Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 8 cited by

Hγ detection at z=10.5862 confirms the HeII 1640 clump near GN-z11 as the most distant candidate for pristine, Population III ionised gas.

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 17:45 UTC pith:2EZZORWA

load-bearing objection A solid new Hγ detection carries too much interpretive weight: the HeII line could be Hα from a foreground z≈2 galaxy, and the metallicity limit leans on an unpublished calibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.20360 v2 pith:2EZZORWA submitted 2026-03-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

GA-NIFS and JADES: Confirmation of pristine gas near GN-z11

Hannah \"Ubler , Roberto Maiolino , Pablo G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez , Yuki Isobe , Gareth C. Jones , Nimisha Kumari , St\'ephane Charlot , Elka Rusta
show 27 more authors
Stefania Salvadori Kimihiko Nakajima Michele Perna Santiago Arribas Andrew J. Bunker Stefano Carniani Francesco D'Eugenio Bruno Rodr\'iguez Del Pino Elena Bertola Torsten B\"oker Jacopo Chevallard Chiara Circosta Giovanni Cresci Mirko Curti Emma Curtis-Lake Daniel J. Eisenstein Kevin Hainline Benjamin D. Johnson Eleonora Parlanti Pierluigi Rinaldi Brant Robertson Jan Scholtz Sandro Tacchella Giacomo Venturi Christopher N. A. Willmer Joris Witstok Sandra Zamora
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords Population III starshigh-redshift galaxiesGN-z11HeII 1640gas-phase metallicityemission-line diagnosticsJWSTpristine gas
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.

This paper aims to settle whether a faint helium emission line near the galaxy GN-z11 came from a genuine, extremely metal-poor gas cloud or was an artifact. By detecting a second line, ionised hydrogen Hγ at S/N≈6 at the same position and redshift (z=10.5862±0.0003), the authors confirm the helium line is real and belongs to a compact clump they call 'Hebe'. With no detected lines from heavy elements, they derive a 3σ upper limit of 12+log(O/H)<6.96 (below 2% of solar metallicity) and argue that the emission pattern matches photoionisation by Population III stars, possibly mixed with PopII. If correct, Hebe is the most distant evidence yet for the first, metal-free stellar generation, 440 million years after the Big Bang.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the new JWST/NIRSpec G395H data deliver a decisive second line: Hγ at λ_obs=5.03 μm with S/N=5.9, at the exact position of the previously tentative HeII 1640 detection, and at a consistent redshift. Hδ is marginal (S/N~2). No metal lines are seen across rest-frame 0.25–0.45 μm, and the [NeIII]3870 non-detection gives 12+log(O/H)<6.96 (Z_gas<0.019 Z_sun). Comparing HeII/Hγ and EW0(Hγ)>350 Å to photoionisation grids, the authors conclude the gas is unlikely to be ionised by evolved PopII stars or an AGN-dominated source, and is instead compatible with self-polluted PopIII or a PopIII+PopII mixture. The inferred dynamical mass upper limit is <3×10^8 M_sun.

What carries the argument

The central object is the line-emitting clump 'Hebe' and its emission-line ratios. The argument turns on two diagnostics: HeII 1640/Hγ, a measure of ionising-spectrum hardness, versus [NeIII]3870/Hγ, a metallicity proxy, plus the equivalent width EW0(Hγ)>350 Å to discriminate against AGN. The confirmation itself rests on detecting a second hydrogen line at the same position and redshift as the claimed HeII, converting a one-line tentative detection into a secure redshift and line identification. The metallicity upper limit is set by the [NeIII]3870 3σ upper limit through a calibration (Isobe et al., in prep.) anchored on z≈1–10 galaxy stacks down to 12+log(O/H)~7 with CLOUDY extrapolation be

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the gas is nearly metal-free (less than 2% of solar) rests on an unpublished calibration converting the non-detection of [NeIII]3870 into an oxygen abundance, a calibration that is extrapolated below the most metal-poor galaxy stacks (12+log(O/H)~7) used to build it; if that extrapolation is off, the metallicity limit—and the PopIII comparison built on it—could collapse.

