Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Ripples in the OCEANS: Broad Line Variability of Little Red Dots

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two of six little red dots show marginal variability in their broad Hα lines, evidence that at least some of these compact JWST sources are powered by accreting black holes rather than scattered light.

desk verdict A transparent, marginal variability study of six LRDs that deserves refereeing but whose two low-significance detections rest on an unvalidated narrow-line constancy assumption, which the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12487 v1 pith:PTVI75GT submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Madisyn Brooks , Kelcey Davis , Jonathan R. Trump , Raymond C. Simons , Erini Lambrides , Pablo Arrabal Haro , Bren E. Backhaus , Nikko J. Cleri
show 11 more authors
Steven L. Finkelstein Mauro Giavalisco Norman A. Grogin Michaela Hirschmann Dale D. Kocevski Anton M. Koekemoer Rebecca L. Larson Ray A. Lucas Stephen M. Wilkins Stijn Wuyts Jorge A. Zavala
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords littlereddotsbroad-linevariabilityactivegalacticnucleiHαemissionJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopysupermassiveblackholeselectronscatteringquasar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether little red dots—compact, red, JWST-discovered sources—are powered by accreting supermassive black holes or by light scattering in dense gas. The authors compare new high-resolution spectra of six little red dots with archival observations taken roughly 100–180 rest-frame days earlier. Two sources show marginal changes in their broad Hα line flux: 27% variability at 2.1σ significance for OCEANS-100424 and 50% at 1.5σ for the GlimmIr, while the other four show no broad-line change and the sample shows no continuum variability. The authors read this as evidence that at least some little red dots have a direct line of sight to a compact, virialized broad-line region near a black hole, which would favor the AGN interpretation over pure scattering models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing method is multi-epoch flux calibration through a narrow forbidden line, usually [Oiii] λλ4959,5007 and for the GlimmIr [Neiii] λ3869: each archival spectrum is scaled by the ratio of the narrow-line flux between epochs (the paper's Eq. 1) so that different slit orientations and aperture losses cancel. The Hα + [Nii] complex is then fit simultaneously across epochs with a shared narrow component plus a broad Gaussian using an MCMC routine, and the 5100 Å continuum is measured from the same calibrated spectra. The narrow-line ratio is doing all the work: if the narrow-line flux is not truly constant, the derived broad-line variability is an artifact, and the paper notes that the constant narrow-line assumption, well tested for local AGN, may not hold for little red dots; the GlimmIr's [Neiii] ratio has 25 times lower sensitivity than the [Oiii] ratios and dominates its uncertainty budget.

