pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05887 · v1 · pith:DMFDRHHTnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Early Results from GLASS-JWST. XXVI. Spatially Resolved Star Formation and Balmer Decrements at 1.1<z<2.3 from NIRISS Slitless Spectroscopy

Pengfei Ren , Xin Wang , Yuxuan Pang , Mengting Ju , Tucker Jones , Karl Glazebrook , Matthew A. Malkan , Gabriel Brammer
show 5 more authors
Victoria Strait Themiya Nanayakkara Tommaso Treu Benedetta Vulcani Peter J. Watson
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 00:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dust attenuationstar formationhigh-redshift galaxiesgravitational lensingBalmer decrementgalaxy evolutionradial profilesNIRISS spectroscopy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radial dust attenuation gradients in galaxies vary with stellar mass and redshift between 1.1 and 2.3.

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

The paper stacks Hα and Hβ emission maps from JWST NIRISS slitless spectroscopy of 79 lensed galaxies to measure radial profiles of nebular dust attenuation. It reports tentative evidence that these A(Hα) gradients are steeper in low-mass systems at lower redshifts while higher-mass galaxies keep detectable dust farther out, and that overall attenuation is lower at higher redshifts. Dust-corrected star-formation profiles in massive galaxies appear more extended at lower redshifts, consistent with inside-out disk growth below z approximately 1.5. The measurements rely on gravitational lensing to reach sub-kiloparsec resolution in faint objects.

Core claim

By stacking the emission maps in stellar-mass and redshift bins after lensing correction, the analysis finds that A(Hα) gradients vary with both redshift and stellar mass: low-mass galaxies at z = 1.10–1.53 show steeper gradients than higher-mass galaxies, the latter retaining attenuation to larger radii, while galaxies at z = 1.76–2.29 exhibit lower overall attenuation levels. At fixed radius, attenuation is higher in the lower-redshift bin. Dust-corrected SFR profiles in massive systems are more spatially extended at lower redshifts, supporting inside-out disk growth at z ≲ 1.5.

What carries the argument

Stacking of Hα and Hβ emission maps from NIRISS slitless spectroscopy in mass and redshift bins, after gravitational-lensing correction, to obtain average radial profiles of the Balmer decrement and dust-corrected SFR.

If this is right

  • Low-mass galaxies develop steeper central dust concentrations at z ~ 1.3 than high-mass galaxies do.
  • Nebular dust content increases between z ~ 2.3 and z ~ 1.1 across the sampled mass range.
  • Dust-corrected star formation in massive galaxies spreads to larger radii as redshift decreases below 1.5.
  • These trends are consistent with inside-out growth of galactic disks at z ≲ 1.5.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mass dependence could reflect different dust-production or retention efficiencies tied to galaxy assembly history.
  • Future larger samples without lensing could test whether the same gradient patterns appear in field galaxies.
  • Extending the same stacking approach to z > 3 might reveal when the observed rise in attenuation begins.

Load-bearing premise

Stacking the emission maps in chosen stellar-mass and redshift bins after lensing correction produces representative radial profiles without dominant systematics from magnification variations or source reconstruction uncertainties.

