pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02738 · v1 · pith:Z2AMQW3Knew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Signature of Bursty Star Formation in the High-Redshift Galaxies Detected with JWST

Rupam Sarkar , Saumyadip Samui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 13:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords UV luminosity functionhigh-redshift galaxiesJWSTstar formation timescalessemi-analytical modelgalaxy evolutioninitial mass functionAGN activity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Shorter star formation timescales explain the slow UV luminosity function evolution at z > 10 without changes to efficiency, dust, or IMF.

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

A semi-analytical model of the ultraviolet luminosity function is calibrated against measurements from redshifts 2 to 10 and then applied to JWST data at higher redshifts. The model identifies a progression toward shorter characteristic star formation timescales at increasing redshift while star formation efficiency remains fixed. This progression reproduces the unexpectedly slow evolution of the luminosity function at z greater than 10. Neither dust-free conditions nor a top-heavy initial mass function match the observations at z around 14 on their own. The combination of luminosity functions with stellar mass estimates favors evolving star formation histories as the main driver of the high-redshift behavior.

Core claim

The paper claims that the slow evolution of ultraviolet luminosity functions at redshifts greater than 10 is reproduced by shifting to even shorter star formation timescales in the semi-analytical model while holding star formation efficiency constant. Dust-free conditions or a top-heavy initial mass function alone fail to match the data at z approximately 14. When ultraviolet luminosity functions are paired with stellar mass estimates obtained from Prospector-based spectral energy distribution fitting, the results indicate that evolving star formation timescales rather than initial mass function or dust variations are the primary cause, with moderate AGN activity offering an additional boos

What carries the argument

semi-analytical model of the UV luminosity function that varies only the characteristic star formation timescale while holding star formation efficiency fixed

If this is right

  • At redshifts less than or equal to 5, longer star formation timescales with nearly constant efficiency dominate the luminosity function.
  • Between redshifts 6 and 10, shorter timescales explain the data without any increase in star formation efficiency.
  • At redshifts greater than 10, further shortening of the timescale accounts for the slow luminosity function evolution.
  • Moderate AGN activity can increase UV luminosities at z around 14 without requiring adjustments to stellar parameters.
  • The observed evolution reflects changing physical conditions during the earliest phases of galaxy assembly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If star formation timescales continue to shorten at still higher redshifts, the model would predict even flatter luminosity function evolution than currently observed.
  • Independent constraints on stellar masses at z greater than 10 could tighten limits on how much the timescale must decrease.
  • The same mechanism may influence the timing and sources of cosmic reionization through altered ultraviolet output from early galaxies.
  • Bursty formation histories could leave distinct signatures in the scatter of galaxy properties at fixed luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytical model calibrated against z approximately 2 to 10 data can be extrapolated to z greater than 10 by varying only the star formation timescale while keeping all other parameters fixed.