What would settle it

Re-observe OCEANS-100424 and the GlimmIr in a third epoch with deep, high-resolution spectroscopy that covers both the [Oiii]/[Neiii] calibrators and Hα, and measure whether the narrow-line fluxes stay constant; if a calibrator line changes by more than roughly its statistical error between any two epochs, the reported 27% and 50% broad-line variability fractions are calibration artifacts, not AGN variability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that two of six little red dots re-observed with higher-resolution JWST spectroscopy show marginal broad Hα flux variability—27% (2.1σ) in OCEANS-100424 and 50% (1.5σ) in the GlimmIr—while four others are consistent with no broad-line variability (1σ upper limits of 4.8%–30%) and none of the six shows significant continuum variability. The authors argue that broad-line variability on these ~100–180 rest-frame day baselines indicates that the broad Hα emission originates close to a central engine, with a clear line of sight undiluted by scattering or reprocessing. They additionally compare the observed pattern to low-redshift quasar variability and find that reproducing two variable and four nonvariable sources has a 4.71% probability, a ~2σ departure from typical quasar behavior, driven mainly by the extreme variability of the GlimmIr.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that each source's narrow [Oiii] (or, for the GlimmIr, [Neiii]) line flux is constant across the ~100–180 rest-frame days between observations, so that the ratio of narrow-line fluxes can be used to place the two epochs on the same flux scale; the paper itself notes this may not hold for little red dots, and for the GlimmIr the [Neiii] calibrator is 25 times less sensitive and dominates the uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the variability is real, at least some little red dots contain a compact, virialized broad-line region with a direct line of sight, which would validate applying local single-epoch black-hole mass estimators to this population.
  • Pure electron-scattering models for the broad lines are disfavored for OCEANS-100424 and the GlimmIr, since scattering would smooth out any variability signal; both sources also lack the exponential line wings that scattering models predict.
  • The four nonvariable sources and the lack of continuum variability imply that little red dots are not a homogeneous population and that variability may be tied to evolutionary phase or covering fraction.
  • The 4.71% joint probability means the observed two-variable/four-nonvariable pattern is a ~2σ departure from typical quasar variability, with the GlimmIr as the main outlier; higher signal-to-noise re-observation of OCEANS-161695 would sharpen the nonvariable constraints.
  • OCEANS-100424's variability amplitude lies near the 3σ detection limit of the existing slitless survey that found no variability, which can reconcile the two results.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive next step the paper does not take would be a third epoch for these two sources with deep coverage of both [Oiii] and Hα; if the narrow-line calibrator itself varies, both detections would vanish.
  • Measuring variability of higher-ionization lines such as Hβ or He II in the same spectra would test whether the inner broad-line region responds to continuum changes, strengthening the virial interpretation.
  • The authors' post-blowout or clumpy-medium explanation predicts a correlation between variability amplitude, Balmer break strength, and line-profile shape; ranking a larger sample of little red dots by these properties would test that picture.
  • If the 4.71% quasar-comparison result holds up in a larger sample, it would imply that little red dots differ systematically from low-redshift quasars in broad-line-region geometry, Eddington ratio, or the fraction of non-AGN contaminants among nonvariable sources.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper searches for broad Halpha and continuum variability in six Little Red Dots (LRDs) by comparing new R~2700 OCEANS NIRSpec observations with archival R~1000 CEERS/RUBIES spectra. Using [Oiii] (or [Neiii]) narrow-line fluxes to flux-calibrate the epochs via Eq. (1) and fitting the Halpha+[Nii] complex with a narrow+broad Gaussian model, the authors report marginal broad-line variability in OCEANS-100424/RUBIES-42232 (27% at 2.1 sigma) and OCEANS-35829/RUBIES-49140, the GlimmIr (50% at 1.5 sigma), and upper limits of 4.8%--30% for the other four LRDs. They find no significant continuum variability and compare the sample to SDSS-RM quasars, concluding that the probability of reproducing two variable and four nonvariable sources is 4.71%, corresponding to a ~2 sigma departure from typical quasar variability. The paper interprets the marginal broad-line variability as evidence for a direct line of sight to an AGN broad-line region in at least some LRDs, as opposed to purely scattering-dominated models.

