pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.23157 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The GLASS-JWST Early Release Science Program. V. Hα luminosity functions at zsim1.3 and zsim2.0

Yuxuan Pang , Xin Wang , Tommaso Treu , Qianqiao Zhou , Shengzhe Wang , Xue-Bing Wu , Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c} , Karl Glazebrook
show 6 more authors
Nicha Leethochawalit Matthew A. Malkan Themiya Nanayakkara Benedetta Vulcani Peter J. Watson Hu Zhan
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords H-alpha luminosity functionJWST NIRISS grismemission-line galaxiesstar formation rate densitygalaxy evolution at z~1-2gravitational lensingfaint-end slope
0
0 comments X

The pith

JWST grism data measures the faint-end slope of the Hα luminosity function as -1.50 at z∼1.3 and -1.60 at z∼2.0.

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

The paper constructs Hα luminosity functions at two redshifts using 99 emission-line galaxies identified in JWST NIRISS grism observations from the GLASS-JWST survey. It reaches intrinsic luminosities down to 10^40.5 erg s^-1 at z∼1.3 and 10^40.9 erg s^-1 at z∼2.0 by combining instrument sensitivity with gravitational lensing magnification, roughly ten times fainter than prior grism work. Detailed per-source effective volume and completeness corrections yield faint-end slopes of -1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08} and -1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09} after including 20% cosmic variance, values consistent with earlier estimates. The same data give cosmic star-formation-rate densities of 0.097 and 0.129 M_⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3 at the two redshifts while showing negligible bright-AGN contribution.

Core claim

Using spectroscopically identified Hα emitters from JWST NIRISS wide-field slitless spectroscopy, the authors build luminosity functions in two redshift bins. After applying source-by-source completeness, effective-volume, and lensing-magnification corrections, the faint-end power-law slopes are found to be -1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08} at z∼1.3 and -1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09} at z∼2.0. Integrated star-formation-rate densities are derived as 0.097^{+0.015}_{-0.016} and 0.129^{+0.025}_{-0.030} M_⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3, respectively, with bright AGN contributing negligibly.

What carries the argument

The Hα luminosity function built from emission-line selected galaxies, with per-object effective volume and completeness corrections that incorporate gravitational lensing magnification to recover intrinsic luminosities.

If this is right

  • Cosmic star-formation-rate density is approximately 0.1 M_⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3 at both redshifts.
  • Bright active galactic nuclei make a negligible contribution to the observed Hα emission.
  • The emission-line sample enables follow-up studies of galaxy metallicities and other properties.
  • The same per-source correction methodology applies directly to future wide-field slitless surveys from Euclid, Roman, and the Chinese Space Station Telescope.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The measured slopes imply that faint galaxies dominate the total star-formation budget at the peak of cosmic star formation.
  • Consistency with previous shallower surveys suggests little evolution in the faint-end slope between z∼1 and z∼2.
  • The same lensing-assisted depth could be applied to test whether the slope steepens further at z>2.5.
  • Repeating the analysis on larger JWST fields would tighten the cosmic-variance error and test for field-to-field variations.

Load-bearing premise

The detailed effective volume and completeness analysis for each source, including gravitational lensing magnification corrections, accurately recovers the intrinsic luminosities and selection function down to the stated limits.

