Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 130 references

A minority of strongly leaking galaxies, about 20% of the population, supply roughly 87% of the ionizing photons that reionized the universe, with reionization ending near z=5.8.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:22 UTC pith:R2LWIXJT

load-bearing objection A solid, transparent inference that probably gets the big picture right, but the 20%/87% headline is a property of the assumed model, not a measured population statistic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22834 v1 pith:R2LWIXJT submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.GA

Reionization driven by the few: the ionizing budget of galaxies at z=5-10 from JWST/NIRSpec

Emma Giovinazzo , Pascal A. Oesch , Anne Verhamme , Romain A. Meyer , Callum Witten , John Chisholm , Rui Marques-Chaves , Charlotte Simmonds This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords epoch of reionizationescape fractionionizing photon budgetJWST/NIRSpecionizing emissivity functionneutral hydrogen fractionstrong leakersUV luminosity function
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.

During the epoch of reionization, intergalactic hydrogen turned from neutral to ionized, but which galaxies supplied the ionizing photons has been hard to pin down because the surrounding gas blocks direct detection. This paper builds an ionizing photon budget for redshifts 5–15 from JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 1,428 galaxies, using spectral features that betray how easily ionizing photons escape. The authors claim that the budget is dominated by a small minority: roughly 20% of galaxies with escape fractions above 10% produce about 87% of the escaping ionizing photons, while the many weak leakers contribute little. Under standard assumptions this budget completes reionization at z≈5.8, matching independent probes. If right, it shifts the search for reionization's drivers from the abundant faint population to the rare strong leakers.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ionizing emissivity of the universe at z=5–15 is set by a minority of strongly leaking galaxies, and that their integrated output alone reproduces the observed end of reionization near z=5.8. Rather than measuring escape fraction and ionizing photon production efficiency separately, the authors fit each galaxy's full spectrum with a picket-fence model, in which some sightlines are transparent to Lyman-continuum photons, and directly integrate the escaping spectrum below 912 Å to get an escaping ionizing photon rate. Combining the resulting per-galaxy distribution of log(ξion fesc) with UV luminosity functions down to absolute magnitude MUV=-13 yields an

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint distribution of log(ξion fesc), the per-galaxy product of ionizing photon production efficiency ξion and escape fraction fesc, measured from picket-fence spectral fits to 1,428 NIRSpec/prism spectra. This product is convolved with the UV luminosity function at each redshift to construct the ionizing emissivity function, which is then integrated to obtain the cosmic ionizing emissivity. Its work is to bypass the usual decomposition of the ionizing budget into separate fesc and ξion factors, preserving correlations between them, and to make the strong-versus-weak leaker split explicit.

Load-bearing premise

The entire budget assumes that the distribution of ionizing escape efficiency measured from spectra of galaxies brighter than MUV=-18 also describes fainter galaxies down to MUV=-13 at all redshifts 5<z<15; if faint galaxies leak less efficiently, the faint contribution and the 20%/87% split change.

What would settle it

Take a sample of very faint galaxies (MUV between -14 and -16) at z≈6–9, fit them with the same picket-fence model, and compare their log(ξion fesc) distribution to the bright sample's. A systematic deficit of about 0.5 dex or more would remove the faint contribution that drives the budget, delaying or overturning the z≈5.8 completion and reducing the strong-leaker share.

