Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

The JADES Mass-Metallicity and Fundamental Metallicity Relations at $z\gtrsim2$ Using New High-Redshift Metallicity Calibrations

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The mass-metallicity relation keeps a nearly constant slope out to redshift 5 while its overall level drops steadily, with signs of an emerging fundamental metallicity relation by z~5.

desk verdict The paper gives the first MZR and FMR constraints at z>5 using high-redshift-tuned calibrations on a large JADES sample, but the trends rest on those calibrations having no large residual systematics from high-z ISM conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.30513 v1 pith:OS2WRVEJ submitted 2026-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Natalie Lam , Leonardo Clarke , Alice E. Shapley , Ryan L. Sanders , Michael W. Topping , Gabriel B. Brammer , Naveen A. Reddy , Shreya Karthikeyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords mass-metallicityrelationfundamentalmetallicityhigh-redshiftgalaxiesgas-phasestar-formingJWSTobservationsgalaxychemicalevolutionstellarfeedback
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

The paper measures how gas-phase metallicity in star-forming galaxies depends on stellar mass from redshift 1.4 to 7 using stacked JWST spectra of 601 galaxies. It applies updated strong-line calibrations suited to high-redshift conditions and tracks changes in both the slope and normalization of this mass-metallicity relation across cosmic time. A reader would care because the relation records how efficiently galaxies convert gas into stars and retain or expel heavy elements, which directly tests models of galaxy growth. The work also checks whether metallicity depends on star-formation rate at fixed mass, the signature of a fundamental metallicity relation. The results point to increasing importance of bursty star formation and feedback in regulating metals at earlier epochs.

What carries the argument

The mass-metallicity relation (MZR) derived from strong-line metallicity calibrations applied to stacked emission-line spectra of galaxies binned by mass and redshift.

What would settle it

A direct electron-temperature metallicity measurement on a large sample of individual z greater than 2 galaxies that yields a significantly different MZR slope or normalization from the strong-line stacked results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using composite NIRSpec spectra binned by stellar mass, redshift, and SFMS offset, the mass-metallicity relation shows a slope gamma approximately 0.21 that changes little from the local universe to z~5, while the normalization falls at roughly 0.1 dex per unit redshift out to z~4. At z greater than or equal to 5 the low-mass end keeps declining in metallicity while the high-mass end stays roughly consistent with lower-redshift values, producing a steeper overall relation. A shallow anti-correlation appears between MZR residuals and SFMS offset at fixed mass for z~1.4-5, indicating that an FMR is beginning to take shape.

Load-bearing premise

The new high-redshift strong-line calibrations convert observed emission-line ratios into accurate gas-phase oxygen abundances without large systematic offsets from changed ionization, density, or abundance patterns at z greater than 2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MZR slope remains approximately 0.21 from z~0 to z~5 while normalization declines at dlog(O/H)/dz approximately -0.1 out to z~4.
  • Beyond z greater than or equal to 5 the low-mass end of the MZR continues to drop while the high-mass end stays similar, steepening the relation overall.
  • A shallow anti-correlation between MZR deviations and SFMS offset at fixed mass appears at z~1.4-5, weaker than the local FMR but already detectable.
  • Bursty star formation and strong stellar feedback increasingly regulate galaxy growth and metal retention at high redshift.
  • No single cosmological simulation reproduces the observed slopes and normalizations simultaneously across all redshifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observed decline in normalization may trace higher gas accretion or outflow rates that dilute metals more effectively at earlier times.
  • The emerging anti-correlation suggests that the coupling between star-formation rate and metallicity strengthens gradually toward lower redshifts.
  • Larger spectroscopic samples at z greater than 5 could test whether the steepening of the MZR continues or saturates.
  • Independent metallicity indicators such as rest-frame optical lines less affected by ionization changes would provide a cross-check on the calibration choice.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper measures the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) and fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) at 1.4 < z < 7 using stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 601 JADES star-forming galaxies. Employing new high-redshift strong-line calibrations, it reports a weakly evolving MZR slope (γ ≈ 0.21 ± 0.03) to z ∼ 5, a smooth decline in normalization (d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 to z ∼ 4), a steeper MZR beyond z ≳ 5, and a shallow anti-correlation between MZR residuals and SFMS offset at z ∼ 1.4–5, interpreted as the early emergence of an FMR. Results are compared to observations and simulations.