Significance. If the variability detections are robust, this is a valuable and timely result: it would be one of the first direct dynamical tests favoring an AGN/BLR origin for at least a subset of LRDs and would disfavor pure electron-scattering models for those objects. The paper has several genuine strengths: it uses an external SDSS-RM benchmark rather than tuning parameters to force detections, it performs Monte Carlo comparisons with a clearly described sample construction, it applies empirical uncertainty corrections to mitigate known NIRSpec pipeline issues, and it carefully documents and excludes a problematic epoch (RUBIES P63) using quantitative spatial-profile checks. The authors are also appropriately transparent that both detections are marginal and that the normalization uncertainty dominates. However, the central claim rests on an unvalidated assumption about narrow-line constancy, and the statistical significance is low, so the headline conclusion is not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The flux calibration assumes that the narrow [Oiii] (or [Neiii]) flux is constant over the ~100 rest-frame day baselines and that slit losses are identical across epochs, but this is not demonstrated for LRDs. The paper itself notes that constant narrow-line fluxes in local AGN may not be applicable to LRDs (citing Ishikawa et al. 2026). This assumption is load-bearing: for OCEANS-100424 the [Oiii] ratio is 0.47+-0.06, and for the GlimmIr the [Neiii] ratio is 0.71+-0.25, with the latter dominating the uncertainty budget (Section 4). A modest 10--20% intrinsic narrow-line variation or differential slit loss between epochs could produce the reported Delta F/F values without any broad-line variability. The authors should provide an independent check of calibrator constancy, for example by comparing multiple narrow lines across epochs, or by quantifying the maximum allowable calibrator drift before the detections disappear.
  2. [Section 4.2] The Monte Carlo comparison includes the GlimmIr as one of the '2 variable' sources, but the GlimmIr was intentionally pre-selected for OCEANS follow-up because it was already known to vary (Lambrides et al. 2026a; stated in Section 4.2). Counting a pre-selected variable source as a random draw from the SDSS-RM variability distribution inflates the significance of the comparison. The reported 4.71% probability of reproducing '2 variable and 4 nonvariable quasars' is therefore not an unbiased test of the LRD population. The authors should either repeat the Monte Carlo excluding the GlimmIr or treat its variability as a prior, and report the resulting probability; note that the 86% consistency quoted for OCEANS-100424 suggests the independent evidence is much weaker.
  3. [Section 4, Table 3] Both reported detections are below 3 sigma (2.1 sigma and 1.5 sigma), and for OCEANS-100424 the variability measurement relies on a single OCEANS epoch compared with a single RUBIES epoch after the exclusion of RUBIES P63. The Appendix convincingly justifies dropping P63 on the basis of its broader spatial profile, but the authors should demonstrate that the inferred variability is not sensitive to the choice of which RUBIES epoch is used, or at least quantify how the significance would change if P63 were included. As it stands, the 'detection' for OCEANS-100424 is a two-epoch comparison with a calibration uncertainty that is comparable to the signal.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The 1-sigma upper limits of 4.8%--30% are quoted only as a range; please list the individual upper limits per source or refer explicitly to their values in Table 3 or Figure 6.
  2. [References] The entries for de Graaff et al. 2025b and 2025d appear to be identical (A&A, 697, A189); please check whether one is a duplicate or should cite a different paper.
  3. [Section 1] In the sentence describing Madau et al. (2026), 'viralized' should be 'virialized'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The text says the GlimmIr P6 observation has a chip gap in its [Oiii] region and later says it also has a chip gap in the 5100 Å region; please make the wording consistent about which regions are affected.
  5. [Section 4.2] The description of drawing '20 random spectroscopic pairs' per SDSS-RM source should clarify how pairs are drawn when a source has a limited number of epochs and whether the random draws are independent across sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variability measurements are empirical flux ratios calibrated by an explicitly flagged narrow-line assumption and benchmarked against external SDSS-RM data; the disclosed GlimmIr preselection is a selection effect, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an empirical measurement, not a derivation from its inputs. Equation (1) renormalizes the earlier epoch by the narrow [Oiii]/[Neiii] flux ratio; the broad Hα fluxes are then obtained by a two-component MCMC fit, and the reported ΔF/F values are simple ratios of the fitted broad fluxes. Nothing in this chain defines the variability amplitude in terms of the [Oiii] ratio: a nonvariable broad line would still yield ΔF/F ≈ 0 after normalization, and the two 'variable' sources are the ones with the largest normalization errors, which the paper explicitly attributes to uncertainty rather than to an enforced relation. The authors themselves flag the calibrator assumption: 'the constant [Oiii] fluxes from these sources are in part due to a well developed narrow line region with a large extent, which might not be applicable in LRDs (Ishikawa et al. 2026).' That is an acknowledged systematic limitation, not a circular step. The GlimmIr was 'intentionally pre-selected for follow-up observations in the OCEANS survey due to known variability (Lambrides et al. 2026a),' which biases the 2-of-6 counting, but the paper discloses this and it is a sample-selection effect rather than an equation reducing to its own input. Self-citations to Davis et al. (2026) and Lambrides et al. (2026a) provide supporting source characterization (Gaussian profiles, prior variability) but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or to forbid alternatives; the central AGN-vs-scattering inference rests on the measured variability itself. The SDSS-RM comparison uses an external, published quasar sample and a fixed Monte Carlo procedure, so the 4.71% probability is not a fitted prediction. I find no circular step; the main concerns (narrow-line constancy, preselection) are validity caveats, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical calibration and modeling assumptions rather than new physics. The key fitted inputs are the [Oiii]/[Neiii] normalization ratios, which set the variability scale, and the Gaussian line decomposition. No free parameters are tuned to force the detections; the significance is low because the normalization errors are large. The main unverified input is the constancy of the narrow-line calibrator in LRDs.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-epoch [Oiii]/[Neiii] normalization ratios = 0.34-1.19; 0.47±0.06 (OCEANS-100424), 0.71±0.25 (OCEANS-35829)
    These ratios rescale the archival spectra in Eq. 1 and define the measured variability amplitude. The GlimmIr ratio rests on a low-SNR [Neiii] measurement and dominates its 1.5 sigma detection; if the ratios are wrong, the detections change or vanish.
  • Broad/narrow Halpha Gaussian decomposition parameters = Fbroad values in Table 3; FWHM_broad > 700 km/s prior
    The line-profile model assigns flux to broad versus narrow components. The paper checks a degraded-resolution variant, but any systematic in the decomposition maps directly to the inferred broad-line variability.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Narrow [Oiii] (or [Neiii]) line flux is constant over rest-frame ~100 day baselines and can serve as flux calibrator.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and Eq. 1; cited local-AGN behavior may not apply to compact LRDs (Ishikawa et al. 2026), making this the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption Slit loss and spatial-profile differences are effectively corrected by the [Oiii]/[Neiii] normalization, with no residual aperture mismatch across epochs.
    The paper removes RUBIES P63 for spatial-profile mismatch (Appendix), showing that aperture differences matter; the same risk is assumed negligible for the remaining epochs.
  • domain assumption Broad Halpha is adequately described by a narrow plus broad Gaussian model with a constant total narrow Halpha flux across epochs.
    Section 3.2 forces the total narrow Halpha flux equal across epochs, so any change in the narrow line or non-Gaussian component would be absorbed into the broad flux and produce false variability.
  • domain assumption The SDSS-RM quasar Halpha variance distribution is an appropriate benchmark for z~5-7 LRDs.
    Section 4.2 compares Monte Carlo draws from 23 SDSS-RM quasars; applicability to LRD physical conditions is assumed, and pre-selection of the GlimmIr means the LRD sample is not random.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ripples in the OCEANS: Broad Line Variability of Little Red Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTVI75GT

