pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25130 · v1 · pith:ZVTFU2LGnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Exploring biases in derived stellar parameters and the ionizing photon production efficiency

Ravi Jaiswar , Anshu Gupta , Elisabete da Cunha , Cathryn M. Trott , Andrew Battisti , A. J. Hedge , Robin Cook , Sabine Bellstedt
show 3 more authors
Jordan DSilva Luke Davies Juno Li
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 23:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords xi_ionEpoch of ReionizationSED fittingstellar parametersgalaxy analogsionizing photonsphotometric versus spectroscopic
0
0 comments X

The pith

Derived xi_ion values for z=3 galaxies vary by over 1.1 dex depending on data type and SED models used

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

The paper tests how different data inputs and modeling choices affect estimates of stellar mass, star formation rate, and the ionizing photon production efficiency xi_ion in a sample of z=3 galaxies selected as analogs for Epoch of Reionization sources. Using spectroscopic versus photometric data and three separate SED fitting codes with varied star formation histories, stellar libraries, dust, and photoionization settings produces spreads exceeding 0.6 dex in mass, 0.9 dex in SFR, and 1.1 dex in xi_ion for individual objects. Whether xi_ion shows a redshift trend also depends on whether the same method is applied consistently. These results show that methodological differences alone can change conclusions about which galaxies drove reionization.

Core claim

For this homogeneous z=3 population the median stellar mass can vary by over 0.6 dex and the SFR by more than 0.9 dex. Further, the xi_ion can vary by over 1.1 dex for individual sources when comparing spectroscopic and photometric derivations, or by more than 0.5 dex when fitting SEDs with different models. The model, method and data dependence of the xi_ion parameter is undeniable even for a homogeneous population.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of three techniques that combine spectroscopic and photometric data with three different SED fitting codes, each containing multiple star formation history, stellar population synthesis, dust, and photoionization prescriptions.

If this is right

  • Stellar mass estimates for the same galaxies differ by more than 0.6 dex across methods.
  • Star formation rate estimates differ by more than 0.9 dex.
  • xi_ion values shift by over 1.1 dex between spectroscopic and photometric derivations.
  • A redshift evolution trend in xi_ion for extreme emitters appears only when a single consistent method is used across redshifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Constraints on the contribution of galaxies to reionization carry larger systematic uncertainties than usually quoted when methods are mixed.
  • Future JWST analyses of EoR sources will need standardized fitting pipelines to reduce these spreads.
  • Direct Lyman continuum measurements at z=3 could provide an external check on which modeling choices best recover true xi_ion.

Load-bearing premise

That z=3 galaxies serve as reliable analogs for the stellar populations and ionizing sources present during the Epoch of Reionization.

