Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Zapped then Napped? A rapidly quenched remnant leaker candidate with a steep spectroscopic $\beta_{UV}$ slope at z=8.5

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that JADES-GS8-RL-1, a low-mass galaxy seen when the Universe was about 600 million years old, formed its stars in a burst and then quenched within about 30 million years, making it a likely 'remnant leaker' of ionising…

desk verdict A genuinely new z~8.5 rapidly-quenched candidate with credible direct measurements, but the headline timescales and escape fraction rest on a stellar-population model the paper itself shows cannot reproduce the observed UV slope. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09070 v2 pith:TXZC7K24 submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

William M. Baker , Francesco D'Eugenio , Roberto Maiolino , Andrew J. Bunker , Charlotte Simmonds , Sandro Tacchella , Joris Witstok , Santiago Arribas
show 12 more authors
Stefano Carniani Stéphane Charlot Jacopo Chevallard Mirko Curti Emma Curtis-Lake Gareth C. Jones Nimisha Kumari Pierluigi Rinaldi Brant Robertson Christina C. Williams Chris Willott Yongda Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesNIRSpecspectroscopyNIRCamphotometrygalaxyquenchingUVspectralslopeescapefractionreionisationBalmerbreak
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

JADES-GS8-RL-1 is a galaxy seen when the Universe was roughly 600 million years old, and this paper argues it is a more distant example than previously seen of the low-mass 'mini-quenched' population: it formed most of its stars in a short burst about 70 million years before it was observed, then stopped forming stars about 30 million years before it was observed. The evidence is a combination that is rare at any redshift — a steep spectroscopic ultraviolet slope of $\beta_{\rm UV}=-2.8\pm0.2$, a Balmer break, and no strong emission lines — together with NIRCam imaging showing a compact, disc-like source with a half-light radius of about 240 parsecs. If the interpretation holds, it shows that a low-mass galaxy could assemble, quench, and still appear UV-bright within about 100 million years, deep in the epoch of reionisation. The same conditions that make the slope so blue would let ionising photons escape, so the paper also identifies the galaxy as a candidate 'remnant leaker' with an escape fraction above 10 percent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurements are the spectroscopic UV continuum slope $\beta_{\rm UV}$ — the power-law index in $F\propto\lambda^{\beta_{\rm UV}}$ — and the Balmer break. A slope of $-2.8$ is so blue that it requires almost no dust reddening and little or no nebular continuum, while a Balmer break near 1.75 requires a stellar population old enough for the youngest OB stars to have faded; taken together the two features act as a clock that places the last major star formation roughly 70 Myr in the past and its shutdown roughly 30 Myr ago. The quantitative interpretation is carried by Bayesian spectro-photometric stellar population fits with a flexible star-formation history, in which the parameter governing OB stars that have escaped their birth clouds ('frac_obrun') serves as a proxy for the escape fraction. This same machinery is what reveals the paper's main tension: no single-metallicity model in the adopted framework reproduces both the observed $\beta_{\rm UV}$ and the Balmer break, which the paper takes as evidence for either a two-component stellar population or a new modelling ingredient.