What would settle it

Deeper spectroscopy of Hebe that detects [NeIII]3870, [OIII]4364, or other metal lines above the current 3σ upper limits would push the gas-phase metallicity above 12+log(O/H)~7, invalidating the pristine-gas claim; alternatively, if a future spectrum shows that the Hγ line and the red HeII peak (C2) have different redshifts, the confirmation itself would fail.

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

If this is right

  • If Hebe is genuine PopIII or PopIII+PopII, it is the most distant signpost of first-generation stars, at z=10.5862, about 440 Myr after the Big Bang.
  • The metallicity upper limit of less than 2% of solar directly constrains early chemical enrichment and the timescales for the first supernovae.
  • The high EW0(Hγ)>350 Å effectively rules out a dominant AGN contribution, narrowing the possible ionising sources.
  • The confirmation implies that dual-line detections (HeII plus hydrogen recombination) are a viable route to find PopIII systems with JWST.
  • The derived dynamical mass upper limit of <3×10^8 M_sun is consistent with the low-mass halos expected to host PopIII clusters, linking observations to halo-mass predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unpublished metallicity calibration is biased below 12+log(O/H)~7, the quoted upper limit could be too low; the PopIII interpretation would then need independent metallicity anchors (e.g., rest-frame optical line ratios or direct Te) to hold.
  • The red HeII component (C2) matching Hγ and the blue component (C1) suggest multiple gas components or kinematic substructure within Hebe; deeper data could reveal whether these trace separate star-forming regions or inflow/outflow.
  • A plausible testable extension: an 11× longer MIRI exposure should detect Hα at the clump position; if Hα appears at the expected Case B flux, it would independently confirm the Hγ measurement and rule out large Balmer optical depths.
  • If PopIII+PopII mixtures are common in halos at z~10, similar HeII-selected clumps should appear in other high-z JWST fields near Lyman-break galaxies; searching for them would test whether Hebe is unique or the tip of a population.

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. The paper presents new JWST/NIRSpec-IFS G395H observations of the region ~3 pkpc NE of GN-z11, where a tentative HeII 1640 emission had been reported. The authors detect Hγ at S/N=5.9 at the position of this clump ('Hebe'), at z_Hγ=10.5862±0.0003, marginally detect Hδ, and set upper limits on a set of metal lines, most importantly [NeIII] 3870. From the [NeIII]/Hγ upper limit and the Isobe et al. (in prep.) calibration they derive 12+log(O/H)<6.96 (Z_gas<0.019 Zsun), use NIRCam photometry to derive EW0(Hγ)>350 Å, and compare the resulting line ratios with models of PopIII, PopII, and AGN/DCBH ionisation. They conclude that the data confirm the earlier HeII detection and are compatible with photoionisation by PopIII or PopIII+PopII systems, making Hebe the most distant such candidate to date.

