pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23049 · v1 · pith:SBH52XEDnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

SDSS+JWST Census of Stellar and Nebular Dust Attenuation at z sim 0-7: Mass Dependence and Redshift Evolution

Jie Song , Masami Ouchi , Tomokazu Kiyota , Chenghao Zhu , Xu Kong , Yurina Nakazato This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dust attenuationnebular attenuationstellar attenuationstellar mass dependenceredshift evolutionuniversal extinction relationgalaxy feedbackBalmer decrement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar and nebular dust attenuation show no redshift evolution at fixed galaxy mass from z=0 to 7 but increase with mass above 10^9 solar masses.

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

The paper combines low-redshift SDSS spectra with high-redshift JWST/JADES data to map how much dust dims starlight and emission lines in galaxies. It finds that at any given stellar mass the average attenuation stays roughly the same from the present day back to redshift 7, producing one universal mass-attenuation curve. Attenuation stays low (0.2-0.4) below 10^9 solar masses and climbs to about 1 at 10^11 solar masses, with nebular attenuation rising faster than stellar attenuation once galaxies exceed 10^9 solar masses. The results point to 10^9 solar masses as the mass scale where feedback changes how dust is spread through the galaxy, and they make the stellar-to-nebular extinction ratio itself a function of mass rather than a fixed number.

Core claim

Both nebular attenuation A_V,nebular derived from Balmer decrements and stellar attenuation A_V,stellar derived from UV-optical spectral fits show no significant change with redshift at fixed stellar mass M* across z~0-7. The values form a single rising function of mass, staying between 0.2 and 0.4 below 10^9 M_⊙ and reaching ~1 near 10^11 M_⊙, while A_V,nebular increases more steeply than A_V,stellar above the 10^9 M_⊙ threshold. This mass dependence identifies 10^9 M_⊙ as a transition mass below which feedback distributes dust widely, and it determines the stellar-to-nebular color-excess ratio f to range from ~1.0 at low mass to ~0.44 at high mass.

What carries the argument

The mass-dependent universal extinction relation obtained by fitting the same set of stellar-population models and attenuation curves (Calzetti, SMC, Milky Way) to Balmer decrements for nebular extinction and to rest-frame UV-optical spectra for stellar extinction.

If this is right

  • The stellar-to-nebular extinction ratio f is not fixed but varies continuously with galaxy stellar mass from ~1.0 below 10^9 M_⊙ to ~0.44 above 10^10 M_⊙.
  • Dust is more widely distributed by feedback processes in galaxies below the 10^9 M_⊙ transition mass.
  • Attenuation corrections derived at low redshift can be applied to galaxies at any redshift up to 7 when stellar mass is known.
  • Nebular emission lines suffer stronger attenuation than the stellar continuum once galaxies exceed 10^9 solar masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High-redshift color measurements from JWST may be interpreted with a single mass-based attenuation law rather than separate low- and high-redshift prescriptions.
  • The steeper rise of nebular attenuation could be tested by comparing dust-obscured star-formation rates from infrared data against Balmer-derived rates in massive galaxies.
  • Future surveys extending to z>7 could check whether the same mass threshold continues to mark the onset of steeper nebular attenuation.

Load-bearing premise

The same stellar-population synthesis models and attenuation curves apply without major bias from changes in dust composition or star-formation histories between redshift 0 and 7.