What would settle it

Deep spectroscopy that resolves the tentative [OII] doublet and places a stronger upper limit on [OIII] would settle the leaker interpretation, because a confirmed high-ionisation line or a higher O32 would mean the gas has not been driven out. On the modelling side, a two-metallicity composite stellar population fit that reproduces both $\beta_{\rm UV}=-2.8$ and a Balmer break of 1.75 with a roughly continuous star-formation history would remove the need for rapid quenching, while a fit that still requires a recent sharp decline would confirm it. A search for far-infrared or red continuum emission would also test whether an obscured, still-star-forming component is hiding the true current star formation rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that JADES-GS8-RL-1 is a low-mass galaxy at $z=8.51$ with a stellar mass around $10^{8.9}$ solar masses whose star-formation history peaked in a recent burst and then declined sharply: a Bayesian fit to the spectrum and photometry gives a formation time ($t_{50}$) of about 66 Myr and a quenching time ($t_{90}$) of about 27 Myr. The NIRSpec spectrum shows a spectroscopic UV slope of $\beta_{\rm UV}=-2.8\pm0.2$, a Balmer break with best-fit strength 1.75, and no strong emission lines, with only a tentative $2.9\sigma$ detection of [OII]. The paper reads this as a post-burst system with almost no ongoing star formation, little dust, and very little nebular continuum, and therefore a high escape fraction of ionising photons. From the spectral energy distribution fit the escape fraction is $f_{\rm esc}=0.5^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$, and from the empirical $\beta_{1550}$ relation it is consistent with a value above 10 percent, so the galaxy is presented as a strong 'remnant leaker' candidate in one of its earliest phases.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rapid-quenching and high-escape-fraction story depends on the adopted stellar population models being able to represent the galaxy's true stellar content; the paper itself shows that its best single-metallicity model returns $\beta_{\rm UV}=-2.30$ instead of the observed $-2.8$, so the inferred $t_{50}=66$ Myr, $t_{90}=27$ Myr, and $f_{\rm esc}=0.5$ would shift if those models are missing a component such as a second stellar population with a different metallicity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, JADES-GS8-RL-1 pushes the mini-quenched population to redshift 8.5, showing that a low-mass galaxy can form its stars, quench, and still be UV-luminous within roughly 100 million years.
  • The combination of a high escape fraction (above 10 percent) with an extremely low O32 upper limit places the galaxy in a region of the escape-fraction versus ionisation-parameter plane where no other observed leaker sits, supporting the 'remnant leaker' classification.
  • The radial gradient in the photometric UV slope, from about -3.0 in the centre to -2.2 in the outskirts, implies that the escape fraction or dust properties vary within a single galaxy.
  • The extended F356W-minus-F335M colour excess suggests diffuse, low-ionisation gas has been expelled, consistent with feedback-driven quenching and with an attenuation-free 'blue monster' scenario.
  • Existing single-metallicity stellar population models cannot reproduce both the steep UV slope and the strong Balmer break, so either the models need a second stellar component or this galaxy represents a short-lived, extreme phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the model tension points toward a two-component galaxy: an older, more metal-rich population producing the Balmer break and a younger, metal-poorer, dust-free component producing the steep UV slope; if that is right, the fitted escape fraction may be a lower bound because the young component dominates the UV continuum.
  • The same single-metallicity limitation is likely to affect other high-redshift galaxies with very blue slopes, so samples of 'rapidly quenched' or 'mini-quenched' candidates could be systematically biased until multi-metallicity fits become standard.
  • A spatial map of the [OII] emission, resolved with an integral-field unit, would separate the outflow/leaker interpretation from a Balmer-break-in-the-outskirts interpretation and would test whether the central steep slope is the actual leak channel.
  • If remnant leakers are a short-lived but recurring phase in the bursty star-formation cycle of low-mass galaxies, their time-averaged contribution to reionisation could be significant even though each individual object produces few ionising photons; the paper's own numbers leave that open because the number density is unknown.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports JWST NIRSpec MSA spectroscopy and NIRCam photometry of JADES-GS8-RL-1, a z=8.5 galaxy with a low stellar mass (10^8.9 M_sun), a steep spectroscopic UV slope beta_UV=-2.8±0.2, no strong emission lines, and a tentative 2.9σ detection of [OII]. The authors infer a burst-dominated star-formation history that formed most stars ~70 Myr ago and quenched ~30 Myr ago, a high escape fraction (>10%), and a "remnant leaker" classification. The paper includes a section on model tensions showing that the fiducial stellar-population model cannot simultaneously reproduce the observed UV slope and the adopted Balmer break strength.