Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Lyman Continuum Leakers at $z>3$ in the GOODS-S Field: Mergers Dominated

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twenty of 23 distant galaxies that leak ionizing light show merger signatures, pointing to mergers and starbursts as the two escape routes.

desk verdict First systematic morphology census of z>3 LyC leakers finds ~87% visually classified as mergers, but the count rests on subjective classification without a control sample or inter-rater check, so the headline fraction is plausible but not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08395 v1 pith:2BH7XBJH submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.GA

Shuairu Zhu , Zhen-ya Zheng , Fang-Ting Yuan , Chunyan Jiang , Ruqiu Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LymancontinuumleakersgalaxymergerscosmicreionizationHSTimagingJWSTstar-formingmainsequenceescapefractionhigh-redshiftgalaxies
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 what lets some galaxies leak Lyman-continuum photons, the ionizing radiation (rest wavelength below 912 Å) thought to have reionized the Universe, and studies 23 known leakers at $3

What carries the argument

The load-bearing classification is visual merger identification in stacked HST and JWST images using two criteria adopted from a published merger taxonomy: (1) two or more cores and/or close companions, and (2) extended elongated structures or long tails. These morphological signatures are taken to trace ongoing or recent tidal interaction, which is the physical mechanism proposed to disturb the interstellar medium and create channels of low optical depth through which Lyman-continuum photons escape. The paper combines this with PSF-corrected half-light radii $r_{50}$ from HST ACS/F814W and star-formation-rate surface densities constructed from SED-fitted SFRs and $r_{50}$ to connect morphology, size, and star formation activity.

What would settle it

Re-run the merger classification on the same HST/JWST cutouts with a validated automated classifier or with multiple blinded human readers, alongside a matched sample of non-leaking galaxies. If the leaker merger fraction falls to the roughly 35% level of the quantitative test, or matches the non-leaker control fraction, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that mergers dominate the observed population of Lyman-continuum leakers at $3<z<4.5$: 20 of 23 GOODS-S leakers are classified as mergers, 13 by showing two or more cores or close companions and 7 by showing extended elongated structures or tails. All ten leakers on the star-forming main sequence are in the merger class, while the three non-mergers have more intense star formation, with mean $\log(\mathrm{sSFR/yr})\simeq -6.95$ versus $-7.65$ for mergers. The paper interprets this as a dichotomy: when merging does not drive escape, vigorous starburst feedback must. It further reports a mean PSF-corrected size $r_{50}=0.74$ kpc, larger than the low-redshift comparison sample's 0.51 kpc and larger than $z>5$ star-forming galaxies, and reads this as an observational bias in favor of extended, merging systems.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on visual inspection of compact, high-redshift galaxy images, with no independent second reader or matched control sample; a quantitative CAS/Gini test in the paper itself identifies only 8 of the 23 as mergers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If mergers are the dominant escape route at $3<z<4.5$, merger-driven channel clearing should be included in reionization models alongside starburst feedback.
  • Main-sequence galaxies that leak ionizing photons are predicted to show merger or interaction signatures; a clean main-sequence leaker with undisturbed morphology would break the proposed dichotomy.
  • Current LyC surveys at these redshifts are biased toward extended, bright leakers, so the true leaker population likely contains more compact, high-$\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ starbursts than we now see.
  • The low-redshift comparison, in which half of 50 leakers show merger signatures, implies the merger route operates at $z\sim0.3$ as well, but with starbursts playing a larger relative role.
  • Deep, high-resolution UV imaging should reveal additional compact leakers and thereby raise the estimated contribution of galaxies to cosmic reionization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the merger-driven channel picture is right, cold-gas kinematics of these 23 systems (e.g., with ALMA or JWST IFU) should show low-column-density sightlines aligned with the tidal features used for classification.
  • The size-bias argument predicts that a deeper UV survey at similar resolution will find a population of compact high-redshift leakers with higher mean $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ than the current GOODS-S sample.
  • A direct check of the main-sequence claim would be to compare the merger fraction of confirmed leakers with a luminosity-matched sample of non-leaking star-forming galaxies at the same redshifts; the gap, not the absolute fraction, is the cleaner test of whether mergers cause escape.
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. The paper examines the morphologies of 23 Lyman Continuum (LyC) leakers at 3<z<4.5 in GOODS-S using HST and JWST imaging. The authors report that 20/23 (about 87%) show merging signatures based on visual inspection following Jiang et al. (2013), that all star-forming main-sequence leakers are mergers, and that the three non-mergers are intense starbursts. They also measure PSF-corrected half-light radii, compare sizes and star formation surface densities with low-redshift LyC leakers and z>5 galaxies, and argue that the over-representation of extended sources at high redshift is an observational bias. The paper concludes that LyC photon escape is facilitated either by mergers or by intense starburst activity.