What would settle it

Apply the same three techniques and three SED codes to an independent sample of z=3 galaxies and check whether the spread in xi_ion still exceeds 0.5 dex between photometric and spectroscopic derivations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25130 by A. J. Hedge, Andrew Battisti, Anshu Gupta, Cathryn M. Trott, Elisabete da Cunha, Jordan DSilva, Juno Li, Luke Davies, Ravi Jaiswar, Robin Cook, Sabine Bellstedt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample Venn diagram indicating original EELG sample (76 sources, (Forrest et al. 2018; Jaiswar et al. 2024)) JADES (Eisenstein et al. 2023a,b; Rieke et al. 2023; Hain￾line et al. 2023)) NIRCam photometry footprint overlap (53 sources- JESCO sample) and two spectroscopic subsamples (Tran et al. 2020; Gupta et al. 2022),(Bunker et al. 2023a). However, the current landscape of research into ξion is overwhelmi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left) Flux density discrepancy in four JWST filters between the JADES survey and the JESCO catalogue which is described in section 2. Zero discrepancy is marked by the black horizontal line. (Right) MAGPHYS SED of an example galaxy at z=3.545 comparing the fit using the ZFOURGE photometry (blue empty circles) to the JESCO photometry (green empty circles). The JADES photometry (purple full circles) for thi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Contrast of the MAGPHYS, BEAGLE and ProSpect SED derived stellar parameter distributions of the JESCO EELG sample with their component models in their most similar (left) vs default (right, see table 2) states. The black dashed line reflects the canonical value of 25.2 determined by Robertson et al. (2013) while the red and blue dashed lines respectively reflect the spectroscopic ξion median derived using … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Main sequence comparison using four different star formation history models from MAGPHYS and ProSpect of the JESCO EELG sample (using SFR100/M∗). Coloured crosses reflect the 25-75% percentiles of the sample matching their color. (Middle) ionizing photon production efficiency of the full sample using the different star formation histories, where the red dotted line represents the canonical value of … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Top) Derived stellar parameters with and without bursts for each SED fitting code. e −τ refers to the exponentially declining SFH while γ 2 e −τ refers to the delayed exponentially declining SFH. The CSFH portion of the BEAGLE SFH is treated as a burst for this analysis and is contrasted with the burst implementation of the other models. Purple highlighted regions represent models including the photoioniz… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of SPS models without included photoionization modeling and no bursts. Black line represents the 25.2 canonical ξion value (Robertson et al. 2013) Boxes represent the IQR (75-25 quartiles) with the median value represented by a gray line. Whiskers represent Q1 - 1.5×IQR and Q3 + 1.5×IQR. We find that the BPASS model estimates a consistently higher value of ξion relative to the BC03 model while t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of stellar parameters on dust model in BEAGLE; purple shading indicates models including photoionization (CLOUDY Ferland et al. (2017)) All parameters are shown relative to the Charlot and Fall 2000 (CF) dust model and using the same SPS model (indicated at top). Top panel. CF-BC16 (left). CF dust model +BC16 SPS including photoionization, subtracted from the Calzetti, Universal and SMC dust mod… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Top) Spectroscopic ξion using VLT KMOS (red) and JWST JADES NIRSpec (gold) vs integrated photometry ξion. LUV(1500) IQRs indicated for MAGPHYS (diamonds) and BEAGLE (circles). (Middle) Spectroscopic ξion vs the photoionization model (SED+P) ξion with the Hβ flux IQRs from the KMOS (red) and NIRSpec (gold) compared to the corresponding SED+P model estimate. (Bottom) Photoionization model ξion vs integrated… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Redshift evolution of the ξion parameter. (Top) Indiscriminant selection of studies using both spectroscopic, photometric and the SED+P method for sources varying in sample selection choices and size (Bouwens et al. 2015; Stark et al. 2015; Nakajima et al. 2016; Stark et al. 2017; Izotov et al. 2017; Chevallard et al. 2018; Nakajima et al. 2018; Shivaei et al. 2018; Tang et al. 2019; Castellano et al. 2022… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BEAGLE photoionization model ξion (SED+P) vs integrated photometry ξion following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: BEAGLE photoionization model ξion (SED+P) vs integrated photometry ξion following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Constraining the timescale and manner in which the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) occurred is a major JWST science goal. However, any constraints on the stellar or ionizing parameters (xi ion) of galaxies in the EoR must contend with biases introduced by both the data and the models used. We explore three techniques that use spectroscopic and photometric data as well as three different spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting codes, each comprised of multiple star formation history, stellar population synthesis, dust, and photoionization prescriptions to determine their relative influence on stellar parameters and xi ion. We use z=3 EoR analog galaxies due to their reliable photometric coverage (improved physical constraints) in comparison to direct EoR sources and potential for direct Lyman Continuum escape research. For this population the median stellar mass can vary by over 0.6 dex and the SFR by more than 0.9 dex. Further, the xi ion can vary by over 1.1 dex for individual sources when comparing spectroscopic and photometric derivations, or by more than 0.5 dex when fitting SEDs with different models. As such, the choice of methodology can have significant consequences for the derived xi ion and the subsequent sources of reionization. We find that the presence of a redshift evolution for xi ion is dependent on the method adopted for its derivation, where a consistent method yields an evolutionary trend with redshift in extreme emitters while an indiscriminant selection of studies does not. The model, method and data dependence of the xi ion parameter is undeniable even for a homogeneous population.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that stellar masses, SFRs, and the ionizing photon production efficiency ξ_ion derived for a homogeneous sample of z=3 galaxies vary substantially (median mass >0.6 dex, SFR >0.9 dex, ξ_ion >0.5 dex between SED models and >1.1 dex between spectroscopic and photometric derivations) depending on the data type, fitting technique, and choice of SED code (including SFH, SPS, dust, and photoionization prescriptions). It further claims that the apparent redshift evolution of ξ_ion is sensitive to whether a consistent method is applied across studies or whether results are combined indiscriminately. The z=3 sample is used as EoR analogs to enable better photometric constraints.

