Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Central Concentration and Escape of Ionizing Photons in Galaxies at the Epoch of Reionization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using annular photometry of 189 galaxies at z~6.7–7.6, this paper shows that star formation, ionizing photon production efficiency, and escape fraction all peak in the innermost sub-kiloparsec regions, especially in low-mass galaxies.

desk verdict The resolved EW and UV-slope gradients are the real result here; the central fesc and xi_ion values are just those gradients rescaled through empirical relations, so the paper needs a softer claim in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16131 v1 pith:ZWQZ7RVV submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.GA

Cheqiu Lyu , Enci Wang , Junxian Wang , Cheng Jia , Jie Song , Yangyao Chen , Zeyu Chen , Haoran Yu
show 4 more authors
Chengyu Ma Jinyang Wang Yifan Wang Xu Kong
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords epochofreionizationionizingphotonescapefractionspatiallyresolvedgalaxypropertiesJWST/NIRCammedium-bandphotometry[OIII]emittersstarformationhistoryoutside-ingrowthLymancontinuum
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

At redshifts 6.7–7.6, when the universe was finishing reionization, this paper asks which parts of galaxies actually supplied the ionizing photons. The authors cut 189 JWST-selected galaxies into concentric annuli and fit the spectral energy distribution of each ring, producing radial profiles of star formation, stellar age, emission-line strength, ionizing photon efficiency, and escape fraction. They find that the innermost sub-kiloparsec regions of low-mass galaxies are the youngest and most intensely bursting, with extreme equivalent widths, UV slopes near $-2.3$, inferred ionizing efficiencies near $10^{25.6}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$, and escape fractions above $0.08$. These properties decline outward, so the paper concludes that compact galaxy cores—not their extended outskirts—were central to cosmic reionization. This reframes the reionization question from 'which galaxies' to 'which regions inside them.'

What carries the argument

Annular photometry is the carrier: each 1.2-arcsec cutout is split into ten concentric apertures out to 0.48 arcsec ($\sim2.4$ kpc), PSF-homogenized to F444W, and every annulus with $S/N>5$ in F410M is fit independently with BAGPIPES using BPASS stellar population models, a non-parametric 'continuity' star formation history, and Cloudy nebular emission. The ionizing-photon diagnostics are transferred to the annuli through two empirical scaling relations: the Chisholm et al. (2022) relation converts the measured UV slope $\beta$ into the escape fraction $f_{\rm esc}$, and the Tang et al. (2019) relation converts $\mathrm{EW([OIII]\lambda5007)}$ into $\xi_{\rm ion}$, with $\mathrm{EW([OIII]\lambda5007)}$ taken as $0.67$ times the $\mathrm{EW([OIII]{+}H\beta)}$ measured from the F410M excess. These relations translate the observed radial gradients in color and line strength directly into radial gradients in photon production and escape.