Significance. If the main chain of inference holds, the result is significant: a robust Hγ line at z≈10.6 in a clump with no detected metal lines, a high equivalent width, and a plausibly hard ionising spectrum would be the strongest current evidence for very low-metallicity, possibly PopIII-related star formation near GN-z11. The paper has real strengths: the Hγ detection is an independent observational result, presented with a clean Gaussian fit and Monte-Carlo-based upper limits; the noise-rescaling and continuum-subtraction steps are explicit; and the EW lower limit from NIRCam photometry provides a useful constraint that helps separate ionisation mechanisms. The main weaknesses are that the 'confirmation' of HeII relies on a line whose identification is not independently checked against the foreground z≈2 galaxy, and that the metallicity limit depends on an unpublished calibration extrapolated below its lowest-metallicity anchor. These issues are local in the sense that they can be addressed, but they are load-bearing for the headline PopIII claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 1, Appendix A] The claim that Hγ 'unambiguously validates' the 1.9024 μm line as HeII 1640 is not yet supported. The 1.9024 μm line is also exactly where Hα would fall for a foreground z=1.899 source, and the authors themselves identify a z≈2 galaxy projected onto this field. The new Hγ detection at 5.03 μm is an independent line at z≈10.6, but it cannot discriminate between HeII 1640 at z≈10.6 and Hα from the foreground galaxy. The paper explicitly checks low-z contamination only for Hγ ('No line emission is seen or expected at the wavelength of our z∼10.6 Hγ detection from this low-z galaxy'), not for the 1.9024 μm line. Since the HeII data come from the companion paper M26, the reader cannot check this from the present text. Please add a quantitative exclusion of the Hα alternative for the specific component C2 used in the diagnostic diagrams (e.g., spatial extent, absence of [NII] at 1.90 μm, line-
  2. [§3.1, footnote 3, Table 1] The central 'pristine gas' and PopIII-compatibility conclusions rest on the metallicity upper limit 12+log(O/H)<6.96 derived from the [NeIII] 3870/Hγ calibration by Isobe et al. (in prep.). This calibration is unpublished, is built on stacks whose lowest metallicity point is 12+log(O/H)∼7, and is extrapolated below that point using CLOUDY models rather than data. The extrapolation is described as 'minimal' (0.04 dex), but the validity of the relation in the 6.5–7.0 regime is precisely what is needed. Please provide the calibration relation and its scatter, state its model dependence explicitly, and show how much the derived upper limit changes under plausible systematic offsets or alternative calibrations. A 0.2–0.5 dex shift would move the result from Z<0.02 Zsun to values that no longer convincingly support the PopIII comparison in Fig. 3.
  3. [Abstract and §3.2] The wording 'pristine gas' (title and abstract) and 'pristine or nearly pristine gas' (conclusion) is stronger than the observational upper limit. A 3σ limit of Z_gas<0.019 Zsun is compatible with substantially enriched gas, and the paper itself quotes PopIII expectations of Z≲10^-5–10^-6 Zsun in §3.2. The data support a low-metallicity, metal-line-free clump, not necessarily a primordial composition. Please either rephrase the claims as 'metal-poor'/'near-pristine' or add a quantitative argument that 0.019 Zsun is effectively pristine for the purpose of PopIII identification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] The adopted lensing magnification µ=1.42 is stated but its uncertainty is not propagated into the Hγ flux, the metallicity limit, or the EW limit. Please state the assumed uncertainty and its effect on the quoted quantities.
  2. [Table 1] The ratio Hγ/Hδ=3.6±1.9 is quoted from the magnification- and aperture-corrected fluxes. Since Hδ is a marginal 2σ detection, the uncertainty is large; consider quoting the ratio before aperture correction as well, or giving a 1σ lower limit.
  3. [§3.3] The dynamical-mass upper limits depend on the assumed prefactor C (1.0 for the unresolved case, 9.75 for a 10 pc cluster). These are reasonable, but the sentence 'using the integrated stellar velocity dispersion could potentially increase our estimate' is vague; specify by what factor or under what physical assumption this would occur.
  4. [References] Several key inputs are 'in prep.' or companion papers (Isobe et al. in prep.; M26; Rusta et al. subm.). For a self-contained letter, at least the calibration and the HeII measurements used in Fig. 3 should be made available or described in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the new Hγ detection is an independent second line, and the metallicity calibration and companion HeII data are external inputs, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is the detection of Hγ at z=10.5862 with S/N=5.9, an independent emission line that was not used in constructing the metallicity calibration or the PopIII model grid. The metallicity upper limit (12+log(O/H)<6.96) is derived by applying an external [NeIII]/Hγ calibration from JADES and Dark Horse stacks (Isobe et al. in prep.) plus CLOUDY extrapolation to a non-detection; this is an empirical relation applied to the data, not a parameter fitted to Hebe itself. The HeII flux used in the diagnostic diagrams is taken from a companion paper (M26) by overlapping authors, but it is an independent observational input from deeper NIRSpec-IFS data, and the present Hγ detection does not depend on M26 for its existence or redshift. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The reliance on unpublished companion work and an extrapolated calibration is a reproducibility caveat, but not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main extra assumptions are the unpublished metallicity calibration, the submitted HeII companion data, and standard photoionisation/ recombination models. The free parameters are corrections (noise rescaling, lensing magnification, aperture correction, virial prefactor) rather than fitted constants that define the result.

