Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 121 references

First IFU observations of two GRB host galaxies at cosmic noon with JWST/NIRSpec

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first two JWST/NIRSpec integral-field observations of gamma-ray burst host galaxies at $z\sim2$–$2.6$ resolve each system into three star-forming components that are likely interacting, showing that slit or aperture measurements can…

desk verdict The first JWST/NIRSpec IFU look at GRB hosts at z>2 is a solid, transparent proof-of-concept; the interacting-galaxy claim is plausible but not airtight, and the metallicity branch choice for GRB 150403A is the weakest link. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21643 v1 pith:YHYNHA67 submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

B. Topçu , P. Schady , S. Wuyts , A. Inkenhaag , M. Arabsalmani , H.-W. Chen , L. Christensen , V. D'Elia
show 11 more authors
J. P. U. Fynbo K. E. Heintz P. Jakobsson T. Laskar A. Levan G. Pugliese A. Rossi R. L. C. Starling N. R. Tanvir P. Wiseman R.M. Yates
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxies:abundanceshigh-redshiftgamma-rayburst:generalindividual:GRB050820A150403AintegralfieldspectroscopyJWST/NIRSpecgalaxyinteractions
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 reports the first integral-field spectroscopic observations of long gamma-ray burst host galaxies at cosmic noon with JWST/NIRSpec, resolving the hosts of GRB 050820A ($z\sim2.61$) and GRB 150403A ($z\sim2.06$) on $\sim1.6$ kpc scales. The data reveal that neither host is a single galaxy: each system contains three spatially distinct, star-forming components separated by less than 20 kpc with line-of-sight velocity offsets under 100 km s$^{-1}$, which the authors interpret as interacting galaxies. Because the components have different star formation rates and metallicities, the paper argues that slit-based or integrated measurements would misidentify the GRB host or overestimate its SFR and metallicity. If correct, this means that previous statistical studies of high-redshift GRB hosts that lacked spatial resolution may be contaminated by companion galaxies.

What carries the argument

The instrument and analysis together form the machinery: JWST/NIRSpec IFS data cubes with 0.1 arcsec pixels and $\sim1.6$ kpc physical resolution, covering 1.0–3.2 $\mu$m so that [O ii], H$\beta$, [O iii], H$\alpha$, and [N ii] are observed simultaneously. Emission lines are fit with Gaussians, with redshifts and velocity widths tied to the H$\beta$/[O iii] fits, and component fluxes come from stacked circular apertures. Dust corrections use the Balmer decrement with an SMC extinction law. Gas-phase metallicities come from the R$_{23}$ diagnostic of Nakajima et al. (2022) and the $\hat{R}$ diagnostic of Laseter et al. (2024), both of which are double-branched; the paper selects the upper branch by requiring consistency with afterglow absorption metallicities, a combined O32-based estimate, and mass-metallicity/fundamental-metallicity relation expectations. Kinematic maps are built from the peak wavelengths of [O iii]$\lambda5007$ relative to the GRB-hosting component.

