Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Stacking PANCAKEZ: sPectroscopic Analysis with NirspeC stAcKs in the Epoch of reioniZation. Weak ISM Absorption and Implications for Ionizing Photon Escape at $z\sim7$

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

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

Pith's one-line read A spectral stack of 64 galaxies at redshifts 6.0–9.4 shows unusually weak low-ionization absorption, implying a porous neutral interstellar medium, a higher escape fraction of ionizing photons, and weaker outflows than at lower redshift.

desk verdict A careful first stack of rest-UV ISM absorption at z>6, whose measurements look solid but whose headline fesc/outflow interpretation is still entangled with a luminosity mismatch and profile-model choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21080 v1 pith:YZNYTUCP submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.GA

Kelsey S. Glazer , Tucker Jones , Yuguang Chen , Ryan L. Sanders , Marusa Bradac , Anthony J. Pahl , Alice E. Shapley , Richard S. Ellis
show 2 more authors
Michael W. Topping Naveen A. Reddy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords spectralstackinglow-ionizationabsorptionlinesLyman-alphaemittersionizingphotonescapefractionepochofreionizationJWSTNIRSpecinterstellarmediumz~7galaxies
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

To learn what galaxies did during cosmic reionization, this paper stacks the JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 64 spectroscopically confirmed star-forming galaxies at z = 6.0–9.4 and measures the average equivalent widths and velocity centroids of low-ionization absorption lines, transmitted Lyman-alpha, and nebular lines. It finds that average low-ionization absorption is weak (EW ≈ 1 Å), the absorption velocity centroid is only slightly blueshifted (−20 ± 50 km/s), and Lyman-alpha is heavily suppressed (EW ≈ 5 Å) relative to similar stacks at z ≈ 2–5. The authors interpret the weak absorption as a lower covering fraction of neutral hydrogen, and therefore a larger escape fraction of ionizing photons, and the small blueshift as evidence for weaker galactic outflows at z ≈ 7. They also find that Lyman-alpha emitters have extreme H-beta equivalent widths and nebular C IV emission, indicating harder ionizing spectra and higher ionizing-photon production efficiency. If right, the result supports star-forming galaxies, rather than active galactic nuclei, as the primary drivers of reionization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is spectral stacking: 64 medium-resolution NIRSpec spectra, normalized at rest-frame 1450–1500 Å, are combined with a 3σ-clipped mean, with uncertainties estimated from 2000 bootstrap resamples. The diagnostic carrier is the mean low-ionization absorption profile, formed by averaging the five LIS lines on a common velocity grid and fitting both symmetric and skewed Gaussians to extract equivalent width and velocity centroid. The same fitting machinery is applied to Lyman-alpha and to the nebular lines used for systemic redshifts, with nebular-line centroids (−0.7 ± 6.8 km/s on average) confirming that redshift uncertainties do not drive the results.

What would settle it

A direct check would compare individual z ≈ 7 galaxies' LIS equivalent widths against an independent neutral-hydrogen or escape-fraction tracer in the same objects, such as the depth of Lyman-alpha damping-wing absorption or stacked Balmer-continuum fesc estimates; galaxies with EW(LIS) ≈ 1 Å that nonetheless show strong H I absorption or low fesc would falsify the LIS-to-HI conversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the average rest-frame ultraviolet spectrum of moderately luminous galaxies at z ≈ 7 differs systematically from composite spectra at z ≈ 2–5. The five low-ionization absorption lines (Si II 1260, O I 1302, Si II 1304, C II 1334, Si II 1526) are shallower, with EW(LIS) = −1.18 ± 0.26 Å in the full stack against ≲ −1.5 Å at lower redshift; the absorption centroid is barely blueshifted; and transmitted Lyman-alpha emission is only about 5 Å, roughly 20% of the strength measured at z ≈ 5. The paper argues that weaker low-ionization absorption implies a patchier neutral-hydrogen distribution and a larger ionizing escape fraction, while the small blueshift implies weaker or less prevalent outflows. Within the sample, the Lyman-alpha emitters show weaker LIS absorption, extreme EW(Hβ) ≈ 168 ± 4 Å, and nebular C IV emission, so the low-redshift anti-correlation between LIS absorption and Lyman-alpha emission persists even during reionization.

