Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Nature of High Equivalent Width Emitters in the Epoch of Reionization Revealed by JWST Medium-band Imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thirteen of the most extreme emission-line galaxies at z≈7 show Hβ+[OIII] emission offset from their starlight, pointing to massive-star-driven outflows rather than AGN.

desk verdict A genuinely useful z~7 EELG sample, but the shock-heating claim rests on an untested 0.06 arcsec centroid systematics; needs a no-offset simulation before it can carry weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13456 v1 pith:3VED5QAX submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.GA

Kazuki Daikuhara , Takahiro Morishita , Tadayuki Kodama , Ranga-Ram Chary , Masayuki Akiyama , Jose. M. Pérez-Martínez This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords extremeemissionlinegalaxiesepochofreionizationHbeta+[OIII]emittersJWSTmedium-bandimagingequivalentwidthshockheatinggalaxyoutflowsoverdensity
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

The paper attempts to establish that the most extreme emission-line galaxies at redshift z≈7, identified by a flux excess in the JWST medium-band filter F410M, are powered mainly by young starbursts and massive-star-driven outflows rather than by active galactic nuclei. The case rests on 119 Hβ+[OIII] emitters, 19 of which have rest-frame equivalent widths above 3000 Å. For 13 of these, the line emission is spatially offset by more than 0.3 kpc from the rest-frame UV and stellar continuum, an arrangement the paper argues cannot arise from photoionization by stars or AGN and therefore points to radiative shocks in winds from massive stars. If correct, this population contributes to cosmic reionization through ionizing photons and large ionizing bubbles, not through black hole accretion.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the medium-band flux excess technique: F410M contains Hβ+[OIII] at z≈7 while F444W samples the underlying continuum. The line map is built by $F_{\rm line} = (f_{\rm F410M} - f_{\rm F444W})/(1 - \Delta_{\rm F410M}/\Delta_{\rm F444W}) \times \Delta_{\rm F410M}$ with F410M PSF-matched to F444W, and the same pair of images yields a continuum map via Equation (8). The centroid-offset analysis then compares the line map with F150W (rest-frame UV) and F356W (stellar continuum) using peak finding and DAOStarFinder.

What would settle it

A simulation that injects realistic z≈7 galaxies with a Balmer/4000 Å break gradient into the F410M/F444W pair and runs the same PSF-matching and centroid pipeline could show whether a significant fraction of the 13 offset sources appear offset in the absence of any outflow; if so, the shock-heating claim would collapse. A cheaper check is integral-field spectroscopy of the 13 sources: if the gas kinematics show no broad or shifted component consistent with an outflow, the shock interpretation is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using PSF-matched F410M and F444W images, the authors build continuum-subtracted maps of Hβ+[OIII] and measure the centroid offsets between the line, the rest-frame UV (F150W), and the stellar continuum (F356W). They find 13 of 119 emitters at z≈7 where the line centroid is offset by more than 0.3 kpc from both UV and stellar light while UV and stellar centroids coincide. Because photoionization by either stars or AGN would keep these components aligned, the paper concludes that these offsets reveal shock-heated gas in outflows driven by massive-star feedback. The same argument leads to the claim that high-EW emitters (EW0 > 3000 Å), typically low-mass (log M★/M⊙ ≲ 7.5), blue (β ~ −2.2), and dust-poor (AV ~ 0.1), are starbursting systems that may be key sources of ionizing photons during reionization.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes the continuum-subtracted line map is not shifted by the unmodeled intrinsic color difference between F410M and F444W; the paper states this color is not taken into account and asserts, without a quantitative test, that it does not prominently affect the centroid offsets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the line offsets are genuine, some of the most extreme EELGs at z≈7 are not AGN but starbursts whose winds ionize gas on kiloparsec scales, changing the inferred ionizing-photon budget for reionization.
  • At least 11% (13 of 119) of z≈7 EELGs would be powered substantially by shock heating, a contribution usually neglected in reionization models.
  • The observed low masses, blue UV slopes, and low dust attenuation show that EW0 > 3000 Å can be achieved without invoking a top-heavy IMF or AGN, supporting bursty star-formation histories as the dominant channel.
  • The EELG overdensity in JADES GOODS-S, coincident with a spectroscopically confirmed z = 7.265 structure, suggests that large ionizing bubbles form around clustered EELGs, aiding reionization in dense environments.
  • The centroid-offset method can be applied to other medium-band surveys to map stellar feedback in reionization-era galaxies without spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct prediction of the shock-heating interpretation is that the 13 offset sources should show broad or shifted gas kinematics in integral-field follow-up, with line ratios such as [OIII]/Hβ enhanced over pure photoionization predictions.
  • The method could be extended to lower equivalent-width emitters at z≈7 to test whether the offset fraction scales with EW; such a trend would link shock heating specifically to the most extreme starbursts.
  • If the z≈7.3 overdensity also hosts the nearby quiescent galaxy JADES-GS-z7-01-QU, feedback from the clustered starbursts may be quenching neighbors, a testable connection between reionization-era overdensities and early quiescence.
  • The 0.3 kpc offset threshold is comparable to the NIRCam PSF core at these wavelengths, so a version of this analysis with grism or higher-resolution data could verify whether some apparent offsets are PSF-matching artifacts.
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. This paper uses JWST Cycle-1 medium-band F410M and broad-band F444W imaging to identify 119 Hβ+[OIII] emitters at z~7 in the CEERS, PRIMER, PAR1199, NEP, and JADES fields. The authors measure rest-frame equivalent widths (420 < EW0 < 6850 Å), stellar masses, UV slopes, dust attenuation, sizes, and clumpy fractions, and single out 19 high-EW (EW0>3000 Å) sources. They present spatially resolved line maps from the F410M-F444W excess and report 13 objects whose Hβ+[OIII] emission is offset by >0.3 kpc from the UV and stellar continuum. On this basis, together with a model-dependent upper limit on AGN contribution, they conclude that these emitters are likely powered by radiative shocks from massive-star-driven outflows. They also report a strong overdensity of EELGs in JADES GOODS-S at z~7.3.