@misc{pith2026260812487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ripples in the OCEANS: Broad Line Variability of Little Red Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTVI75GT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12487}
}
abstract

Little Red Dots (LRDs) are a unique class of compact, red sources discovered in the JWST extragalactic deep fields. Determining if they are indeed powered by accreting supermassive black holes (SMBHs) is one of the main drivers of the intense study of these objects. Evidence for variability in these objects provides a direct test for the active galactic nucleus (AGN) nature of their central engine. In this study, we present a variability analysis of 6 LRDs observed by the $R \sim 2700$ OCEANS survey and leverage archival $R \sim 1000$ spectroscopic data from the CEERS and RUBIES surveys. We report marginal detections of $\rm H\alpha$ broad-line (BL) variability in the LRDs OCEANS-100424/RUBIES-42232 (27\% variability at 2.1$\sigma$ significance) and OCEANS-35829/RUBIES-49140 (GlimmIr/Irony; 50\% variability at 1.5$\sigma$ significance). The other 4 LRDs in our sample do not show evidence for BL variability, with a 1$\sigma$ upper limit of $4.8 \% - 30\%$ variability between their epochs of observations. We also find no evidence ($<1\sigma$) for continuum variability in our LRD sample. We compare our results to a sample of SDSS-RM quasars to determine the probability of our broad $\rm H\alpha$ variability detections. We find that the probability of reproducing 2 variable and 4 nonvariable quasars is $4.71\%$, corresponding to $\sim 2 \sigma$ departure from typical quasar variability. The detection of BL $\rm H\alpha$ variability in 2 LRDs provides some evidence for the AGN nature of these objects as opposed to pure scattering models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. F155W-F200W vs F200W-F444W for the full OCEANS sample. The full OCEANS sample is shown with the gray circles. Targets selected to be LRDs following the prescription described in Barro et al. (2024, 2025) are shown with the light blue circles. LRDs that are included in this work are shown with stars. Two LRDs, OCEANS-100424 and the GlimmIr, with marginal evidence for broad Hα vari￾ability are shown with the dark blue… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color image cutouts and NIRSpec MSA slit configurations for our sample of LRDs. OCEANS configurations are shown in blue, RUBIES in red, and CEERS in purple. All images are 3′′ × 3 ′′ in size. 2023). We note that the constant [Oiii] fluxes from these sources are in part due to a well developed narrow line region with a large extent, which might not be applica￾ble in LRDs (Ishikawa et al. 2026). The [Oiii] or [Neiii] … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. OCEANS vs RUBIES/CEERS flux and luminositiy measurements. The left panel shows the raw [Neiii] flux for the GlimmIr and the raw [Oiii] flux for the other sources in the sample, the middle panel shows the normalized 5100˚A continuum luminosity, and the right panel shows the normalized broad Hα flux. We use the [Neiii] or [Oiii] flux ratio to calibrate the RUBIES/CEERS spectra, as described in §3.1. Our sources that s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multi-epoch Hα line profiles for the OCEANS LRD sample. OCEANS observations are shown in blue, CEERS observations are shown in purple, and RUBIES observations are shown in red. The CEERS and RUBIES observations shown are flux calibrated by their [Oiii] emission line fl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized broad Hα flux versus rest-frame time between spectroscopic observations for the 6 OCEANS LRDs included in this study. The OCEANS observations are shown in blue, the RUBIES observations are shown in red, and the CEERS observations are shown in purple. The two…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability distribution of ∆F/F for a sample of SDSS-RM quasars. The SDSS-RM sample is divided into three rest-frame time bins: 100-125 days (gray), 126-150 days (pink), and 151-175 days (green). The two solid blue lines denote the ∆F/F measurements for OCEANS-100424 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: 2D spectra for each observation epoch of LRD OCEANS-100424. Middle: 2D contours in velocity–slit-position space for the OCEANS epoch (top, blue), RUBIES P62 (middle, red), and RUBIES P63 (bottom, orange), centered on the broad Hα emission line region. Right: Spat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: 2D spectra for each observation epoch of LRD the GlimmIr (OCEANS-35829). Middle: 2D contours in velocity–slit-position space for the OCEANS epoch (top, blue) and RUBIES epoch (bottom, red) centered on the broad Hα emission line region. Right: Spatial profile of t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  2. [2]