free parameters (4)
  • Uncertainty rescaling factor = 2.2
    The formal error spectrum underestimated noise; the authors rescaled uncertainties by 2.2 to match the rms in line-free regions (§2). This factor directly affects the quoted S/N and all upper limits.
  • Lensing magnification µ = ~1.42
    Fluxes are corrected for magnification by the foreground z~2 galaxy using µ~1.42, adopted from M26. If the magnification is wrong, all line fluxes and the metallicity limit shift.
  • Aperture correction (point-source) = not specified numerically
    Fluxes are corrected for aperture losses assuming a point-source geometry (§3.1). If Hebe is extended, the corrected fluxes and derived limits change.
  • Dynamical mass prefactor C = 1 or 9.75
    In §3.3 the virial prefactor is set to C=1 for a general clump and C=9.75 for a globular-cluster geometry. This only affects the dynamical mass upper limit, not the PopIII claim.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Case B recombination applies to the hydrogen line ratios (Hγ/Hδ=1.8 at Te=1e4 K, ne=1e4 cm^-3).
    Used in §3.1 to interpret the Hδ deficit and to correct the broadband continuum for Hδ/Hε contributions. If dust or extreme densities (Case C) are present, the interpretation changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The [NeIII]3870/Hγ-to-metallicity calibration by Isobe et al. (in prep.) is valid and can be extrapolated to 12+log(O/H)<7.
    This unpublished calibration is the basis for the central metallicity upper limit 12+log(O/H)<6.96. It is built from stacks with lowest metallicity 12+log(O/H)~7 and CLOUDY extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The HeII 1640 fluxes and the double-peaked decomposition (component C2 corresponding to Hγ) from M26 are correct.
    The PopIII diagnostic diagrams in Fig. 3 use HeII fluxes from the submitted companion paper M26. The confirmation of the HeII line as 'authentic' partly depends on M26's decomposition.
  • domain assumption The photoionisation models of Nakajima & Maiolino (2022) and Rusta et al. (2025) adequately cover the PopIII/PopII/AGN parameter space.
    The conclusion that the data are 'compatible with PopIII' is only as strong as these models. Different stellar atmospheres or binary-star effects could change the predicted line ratios.
  • domain assumption The foreground z~2 galaxy produces no line emission at the observed Hγ wavelength and contributes only to the continuum.
    Stated in §2: 'No line emission is seen or expected at the wavelength of our z~10.6 Hγ detection from this low-z galaxy.' If this is wrong, the Hγ line could be contaminated.
  • domain assumption Virial theorem with an assumed geometry (C=1 or C=9.75) gives an upper limit on the dynamical mass.
    Used in §3.3 to derive Mdyn<3×10^8 M⊙. The velocity dispersion is not measured, only set to the instrumental resolution, so this is an upper limit under ideal conditions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10754 in / 11521 out tokens · 110218 ms · 2026-08-02T17:45:26.686515+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