What would settle it

A targeted campaign to detect Lyman-continuum leakage in a stack of these z~7 galaxies—or spatially resolved rest-frame optical spectroscopy of a handful of them—could decide the matter: if escaping photons are not concentrated in the innermost half-kiloparsec, or if direct limits place $f_{\rm esc}$ below the values inferred from the UV-slope relation, the central concentration claim for escape would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reionization-relevant galaxies at $z\sim7$ are internally structured in a specific way: star formation is compact, central, and bursty, and every ionizing-photon property peaks in the center. In the lowest-mass bin ($\log(M_*/M_\odot)<9$), the central annulus reaches $\mathrm{EW([OIII]{+}H\beta)}>1000$ Å, $\xi_{\rm ion}\sim10^{25.6}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$, $\beta\sim-2.3$, and $f_{\rm esc}>0.08$, while the outer regions fall to $\beta\sim-1.7$ and $f_{\rm esc}\sim0.02$. The same central concentration appears in the star formation histories: the inner 0.5 kpc has the highest recent star formation rate surface density and the youngest stellar ages, implying outside-in growth in which the center forms last. The paper states these trends are robust to fitting systematics while cautioning that the absolute values of $\xi_{\rm ion}$ and $f_{\rm esc}$ are model-dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The reported escape fractions and photon production efficiencies are not direct detections; they are rescalings of UV slopes and equivalent widths through empirical relations calibrated on lower-redshift galaxies, and the argument assumes those calibrations hold unchanged on sub-kiloparsec scales inside galaxies at z~7.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy-integrated measurements of z~7 galaxies understate the ionizing output of the regions that actually matter; the innermost ~0.5 kpc carries much of the reionization budget.
  • The outside-in pattern implies that at z~7 galaxies shrink while they grow through in-situ star formation, so the size growth observed at lower redshift requires additional external processes.
  • Low-mass galaxies show the steepest central gradients and highest central escape fractions, strengthening the view that faint, numerous galaxies—not the bright massive population—drove reionization.
  • Because the central star formation is bursty and recent, any single galaxy's contribution to the ionizing background is episodic, varying on roughly 10 Myr timescales.
  • The F410M medium-band selection is an efficient way to find the reionization-relevant population, which can be extended to wider JWST surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the inferred radial escape-fraction gradient is real, simulations that assign a single escape fraction per galaxy will miss the relevant physics; the next test is whether simulated galaxies at z~7 also confine escape to sub-kiloparsec cores.
  • The same annular fitting applied to H-alpha emission would separate burst age from dust geometry: a central H-alpha peak sharper than [OIII] would confirm the centers are younger than ~10 Myr, not merely denser.
  • The outside-in growth interpretation predicts a measurable size decrease during a central burst; tracking effective radii over time-sequenced stacks of z~7 galaxies could confirm this.
  • Local green-pea analogs with compact [OIII] cores should show the same radially declining LyC escape pattern, providing a low-redshift test of the scenario.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Lyu et al. present a spatially resolved study of 189 JWST/NIRCam-selected galaxies at z ~ 6.7-7.6 in the JADES GOODS-N and GOODS-S fields. They perform PSF-homogenized annular photometry and BAGPIPES SED fitting to measure radial profiles of stellar mass surface density, SFR surface density, sSFR, mass-weighted age, EW([OIII]+Hbeta), and UV continuum slope beta. They report centrally concentrated, young, and bursty star formation, especially in low-mass galaxies, with central EW([OIII]+Hbeta) > 1000 A, xi_ion ~ 10^25.6 Hz/erg, beta ~ -2.3, and fesc > 0.08. Using Eqs. (4)-(6), they convert beta to fesc and EW to xi_ion, and use the resulting radial gradients to argue that compact galaxy centers play a pivotal role in cosmic reionization and that galaxies at z ~ 7 grow outside-in.

