Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unraveling the Lyman Continuum Emission of Ion3: Insights from HST multi-band imaging and X-Shooter spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ion3, at $z=3.999$, is confirmed as a genuine source of escaping Lyman continuum photons, with an escape fraction between 0.06 and 1.

desk verdict The HST imaging and ISM constraints are new and worth having, but the escape fraction range is conditional on the adopted stellar-population ratio and should be read as such. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18711 v1 pith:6IRGL3AY submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.GA

U.Meštrić , E.Vanzella , A.Beckett , M.Rafelski , C.Grillo , M. Giavalisco , M. Messa , M. Castellano
show 10 more authors
F. Calura G. Cupani A. Zanella P. Bergamini M. Meneghetti A. Mercurio P. Rosati M. Nonino K. Caputi A. Comastri
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lymancontinuumescapefractionreionizationhigh-redshiftgalaxiesinterstellarmediumHSTimagingX-ShooterspectroscopyIon3
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

This paper argues that Ion3, a lensed galaxy at $z=3.999$, is a genuine source of escaping Lyman continuum photons: deep HST F390W imaging detects ionizing flux at signal-to-noise $\sim 3.5$ in a band probing rest-frame $\sim 700$–$880$ Å, after a nearby low-redshift interloper is identified and masked. Combining the measured $F_\nu(1500)/F_\nu(\mathrm{LyC})=69\pm19$ with an intrinsic luminosity ratio and simulated intergalactic transmission, the paper derives a relative escape fraction $f_{\rm esc,rel}=0.06$–$1$, where the width of the range is dominated by line-of-sight IGM attenuation. It also argues that the galaxy's interstellar medium is simultaneously dense ($n_e$ up to $>10^4$ cm$^{-3}$), highly pressurized ($\log(P/k)>7.9$), and strongly ionized ($\mathrm{O32}>50$), consistent with an ongoing young starburst seen along an optically thin line of sight. Confirmed LyC leakers at $z\approx4$ are rare, so a careful reader would care because each one tests which observed properties actually predict the escape of ionizing radiation during the epoch of reionization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Ion3 itself, a compact, gravitationally lensed galaxy at $z=3.999$, and the argument runs through the escape-fraction identity $f_{\rm esc,rel} = [L_\nu(1500)/L_\nu(\mathrm{LyC})]/[F_\nu(1500)/F_\nu(\mathrm{LyC})]\,\exp(\tau_{\rm IGM}^{\rm LyC})$. The observed flux ratio is set by HST F390W and F814W photometry; the intrinsic ratio is anchored by the population-synthesis relation $L(800)/L(1500)=(3.5\pm0.3)\times10^{-(0.14\pm0.01)}(\mathrm{Age}/1\,\mathrm{Myr})^{-(0.21\pm0.02)}(Z_*/Z_\odot)$, evaluated at an age of about 5 Myr (from the NV P-Cygni profile) and $Z_*\sim0.2 Z_\odot$; and $\tau_{\rm IGM}^{\rm LyC}$ is drawn from 10,000 mock sightlines. Supporting the physical portrait are doublet diagnostics, $[\mathrm{OII}]\lambda\lambda3726,3729$ for $n_e^{[\mathrm{OII}]}\sim2300$ cm$^{-3}$ and $[\mathrm{CIII}]\lambda1909/\mathrm{CIII}]\lambda1906$ for $n_e^{\mathrm{CIII]}}>10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, which together imply the high pressure and ionization state reported.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be an independent measurement of the intrinsic $L(1500)/L(\mathrm{LyC})$ ratio—for example, a high signal-to-noise rest-UV-to-optical spectrum whose stellar-population fit does not rely on the CIII] metallicity diagnostic: if the ratio comes out near 9 rather than 1.6, the derived escape fraction falls well below 0.06, and the case for significant LyC leakage weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ion3, at $z_{\rm spec}=3.999$, emits Lyman continuum radiation that survives contamination checks: the F390W image shows two compact clumps (A and B) at the galaxy's position with combined LyC flux $F_\nu=1.07\pm0.3\times10^{-31}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,Hz^{-1}}$ (SNR $3.5$), while a third clump and a nearby source are identified as likely low-redshift interlopers and masked before measurement. With F814W giving the non-ionizing flux, the observed ratio is $F_\nu(1500)/F_\nu(\mathrm{LyC})=69\pm19$; adopting an intrinsic $L(1500)/L(\mathrm{LyC})=1.6\pm0.9$ from a $\sim5$ Myr, $0.2\,Z_\odot$ population and a distribution of intergalactic transmissions from 10,000 sightlines, the paper obtains $f_{\rm esc,rel}=0.06$–$1$. The same data set yields a physical portrait of the leaking medium: electron densities between $\sim2.3\times10^3$ and $>10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, ISM pressure $\log(P/k)>7.9$, $\mathrm{O32}>50$, ionization parameter $\log U>-1.5$, and sub-solar metallicity $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=8.02\pm0.20$. These measurements are presented as evidence that Ion3 is a clumpy, bursty starburst observed during an ionizing optically thin phase along the line of sight.

