Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

JWST photometry of a source initially selected as a z~14 galaxy shows it instead matches a Type Ia supernova at z~4.3, implying a minimum SN Ia delay time below 1 Gyr.

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

2026-08-01 13:48 UTC pith:WGLA6PZD

load-bearing objection A careful single-object study that makes a plausible case for an SN Ia at z~4.3, but the photometric classification is not airtight and the DTD constraint is oversold in the abstract. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18972 v1 pith:WGLA6PZD submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

A Type Ia Supernova Candidate at zsim4.3: A Transient Interloper in the Search for zsim14 Galaxies

Seiji Toshikage , Takahiro Morishita , Masaomi Tanaka , Kazumi Kashiyama , Charlotte A. Mason , Andrew J. Bunker , Matthew J. Hayes , George Helou
show 4 more authors
Tadayuki Kodama Kimi C. Kreilgaard Massimo Stiavelli Tommaso Treu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Type Ia supernovahigh-redshift galaxiesJWSTLyman breakdropout galaxiesSN 2011fedelay time distributiontransient contamination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports that a JWST source originally selected as one of the most distant galaxies yet seen—a z~14 dropout—is in fact a transient. It appears in only one of three imaging epochs, and its colors, brightness, and full 16-band spectral energy distribution match a normal Type Ia supernova at z~4.3, near peak, with Fe-group ultraviolet blanketing mimicking a Lyman break. The authors estimate an event rate at this redshift that exceeds model predictions assuming a 1 Gyr minimum delay time, suggesting SNe Ia can explode less than 1 Gyr after star formation. They also show that a single such interloper would inflate high-redshift galaxy number densities by ~0.25 dex, arguing that multi-epoch imaging is essential in dropout searches.

Core claim

The central claim is that beacon_1420-5253_4770, selected as a z~14 galaxy candidate, is a Type Ia supernova at z~4.3. The SED at +3.4 days relative to maximum, with the spectrum of SN 2011fe shifted to z=4.3, reproduces the observed photometry with chi2/dof=3.0. The rest-frame UV flux drop comes from Fe-group absorption, which mimics a Lyman break; the inferred SN Ia rate of 1.7e-6 Mpc^-3 yr^-1 exceeds DTD models with t_min=1.0 Gyr, implying a minimum delay time shorter than 1 Gyr.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on comparing the source's 16-band JWST/NIRCam photometry with simulated transient light curves and with the rest-frame UV spectra of the prototypical SN Ia 2011fe. The Fe-group element blanketing in SN Ia spectra creates a sharp UV break that shifts into the F150W-F200W color window at z~4, mimicking the Lyman break used to select z~14 galaxies. The delay-time distribution (DTD), convolved with the cosmic star-formation history, converts a single rate measurement at z~4.3 into a constraint on the minimum delay time t_min.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes that the sharp ultraviolet flux drop is Fe-group blanketing in a Type Ia spectrum at z~4.3, not a Lyman break at z~14 or the continuum of a different fast transient; the paper itself concedes that FBOTs and rapidly evolving TDEs cannot be completely ruled out.

What would settle it

A single spectrum of the source (or of a subsequent similar dropout) that shows broad emission or a smooth continuum instead of SN Ia Fe-group absorption, or a second-epoch detection at the position with different colors, would disprove the SN Ia interpretation; likewise, detection of a z~4.3 host galaxy in deeper off-epoch imaging would support it.

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

If this is right

  • If confirmed, this is the highest-redshift Type Ia supernova candidate to date, extending the SN Ia frontier from z~2.9 to z~4.3.
  • The rate measurement, even as a lower limit, favors SN Ia progenitors with delay times under 1 Gyr, tightening models of the SN Ia delay-time distribution at early cosmic times.
  • High-redshift galaxy dropout samples are vulnerable to transient contamination; even one interloper can bias number density estimates by ~0.25 dex.
  • Multi-epoch JWST imaging is a robust way to remove transient impostors from single-epoch galaxy selections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification holds, it would imply that a substantial fraction of ultra-luminous z>10 galaxy candidates could be lower-redshift SNe, potentially affecting cosmic dawn luminosity function estimates beyond this one object.
  • The lack of spectroscopic confirmation leaves room for alternative transient classes; a rest-frame optical spectrum around 1-1.5 micron with JWST/NIRSpec would discriminate Fe-group features from a TDE or FBOT continuum.
  • The magnifying foreground galaxy at z~1.2 provides a testable lensing correction; deeper off-epoch stacking could reveal a faint host at z~4.3 and confirm the redshift.