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

If this is right

  • If the budget is correct, reionization ends at z≈5.8, in line with independent probes from quasar damping wings and Lyman-α observations.
  • Bright galaxies (MUV≈-20) dominate the ionizing emissivity at z=5–6, while at z>6 faint galaxies (MUV>-18) contribute about equally.
  • The roughly 20% of galaxies with fesc>10% are responsible for about 87% of escaping ionizing photons; weak leakers contribute only at the low end of the ionizing luminosity function.
  • Treating fesc, ξion, and the UV luminosity density as independent average values delays reionization's end to z≈5.4, so correlations among these quantities must be preserved.
  • The faint-end slope of the UV luminosity function, rather than the fesc or ξion uncertainties, is the largest source of uncertainty in the neutral-fraction evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's caveat that high fesc is likely a transient phase implies that 'the 20%' may be a rotating population: at any instant a minority of galaxies are strong leakers, but over the full reionization epoch a larger set may pass through such phases; the 87% share would then describe instantaneous output, not a fixed set of galaxies.
  • A testable extension: if future deep spectroscopy of galaxies at MUV=-14 to -16 shows that log(ξion fesc) declines toward the faint end, the strong-leaker dominance and the z≈5.8 completion would weaken; the current sample cannot rule this out.
  • If correct, reionization simulations should sample ionizing escape from a bimodal distribution (strong versus weak leakers) rather than assuming a single mean fesc, since the majority weak-leaker population contributes little to the intergalactic medium.
  • The same machinery could be applied to nebular-line surveys: strong leakers should show systematically suppressed Balmer and nebular emission relative to their UV continuum, giving an observational way to identify the 20% without direct Lyman-continuum detection.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses 1428 galaxies with JWST/NIRSpec PRISM spectra at 5<z<10 from the DAWN JWST Archive to measure the escaping ionizing photon production rate, Nion,esc, via spectral SED fitting with a picket-fence escape fraction model. The authors validate their Nion,int estimates against Hα-based estimates (finding a 0.05 dex offset). They construct the ionizing emissivity function by convolving UV luminosity functions with the observed distribution of log(ξion fesc) as a function of MUV, assumed to be universal in MUV and redshift, integrate to obtain the cosmic ionizing emissivity nion, and solve for the neutral fraction xHI. They find reionization ending at z~5.8, consistent with independent probes, and claim that ~20% of sources with fesc>10% produce ~87% of all ionizing photons. They also discuss the relative contributions of faint and bright galaxies.