Load-bearing premise

The escape-fraction conclusion depends on the assumption that the lower-redshift calibration linking LIS absorption strength to neutral-hydrogen covering fraction and ionizing escape holds unchanged at z ≈ 7, where gas may be more metal-poor or even pristine and therefore optically thin in the low-ionization transitions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The weak LIS absorption implies a lower neutral-hydrogen covering fraction and a higher escape fraction of ionizing photons, supporting star-forming galaxies as major contributors to reionization at z > 6.
  • The small blueshift of the LIS centroid implies that outflows at z ≈ 7 are weaker than at z ≈ 2–5, a change happening within less than roughly 500 million years.
  • The observed Lyman-alpha suppression in the full stack is consistent with roughly 50–70% IGM attenuation at z = 6.5–8, so intrinsic Lyman-alpha emission in these galaxies is substantially stronger than observed.
  • The LAE stack's extreme EW(Hβ) and nebular C IV detection imply higher ionizing-photon production efficiency and harder ionizing spectra, linking observable Lyman-alpha to galaxy-scale properties, not only to IGM transparency.
  • The LIS-versus-Lyman-alpha anti-correlation holds internally at z ≈ 7, so the same neutral-gas physics that regulates Lyman-alpha escape at lower redshift is already in place during reionization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Part of the apparent redshift trend may be luminosity scaling: the z ≈ 7 sample is about three to four times fainter in UV luminosity than the z ≈ 3–5 comparison stacks, and fainter galaxies already show weaker LIS absorption; a luminosity-matched comparison would separate true redshift evolution from sample selection.
  • If the weak-outflow result holds, models with extremely high star-formation efficiency or feedback-free starbursts become more plausible; one testable extension is to check whether stacked stellar ages and gas metallicities match the very short free-fall times those models require.
  • The same stacking approach could be pushed to fainter and higher-redshift samples; if EW(LIS) keeps declining toward z ≈ 8–9, inferred escape fractions would rise further, easing the ionizing-photon budget for reionization.
  • A cleaner test of the LIS-to-fesc calibration at z ≈ 7 would come from comparing stacked LIS equivalent widths with independent fesc estimates from Balmer-continuum or nebular-recombination analyses of the same galaxies, which the paper only approximates through literature comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper stacks medium-resolution JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 64 spectroscopically confirmed z = 6.0-9.4 galaxies from JADES, CEERS, and AURORA, and measures rest-UV low-ionization (LIS) absorption, transmitted Ly-alpha, and rest-optical nebular lines. Compared with consistently re-measured literature stacks at z ~ 3-5, the PANCAKEZ composite shows weaker LIS absorption (EW(LIS) = -1.18^{+0.26}_{-0.28} Å), a smaller LIS velocity centroid (v_cen ~ -20 to -130 km/s depending on fit), and suppressed Ly-alpha emission (EW ~ 4.5-4.6 Å). The authors interpret the weak LIS absorption as a lower H I covering fraction and higher ionizing escape fraction, the small centroid as weak outflows, and the LAE/non-LAE split as evidence for higher ionizing-photon production in LAEs. The analysis includes bootstrap uncertainties, a nebular-redshift accuracy check, and LAE/non-LAE subsample stacks.