Significance. If the reported spreads hold, the result is significant because it supplies a direct, empirical quantification of systematic uncertainties in ξ_ion on an identical galaxy population, which bears directly on JWST-era inferences about the sources of reionization. The strength of the work lies in its controlled comparison (multiple techniques and codes applied to the same objects) rather than cross-study compilation; this avoids the usual confounding of sample differences with methodological differences. The finding that redshift trends appear or disappear depending on methodological consistency is a useful cautionary result for the field.

major comments (1)
  1. [abstract and § on redshift evolution] The claim that 'a consistent method yields an evolutionary trend with redshift in extreme emitters while an indiscriminant selection of studies does not' (abstract) is load-bearing for the broader implication about literature comparisons. The manuscript should specify the exact selection criteria, number of studies, and redshift bins used for the 'indiscriminant' compilation so that the contrast with the consistent-method case can be reproduced.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states specific variation amplitudes (0.6 dex, 0.9 dex, 0.5 dex, 1.1 dex) but does not indicate whether these are medians, means, or 16–84 percentile ranges; this should be clarified in the text and figure captions that report the spreads.
  2. [§2] Notation for ξ_ion is used without an explicit definition or reference to the standard expression (e.g., the ratio of ionizing photons to UV luminosity); adding the defining equation in §2 would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the work and for the constructive suggestion regarding the redshift-evolution claim. We address the point below and will incorporate the requested details in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract and § on redshift evolution] The claim that 'a consistent method yields an evolutionary trend with redshift in extreme emitters while an indiscriminant selection of studies does not' (abstract) is load-bearing for the broader implication about literature comparisons. The manuscript should specify the exact selection criteria, number of studies, and redshift bins used for the 'indiscriminant' compilation so that the contrast with the consistent-method case can be reproduced.

    Authors: We agree that reproducibility requires explicit documentation of the literature compilation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (and, if space permits, a supplementary table) that lists: (i) the precise selection criteria applied to the literature sample (e.g., only studies reporting ξ_ion for extreme emitters at z>2 with published uncertainties), (ii) the total number of studies included, and (iii) the redshift bins adopted for the indiscriminant compilation. This will allow direct comparison with the consistent-method trend derived from our homogeneous z=3 sample and the additional literature points we already treat uniformly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical spreads reported directly from method comparisons

full rationale

The paper applies multiple SED fitting techniques and codes to one fixed z=3 sample and directly measures the resulting spreads in stellar mass (0.6 dex), SFR (0.9 dex), and xi_ion (>0.5 dex between models, >1.1 dex spec vs photo). No equations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that reduce by construction to fitted inputs or self-citations. The z=3 analog choice is presented only as a practical data-quality decision, not as a derived premise. All load-bearing claims rest on the internal empirical comparison itself, which is self-contained and externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the chosen z=3 sample is homogeneous and representative, plus the implicit assumption that differences across pipelines reflect methodological bias rather than unmodeled astrophysical variation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption z=3 galaxies are appropriate analogs for Epoch of Reionization sources due to reliable photometric coverage providing improved physical constraints
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the justification for using this population instead of direct EoR sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5850 in / 1239 out tokens · 39016 ms · 2026-06-29T23:47:39.429560+00:00 · methodology

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

120 extracted references · 118 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12347

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters,, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 27

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2022

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdd 2020

  4. [4]

    J., da Cunha, E., Grasha, K., et al

    Battisti, A. J., da Cunha, E., Grasha, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab345d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab345d 2019

  5. [5]

    J., Bagley, M

    Battisti, A. J., Bagley, M. B., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1052 2022

  6. [6]

    J., Cullen, F., et al

    Begley, R., McLure, R. J., Cullen, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10988

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    J., Cullen, F., et al

    Begley, R., McLure, R. J., Cullen, F., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1995 2026

  8. [8]

    Bellstedt, S., & Robotham, A. S. G. 2024, MNRAS. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17698

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    2024, A&A

    Bisigello, L., Gandolfi, G., Feltre, A., et al. 2024, A&A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10954

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022

  11. [11]

    J., Smit, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2015, ApJ, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/176

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/176 2015

  12. [12]

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

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16934

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    and Mellema, Garrelt and Mao, Yi and Iliev, Ilian T

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  14. [14]

    2011, ARA&A, 49, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    Bromm, V., & Yoshida, N. 2011, ARA&A, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608 2011

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  16. [16]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023a, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

  17. [17]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023b, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

  18. [18]

    A., et al

    Calabro, A., Castellano, M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12683

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Star Formation Rate Indicators

    Calzetti, D. 2012, Secular Evolution of Galaxies. https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2997

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  21. [21]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

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

    work page doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  22. [22]

    J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02051

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 2019

  24. [24]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2017, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2017