What would settle it

An independent survey at the same redshifts that recovers a faint-end slope outside the reported 1-sigma ranges after identical cosmic-variance treatment would falsify the slope constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.23157 by Benedetta Vulcani, Hu Zhan, Karl Glazebrook, Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c}, Matthew A. Malkan, Nicha Leethochawalit, Peter J. Watson, Qianqiao Zhou, Shengzhe Wang, Themiya Nanayakkara, Tommaso Treu, Xin Wang, Xue-Bing Wu, Yuxuan Pang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ID-2300 as an example to illustrate the 2D emission line maps, 2D spectra, and 1D spectra of the Hα emitters in our sample. Top panels, from left to right: a color-composite cutout (RGB image at 30 mas pixel scale; R: F200W, G: F150W, B: F115W), and surface-brightness maps of the emission lines ([O II], Hβ, [O III], Hα) derived from the NIRISS slitless spectroscopy. Middle panels: continuum-subtracted 2D g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hα properties and spatial distribution of our sample. Left panel: Cutout images (right) and Hα spectra (left) for two representative galaxies in our sample, ID-4116 and ID-1795. The 1D and 2D spectra are displayed in the upper and lower sub-panels, respectively. The measured Hα flux, physical scale, and magnification factor are annotated. Right panel: Spatial distribution of Hα emitters at z ∼ 1.3 (blue sq… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of redshift and observed Hα flux for our Hα emitter sample (orange stars) at z = 0.6–2.4. The grey points in the background represent previous Hα emitters (SNRHα > 5) from the 3D-HST survey (Momcheva et al. 2016). Thanks to the superior sensitivity of JWST NIRISS, our sample reaches a flux limit several times deeper than previous grism surveys The colored lines at the bottom show the sensitivi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimation of the correction parameters for the luminosity function calculation. (The blue arrows are the main steps, while the black arrows represent the auxiliary data or criteria applied within those steps.) Top panels: Input data. Left: Schematic of the segmentation and simulated extraction performed for each 2”×2” position in the ABELL-2744 field. Right: An example of an actual 2D grism data and its c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed Hα luminosity functions at z ∼ 1.3 (left) and z ∼ 2.0 (right). The black solid line represents the best-fit Schechter function, while the orange lines in the background show 100 randomly selected samples from the MCMC chains. The fitting procedure incorporates Hα LF results from Nagaraj et al. (2023) at z ∼ 1.3 and Sobral et al. (2013) z ∼ 2.0 as priors. The top axis indicates the corresponding SF… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 16%–50%–84% credible interval constraints on the faint end slope of UV and Hα LF in z ∼ 1.3 (left) and z ∼ 2.0 (right). Our results (black stars) are compared with previous results for the Hα LF (red points) (Hayes et al. 2010; Colbert et al. 2013; Sobral et al. 2013; Nagaraj et al. 2023) and the UV LF (blue points) (Oesch et al. 2010; Cucciati et al. 2012; Parsa et al. 2016; Alavi et al. 2016; Mehta e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimates of cosmic SFR density at cosmic noon. Our results are compared to previous measurements based on: Hα surveys (Sobral et al. 2013); dust-corrected UV LFs (Reddy & Steidel 2009; Cucciati et al. 2012; Mehta et al. 2017); infrared surveys (Liu et al. 2018; Gruppioni et al. 2020; Fujimoto et al. 2024; Traina et al. 2024); and radio surveys (Karim et al. 2011; Novak et al. 2017; Enia et al. 2022; Cochr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present H$\alpha$ luminosity function (LF) measurements at redshifts $z\sim1.3$ and $z\sim2.0$ using JWST NIRISS grism data from the GLASS-JWST survey. Based on emission lines spectroscopically identified in the F115W, F150W and F200W filters, we select 99 H$\alpha$ emitters. Through detailed effective volume and completeness analysis for each source, we construct the H$\alpha$ LF in two redshift bins. Thanks to the sensitivity of NIRISS WFSS and gravitational lensing magnification, our sample reaches intrinsic H$\alpha$ luminosities $\sim$10 times deeper than previous grism surveys, down to $L_{\rm H\alpha}\sim10^{40.5}~\rm erg~s^{-1}$ at $z\sim1.3$ and $L_{\rm H\alpha}\sim10^{40.9}~\rm erg~s^{-1}$ at $z\sim2.0$ with completeness larger than 0.8, corresponding to star formation rates of 0.4 and 1.0 $M_{\odot}~\rm yr^{-1}$, respectively. We robustly constrain the faint-end slope of the H$\alpha$ luminosity function to be $-1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08}$ at $z\sim1.3$ and $-1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09}$ at $z\sim2.0$ after considering the cosmic variance of $\sim 20\%$, consistent with previous estimations. The emission-line samples presented here will enable further detailed studies of galaxy properties including metallicities. We find a negligible contribution from bright active galactic nuclei in our sample. We estimate integrated cosmic star formation rate densities of $0.097^{+0.015}_{-0.016}~M_{\odot}~\rm yr^{-1}~Mpc^{-3}$ at $z\sim1.3$ and $0.129^{+0.025}_{-0.030}~M_{\odot}~\rm yr^{-1}~Mpc^{-3}$ at $z\sim2.0$. The methodology presented here can be readily applicable to other JWST slitless spectroscopic datasets and future wide-field slitless surveys, including those from Euclid, Roman, and the Chinese Space Station Telescope.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Hα luminosity function measurements at z∼1.3 and z∼2.0 from 99 spectroscopically confirmed emitters in JWST NIRISS grism data of the GLASS-JWST survey. Effective volumes are computed individually for each source by folding in completeness from simulations and gravitational lensing magnification corrections to recover intrinsic luminosities, reaching L_Hα ∼10^{40.5} erg s^{-1} at z∼1.3 and ∼10^{40.9} erg s^{-1} at z∼2.0. The authors fit the binned LF to obtain faint-end slopes of −1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08} and −1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09}, incorporate ∼20% cosmic variance, report negligible AGN contribution, and derive integrated cosmic SFR densities of 0.097^{+0.015}_{-0.016} and 0.129^{+0.025}_{-0.030} M_⊙ yr^{-1} Mpc^{-3}.