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 reports a single unresolved point source, beacon_1420-5253_4770, found in JWST/NIRCam imaging as part of the BEACON program. The source was originally a z~14 galaxy candidate, but it appears in only one epoch and is absent in deeper off-epoch images, establishing its transient nature. The authors classify it photometrically as a Type Ia supernova at z~4.3 using color-magnitude diagnostics, light-curve simulations, and SED fits with SN 2011fe template spectra. They then derive a volumetric SN Ia rate of 1.7e-6 Mpc^-3 yr^-1, compare it with delay-time-distribution (DTD) models, and conclude that the minimum delay time is shorter than 1 Gyr. The paper also discusses the impact of transient contamination on high-redshift galaxy searches.

Significance. If the classification is correct, this would be the highest-redshift Type Ia supernova candidate known, probing the DTD at a cosmic age of ~1.5 Gyr and providing a concrete example of a transient masquerading as a z~14 Lyman-break galaxy. The multi-epoch detection and non-detection are well documented, and the host-galaxy upper limits are carefully treated. The paper is valuable as a cautionary case for transient contamination in JWST high-redshift galaxy surveys. However, the central SN Ia identification rests on a single-epoch SED with an acknowledged degeneracy against fast blue optical transients (FBOTs) and rapidly evolving TDEs, and the SED fit has a formally poor chi-square. The rate and DTD implications are therefore conditional on an unsecured classification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1] The central classification as a SN Ia at z~4.3 is not secure. The authors explicitly state that fast blue optical transients (FBOTs) and rapidly evolving TDEs (e.g., AT 2020wey) 'cannot be completely ruled out'. The only quantitative argument against these alternatives is a rarity estimate (expected number ~10^-3-10^-2 over the survey area), which is not a strong exclusion for a single event. No FBOT or rapidly evolving TDE spectral templates are fitted to the SED. If the source is such a transient, the SN Ia rate and the DTD conclusion in §4.1 collapse. A direct template comparison (e.g., AT 2020wey at z~4) should be added before claiming a SN Ia identification.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 4] The best-fitting SN 2011fe template at +3.4 d and z=4.3 gives chi^2/dof=3.0, which is a statistically poor fit (p~10^-3 for ~10 degrees of freedom). The wording 'reproduces the observed SED remarkably well' is not supported by this number. Moreover, the best-fit redshift varies from z=4.6 (-2.9 d) to z=4.0 (+9.6 d) depending on template phase, showing a strong phase-redshift degeneracy. The fit also assumes zero dust extinction, which is unconstrained given the non-detection of a host. These issues weaken the claim that Fe-group blanketing uniquely explains the observed UV drop.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (1)-(4)] The event rate r=1.7e-6 Mpc^-3 yr^-1 and the resulting t_min<1 Gyr constraint depend entirely on the adopted SN Ia classification and on using SN Ia light-curve templates to define the survey volume/duration. Since the classification is not secure, the DTD conclusion should be presented as conditional ('if this is a SN Ia'). In addition, the 1sigma lower limit on the rate is 0.3e-6 Mpc^-3 yr^-1; the paper does not quantify whether the t_min=1.0 Gyr model is excluded at a meaningful confidence level. The 'implies' language in the abstract overstates the robustness of the result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The title/abstract include a typo: 'T ransient' appears with an extra space in the title line. Also, the phrase 'implies' in the abstract should be softened to 'suggests' if the classification remains a candidate.
  2. [§2, Table 2] The off-epoch limiting magnitudes are quoted at 2sigma, while the on-epoch non-detections in Table 1 are also 2sigma. It would help to state this consistently in the text and to give the aperture correction/PSF matching details for the multi-epoch photometry.
  3. [§3.2 / Fig. 3] In the right panel of Figure 3, the axes are not labeled in the caption (the text mentions phase and redshift, but the figure itself should show units). The light-curve comparison in Fig. 1 would benefit from showing the off-epoch upper limits as data points with arrows, rather than only model lines.