Significance. If the central morphological result is secure, the paper provides a systematic, observationally grounded answer to an open question in reionization studies: what physical conditions allow Lyman continuum photons to escape from high-redshift galaxies. The study is timely because it combines HST and JWST data for a literature-compiled sample of direct LyC detections, and the size comparison with low-redshift leakers and z>5 star-forming galaxies is a useful addition. The paper is transparent about several limitations, including the discrepancy with quantitative morphology (Section 3.1), and it makes explicit PSF corrections and reports Monte-Carlo-style size uncertainties. However, the headline claim—that mergers dominate LyC escape—rests on a visual classification that is not validated against a control sample or independent raters, and the quantitative CAS/Gini test supports only 8 of 23 mergers. Because that claim is the paper's main result, the current version is not yet fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1]
  2. [Section 4.1]
  3. [Section 4.1 and 4.4]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1]
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)]
  3. [Section 5 vs. Section 3.1]
  4. [Figure 2 caption]
  5. [Section 3.1]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 87% merger fraction is a direct morphological measurement; self-cited prior classifications are independent observational inputs, not constructions of the result.

full rationale

The central claim that 20 of 23 LyC leakers show merging signatures is derived from visual inspection of stacked HST/JWST images using external criteria from Jiang et al. (2013), not from the paper's own SED fits or escape-fraction measurements. The merger fraction is a direct morphological count, and the quantitative CAS/Gini check (8/23) is presented as a robustness caveat rather than as the basis of the result. The secondary statement that all main-sequence leakers are mergers cross-tabulates the visually classified merger morphology with the SED-based starburst/main-sequence classification from Zhu et al. (2024); the latter is an independent observational quantity (SFR and stellar mass) and does not by construction imply merger morphology. Similarly, the size and Sigma_SFR comparisons use SExtractor half-light radii and literature values, with no parameter fitted to force the stated conclusions. The acknowledged limitations about resolution, projection effects, and the absence of a control sample are empirical validity concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to Zhu et al. (2024) and Yuan et al. (2024) supply sample membership and physical properties, but the new morphological claim is not obtained by restating those inputs. Therefore no derivation step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced. The central numbers, the 20/23 merger fraction and mean r50 of 0.74 kpc, come from visual counting and SExtractor measurements on public images. The main inherited inputs are SED-based SFR and SFMS classifications from the same group's prior work, plus literature values for IGM transmission and intrinsic luminosity ratios; these carry domain assumptions but do not constitute circular construction.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Visual morphology criteria from Jiang et al. (2013) identify mergers as galaxies with two or more cores or companions, or with extended elongated structures and tidal tails.
    The 20/23 merger fraction depends entirely on accepting these visual criteria as valid for compact, high-redshift sources; the quantitative CAS/Gini test agrees for only 8 of 23 objects (Section 3.1).
  • standard math The PSF-corrected half-light radius follows r50 = sqrt(r50_app^2 - r50_PSF^2).
    Equation 1 in Section 3.2 assumes Gaussian-like PSF convolution and independent errors; the measured sizes are corrected with this formula.
  • domain assumption SFRs and the starburst versus main-sequence classification inherited from Zhu et al. (2024) are accurate.
    These inherited SED-fit results are used to split mergers into starburst and main-sequence groups and to compute Sigma_SFR, supporting the secondary claim that all main-sequence leakers are mergers.
  • domain assumption The compiled sample of 23 LyC leakers is representative of LyC leakers at 3 < z < 4.5 in GOODS-S despite being assembled from several literature surveys with different selection functions.
    The sample combines sources from multiple papers in one field, and selection biases from UV depth and resolution are discussed in Section 4.3 but cannot be fully corrected.
  • domain assumption The IGM transmission T_IGM = 0.557 and intrinsic UV-to-LyC ratio of 1.37 are used for the detectability estimate.
    Section 4.3 uses these literature values to argue that faint leakers are only detectable at very high escape fractions, which supports the observational bias interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper Comparison samples at z > 5 and z about 0.3 are restricted to the size and M_UV range of the high-z leakers, 0.37 to 1.64 kpc and -21.5 to -18.
    These ranges are chosen by hand to match the high-z sample; the resulting similarity in Sigma_SFR is therefore partly a consequence of the selection criteria.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lyman Continuum Leakers at $z>3$ in the GOODS-S Field: Mergers Dominated." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BH7XBJH