Significance. The paper presents a genuinely new data product: the first LIS absorption stack at z > 6 built from medium-resolution NIRSpec spectra, with internally consistent re-measurements of the lower-redshift comparison stacks and a careful check that nebular redshifts are accurate to < 10 km/s. If the weak-LIS result is confirmed after controlling for luminosity, it would provide direct evidence that typical reionization-era galaxies have a patchy neutral ISM, strengthening the case that star-forming galaxies are the dominant ionizing source. The LAE versus non-LAE comparison also gives a clean, physically plausible demonstration that Ly-alpha observability at z ~ 7 depends on intrinsic galaxy properties (young, metal-poor stellar populations) as well as the IGM. The main limitation is that the key evolutionary claim is entangled with a 1-1.6 mag UV-luminosity difference relative to the comparison samples, which the authors acknowledge but do not correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.2, §5.2.1, §5.4] The central redshift-evolution and escape-fraction interpretation is not separated from a large luminosity difference between the z ~ 7 PANCAKEZ stack and the comparison stacks. §5.1.2 reports <M_UV> ~ -19.7 for PANCAKEZ while Jones et al. (2012) and Pahl et al. (2020) have <M_UV> ~ -20.9 and -21.3, i.e., 3-4x brighter; §5.2.1 explicitly states that "some of the redshift evolution ... is likely due to scaling relations given the lower UV luminosity," but provides no quantitative correction. Figure 11 plots EW(LIS) against redshift without any luminosity normalization, and §5.4 then interprets the residual as a porous ISM with fesc ~ 0.15-0.3. Because the known EW(LIS)-M_UV scaling is comparable in size to the claimed offset (EW(LIS) ~ -1.5 to -1.8 at z = 3-5 versus -1.18 here), a luminosity-matched re-stacking of the lower-z samples, or an explicit scaling-relation correction, is required before the redshift-evolution and fesc claims are established. The measured stack itself is not invalidated, but the evolutionary conclusion is not yet established.
  2. [§5.4] The inference fesc ~ 0.15-0.3 from comparison with z ~ 3 composites (Steidel et al. 2018) assumes that the empirical LIS-to-fesc calibration transfers unchanged to z > 6. The paper itself notes in §5.2.1 that pristine or very metal-poor H I would be optically thin to the LIS transitions, in which case EW(LIS) is a lower limit on fcov(HI). Given that the paper's own nebular diagnostics (§5.1.1) place the PANCAKEZ sample at low metallicity and high ionization parameter, the calibration could shift with redshift; the fesc claim should be reframed as conditional on the calibrations, or supported by an additional test (e.g., using the full set of LIS line ratios or the internal Ly-alpha/LIS relation) before being quoted as a quantitative escape fraction.
  3. [§5.2.2] The statement that the z ~ 7 LIS velocity centroid is "consistent with no outflows at the 1-sigma level" applies only to the symmetric Gaussian fit (v_cen = -23 ± 51 km/s); the skewed-Gaussian fit gives v_cen = -132 +86/-108 km/s, whose central value is comparable to lower-z values within the large uncertainty. The weak-outflow conclusion should therefore be phrased with this model dependence made explicit, and ideally with a direct comparison of the profile skewness rather than the centroid alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract quotes "EW(LIS) ≈ 1 Å" without the sign; since Table 3 reports negative equivalent widths for absorption, please specify the absolute value or state the sign convention explicitly.
  2. [§2.1.3] There is a typographical spacing issue in the sentence ending "medium-resolution spectra.This ultimately resulted..."; please insert a space after the period.
  3. [References] The references Bouwens et al. 2022a and 2022b appear to be identical entries (same journal, volume, page, and DOI); one should be removed or corrected.
  4. [Figure 8] The color-coded literature composites from Cameron et al. (2023b), Sanders et al. (2023), and Roberts-Borsani et al. (2024) would benefit from a legend or explicit colorbar; the current caption does not identify which symbol or color corresponds to which study.