Significance. If these results hold, they would identify a minority population of strong leakers as the dominant drivers of reionization, a key input for modeling the Epoch of Reionization and interpreting future observations. The paper's strengths include a large spectroscopic sample, a direct validation of the SED-based ionizing production against Hα, careful propagation of UV LF uncertainties, and broad comparison with independent reionization probes. The main caveat is that the headline 20%/87% result relies on the assumption that the log(ξion fesc) distribution measured for MUV<-18 galaxies applies at all magnitudes down to -13 and all redshifts 5–15; the paper acknowledges this, but the abstract and conclusions do not fully convey its conditional nature. The framework itself is a valuable contribution that allows a self-consistent estimate of the escaping ionizing output without separating ξion and fesc.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (5) and step 2] The central quantitative claim—that ~20% of sources with fesc>10% produce ~87% of ionizing photons—is not an independent measurement but a consequence of applying the observed p(log ξion fesc | MUV) from the MUV<-18 sample to all MUV down to -13 (and all redshifts). Because p is assumed MUV-independent, the fraction of strong leakers in the convolved population is fixed to the sample value (~20%). The 87% is then computed from the high tail of that same assumed distribution. The Sec. 6 caveat is candid, but the abstract and conclusions present these numbers as robust findings. Please (i) explicitly label the 20%/87% as conditional on the universality assumption, and (ii) provide sensitivity tests to plausible MUV and redshift evolution of p (e.g., using constraints from deep-lensed samples such as Jecmen et al. 2026, or by imposing a modest decrease in fesc or ξion at faint magnitudes).
  2. [Sec. 3.1 / Fig. 2] The data themselves show a mild redshift evolution of Nion,esc for strong leakers (slope 0.09±0.02, bottom panel of Fig. 2). In Sec. 4 the authors assume no redshift evolution, citing Simmonds et al. (2024b) for a mass-complete sample. This justification is indirect and does not follow from the present data, where a trend is visible. Since the ionizing emissivity at z>6 is one of the main outputs, the paper should either incorporate a redshift-dependent p in the convolution or demonstrate that the assumption does not affect the conclusions (e.g., by comparing with a test case using the measured slope).
  3. [Sec. 2.1 / Sec. 6] The DJA sample is assembled from heterogeneous surveys and no selection function is derived. The requirement of a robust redshift (grade=3) likely favors strong line emitters, which would bias the measured log(ξion fesc) distribution and hence the strong-leaker fraction. The paper notes this in Sec. 6 but does not quantify it. Given that the 20% fraction is a key input, the authors should assess the magnitude of this bias, e.g., by comparing the MUV distribution and emission-line properties of the sample with a mass-complete or photometric selection, or at least state that the 20%/87% result is contingent on this unknown selection effect.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The notation N(H0) is unconventional and could be confused with the Hubble constant; use \(\dot{N}_{\mathrm{H}^0}\) or similar.
  2. [Sec. 4, step 2] Please specify the details of the KDE used for the log(ξion fesc) distribution (e.g., kernel, bandwidth) and how the distribution is sampled in the Monte Carlo procedure.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The statement that strong leakers produce '~87% of all ionizing photons in the EoR' needs a precise definition: is this a time-integrated quantity or the value at a representative redshift? Please specify the integration range and whether the 87% is redshift-averaged.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The dashed section of the xHI curve is described as the extrapolated redshift range; please state explicitly which redshifts are extrapolated and why.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The phrase 'MUV > -18' for faint galaxies is confusing given the sample selection uses MUV<-18; adopt a consistent convention (e.g., 'fainter than MUV = -18'). Also clarify the distinction between '~20% of our sample' and '~20% of the total sources in the universe' in Sec. 7.
  6. [General] The paper would benefit from a brief discussion of the choice of the split at log(ξion fesc) = 24.5 (corresponding to fesc~10%) in terms of observational accessibility, since fesc~10% is near the detection limit mentioned in Sec. 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The headline 20%/87% strong-leaker result is imposed by applying the MUV<-18 sample's xi_ion fesc distribution to all magnitudes and redshifts, so it is a restatement of the fitted kernel rather than an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4 (Eq. 5, construction step 2); Sec. 5.1; Sec. 6 caveat]
    "we assign each MUV a value of ξion fesc drawn from the distribution in Fig. 4, which we apply at all magnitudes since our sample does not extend faintward of MUV=-18 ... This shows that it is in fact the few sources with very high escape fraction, ~20% of the total sample, that perform the bulk of reionization, producing ~87% of all ionizing photons in the EoR."

    The population-wide 20% strong-leaker fraction is an input, not a measurement: p(log ξion fesc|MUV) is estimated from the MUV<-18 DJA sample and then, in Eq. 5 / construction step 2, applied unchanged at every MUV down to -13 (and, by another assumption, at all redshifts). Since the kernel is MUV-independent, the fraction of galaxies above log(fesc ξion)=24.5 in the convolved population is forced to equal the sample's ~20%. The 87% is the ratio of the kernel's high-tail mean to its overall mean (with the UV luminosity weighting factorizing out), so it too is fixed by the same fitted distribution. Presenting this as 'remarkable' makes a property of the assumed kernel look like an empirical discovery; the paper's own Sec. 6 flags the missing magnitude evolution and possible strong-line-emitt