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, JADES-GS8-RL-1 would be the most distant mini-quenched galaxy and a strong remnant-leaker candidate, with implications for rapid quenching and LyC escape during reionisation. The direct measurements—spectroscopic beta_UV, line upper limits, and resolved morphology—are clearly presented and likely robust, and the paper is commendably transparent about model caveats in Section 7. However, the quantitative claims about the SFH, quenching timescale, and escape fraction rest on a stellar-population model that fails to reproduce the observed UV slope, and the Balmer break is not directly significant. The object is genuinely interesting, but the headline interpretation is currently over-stated relative to what the data and models securely support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The measured Balmer break in the observed spectrum is 1.14±1.18, which is formally consistent with no break. The paper then states "Due to this, we use the best-fit prospector value which gives a value of 1.75 ± 0.02" and uses this model value as the basis for the Balmer-break claims in the abstract and conclusions (e.g., "a Balmer break" in the abstract and "a clear Balmer break" in Section 9.1). This is circular: the model prediction is adopted as an observational constraint, and the same model is then used to infer the star-formation history. The direct measurement does not require a Balmer break, so the claim of a detected break is not supported by the data as presented. Please present the direct measurement as the observational limit and treat the model value as a prediction, or obtain a higher-S/N direct measurement.
  2. [Section 7, Fig. 3] The fiducial Prospector model returns beta_UV=-2.30, which is inconsistent with the observed spectroscopic value -2.8±0.2 at about 2.5σ, and Section 7 further states that no single-metallicity FSPS population can simultaneously reproduce the steep UV slope and the strong Balmer break. Nevertheless, the stellar mass, t50=66 Myr, t90=27 Myr, and fesc derived from the same model are presented as the paper's main results. Because the model fails a key observable, these derived quantities are not robust. Please either fit a model that can reproduce the UV slope (e.g., a two-metallicity composite or a model with a more flexible attenuation law), or explicitly present the SFH and fesc as conditional on a model that does not match the observed beta_UV, and correspondingly soften the abstract and conclusion claims.
  3. [Section 6, Table 1] The claim fesc>10% is based on two model-dependent estimates. The Chisholm et al. (2022) relation applied to beta_1550=-2.6±0.5 yields fesc=0.2+0.5-0.1, whose 1σ interval extends down to 0.1, and the relation itself has significant systematic uncertainty. The Prospector "frac_obrun" parameter is not a direct measurement of fesc; as the paper notes, it does not track attenuation by dust in the ISM. Presenting "fesc >10%" as a headline result in the abstract and Table 1 overstates the certainty. Please present fesc as a tentative, model-dependent estimate with the full error budget and caveats, or provide a more robust constraint.
  4. [Section 3.1, Abstract] The low O32 upper limit (log O32<0.06) and the resulting remnant-leaker classification are conditional on the 2.9σ [OII] detection. The paper correctly states in Section 3.1 that the O32 limit applies "If the [OII] emission was confirmed," but the abstract and discussion present the "extraordinarily low O32 upper limit" as a firm property. Given that the detection is only at 2.9σ, this conditional nature should be clearly flagged in the abstract and in any strong claims about the low ionisation parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 3.1] The upper limits for [OII] and Hβ appear to be swapped: Section 3.1 states a 3σ upper limit for Hβ of <27.9×10^-20 erg/s/cm^2, but Table 1 lists [OII] <27.9 and Hβ <9.9. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.3] The photometric beta_UV of -2.5±0.1 differs from the spectroscopic -2.8±0.2 at about 1σ. The paper notes this, but the abstract quotes only the spectroscopic value; consider also reporting the global photometric value to avoid over-interpreting the slit measurement.
  3. [Figure 4] The radial beta_UV profile appears to lack error bars or a statement about their derivation; please add uncertainties to the data points or explain in the caption why they are omitted.
  4. [Section 4, Figure 6] The interpretation of the F356W-F335M radial difference as extended [OII] emission is explicitly ambiguous because the Balmer break falls between the two filters. Please ensure the figure caption and text clearly state this ambiguity, which the text does acknowledge.
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence beginning "It is important to account for sub-solar metallicity..." is grammatically disconnected from the previous sentence about the Hβ upper limit; consider rephrasing for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core measurements are direct; the only circular-adjacent step is the abstract calling the fitted frac_obrun parameter a model 'prediction' of fesc.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. 5 'Prospector and stellar population properties'; Sec. 6 'Escape fraction']
    "Due to the extremely blue βUV slope, our best-fit model predicts a high value for fesc of >10%, consistent with the value derived from the βUV slope. [...] we also incorporate the free parameter 'frac_obrun' which represents the fraction of 'runaway' O- or B-type stars, i.e. not embedded into their birth clouds, which we use as an fesc parameter."