What would settle it

Take deep near-infrared spectroscopy of the GRB 150403A components that detects H$\beta$ at high signal-to-noise and the auroral line [O iii]$\lambda4363$ (or a strong [N ii] detection) to obtain a direct metallicity; if $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ for components A and B comes out near $7.8$, the adopted upper-branch solutions are wrong. Applying the same test to GRB 050820A component C would verify whether its metallicity is genuinely consistent with the absorption value of $8.20\pm0.10$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the host galaxies of GRB 050820A and GRB 150403A are not isolated star-forming galaxies but multi-component interacting systems. In both fields the GRB lies within about a resolution element of a component labelled C, while components A and B are offset in projection by 3–10 kpc and in velocity by $-26$ to $-96$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to C. The paper argues that these offsets, combined with afterglow absorption kinematics, place the companions in front of and receding from the GRB host. Spatially resolved measurements show that for GRB 050820A the host component C has an H$\alpha$ star formation rate of $5.4\pm2.0$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, far below the integrated value of $46\pm4$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, while its gas-phase metallicity ($12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=8.24$–$8.27$ from the two adopted diagnostics) is consistent with the afterglow absorption metallicity of $8.20\pm0.10$ and with remaining below the $0.3$ Z$_\odot$ collapsar threshold. For GRB 150403A, components A and B have metallicities roughly 0.6 dex higher than the absorption metallicity of $7.77\pm0.05$, while the host component C has only a $1\sigma$ upper limit because H$\beta$ is undetected; the authors adopt upper-branch metallicity solutions for all components based on consistency with scaling relations and an O32-based estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the true gas-phase metallicities lie on the upper branch of the double-valued metallicity diagnostics, chosen because those solutions agree with scaling relations and an O32-based estimate; the afterglow absorption metallicity of GRB 150403A points to the lower branch, and if the lower branch is correct the reported abundances would be roughly 0.5 dex lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two systems are indeed interacting groups, a substantial fraction of $z>2$ GRB hosts may live in similar multi-galaxy environments, and single-slit or aperture observations can misattribute line fluxes to the wrong galaxy.
  • For GRB 050820A, the host component C has an H$\alpha$ star formation rate near $5.4$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, about an order of magnitude below the integrated value, so unresolved measurements can severely overestimate the star formation activity at the GRB site.
  • For GRB 150403A, companion components A and B are roughly 0.6 dex more metal-rich than the afterglow absorption metallicity, implying that nebular metallicities of companions do not trace the GRB progenitor environment and that the actual host may be the most metal-poor component.
  • The combination of IFU kinematics and afterglow absorption velocities suggests both GRB hosts lie behind their companion galaxies and are receding from them, giving a self-consistent 3D picture of each interacting system.
  • The measured host metallicities, close to or above $0.3$ Z$_\odot$ but consistent within uncertainties, do not strongly violate the collapsar-model threshold, although the GRB 150403A host metallicity remains an upper limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if interacting companions are common around GRB hosts, some metallicities and SFRs in earlier $z>2$ samples measured with slits may be systematically biased, potentially shifting the inferred distribution of GRB host metallicities relative to the collapsar threshold.
  • Beyond the paper, the upper-branch assumption can be tested directly: a deep observation detecting H$\beta$ with high signal-to-noise and ideally the [O iii]$\lambda4363$ auroral line in GRB 150403A components A and B would decide between $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})\sim8.4$–$8.6$ and lower-branch values near $7.9$–$8.1$.
  • Beyond the paper, comparing the incidence of multiple components around GRB hosts with matched IFU surveys of field galaxies at $z\sim2$–$3$ would quantify whether interactions actually enhance GRB production, as the starburst-trigger hypothesis predicts.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations of the host galaxies of GRB 050820A (z ≈ 2.61) and GRB 150403A (z ≈ 2.06). It identifies three spatially distinct star-forming components in each system, measures line fluxes, velocity offsets, SFRs, and gas-phase metallicities from R23 and R-hat diagnostics, and argues that the components are likely interacting galaxies rather than a single clumpy galaxy. The paper also compares the ISM properties with z>2 GRB hosts and star-forming galaxies, and discusses implications for the collapsar-model metallicity threshold of 0.3 Z_sun.