According to the leading cosmological model, a first generation of stars called Population III (PopIII), condensed almost entirely out of hydrogen and helium, must have initiated the creation of all heavier chemical elements. We report the detection of ionised hydrogen (H$\gamma_{4342}$) with a signal-to-noise ratio of $S/N$=5.9 in a region about 3 pkpc (projected) north-east from the z~10.6 galaxy GN-z11, where line emission compatible with doubly ionised helium (HeII$_{1640}$) has been found. Our new JWST/NIRSpec-IFU G395H data confirm the authenticity of the previous detection at a redshift of $z_{\rm H\gamma}$=$10.5862$$\pm$$0.0003$. H$\delta$ is marginally detected ($S/N$$\sim$$2$). No metal lines are detected in our observations spanning $\lambda_{\rm rest}$=$0.25$-$0.45\mu$m. We derive a $3\sigma$ upper limit on the gas phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)$<$7.0 ($Z_{\rm gas}$$<$$0.02$ $Z_\odot$). Through comparison with NIRCam imaging, we constrain a lower limit on the equivalent width of EW$_0$(H$\gamma$)$>$350\r{A}. We compare our emission line constraints to model predictions and find them compatible with photoionisation by PopIII stars, possibly intermixed with next-generation (PopII) stars. We infer an upper limit on the dynamical mass of $M_{\rm dyn}$$\lesssim$$3$$\times$$10^8M_\odot$. Our data provide novel support for the presence of PopIII stars nearby GN-z11, 440 Myr after the Big Bang.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.20360 by Andrew J. Bunker, Benjamin D. Johnson, Brant Robertson, Bruno Rodr\'iguez Del Pino, Chiara Circosta, Christopher N. A. Willmer, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Elena Bertola, Eleonora Parlanti, Elka Rusta, Emma Curtis-Lake, Francesco D'Eugenio, Gareth C. Jones, Giacomo Venturi, Giovanni Cresci, Hannah \"Ubler, Jacopo Chevallard, Jan Scholtz, Joris Witstok, Kevin Hainline, Kimihiko Nakajima, Michele Perna, Mirko Curti, Nimisha Kumari, Pablo G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez, Pierluigi Rinaldi, Roberto Maiolino, Sandra Zamora, Sandro Tacchella, Santiago Arribas, Stefania Salvadori, Stefano Carniani, St\'ephane Charlot, Torsten B\"oker, Yuki Isobe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: NIRCam rgb image showing the location of the Hγ clump (pink contours) in reference to GN-z11, the ‘haze’ (Tacchella et al. 2023), and a z∼2 galaxy. The white circle indicates the astrometric un￾certainty (r=0.05′′) in registering the NIRCam images and NIRSpec￾IFS cubes, comparable to the NIRCam PSF at 2.8µm (∼0.09′′). Right: Hγ linemap (λobs=5.029-5.031µm). The pink square shows the extrac￾tion apert… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Integrated spectrum of the Hγ clump (pink aperture in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagnostic diagrams of [Neiii]3870/Hγ (left) and EW0(Hγ) (right) vs. Heii1640/Hγ. Pink triangles shows our constraints for Hebe from this work and M26, using either the total Heii flux (filled) or only the Heii component matching our Hγ detection (open; ‘C2’, see M26 and Appendix A). Other symbols show model predictions by Nakajima & Maiolino (2022) and Rusta et al. (2025) (small stars) for ionisation by P… 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 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Possible chemical signatures of first-star enrichment in a very metal-poor galaxy overdensity near the end of reionization

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Discovery of a very metal-poor galaxy overdensity of 17 members near a possible Pop III-enriched absorber at z=5.945, with estimated minimum halo mass of log(M_h,min/M_⊙)=10.68.

  2. A Pixel-by-Pixel Path to Population III Discovery with JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Pixel-by-pixel SBI modeling recovers young massive Pop III clumps at up to 90 percent rate in favorable JWST-like configurations while integrated analyses fail due to contamination.

  3. Chemical signatures from the first stars embedded in metal-poor gas in galaxies at cosmic dawn

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    JWST absorption spectra of galaxies at z~8-9 show metal-poor gas with high [C/O] suggesting enrichment by Population III supernovae.

  4. JADES: the mass-metallicity relation at $z=1-10$. New calibrations, extremely metal-poor galaxies, and chemical diversity

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New stack-based strong-line calibrations from ~1500 spectra yield mass-metallicity relations at z=1-10 with decreasing metallicity toward higher redshift and no slope change, plus 50 EMPG candidates at 1-4% solar meta...

  5. NEFERTITI: Linking early galaxy formation to the assembly of the Milky Way

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NEFERTITI simulations show that the Milky Way's most metal-poor stars largely come from a handful of accreted massive dwarf galaxies, while reproducing the JWST Hebe galaxy at z~11 as a pure Population III system.

  6. On the detection of Population III galaxies: Emission Line Diagnostics for Hybrid Stellar Populations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Existing HeII emission-line diagnostics identify pure Pop III galaxies but fail for hybrid Pop III/Pop II systems, introducing spectral degeneracies that hide residual first stars.

  7. What is Powering the Enigmatic He II Emitter Hebe: The First Stars or Black Holes?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0

    Cosmological simulations and SED modeling favor a Pop III star cluster of a few ×10^5 M_sun over an accreting SMBH as the power source for the He II emitter Hebe near GN-z11 at z=10.6.