What would settle it

A sample of galaxies at z greater than 7 with measured A_V,nebular or A_V,stellar values at fixed stellar mass that lie more than 0.2 away from the z=0-7 relation would falsify the no-evolution result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23049 by Chenghao Zhu, Jie Song, Masami Ouchi, Tomokazu Kiyota, Xu Kong, Yurina Nakazato.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: SED fitting example from the SDSS sample; bottom panel: SED fitting example from the JADES sample. The black solid line and gray shaded region show the observed spectrum and its uncertainty, respectively, and the yellow solid line shows the best-fit model. The black squares with error bars denote the observed GALEX UV photometry and associated uncertainties. For the SDSS sample, following the me… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of our sample in the SFR–M∗ plane. Black two-dimensional histogram show the result for our lo￾cal sample, while orange and red symbols show the result for galaxies at 1.5 < z < 3.5 and 3.5 < z < 7, respectively. For comparison, SFMS at z ∼ 0.1 from Renzini & Peng (2015) and at z ∼ 2.5 and z ∼ 5 from Speagle et al. (2014), are shown as black, orange, and red solid lines, respectively [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of BD as a function of M∗. The left panel shows the SDSS results, and the right panel shows the JADES results together with the SDSS results. The black, orange, and red symbols represent results at 0.05 < z < 0.1, 1.5 < z < 3.5, and 3.5 < z < 7, respectively. Squares denote the median values in bins of M∗, while the error bars indicate the standard error within each bin. The black dashed l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dust attenuation as a function of M∗. The layout is similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The difference in dust reddening between nebular and stellar components as a function of M∗ (left column), SFR (middle column), and sSFR (right column). The top row shows the results of AV,diff , while the bottom row presents the results of R. Squares denote the values derived from the mean attenuation of the respective components in each bin of the relevant physical property, and the error bars show the c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The redshift evolution of AV,nebular (left), AV,stellar (middle) , and AV,diff (right). The orange circles and red squares represent the result for galaxies with M∗ in the ranges 9 < log(M∗/M⊙) < 9.5 and 9.5 < log(M∗/M⊙) < 10, respectively. For clarity, the red squares are shifted upward by 0.75 mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The difference in dust reddening between nebular and stellar components as a function of M∗ at different redshifts. The left panel presents the result of AV,diff while the middle and right panel show the result of R and f, respectively. The black, orange, and red symbols correspond to the dust attenuation differences derived from the mean attenuation in each M∗ bin for galaxies at 0.05 < z < 0.1, 1.5 < z <… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The comparison between E(B − V )stellar and E(B − V )nebular, where the color scale indicates the median M∗ within each square bin. For reference, we also plot dashed lines corresponding to f = 0.44, and 1.0 in this figure. We find a clear trend in which more massive galaxies preferen￾tially occupy the lower-right region of the diagram, indicat￾ing a smaller result of f. ence of ∼ 0.08 mag in the inferred… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average differences in AV,diff for various dust attenuation curve configurations relative to our fiducial model (MW-CAL). The error bars represent the corresponding 1σ dispersion. The horizontal axis indicates the specific combination of attenuation laws considered, denoted as the [nebular attenuation curve]–[stellar attenuation curve] combination. To quantify these systematic shifts, we computed the mean… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic illustration of the two-component dust model for galaxies with low (top panel) and high (bottom panel) M∗. The gray region denotes birth cloud dust that has been dispersed by feedback processes. The light blue regions denote the nebular regions, while the light yellow regions represent the diffuse dust component within the ISM. Large red stars represent young, massive stars predominantly embedde… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the demography of dust attenuation, including its mass dependence and redshift evolution, using spectroscopic samples of 34,182 SDSS galaxies at $z\sim0.1$ and 863 JWST/JADES galaxies at $z\sim1.5$--$7$. We find that, on average, ${\rm H\alpha}/{\rm H\beta}$ ratios are comparable to the Case B recombination value at $M_\ast \lesssim 10^9 M_\odot$, and increase beyond $M_\ast \sim 10^9 M_\odot$ both at $z\sim0.1$ and $1.5$--$7$. We derive the nebular attenuation $A_{\rm V, nebular}$ from Balmer decrements and the stellar attenuation $A_{\rm V, stellar}$ from rest-frame UV--optical spectra with supplementary \textit{GALEX} data, via comparisons with stellar-population models and multiple attenuation curves in a consistent manner across cosmic time. We find no significant redshift evolution of $A_{\rm V, nebular}$ and $A_{\rm V, stellar}$ at fixed $M_\ast$ over $z\sim0$--$7$, forming a universal extinction relation, and both rise from $0.2$--$0.4$ at $M_\ast \lesssim 10^9 M_\odot$ to $\sim1$ at $M_\ast \sim 10^{11} M_\odot$. Interestingly, at $M_\ast \gtrsim 10^9 M_\odot$, $A_{\rm V, nebular}$ rises more steeply than $A_{\rm V, stellar}$. This correlation holds within an uncertainty of $\sim\pm0.2$ for various combinations of attenuation curves (Calzetti, SMC, and Milky Way). These results indicate that $M_\ast \sim 10^9 M_\odot$ is a transition mass in dust attenuation, whose low-mass behavior reflects dust widely distributed by feedbacks. These mass-dependent extinction results address the long-standing issue of appropriate choice of the stellar-to-nebular color excess ratio, $f\equiv E(B-V)_{\rm stellar}/E(B-V)_{\rm nebular}=1.0$ or $0.44$, and suggest that galaxy $M_\ast$ determines $f$ from $\sim1.0$ to $\sim0.44$ across low- to high-mass galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes dust attenuation using 34,182 SDSS galaxies at z~0.1 and 863 JWST/JADES galaxies at z~1.5-7. Nebular A_V is derived from Balmer decrements (Hα/Hβ) and stellar A_V from rest-UV/optical spectral fitting with SPS models plus supplementary GALEX data, employing Calzetti, SMC, and Milky Way attenuation curves in a consistent manner. The central results are no significant redshift evolution of either A_V,nebular or A_V,stellar at fixed M* over z~0-7 (a 'universal extinction relation'), both quantities rising from 0.2-0.4 at M* ≲ 10^9 M_⊙ to ~1 at M* ~10^11 M_⊙, with A_V,nebular rising more steeply than A_V,stellar above 10^9 M_⊙, implying a mass-dependent stellar-to-nebular color excess ratio f that transitions from ~1.0 to ~0.44.