    The abstract presents the Prospector fesc as a model 'prediction,' but Sec. 5 defines fesc as the fitted free parameter 'frac_obrun,' and Sec. 6 reports 'the best-fit value of the frac_obrun parameter' as fesc = 0.5+0.3−0.2. The 'predicted' fesc is therefore the best-fit value of the same free parameter, not an independent model output. Furthermore, Sec. 7 states the fiducial model returns βUV = -2.30, shallower than the observed -2.8, so the high fesc is not in fact forced by the steep slope as the abstract implies. The Chisholm et al. (2022) relation (Eq. 4) provides an external empirical estimate, so the central claim retains independent support despite this rhetorical substitution.

full rationale

JADES-GS8-RL-1's main observed properties—the spectroscopic βUV slope, weak/absent emission lines, morphology, and photometry—are direct measurements, not outputs of the claims they are used to support. The star-formation history (t50 = 66 Myr, t90 = 27 Myr) and stellar mass are Bayesian Prospector inferences from the full spectro-photometric dataset; this is model-dependent inference rather than a circular reduction, since the fit does not assume the quenching timescales it reports. The fesc estimate from Chisholm et al. (2022) is an external empirical calibration applied to a measured β1550, so it is not equivalent to its input by construction. The only genuinely circular-adjacent step is the abstract's wording that the best-fit model 'predicts' fesc when, as Secs. 5-6 state, fesc is identified with the fitted free parameter frac_obrun; this is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, but it is not the sole basis of the fesc > 10% claim. Section 7's admitted failure of single-metallicity FSPS models to reproduce both βUV = -2.8 and the model's Balmer break of 1.75 is a serious modeling tension and a correctness risk—especially since the directly measured Balmer break is 1.14 ± 1.18—but it is a data/model mismatch, not a definitional circularity. No self-citation is load-bearing: prior JADES work (Looser et al. 2024; Simmonds et al. 2024b) is used for comparison and taxonomy, not as proof of the central result. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction; the flagged step is minor and does not invalidate the independent observational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The direct observation of a steep blue slope and absent strong lines is measurement, but the paper's quantitative narrative depends on external SED machinery: stellar population synthesis libraries, SFH priors, dust prescriptions, and the empirical beta-fesc relation. These are all borrowed from prior literature, and the paper itself acknowledges the model tension in Sec 7. The fesc estimate is partly a fitted quantity, which is the main circularity burden.

free parameters (4)
  • frac_obrun escape fraction parameter = 0.5 +0.3 -0.2
    Prospector free parameter approximating fesc; drives the high fesc claim though poorly constrained.
  • Nonparametric SFH bin amplitudes = Varies (bursty and continuity priors)
    Determines t50 and t90; results depend on prior choice and final bin width.
  • Stellar metallicity = Explored log(Z/Zsun) -2 to 0
    Single-metallicity assumption cannot resolve the beta-Balmer tension (Sec 7).
  • Dust attenuation parameters = Near zero / unconstrained
    Two-component dust screen and birth-cloud power law included but have little effect; steep beta implies negligible dust.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FSPS/MILES/MIST stellar population models with Chabrier IMF represent high-z stellar populations
    Used throughout Sec 5 SED fitting; if incomplete, derived stellar ages and SFH shift.
  • domain assumption Prospector nonparametric SFH priors recover the true star formation history
    Fiducial bursty and continuity priors give consistent stories, but recent SFH is sensitive to binning and Wolf-Rayet prescriptions (Sec 5).
  • domain assumption Chisholm et al. (2022) beta_1550 to fesc relation remains valid at z=8.5
    Equation 4 yields fesc=0.2+0.5-0.1; relation calibrated at lower redshift and may not extrapolate to a quenched low-mass galaxy.
  • domain assumption Redshift z=8.51 is correctly identified from the Lyman alpha and Balmer breaks
    All rest-frame quantities assume this redshift; source was selected as a strong Balmer break candidate (Sec 2).
  • domain assumption Balmer decrement ratio 2.86 and Reddy et al. (2018) SFR conversion apply to this galaxy
    Used to convert Hbeta upper limit to an SFR upper limit of <1.3 M_sun/yr (Sec 3.1).
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation is negligible
    Inferred from steep beta; if dust is present, fesc estimates from beta and frac_obrun would be overestimates (Sec 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zapped then Napped? A rapidly quenched remnant leaker candidate with a steep spectroscopic $\beta_{UV}$ slope at z=8.5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXZC7K24