Significance. If the multi-component interpretation holds, this is the first spatially resolved IFU characterization of GRB host galaxies at cosmic noon, and it demonstrates that integrated or slit-based measurements can misidentify the GRB host component and bias derived SFRs and metallicities. The paper is careful in several respects: it explicitly discusses the NIRSpec LSF limitation on velocity dispersions, uses stacked spectra with propagated uncertainties, tests an updated metallicity calibration, reports upper limits where appropriate, and makes the data available via MAST. However, the central claim that the components are independent galaxies rather than bright clumps within a single galaxy is not yet robustly established, and the metallicity branch selection for GRB 150403A carries a systematic uncertainty that directly affects the quantitative conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §5.1.1, §5.1.2] The interpretation that components A, B, and C are independent interacting galaxies rests on projected separations of <20 kpc and line-of-sight velocity offsets of <100 km/s, but §3.2 states that the measured velocity dispersions are generally unresolved or upper limits set by the NIRSpec LSF, and Table 2 confirms that most sigma values are upper limits. In both systems, the A–B separations are <3 kpc, comparable to the size of a single clumpy star-forming region at z>2. The argument that an 8–11 kpc total extent is 'far larger than average' (based on Ribeiro et al. 2016) is not a kinematic discriminator, and the non-disk morphology is suggestive but not conclusive. As the data are also consistent with multiple star-forming clumps within one galaxy, the paper should either provide a quantitative test that distinguishes between these scenarios (e.g., resolved double-peaked line profiles, stellar-mass surface-density maps, or comparison with merger-classification criteria) or explicitly present the clump interpretation as a viable alternative.
  2. [§4.3.1, Table 2, Table B1] For GRB 150403A, the afterglow absorption metallicity of 12+log(O/H)=7.77±0.05 indicates the lower branch of the R23 and R-hat diagnostics, yet the upper-branch solutions are adopted based on the combined R23/R3/O32 fit and on MZR/FMR expectations. The paper notes that the combined estimate is strongly influenced by O32, which is ionization-parameter sensitive, and that the MZR/FMR calibrations are themselves strong-line based. If the true metallicities lie on the lower branch, the reported values for components A and B would be lower by roughly 0.5 dex, which would change the comparison to the 0.3 Z_sun collapsar threshold and the claimed offset from the absorption metallicity. The branch choice should be treated as a systematic uncertainty and propagated into the reported metallicities, or the lower-branch solutions should be presented in the main body with equal prominence.
  3. [§4.2, §5.2, Table 2, Abstract] For GRB 150403A component C, the H-beta line is not detected, so the metallicity is only an upper limit (<8.79 for R23, <8.62 for R-hat), and the SFR of 39+76-36 M_sun/yr is essentially unconstrained, as is the dust correction E(B-V)=1.35±0.94. The abstract states that 'measured gas-phase metallicity, SFRs, and key diagnostic line ratios for each of the detected galaxies' are reported, which overstates the constraint available for this component. The body text is appropriately cautious, but the headline claim should be qualified so that the reader does not take the component C values of GRB 150403A as measurements with meaningful precision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The abstract gives z ≈ 2.61 for GRB 050820A while the introduction gives z ≈ 2.65 and Table 1 lists z = 2.6131; these should be made consistent.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence 'Despite having a separation of ~20 km/s' should read 'velocity offset of ~20 km/s', and the statement that 'galaxies are expected to rotate along the minor axis' is confusing; in a velocity field, the velocity gradient lies along the major axis, while iso-velocity contours run along the minor axis.
  3. [§4.4] In the description of Fig. 6, 'filed squares' should be 'filled squares'.
  4. [Table 2 and Table B1] The caption of Table 2 uses 'NOX22 R23' without introducing the abbreviation; it should say 'Nakajima et al. (2022) R23'. Similarly, 'SST24' in Table B1 is not defined in the main text and should be written as 'Sanders et al. (2024)'.
  5. [§5.3] The reference to 'see Fig. 13 in Thorne et al. (2021)' should be reworded as 'see Fig. 13 of Thorne et al. (2021)' to avoid implying that the figure is reproduced in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new IFU measurements are derived from the data themselves, with external calibrators and external benchmark samples used only as references.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements—line fluxes, SFRs, and gas-phase metallicities—are obtained by applying published external calibrations (Laseter et al. 2024; Nakajima et al. 2022; Sanders et al. 2024) to Gaussian-fitted line fluxes from the JWST/NIRSpec IFU data cubes. The branch selection for the double-valued metallicity diagnostics is explicitly guided by afterglow absorption metallicities, a multi-diagnostic fit, and MZR/FMR expectations; these are external relations, not quantities fitted to the paper's own claim. The interacting-systems interpretation is an inference from projected separations and relative velocities, with the paper explicitly discussing the alternate single-clumpy-galaxy interpretation and rejecting it using external size statistics (Ribeiro et al. 2016) and morphology. Citations to Schady et al. (2024) and Chen (2012) provide observational context and prior HST component identification but do not supply the new IFU measurements or the conclusions derived from them. No equation in the paper defines its claimed output in terms of its own input, and no fitted parameter or input datum is renamed as a 'prediction.' The main caveat—the metallicity branch degeneracy—is a systematic uncertainty, not a circularity, because the branch-selection criteria are external to the reported metallicities.