    T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogd´ an,´A., Kov´ acs, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-38...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  3. [3]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef 2023

  4. [4]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 2024

  5. [5]

    G., Kocevski, D

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e 2024

  6. [6]

    G., Kocevski, D., et al

    Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.15853

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15853 2025

  7. [7]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.11677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.11677

    Billand, J.-B., Elbaz, D., Franco, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.11677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.11677

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11677 2026

  8. [8]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419, doi: 10.1086/159843

    doi:10.1086/159843 1982

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    Brammer, G. 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22214

    Brazzini, M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22214

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Trump, J

    Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., Trump, J. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addac4

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Simons, R

    Brooks, M., Trump, J. R., Simons, R. C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5652

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Stone, Z., Shen, Y., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Burke, C. J., Stone, Z., Shen, Y., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.16082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.16082

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.20.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17515973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.20.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17515973

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    Chang, S.-J., Gronke, M., Matthee, J., & Mason, C. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    2026 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1004, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6dae

    2026 doi

  10. [18]

    1992, ApJ, 393, 113, doi: 10.1086/171490 Dalla Bont` a, E., Peterson, B

    Clavel, J., Nandra, K., Makino, F., et al. 1992, ApJ, 393, 113, doi: 10.1086/171490 Dalla Bont` a, E., Peterson, B. M., Grier, C. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452746

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    C., et al

    Davis, K., Brooks, M., Simons, R. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.00258. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00258 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21820 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel,...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., Horne, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J. M., Horne, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/129

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    L., Bagley, M

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

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Peterson, B

    Foltz, C. B., Peterson, B. M., Cariotti, E. R., et al. 1981, ApJ, 250, 508, doi: 10.1086/159396

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Trump, J

    Fries, L. B., Trump, J. R., Davis, M. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb7

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02885-8

    Fu, S., Zhang, Z., Jiang, D., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02885-8

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Secunda, A

    Furtak, L. J., Secunda, A. R., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554110

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.21614, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.21614

    Geris, S., Maiolino, R., Ji, X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.21614, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.21614

    2026 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Heintz, K. E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.adj0343

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450243

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 18Brooks et al

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Larson, R

    Hutchison, T. A., Larson, R. L., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12509

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555816

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    E., de Graaff, A., Liu, H., et al

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Liu, H., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4c88

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03130, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.03130

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    S., & Noda, H

    Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S. S., & Noda, H. 2025, PASJ, 77, 811, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf050

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    2025a, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd —

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025a, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd —. 2025b, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    doi

  33. [41]

    P., et al

    Ishikawa, Y., Eilers, A.-C., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.09647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.09647

    2026 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13082

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03370, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03370 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al

    Ji, X., Pezzulli, G., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03370, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03370 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2367

    2026 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    P., et al

    Kokorev, V., Chisholm, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4ed7

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae119e

    Kokubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2025, ApJ, 995, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae119e

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Zetzl, M., et al

    Kollatschny, W., Ochmann, M. W., Zetzl, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833727

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2013, A&A, 549, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219411 Koz lowski, S., Kochanek, C

    Kollatschny, W., & Zetzl, M. 2013, A&A, 549, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219411 Koz lowski, S., Kochanek, C. S., Udalski, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 927, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/927 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s...