@misc{pith2026250109070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zapped then Napped? A rapidly quenched remnant leaker candidate with a steep spectroscopic $\beta_UV$ slope at z=8.5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXZC7K24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09070}
}
abstract

We use NIRSpec MSA spectroscopy and NIRCam Photometry to explore the properties of JADES-GS8-RL-1, a rapidly quenched, $z=8.5$ galaxy with a stellar mass of $10^{8.9}M_\odot$, a steep blue UV slope, a Balmer break, and no sign of strong emission lines. With a $\beta_{UV}$=-2.8$\pm 0.2$, as measured from the NIRSpec spectrum, JADES-GS8-RL-1 is consistent with negligible dust attenuation and little to no contribution from the nebular continuum alongside a probable high escape fraction. The $\beta_{UV}$ slope measured from photometry varies from -3.0 in the central regions to -2.2 at the outskirts suggesting possible regional differences in the escape fraction. There are no high-ionisation emission lines, only a tentative 2.9\sig detection of [OII]. Using photometry, this emission appears to be extended, possibly corresponding to weakly ionised gas expelled during or after the quenching process. JADES-GS8-RL-1 is spatially resolved with a half-light radius of 240 pc and has an exponential, disc-like morphology. It appears to have formed all its stars in a short burst within the past 100 Myr with a formation time of $\approx$70 Myr and a quenching time of $\approx$30 Myr. This quenching would have occurred rapidly, making it a more distant example of the kind of low-mass "mini-quenched" galaxies previously observed at high-z. Due to the extremely blue $\beta_{UV}$ slope, our best-fit model predicts a high value for \fesc of >10\%, consistent with the value derived from the $\beta_{UV}$ slope, which when combined with our extraordinarily low O32 upper limit suggests JADES-GS8-RL-1 is a fascinating example of a high-z "remnant leaker" in one of its earliest phases, deep in the epoch of reionisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel, 1D spectrum (grey), photometry (yellow points), and best fit spectrum and photometry (purple) for JADES-GS8-RL-1. We see evidence for a steep βUV slope, with no strong emission lines. The spectrum shows a clear Lyman α break, a Balmer break, and ten￾tative [OII] emission at the expected wavelengths. Common emission lines are overplotted as dashed lines. Middle panel: 2D spectrum of slit position versus … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: 1D spectrum for JADES-GS8-RL-1 in Fν. This fig￾ure highlights the Balmer break in the spectrum. The observed spectrum (grey) has been rebinned to improve visualisation. The best-fit Prospec￾tor spectrum and photometry is in purple. The shaded region of the best-fit spectrum shows the 16th and 84th percentiles. The dashed lines correspond to common emission lines. The normalised fit residuals are shown i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The photometric UV slope (βUV) versus aperture radius for circu￾lar annuli on the PSF matched imaging. The spectroscopically measured βUV slope is overplotted as the dashed blue line for comparison with its error corresponding to the shaded region. us a value of β 1550 = −2.6 ± 0.5, which again remains consistent with our fiducial value (albeit with larger measurement uncer￾tainties due to the reduced window size). … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An RGB image of JADES-GS8-RL-1 in the F444W-F200W￾F150W filters. The NIRSpec slit is overplotted alongside the F444W point-spread-function (PSF) and a 1kpc scale bar. region of higher fesc (given the simultaneous lack of strong emis￾sion lines), whilst further away fro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Star-formation rate versus lookback time (redshifts). Comparison of the SFHs from different Prospector runs with varying priors and models. In purple is the fiducial bursty continuity prior run. In orange is the Leja et al. (2019) style continuity prior run. In green i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Escape fraction fesc against O32 ratio for a number of different LyC leakers. These include the Low-redshift Lyman Continuum Survey (LzLCS, z=0.2–0.4, blue points Saldana-Lopez et al. 2022; Flury et al. 2022) and other low-redshift massive starbursts from Roy et al. (2…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Balmer break strength versus age of stellar population for various tracks of metallicity from mock spectra. Right: Beta slope (βUV) versus age of stellar population for various tracks of metallicity from mock spectra. The value measured from our fiducial prospect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. An (in)complete NIRSpec census of Balmer absorption in Type 1 AGN -- radiation-driven outflows in little red dots, quasars and variable stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    About 44% of little red dots have hydrogen-alpha absorption from outflowing gas, implying radiatively driven outflows rather than static atmospheres.