  4. [§4.2] The statement that the source would increase the z~14 galaxy number density by ~0.25 dex is illustrative but assumes the source would otherwise be included in the sample. This should be stated as conditional on the original selection, which is understood but could be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SN Ia classification, rate estimate, and DTD constraint are model-dependent statistical inferences, not reductions to input definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the formal sense. The classification of beacon_1420-5253_4770 as a Type Ia supernova at z~4.3 is obtained by comparing observed colors, magnitudes, light curves, and SED against external templates (salt2-extended; SN 2011fe spectra from Mazzali et al. 2014). The rate estimate in Eq. (1) uses survey volume ΔV and duration ΔT computed by applying the high-redshift galaxy selection cuts to simulated SN Ia light curves (Appendix D); this is a standard visibility/volume calculation for the assumed model, not a fit to the target quantity. The DTD comparison ('The estimated event rate exceeds the model predictions for t_min = 1.0 Gyr') is a direct comparison of the derived rate with an external model; no DTD parameter is fitted from the source. The paper explicitly concedes that FBOTs or rapidly evolving TDEs 'cannot be completely ruled out' (Sec. 3.1), which is a correctness/robustness limitation rather than evidence that any result reduces to its inputs. Self-citations (BEACON program papers, Zhang et al. 2026a) supply data products and the original candidate selection, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and are not load-bearing in a circular way. The conclusion is conditional on the SN Ia classification, but conditionality is not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central classification rests on literature SN templates and light-curve models, not on a first-principles derivation. The main free parameters are the redshift and phase, which are constrained by the data; the DTD comparison uses model assumptions from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Source redshift (z) = 4.3 (range 4.0-4.6 from different template epochs)
    Redshift is a free parameter in the SED fitting; the best-fit depends on the adopted spectral phase of SN 2011fe, giving z=4.0-4.6.
  • Photometric phase (t0) = +0 to +10 days from B-band maximum
    Phase is constrained from the photometric classification and the allowed region in Fig 3; the SED fit is performed at four discrete phases (-2.9, +0.1, +3.4, +9.6 d) and the best is selected.
  • SN Ia stretch and color (x1, c) = x1=0.945, c=-0.043
    Adopted from Betoule et al. (2014) and Scolnic & Kessler (2016), not fitted here; they set the light curve shape and peak luminosity.
  • SN Ia peak absolute magnitude (m_B - mu) = -19.05
    Representative value for a normal SN Ia from Betoule et al. (2014); used to scale simulated light curves in Sections 3.2 and 4.1.
  • Detection efficiency epsilon = 1
    Set to unity in Section 4.1 to give the lowest (most conservative) event rate; true efficiency likely <1, which would raise the rate.
  • Minimum delay time t_min = tested values 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 Gyr
    Not fitted; the paper compares the derived rate to DTD models with these assumed values. The conclusion t_min<1 Gyr follows from this comparison.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Adopted in Section 2 for distance and volume calculations.
  • domain assumption SN Ia spectral templates of SN 2011fe are representative of SNe Ia at z~4.3 (no redshift evolution in UV spectra)
    Section 3.3 assumes the template SED applies at z~4.3; no evolutionary correction is applied.
  • domain assumption The salt2-extended and Hsiao light curve models accurately predict SN Ia fluxes at high redshift and at rest-frame phases -20 to +50 days
    Used in Sections 3.2 and 4.1 for color-magnitude and rate calculations.
  • domain assumption The DTD shape Ψ(t)=A(t/t_min)^-1 and normalization N/M*=1.3e-3 M_sun^-1
    Adopted in Section 4.1 from Maoz et al. (2012, 2014).
  • domain assumption The Madau & Fragos (2017) star formation rate density at z>4
    Used to compute expected SN Ia rates from the DTD.
  • ad hoc to paper The source is not an FBOT or rapidly evolving TDE
    The paper admits these cannot be ruled out (Section 3.1) but proceeds with the SN Ia interpretation.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is opening a new window into the distant Universe by discovering galaxies and transients in the early Universe. We investigate a high-redshift transient candidate, beacon_1420-5253_4770. This object was initially identified as a high-redshift galaxy candidate at $z\sim14$. However, the source was not detected in epochs before and after the detection epoch, suggesting that the object is a transient source rather than a persistent galaxy. We classify the source by comparing the colors, magnitudes, light curves, and spectral energy distribution with various spectral templates of transients. Our analysis shows that the observed properties are consistent with a Type Ia supernova at $z\sim4.3$. Strong absorption by Fe-group elements seen in Type Ia supernova spectra can mimic the Lyman break used to detect high-redshift