Load-bearing premise

The escape fraction rests on an assumed intrinsic luminosity ratio $L(1500)/L(\mathrm{LyC})=1.6\pm0.9$ that is not measured but inherited from a population-synthesis relation evaluated at an age of about 5 Myr and a metallicity derived from the same CIII] spectrum; the analysis also assumes the circumgalactic medium contributes zero LyC attenuation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A confirmed SNR of about 3.5 means Ion3 remains the most distant galaxy with directly detected ionizing radiation, and the derived range implies a nonzero escape fraction of at least $f_{\rm esc,rel}\approx0.06$ even for the least transparent IGM sightlines considered.
  • The quadruple-peaked Ly$\alpha$ profile with a central peak at the systemic velocity supports the interpretation that the line of sight is optically thin to LyC, reinforcing Ly$\alpha$ peak structure as a tracer of escaping ionizing radiation.
  • The measured ISM conditions show that a LyC leaker can be dense and highly pressurized rather than a diffuse, low-density galaxy.
  • The high SFR(H$\alpha$)$\approx77$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}\approx20$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$ place Ion3 in a young, bursty starburst phase, in line with the NV P-Cygni signature and young age.
  • Morphologically, escape is associated with sub-kiloparsec clumps (radii $\sim180$ pc and $<100$ pc), not with a single smooth galaxy-wide aperture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit: if Ion3 is representative, then at least some $z\sim4$ galaxies with $M_*\sim10^9 M_\odot$ can leak ionizing radiation during short, dense, high-pressure starburst phases, which would make bursty star formation a viable channel for reionization even in fairly massive galaxies.
  • A testable extension: search JWST/NIRSpec samples at $z>6$ for the combination of $\mathrm{O32}>50$, $\log(P/k)>7.5$, and sub-kiloparsec clumpy morphology; the paper's portrait predicts that such systems should preferentially show ionized channels, though LyC itself cannot be observed through the post-reionization IGM.
  • The escape fraction range 0.06–1 is too broad to quantify Ion3's cosmological contribution; the decisive next measurement is an independent stellar-population fit that fixes $L(1500)/L(\mathrm{LyC})$, a step the authors do not take.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents new HST WFC3 F390W, F814W, and F140W imaging plus archival X-Shooter spectroscopy of Ion3, a lensed star-forming galaxy at z = 3.999 previously identified as a Lyman continuum (LyC) leaker. The authors report a 3.5 sigma detection of LyC in F390W after masking a nearby low-redshift clump and calibrating the background with 10,000 random apertures. Using simulated IGM transmission sightlines, they quote a relative escape fraction fesc,rel = 0.06--1. They also resolve the galaxy into two clumps, detect HeII, CIII], [NeIII], and [OII] features, and derive electron densities, ISM pressure, metallicity, O32, ionization parameter, and star formation rates. The paper concludes that Ion3 is in a dense, highly pressurized, strongly ionized phase with an optically thin line of sight during a bursty star-forming event.