What would settle it

Re-deriving the profiles with per-galaxy magnification corrections or alternate binning that erases the reported differences in A(Hα) gradient steepness between low-mass and high-mass bins at low versus high redshift would undermine the evidence for mass- and redshift-dependent attenuation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05887 by Benedetta Vulcani, Gabriel Brammer, Karl Glazebrook, Matthew A. Malkan, Mengting Ju, Pengfei Ren, Peter J. Watson, Themiya Nanayakkara, Tommaso Treu, Tucker Jones, Victoria Strait, Xin Wang, Yuxuan Pang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SFR and stellar mass (M∗) for our galaxy sam￾ples, which are corrected for lensing magnification using the mass model of Bergamini et al. (2023). Blue and red dots correspond to the galaxies for the 1.10 ≤ z ≤ 1.53 and 1.76 ≤ z ≤ 2.29 samples, respectively. The stellar mass ranges adopted for stacking are denoted by the grey shaded regions and medians for each bin are indicated by dark squares. The thick s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example JWST/NIRISS data products for a galaxy (ID 02969) in the Abell 2744 field. The top row shows the RGB thumbnail, F115W thumbnail and emission-line maps, with observed wavelengths labeled. Each image spans 3′′ × 3 ′′ (∼25 kpc at z = 1.36) at 0. ′′03 per pixel. The bottom left panel shows the log p(z) plot, the unnormalized logarithm of the posterior redshift probability density which is used to asses… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stacked Hα and Hβ surface brightness maps. Each composite image spans 50×50 pixels, with a spatial scale of 0.03” per pixel. The number of galaxies included in each stack is indicated in the bottom-right corner of the corresponding Hα map. The gray line delineates the S/N = 2 boundary, while the dotted circles denote the radial range where the measurement uncertainty of the emission-line pro￾file is less t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of the Balmer decrement and the dust attenuation towards Hα emission. The blue and red lines represent galaxies at redshifts of 1.10 ≤ z ≤ 1.53 and 1.76 ≤ z ≤ 2.29 respectively. The top panels show the Hα/Hβ ratios with a dashed line at 2.86 and the bottom row shows dust attenuation towards Hα using the Calzetti et al. (2000) dust extinction law. In the bottom row, the light blue dashed lin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dust-corrected SFR radial profiles. The radial distribution of SFR measured directly by Hα is shown in dashed lines, and the blue and red solid lines represent SFR profiles corrected using the radial Balmer decrement curves for the two redshift bins, respectively. The light blue dashed lines show results of z ∼ 1.4 from Nelson et al. (2016a). The differences between dashed and solid lines imply the detecti… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using JWST/NIRISS slitless spectroscopy, we present spatially resolved Balmer decrement measurements for 79 galaxies at $1.1 < z < 2.3$, which are gravitationally lensed by the foreground cluster Abell 2744. By stacking $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ and $\mathrm{H}\beta$ emission maps in bins of stellar mass and redshift, we derive radial profiles of nebular dust attenuation and dust-corrected star formation rate (SFR). We find tentative evidence that the radial gradients of dust attenuation toward $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ ($\rm A(\mathrm{H}\alpha)$) vary with both redshift and stellar mass. At lower redshifts ($z = 1.10$--$1.53$), low-mass galaxies ($\rm 7.0<log(M_*/M_\odot)\leq8.5$) exhibit steeper $\rm A(H\alpha)$ gradients than higher-mass galaxies ($\rm 9.5<log(M_*/M_\odot)\leq11.0$), while the latter maintain detectable dust attenuation out to larger galactocentric radii. Galaxies at higher redshifts ($z = 1.76$--$2.29$) show lower attenuation levels. At fixed galactocentric radius, galaxies in the low-redshift bin generally exhibit higher dust attenuation than those at high redshifts, consistent with an increase in dust content toward later cosmic times. Dust-corrected SFR profiles in massive systems at lower redshifts are more spatially extended than those at higher redshifts, consistent with inside-out disk growth at $z\lesssim1.5$. These results suggest possible differences in attenuation properties across stellar mass and redshift bins, and demonstrate the power of gravitational lensing to probe internal structures in faint galaxies at sub-kiloparsec resolution.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses JWST/NIRISS slitless spectroscopy to measure spatially resolved Balmer decrements for 79 gravitationally lensed galaxies at 1.1<z<2.3. Stacking Hα and Hβ emission maps in four stellar-mass and redshift bins yields radial profiles of nebular dust attenuation A(Hα) and dust-corrected SFR; the authors report tentative evidence that A(Hα) gradients vary with both redshift and mass (steeper in low-mass, low-z systems), that attenuation is lower at higher z, and that dust-corrected SFR profiles are more extended in low-z massive galaxies, consistent with inside-out growth at z≲1.5.