full rationale

Most of the paper's machinery is self-contained and externally benchmarked: the SED-based Nion estimates are cross-checked against Halpha, the UV-LF convolution is anchored to GLIMPSE/Bowler LFs, and the resulting xHI and tau_CMB are compared to independent probes. So there is no broad circularity in the reionization timeline. However, the central quantitative claim—that ~20% of sources with fesc>10% produce ~87% of ionizing photons—is not derived from independent population statistics. It is produced by Eq. 5 using p(log ξion fesc|MUV) measured only at MUV<-18 and then applied at every MUV and redshift (Sec. 4 step 2; Sec. 6 caveat). Because the same kernel is used everywhere, the convolved population inherits the sample's strong-leaker fraction by construction, and the 87% is a weighted moment of that same kernel. The paper is transparent about this in Sec. 6, but the headline number remains an extrapolated restatement of the fitted input rather than an independent prediction. The xHI agreement with external data gives the overall budget some independent support, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation leans on standard SED-fitting ingredients (BPASS, Calzetti, picket-fence) plus two paper-specific choices: the universal log(ξion fesc) kernel and the MUV=-13 cutoff. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • fesc (per galaxy) = Posterior distributions, log prior 0.001-1; sample mean ~10%
    Controls how many ionizing photons escape; direct input to Nion,esc and the strong/weak leaker split.
  • Star formation history (7 bins, continuity prior) = Per-source posterior bins
    Determines stellar population age and ionizing production; fitted simultaneously with fesc.
  • Dust attenuation A_V = Linear prior, max 0.5 mag
    Affects intrinsic SED and Nion,int; fitted to each source.
  • Metallicity Z/Zsun = Log prior 0.01-0.5
    Affects stellar ionizing spectra; fitted to each source.
  • log(ξion fesc) distribution = Sample-derived kernel, no MUV or redshift dependence
    The distribution used in Eq. 5 to convolve the UV LF; treated as universal across magnitude and redshift, which is the central extrapolation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Picket-fence model: only a fraction fesc of sightlines are transparent to LyC, the rest fully opaque
    Adopted in Sec. 2.2; simplifies the ISM geometry and directly sets the fesc posterior.
  • domain assumption BPASS v2.2.1 stellar population synthesis with broken-power-law IMF to 300 Msun
    Sets the intrinsic ionizing photon production and the H-alpha conversion; acknowledged in Sec. 6 as model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Calzetti dust law with A_V<=0.5 and no dust on free channels
    Adopted in Sec. 2.2; affects dust-corrected luminosities and Nion,int.
  • ad hoc to paper No redshift or MUV evolution of log(ξion fesc)
    Applied in Sec. 4 to extrapolate from MUV<-18 to -13 and to all z=5-15; explicitly flagged as a major caveat in Sec. 6.
  • domain assumption Constant clumping factor C_HII=3, T=10^4 K, primordial abundances 1+Yp/4Xp=1.08
    Used in Eqs. 7-8 to solve for xHI; authors note higher or evolving clumping would shift the end of reionization.
  • domain assumption Integration cutoff MUV=-13 with no faint-end turnover below the deepest observed bins
    Adopted in Sec. 5; the faint-end LF slope is the largest uncertainty in xHI.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24794 in / 12332 out tokens · 127677 ms · 2026-08-01T04:22:05.364043+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The sources responsible for the Epoch of Reionization (EoR), the last major phase transition of the Universe, remain highly elusive. While JWST has begun to illuminate the properties of early galaxies, the direct detection of their ionizing photons is virtually impossible due to the neutral intergalactic medium (IGM) at z>6. A direct estimate of the escape fraction of ionizing photons (fesc) is thus not possible. However, the escape fraction is encoded in spectral features that trace a low opacity to ionizing photons, namely the reduction of nebular emission with increasing fesc. Here, we exploit the large archive of JWST/NIRSpec spectra at 5<z<10 from the DAWN JWST Archive to provide new constraints on the ionizing emissivity of EoR galaxies and on the timeline of reionization. Through detailed spectral fitting of 1428 galaxies with a picket-fence model for the escape of ionizing photons, we derive posteriors of fesc together with the effective ionizing output. This approach yields the escaping ionizing output of each galaxy while bypassing the usual decomposition into the ionizing photon production efficiency and fesc. Combining these measurements with UV luminosity functions (LFs), we derive the hydrogen ionizing LFs, resulting in an observationally-derived ionizing photon budget at 5<z<15, integrated down to MUV=-13. Under standard assumptions, our budget yields an evolution of the IGM neutral fraction consistent with independent probes, with reionization ending at z~5.8. Given the evolving shape of the ionizing LF, bright sources (MUV ~ -20) dominate the cosmic ionizing emissivity nion at lower redshift (z=5-6), whereas at z>6 faint galaxies (MUV > -18) contribute roughly equally. Remarkably, a mere ~20% of sources, those with fesc>10%, produce ~87% of the ionizing photons. Overall, our results support a picture in which a few strongly leaking galaxies drive most of reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22834 by Anne Verhamme, Callum Witten, Charlotte Simmonds, Emma Giovinazzo, John Chisholm, Pascal A. Oesch, Romain A. Meyer, Rui Marques-Chaves.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between intrinsic ionizing photon production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kernel density estimation of log(ξion fesc) as a function of MUV. The distribution shows negligible evolution as a func￾tion of MUV. Moreover, it also shows two clouds. The main one, with the majority of our data, includes all the weak leakers, cor￾responding to the pink points in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ionizing emissivity function for five redshift ranges be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ionizing emissivity function for redshift z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Evolution of the optical depth of electron scattering as a function of redshift. Our results agree with constraints from Planck Collaboration et al. (2020), in the pink shaded area, but are much lower than recent values hypothesized by Sailer et al. (2026), based on DESI data, to solve the neutrino mass tension, shown in grey. Bottom panel: Neutral hydrogen fraction as a function of redshift, co… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Neutral hydrogen fraction as a function of redshift split [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: cumulative distribution of ˙nion as a function of MUV for nine integer redshift in the range 5 < z < 13. For all the lines, the dashed section represents the magnitude range in which we have extrapolated our results, as our initial sample only includes sources with MUV < −18. Overall, the amount of ionizing photons emitted per unit time and unit volume increases at lower redshift. Also, the co… 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