  5. [§5.2.1] The sentence "a comparison between the z ~ 5 and z ~ 7 stacks suggests EW(Ly-alpha) decreases by ~70%" should clarify whether this is the raw stack ratio or an IGM-corrected comparison, since the preceding estimate from Tang et al. (2024) is ~50%.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the z≈7 stacked measurements are new independent data, and the fesc/covering-fraction interpretation rests on external calibrations rather than on a fitted input or self-referential definition.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements (EW_LIS, vcen,LIS, EW_Lyα) are obtained from a newly constructed stack of 64 NIRSpec medium-resolution spectra; no parameter is fitted to force these values. The lower-redshift comparison values are re-measured consistently from previously published composite spectra (Shapley+03, Jones+12, Pahl+20), which are independent data rather than outputs of this paper. The inference that weaker LIS absorption implies lower H I covering fraction and higher fesc is an application of empirical calibrations from Reddy+16, Chisholm+18, and Steidel+18, i.e., external relations, not derived from the PANCAKEZ stack by construction. The paper explicitly flags the M_UV luminosity difference between PANCAKEZ and the z=3–5 stacks as a possible partial cause of the EW_LIS trend (§5.1.2 and §5.2.1), so the conclusion is not disguised as a prediction from a fitted parameter. The IGM-attenuation correction for Lyα is taken from Tang et al. (2024) and is presented as a separate comparison, with the uncorrected transmitted value also reported; the Lyα suppression conclusion does not reduce to the correction. No equation or definition in the paper makes a derived quantity equal its input by construction. Author overlap with some comparison works (Jones+12, Pahl+20, Shapley+03, Reddy+16) is present, but those are prior published data and calibrations that are externally falsifiable and are re-measured here, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The luminosity confound is a scientific caveat about whether the redshift evolution is partly a scaling relation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes new measurements rather than a new theory; its free parameters are sample-selection thresholds and an adopted reddening correction, not fitted constants in a derivation. The most important axioms are the empirical LIS-to-fesc calibrations imported from lower redshift, the clean-continuum assumption, and the accuracy of nebular systemic redshifts. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • SNR threshold = 0.5 per pixel in rest-frame 1450-1500 A continuum
    Chosen from the tradeoff curve in Figure 1 to balance sample size and composite SNR; this threshold sets the final 64-galaxy sample.
  • E(B-V) reddening correction = 0.06 +/- 0.16
    Derived from the full stack H-gamma/H-beta ratio and applied to all sub-stacks, including the LAE stack where H-gamma is too faint to measure directly.
  • LAE classification threshold = visually detected Ly-alpha emission
    A liberal, subjective definition adopted because the individual spectra have limited SNR; 12 of 64 galaxies are classified as LAEs.
  • Fixed integration ranges for non-detected features = LIS: -1000 to +600 km/s; Ly-alpha: -500 to +1500 km/s
    Used to estimate equivalent widths in stacks where the feature is not detected; ranges are chosen to match the full PANCAKEZ stack detections.
  • IGM Ly-alpha attenuation correction = roughly 50 percent
    Adopted from Tang et al. 2024 for the illustrative corrected point in Figure 10; the paper also considers a 70 percent attenuation based on direct comparison with the z~5 stack.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LIS absorption equivalent width traces HI covering fraction and inversely traces ionizing escape fraction.
    Invoked in Sections 1, 5.2, and 5.4 based on Reddy et al. 2016 and Chisholm et al. 2018; the paper notes the correlation is not one-to-one and depends on metallicity and ionization.
  • domain assumption The EWLIS versus EWLy-alpha anti-correlation established at z=2 to 5 holds physically at z>6, modulo IGM attenuation.
    Used in Section 5.2.1 and Figure 10 to interpret the offset of the z~7 stack; the paper attributes the offset to IGM suppression of Ly-alpha.
  • domain assumption The rest-frame 1450-1500 A region is a clean, featureless continuum normalization window for all sample galaxies.
    Used throughout Section 3.1 for normalization; for chip-gap galaxies a power-law fit is used to infer this interval, adding an extra modeling step.
  • domain assumption Nebular-line systemic redshifts are accurate enough that residual errors do not artificially broaden or shift the stacked profiles.
    Validated in Section 4.3 using the average nebular vcen of -0.7 +/- 6.8 km/s across stacks, which bounds redshift uncertainties to a few km/s.
  • domain assumption Standard strong-line and Te-based metallicity calibrations (Sanders et al. 2024a; Esteban et al. 2009) remain valid at z>6.
    Used in Section 5.1.1 to convert line ratios into gas-phase oxygen abundances; calibration uncertainties are quoted at about 0.2 dex.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stacking PANCAKEZ: sPectroscopic Analysis with NirspeC stAcKs in the Epoch of reioniZation. Weak ISM Absorption and Implications for Ionizing Photon Escape at $z\sim7$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZNYTUCP

@misc{pith2026250421080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stacking PANCAKEZ: sPectroscopic Analysis with NirspeC stAcKs in the Epoch of reioniZation. Weak ISM Absorption and Implications for Ionizing Photon Escape at $z\sim7$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZNYTUCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21080}
}
abstract

We present a spectral stacking analysis of galaxies at $z\geq6$ observed with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). We curate a sample of $64$ galaxies spanning redshifts $z_{\rm spec} = 6.0 - 9.4$ which have NIRSpec medium resolution data. The stacks achieve sufficient signal-to-noise to measure equivalent widths (EW) and velocity centroids ($v_{\rm{cen}}$) of low-ionization species (LIS) absorption features, transmitted Lyman-alpha ($\rm{Ly\alpha}$) emission, and nebular emission lines. Overall, we find our sample has weaker LIS absorption lines ($\rm{EW}(\rm{LIS}) \approx 1 \r{A}$), smaller $v_{\rm{cen,LIS}} \approx -20 \pm 50~ \rm{km} \; \rm{s}^{-1}$, and significantly suppressed $\rm{Ly\alpha}$ emission ($\rm{EW}(\rm{Ly\alpha}) \approx 5~\r{A}$), compared to similar studies undertaken at lower redshift. The weaker LIS absorption may suggest a lower covering fraction of HI and larger escape fraction of ionizing photons from our sample. Additionally, the smaller blueshifted $v_{\rm{cen,LIS}}$ indicates less prevalent or weaker outflows in $z>6$ galaxies. Stacking our sub-sample of $\rm{Ly\alpha}$ emitters (LAEs), we find high EW$(\rm{H}\beta) \approx 170 \pm 4~\r{A}$ and a detection of nebular $\rm{C}\; \rm{IV}$ emission suggesting higher $\xi_{ion}$ in LAEs at $z>6$. This work showcases the enormous potential for stacked JWST spectra revealing properties of galaxies and their diffuse interstellar medium in the epoch of reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The composite spectrum continuum SNR as a function of the number of galaxies combined to create the stack. The color of each symbol represents the minimum continuum SNR (SNR Threshold, or SNRthresh) that indi￾vidual galaxies must achieve in order to be included. As expected for our methodology, the highest composite SNR (≈ 6.3) is achieved by combining galaxies with relatively high individual SNR, but at the cost of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The full PANCAKEZ composite spectrum for each JWST grating: G140M (blue), G235M (orange), and G395M (green). The filter composites are constructed by averaging normalized individual spectra in units of fν (Section 3). Prominent spectral features are labeled with names and dotted vertical lines. Closely separated doublets are marked with λλ. The bootstrap error spectrum for each filter stack is shown in maroon under … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Top: The full composite spectrum of the 64 zspec ≥ 6 galaxies. Middle: The number of spectra combined at each wavelength, shown for each filter individually. Bottom: The average redshift calculated at each wavelength of the combined galaxies. Black represents the weighted average. Overall our fiducial stack probes a consistent sample of galaxies across a broad wavelength range in each filter composite, and across th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The rest-UV composite spectra produced from the full 64-galaxy PANCAKEZ sample (red), our bin of 12 LAEs (green), and our bin of 52 non-LAEs (blue). The top panel displays all three composites plotted directly top of each other while the bottom panel has them verticall…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stacked Lya emission profiles from Shapley et al. (2003) (blue), Jones et al. (2012) (green), Pahl et al. (2020) (orange) and this work (red). Skewed Gaussian models are shown as a dashed line superimposed on the respective stack. A gray dashed line is drawn at the res…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The reddening-corrected O32 vs. R23 diagram for the PANCAKEZ sample (red stars), compared with low￾redshift star-forming galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; Tremonti et al. 2004) shown in grayscale. The cyan dashed line marks the median ridgeline of the S…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The rest-UV composite spectra from Shapley et al. (2003, blue), Jones et al. (2012, green), and Pahl et al. (2020, orange) overlaid on our full 64 galaxy PANCAKEZ composite (red). All spectra are consistently normalized at rest-frame 1450–1500 ˚A. Black dotted lines in…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: EWLIS vs. EWLyα. Dashed lines with cir￾cle markers represent the transmitted (uncorrected for IGM attenuation of Lyα) values reported in Pahl et al. (2020); Du et al. (2018). These data show a clear correlation with weaker LIS absorption corresponding to stronger Lyα …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The redshift trend of average EWLIS from z = 2–5 samples (square markers) and our z ∼ 7 compos￾ite (star marker). EWLIS values are measured from skewed Gaussian profile fits applied consistently to all composite spectra. Plotted redshifts represent the average for eac…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The measured LIS absorption velocity cen￾troid (vcen,LIS) for our full z ∼ 7 composite compared with z = 2–5 samples. The top panel shows measured values from our best-fit skewed Gaussian models while the bottom panel shows the values measured from our best-fit symmet…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Velocity profiles of Lyα emission (left column), LIS absorption (middle column), and nebular C IVλλ1548,1551 emission (right column) from our stacked spectra. Each row displays the respective profiles from our non-LAEs (top row), LAEs (middle row), and full PANCAKEZ (…