What would settle it

Direct estimates of star formation durations in z greater than 10 galaxies, obtained independently from spectral energy distribution fitting or other tracers, that are inconsistent with the short timescales needed to match the observed UV luminosity function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02738 by Rupam Sarkar, Saumyadip Samui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: UV luminosity functions at 𝑧 = 2 − 10. Models are shown with 𝜅 = 0.5 (thin dashed blue line), 𝜅 = 1 (solid black line) and 𝜅 = 4 (dash-dotted red line). Additionally model with 𝜅 = 0.25 ( thick dash-dotted olive line; marked with † in the 𝑧 = 2 panel ) is included for 𝑧 = 9 and 𝑧 = 10. Filled markers represent observational data points included in the fitting procedure, while unfilled markers indicate uppe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: UV luminosity functions at 𝑧 = 11 − 14. Models are shown with 𝜅 = 0.25 (thick dash-dotted olive line), 𝜅 = 0.5 (thin dashed blue line), 𝜅 = 1 (solid black line) and 𝜅 = 4 (dash-dotted red line,† not included for 𝑧 = 14). Filled markers represent observational data points included in the fitting procedure, while unfilled markers indicate upper or lower limits (excluded from fitting). The observed data point… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The figure shows the redshift evolution of star formation efficiency ( 𝑓★) along with its uncertainty for models with different 𝜅, i.e., 𝜅 = 4, , 1 and 0.5. Additionally 𝜅 = 0.25 is included for redshift 9-14 only. at 𝑧 = 14, thus completely ruled out. However, models assuming 𝜅 = 0.5 at 𝑧 = 10 and 𝜅 = 0.25 at 𝑧 = 14 fit the luminosity function with similar 𝑓★ = 0.069 and 0.064 with reasonably low chi-squa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of UV luminosity functions (LFs) at 𝑧 = 14 for different models. The solid black line shows the fiducial UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 using the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 parameters for this redshift. The red dashed line represents the UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 assuming the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 values derived for 𝑧 = 10, while the blue dash-dotted line incorporates a top-heavy initial mass function (IMF) under the same 𝑧 = 10 parameters.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper Panel: Time evolution of the UV luminosity (ℓ1500) for a burst of 106 M⊙ star formation with four different initial mass functions: (i) Chabrier IMF (Chabrier 2003), (ii) Standard Salpeter IMF (1−100 M⊙), (iii) Top-Heavy IMF (10−300 M⊙), and (iv) More Extreme Top-Heavy IMF (50−300 M⊙), all assuming a power-law slope of −2.35. Lower Panel: UV luminosity (𝐿1500) of a 1011 M⊙ halo, formed at 𝑧𝑐 = 15 wit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contribution to the UV luminosity function (UV LF) from galaxies in different stellar mass ranges, shown for two models: i) 𝜅 = 0.25 with Salpeter IMF (1 − 100 M⊙) (upper panel), and ii) Top-heavy IMF (10 − 300 M⊙) with 𝜅 = 1 (lower panel). In both panels, the solid black line represents the best-fit UV LF. The contribution from galaxies in different stellar mass ranges are indicated as follows: dashed oli… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of UV luminosity functions (LFs) at 𝑧 = 14 for different models. The solid black line shows the fiducial UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 using the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 parameters for this redshift. The red dashed-dotted line represents the UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 assuming the best-fit 𝑓★/𝜂 values derived for 𝑧 = 10. The red shaded region illustrates the potential AGN contribution to the UV LF at 𝑧 = 14 with same best-fit 𝑧 = … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distribution of the stellar mass (𝑀★) for the galaxy JADES-GS-z14-0, derived using the Prospector code (Johnson et al. 2021) by varying the star formation timescale 𝜏, while keeping the IMF fixed. The red, olive, blue, and purple curves correspond to 𝜏 = 0.1, 1, 10, and 30 Myr, respectively. As 𝜏 increases, the inferred stellar mass shifts to higher values, indicating the sensitivity of 𝑀★ to ass… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations reveal an unexpectedly slow evolution in ultraviolet luminosity functions (UV LFs) at redshifts $z > 10$. To investigate this phenomenon, we develop a semi-analytical model of the UV LF, calibrated against well-constrained measurements at $z \sim 2-10$. Our analysis identifies a transition in star formation modes across cosmic epochs: at $z \lesssim 5$, a longer characteristic star formation timescale with nearly constant star formation efficiency ($f_\star$) dominates, whereas at $6 \lesssim z \lesssim 10$, shorter timescales prevail without requiring an increase in $f_\star$. For $z > 10$, the slow UV LF evolution is best explained by a shift toward even shorter star formation timescales without changing the star formation efficiency. Dust-free conditions or a top-heavy initial mass function (IMF) alone cannot reproduce the observations at $z\sim 14$. By combining UV LF with stellar mass estimates from Prospector-based SED fitting, we try to break degeneracies between IMF variations and star formation histories. Our results indicate that evolving star formation timescales rather than IMF or dust changes are the primary drivers of the observed high-redshift UV LF evolution, reflecting changing physical conditions during the earliest phases of galaxy assembly. Additionally, we show that moderate AGN activity could further boost UV luminosities at $z \sim 14$, potentially explaining the observed UV LF without changes in stellar parameters.

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 develops a semi-analytical model of the UV luminosity function calibrated against measurements at z∼2–10. It concludes that the unexpectedly slow evolution of the UV LF at z>10 is explained by a further reduction in the characteristic star-formation timescale while holding star-formation efficiency f⋆ fixed; dust-free conditions and a top-heavy IMF are stated to be unable to reproduce the z∼14 data on their own. The model is combined with Prospector SED fits to address IMF–SFH degeneracies, and moderate AGN activity is suggested as an additional UV boost at z∼14.