Significance. If the spatial-offset interpretation is correct, the paper provides a novel observational handle on the ionizing source in extreme emission-line galaxies at the epoch of reionization, suggesting that some z~7 EELGs are starbursts with feedback-driven outflows rather than AGN-dominated systems. The sample construction is careful in several respects: the F090W-dropout plus F410M excess selection is explicit, and Appendix A validates the photometric redshifts against 28 spectroscopic redshifts. The 19 high-EW objects are rare and well characterized in mass, color, and dust content. However, the headline shock-heating claim currently rests on centroid offsets measured from a line map whose zero point is not tested against continuum color gradients, PSF-matching residuals, or astrometric registration errors. The paper's own Section 5.3 concedes that the offsets do not rule out photoionization, which is in tension with the 'unequivocal' language used in Section 5 and the Abstract. With a proper null test and appropriately softened claims, this would be a valuable contribution; in its present form, the central physical interpretation is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (7)] The emission-line map Fline is constructed by subtracting F444W from F410M after PSF matching, assuming the continuum is flat between the two filters. The text states that the intrinsic color is not taken into account and that it does not 'prominently affect' the result, but no quantitative test is provided. At z~7, the 0.3 kpc offset threshold corresponds to roughly 0.06 arcsec, which is comparable to the NIRCam PSF core and to typical inter-filter astrometric residuals. The centroid uncertainties quoted in Table 5 and Section 4.3 are derived by varying initial guesses only; they do not include photon noise, PSF mismatch, or WCS registration errors. A null test with simulated no-offset galaxies that include realistic continuum color gradients, PSF-matching residuals, and astrometric shifts is required before the 13 offset detections can be used as evidence for shock heating.
  2. [Sec. 5 and Abstract] The claim that the observed offsets 'can be attributed unequivocally to the third scenario' (shock heating) is internally contradicted by Section 5.3, which states that the offset does not rule out photoionization from AGN or H ii regions. Because line-of-sight projection cannot be distinguished and ionized gas can be spatially offset from the continuum in star-forming regions with patchy dust or escaping radiation, the data support 'consistent with shock heating' rather than 'unequivocal.' The Abstract's statement that these emitters 'are likely under strong feedback-driven winds from massive stars' should be softened to a candidate interpretation unless the null test in the previous comment is provided. In addition, the 'absence of obvious signatures of actively accreting black holes' rests on the model-dependent upper-limit argument of Section 5.2, not on direct AGN diagnostics.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (2)] As printed, the selection inequality mF410M−mF444W > −2.5 log10(1−3 sqrt(σ^2_F410M+σ^2_F444W)/fF410M) has a positive right-hand side for typical σ/f (e.g., ~0.39 for σ/f=0.1), so it selects sources with fF410M < fF444W, i.e., objects red in F410M−F444W. This is the opposite of the intended line-excess selection and is inconsistent with Eq. (3) and Figure 2, where the emitters lie at negative F410M−F444W. The equation or its accompanying explanation should be corrected so that the published selection criterion reproduces the sample; if the actual code used the correct inequality, that should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5.3] The offset criterion is printed twice as 'd(Line − UV) > 0.3 kpc and d(Line − UV) > 0.3 kpc'; the second condition should presumably be d(Line − Stellar) > 0.3 kpc. Please correct the typo in both places.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The F410M−F444W threshold in Eq. (3) corresponds to rest-frame EW of roughly 660 Å, while the paper defines EELGs as EW0 > 1000 Å. Please clarify how the selection boundary maps onto the final EELG definition and why some objects with EW0 below 660 Å appear in the final sample.
  3. [Sec. 3.4] The PSF matching between F410M and F444W is mentioned but the matching procedure, kernel size, and any validation of the residual PSF differences are not described. A brief description or reference would aid reproducibility and help assess the impact of PSF mismatch on the offset measurements.
  4. [Sec. 6] The reported overdensity δgal ~ 50 within a 240 kpc diameter aperture should be accompanied by an estimate of the expected Poisson variance. If the average number of EELGs per such aperture, ⟨ngal⟩, is of order unity, the quoted overdensity may be strongly affected by shot noise.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and notation issues, including 'EEGLs' in the Abstract (should be 'EELGs'), inconsistent 'Hβ+[Oiii]' vs. 'Hβ+[OIII]' in figure captions, and the sentence in Section 6 that 'the average value is less than the standard deviation in all regions,' which is unclear and should be reworded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the EW, line-map offsets, and AGN upper limits are derived from independent observables; self-citations are technical calibrations, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained. Selection uses the F410M-F444W color excess (Eqs. 2-3), while EW is computed from the F410M line flux minus the SED continuum (Eqs. 5-6); the selection threshold is explicitly tied to EW ~ 660 A, so the 19 sources with EW0 > 3000 A are a measured subsample, not a restatement of the selection cut. The line map (Eq. 7) is an algebraic decomposition of the F410M and F444W images into line and continuum under a flat-continuum approximation, and the 13 offset sources are identified from centroid differences between this line map and the independent F150W and F356W images. The AGN contribution upper limit uses external literature scalings (Harikane et al. 2023; Heckman et al. 2004) and is not fitted to the data. Self-citations to Morishita et al. (2023) supply the catalog, SED templates, and the webbpsf jitter sigma; these are technical calibrations from published work and do not by themselves force any conclusion about shock heating. The manuscript flags its real limitations: Sec. 3.4 states that the intrinsic F410M-F444W continuum color is not included in Eq. 7, and Sec. 5.3 concedes that the observed offsets do not rule out photoionization from AGN or H II regions. These are unvalidated assumptions and interpretive overclaims, not circular reductions. No step was found in which a predicted quantity equals its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative conclusions depend on a modest set of model priors (IMF, dust curve, SED templates) and hand-set thresholds (0.3 kpc, 0.25 mag, 1000/3000 Å). No new physical entities are introduced. The AGN upper limit is conditional on literature scaling relations. The most fragile input is the flat-continuum assumption in the line-map construction, which underpins the offset measurements.