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. SPURS: Massive Stars, Dense Gas, and Ly$\alpha$ Escape in GN-z11 at $z = 10.6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    GN-z11's rest-UV spectrum shows young massive stars with very massive star winds, dense gas, and a broad red Ly alpha wing that may help Ly alpha escape the largely neutral early universe.

  2. Unveiling and Characterising Ubiquitous Nitrogen Enhancement in $6 \leq z \leq 10$ Galaxies with JWST Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 135 z=6-10 galaxies show supersolar N/O that is highest after a star-formation lull, consistent with delayed AGB enrichment and pristine gas inflows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., et al

    Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023a, Nature, 622, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 —. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7

  2. [2]

    D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H

    Becker, G. D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2696

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2696 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21dc

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab21dc 2019

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2663

    Bhagwat, A., Ciardi, B., Zackrisson, E., & Schaye, J. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2663 2022

  5. [5]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022

  6. [6]

    2022a, ApJ, 940, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1 —

    Stefanon, M. 2022a, ApJ, 940, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1 —. 2022b, ApJ, 940, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

  7. [7]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e 2021

  8. [8]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7

    Boyett, K., Trenti, M., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7 2024

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02467

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023b, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    doi

  3. [11]

    J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A

    Cameron, A. J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2023a, A&A, 677, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346107 —. 2023b, A&A, 677, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346107

    doi

  4. [12]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Hummels, C

    Chen, Y., Steidel, C. C., Hummels, C. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2808

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1461

    Chevallard, J., Charlot, S., Senchyna, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1461

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, A&A, 616, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832758

    Chisholm, J., Gazagnes, S., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832758

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    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

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    R., et al

    Dayal, P., Volonteri, M., Choudhury, T. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1138

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Reddy, N

    Du, X., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfcf

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1919

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 654, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/654

    Esteban, C., Bresolin, F., Peimbert, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 654, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/654

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Capak, P

    Faisst, A. L., Capak, P. L., Davidzon, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/29

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022a, ApJS, 260, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5331 —. 2022b, ApJ, 930, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

    doi

  20. [28]

    D., Kelson, D

    Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D., Kelson, D. D., van Dokkum, P. G., & Tran, K.-V. 1997, ApJL, 486, L75, doi: 10.1086/310844

    1997 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    Fujimoto, S., Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2d9

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, A&A, 616, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832759

    Gazagnes, S., Chisholm, J., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832759

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5015

    Hu, W., Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5015

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 22

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 22

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    P., & Ellis, R

    Jones, T., Stark, D. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 751, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/51