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

No free parameters are fitted to the data; all conversions use standard calibrations from the literature. The key domain assumptions are the metallicity branch choice and the applicability of local SFR/dust calibrations at high redshift.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Chabrier (2003) IMF is appropriate for converting H-alpha luminosity to SFR.
    Used in Section 4.2 for all SFR estimates; a different IMF would shift SFRs by a constant factor.
  • domain assumption The Kennicutt (1998) H-alpha SFR relation applies at high redshift.
    Assumed in Section 4.2; high-z galaxies may have different dust properties, but the relation is standard.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic Balmer decrement H-alpha/H-beta = 2.86 (Osterbrock 1989) is universal.
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive host dust extinction; deviations (e.g., from metallicity or IMF) would change E(B-V).
  • domain assumption The R23 and ^R strong-line diagnostics are reliable at high redshift with the chosen branch.
    Adopted in Section 4.3; the diagnostics are calibrated on local and high-z samples, but the double-branch degeneracy requires external information.
  • domain assumption The upper-branch solutions for the metallicity diagnostics are correct for both galaxies.
    Decided in Section 4.3.1 based on MZR/FMR and O32 consistency; the absorption metallicity of GRB 150403A points the other way.
  • standard math A standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2016 parameters is assumed.
    Used to convert angular separations to physical kpc; typical assumption, minor impact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First IFU observations of two GRB host galaxies at cosmic noon with JWST/NIRSpec." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHYNHA67

@misc{pith2026250521643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First IFU observations of two GRB host galaxies at cosmic noon with JWST/NIRSpec},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHYNHA67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21643}
}
read the original abstract

Long gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) serve as powerful probes of distant galaxies. Their luminous afterglow pinpoints galaxies independent of luminosity, in contrast to most flux-limited surveys. Nevertheless, GRB-selected galaxy samples are not free from bias, instead tracing the conditions favoured by the progenitor stars. Characterising the galaxy populations traced by GRBs is therefore important both to effectively use GRBs as probes as well as to place stronger constraints on the progenitor stars capable of forming long GRBs. Spatially-resolved spectroscopic observations with integral field units (IFUs) provide valuable insights into the interstellar medium and stellar populations of GRB host galaxies. In this paper we present results of the first two GRB host galaxies observed with the JWST/NIRSpec IFU with a spatial resolution of ~ 1.6 kpc; the hosts of GRB 150403A and GRB 050820A at redshifts z ~ 2.06 and z ~ 2.61, respectively. The data reveal two complex galaxy environments made up of two or more star forming galaxies that are likely interacting given their small spatial separation (< 20 kpc) and line of sight velocity offsets (< 100 km/s). The measured gas-phase metallicity, star formation rates (SFRs), and key diagnostic line ratios for each of the detected galaxies are overall consistent with the properties of other star forming galaxies and GRB hosts at z > 2. However, differences in the SFR and metallicities of the interacting galaxies highlight the importance of spatially resolved observations in order to accurately characterise the galaxy properties traced by GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image of the field of the host galaxy of GRB 050820A showing continuum emission at F775W observed with the HST/Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) (PID 10551; PI: S. Kulkarni) (left panel) and [O iii]𝜆5007 flux emission from our JWST/NIRspec data (right panel). In both images we label the star forming components A and B identified in Chen (2012), as well as the fainter component C. The position of the GRB detected in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [O iii]𝜆5007 surface brightness map of the host galaxy of GRB 150403A. Three star-forming components are labelled as A, B and C. The position of the GRB afterglow is just west of component C indicated with an ’x’. The 1𝜎 uncertainty on the GRB position is indicated by the dashed circle. Some bright emission is observed to the north of C which is due to noise. Similarly, contours tracing the flux strength from 0.1 to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maps showing the velocity offsets across the three detected star-forming components in GRB 050820A on the left panel and in GRB 150403A on the right relative to the GRB hosting component (i.e., component C in both). The contours trace the flux strength of [O iii]𝜆5007 line emission as in Figures 1 and 2. Bright spaxels represent regions that are redshifted relative to the GRB hosting component and dark spaxels show … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metallicity variation across the two GRB host galaxies. The top row corresponds to GRB 050820A, and the bottom row to GRB 150403A. Left: Gas-phase metallicity derived using the R23 diagnostic from Nakajima et al. (2022), with contours tracing [O iii]𝜆5007 flux. For GRB…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Figure showing the 𝑅ˆ metallicity maps from Laseter et al. (2024) on the left, and the histograms representing the distribution of metallicities across the three components on the right for GRB 050820A (top row) and GRB 150403A (bottom row). help break the degeneracies…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The N2-BPT diagram with 1𝜎 upper limits on [N ii]/H𝛼. Right: The O32 vs R23 diagram. In both diagrams the star-forming components presented in this work are plotted in red (for GRB 050820A) and blue (GRB 150403A) with the likely host galaxies (component C) repres…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 543