Significance. If the fixed-parameter extrapolation is valid, the work supplies a physically motivated account of JWST high-z observations that ties the UV LF behavior to evolving star-formation timescales rather than changes in efficiency, dust, or IMF. The attempt to break degeneracies with SED fitting and the explicit consideration of AGN contributions are constructive steps toward testable predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'For z > 10'): the central claim that dust-free conditions or a top-heavy IMF 'alone cannot reproduce the observations at z∼14' is obtained inside a model whose only free parameter at high redshift is the star-formation timescale, with f⋆ and all other ingredients held at their z∼2–10 values. No explicit test is shown that the same conclusion survives if, for example, the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are allowed to vary with redshift.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on Prospector SED fits): the statement that these fits 'break the IMF–SFH degeneracy' rests on the same extrapolation of the semi-analytical model to z>10. Without a quantitative table or figure comparing the likelihoods under the fixed-parameter versus alternative scenarios, it is not possible to assess whether the degeneracy is actually broken or merely re-parameterized.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the characteristic star-formation timescale and f⋆ should be defined explicitly at first use rather than introduced only in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'For z > 10'): the central claim that dust-free conditions or a top-heavy IMF 'alone cannot reproduce the observations at z∼14' is obtained inside a model whose only free parameter at high redshift is the star-formation timescale, with f⋆ and all other ingredients held at their z∼2–10 values. No explicit test is shown that the same conclusion survives if, for example, the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are allowed to vary with redshift.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted claim is derived within the fiducial model in which only the star-formation timescale is allowed to vary at z>10 while f⋆ and other parameters remain fixed at their z∼2–10 values. The manuscript does not present explicit tests in which the dust optical-depth scaling or the IMF-dependent UV-to-mass conversion are also permitted to evolve. We will therefore add a dedicated subsection (and associated figure) in the revised manuscript that repeats the z∼14 comparison after allowing those two ingredients to vary with redshift, thereby testing whether the preference for shorter timescales survives. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on Prospector SED fits): the statement that these fits 'break the IMF–SFH degeneracy' rests on the same extrapolation of the semi-analytical model to z>10. Without a quantitative table or figure comparing the likelihoods under the fixed-parameter versus alternative scenarios, it is not possible to assess whether the degeneracy is actually broken or merely re-parameterized.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current text does not supply a quantitative comparison (e.g., likelihood ratios or Bayesian evidence) between the fixed-parameter extrapolation and alternative IMF/SFH scenarios. In the revised manuscript we will add a table that reports the relative likelihoods (or evidence ratios) obtained when the Prospector SED posteriors are combined with the UV LF constraints under the fiducial model versus under models that allow redshift-dependent IMF or SFH variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in model calibration and extrapolation

full rationale

The paper develops a semi-analytical UV LF model calibrated on independent z~2-10 observations, then interprets z>10 data by varying the characteristic star-formation timescale while holding f_star and other parameters fixed. This is a conventional extrapolation and parameter-inference procedure, not a reduction where any claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described derivation. The exclusion of dust-free or top-heavy IMF scenarios follows from comparisons internal to the fixed model but does not collapse to a tautology. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a single semi-analytical framework calibrated at moderate redshift can be extrapolated by varying only one parameter (star-formation timescale) while holding star-formation efficiency fixed; no independent evidence for the functional form of the timescale evolution is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • characteristic star formation timescale
    Varied across redshift bins to reproduce the observed UV LF evolution while keeping f_star constant.
  • star formation efficiency f_star
    Held fixed across the z>10 range after calibration at lower redshift.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The semi-analytical UV LF model calibrated at z~2-10 remains valid at z>10 when only the star-formation timescale is changed.
    This extrapolation underpins the claim that timescale evolution is the primary driver.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5793 in / 1407 out tokens · 28873 ms · 2026-06-28T13:20:36.927515+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 129 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [2]

    z~7 Galaxies in the HUDF: First Epoch WFC3/IR Results

    z -0.5ex 7 Galaxies in the HUDF: First Epoch WFC3/IR Results. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L16 , archivePrefix =. 0909.1806 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l16 2041

  2. [5]

    The present-day star formation rate of the Milky-Way determined from Spitzer detected young stellar objects , volume =

    Robitaille, Thomas and Whitney, Barbara , year =. The present-day star formation rate of the Milky-Way determined from Spitzer detected young stellar objects , volume =. ApJ , doi =

  3. [17]

    , keywords =

    The Burstiness of Star Formation at z 6: A Huge Diversity in the Recent Star Formation Histories of Very UV-faint Galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc74 , archivePrefix =. 2410.01905 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc74

  4. [19]

    First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback , volume=

    Nelson, Dylan and Pillepich, Annalisa and Springel, Volker and Pakmor, Rüdiger and Weinberger, Rainer and Genel, Shy and Torrey, Paul and Vogelsberger, Mark and Marinacci, Federico and Hernquist, Lars , year=. First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback , volume=. MNRAS , publisher=. doi:10.1093/...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

  5. [20]

    First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time , volume=

    Pillepich, Annalisa and Nelson, Dylan and Springel, Volker and Pakmor, Rüdiger and Torrey, Paul and Weinberger, Rainer and Vogelsberger, Mark and Marinacci, Federico and Genel, Shy and van der Wel, Arjen and Hernquist, Lars , year=. First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time , volume=. MNRAS , pu...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338

