check against JWST/NIRCam F200W and an empirical false-positive test against 29 control LAEs. The escape fraction is computed from observed F435W/F814W and MUSE flux ratios combined with an intrinsic luminosity ratio from the fiducial JWST-only CIGALE SED, which explicitly excludes F435W; the LyC flux is therefore not fitted when deriving the quantity used to interpret it. The redshift identification rests on a single asymmetric emission line, and the paper explicitly considers and argues against the low-redshift [OIII] and [OII] alternatives using line-profile fitting and non-detections. This is a genuine observational weakness—if the line were [OII] or [OIII], the LyC interpretation would collapse—but it is not circular reasoning, because the LyC measurement is not used to establish the Lyα identification. Self-citations (Zhu et al. 2024, 2025; Yuan et al. 2021) are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing for the detection or escape fraction; the contemporaneous independent analysis by Goovaerts et al. (2026) provides external corroboration. The post-burst interpretation is explicitly flagged as depending on the fiducial JWST-only photometry, and the paper acknowledges the HST-only alternative. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on the single-line Lyα identification and the assumption that the F435W/MUSE LyC fluxes are uncontaminated. The escape-fraction estimate additionally depends on the adopted IGM transmission, stellar population models, and a post-hoc restriction to f_esc<1 that discards most of the MC posterior.

free parameters (2)
  • IGM transmission T_IGM = 0.3334 (fixed to maximum of Steidel et al. 2018 prescription)
    Chosen by hand to maximize IGM transmission; directly scales f_esc in Eq. 1. The true line-of-sight transmission is unknown and likely lower, which pushes f_esc above 1 for most MC draws.
  • Intrinsic L1500/LLyC ratio = not tabulated; derived from fiducial JWST-only CIGALE posterior
    The f_esc estimate depends on this model-derived ratio; it is not directly observable and varies with assumed stellar population, IMF, SFH, and dust prescriptions.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The 6620 Å emission line is Lyα at z=4.444 (single-line redshift).
    Line is detected at ~11σ and asymmetric; alternative [OIII]/[OII] interpretations are disfavored by missing companion lines and profile fits, but no other secure rest-UV lines confirm the redshift (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption IGM transmission follows the Steidel et al. (2018) prescription with maximum T_IGM=0.3334 at z≈4.5.
    Used to convert observed LyC/UV ratio to f_esc (Eq. 1); the actual sightline transmission is unknown and the maximum value is adopted to make f_esc a lower limit.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (BPASS v2.2 with binaries, Chabrier IMF) and CIGALE dust/SFH prescriptions describe the intrinsic UV and LyC output.
    The intrinsic L1500/LLyC ratio and dust attenuation in Eq. 1 come from these models, not from direct measurement (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption F435W and MUSE LyC fluxes are not significantly contaminated by nearby foreground sources or the faint companion.
    The paper tests centroid offsets and false-positive rates, but contamination cannot be fully excluded; aperture photometry and spectral extraction may be affected (Sections 3.1–3.2).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19067 in / 16453 out tokens · 117297 ms · 2026-08-02T19:34:57.785267+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LCEz4-M1: A Lyman Continuum Emitter Candidate at z = 4.444 in the MUSE Hubble Ultra Deep Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TR72JJGR

@misc{pith2026260301487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LCEz4-M1: A Lyman Continuum Emitter Candidate at z = 4.444 in the MUSE Hubble Ultra Deep Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TR72JJGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.01487}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