  25. [25]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243348

    Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., Cupani, G., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243348

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243348 2022

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346069

    Castellano, M., Belfiori, D., Pentericci, L., et al. 2023, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346069

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346069 2023

  27. [27]

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

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  28. [28]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJ, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4033

    Terao, Y. 2024, ApJ, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4033

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4033 2024

  30. [30]

    2016, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1756 2016

  31. [31]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    Chevallard, J., Charlot, S., Wandelt, B., & Wild, V. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt523 2013

  32. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1461 —

    Chevallard, J., Charlot, S., Senchyna, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1461 —. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1461

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1461 2017

  33. [33]

    H., Leja, J., Tran, K.-V

    Cohn, J. H., Leja, J., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed3d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed3d 2018

  34. [34]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 1992

  35. [35]

    Modeling the Panchromatic Spectral Energy Distributions of Galaxies

    Conroy, C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  36. [36]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2009, ApJ, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2009

  37. [37]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2008, ApJ, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2008

  38. [38]

    H., Balu, S., Greig, B., et al

    Cook, J. H., Balu, S., Greig, B., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae593 da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., & Elbaz, D. 2008, MNRAS, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x da Cunha, E., Walter, F., Smail, I., et al. 2015, ApJ, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae593 2024

  39. [39]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/83

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/83 2014

  40. [40]

    Davies, L. J. M., Bremer, M. N., Stanway, E. R., & Lehnert, M. D. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt929

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt929 2013

  41. [41]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1241 2015

  42. [42]

    Davies, L. J. M., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1342 28 de la Vega, A., Babcock, M. D., Mobasher, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1342 2016

  43. [43]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 102, 161, doi: 10.1086/192255

    work page doi:10.1086/192255 1996

  44. [44]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, ApJS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12340

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 1109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x 2008

  46. [46]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  47. [47]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f97

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Alavi, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f97 2020

  48. [48]

    Endsley, R., & Stark, D. P. 2021, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac524

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac524 2021

  49. [49]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1919 2023

  50. [50]

    Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica , keywords =

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10877

    work page arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    H., Broussard, A., et al

    Forrest, B., Tran, K.-V. H., Broussard, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad232

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad232 2018

  52. [52]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    Forrest, B., Annunziatella, M., Wilson, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f 2020

  53. [53]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    Fujimoto, S., Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9 2023

  54. [54]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3548

    Gupta, A., Tran, K.-V., Mendel, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3548

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3548 2022

  55. [55]

    M., Jaiswar, R., et al

    Gupta, A., Trott, C. M., Jaiswar, R., et al. 2024, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13285

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    Gutkin, J., Charlot, S., & Bruzual, G. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1716 2016

  57. [57]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02468

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  59. [59]

    Y.-Y., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Coe, D., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16200

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu936 2014

  61. [61]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4118, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx347

    Schaerer, D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4118, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx347

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx347 2017

  62. [62]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 4851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1378 2018

  63. [63]

    2024, PASA

    Jaiswar, R., Gupta, A., da Cunha, E., et al. 2024, PASA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04870

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdc

    Ji, Z., Giavalisco, M., Vanzella, E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdc 2020

  65. [65]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  66. [66]

    C., & Evans, N

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  67. [67]

    A., Wisotzki, L., et al

    Kerutt, J., Oesch, P. A., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346656

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346656 2024

  68. [68]

    Kulkarni, G., Worseck, G., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1493 Le Borgne, J.-F., Bruzual, G., Pell´ o, R., et al. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 402, 433, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1493 2018

  69. [69]

    Leitherer, C., & Heckman, T. M. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 96, 9, doi: 10.1086/192112

    work page doi:10.1086/192112 1995

  70. [70]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  71. [71]

    2025, A&A, 698, A302, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453251

    Llerena, M., Pentericci, L., Napolitano, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A302, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453251

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453251 2025

  72. [72]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    Madau, P. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    work page doi:10.1086/175332 1995

  73. [73]

    2024, MNRAS

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00504

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1034

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1034 2013

  75. [75]

    2016, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Best, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2973 2016

  76. [76]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/67 2011

  77. [77]

    S., Iwata, I., et al

    Nakajima, K., Ellis, R. S., Iwata, I., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/1/L9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/831/1/l9 2016

  78. [78]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731935 29

    Nakajima, K., Schaerer, D., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731935 29

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731935 2018

  79. [79]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02026

    work page arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/160817 1983

Showing first 80 references.