Significance. If the detection and derived conditions hold, Ion3 is the most distant spectroscopically confirmed LyC leaker with HST-resolution morphology, and it provides an important extreme datapoint for LyC escape at z about 4. The photometric analysis is a genuine strength: the low-z clump is masked, the LyC aperture is chosen from a curve of growth, and the background is characterized with 10,000 apertures, giving a reproducible 3.5 sigma detection with quoted magnitude uncertainty. The ISM diagnostics (high electron density, high pressure, high O32, and sub-solar metallicity) are useful constraints for models of reionization-era galaxies. The main quantitative claim, the fesc range, is less robust than the abstract suggests because it is conditional on an adopted stellar-population ratio and a truncated IGM sightline distribution. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a revision of Section 4 that propagates the systematic uncertainty in the intrinsic L(1500)/L(LyC) ratio and presents the fesc result as a model-conditioned interval rather than a measured value with a formal uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (2)] The quoted range fesc,rel = 0.06--1 is linearly proportional to the adopted intrinsic luminosity ratio L(1500)/L(LyC) = 1.6 +/- 0.9, but this ratio is not independently measured. It is set by an age of about 5 Myr inferred from the NV P-Cygni peak/through ratio and a metallicity 12+log(O/H) = 8.02 derived from EW(CIII]) of the same X-Shooter spectrum. The authors themselves note that plausible population-synthesis choices span L(1500)/L(LyC) from about 1.5 to 9. Since fesc,rel is proportional to this ratio, the lower bound of 0.06 would shift to roughly 0.3 if the upper end of that range were adopted, and no uncertainty from this choice is propagated. The abstract and conclusions therefore overstate the robustness of the quoted fesc range; the result should be reported as conditional on the assumed stellar population and the systematic uncertainty should be propagated.
  2. [Section 4, Figures 9 and 10] The fesc distribution is constructed by discarding the IGM sightlines that produce fesc,rel > 1, and the last paragraph of Section 4 states that the LyC flux measurement uncertainty is not included in the distribution. As a result, the quoted '0.06--1' is a conditional range over the accepted sightlines, not a measured escape fraction with a meaningful uncertainty. Please show the full distribution including the discarded sightlines, propagate the F390W flux uncertainty (or clearly state that the range is not a confidence interval), and specify what fraction of the 10,000 sightlines are excluded by the fesc > 1 cut.
  3. [Section 4, CGM attenuation assumption] The escape-fraction calculation assumes zero CGM attenuation, justified by the multi-peaked Ly alpha profile, but the supporting discussion is referenced only as 'Section ??'. Because even a modest CGM HI column would change the derived fesc, the manuscript should either supply the missing justification with an explicit reference or include a conservative test, for example a range of CGM column densities, to bound the effect of this assumption on the quoted fesc range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] In the description of the point spread functions, 'F8140W' should be 'F814W'.
  2. [Abstract and throughout] The galaxy name is written inconsistently as both 'Ion3' and 'Ion 3'; please choose one form and use it consistently.
  3. [Figure 10 caption] The caption refers to 'the blue part of the histogram in Figure 8' when describing the accepted IGM transmission sightlines; the relevant histogram is Figure 9, not Figure 8.
  4. [Section 5.2] The notation for the neon lines is inconsistent (e.g., 'NeIII]' appears without the opening bracket in several places); standard notation such as '[NeIII] lambda3968' should be used throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LyC detection and escape-fraction estimate rest on new HST photometry and externally calibrated stellar-population relations, not on fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The central claim, fesc,rel = 0.06–1, is computed from Eq. (1) using the observed flux-density ratio Fnu(1500)/Fnu(LyC) = 69 ± 19 measured from HST F390W and F814W photometry, together with an intrinsic luminosity ratio L(1500)/L(LyC) taken from the external Chisholm et al. (2019) relation (Eq. 2). That intrinsic ratio is anchored to an age of ~5 Myr inferred from the NV P-Cygni peak/through ratio and a metallicity of 12+log(O/H) = 8.02 ± 0.20 inferred from EW(CIII]) via Eq. (6), both of which are independent of the target escape fraction and of the LyC flux measurement itself. The paper explicitly acknowledges that plausible population-synthesis choices give L(1500)/L(LyC) from about 1.5 to 9, so the quoted fesc range is model-dependent; however, that is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction. The one load-bearing self-citation, Vanzella et al. (2018), supplies the FORS-based NV P-Cygni spectrum and the discovery data, which are observational and externally falsifiable, not an imported theorem or fitted parameter. The unresolved 'see Section ??' for the CGM-transparency assumption is a manuscript defect but does not make the derivation circular. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central escape fraction and derived ISM properties rest on a chain of empirical calibrations from the literature (Chisholm 2019, Sanders 2016, Mingozzi 2022, Witstok 2021) and on Monte Carlo IGM simulations. The paper does not fit free parameters, but it does truncate the fesc posterior, neglect CGM attenuation, and use a metallicity-derived intrinsic luminosity ratio, all of which are adopted assumptions rather than demonstrated results.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Chisholm et al. (2019) relation L(800)/L(1500) accurately predicts the intrinsic ionizing-to-non-ionizing flux ratio for Ion3's stellar population.
    Used in Eq. 2 to convert observed 1500 Å flux to expected LyC luminosity; systematic uncertainties in stellar population synthesis are not propagated into the fesc error budget.
  • domain assumption The IGM transmission along 10,000 mock sightlines, generated with the Bassett et al. (2021) prescription and the Steidel et al. (2018) column density distribution, statistically represents the real IGM toward Ion3.
    The simulated transmission is the main driver of the fesc range; the paper excludes sightlines that would produce fesc>1.
  • domain assumption The CGM of Ion3 is optically thin to LyC, so its attenuation is set to zero.
    Section 4: 'we do not include the CGM attenuation since the Ly-alpha multi-peak line suggests a low-column-density of CGM'. If wrong, the derived fesc would be biased.
  • domain assumption The empirical EW(CIII])-metallicity calibration of Mingozzi et al. (2022) is valid for this galaxy.
    Used in Eq. 6 to derive 12+log(O/H)=8.02, which then enters Eq. 2 for the intrinsic luminosity ratio.
  • domain assumption The cluster lens magnification µ=1.3 from Caminha et al. (2016) is accurate.
    Applied to all physical sizes, SFRs, and area estimates; a wrong magnification would shift sizes and SFRs, though fesc is unaffected because it is a flux ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling the Lyman Continuum Emission of Ion3: Insights from HST multi-band imaging and X-Shooter spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IRGL3AY