130 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 169 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 707

    2024

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.23823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Labbé, I., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 975

    2024

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Austin, D., Harvey, T., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10839

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    & Loeb, A

    Barkana, R. & Loeb, A. 2001, Phys. Rep., 349, 125

    2001

  6. [6]

    A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3453

    2025

  7. [7]

    Becker, G. D. & Bolton, J. S. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1023

    2013

  8. [8]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Lidz, A. 2015, PASA, 32, e045

    2015

  9. [9]

    D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H

    Becker, G. D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1853

    2021

  10. [10]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 92

    2024

  11. [11]

    C., Mason, C., et al

    Bolan, P., Lemaux, B. C., Mason, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3263

    2022

  12. [12]

    Bosman, S. E. I. & Davies, F. B. 2024, A&A, 690, A391

    2024

  13. [13]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55

    2022

  14. [14]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Fan, X., Jiang, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1055

    2018

  15. [15]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 140

    2015

  16. [16]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47

    2021

  17. [17]

    J., Smit, R., Labbé, I., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Labbé, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 176

    2016

  18. [18]

    J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1036

    2023

  19. [19]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059

    2020

  20. [20]

    & Valentino, F

    Brammer, G. & Valentino, F. 2025, The DAWN JWST Archive: Compilation of Public NIRSpec Spectra

    2025

  21. [21]

    Bruton, S., Lin, Y .-H., Scarlata, C., & Hayes, M. J. 2023, ApJ, 949, L40

    2023

  22. [22]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  23. [23]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 417

    2019

  24. [24]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    2018

  25. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143

    2024

  26. [26]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2267

    2026

  27. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    2022

  28. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751

    Choustikov, N., Katz, H., Saxena, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751

    2024

  29. [29]

    A., et al

    Covelo-Paz, A., Meuwly, C., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A155 D’Aloisio, A., McQuinn, M., & Trac, H. 2015, ApJ, 813, L38

    2026

  30. [30]

    B., Bosman, S

    Davies, F. B., Bosman, S. E. I., Gaikwad, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 134

    2024

  31. [31]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., Bañados, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 142

    2018

  32. [32]

    & Ferrara, A

    Dayal, P. & Ferrara, A. 2018, Phys. Rep., 780, 1

    2018

  33. [33]