  6. [22]

    , keywords =

    A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: A Candidate z 12 Galaxy in Early JWST CEERS Imaging. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e , archivePrefix =. 2207.12474 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e 2041

  7. [25]

    Discovery of z~8 Galaxies in the HUDF from ultra-deep WFC3/IR Observations

    Discovery of z -0.5ex 8 Galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field from Ultra-Deep WFC3/IR Observations. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L133 , archivePrefix =. 0909.1803 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l133 2041

  8. [33]

    A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy

    A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129 , archivePrefix =. 1603.00461 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/129

  9. [35]

    , keywords =

    On the ages of bright galaxies 500 Myr after the big bang: insights into star formation activity at z 15 with JWST. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3535 , archivePrefix =. 2208.01599 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3535

  10. [37]

    2023 , eprint=

    The Next Generation Deep Extragalactic Exploratory Public (NGDEEP) Survey , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  11. [39]

    z 2-9 Galaxies Magnified by the Hubble Frontier Field Clusters. II. Luminosity Functions and Constraints on a Faint-end Turnover. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1 , archivePrefix =. 2205.11526 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

  12. [41]

    Observational Searches for Galaxies at z > 6

    Observational Searches for Star-Forming Galaxies at z > 6. , keywords =. doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.26 , archivePrefix =. 1511.05558 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.26 2016

  13. [42]

    , keywords =

    Reionization Era Bright Emission Line Survey: Selection and Characterization of Luminous Interstellar Medium Reservoirs in the z > 6.5 Universe. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , archivePrefix =. 2106.13719 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a

  14. [57]

    , keywords =

    Super-early JWST galaxies, outflows, and Ly visibility in the Epoch of Reionization. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 , archivePrefix =. 2310.12197 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321

  15. [63]

    , keywords =

    Early galaxy formation and its large-scale effects. , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002 , archivePrefix =. 1809.09136 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002 2018

  16. [76]

    Models of high redshift luminosity functions and galactic outflows: The dependence on halo mass function , volume=

    Samui, Saumyadip and Subramanian, Kandaswamy and Srianand, Raghunathan , year=. Models of high redshift luminosity functions and galactic outflows: The dependence on halo mass function , volume=. New Astronomy , publisher=. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.02.006 , number=

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.02.006 2009

  17. [84]

    New synthesis models of consistent extragalactic background light over cosmic time

    New synthesis models of consistent extragalactic background light over cosmic time. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz174 , archivePrefix =. 1801.09693 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz174

  18. [107]

    The z = 9-10 galaxy population in the Hubble Frontier Fields and CLASH surveys: The z=9 LF and further evidence for a smooth decline in UV luminosity at z >= 8

    The z = 9-10 galaxy population in the Hubble Frontier Fields and CLASH surveys: the z = 9 luminosity function and further evidence for a smooth decline in ultraviolet luminosity density at z 8. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw904 , archivePrefix =. 1602.05199 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stw904

  19. [111]

    CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background

  20. [113]

    , keywords =

    A dusty compact object bridging galaxies and quasars at cosmic dawn. , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04454-1 , archivePrefix =. 2204.06393 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04454-1

  21. [114]

    , keywords =

    ALMA confirmation of an obscured hyperluminous radio-loud AGN at z = 6.853 associated with a dusty starburst in the 1.5 deg ^ 2 COSMOS field. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad266 , archivePrefix =. 2206.00018 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad266

  22. [115]

    , keywords =

    On the Coevolution of the AGN and Star-forming Galaxy Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions at 3 < z < 9. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb , archivePrefix =. 2207.02233 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

  23. [116]

    Peterson, B. M. , title =

  24. [117]

    Rybicki, G. B. and Lightman, A. P. , title =

  25. [119]

    , keywords =

    Black Hole Halo Mass Relation from UNIONS Weak Lensing. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0 , archivePrefix =. 2402.10740 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0 2041

  26. [126]

    The Evolution and Properties of Rotating Massive Star Populations

    The Evolution and Properties of Rotating Massive Star Populations. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa679f , archivePrefix =. 1702.04722 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa679f

  27. [128]

    , keywords =

    The ultraviolet continuum slopes ( ) of galaxies at z ≃ 8-16 from JWST and ground-based near-infrared imaging. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad073 , archivePrefix =. 2208.04914 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad073

  28. [129]

    , keywords =

    The ALMA REBELS Survey: specific star formation rates in the reionization era. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2291 , archivePrefix =. 2203.07392 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2291