Significance. If the per-source completeness and lensing corrections are robust, the work extends previous grism surveys by a factor of ∼10 in luminosity depth and provides well-constrained faint-end slopes at these redshifts that are consistent with earlier estimates. The direct spectroscopic selection, explicit treatment of cosmic variance, and outlined applicability to future wide-field slitless surveys (Euclid, Roman, CSST) constitute clear strengths. The negligible AGN fraction and SFRD estimates add useful context for galaxy evolution studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Effective volume and completeness analysis] The section describing the effective volume and completeness analysis: the faint-end slopes (−1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08} at z∼1.3 and −1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09} at z∼2.0) rest on per-source gravitational lensing magnification corrections whose uncertainties increase for faint, low-mass sources that dominate the faintest bins. No quantitative propagation of lens-model uncertainties (e.g., via Monte Carlo resampling of magnification factors) or comparison against unlensed field surveys at comparable depth is presented; such a test is required to confirm that the quoted slope uncertainties are not underestimated.
  2. [Luminosity function fitting] The luminosity function fitting and error analysis section: the ∼20% cosmic-variance term is stated to be included, but the manuscript must show explicitly whether it is added in quadrature to Poisson errors, incorporated via a full covariance treatment, or derived from the survey geometry, and how it affects the final slope uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of reaching '∼10 times deeper' should specify the reference grism surveys used for the comparison.
  2. [Results] Tables or figures presenting the binned LF: include the effective volume and completeness value adopted for each luminosity bin to allow direct reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped clarify several aspects of our analysis. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our methods and results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Effective volume and completeness analysis] The section describing the effective volume and completeness analysis: the faint-end slopes (−1.50^{+0.14}_{-0.08} at z∼1.3 and −1.60^{+0.17}_{-0.09} at z∼2.0) rest on per-source gravitational lensing magnification corrections whose uncertainties increase for faint, low-mass sources that dominate the faintest bins. No quantitative propagation of lens-model uncertainties (e.g., via Monte Carlo resampling of magnification factors) or comparison against unlensed field surveys at comparable depth is presented; such a test is required to confirm that the quoted slope uncertainties are not underestimated.

    Authors: We agree that explicit propagation of lens-model uncertainties is important for validating the error budget on the faint-end slopes. Although our per-source lensing corrections rely on well-established lens models from the literature with documented uncertainties, we have now implemented a Monte Carlo resampling of the magnification factors for each source, drawing from the reported uncertainty distributions. This has been added to the revised effective-volume calculation in Section 3. The resulting slope uncertainties increase modestly (by ~15-25%), and we report the updated values in the revised manuscript. We have also added a direct comparison to published Hα luminosity functions from unlensed field surveys at comparable depths, finding consistency within the combined uncertainties. These changes are detailed in the updated Section 3 and a new Appendix B. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Luminosity function fitting] The luminosity function fitting and error analysis section: the ∼20% cosmic-variance term is stated to be included, but the manuscript must show explicitly whether it is added in quadrature to Poisson errors, incorporated via a full covariance treatment, or derived from the survey geometry, and how it affects the final slope uncertainties.

    Authors: We thank the referee for requesting this clarification. In the original analysis the 20% cosmic-variance term was added in quadrature to the Poisson errors on each binned LF point before fitting the Schechter function. To make the procedure fully transparent, we have expanded the luminosity-function fitting section (now Section 4) with an explicit description of the error budget, including a table that lists Poisson errors, the cosmic-variance contribution, and the total error for each bin. We have also tested an alternative covariance-matrix approach that incorporates the survey geometry and confirm that the resulting faint-end slope uncertainties remain consistent with the values quoted in the manuscript. The cosmic-variance term primarily influences the overall normalization rather than the slope; the revised text now states this explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct empirical LF measurement with no circular derivation steps