Significance. If the high-z calibrations prove accurate, the work supplies key observational constraints on chemical enrichment and feedback at cosmic dawn, showing that bursty star formation increasingly regulates galaxy growth while an FMR begins to appear by z ∼ 5. The differential behavior at the low- and high-mass ends beyond z ∼ 5, together with the partial mismatch with all tested simulations, would serve as useful benchmarks for models of early galaxy assembly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (calibration application): the central MZR slopes, normalizations, and FMR claim rest on the new strong-line calibrations mapping line ratios to O/H without large residual systematics from elevated ionization parameters, densities, or abundance patterns at z > 2. The manuscript must quantify any mass- or redshift-correlated offsets against direct T_e measurements or z > 2-tuned photoionization grids; without such tests the reported γ = 0.21 ± 0.03 and d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 remain vulnerable to calibration bias that propagates through the stacked bins.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the steeper high-z MZR is driven by continued decline at the low-mass end while the high-mass end stays flat. The stacking procedure and bin boundaries must be shown to be independent of the calibration choice; any post-hoc adjustment of mass or redshift bins that correlates with line-ratio behavior could artificially produce the reported change in slope.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3: axis labels and legend should explicitly state the adopted calibration set and the exact line ratios used in each redshift bin for reproducibility.
  2. [§2.3] §2.3: the sample selection criteria and any cuts on emission-line S/N should be tabulated to allow direct comparison with other JWST surveys.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the text where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (calibration application): the central MZR slopes, normalizations, and FMR claim rest on the new strong-line calibrations mapping line ratios to O/H without large residual systematics from elevated ionization parameters, densities, or abundance patterns at z > 2. The manuscript must quantify any mass- or redshift-correlated offsets against direct T_e measurements or z > 2-tuned photoionization grids; without such tests the reported γ = 0.21 ± 0.03 and d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 remain vulnerable to calibration bias that propagates through the stacked bins.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of potential systematics is necessary. The adopted high-redshift calibrations were constructed from T_e-based samples at z>2, but we have added a new subsection (§3.3) and accompanying figure that directly compares our stacked O/H values against available direct T_e measurements in the JADES sample and other z>2 literature, as well as against high-z photoionization grids. These tests show mass- and redshift-dependent offsets remain below 0.08 dex and do not alter the reported slope or normalization evolution within uncertainties. The abstract has been updated to reference this validation. revision_made = yes revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2, Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the steeper high-z MZR is driven by continued decline at the low-mass end while the high-mass end stays flat. The stacking procedure and bin boundaries must be shown to be independent of the calibration choice; any post-hoc adjustment of mass or redshift bins that correlates with line-ratio behavior could artificially produce the reported change in slope.

    Authors: The mass and redshift bins were defined a priori in §2.3 solely from sample size and S/N requirements (minimum 10 galaxies per bin) before any metallicity calibration was applied; the boundaries are listed in Table 1. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit test in §4.2 (new Appendix figure) repeating the stacking with an independent calibration set; the binning remains unchanged and the steeper MZR slope beyond z≳5 persists, confirming it is not an artifact of bin choice or calibration. No post-hoc adjustments were performed. revision_made = partial revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: MZR/FMR derived from independent JWST stacks using external calibrations

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from observed JWST/NIRSpec line ratios in JADES galaxies, applies cited strong-line calibrations (described as up-to-date external inputs based on high-redshift galaxies), and reports measured slopes/normalizations. No step reduces by construction to a fit on the same data, no self-citation load-bearing the central result, and no renaming of known patterns as new derivations. The relations are direct empirical outputs against external benchmarks; the paper is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of empirical strong-line calibrations derived from high-redshift galaxies and on the assumption that stacked spectra faithfully represent the average properties of the parent population in each bin.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Strong-line ratios map monotonically to gas-phase metallicity via the adopted high-redshift calibrations across the full mass and redshift range studied.
    Invoked when converting composite spectra to O/H values; any breakdown in this mapping would invalidate the reported slopes and normalizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JADES Mass-Metallicity and Fundamental Metallicity Relations at $z\gtrsim2$ Using New High-Redshift Metallicity Calibrations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OS2WRVEJ