High-redshift Lyman continuum emitters (LCEs) are crucial for understanding how galaxies ionize the neutral hydrogen in the epoch of reionization. However, detected LCEs at $z>4$ are quite rare. Here we report an LCE candidate at $z = 4.444$, dubbed LCEz4-M1, which is one of the highest-redshift LCE candidates currently known. The redshift is determined from the Ly$\alpha$ emission line detected in the VLT/MUSE spectrum. The Lyman continuum (LyC) signal is detected independently in the \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} (HST) F435W image and the VLT/MUSE spectrum at significances of $\simeq3.7~\sigma$ and $\simeq2.8-3.0~\sigma$, respectively. The LyC centroid is spatially consistent with the JWST/NIRCam continuum within the astrometric uncertainty. Adopting the maximum IGM transmission, we infer conservative lower-limit escape fractions of $f_{\rm esc}({\rm F435W}) = 0.82^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ and $f_{\rm esc}({\rm MUSE}) = 0.75^{+0.18}_{-0.28}$. Using the combined JWST and MUSE data set, we characterize the physical properties and morphology of LCEz4-M1. In our fiducial JWST-only SED fit, the galaxy is compact but has a moderate current galaxy-integrated star formation surface density, $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}=0.38~M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr^{-1}\,kpc^{-2}}$, suggesting that it is not an extreme compact starburst under this fiducial interpretation. While we find no clear evidence for an ongoing major merger for LCEz4-M1, the presence of a faint companion ($\sim 0''5$) detected in the F277W band suggests a potential minor interaction. We also find that LCEz4-M1 may lie in a locally overdense region, although the environmental interpretation remains tentative. Finally, the low ${\rm SFR}_{10\,{\rm Myr}}/{\rm SFR}_{100\,{\rm Myr}}$ ratio, low Ly$\alpha$ EW, and relatively weak rest-frame optical emission lines of LCEz4-M1 may indicate a post-burst LyC-leaking phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01487 by Chunyan Jiang, Fang-Ting Yuan, Fuyan Bian, Ruqiu Lin, Shuairu Zhu, Xiaer Zhang, Yucheng Guo, Zhen-Ya Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: MUSE spectrum and multi-band cutouts of LCEz4-M1. (a) The full MUSE spectrum. No emission lines other than Lyα are detected. (b) The Lyα emission line in the MUSE spectrum. (c) The HST ACS/WFC F606W image, whose bandpass covers the Lyα line. (d) The Lyα narrowband image extracted from the MUSE data cube. (e) The HST ACS/WFC F435W cutout tracing the LyC emission. (f) The VLT/MUSE LyC narrowband image, smoot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SED fitting and HST/JWST cutouts of LCEz4-M1. (a) Comparison between the SED fits obtained using the HST-only and JWST-only photometry. Filled symbols show the observed photometry, open squares show the model-predicted fluxes, and the blue and red curves show the best-fit HST-only and JWST-only model spectra, respectively. The displayed fit statistics are χ 2 (HST) = 0.33 and χ 2 (JWST) = 1.10. (b) HST and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Morphological analysis of LCEz4-M1 using the JWST/NIRCam F200W data. Each stamp has a size of 2′′ ×2 ′′. The source is fitted both with a single-S´ersic model and with a two-component S´ersic model. The two rows show the fitting results for the single-component and two-component models, respectively. The reduced chi-squared values are similar for the two fits (χ 2 ν ≈ 0.5). Trebitsch et al. 2017). In this … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. An Updated Characterization of Luminous Ly{\alpha} emitters at the End of Reionization

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Luminous Lyα emitters at z≈6 are low-mass ultra-young dwarf starbursts with median Lyα escape fractions above 40 percent, driven by vigorous star formation and low dust content.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    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 Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Ba˜ n...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 2017

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 670, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187

    Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., Conseil, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 2023

  4. [4]

    2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  5. [5]

    2013, PSFEx: Point Spread Function Extractor,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 http://ascl.net/1301.001

    Bertin, E. 2013, PSFEx: Point Spread Function Extractor,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 http://ascl.net/1301.001

    2013

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L65, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa007

    Bian, F., & Fan, X. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L65, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa007

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa007 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  9. [9]

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

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., & Overzier, R. A. 2014, Science, 346, 216, doi: 10.1126/science.1254214

    doi:10.1126/science.1254214 2014

  10. [10]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/115 2014

  11. [11]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    2020, ApJL, 889, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6560

    Cen, R. 2020, ApJL, 889, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6560

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab6560 2020

  15. [15]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  16. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2874 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al

    Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2874 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2809-0

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2874 2022

  17. [17]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu531

    Pentericci, L. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu531

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu531 2014

  18. [18]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465 2023

  19. [19]

    A., Becker, R

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117, doi: 10.1086/504836

    doi:10.1086/504836 2006

  20. [20]

    J., Tang, M., Robertson, B

    Fletcher, T. J., Tang, M., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2045

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2045 2019

  21. [21]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022a, ApJS, 260, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5331

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5331

  22. [22]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 930, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

  23. [23]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04517

    Goovaerts, I., Rafelski, M., Beckett, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04517. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    2016, A&A, 585, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526396

    Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., Gerbasi, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526396

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526396 2016

  25. [25]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  26. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

    2015, Hubble Legacy Fields (HLF), Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST), doi: 10.17909/T91019

    Illingworth, G. 2015, Hubble Legacy Fields (HLF), Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST), doi: 10.17909/T91019

    work page doi:10.17909/t91019 2015

  29. [29]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00841

    Illingworth, G., Magee, D., Bouwens, R., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.00841 2016

  30. [30]