@misc{pith2026241208395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lyman Continuum Leakers at $z>3$ in the GOODS-S Field: Mergers Dominated},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BH7XBJH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08395}
}
abstract

Understanding the ionizing photon escape from galaxies is essential for studying Cosmic Reionization. With a sample of 23 Lyman Continuum (LyC) leakers at $3<z<4.5$ in the GOODS-S field, we investigate their morphologies using high-resolution data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). We find that 20 of the 23 LyC leakers show merging signatures, while the remaining 3 are starbursts. Based on our previous finding that LyC leakers are not necessarily starbursts while some are in the star formation main sequence, we further find that those in the main sequence show merger signatures. Our results suggest that LyC leakers are either starbursts or mergers, both of which can facilitate the LyC photon escape, in addition to generating more LyC photons. Furthermore, we show that high-$z$ LyC leakers are statistically more extended than those selected at low redshift, which exhibits a higher merger fraction as size increases. This is likely due to the observational bias that the spatial resolution limits the detection of high-$z$ compact galaxies, while low redshift LyC leakers are more selected as compact starbursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-resolution 2′′ × 2 ′′ cutouts for the LyC leakers. In the top-left corner of each cutout, we show the source ID, the type of image used, and the criteria for identifying mergers. High-confidence LyC leakers are marked with a star next to their IDs. The redshift is indicated in the bottom-left corner and the star formation activity is shown in the bottom-right corner (MS for the star-forming main sequence and SB… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Half-light radius (r50) versus UV absolute magnitude MUV for high-z (3 < z < 4.5) LyC leakers (dots) in the GOODS-S. The sizes (r50) are derived from the ACS/F814W image. We highlight LyC leakers where the LyC signal is not offset from the non-ionizing emission using larger dots. We also mark high-confidence LyC leakers by their names. The color bar encodes the fesc values of the LyC leakers. The shaded region shows… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ΣSFR as a function of redshift. Red dots represent our sample of LyC leakers at 3 < z < 4.5 in the GOODS-S field, while gray squares indicate LyC leakers at z ∼ 0.3 (Izotov et al. 2016a,b, 2018a,b; Wang et al. 2019; Flury et al. 2022). Star-forming galaxies at z > 5 including those at 5.0 < z < 7.2 (F070W dropouts), 7.2 < z < 9.7 (F090W dropouts), and 9.7 < z < 13.0 (F115W dropouts) from Morishita et al. (2024), are… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 7 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Subaru meets JWST: A Direct Measurement of Ly$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ Escape Fraction at $\boldsymbol{z\simeq6.2}$ with Dual Narrow-Band Imaging

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Completeness-weighted stacking of 56 HAEs at z≃6.2 gives median f_esc^Lyα = 0.106^{+0.066}_{-0.044} with no strong Hα-luminosity dependence and UV-linked galaxy-to-galaxy trends.

  2. The JWST Unveils the Bimodal Nature of Lyman Alpha Emitters at 3 <z<7: Pristine versus Merger-Driven Populations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST imaging of 817 Lyman-alpha emitters at z=3-7 shows a bimodal population: low-mass isolated 'pristine' galaxies and massive 'merger-driven' galaxies, with a 39% late-stage merger fraction.

  3. Little impact of mergers and galaxy morphology on the production and escape of ionizing photons in the early Universe

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 436 JWST galaxies at z=5 to 7, the authors find no significant correlation between merger morphology and predicted Lyman continuum escape or ionizing photon production efficiency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    O., Rodr ´ ıguez-Henr ´ ıquez, M., Fern´ andez, V., et al

    Amor ´ ın, R. O., Rodr ´ ıguez-Henr ´ ıquez, M., Fern´ andez, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449175 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 9 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-38...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449175 2024

  2. [2]

    2013, A&A, 554, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118433

    Bergvall, N., Leitet, E., Zackrisson, E., & Marquart, T. 2013, A&A, 554, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118433

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118433 2013

  3. [3]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  4. [4]

    R., Teplitz, H

    Bridge, C. R., Teplitz, H. I., Siana, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 465, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/465

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/465 2010

  5. [5]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001

    doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    Dayal, P., Volonteri, M., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.11242 de Barros, S., Vanzella, E., Amor ´ ın, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527046

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.11242 2024

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2344

    Dhiwar, S., Saha, K., Maulick, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2344