galaxies. At $z \sim 4.3$, corresponding to a cosmic age of only $\sim 1.5$ Gyr, our detection provides a direct probe of the delay time between star formation and supernova explosion. Our estimate of the event rate implies a minimum delay time shorter than 1 Gyr. We also discuss the implications of transient contamination for searches of galaxies in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18972 by Andrew J. Bunker, Charlotte A. Mason, George Helou, Kazumi Kashiyama, Kimi C. Kreilgaard, Masaomi Tanaka, Massimo Stiavelli, Matthew J. Hayes, Seiji Toshikage, Tadayuki Kodama, Takahiro Morishita, Tommaso Treu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Upper) JWST NIRCam F200W postage stamps at the position of beacon 1420-5253 4770 (red circles; r = 0. ′′16) at three different epochs, Dec 2022 (upper left; PID 1345), June 2024 (upper middle; 3990), and June 2025 (upper right; 6434). The image orientation is matched to the June 2024 image. A bright galaxy at zp = 1.2 ± 0.1 is also seen, at a projected distance of ∼ 8 kpc from beacon 1420-5253 4770. (Lowe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Luminosity (top), radius (middle), and tempera￾ture (bottom) derived from the blackbody fitting as a func￾tion of redshift. In the top panel, the shaded regions show typical luminosity ranges (from the maximum luminosity to ∼ 10% of the maximum) and corresponding redshift ranges for different types of transients. these populations readily overshoot the off-epoch upper limits (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Left) Color-magnitude diagram of simulated transients. beacon 1420-5253 4770 is shown as a red star. The shaded regions indicate the color-magnitude space covered by each SN type based on the simulated light curves. (Right) The allowed phase and redshift region obtained by comparing simulated SN Ia light curves with the observed photometry of beacon 1420-5253 4770. SNe in the relatively low-redshift regim… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed SED (circles and triangles) compared with the spectra of SN 2011fe (black curves, P. A. Mazzali et al. 2014). Synthetic photometry of the spectrum are shown with squares. Each panel shows the spectrum at a different phase at the best-fit redshift: spectrum at −2.9 days from the maximum (z = 4.6, upper left panel), spectrum at +0.1 days (z = 4.6, upper right panel), spectrum at +3.4 days (z = 4.3, … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Event rate from beacon 1420-5253 4770 (red cir￾cle) compared with SN Ia rate predictions with different min￾imum delay times. The error bar corresponds to the 1σ con￾fidence interval. We assume the form for the DTD as follows (D. A. How￾ell 2011; D. Maoz & O. Graur 2017): ΨIa(t) =    0 (t < tmin), A  t tmin −1 (tmin ≤ t). (3) The normalization factor A determined by requiring that the DTD integrat… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Light curves of beacon 1420-5253 4770 com￾pared with simulated light curves of luminous and rare tran￾sient populations. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines show SLSNe, TDEs, and PISNe, respectively. 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Redshift 0 20 40 60 80 100 2 / d o f 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Redshift 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 2 / d o f 2.9 days +0.1 days +3.4 days +9.6 days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: χ 2 /dof of the SED fitting using the spectra of SN 2011fe at different redshifts. The blue, orange, green, and red curves show the results with the spectra at -2.9, +0.1, +3.4, and +9.6 days from the maximum brightness. mum (+0.1 days) or before the maximum (−2.9 days), the preferred redshift is z ≃ 4.6. If we adopt a later epoch, the preferred redshift becomes smaller, as the wavelength of the spectral b… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A potential host galaxy SED prediction (blue solid line; diamonds correspond to the synthetic photometric fluxes; z = 4.3, M∗ = 3 × 106 M⊙, MUV = −16.6 mag). Data from the on-epoch (June 2024, representing the SN; gray circles) and two deepest upper limits from the off-epochs (June 2025; inverted triangles) are shown. Upper limits are 2 σ. The z = 13.7 galaxy model (Y. Zhang et al. 2026a), fit to the June … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The allowed phase and redshift region ob￾tained by applying high-redshift galaxy cut (SNRF277W > 4, SNRF150W < 2, SNRF115W < 2, and SNRF090W < 2) to sim￾ulated SN Ia light curves. Cooke, J., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 228, doi: 10.1038/nature11521 Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05513 [PITH_F… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2021, The JWST-legacy narrow-band survey of H-alpha and [OIII] emitters in the epoch of reionization,, JWST Proposal