    2009

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13

    2017

  3. [3]

    A., Kanekar N., Micha owski M

    Arabsalmani M., Roychowdhury S., Zwaan M. A., Kanekar N., Micha owski M. J., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 454, L51

    2015

  4. [4]

    Arabsalmani M., et al., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 5411

    2019

  5. [5]

    Arabsalmani M., Roychowdhury S., Renaud F., Burkert A., Emsellem E., Le Floc’h E., Pian E., 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 69

    2022

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [apj] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    pp 131--139

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. pp 131--139

    2010

  2. [10]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5

    1981

  3. [11]

    Berger E., Cowie L., Kulkarni S., Frail D., Aussel H., Barger A., 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 588, 99

    2003

  4. [12]

    Berger E., et al., 2005, Nature, 438, 988

    2005

  5. [13]

    J., Dopita M

    Bian F., Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 175

    2018

  6. [14]

    K., Berger E., Fong W.-f., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 144

    Blanchard P. K., Berger E., Fong W.-f., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 144

    2016

  7. [15]

    Bloom J., et al., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 518, L1

    1999

  8. [16]

    S., Kulkarni S

    Bloom J. S., Kulkarni S. R., Djorgovski S. G., 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 1111

    2002

  9. [17]

    B \"o ker T., et al., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A82

    2022

  10. [18]

    Bolmer J., et al., 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A43

    2019

  11. [19]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 345, Oct. 1, 1989, p. 245-256., 345, 245

    1989

  12. [20]

    Chabrier G., 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    2003

  13. [21]

    Chen H.-W., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 3039

    2012

  14. [22]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 152

    2009

  15. [23]

    Christensen L., Hjorth J., Gorosabel J., 2004, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040361 , 425, 913–926

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Christensen L., Vreeswijk P., Sollerman J., Th \"o ne C., Le Floc'h E., Wiersema K., 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 490, 45

    2008

  17. [25]

    J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...29C 633, 29

    Conselice C. J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...29C 633, 29

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Djorgovski S., Bloom J., Kulkarni S., 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, L13

    2003

  20. [28]

    D’Elia V., et al., 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 523, A36

    2010

  21. [29]

    Earl N., et al., 2024, astropy/specutils: v1.13.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10681408 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10681408

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    N., 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    Eichler D., Livio M., Piran T., Schramm D. N., 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    1989

  23. [31]

    Ferrero P., et al., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 497, 729

    2009

  24. [32]

    Ferruit P., et al., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A81

    2022

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 519, L13

    Fruchter A. S., et al., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 519, L13

    1999

  26. [34]

    Fruchter A., et al., 2006, Nature, 441, 463

    2006

  27. [35]

    Gorosabel J., et al., 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 444, 711

    2005

  28. [36]

    Graham J., Fruchter A., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 119

    2013

  29. [37]

    F., Fruchter A

    Graham J. F., Fruchter A. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..170G 834, 170

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Greiner J., et al., 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 405

    2008

  31. [39]

    Greiner J., et al., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 1610

    2009

  32. [40]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Izzo L., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 4480