    D., Magee, D., Oesch, P

    Illingworth, G. D., Magee, D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6 2013

  31. [32]

    K., Matsuda, Y., et al

    Iwata, I., Inoue, A. K., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1287, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1287

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1287 2009

  32. [33]

    I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 474, 4514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3115

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3115

  33. [34]

    I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 478, 4851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1378

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1378

  34. [35]

    E., Schaerer, D., Gazagnes, S., et al

    Jaskot, A. E., Schaerer, D., Gazagnes, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad58b9 2024

  35. [36]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1890, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02676-7

    Jiang, D., Jiang, L., Sun, S., Liu, W., & Fu, S. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1890, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02676-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02676-7 2025

  36. [37]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    Jiang, L., Ning, Y., Fan, X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w 2022

  37. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3019

    Katz, H., Saxena, A., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3019

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3019 2023

  38. [39]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 13

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/121 2014

  39. [40]

    H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C., Li, I. H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 303, doi: 10.1086/342486

    doi:10.1086/342486 2002

  40. [41]

    J., Jonker, P

    Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., Saccardi, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1375, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02612-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02612-9 2025

  41. [42]

    F., et al

    Ma, X., Kasen, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1679

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1679 2015

  42. [43]

    A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al

    Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 2018

  43. [44]

    D., Mesinger, A., & D’Odorico, V

    McGreer, I. D., Mesinger, A., & D’Odorico, V. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2449

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2449 2015

  44. [45]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 2009

  45. [46]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 183, 244, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/244

    Nonino, M., Dickinson, M., Rosati, P., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 183, 244, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/244

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/244 2009

  46. [47]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  47. [48]

    J., Shapley, A

    Pahl, A. J., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1374

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1374 2021

  48. [49]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  49. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3214 2023

  50. [51]

    Z., Erb, D

    Prusinski, N. Z., Erb, D. K., & Martin, C. L. 2021, AJ, 161, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe85b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe85b 2021

  51. [52]

    I., Gardner, J

    Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., Gardner, J. P., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/31

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/31 2015

  52. [53]

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

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d 2023

  53. [54]

    Robertson, B. E. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 121, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120221-044656

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120221-044656 2022

  54. [55]

    Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 2015

  55. [56]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff5e

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff5e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adff5e 2025

  56. [57]

    2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Schaerer, D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141864 2022

  57. [58]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaefa

    Secunda, A., Cen, R., Kimm, T., & Gottlieb, O. 2020, ApJ, 901, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaefa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaefa 2020

  58. [59]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K. L., & Erb, D. K. 2006, ApJ, 651, 688, doi: 10.1086/507511

    doi:10.1086/507511 2006

  59. [60]

    I., Colbert, J., et al

    Siana, B., Teplitz, H. I., Colbert, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 62, doi: 10.1086/521185

    work page doi:10.1086/521185 2007

  60. [61]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1353 2018

  61. [62]

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

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed28

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed28 2018

  62. [63]

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

    Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 665, doi: 10.1086/318323

    doi:10.1086/318323 2001

  63. [64]

    I., et al

    Sun, L., Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5540

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5540 2024

  64. [65]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1060

    Slyz, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1060

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1060 2017

  65. [66]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1672, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16408.x

    Vanzella, E., Siana, B., Cristiani, S., & Nonino, M. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1672, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16408.x

    arXiv 2010

  66. [67]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly023

    Vanzella, E., Nonino, M., Cupani, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly023

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly023 2018

  67. [68]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  68. [69]

    M., Leitherer, C., et al

    Wang, B., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab418f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab418f 2019

  69. [70]

    E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853 2019

  70. [71]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf130 2023

  71. [72]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75ff

    Yuan, F.-T., Zheng, Z.-Y., Jiang, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad75ff 2024

  72. [73]

    Yuan, F.-T., Zheng, Z.-Y., Lin, R., Zhu, S., & Rahna, P. T. 2021, ApJL, 923, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4170

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4170 2021

  73. [74]

    2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 055020, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae4a05

    Zheng, Z.-Y., Xu, C., Liu, X., et al. 2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 055020, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae4a05

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae4a05 2026

  74. [75]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b18

    Zhu, S., Yuan, F.-T., Jiang, C., Zheng, Z.-Y., & Lin, R. 2024, ApJL, 974, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b18 2024

  75. [76]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc125

    Zhu, S., Zheng, Z.-Y., Yuan, F.-T., Jiang, C., & Lin, R. 2025, ApJL, 982, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc125

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc125 2025