  29. [132]

    , keywords =

    Dusty Starbursts Masquerading as Ultra-high Redshift Galaxies in JWST CEERS Observations. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe , archivePrefix =. 2208.01816 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfe 2041

  30. [135]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    Adams N. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..169A 965, 169

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  31. [136]

    H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    Andrews B. H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

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

  32. [137]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.622..707A 622, 707

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  33. [138]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  34. [139]

    Atek H., Richard J., Kneib J.-P., Schaerer D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1820 , 479, 5184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1820 2018

  35. [140]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..209B 961, 209

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..209B 961, 209

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09dc 2024

  36. [141]

    Barkana R., Loeb A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhR...349..125B 349, 125

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  37. [142]

    , keywords =

    Benson A. J., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05387.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..156B 333, 156

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05387.x 2002

  38. [143]

    N., Kaiser C

    Best P. N., Kaiser C. R., Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00159.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368L..67B 368, L67

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00159.x 2006

  39. [144]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Franx M., Ford H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..928B 670, 928

    work page doi:10.1086/521811 2007

  40. [145]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...83B 754, 83

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...83B 754, 83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/83 2012

  41. [146]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  42. [147]

    J., Oesch P

    Bouwens R. J., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Ellis R. S., Stefanon M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4 , 843, 129

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4 2017

  43. [148]

    J., Stefanon M., Oesch P

    Bouwens R. J., Stefanon M., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Nanayakkara T., Roberts-Borsani G., Labb \'e I., Smit R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...25B 880, 25

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab24c5 2019

  44. [149]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...47B 162, 47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e 2021

  45. [150]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., van Dokkum P. G., Oesch P. A., Stefanon M., Ribeiro B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4791 , 927, 81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4791 2022

  46. [151]

    Bouwens R., Illingworth G., Oesch P., Stefanon M., Naidu R., van Leeuwen I., Magee D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1009B 523, 1009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023

  47. [152]

    J., Ekers, R

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  48. [153]

    Bowler R. A. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1817B 452, 1817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1403 2015

  49. [154]

    Bowler R. A. A., Jarvis M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Adams N. J., Milvang-Jensen B., McCracken H. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2059B 493, 2059

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa313 2020

  50. [155]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..731B 7, 731

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7 2023

  51. [156]

    Bromm V., Loeb A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...575..111B 575, 111

    work page doi:10.1086/341189 2002

  52. [157]

    S., Larson R

    Bromm V., Coppi P. S., Larson R. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564...23B 564, 23

    work page doi:10.1086/323947 2002

  53. [158]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

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

  54. [159]

    Burgarella D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..70B 554, A70

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321651 2013

  55. [160]

    Carniani S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..318C 633, 318

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  56. [161]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    Casey C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 2024

  57. [162]

    Castellano M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 , 938, L15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0 2022

  58. [163]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  59. [164]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  60. [165]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  61. [166]

    Curti M., Mannucci F., Cresci G., Maiolino R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..944C 491, 944

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  62. [167]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..622C 7, 622

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w 2023

  63. [168]

    C., Birnboim Y., Mandelker N., Li Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3201D 523, 3201

    Dekel A., Sarkar K. C., Birnboim Y., Mandelker N., Li Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3201D 523, 3201

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1557 2023

  64. [169]

    J., Weinberg D

    Dijkstra M., Haiman Z., Rees M. J., Weinberg D. H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..666D 601, 666

    work page doi:10.1086/380603 2004

  65. [170]

    T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6011D 518, 6011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472

  66. [171]

    T., McLeod D

    Donnan C. T., McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Carnall A. C., Cullen F., Magee D., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4554D 520, 4554

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad471

  67. [172]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2037 2024

  68. [173]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  69. [174]

    Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Dayal P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1095 , 522, 3986

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1095 2023

  70. [175]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...71F 810, 71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/71 2015

  71. [177]

    L., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...52F 928, 52

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...52F 928, 52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aed

  72. [178]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023

  73. [179]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969L...2F 969, L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 2024

  74. [180]

    Fu S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..186F 987, 186

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1 2025

  75. [181]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..250F 977, 250

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 2024

  76. [182]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

  77. [183]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...39H 959, 39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

  78. [184]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..138H 980, 138

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c 2025

  79. [185]

    arXiv:2601.21833

    Harikane Y., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260121833H p. arXiv:2601.21833

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21833 2026

  80. [186]

    Ishigaki M., Kawamata R., Ouchi M., Oguri M., Shimasaku K., Ono Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...12I 799, 12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/12 2015

Showing first 80 references.