@misc{pith2026250418711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling the Lyman Continuum Emission of Ion3: Insights from HST multi-band imaging and X-Shooter spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IRGL3AY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18711}
}
abstract

We provide a comprehensive analysis of Ion3, the most distant LyC leaker at $z=3.999$, using multi-band HST photometry and X-Shooter spectroscopy. Deep HST F390W imaging probe uncontaminated LyC flux blueward $\sim$880{\AA}, while the non-ionizing UV 1500\AA/2800\AA~flux is probed with the F814W/F140W band. High angular resolution allows us to properly mask low-$z$ interlopers and prevent contamination of measured LyC radiation. We confirm the detection of LyC flux at SNR $\sim$3.5 and estimate the escape fraction of ionizing photons to be in the range $f_{\rm esc, rel}$ = 0.06 -- 1, depending on the adopted IGM attenuation. Morphological analysis reveals a clumpy structure made of two main components, with effective radii of R$_{\rm eff}$ $\sim$180 pc and R$_{\rm eff}$ < 100 pc, and a total estimated de-lensed area in the rest-frame 1600\AA~of 4.2~kpc$^{2}$. We confirm the presence of faint ultraviolet spectral features HeII$\lambda$1640, CIII]$\lambda$1907,1909 and [NeIII]$\lambda$3968, with rest-frame EW(HeII) = (1.6$\pm$0.7)\AA\ and EW(CIII]) = (6.5$\pm$3)\AA. From [OII]$\lambda$$\lambda$3726,3729 and [CIII]$\lambda$1909/CIII]$\lambda$1906 we derive electron densities $n_{\rm e}^{\rm [OII]}$ = 2300$\pm$1900 cm$^{-3}$ and $n_{\rm e}^{\rm CIII]}$ > 10$^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to an ISM pressure log(P/k) > 7.90. Furthermore, we derive an intrinsic SFR(H$\alpha$) $\approx$ 77 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (corresponding to $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} = 20$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~kpc$^{-2}$ for the entire galaxy) and sub-solar metallicity $12+\rm log(O/H)$ = 8.02$\pm$0.20 using the EW(CIII]) as a diagnostic. The detection of [NeIII]$\lambda$3968 line and [OII]$\lambda$$\lambda$3726,3729, provide an estimate of the ratio [OIII]$\lambda$5007/[OII]$\lambda$$\lambda$3727,29 of O32 > 50 and high ionization parameter log$U$ > $-$1.5 using empirical and theoretical correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left side is the HST F390W band thumbnail image of Ion3, size 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram density plot of randomly placed 10,000 aper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from Galfit modeling. The first panel shows the original F814W image of Ion3 covering the non-ionizing UV flux with 2σ contour in red, also overlaid in other two panels. The second panel is the resulting model from Galfit, and the third panel is a residual map. Vanzella et al. (2018). We combine the 4 OBs by creating an av￾erage weighted 2D stacked spectrum using the IRAF IMCOMBINE task (both for the VIS and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The X-Shooter VIS-arm 1D spectra (upper panel) and 2D spectra (bottom panel) covering the rest-UV wavelengths from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zoom-ins show two emission features detected in the VIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The mean IGM transmission as a function of wavelength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Resulting distribution of IGM transmission for 10,000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution of evaluated fesc,rel for Ion3 LyC leaker. The presented distribution only involve the τ LyC IGM sightlines (the blue part of the histogram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Upper and bottom panels show the two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Redshift evolution of Lyman continuum escape fraction after JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Average Lyman continuum escape fraction rises from 0.007 at z=0 to 0.6 at z=20, driven by radiation-powered outflows in high-sSFR galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