    Banados, E., Connor, T., Decarli, R., et al. 2021, The JWST-legacy narrow-band survey of H-alpha and [OIII] emitters in the epoch of reionization,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2234

    2021

  2. [2]

    2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

    2016

  3. [3]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 2014

  4. [4]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e Bradaˇ c, M., Willott, C., Asada, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.23668, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.23668

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.23668 2021

  5. [5]

    J., Wilkins, S., Ellis, R

    Bunker, A. J., Wilkins, S., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 855, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17350.x

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  7. [7]

    Charalampopoulos, P., Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065 20 0 20 40 60 80 Phase (Days) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Redshift F090W F115W F150W F277W All criteria Figure 9.The allowed phase and redshift region ob- tained by applying high-redshift galaxy cut (SNR F277W >4, SNRF150W <2, SNR F115W <2, and SNR F090W <2...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245065 2023

  8. [8]

    2012, Nature, 491, 228, doi: 10.1038/nature11521

    Cooke, J., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 228, doi: 10.1038/nature11521

    doi:10.1038/nature11521 2012

  9. [9]

    A., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05513 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05513 2025

  10. [10]

    A., Larison, C., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Larison, C., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04156

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04156 2026

  11. [11]

    2025a, ApJ, 990, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade78c

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 990, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade78c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade78c

  12. [12]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 979, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8fab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8fab

  13. [13]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12018

    DeCoursey, C., Vassallo, C., Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12018. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.11515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.11515

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11515 2026

  15. [15]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  16. [16]

    2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 62107, doi: 10.33232/001c.162107

    Ferrara, A., Carniani, S., Morishita, T., & Stiavelli, M. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 62107, doi: 10.33232/001c.162107

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.162107 2026

  17. [17]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023

  18. [18]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3 2025

  19. [19]

    2026, A&A, 706, A364, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557061

    Gandolfi, G., Rodighiero, G., Castellano, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A364, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557061

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557061 2026

  20. [20]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  21. [21]

    L., Nugent, P

    Gilliland, R. L., Nugent, P. E., & Phillips, M. M. 1999, ApJ, 521, 30, doi: 10.1086/307549

    doi:10.1086/307549 1999

  22. [22]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2270 2024

  23. [23]

    N., Helton, J

    Hainline, K. N., Helton, J. M., Miles, B. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00111, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00111 2025

  24. [24]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 2023

  25. [25]

    J., Tan, J

    Hayes, M. J., Tan, J. C., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a7 2024

  26. [26]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 2023

  27. [27]

    Howell, D. A. 2011, Nature Communications, 2, 350, doi: 10.1038/ncomms1344

    doi:10.1038/ncomms1344 2011

  28. [28]

    Y., Conley, A., Howell, D

    Hsiao, E. Y., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1187, doi: 10.1086/518232

    doi:10.1086/518232 2007

  29. [29]