free parameters (5)
  • Offset threshold for 'offset emitters' = 0.3 kpc
    Hand-set in Sec 4.3; at z~7, 0.3 kpc corresponds to about 0.06 arcsec, close to the NIRCam PSF scale, and directly determines the 13 offset candidates.
  • F410M-F444W color excess threshold = 0.25 mag (rest EW ~660 Å)
    Adopted in Sec 3.1 Eq (3) to remove photometric scatter; set by eye from the color-magnitude distribution, and it sets the EW floor of the sample.
  • EELG and high-EW definitions = 1000 Å and 3000 Å
    Chosen in Sec 1 to split the population; the fraction of EELGs (32.8%) and high-EW emitters (3.7%) depends on these thresholds.
  • AGN upper-limit priors = MBH/Mstar=0.01, Eddington ratio=1, Lbol=3500 L[OIII], [OIII]/Hbeta=0.5
    Sec 5.2: borrowed from Harikane et al. (2023) and Heckman et al. (2004) to compute the AGN contribution to EW; the paper calls them 'reasonable assumptions' but does not fit them to the data.
  • Overdensity aperture = 240 kpc diameter (footnote: 1 pMpc)
    Sec 6: chosen aperture for counting EELGs; the δ~50 value is scale-dependent.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Chabrier IMF with lower mass cutoff 0.08 Msun
    Sec 1: all stellar masses and SFRs are IMF-dependent.
  • domain assumption SMC extinction curve and Smit et al. (2016) A1600-beta relation
    Sec 3.2: used to map observed UV slopes to dust attenuation; other curves would change AV values.
  • domain assumption F410M excess is entirely due to Hβ+[OIII] at z~7
    Sec 3.1: the selection assumes no strong contamination from other lines or continuum features; only 28 spec-z objects validate the photo-z selection in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper Continuum is flat between F410M and F444W in the line-map construction
    Sec 3.4: 'we do not take the intrinsic color into account... it does not prominently affect' - this is load-bearing for the offset measurements and is untested.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift reliability: p(z>6)>0.8 selects z~7 galaxies
    Sec 3.1; Appendix A shows photo-z vs spec-z agreement for 28 objects but states the contamination rate cannot be quantified.
  • domain assumption AGN scaling relations (MBH/Mstar, Eddington ratio, Lbol/L[OIII], [OIII]/Hβ)
    Sec 5.2: taken from literature and used to build the AGN upper-limit test; if the true scaling differs, the <0.7% AGN contribution could change.
  • domain assumption Kennicutt (1998) SFR-UV calibration with Chabrier adjustment
    Sec 3.2 Eq (4): converts UV luminosity to SFR for the main-sequence offset analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nature of High Equivalent Width Emitters in the Epoch of Reionization Revealed by JWST Medium-band Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VED5QAX