Significance. If the radial gradients and absolute values hold, this would be one of the first spatially resolved demonstrations that ionizing photon production and escape peak in the central sub-kpc regions of low-mass z ~ 7 galaxies, with direct implications for reionization models. The paper's strengths include a large uniform sample, careful PSF homogenization to the F444W PSF, annular photometry, stacked-image checks that recover the same trends, and an unusually candid discussion of SED systematics. The measured EW and beta gradients are genuine and likely robust. However, the headline fesc and xi_ion values are not direct measurements: they are monotonic rescalings of beta and EW through external relations with factor-of-several scatter, and that scatter is not propagated. The lasting value of the paper therefore rests on the measured central EW and beta gradients and the resolved star-formation profiles, while the absolute fesc and xi_ion numbers must be treated as conditional inferences.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The abstract's 'fesc > 0.08' and 'xi_ion ~ 10^25.6' are not measured quantities: Eq. (4) is a monotonic transform of the measured beta, and Eqs. (5)-(6) are a monotonic transform of the measured EW([OIII]+Hbeta). The radial fesc and xi_ion profiles are therefore rescalings of the beta and EW gradients rather than independent evidence. The manuscript states in §4.4 that the relations are simplified and that absolute values require caution, but the abstract and conclusion (3) do not carry this caveat, and the scatter in the calibrations is not propagated. For beta = -2.3, the 1-sigma band of Eq. (4) corresponds approximately to fesc in the range 0.03-0.2, so '>0.08' is a point estimate, not a secure lower limit. Please propagate the full uncertainty, including the intrinsic scatter of the Chisholm and Tang relations and the uncertainty in the 0.67 conversion factor, and rephrase the fesc/xi_ion statements as conditional inferences from the adopted scaling relations.
  2. [§4.4] The Chisholm et al. (2022) beta-fesc relation was calibrated on integrated measurements of low-redshift Lyman-continuum leakers. Applying it to 0.2 kpc projected annuli implicitly assumes that each annulus acts as an independent escape column. Because fesc is a line-of-sight, geometry-dependent quantity, a radial fesc profile is not physically well defined under this assumption, and the meaning of an 'escape fraction of a central region' is ambiguous. Please either justify the sub-kpc applicability of the relation or reframe the fesc and xi_ion profiles as predictions of the adopted scaling relations, with the measured EW and beta gradients as the primary, model-independent results.
  3. [§4.3 and §4.6] The outside-in growth and compaction conclusion relies on the radial gradients of sSFR and mass-weighted age, but the paper itself reports in §4.6 that the SED-fitting uncertainty in stellar age is comparable to the observed radial variation shown in Figure 5. Since the age gradient is the direct evidence for outside-in assembly, this statement implies that the age gradient may not be statistically significant. Please quantify the significance of the age gradient after accounting for the SED uncertainties, or explicitly mark the outside-in conclusion as tentative.
  4. [§3.1 and Figure 6] The innermost radial bin at r ~ 0.1 kpc lies well within the F444W PSF FWHM (~0.4 kpc at these redshifts). PSF homogenization removes differential blurring between bands, but the central aperture still has correlated noise and is sensitive to the assumed galaxy center. Because the abstract's claim that properties 'peak in the inner regions' is driven by this bin, please show how the inferred central fesc and xi_ion values and their gradients change when the innermost bin is excluded, or perform a simulation-based PSF-smearing test to verify that the central peak is not an artifact of aperture placement or residual PSF mismatch.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, §3.1] There are typos in the text: 'aresec' and 'arSEC' should be 'arcsec', and 'F444M' in the sample-selection paragraph should be 'F444W'.
  2. [§4.6] 'Test show that' should read 'Tests show that'.
  3. [Conclusions, item (3)] The conclusion states 'beta ~ 2.3' but should read 'beta ~ -2.3' to match the UV slope sign convention used throughout the paper.
  4. [Author list] The author list contains 'Enci W ang' and 'Jinyang W ang' with a spurious space in the surname; please correct the LaTeX source so the surnames appear as 'Wang'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fesc and xi_ion values are derived through external empirical calibrations, not fitted to the radial trends they are used to explain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense that matters here. Annular photometry and SED fitting produce direct measurements of EW([OIII]+Hβ) and the UV slope β. The escape fraction and ionizing photon production efficiency are then obtained by applying external empirical relations from Chisholm et al. (2022) (Eq. 4) and Tang et al. (2019) (Eqs. 5–6). These calibrations were not fitted to the JADES data, nor to the radial profiles, so the central fesc and xi_ion values are model-dependent rescalings rather than quantities whose input was already encoded in the output. The paper is also transparent about the model dependence, explicitly stating that the simplified relations may not yield precise absolute values and that the work primarily explores relative radial trends. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The radial gradients of fesc and xi_ion do not add independent evidence beyond the measured β and EW gradients, but that is a limitation of evidence strength, not a circular reduction. Therefore, no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on external empirical calibrations (Chisholm et al. 2022, Tang et al. 2019) and on SED modeling choices (BPASS, Cloudy, continuity SFH). These are not derived in this paper and are adopted as inputs, which limits the independence of the reported fesc and xi_ion values. All assumptions are stated sufficiently for a reader to reproduce the analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • fesc-beta relation coefficients (Chisholm et al. 2022) = normalization 1.3e-4, slope -1.22, with 1-sigma uncertainties 0.6e-4 and 0.1
    External empirical calibration; the paper's fesc values and radial gradients inherit these coefficients directly (Eq 4).
  • xi_ion-EW([OIII]) relation coefficients (Tang et al. 2019) = slope 0.76, intercept 23.27, and conversion factor 0.67 from EW([OIII]+Hbeta) to EW([OIII]5007)
    External calibration; xi_ion profiles are a monotonic transform of measured EW profiles (Eqs 5-6).
  • Effective radii per mass bin from stacked images = 0.626, 0.742, and 0.798 kpc for M1, M2, M3
    Used for normalized profiles in Appendix B; measured from stacked images at rest-frame 0.45 micron and interpolated across bands.
  • Continuity SFH prior (BAGPIPES non-parametric 'continuity') = five time bins: 0-3, 3-10, 10-100, 100-250, 250-500 Myr
    Choice of prior correlates adjacent SFR bins and can bias recovered SFHs toward smooth or rising shapes; affects the bursty SFH conclusion (Section 3.2, Section 4.5).
  • SED fitting priors = stellar mass log range [5,12], metallicity [0.01,5], Av [0,3], ionization parameter log U [-4,-1]
    Broad uniform priors chosen by hand; they shape all derived stellar properties and the resolved profiles (Section 3.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2010) dust attenuation law is applicable to z~7 resolved regions.
    Used in BAGPIPES SED fitting (Section 3.2); if dust geometry differs at high redshift, stellar masses, ages, and UV slopes shift.
  • domain assumption BPASS stellar population synthesis with binary stars and Cloudy nebular emission reproduce the rest-frame UV-optical SEDs of z~7 line-excess galaxies.
    SED fitting uses BPASS and Cloudy following Begley et al. (2025); systematic differences in SPS templates change xi_ion and age estimates (Sections 3.2 and 4.6).
  • domain assumption The Chisholm et al. (2022) beta-fesc relation holds at z~7 and on sub-kiloparsec scales.
    Equation 4 converts measured UV slopes to fesc; the relation is calibrated on low-redshift LyC leakers and may not apply to resolved high-z regions (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption The Tang et al. (2019) xi_ion-EW([OIII]) relation holds at z~7 for resolved annuli.
    Equations 5-6 convert EW measurements to xi_ion; the calibration has its own scatter and redshift systematics not propagated here (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from EAZY in the DJA catalog are correct within the fitted priors.
    SED fitting fixes the redshift prior at zphot; redshift errors propagate into luminosities and physical scales (Sections 2.1 and 3.2).
  • domain assumption PSF homogenization to F444W and circular annular apertures centered on catalog positions preserve the true radial light profiles.
    If the PSF model is imperfect or galaxy centers are offset, the strong inner gradients could be smearing artifacts; the authors note the inner 0.4 kpc is resolution-limited (Sections 3.1 and 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central Concentration and Escape of Ionizing Photons in Galaxies at the Epoch of Reionization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWQZ7RVV