    Y.-Y., Sun, F., Lin, X., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Sun, F., Lin, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03873, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03873

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.03873 2025

  30. [30]

    Assessing Ultra-Cool Dwarf Contamination in Photometrically Selected High-Redshift Galaxy Samples

    Innala, O., Leethochawalit, N., Morishita, T., & Trenti, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.02354, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.02354

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02354 2026

  31. [31]

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae517d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae517d 2026

  32. [32]

    C., Mason, C

    Kreilgaard, K. C., Mason, C. A., Morishita, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.17963. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17963

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    2005, ApJ, 624, 880, doi: 10.1086/428657

    Levan, A., Nugent, P., Fruchter, A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 880, doi: 10.1086/428657

    work page doi:10.1086/428657 2005

  34. [34]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 2017

  35. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e 2017

  36. [36]

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Brandt, T. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3282, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x

    arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  38. [38]

    A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T

    Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2015a, ApJ, 813, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/21

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/21

  39. [39]

    A., Treu, T., Schmidt, K

    Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Schmidt, K. B., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 805, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/79

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/79

  40. [40]

    A., Sullivan, M., Hachinger, S., et al

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Hachinger, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu077

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu077 2014

  41. [41]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba83

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Trenti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba83 2020

  42. [42]

    A., Kreilgaard, K

    Morishita, T., Mason, C. A., Kreilgaard, K. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbdc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbbdc 2025

  43. [43]

    J., Tanaka, M., Yasuda, N., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Tanaka, M., Yasuda, N., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab07c5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab07c5 2019

  44. [44]

    A., Marchesini, D., et al

    Muzzin, A., Suess, K. A., Marchesini, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.19706, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.19706

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19706 2025

  45. [45]

    2021, Where Cosmic Dawn Breaks First: Mapping the Primordial Overdensity Powering a z 9 Ionized Bubble,, JWST Proposal

    Naidu, R., Bouwens, R., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, Where Cosmic Dawn Breaks First: Mapping the Primordial Overdensity Powering a z 9 Ionized Bubble,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2279

    2021

  46. [46]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 56033, doi: 10.33232/001c.156033

    doi:10.33232/001c.156033 2026

  47. [47]

    A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E

    Palicio, P. A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E. 2024, A&A, 689, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449740

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449740 2024

  48. [48]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Rodney, S., Avelino, A., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadb7a

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aadb7a 2018

  49. [49]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908 2024

  50. [50]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb1d9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb1d9 2025

  51. [51]

    C., Burgasser, A., et al

    Pirzkal, N., Sahu, K. C., Burgasser, A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 319, doi: 10.1086/427896

    doi:10.1086/427896 2005

  52. [52]

    L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L

    Richardson, D., Jenkins, III, R. L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L. 2014, AJ, 147, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/118 2014

  53. [53]

    A., Riess, A

    Rodney, S. A., Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/13 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/13 2014

  54. [54]

    J., Ormerod, K., et al

    Schouws, S., Bouwens, R. J., Ormerod, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf1b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbf1b 2025

  55. [55]

    2016, ApJL, 822, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L35

    Scolnic, D., & Kessler, R. 2016, ApJL, 822, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L35

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/l35 2016

  56. [56]

    R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c32

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c32 2024

  57. [57]

    C., Pettini, M., & Hamilton, D

    Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Hamilton, D. 1995, AJ, 110, 2519, doi: 10.1086/117709

    work page doi:10.1086/117709 1995

  58. [58]

    Johnson, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e0 van Velzen, S., Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e0 2018

  59. [59]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12028

    Vassallo, C., Mattila, S., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12028. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc93f

    Yan, H., Wang, L., Ma, Z., & Hu, L. 2023, ApJL, 947, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc93f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc93f 2023

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y., Ravi, V., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 2023

  62. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3241

    Popping, G., & Dav´ e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3241

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3241 2019

  63. [63]

    C., et al

    Zhang, Y., Morishita, T., Kreilgaard, K. C., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.02861

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02861

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.