  8. What is Powering the Enigmatic He II Emitter Hebe: The First Stars or Black Holes?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A cluster of Population III stars at the upper limit of standard formation models, rather than an accreting black hole, powers the He II emission in the primordial object Hebe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513 Álvarez-Márquez, J., Colina, L., Crespo-Gomez, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02323 Álvarez-Márquez, J., Crespo Gómez, A., Colina, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A250

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Goudfrooij, P., et al

    Bastian, N., Saglia, R. P., Goudfrooij, P., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 881

    2006

  3. [3]

    2018, ApJ, 868, L36 Böker, T., Arribas, S., Lützgendorf, N., et al

    Bezanson, R., van der Wel, A., Straatman, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, L36 Böker, T., Arribas, S., Lützgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82

    2018

  4. [4]

    & Larson, R

    Bromm, V . & Larson, R. B. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 79

    2004

  5. [5]

    & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34

    2003

  6. [6]

    & Gnedin, O

    Brown, G. & Gnedin, O. Y . 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935

    2021

  7. [7]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88

    2023

  8. [8]

    2025, A&A, 703, A208

    Cataldi, E., Belfiore, F., Curti, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A208

    2025

  9. [9]

    C., Scholte, D., et al

    Cullen, F., Carnall, A. C., Scholte, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2176 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E. J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11626 D’Eugenio, F., Pérez-González, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 1443

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385

    2017

  11. [11]

    P., Chisholm, J., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Naidu, R. P., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 46

    2025

  12. [12]

    Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122

    2005

  13. [13]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    2020

  14. [14]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80

    2022

  15. [15]

    Johnson, J. A. 2019, Science, 363, 474

    2019

  16. [16]

    C., Übler, H., Maiolino, R., et al

    Jones, G. C., Übler, H., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag115

    2026

  17. [17]

    S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Ellis, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 351

    2023

  18. [18]

    Klessen, R. S. & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65

    2023

  19. [19]

    2025, A&A, 695, A17

    Lecroq, M., Charlot, S., Bressan, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A17

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Rasio, F

    Loeb, A. & Rasio, F. A. 1994, ApJ, 432, 52

    1994

  21. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22567

    Maiolino, R., Übler, H., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    & Maiolino, R

    Nakajima, K. & Maiolino, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5134

    2022

  24. [24]

    A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129

    2016

  25. [25]

    2023, A&A, 679, A89

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Marshall, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A89

    2023

  26. [26]

    2018, Phys

    Pitrou, C., Coc, A., Uzan, J.-P., & Vangioni, E. 2018, Phys. Rep., 754, 1

    2018

  27. [27]

    Reines, A. E. & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

    2015

  28. [28]

    E., Pollock, C

    Reumert, H., Heintz, K. E., Pollock, C. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.13471

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 989, L32

    Rusta, E., Salvadori, S., Gelli, V ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, L32

    2025

  30. [30]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28

    2002

  31. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01034

    Scholtz, J., Carniani, S., Parlanti, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01034

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06853

    Storck, A., Katz, H., Devriendt, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06853

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    J., Hainline, K., et al

    Tacchella, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hainline, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 74

    2023

  34. [34]

    & Shull, J

    Tumlinson, J. & Shull, J. M. 2000, ApJ, 528, L65 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145

    2000

  35. [35]

    2026, A&A, 705, L12

    Vanzella, E., Messa, M., Zanella, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, L12

    2026

  36. [36]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809

    Venditti, A., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809

    2023

  37. [37]

    J., Asada, Y ., Iyer, K

    Willott, C. J., Asada, Y ., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 26

    2025

  38. [38]

    FirstGalaxies

    Xu, Y ., McCray, R., Oliva, E., & Randich, S. 1992, ApJ, 386, 181 Article number, page 4 H. Übler et al.: GA-NIFS & JADES: Confirmation of pristine gas near GN-z11 Authors and affiliations H. Übler1, R. Maiolino2,3,4 , P. G. Pérez-González5, Y . Isobe2,3,6 , G. C. Jones2,3 , N. Kumari7, S. Charlot8, E. Rusta9,10 , S. Salvadori9,10 , K. Nakajima11,12,13 , ...

    1992