Significance. If the stacked profiles prove robust, the work supplies direct observational constraints on the spatial distribution of dust and star formation at sub-kpc scales in faint high-z galaxies, exploiting lensing magnification. The strength lies in the empirical, model-independent derivation of radial attenuation and SFR profiles from slitless spectroscopy rather than from SED fitting or simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (stacking and lensing correction)] The central claim of redshift- and mass-dependent A(Hα) gradients rests on stacked radial profiles derived from only 79 galaxies total. The manuscript must demonstrate, via explicit tests (e.g., magnification-weighted stacks, jackknife resampling across the critical curve, or comparison of source-plane vs. image-plane profiles), that position-dependent magnification variations and reconstruction uncertainties do not systematically bias the reported differences in gradient steepness or radial extent between bins.
  2. [Abstract and Results] The abstract states that findings are tentative yet supplies no quantitative uncertainties, bootstrap errors, or significance tests on the measured gradient slopes or the radial extent of detectable attenuation. Without these, it is difficult to evaluate whether the claimed variations exceed the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The stellar-mass and redshift bin boundaries are specified, but the number of galaxies contributing to each stacked profile should be stated explicitly, together with the typical magnification range per bin.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for A(Hα) and the conversion from Balmer decrement to attenuation should be defined once in the text with a reference to the adopted extinction curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (stacking and lensing correction)] The central claim of redshift- and mass-dependent A(Hα) gradients rests on stacked radial profiles derived from only 79 galaxies total. The manuscript must demonstrate, via explicit tests (e.g., magnification-weighted stacks, jackknife resampling across the critical curve, or comparison of source-plane vs. image-plane profiles), that position-dependent magnification variations and reconstruction uncertainties do not systematically bias the reported differences in gradient steepness or radial extent between bins.

    Authors: We agree that explicit robustness tests against lensing effects are necessary given the sample size and the central role of the stacked profiles. In the revised manuscript we have added jackknife resampling by systematically excluding galaxies near the critical curve and recomputing the binned profiles; we also include a direct comparison of image-plane versus source-plane radial profiles for the subset of sources with reliable lens models. Magnification-weighted stacking was tested but yielded unstable results owing to the small number of objects per bin and the strong variation in magnification; we therefore retain unweighted stacks but now explicitly discuss the associated caveats and potential biases in a new subsection. These additions address the primary concern while acknowledging the practical limitations of the current dataset. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and Results] The abstract states that findings are tentative yet supplies no quantitative uncertainties, bootstrap errors, or significance tests on the measured gradient slopes or the radial extent of detectable attenuation. Without these, it is difficult to evaluate whether the claimed variations exceed the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative uncertainties should be reported even when results are described as tentative. The revised abstract now includes bootstrap-derived uncertainties on the measured A(Hα) gradient slopes and on the radial extent of detectable attenuation, together with a brief statement of the significance of the differences between mass and redshift bins. The body of the paper has been updated with the corresponding error bars on all stacked profiles. The evidence remains tentative because the uncertainties are comparable to the reported differences, but the added numbers allow readers to assess the strength of the claims directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct observational derivation from JWST data

full rationale

The paper reports empirical radial profiles of A(Hα) and dust-corrected SFR obtained by stacking NIRISS slitless spectroscopy maps of 79 lensed galaxies in four mass/redshift bins, then computing Balmer decrements on the stacked images. No step reduces a claimed gradient or inside-out growth signal to a fitted parameter from the same dataset, a self-citation chain, or an ansatz smuggled via prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain consists of standard data reduction, lensing correction, binning, and ratio measurements; each output quantity is computed from the observed line fluxes rather than being defined in terms of itself. This is the most common honest non-finding for purely observational papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into exact parameters; relies on standard domain assumptions for Balmer-based attenuation and chosen analysis bins.

free parameters (2)
  • stellar mass bin boundaries
    Divisions at log(M*/M⊙) = 8.5 and 9.5 chosen to separate low- and high-mass samples for stacking comparisons.
  • redshift bin boundaries
    Divisions at z = 1.53 and 1.76 chosen to separate low- and high-redshift samples.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The observed Hα/Hβ line ratio reliably traces nebular dust attenuation after standard corrections
    Invoked when deriving A(Hα) radial profiles from the Balmer decrement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5938 in / 1587 out tokens · 62260 ms · 2026-06-28T00:53:39.784740+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

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., Vulcani, B., et al

    Acharyya, A., Watson, P. J., Vulcani, B., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd643 Bouch´ e, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al

    Bergamini, P., Acebron, A., Grillo, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd643 Bouch´ e, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd643 2023

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f17 2022

  5. [5]

    1997, AJ, 113, 162, doi: 10.1086/118242

    Calzetti, D. 1997, AJ, 113, 162, doi: 10.1086/118242

    work page doi:10.1086/118242 1997

  6. [6]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

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

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

  7. [7]

    C., McLure, R

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  8. [8]

    C., Begley, R., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., Begley, R., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac136