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Ellis, R

    Jones, T. A., Ellis, R. S., Schenker, M. A., & Stark, D. P. 2013, ApJ, 779, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/52 Keerthi Vasan, G. C., Jones, T., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf462

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Schreiber, N

    Kehoe, E., Shapley, A. E., Schreiber, N. M. F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ebb

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Shapley, A

    Kornei, K. A., Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 693, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/693

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    1980 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.11997, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.11997

    Kumari, N., Smit, R., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.11997, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.11997

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    A., Ellis, R

    Leethochawalit, N., Jones, T. A., Ellis, R. S., Stark, D. P., & Zitrin, A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/152

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C., Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 2011, AJ, 141, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/37

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    C., et al

    Li, Z., Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348727

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Chen, Z., Stark, D

    Mason, C. A., Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11702, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11702

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    A., & Gronke, M

    Mason, C. A., & Gronke, M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2910

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al

    Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz632

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc846

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Grillo, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Shapley, A., Faisst, A

    Pahl, A. J., Shapley, A., Faisst, A. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa355

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Shapley, A., Steidel, C

    Pahl, A. J., Shapley, A., Steidel, C. C., Chen, Y., & Reddy, N. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1374

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Shapley, A., Steidel, C

    Pahl, A. J., Shapley, A., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad774

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Topping, M

    Pahl, A. J., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03399

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    S., & McLure, R

    Parsa, S., Dunlop, J. S., & McLure, R. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2887

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Steidel, C

    Pettini, M., Rix, S. A., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 742, doi: 10.1086/339355

    2002 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Steidel, C

    Pettini, M., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 981, doi: 10.1086/321403

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., & Giavalisco, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 96, doi: 10.1086/308176

    2000 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al

    Prieto-Lyon, G., Strait, V., Mason, C. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245532

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., & Shapley, A. E. 2016, ApJ, 828, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/108

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Rieke, M., & Jades Collaboration. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 241, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 177.55

    2023

  54. [62]

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

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

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    E., ¨Ostlin, G., Hayes, M., & Puschnig, J

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., ¨Ostlin, G., Hayes, M., & Puschnig, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d0a

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Stark, D. P. 2010, Nature, 468, 49, doi: 10.1038/nature09527

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864 —

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Schaerer, D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1283

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acedad —. 2024a, ApJ, 962, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fc

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05273, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05273

    doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    J., Jones, G

    Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., Jones, G. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347132

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Ellis, R

    Schenker, M. A., Ellis, R. S., Konidaris, N. P., & Stark, D. P. 2014, ApJ, 795, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/20

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Stark, D

    Schenker, M. A., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/179

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    P., Chevallard, J., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1907

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Charlot, S., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Charlot, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d38

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    E., Reddy, N

    Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJL, 950, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd939 23

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65, doi: 10.1086/373922

    2003 doi

  68. [76]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.00157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.00157

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1749

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1749

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

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

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 6139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3605

    doi

  71. [79]

    2024, A&A, 688, L26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450798

    Zhu, Y. 2024, A&A, 688, L26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450798

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    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

  73. [81]

    C., Erb, D

    Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/289

    2010 doi

  74. [82]

    Adelberger, K. L. 1996, ApJL, 462, L17, doi: 10.1086/310029

    1996 doi

  75. [83]

    C., Strom, A

    Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., Pettini, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 159, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/159

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    C., Rudie, G

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

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    Ellis, R. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01507

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Senchyna, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19009, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19009

    2024 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    F., Steidel, C

    Trainor, R. F., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., & Rudie, G. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/89

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    A., Heckman, T

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

    2004 doi

  81. [89]

    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

  82. [90]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    E., Brammer, G., et al

    Valentino, F., Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01990

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 1163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1163

    Vanzella, E., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1163

    2009 doi

  85. [93]

    A., Topping, M

    Weldon, A., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1822

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    P., Endsley, R., et al

    Whitler, L., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae516

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    Witstok, J., Jakobsen, P., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    2024 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    D., Bosman, S

    Zhu, Y., Becker, G. D., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L49, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae061

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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