@misc{pith2026250716131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central Concentration and Escape of Ionizing Photons in Galaxies at the Epoch of Reionization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWQZ7RVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16131}
}
abstract

Compact, low-mass galaxies with strong nebular emission are considered promising candidates for efficient ionizing photon production and escape. We present a spatially resolved analysis of 189 galaxies at redshifts $z \sim 6.7-7.6$ in JADES GOODS-N and GOODS-S fields and selected via JWST/NIRCam F410M filter. By employing annular photometry and spectral energy distribution fitting across rest-frame UV to optical wavelengths, we investigate the internal structure of star formation, ionizing photon production and escape, as well as the resolved star formation histories within these galaxies. We find that these galaxies exhibit compact, centrally concentrated, and bursty star formation, especially in lower-mass systems ($\log(M_*/{\rm M_{\odot}}) <9.0$). The central regions of them display extreme [OIII]+H$\beta$ equivalent widths ($>$1000 \AA), high ionizing photon production efficiencies ($\xi_{\text{ion}} \sim 10^{25.6}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$), steep UV slopes ($\sim -2.3$), and elevated escape fractions ($f_{\text{esc}} > 0.08$), with all these properties peaking in the inner regions. These findings reveal outside-in growth and rising star formation histories at $z\sim 7$, with the central regions of them playing a pivotal role in driving cosmic reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data selection and classification. Left: Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) distributions in the F356W, F410M, and F444W filters for all galaxies with [OIII]λ5007 emission covered by the F410M filter. The black dashed line marks the adopted S/N threshold. Right: Color–magnitude diagram color-coded by photometric redshift (zphot). Green-edged points indicate sources that meet the S/N selection criterion. We select the sourc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photometric measurements and spectral energy distribution fitting for a representative galaxy (ID 45776) at zphot = 6.908 in the JADES GOODS-S field. Panel (a): Multi-band cutouts convolved to match the F444W PSF, with red circles marking the photometric annuli. Panel (b): RGB color composite image constructed from the F444W (R), F410M (G), and F356W (B) filters. The pixel resolution and cutout scale is 0.04 and 1.2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar mass–SFR relation for our sample. Each point is color-coded by the galaxy’s photometric redshift (zphot). Short grey lines indicate the 16th and 84th per￾centile ranges. The solid black line shows the best-fit linear relation for our sample. For comparison, the grey dotted and dashed lines represent empirical main sequences of star￾forming galaxies at 6 < z < 7 from Clarke et al. (2024) and at z ∼ 7 from Pop… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Total UV continuum slope (β) as a function of stellar mass for our galaxy samples. Short lines denote the 16th and 84th percentile ranges for each galaxy. The side panel presents the β distribution along with kernel density estimation (KDE) curves. The blue dashe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of stellar mass projected surface density (Σ∗, top left), SFR projected surface density (ΣSFR, top right), sSFR (bottom left), and mass-weighted age (bottom right). The light-green, green, and dark-green curves represent the median profiles of galaxies …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of [OIII]+Hβ equivalent width and corresponding ionized photon production efficiency (left), and UV continuum slope and corresponding ionized photon escape fraction (right) of our galaxy sample. The color scheme, line styles, and shaded regions follow t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized non-parametric ‘continuity’ star formation histories for each sample (left), and for each annulus across the entire sample (right). In both panels, the SFR and the SFR surface density (i.e., resolved SFR) are normalized to their values at the most recent tim…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The impact of medium-width bands on the selection, and subsequent luminosity function measurements, of high-z galaxies