Significance. If the results hold after robustness checks, the work supplies an empirical mass-dependent extinction law spanning z=0-7 that directly informs the choice of f in SED modeling and highlights M*~10^9 M_⊙ as a transition scale where feedback redistributes dust. This has immediate utility for interpreting JWST spectra, correcting luminosities, and constraining dust-evolution models. The consistent methodology across epochs and the explicit testing of multiple attenuation curves are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (method description)] Abstract (derivation of A_V,stellar): The no-redshift-evolution claim at fixed M* is load-bearing and rests on the assumption that the same SPS templates and attenuation curves remain unbiased across z=0-7. If high-z galaxies have burstier SFHs, lower metallicities, or altered dust properties outside the span of the adopted models, the best-fit A_V,stellar will shift systematically with redshift, directly undermining the universal-relation result. The manuscript should quantify this risk via explicit tests (e.g., alternative SFH parametrizations or additional SPS libraries) rather than relying solely on the consistency of the chosen curves.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (error budget and sample selection): The reported ~±0.2 uncertainty on the mass-dependent trends is stated for different curve choices, but the propagation from spectral S/N, Balmer-decrement measurement errors, sample completeness, and potential differential selection biases between SDSS and JWST is not detailed. Without this, it is difficult to assess whether the 'no significant evolution' conclusion is robust at the quoted precision.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that Hα/Hβ ratios are 'comparable to the Case B value' at low mass; a quantitative statement of the measured ratios and their deviation from Case B (including any assumed temperature/density) would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the significance of our results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (method description)] Abstract (derivation of A_V,stellar): The no-redshift-evolution claim at fixed M* is load-bearing and rests on the assumption that the same SPS templates and attenuation curves remain unbiased across z=0-7. If high-z galaxies have burstier SFHs, lower metallicities, or altered dust properties outside the span of the adopted models, the best-fit A_V,stellar will shift systematically with redshift, directly undermining the universal-relation result. The manuscript should quantify this risk via explicit tests (e.g., alternative SFH parametrizations or additional SPS libraries) rather than relying solely on the consistency of the chosen curves.

    Authors: We agree that the no-evolution result depends on the SPS models and attenuation curves remaining unbiased across redshift. Our analysis applies the same SPS templates and curves (Calzetti, SMC, MW) consistently to both SDSS and JWST samples, with the mass-dependent trends agreeing at fixed M* where the samples overlap. To directly quantify any residual risk from burstier SFHs or metallicity effects at high z, we will add explicit robustness tests using alternative SFH parametrizations and an additional SPS library in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (error budget and sample selection): The reported ~±0.2 uncertainty on the mass-dependent trends is stated for different curve choices, but the propagation from spectral S/N, Balmer-decrement measurement errors, sample completeness, and potential differential selection biases between SDSS and JWST is not detailed. Without this, it is difficult to assess whether the 'no significant evolution' conclusion is robust at the quoted precision.