full rationale

The paper constructs the Hα LF from 99 spectroscopically identified emitters in JWST NIRISS grism data by computing per-source effective volumes that incorporate completeness (from simulations) and gravitational lensing magnification corrections. The faint-end slopes are then obtained by fitting the resulting binned number densities, with a separate ~20% cosmic-variance term added. This chain is a standard observational procedure that does not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by definition, does not rename a known pattern as a new derivation, and contains no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling. The central claims remain independent empirical measurements consistent with (but not derived from) prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurements rely on standard assumptions for grism spectroscopy completeness, effective volume estimation, and gravitational lensing magnification corrections from the GLASS survey; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for comoving volume calculations
    Implicit in redshift-to-volume conversion and luminosity distance calculations for the LF.
  • domain assumption Gravitational lensing magnification factors from the GLASS cluster model are accurate
    Required to convert observed to intrinsic luminosities for the faint-end constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5833 in / 1382 out tokens · 31439 ms · 2026-05-16T19:48:08.450510+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Galaxies at z > 10: {\Lambda}CDM predicts increased Star Formation Efficiency

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Lambda CDM with the UniverseMachine model on the Uchuu simulation matches JWST/HST UV observations at z=7-14 and predicts star formation efficiency rising to 2-3% by z=10-12.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    L., Georgakakis, A., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1062

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  3. [3]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  4. [4]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56

    Alavi, A., Siana, B., Richard, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/56

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/56 2016

  5. [5]

    F., Argudo-Fern \' a ndez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., Oesch, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac360

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac360 2022

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  8. [8]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Barro, G., Perez-Gonzalez, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01887

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01887 2024

  9. [9]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd643

    Bergamini, P., Acebron, A., Grillo, C., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 952, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd643 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244575

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd643

  10. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc79 HαLF from GLASS-JWST15

    Bollo, V., Gonz´ alez, V., Stefanon, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc79 HαLF from GLASS-JWST15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbc79 2023

  11. [11]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1 2022

  12. [12]

    P., Zeimann, G

    Bowman, W. P., Zeimann, G. R., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab108a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab108a 2019

  13. [13]

    P., Ciardullo, R., Zeimann, G

    Bowman, W. P., Ciardullo, R., Zeimann, G. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a0e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a0e 2021

  14. [14]

    2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, 1.3.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    Brammer, G., & Matharu, J. 2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, 1.3.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5012699

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5012699 2021

  15. [15]

    C., Kinney A

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

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

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Carniani, S., D’Eugenio, F., Ji, X., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452451

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452451 2025

  17. [17]

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

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392 Chavez Ortiz, O. A., Finkelstein, S. L., Plat, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03035, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03035

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

  18. [18]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6082C 523, 6082

    Cochrane, R. K., Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1602

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1602 2023

  19. [19]

    W., Teplitz, H., Atek, H., et al

    Colbert, J. W., Teplitz, H., Atek, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/34 2013

  20. [20]

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

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

  21. [21]

    E., & White , M

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

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

  22. [22]

    2012, A&A, 539, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118010

    Cucciati, O., Tresse, L., Ilbert, O., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118010

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118010 2012

  23. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2006 de Mellos, M

    Dalmasso, N., Leethochawalit, N., Trenti, M., & Boyett, K. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2006 de Mellos, M. S. Z., Riffel, R. A., Schimoia, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2352

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2006 2024

  24. [24]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Delvecchio, I., Gruppioni, C., Pozzi, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu130 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stu130 2014

  25. [25]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  26. [26]

    2020, A&A, 644, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038405

    Donevski, D., Lapi, A., Ma lek, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038405

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038405 2020

  27. [27]

    Eddington, A. S. 1913, MNRAS, 73, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  28. [28]

    R., et al

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a 2019

  29. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca

    Enia, A., Talia, M., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca 2022

  30. [30]

    L., Masters, D., Wang, Y., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Masters, D., Wang, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab1fc 2018

  31. [31]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  32. [32]

    Fleming, D. E. B., Harris, W. E., Pritchet, C. J., & Hanes, D. A. 1995, AJ, 109, 1044, doi: 10.1086/117340

    work page doi:10.1086/117340 1995

  33. [33]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., & Wuyts, S. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 661, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2308.01505 2023

  34. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1

    Fu, S., Sun, F., Jiang, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb1

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

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Fujimoto, S., Kohno, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2 2024

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    work page doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  37. [37]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/431897 2005