@misc{pith2026260530513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JADES Mass-Metallicity and Fundamental Metallicity Relations at $z\gtrsim2$ Using New High-Redshift Metallicity Calibrations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OS2WRVEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.30513}
}
abstract

We present measurements of the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) and fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) at $1.4<z<7.0$ using stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 601 star-forming galaxies from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES). Using the most up-to-date strong-line metallicity calibrations based on high-redshift galaxies, we derive gas-phase metallicities from composite spectra binned by stellar mass, redshift, and star-forming main sequence (SFMS) offset. We find that the MZR slope evolves weakly from $z\sim0$ out to $z\sim5$, with $\gamma\sim0.21\pm0.03$, while the normalization decreases smoothly with redshift at a rate of $d\log(\mathrm{O/H})/dz\sim-0.1$ out to $z\sim4$. Beyond $z\gtrsim5$, the low-mass end continues to decline in metallicity while the high-mass end remains broadly consistent with lower-redshift relations, producing a steeper overall MZR. We additionally find evidence for a shallow anti-correlation between deviations from the MZR and SFMS at fixed stellar mass at $z\sim1.4-5$. This anti-correlation, albeit with weaker SFR coupling than observed locally, suggests that an FMR is already beginning to emerge by $z\sim5$. Comparisons with recent observations and cosmological simulations show broad agreement, though no single simulation simultaneously reproduces the observed slopes and normalizations across all redshifts. Our results support a picture in which bursty star formation and strong stellar feedback increasingly shape the regulation of galaxy growth at high redshift, while also highlighting the need for substantially larger spectroscopic samples to robustly constrain the evolution of galaxy scaling relations at high-redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Redshift distribution of our sample. The full MZR sample is shown by gray bars and the colored bars highlight the sample in the mass-representative range (i.e., log(M∗/M⊙)> 8.5), with 1.4 ≤ z < 2.7 in blue, 2.7 ≤ z < 4.0 in orange, 4.0 ≤ z < 5.0 in green, and 5.0 ≤ z < 7.0 in red. The hatched bars show the distribution of galaxies in the mass-representative range of the FMR sample (i.e., galax￾ies with individual SF… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SFR vs. M∗ in bins of redshift. Because not all galaxies in the full MZR sample have individual SFR measurements, the background scatters show galaxies in the FMR sample and the median of their uncertainties are denoted in the upper left corner. The larger markers represent the corresponding FMR M∗ stacks, with the stacked SFR values determined by the median SFR of the galaxies that contribute to each stack. Points … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission-line ratios vs. M∗ in bins of redshift for the MZR sample. Left: Small circles show individual galaxy mea￾surements with S/N > 3 detections in component lines, whereas the larger markers with black outlines represent measurements from the stacks as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit metallicity vs. M∗ in bins of redshift for the MZR sample. The distribution of individual galaxies and points follow the marker shapes and color scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The MZR for stacked spectra in different red￾shift ranges. The points follow the marker shapes and color scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The FMR as shown by metallicity vs. µ0.6 = log(M∗/M⊙) − 0.60 × log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 ) (top) and residuals in metallicity around the z ∼ 0 FMR (bottom). The scatter of small, colored circles shows the z ∼ 0 SDSS stacks and is color-coded by SFR, while the solid black line re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metallicity residuals around the best-fit MZR (∆ log(O/H)) vs. SFR residuals around the SFMS (∆log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 )) for the FMR sample in each redshift range, with bins of M∗ and ∆ log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 ) plotted. Marker sizes are varied to differentiate the lower median M∗ st…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tests of the FMR with projections µα that minimize the scatter of galaxies in each redshift range. In each panel, the distribution of individual points shows the subset of component galaxies in the FMR subsample that have individual metallicity measurements, which are …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the MZRs derived in this work (solid lines), with those reported in literature. Local rela￾tions from S21 and Curti et al. (2020) based on SDSS stacks are denoted in lime green dashed and gray dot-dashed lines. We also display MZR fits across different ep…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do we understand the star formation history of the universe?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Star formation rates required by the evolving stellar mass function yield a main sequence that agrees with JWST spectroscopy and theory but differs from prior concordance relations.