    Authors: The ±0.2 figure reflects the spread across attenuation-curve choices, as stated in the abstract. We concur that a more complete error budget is needed to evaluate robustness. In the revision we will expand the methods section with Monte Carlo propagation of spectral S/N and Balmer-decrement uncertainties, plus explicit discussion of sample completeness and differential selection effects between the SDSS and JWST datasets. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct empirical measurements from independent datasets using standard methods.

full rationale

The paper measures A_V,nebular directly from observed Hα/Hβ ratios relative to Case B recombination and derives A_V,stellar by fitting rest-UV/optical spectra (plus GALEX) to SPS models with fixed attenuation curves (Calzetti, SMC, MW). The central claim of no redshift evolution at fixed M* follows from comparing these quantities between the z~0.1 SDSS sample and the z~1.5-7 JWST sample under identical modeling assumptions. No step reduces a fitted parameter to a prediction by construction, renames a known result, or relies on a self-citation chain for the uniqueness or validity of the method. The mass-dependent behavior and the implied stellar-to-nebular ratio are likewise outputs of the same direct fitting procedure applied to the data. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions about hydrogen recombination and the applicability of local attenuation curves at high redshift.

free parameters (1)
  • Attenuation curve choice
    Multiple curves tested; results stated to be consistent within ±0.2 mag.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Case B recombination sets the intrinsic Hα/Hβ ratio in the absence of dust
    Used as the zero-dust reference for Balmer decrement measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6035 in / 1258 out tokens · 25366 ms · 2026-05-25T05:21:57.656212+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 150 canonical work pages · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  3. [3]

    Algera, H. S. B., Inami, H., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3195 2023

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3253

    Aoyama, S., Hirashita, H., & Nagamine, K. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3253

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3253 2020

  6. [6]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1431 22

    Shimizu, I. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1431 22

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431 2018

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061

    Aoyama, S., Hou, K.-C., Shimizu, I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3061 2017

  8. [8]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Inoue, A. K. 2013a, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213, doi: 10.5047/eps.2012.04.014

    work page doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 2012

  9. [9]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Nozawa, T. 2013b, MNRAS, 432, 637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt506

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt506

  10. [10]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01089, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01089

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01089 2026

  11. [11]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  12. [12]

    J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R

    Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/13 —. 2017, ApJ, 851, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a43 B¨ oker, T., Beck, T. L., Birkmann, S. M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb846

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/13 2016

  13. [13]

    J., Aravena, M., Decarli, R., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Aravena, M., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/72 2016

  14. [14]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x Budav´ ari, T., Heinis, S., Szalay, A. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1281, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1281

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  15. [15]

    J., Cameron, A

    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

  16. [16]

    1997, AJ, 113, 162, doi: 10.1086/118242

    Calzetti, D. 1997, AJ, 113, 162, doi: 10.1086/118242

    work page doi:10.1086/118242 1997

  17. [17]

    C., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  18. [18]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    work page doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  19. [19]

    J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1547 2024

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  22. [22]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2544

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2544 2019

  23. [23]

    Bignone, L. A. 2026, A&A, 706, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556078 2026

  24. [24]

    S., & Glover, S

    Ceverino, D., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2124 2018

  25. [25]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05045, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05045

    Ceverino, D., Nakazato, Y., Yoshida, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05045, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05045

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05045 2026

  26. [26]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  27. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    Chevallard, J., Charlot, S., Wandelt, B., & Wild, V. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt523 2013

  28. [28]

    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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06681 2025

  29. [29]

    E., Sanders, R

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 2024

  30. [30]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2737

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2737 2023

  32. [32]

    JADES Data Release 4 Paper I: Sample Selection, Observing Strategy and Redshifts of the complete spectroscopic sample

    Curtis-Lake, E., Cameron, A. J., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01033 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01033 2025

  33. [33]

    2023, AJ, 166, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace893

    Ding, W., Zou, H., Kong, X., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace893

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace893 2023

  34. [34]

    2006, A&A, 451, 417, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054446 Dom´ ınguez, A., Siana, B., Henry, A