    E., et al

    Dayal, P., V olonteri, M., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A211 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189

    2025

  34. [34]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 250

    2025

  35. [35]

    T., Dickinson, M., Taylor, A

    Donnan, C. T., Dickinson, M., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 224

    2025

  36. [36]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    2024

  37. [37]

    B., & Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, ApJ, 864, 53

    2018

  38. [38]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Ellis, R. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    2023

  41. [41]

    2025, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 8, 125

    Ferrara, A., Giavalisco, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 8, 125

    2025

  42. [42]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L13

    2023

  43. [43]

    P., Özel, F., & Davé, R

    Finlator, K., Oh, S. P., Özel, F., & Davé, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2464

    2012

  44. [44]

    G., Davies, F

    Gaikwad, P., Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, F. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4093

    2023

  45. [45]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  46. [46]

    2015, A&A, 578, A83

    Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., Fiore, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A83

    2015

  47. [47]

    A., Weibel, A., et al

    Giovinazzo, E., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A352

    2026

  48. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 229

    Goto, H., Shimasaku, K., Yamanaka, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 229

    2021

  49. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 84

    Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., Boutsia, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 84

    2024

  50. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 5094

    Greig, B., Mesinger, A., & Bañados, E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5094

    2019

  51. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3208

    Greig, B., Mesinger, A., Bañados, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3208

    2024

  52. [52]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y ., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138

    2025

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56

    Harikane, Y ., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56

    2024

  54. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 227

    Hassan, S., Davé, R., Mitra, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 227

    2018

  55. [55]

    M., Sembach, K

    Heckman, T. M., Sembach, K. R., Meurer, G. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 56

    2001

  56. [56]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60

    2025

  57. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 12

    Hoag, A., Bradaˇc, M., Huang, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 12

    2019

  58. [58]

    Y .-Y ., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y .-Y ., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 8

    2024

  59. [59]

    K., Hasegawa, K., Ishiyama, T., et al

    Inoue, A. K., Hasegawa, K., Ishiyama, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 55

    2018

  60. [60]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80

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

    2022

  61. [61]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 1088

    Jamieson, N., Smith, A., Neyer, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1088

    2025

  62. [62]

    C., Chisholm, J., Atek, H., et al

    Jecmen, M. C., Chisholm, J., Atek, H., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 234

    2026

  63. [63]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850

    Jiang, L., Ning, Y ., Fan, X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850

    2022

  64. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 59

    Jin, X., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 59

    2023

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 33

    Kageura, Y ., Ouchi, M., Nakane, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 33

    2025

  66. [66]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 270

    Katz, H., Saxena, A., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 270

    2023

  67. [67]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126

    2025

  68. [68]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 16

    Konno, A., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y ., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 16

    2014

  69. [69]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S16

    Konno, A., Ouchi, M., Shibuya, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S16

    2018

  70. [70]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19989

    Korber, D., Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    C., Mason, C

    Kreilgaard, K. C., Mason, C. A., Cullen, F., Begley, R., & McLure, R. J. 2024, A&A, 692, A57

    2024

  72. [72]

    C., Mason, C

    Kreilgaard, K. C., Mason, C. A., Morishita, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.17963

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545

    1993

  74. [74]

    C., Haehnelt, M

    Kulkarni, G., Keating, L. C., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L24

    2019

  75. [75]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3181

    2023

  76. [76]

    & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C. & Heckman, T. M. 1995, ApJS, 96, 9

    1995

  77. [77]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3

    2019

  78. [78]

    2025, A&A, 698, A302

    Llerena, M., Pentericci, L., Napolitano, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A302

    2025

  79. [79]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 75

    Madau, P., Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., & Haardt, F. 2024, ApJ, 971, 75

    2024

  80. [80]

    & Haardt, F

    Madau, P. & Haardt, F. 2015, ApJ, 813, L8

    2015

Showing first 80 references.