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

    2013

  2. [2]

    V ., Cooke, J., et al

    Bassett, R., Ryan-Weber, E. V ., Cooke, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 108

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Behrens, C., Dijkstra, M., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2014, A&A, 563, A77

    2014

  4. [4]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0 Calabrò, A., Castellano, M., Zavala, J

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0 Calabrò, A., Castellano, M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 245

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5914

    Calura, F., Lupi, A., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5914

    2022

  6. [6]

    B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al

    Caminha, G. B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A80

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

    Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

    2009

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143

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

    2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    2014, A&A, 566, A19

    Castellano, M., Sommariva, V ., Fontana, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A19

    2014

  2. [10]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Vazquez-Semadeni, E., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 50

    2020

  3. [11]

    R., Bayliss, M., et al

    Chisholm, J., Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 182 de Barros, S., Vanzella, E., Amorín, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A51 Díaz, A. I., Castellanos, M., Terlevich, E., & Luisa García-Vargas, M. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 462

    2019

  4. [12]

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

    Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36

    2019

  5. [13]

    J., Tang, M., Robertson, B

    Fletcher, T. J., Tang, M., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 87

    2019

  6. [14]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A1

    2022

  7. [15]

    S., Bushouse, H., & Hunter, D

    Gallagher, J. S., Bushouse, H., & Hunter, D. A. 1989, AJ, 97, 700

    1989

  8. [16]

    G., Baldry, I

    Gilbank, D. G., Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Glazebrook, K., & Bower, R. G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2594

    2010

  9. [17]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    Gonzaga, S., Hack, W., Fruchter, A., & Mack, J. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    2012

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362

    2020

  11. [19]

    L., Mack, J., Avila, R., et al

    Hoffmann, S. L., Mack, J., Avila, R., et al. 2021, 53, 216.02

    2021

  12. [20]

    & Rutledge, R

    Hui, L. & Rutledge, R. E. 1999, ApJ, 517, 541

    1999

  13. [21]

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

    2007

  14. [22]

    Inoue, A. K. & Iwata, I. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1681

    2008

  15. [23]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805

    2014

  16. [24]

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

    Izotov, Y . I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1228

    2023

  17. [25]

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

    Izotov, Y . I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4514

    2018

  18. [26]

    E., Dowd, T., Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., Dowd, T., Oey, M. S., Scarlata, C., & McKinney, J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 96

    2019

  19. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 109

    Ji, Z., Giavalisco, M., Vanzella, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 109

    2020

  20. [28]

    1992, ApJ, 388, 310

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1992, ApJ, 388, 310

    1992

  21. [29]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  22. [30]

    J., Geller, M

    Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Jansen, R. A. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 2002–2030

    2004

  23. [31]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 16

    2019

  24. [32]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97

    2017

  25. [33]

    R., Chisholm, J., et al

    Mainali, R., Rigby, J. R., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 160

    2022

  26. [34]