  2. The Nature of Post-Starburst Galaxies: Real Deal or Masquerading Impostors?

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most photometrically selected post-starburst galaxies in the FIREbox simulation are star-forming impostors, implying that AGN feedback is required to explain a long-lived quenched post-starburst population.

  3. Temporarily quiescent galaxies at cosmic dawn: probing bursty star formation

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cosmological zoom-in simulations predict that temporarily quiescent galaxies are the majority population among the faintest z=6-8 galaxies and can be found as F200W drop-outs near massive galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2013

  2. [2]

    M., Lim, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al

    Baker, W. M., Lim, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14773

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Baker, W. M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 141

    2025

  4. [4]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3827

    Binggeli, C., Zackrisson, E., Ma, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3827

    2019

  5. [5]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55

    2022

  6. [6]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288

    2024

  7. [7]

    J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration

    Bunker, A. J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JAESs Collaboration. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha, J. Hodge, J. Afonso, L. Penter- icci, & D. Sobral, 342–346

    2020

  8. [8]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44

    2017

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A

    Cameron, A. J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A115

    2023

  2. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    2023

  4. [12]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325

    2024

  5. [13]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318

    2024

  6. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143

    2024

  7. [15]

    S., & Glover, S

    Ceverino, D., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4842

    2018

  8. [16]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  9. [17]

    & Fall, S

    Charlot, S. & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

    2000

  10. [18]

    & Longhetti, M

    Charlot, S. & Longhetti, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 887

    2001

  11. [19]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    2022

  12. [20]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  13. [21]

    & Gunn, J

    Conroy, C. & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833

    2010

  14. [22]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    2009

  15. [23]

    J., McLeod, D

    Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 14

    2023

  16. [24]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622 de Graaff, A., Setton, D

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 280

    2023

  17. [25]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y . 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 4

    2006

  18. [26]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2139

    Dome, T., Tacchella, S., Fialkov, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2139

    2024

  19. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01623

    Dottorini, D., Calabrò, A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01623

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Johnson, B

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

  21. [29]

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

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

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    P., Topping, M

    Endsley, R., Chisholm, J., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., & Whitler, L. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Faisst, A. L. & Morishita, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 47 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95

    2024

  24. [32]

    A., Becker, R

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117

    2006

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 684, A207

    Ferrara, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A207

    2024

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986

    2023

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19042

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Sommovigo, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19042

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2022, A&A, 661, A81

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A81

    2022

  29. [37]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L55

    2022

  30. [38]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 1

    2022

  31. [39]

    J., Shuntov, M., Atek, H., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Shuntov, M., Atek, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3064