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2344 2024

  8. [8]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

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

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    A., Becker, R

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117, doi: 10.1086/504836

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    L., & Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, ApJ, 938, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Tang, M., Robertson, B

    Fletcher, T. J., Tang, M., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2045

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5331

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Jaiswar, R., et al

    Gupta, A., Trott, C. M., Jaiswar, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13285, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.13285

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

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

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00841

    Illingworth, G., Magee, D., Bouwens, R., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00841

    2016 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

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

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    I., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., et al

    Izotov, Y. I., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2016a, Nature, 529, 178, doi: 10.1038/nature16456

    doi

  12. [20]

    I., Schaerer, D., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Thuan, T. X., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 461, 3683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1205

    doi

  13. [21]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 474, 4514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3115

    doi

  14. [22]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab612 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 478, 4851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1378

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., & Oey, M. S. 2013, ApJ, 766, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/91

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdc

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

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/153

    Jiang, L., Egami, E., Fan, X., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/153

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    Jiang, L., Ning, Y., Fan, X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 850, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01708-w

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Sanders, D

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Sanders, D. B., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/98

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6cf

    Kawamata, R., Ishigaki, M., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6cf

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Wisotzki, L., et al

    Kerutt, J., Oesch, P. A., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346656 Le Reste, A., Cannon, J. M., Hayes, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3910

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14981, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14981

    Leclercq, F., Chisholm, J., King, W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14981, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14981

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    2008

  24. [32]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L8

    Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2015, ApJL, 813, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L8

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Finkelstein, S

    Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L36

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2187 —

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2187 —. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2893

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18804

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18804

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd69f

    Matsuoka, Y., Onoue, M., Iwasawa, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd69f

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    Maulick, S., Saha, K., Kataria, M., & Herenz, E. C. 2024a, ApJ, 972, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6155

    doi

  32. [40]

    Maulick, S., Saha, K., & Rutkowski, M. J. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09515

    doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2017, 3D-HST, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9JW9Z 10

    Momcheva, I. 2017, 3D-HST, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9JW9Z 10

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

    Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc9

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu902

    Nakajima, K., & Ouchi, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu902

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Montes, M., Reddy, N., et al

    Oesch, P. A., Montes, M., Reddy, N., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb30

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Haehnelt, M

    Rauch, M., Becker, G. D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19556.x

    2011

  41. [49]

    2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    Rieke, Marcia, Robertson, Brant, Tacchella, Sandro, et al. 2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Hayes, M., & Melinder, J

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Hayes, M., & Melinder, J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.10799. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.10799

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Robertson, B. E. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 121, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120221-044656

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R., & Dunlop, J. S. 2015, ApJL, 802, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L19

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Snyder, G

    Rose, C., Kartaltepe, J. S., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f10

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13254, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13254

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13254, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13254

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    N., Simmonds, C., et al

    Saha, K., Tandon, S. N., Simmonds, C., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1185, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1173-5

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Saxena, A., Pentericci, L., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3728

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L24

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/15

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., & Harikane, Y. 2015, ApJS, 219, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/15

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1059

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed28

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/70

    Vanzella, E., Guo, Y., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/70

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    Vanzella, E., de Barros, S., Vasei, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly023

    Vanzella, E., Nonino, M., Cupani, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly023

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423978

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423978

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2017, A&A, 597, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629264

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629264

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Leitherer, C., et al

    Wang, B., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab418f

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al

    Whitaker, K. E., Ashas, M., Illingworth, G., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3853

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf130

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, Data from the JWST Extragalactic Medium-band Survey (JEMS), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FSC4-DT61

    Williams, Christina, Tacchella, Sandro, & Maseda, Michael. 2023, Data from the JWST Extragalactic Medium-band Survey (JEMS), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FSC4-DT61

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 384, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02179-3

    Witten, C., Laporte, N., Martin-Alvarez, S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 384, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02179-3

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20352, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20352

    Yuan, F.-T., Zheng, Z.-Y., Jiang, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20352, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20352

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    Yuan, F.-T., Zheng, Z.-Y., Lin, R., Zhu, S., & Rahna, P. T. 2021, ApJL, 923, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4170

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2018, in 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol

    Zhan, H. 2018, in 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 42, E1.16–4–18

    2018

  67. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20349, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20349

    Zhu, S., Yuan, F.-T., Jiang, C., Zheng, Z.-Y., & Lin, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20349, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20349

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.