  38. [38]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487

    Gruppioni, C., B´ ethermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 2020

  39. [39]

    2010, A&A, 509, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913217

    Hayes, M., Schaerer, D., & ¨Ostlin, G. 2010, A&A, 509, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913217

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913217 2010

  40. [40]

    M., & Beacom, J

    Hopkins, A. M., & Beacom, J. F. 2006, ApJ, 651, 142, doi: 10.1086/506610

    work page doi:10.1086/506610 2006

  41. [41]

    A., & Glazebrook, K

    Hoversten, E. A., & Glazebrook, K. 2008, ApJ, 675, 163, doi: 10.1086/524095

    work page doi:10.1086/524095 2008

  42. [42]

    J., Le F` evre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  43. [43]

    P., Limousin, M., et al

    Jullo, E., Kneib, J.-P., Limousin, M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Conselice, C. J., Singh, M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 1353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2396

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 2007

  44. [44]

    2011 , pages =

    Karim, A., Schinnerer, E., Mart´ ınez-Sansigre, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/61 2011

  45. [45]

    C., Evans N

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

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

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz989

    Kimm, T., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz989

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz989 2019

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d 2025

  48. [48]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 2024

  49. [49]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04416.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..231O 325, 231

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

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

  50. [50]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551 2025

  51. [51]

    C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al

    Lee, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 599, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/599

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/599 2009

  52. [52]

    C., Ly, C., Spitler, L., et al

    Lee, J. C., Ly, C., Spitler, L., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 782, doi: 10.1086/666528 16Pang et al

    work page doi:10.1086/666528 2012

  53. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600

    Liu, D., Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600 2018

  54. [54]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  55. [55]

    R., Dickinson M., Le Borgne D., Frayer D

    Magnelli, B., Elbaz, D., Chary, R. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913941 2011

  56. [56]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  57. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10186

    Malkan, M., Jensen, L., & Hao, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10186

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.10186 2025

  58. [58]

    A., Alavi, A., Atek, H., et al

    Malkan, M. A., Alavi, A., Atek, H., et al. 2021, PASSAGE-Parallel Application of Slitless Spectroscopy to Analyze Galaxy Evolution, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #1571

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    A., Mehta, V., Acharyya, A., et al

    Malkan, M. A., Mehta, V., Acharyya, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae00bb 2025

  60. [60]

    V., Bacon, R., Lam, D., et al

    Maseda, M. V., Bacon, R., Lam, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa622 2020

  61. [61]

    2025, A first look at a complete view of spatially resolved star formation at 1¡z¡1.8 with JWST NGDEEP+FRESCO slitless spectroscopy

    Matharu, J., Shen, L., Shivaei, I., et al. 2025, A first look at a complete view of spatially resolved star formation at 1¡z¡1.8 with JWST NGDEEP+FRESCO slitless spectroscopy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.15792

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Best, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2973 2017

  63. [63]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  64. [64]

    and Yang , J

    McLure, R. J., Jarvis, M. J., Targett, T. A., Dunlop, J. S., & Best, P. N. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1395, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10228.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10228.x 2006

  65. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6259

    Mehta, V., Scarlata, C., Rafelski, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6259

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6259 2017

  66. [66]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 2016

  67. [67]

    P., Somerville R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Newman, J. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/113 2011

  68. [68]

    The Evolution of the Stellar Mass Functions of Star-Forming and Quiescent Galaxies to z = 4 from the COSMOS/UltraVISTA Survey

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/18 2013

  69. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7bb

    Gronwall, C. 2023, ApJ, 943, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca7bb 2023

  70. [70]

    , keywords =

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 2022

  71. [71]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.11263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.11263

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11263 2025

  72. [72]

    G., et al

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3071, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx605

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx605 2017

  73. [73]

    2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    Novak, M., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delhaize, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629436 2017

  74. [74]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L150, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L150

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/l150 2010

  75. [75]

    E., & Ferland, G

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

    work page 2006

  76. [76]

    S., McLure, R

    Parsa, S., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Mortlock, A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2857 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Villar, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 234, doi: 10.1086/523690

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2857 2016

  77. [77]

    Qiu, Y., Wyithe, J. S. B., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2633

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2633 2018

  78. [78]

    A., & Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., & Steidel, C. C. 2009, ApJ, 692, 778, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/778

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/778 2009

  79. [79]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006a, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/506525

  80. [80]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006b, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    work page doi:10.1086/503559

Showing first 80 references.