    Adams, N. J., Austin, D., Harvey, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.10282, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10282

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.10282 2025

  2. [2]

    H., Fan, X., White, R

    Becker, R. H., Fan, X., White, R. L., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2850, doi: 10.1086/324231 14 100 101 102 Lookback time / Myr 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 log( SFR / SFR, 0 3 Myr) M1: [6.5,8.0] [0.0,0.5] kpc [0.5,0.75] kpc [0.75,1.0] kpc [1.0,1.25] kpc [1.25,1.5] kpc 100 101 102 Lookback time / Myr 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 M2: [8.0,9.0] 100 101 102 Lookback time / Myr 2.0 1...

    doi:10.1086/324231 2001

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Begley, R., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1067

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1067 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Cullen, F., et al

    Begley, R., McLure, R. J., Cullen, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf211

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf211 2025

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0, 1.6.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7419741

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0, 1.6.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7419741

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7419741 2022

  8. [8]

    2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001 —

    Brammer, G. 2019, Grizli: Grism redshift and line analysis software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.001 —. 2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.3.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7313329

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7313329 2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Alexander, D

    Brandt, W. N., Alexander, D. M., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2810, doi: 10.1086/324105

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    2011, ARA&A, 49, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    Bromm, V., & Yoshida, N. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Y., Hong, S., et al

    Calzetti, D., Wu, S. Y., Hong, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1256, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1256

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    2009

  6. [14]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    C., McLure, R

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

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2874

    Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2874

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae776

    Choustikov, N., Katz, H., Saxena, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae776

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Sanders, R

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

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Conselice, C. J. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1389, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11114.x

    2006

  13. [21]

    J., McLeod, D

    Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad073

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    J., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1211

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac884

    Dimauro, P., Daddi, E., Shankar, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac884

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4728, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae872

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Johnson, B

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

    doi

  18. [26]

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

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

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Becker, R

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

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Porter, R

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

    2013 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Tang, M., Robertson, B

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

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2002, ApJS, 139, 369, doi: 10.1086/338927

    Giacconi, R., Zirm, A., Wang, J., et al. 2002, ApJS, 139, 369, doi: 10.1086/338927

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232 15

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4731

    Goddard, D., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4731

    2017

  30. [38]

    J., Adams, N

    Harvey, T., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05244

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2194

    Hassan, S., Dav´ e, R., Mitra, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2194

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    J., S´ anchez, S

    Ibarra-Medel, H. J., S´ anchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2799

    2016

  33. [41]

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

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

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab612

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Silveyra, A

    Jaskot, A. E., Silveyra, A. C., Plantinga, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 973, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5557 —. 2024b, ApJ, 972, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58b9

    doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    Jia, C., Wang, E., Wang, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919a

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Frye, B

    Kamieneski, P. S., Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceb4a

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    McLure, R. J. 2024, A&A, 692, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450747 Le Reste, A., Scarlata, C., Hayes, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07056, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07056

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/125

    Li, C., Wang, E., Lin, L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/125

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08268

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Llerena, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08268

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

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

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    L., et al

    Onodera, M., Shimakawa, R., Suzuki, T. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc174

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    W., Hu, W., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Hu, W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08870. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08870

    2025

  48. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Oesch, P

    Reddy, N. A., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e7

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

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

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Ellis, R

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

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Furlanetto, S

    Robertson, B. E., Furlanetto, S. R., Schneider, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/71

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Seeyave, L. T. C., Wilkins, S. M., Kuusisto, J. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2487

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Siana, B., et al

    Shivaei, I., Reddy, N. A., Siana, B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad62

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Topping, M

    Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Endsley, R., & Tang, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17078

    2025 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw303

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Robertson, B

    Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1408

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2236

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae800

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, A&A, 692, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449980

    Tripodi, R., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449980

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

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

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

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

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

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    2018a, ApJ, 865, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9e

    Wang, E., Kong, X., & Pan, Z. 2018a, ApJ, 865, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9e

    doi

  67. [75]

    Wang, E., & Lilly, S. J. 2022a, ApJ, 927, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac49ed —. 2022b, ApJ, 929, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e31

    doi

  68. [76]

    2018b, ApJ, 856, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab263

    Wang, E., Li, C., Xiao, T., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 856, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab263

    doi

  69. [77]

    P., Endsley, R., et al

    Whitler, L., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad004

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    M., Nelson, E

    Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/135

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, ApJL, 897, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26 16

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26 16

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    Yeh, J. Y. C., Smith, A., Kannan, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad210

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.