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac136 2023

  9. [9]

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

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

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

  10. [10]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf058 2025

  11. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3791 2023

  12. [12]

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

    Faisst, A. L., Masters, D., Wang, Y., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 132 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3717

    2018

  13. [13]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba8b

    Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Jacobs, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba8b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acba8b 2023

  14. [14]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/124 2011

  15. [15]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd 2024

  16. [16]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/46

    Hemmati, S., Mobasher, B., Darvish, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/46 2015

  17. [17]

    Inami, H., Algera, H. S. B., Schouws, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1779

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1779 2022

  18. [18]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A190

    Jolly, J.-B., Knudsen, K., Laporte, N., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A190

    2025

  19. [19]

    Stark, D. P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1247, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16378.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16378.x 2010

  20. [20]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

    Ju, M., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada150 2025

  21. [21]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 11

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

  22. [22]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  23. [23]

    Larson, R. B. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.3.641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/256.3.641 1992

  24. [24]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2057, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2057

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/2057 2009

  25. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada937

    Liu, Z., Kodama, T., Morishita, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada937

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada937 2025

  26. [26]

    C., Jones, T

    Livermore, R. C., Jones, T. A., Richard, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv686

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv686 2015

  27. [27]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02470

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  29. [29]

    B., et al

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3 2021

  30. [30]

    C., et al

    Matharu, J., Papovich, C., Simons, R. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8471

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8471 2022

  31. [31]

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Sarrouh, G. T. E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1db

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd1db 2023

  32. [32]

    2025, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 2025

  33. [33]

    G., Lee, J

    Momcheva, I. G., Lee, J. C., Ly, C., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/47

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/47 2013

  34. [34]

    P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01874

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01874 2024

  35. [35]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l28 2012

  36. [36]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Momcheva, I., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/l16 2013

  37. [37]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2016a, ApJL, 817, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/l9 2041

  38. [38]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 828, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/27

  39. [39]

    J., Van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., Van Dokkum, P. G., Schreiber, N. M. F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 27

    2016

  40. [40]

    and Suess, Katherine A

    Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1e1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc1e1 2023

  41. [41]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  42. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda8a

    Paris, D., Merlin, E., Fontana, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acda8a 2023

  43. [43]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097

    2010

  44. [44]

    H., Kriek, M., Brammer, G

    Price, S. H., Kriek, M., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/86 2014

  45. [45]

    A., Topping, M

    Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., & Brammer, G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc869

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc869 2023

  46. [46]

    A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A

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

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

  47. [47]

    A., Topping, M

    Rezaee, S., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 1512

    2023

  48. [48]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 2023

  49. [49]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3032 2020

  50. [50]

    2024, A&A, 691, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347119

    Sandles, L., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347119

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347119 2024

  51. [51]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 954, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea5a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acea5a 2023

  52. [52]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Salim, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4742

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4742 2022

  53. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e

    Shivaei, I., Reddy, N., Rieke, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba35e 2020

  54. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac302

    Sommovigo, L., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac302 2022

  55. [55]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 88

    2017

  56. [56]

    G., et al

    Szomoru, D., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 73

    2013

  57. [57]

    M., Renzini, A., et al

    Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314, doi: 10.1126/science.1261094

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1261094 2015

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 2022

  59. [59]

    B., et al

    Vulcani, B., Treu, T., Schmidt, K. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/161 —. 2016, ApJ, 833, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/161 2015

  60. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618b

    Vulcani, B., Treu, T., Nipoti, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa618b 2017

  61. [61]

    A., Treu, T., et al

    Wang, X., Jones, T. A., Treu, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603c —. 2019, ApJ, 882, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3861 —. 2020, ApJ, 900, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abacce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa603c 2017

  62. [62]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974

    Wang, X., Li, Z., Cai, Z., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3974 2022

  63. [63]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac959e

    Wang, X., Jones, T., Vulcani, B., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac959e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac959e 2022

  64. [64]

    E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 104

    2014

  65. [65]

    , keywords =

    Wild, V., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1760, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19367.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19367.x 2011

  66. [66]

    J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al

    Willott, C. J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 025002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac5158

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac5158 2022

  67. [67]

    M., Nelson, E

    Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/135 2013