    2017

  35. [43]

    Jakobsen P., et al., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A80

    2022

  36. [44]

    L., Kirshner R

    Kelly P. L., Kirshner R. P., Pahre M., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 1201

    2008

  37. [45]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..189K 36, 189

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 142, 35

    2002

  39. [47]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Leitherer C., Dav \'e R., Yuan T., Allen M., Groves B., Sutherland R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774..100K 774, 100

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Y \"u ksel H., Beacom J

    Kistler M. D., Y \"u ksel H., Beacom J. F., Hopkins A. M., Wyithe J. S. B., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L104

    2009

  41. [49]

    W., Strong I

    Klebesadel R. W., Strong I. B., Olson R. A., 1973, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 182, p. L85, 182, L85

    1973

  42. [50]

    Klose S., et al., 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 1942

    2004

  43. [51]

    Kriek M., et al., 2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.1835

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kr \"u hler T., et al., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 534, A108

    2011

  45. [53]

    Kr \"u hler T., et al., 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 581, A125

    2015

  46. [54]

    P., Galbany L., Gensior J., 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 602, A85

    Kr \"u hler T., Kuncarayakti H., Schady P., Anderson J. P., Galbany L., Gensior J., 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 602, A85

    2017

  47. [55]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    Laseter I. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311, 565

    2000

  49. [57]

    Le Floc'h E., et al., 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 499

    2003

  50. [58]

    pp 1670--1681

    LeFevre O., et al., 2003, in Instrument design and performance for optical/infrared ground-based telescopes. pp 1670--1681

    2003

  51. [59]

    Ledoux C., Vreeswijk P., Smette A., Fox A., Petitjean P., Ellison S., Fynbo J., Savaglio S., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 661

    2009

  52. [60]

    Lee-Waddell K., et al., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2945

    2016

  53. [61]

    J., et al., 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 976

    Levan A. J., et al., 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 976

    2023

  54. [62]

    J., et al., 2024, Nature, 626, 737

    Levan A. J., et al., 2024, Nature, 626, 737

    2024

  55. [63]

    M., Berger E., Kewley L

    Levesque E. M., Berger E., Kewley L. J., Bagley M. M., 2010a, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 694

  56. [64]

    M., Kewley L

    Levesque E. M., Kewley L. J., Berger E., Zahid H. J., 2010b, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1557

  57. [65]

    V., Poznanski D., Wang X., Ganeshalingam M., Mannucci F., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1473

    Li W., Chornock R., Leaman J., Filippenko A. V., Poznanski D., Wang X., Ganeshalingam M., Mannucci F., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1473

    2011

  58. [66]

    R., Esteban C., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 508, 615

    L \'o pez-S \'a nchez A. R., Esteban C., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 508, 615

    2009

  59. [67]

    Nadolny J., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 125

    2023

  60. [68]

    Nakajima K., Ouchi M., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 900

    2014

  61. [69]

    Nakajima K., et al., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 3

    2022

  62. [70]

    Narayan R., Paczy \'n ski B., Piran T., 1992, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9204001

    1992 arXiv

  63. [71]

    E., 1989, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 571, 99

    Osterbrock D. E., 1989, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 571, 99

    1989

  64. [72]

    Paalvast M., et al., 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A40

    2018

  65. [73]

    L., et al., 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 134

    Page K. L., et al., 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 134

    2009

  66. [74]

    C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    Pei Y. C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    1992 doi

  67. [75]

    Perley D., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 8

    2016

  68. [76]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..13P 594, A13

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Ploeckinger S., Recchi S., Hensler G., Kroupa P., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2512

    2015

  70. [78]

    Prochaska J., et al., 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 168, 231

    2007

  71. [79]

    C., et al., 2022, Nature, 612, 223

    Rastinejad J. C., et al., 2022, Nature, 612, 223

    2022

  72. [80]

    A., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 259

    Reddy N. A., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 259

    2015

  73. [81]

    Ribeiro B., et al., 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, A22

    2016

  74. [82]