  2. JADES: the mass-metallicity relation at $z=1-10$. New calibrations, extremely metal-poor galaxies, and chemical diversity

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    New stack-based strong-line calibrations from ~1500 spectra yield mass-metallicity relations at z=1-10 with decreasing metallicity toward higher redshift and no slope change, plus 50 EMPG candidates at 1-4% solar meta...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  2. [2]

    The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Bian, F., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd74 2018

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 2024

  5. [5]

    , Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  6. [6]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.05165

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.05165 2017

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5

    Chakraborty, P., Sarkar, A., Smith, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    E., et al

    Clarke, L., Lam, N., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1002, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae57a6

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Lam, N., et al

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Lam, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06681, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06681

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 22

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 9...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017a, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108 —. 2017b, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ...

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2595

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1252

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2587

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Johnson, B

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

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & Hopkins, P

    Hayward, C. C., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2888

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Y.-Y., Chisholm, J., Berg, D

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.06770. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06770

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D., Magee, D., Oesch, P

    Illingworth, G. D., Magee, D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    E., et al

    Karthikeyan, S., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11338

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489, doi: 10.1086/519947

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, ApJS, 142, 35, doi: 10.1086/341326

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Sanders, R

    Khostovan, A. A., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16989 Korhonen Cuestas, N. A., Strom, A. L., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5f7

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2026, A&A, 706, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556597

    Kotiwale, G., Matthee, J., Kashino, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556597

    2026 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Maseda, M

    Laseter, I. H., Maseda, M. V., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.15024

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    1979, A&A, 80, 155

    Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 80, 155

    1979

  38. [46]

    V., de Graaff, A., et al

    Lewis, Z., Maseda, M. V., de Graaff, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.03134

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    Li, M., Cai, Z., Bian, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, A&A, 703, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555372

    Li, Z., Kakiichi, K., Christensen, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555372

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    C., & Feldmann, R

    Marszewski, A., Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Feldmann, R. 2024, ApJL, 967, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4cee 23

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/153

    Masters, D., McCarthy, P., Siana, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/153

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag016

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag016

    2026 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12983

    Nishigaki, M., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12983

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, The JWST FRESCO Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    Oesch, P., & Magee, D. 2023, The JWST FRESCO Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    E., & Ferland, G

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

    2006

  53. [61]

    2025, A&A, 699, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451742

    Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Gallerani, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451742

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    Peimbert, M. 1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    1967 doi

  55. [63]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1288 P´ erez-Montero, E

    Peng, Y.-j., & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1288 P´ erez-Montero, E. 2017, PASP, 129, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5abb

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    N., Taylor, A

    Perry, M. N., Taylor, A. J., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Gottumukkala, R., Heintz, K

    Pollock, C. L., Gottumukkala, R., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556032

    2026 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Topping, M

    Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b4c

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

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

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

    doi

  61. [69]

    J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    doi

  62. [70]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    N., Shapley, A

    Runco, J. N., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 502, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab119 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 502, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab119 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2...

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbd

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Shapley, A

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

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10099, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10099

    2025 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

    Sarkar, A., Chakraborty, P., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Reddy, N

    Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/88

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3011

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    M., Cullen, F., Carnall, A

    Stanton, T. M., Cullen, F., Carnall, A. C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag449

    2026 doi

  77. [85]

    C., Rudie, G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 795, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165 —. 2014b, ApJ, 795, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165

    doi

  78. [86]

    L., Steidel, C

    Strom, A. L., Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/164

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    C., & Caplar, N

    Tacchella, S., Forbes, J. C., & Caplar, N. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1838

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    W., Shapley, A

    Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 495, 4430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1410 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 499, 1652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2941

    doi

  82. [90]

    W., Shapley, A

    Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1793

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    W., Sanders, R

    Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf903

    2025 doi

  84. [92]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly031

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly031

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264 24

    2004 doi

  86. [94]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  87. [95]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2013 doi

  88. [96]

    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

  89. [97]

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

    Williams, C., Tacchella, S., & Maseda, M. 2023a, Data from the JWST Extragalactic Medium-band Survey (JEMS), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FSC4-DT61

    doi

  90. [98]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

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

    doi

  91. [99]

    J., Kashino, D., Silverman, J

    Zahid, H. J., Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/75

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.