    Dole, H., Lagache, G., Puget, J.-L., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 417, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054446 Dom´ ınguez, A., Siana, B., Henry, A. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/145

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054446 2006

  35. [35]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465 2023

  37. [37]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137 2025

  38. [38]

    2022, A&A, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142673 2022

  39. [39]

    Fisher, R., Bowler, R. A. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf485

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf485 2025

  40. [40]

    A., Magnelli, B., et al

    Fudamoto, Y., Oesch, P. A., Magnelli, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3248 2020

  41. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93e6

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Shibuya, T., & Nagai, H. 2017, ApJ, 850, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa93e6 2017

  42. [42]

    G., Crain, R

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2740

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2740 2017

  43. [43]

    Galliano, F., Galametz, M., & Jones, A. P. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 673, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051900

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051900 2018

  44. [44]

    Garn, T., & Best, P. N. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 421, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17321.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17321.x 2010

  45. [45]

    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

    work page doi:10.1086/376774 2003

  46. [46]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  47. [47]

    E., Brammer, G

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450243 2025

  48. [48]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 23

    Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 23

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955 2023

  49. [49]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  50. [50]

    2025, A&A, 693, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346239 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W

    Jolly, J.-B., Knudsen, K., Laporte, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346239 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346239 2025

  51. [51]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.145804 2025

  52. [52]

    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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11338 2026

  53. [53]

    D., Rodighiero, G., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l8 2013

  54. [54]

    arXiv:astro-ph/0303227 [astro-ph] Wadsley JW, Stadel J, Quinn T (2004) Gasoline: a flexible, parallel implementation of TreeSPH

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003a, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  55. [55]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003b, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  56. [56]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  57. [57]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  58. [58]

    J., Jansen, R

    Kewley, L. J., Jansen, R. A., & Geller, M. J. 2005, PASP, 117, 227, doi: 10.1086/428303

    work page doi:10.1086/428303 2005

  59. [59]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18149, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18149

    Kiyota, T., Ouchi, M., Iono, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18149, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18149

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18149 2026

  60. [60]

    Kong, X., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., & Fall, S. M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07556.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07556.x 2004

  61. [61]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy113

    Hayashi, M. 2019, PASJ, 71, 8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy113

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy113 2019

  62. [62]

    A., Kirk, J

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  63. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1263

    Lapiner, S., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1263 2023

  64. [64]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  65. [65]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbc0

    Li, F., Wang, J., Xu, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbc0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accbc0 2023

  66. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b97

    Li, F., Wang, E., Zhu, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b97 2024

  67. [67]

    2026, A&A, 708, A233, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557482

    Li, F., Zhang, H.-X., Brinks, E., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A233, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557482

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557482 2026

  68. [68]

    2021, ApJ, 917, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0973

    Li, N., Li, C., Mo, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0973

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0973 2021

  69. [69]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684 2019

  70. [70]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f0e

    Lin, Z., & Kong, X. 2020, ApJ, 888, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f0e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f0e 2020

  71. [71]

    2024, A&A, 691, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451339 L´ opez Fern´ andez, R., Cid Fernandes, R., Gonz´ alez Delgado, R

    Lin, Z., & Yan, R. 2024, A&A, 691, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451339 L´ opez Fern´ andez, R., Cid Fernandes, R., Gonz´ alez Delgado, R. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw260

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451339 2024

  72. [72]

    A., Kriek, M., et al

    Lorenz, B., Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade887

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade887 2025

  73. [73]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, ApJ, 941, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d 2022

  74. [74]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 1610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2532

    Blyth, S.-L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2532

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2532 2015

  75. [75]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 458, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

    Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 458, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1 2025

  76. [76]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/426387 2005

  77. [77]

    C., Wyder, T

    Martin, D. C., Wyder, T. K., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 342, doi: 10.1086/516639

    work page doi:10.1086/516639 2007

  78. [78]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    work page doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  79. [79]

    2024, A&A, 689, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449454

    Matsumoto, K., Hirashita, H., Nagamine, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449454

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449454 2024

  80. [80]

    2026, A&A, 705, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555658

    Matsumoto, K., Sommovigo, L., Gebek, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555658

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555658 2026

Showing first 80 references.