    2023

  32. [40]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

    2005

  33. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 76

    Gelli, V ., Salvadori, S., Ferrara, A., & Pallottini, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 76

    2024

  34. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 954, L11

    Gelli, V ., Salvadori, S., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Carniani, S. 2023, ApJ, 954, L11

    2023

  35. [43]

    2024, Nature, 628, 277

    Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., Schreiber, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 277

    2024

  36. [44]

    N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al

    Hainline, K. N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 160 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2024

  37. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  38. [46]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60

    2025

  39. [47]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581

    2014

  40. [48]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  41. [49]

    & Maiolino, R

    Inayoshi, K. & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L27

    2025

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80

    2022

  43. [51]

    Johnson, B. D. 2019, SEDPY: Modules for storing and operating on astronomical source spectral energy distribution, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.026

    2019

  44. [52]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

    2021

  45. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 270

    Katz, H., Saxena, A., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 270

    2023

  46. [54]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  47. [55]

    & Conroy, C

    Kriek, M. & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 775, L16

    2013

  48. [56]

    2024, A&A, 691, A310

    Kuruvanthodi, A., Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A310

    2024

  49. [57]

    & Hjorth, J

    Langeroodi, D. & Hjorth, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13045

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3

    2019

  51. [59]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02470

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 629, 53

    2024

  53. [61]

    C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Roper, W., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5520

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Mannucci, F

    Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 3

    2019

  55. [63]

    A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T

    Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 497

    2023

  56. [64]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859

    2024

  57. [65]

    S., Robertson, B

    Nakajima, K., Ellis, R. S., Robertson, B. E., Tang, M., & Stark, D. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 161

    2020

  58. [66]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non- Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python

    2014

  59. [67]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nu- clei

    1989

  60. [68]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Peng, Y ., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2015

  61. [69]

    A., Oesch, P

    Reddy, N. A., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 56

    2018

  62. [70]

    2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Rieke, M. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evo- lution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha, J. Hodge, J. Afonso, L. Pentericci, & D. Sobral, 337–341

    2020

  63. [71]

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

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 16

    2023

  64. [72]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 193

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 193

    2024

  65. [73]

    Robertson, B. E. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 121

    2022

  66. [74]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611

    2023

  67. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13254

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13254

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    2022, A&A, 663, A59 Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Peletier, R

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Schaerer, D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A59 Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jiménez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703

    2022

  69. [77]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54

    2023

  70. [78]

    2024, A&A, 691, A305

    Sandles, L., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A305

    2024

  71. [79]

    J., Katz, H., et al

    Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14532

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 954, 157

    2023

  73. [81]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88

    2017

  74. [82]

    2023, ApJ, 949, L23

    Strait, V ., Brammer, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L23

    2023

  75. [83]

    C., et al

    Sun, G., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L35

    2023

  76. [84]

    L., Bagley, M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 170

    2022

  77. [85]

    D., Robertson, B

    Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6236

    2023

  78. [86]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  79. [87]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4087

    2024

  80. [88]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406

    2020

  81. [89]

    Trussler, J. A. A., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N., et al. 2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2404.07163]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    J., et al

    Weibel, A., de Graa ff, A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03829

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    M., Bunker, A

    Wilkins, S. M., Bunker, A. J., Stanway, E., Lorenzoni, S., & Caruana, J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 717

    2011

  84. [92]

    M., Lovell, C

    Wilkins, S. M., Lovell, C. C., Irodotou, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7965

    2024

  85. [93]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 112

    Witten, C., McClymont, W., Laporte, N., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 112

    2025

  86. [94]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19893

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19893

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    K., & Jensen, H

    Zackrisson, E., Inoue, A. K., & Jensen, H. 2013, ApJ, 777, 39

    2013

  88. [96]

    D., Bosman, S

    Zhu, Y ., Becker, G. D., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L49 Article number, page 12 of 13 Baker et al.: Zapped then Napped Appendix A: Photometry Table A.1 contains the observed Kron Convolved photometry of the 9 bands used in this work for JADES-GS8-RL-1 and the r...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.