    Rossi A., et al., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 545, A77

    2012

  75. [83]

    Rossi A., et al., 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A47

    2014

  76. [84]

    N., et al., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 2600

    Runco J. N., et al., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 2600

    2021

  77. [85]

    Saccardi A., et al., 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A84

    2023

  78. [86]

    Salvaterra R., et al., 2009, Nature, 461, 1258

    2009

  79. [87]

    L., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 138

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 138

    2015

  80. [88]

    L., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 19

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 19

    2021

  81. [89]

    L., Shapley A

    Sanders R. L., Shapley A. E., Topping M. W., Reddy N. A., Brammer G. B., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 24

    2024

  82. [90]

    Savaglio S., et al., 2002, GRB Coordinates Network, 1633, 1

    2002

  83. [91]

    Savaglio S., Glazebrook K., Le Borgne D., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 182

    2009

  84. [92]

    Savaglio S., et al., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 627

    2012

  85. [93]

    Schady P., et al., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2807

    2024

  86. [94]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103

    2011

  87. [95]

    arXiv:2502.10499

    Scholte D., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250210499S p. arXiv:2502.10499

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Selsing J., et al., 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A92

    2019

  89. [97]

    E., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 88

    Shapley A. E., et al., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 88

    2015

  90. [98]

    Shirazi M., Brinchmann J., Rahmati A., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 120

    2014

  91. [99]

    Sollerman J., \"O stlin G., Fynbo J., Hjorth J., Fruchter A., Pedersen K., 2005, New Astronomy, 11, 103

    2005

  92. [100]

    S., Primack J

    Somerville R. S., Primack J. R., Faber S., 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 320, 504

    2001

  93. [101]

    C., et al., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 165

    Steidel C. C., et al., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 165

    2014

  94. [102]

    M., Levan A., Tanvir N., Fruchter A., Strolger L.-G., 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 57

    Svensson K. M., Levan A., Tanvir N., Fruchter A., Strolger L.-G., 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 57

    2010

  95. [103]

    F., Greiner J., Kann D

    Tanga M., Kr \"u hler T., Schady P., Klose S., Graham J. F., Greiner J., Kann D. A., Nardini M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A.136T 615, A136

    2018 doi

  96. [104]

    R., et al., 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 1073

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 1073

    2004

  97. [105]

    R., et al., 2009, Nature, 461, 1254

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2009, Nature, 461, 1254

    2009

  98. [106]

    Teyssier R., Chapon D., Bournaud F., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 720, L149

    2010

  99. [107]

    Th \"o ne C., et al., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3590

    2013

  100. [108]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..66T 690, A66

    Th \"o ne C. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..66T 690, A66

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    E., et al., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 540

    Thorne J. E., et al., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 540

    2021

  102. [110]

    Troja E., et al., 2022, Nature, 612, 228

    2022

  103. [111]

    M., et al., 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 468, 83

    Vreeswijk P. M., et al., 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 468, 83

    2007

  104. [112]

    Vreeswijk P., et al., 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A22

    2013

  105. [113]

    E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..367W 657, 367

    Wainwright C., Berger E., Penprase B. E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..367W 657, 367

    2007 doi

  106. [114]

    Wiseman P., Schady P., Bolmer J., Kr \"u hler T., Yates R., Greiner J., Fynbo J., 2017a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A24

  107. [115]

    X., de Ugarte Postigo A., Kr \"u hler T., Yates R., Greiner J., 2017b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 607, A107

    Wiseman P., Perley D., Schady P., Prochaska J. X., de Ugarte Postigo A., Kr \"u hler T., Yates R., Greiner J., 2017b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 607, A107

  108. [116]

    E., 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Woosley S. E., 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 405, no. 1, p. 273-277., 405, 273

    1993

  109. [117]

    Woosley S., Bloom J., 2006, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 44, 507

    2006

  110. [118]

    Yang Y.-H., et al., 2024, Nature, 626, 742

    2024

  111. [119]

    Zhang B., Pe'er A., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 700, L65

    2009

  112. [120]

    pandas development team T., 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  113. [121]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.