    & Dressel, L

    Marinelli, M. & Dressel, L. 2024, WFC3 Instrument Handbook for Cycle 32 v. 16.0, V ol. 16, 16 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    2024

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 524

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Álvarez-Márquez, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 524

    2021

  28. [36]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972 Meštri´c, U., Vanzella, E., Upadhyaya, A., et al

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Álvarez-Márquez, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972 Meštri´c, U., Vanzella, E., Upadhyaya, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A50 Meštri´c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 3532–3555

    2022

  29. [37]

    L., Arellano-Córdova, K

    Mingozzi, M., James, B. L., Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 110

    2022

  30. [38]

    2020, A&A, 643, A78

    Molina, J., Ibar, E., Godoy, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A78

    2020

  31. [39]

    Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., & Tremonti, C. A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 775

    2006

  32. [40]

    P., Matthee, J., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4582

    2022

  33. [41]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

    Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 109

    2020

  34. [42]

    2018, A&A, 612, A94

    Nakajima, K., Schaerer, D., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A94

    2018

  35. [43]

    B., Shapley, A

    Nestor, D. B., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., & Siana, B. 2011, ApJ, 736, 18

    2011

  36. [44]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1974, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae

    1974

  37. [45]

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

    2006

  38. [46]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

    2002

  39. [47]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097

    2010

  40. [48]

    M., Sip˝ocz, B

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Günther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    2018

  41. [49]

    J., Rafelski, M., Cooke, J., et al

    Prichard, L. J., Rafelski, M., Cooke, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 14

    2022

  42. [50]

    C., & Tumlinson, J

    Ravindranath, S., Monroe, T., Jaskot, A., Ferguson, H. C., & Tumlinson, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 170

    2020

  43. [51]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 40

    Revalski, M., Rafelski, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 40

    2023

  44. [52]

    R., Bayliss, M

    Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M. B., Gladders, M. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, L6

    2015

  45. [53]

    I., Iani, E., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Iani, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 12

    2024

  46. [54]

    E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 738

    2019

  47. [55]

    E., Dahle, H., Gronke, M., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, L4

    2017

  48. [56]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23

    2016

  49. [57]

    2025, A&A, 693, A271

    Schaerer, D., Guibert, J., Marques-Chaves, R., & Martins, F. 2025, A&A, 693, A271

    2025

  50. [58]

    I., Worseck, G., et al

    Schaerer, D., Izotov, Y . I., Worseck, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, L11

    2022

  51. [59]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65

    2003

  52. [60]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L24

    2016

  53. [61]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    2024

  54. [62]

    P., Richard, J., Siana, B., et al

    Stark, D. P., Richard, J., Siana, B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3200

    2014

  55. [63]

    C., Bogosavljevi´c, M., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 123

    2018

  56. [64]

    P., Chen, Z., et al

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Chen, Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1657

    2023

  57. [65]

    I., Collins, N

    Teplitz, H. I., Collins, N. R., Gardner, J. P., Hill, R. S., & Rhodes, J. 2003, ApJ, 589, 704

    2003

  58. [66]

    W., Sanders, R

    Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08712

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Senchyna, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3301 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420 Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Sco...

    2024

  60. [68]

    B., Calura, F., et al

    Vanzella, E., Caminha, G. B., Calura, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1093

    2020

  61. [69]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 41

    Vanzella, E., de Barros, S., Vasei, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 41

    2016

  62. [70]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 70

    Vanzella, E., Guo, Y ., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 70

    2012

  63. [71]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L15

    Vanzella, E., Nonino, M., Cupani, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L15

    2018

  64. [72]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1672

    Vanzella, E., Siana, B., Cristiani, S., & Nonino, M. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1672

    2010

  65. [73]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7

    Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7

    2015

  66. [74]

    2017, A&A, 597, A13

    Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13

    2017

  67. [75]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  68. [76]

    I., Sun, L., et al

    Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., Sun, L., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 26

    2024

  69. [77]

    L., Chen, W., et al

    Williams, H., Kelly, P. L., Chen, W., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 416

    2023

  70. [78]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1686

    Witstok, J., Smit, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1686

    2021

  71. [79]

    X., O’Meara, J

    Worseck, G., Prochaska, J. X., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1745 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2014

Pith tools

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