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    Lambrides, E., Garofali, K., Larson, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.09607

    Lambrides, E., Larson, R., Hutchison, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.09607

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    A., Larson, R

    Lambrides, E., Hutchison, T. A., Larson, R. L., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.25991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.25991

    doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    L., Garofali, K., et al

    Lambrides, E., Larson, R. L., Garofali, K., et al. 2026b, Nature Astronomy, 10, 868, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02813-w

    doi

  48. [56]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    Laor, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, JWST Pipeline Notebooks, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15060584

    Law, D., Diaz, R., Sosey, M., et al. 2025, JWST Pipeline Notebooks, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15060584

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Leung, G. C. K., Eilers, A.-C., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.00978, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.00978

    2026 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2026, ApJ, 1005, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae74c6

    Lin, R., Zheng, Z.-Y., Wang, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae74c6

    2026 doi

  52. [60]

    1999, MNRAS, 305, 109, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02388.x

    Lira, P., Lawrence, A., O’Brien, P., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 109, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02388.x

    1999

  53. [61]

    P., Secunda, A., et al

    Liu, Z., Naidu, R. P., Secunda, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.13000

    2026 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2024, ApJL, 976, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90e1

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04216

    Madau, P., Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., & D’Eugenio, F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04216

    2026 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    V., Lewis, Z., Matthee, J., et al

    Maseda, M. V., Lewis, Z., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12b

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667

    Matthee, J., Torralba, A., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667

    2026 doi

  62. [70]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    2025 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    P., Matthee, J., de Graaff, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.30711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.30711

    2026 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    Nandal, D., & Loeb, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    2026 doi

  65. [73]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei LRD V ariability19

    2006

  66. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bb P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Barro, G., Carniani, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602....

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Foltz, C

    Peterson, B. M., Foltz, C. B., Byard, P. L., & Wagner, R. M. 1982, ApJS, 49, 469, doi: 10.1086/190807

    1982 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Bentz, M

    Peterson, B. M., Bentz, M. C., Desroches, L.-B., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 799, doi: 10.1086/444494

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Denney, K

    Peterson, B. M., Denney, K. D., De Rosa, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/109 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2013 doi

  70. [78]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    2026, ApJ, 1003, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5e6b

    Ronayne, K., Papovich, C., Kirkpatrick, A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5e6b

    2026 doi

  72. [80]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2026, Nature, 649, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09900-4

    2026 doi

  73. [81]

    Santos, D. J. D., Shimizu, T., Davies, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453292

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Rosario, D

    Scholtz, J., Harrison, C. M., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1631

    2021 doi

  75. [83]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22277

    Scholtz, J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22277

    2026 doi

  76. [84]

    S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al

    Secunda, A., Somerville, R. S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f08

    2026 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., de Graaff, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1500

    2025 doi

  78. [86]

    N., Dawson, K

    Shen, Y., Brandt, W. N., Dawson, K. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/4

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    B., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Hall, P. B., Horne, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Grier, C. J., Horne, K., et al. 2024a, ApJS, 272, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3936

    doi

  81. [89]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    Shen, Y., Zhuang, M.-Y., Li, J., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12713, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12713

    doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2608.01647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.01647 —

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Zhuang, M.-Y., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2608.01647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.01647 —. 2026b, ApJ, 1006, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae7a45

    doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    J., & Zeippen, C

    Storey, P. J., & Zeippen, C. J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03184.x

    2000

  84. [92]

    P., Mason, C

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03563, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03563

    2026 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    J., Finkelstein, S

    Taylor, A. J., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06772, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06772

    2024 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04609

    2025 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    L., Fan, X., Wang, F., & Yang, J

    Tee, W. L., Fan, X., Wang, F., & Yang, J. 2025, ApJL, 983, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc5e3

    2025 doi

  88. [96]

    2026, A&A, 707, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557537 Vanden Berk, D

    Torralba, A., Matthee, J., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557537 Vanden Berk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    2026 doi

  89. [97]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    L., et al

    Wang, B., de Graaff, A., Davies, R. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1ca

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f17

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., Liu, W., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 985, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb3e

    2025 doi

  94. [102]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/104

    Zuo, W., Wu, X.-B., Liu, Y.-Q., & Jiao, C.-L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/104

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.