@misc{pith2026250713456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nature of High Equivalent Width Emitters in the Epoch of Reionization Revealed by JWST Medium-band Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VED5QAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13456}
}
abstract

Extreme emission line galaxies (EELGs) at high redshifts are considered key contributors to cosmic reionization at $z>6$ due to their higher ionization efficiencies. We have identified 119 H$\beta$ + [OIII] emitters at $z\sim7$ selected by a flux excess in the medium-band filter F410M in the public James Webb Space Telescope Cycle-1 fields. Our emitters exhibit a wide range in rest-frame H$\beta$ + [OIII] equivalent width (EWs), 420 $<$ EW$_{0}$/\r{A} $<$ 6850 (with the median value of $\sim1700$ \r{A}). Among them, 19 are EW$_{0}$ $>$ 3000 \r{A}, which represent extreme populations even in the context of recent findings with JWST. They are characterized by (i) low stellar mass ($\sim 3\times10^{7}$ $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$), (ii) blue colors ($\beta_{\rm UV}\sim -2.2$), and (iii) low dust attenuation ($A_{\mathrm{V}}\sim 0.1$ mag). We discuss the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed high rest-frame H$\beta$ + [OIII] EWs, including (1) photoionization by AGN, (2) stellar photoionization in the vicinity of HII regions, and (3) radiative shocks powered by outflows either from AGN or massive stars. Notably, we find 13 emitters with spatially offset H$\beta$ + [OIII] emission compared to the UV and stellar components. Given the absence of obvious signatures of actively accreting black holes, these emitters are likely under strong feedback-driven winds from massive stars. Lastly, we report a unique overdensity of EELGs in one of the observed fields. The discovery of such a "star-bursting" overdensity supports the idea that large ionizing bubbles formed around some EEGLs in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Possible scenarios for the ionizing sources in high-EW emission-line galaxies. High EWs can be caused by photoion￾ization from AGN and Hii regions, and/or shocks from AGN and massive stars. Emission powered by star formation is likely to be more extended than that of AGN. By leveraging the sensitivity and resolution of medium-band filters, we can efficiently assess which physical mechanism is the main contributor by… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The color–magnitude diagram. The red circles represent the Hβ+ [Oiii] emitters at z ∼ 7, the blue cir￾cles represent the [Oiii] emitters, and the black do represent detected sources with SNF444W > 5 and SNF410M > 5. The color-magnitude diagram is utilized to select the objects that show an excess in F410M flux concerning the F444W flux. The solid line shows the EW cut of emitters to avoid includ￾ing contamination, c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Adjusted stellar mass distributions of our EELGs (red) and UV-selected galaxies (blue; Morishita et al. 2023). The comparison is made by showing only the UV￾UV-selected galaxies that are selected in the same fields as our emitters. The gray histogram shows the mass distribu￾tion of all our emitters. The EELGs show a skewed distri￾bution toward the low-mass end (p = 0.02). and β. A significant portion of our samples … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Physical properties of Hβ+ [Oiii] emitters at z ∼ 7 plotted against their stellar mass (M⋆). (Top left) The rest-frame EW0 – M⋆ relation. The color of each point corresponds to the rest-frame EW. (Top right) The beta – M⋆ relation. (Middle left) The SFR – M⋆ relation. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the size distribution of the Hβ+ [Oiii] emitters. We examine the effective (half-light) radii of the Hβ+ [Oiii]emission line, stellar continuum, and UV(F150W) light. The sizes of the stellar components are measured in the Hβ+ [Oiii]-subtracted image, which is der…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) The relationship between the centroid distances of UV and stellar mass component (d(UV − stellar)) and the distances of Hβ+ [Oiii] line and UV component ((d(line − UV))). Dashed lines show the criteria of galaxies with offset (0.3 kpc, see Figure B12 - B14). (Ri…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) Sample distributions on the β–rest-frame EW0 plane. β is only mildly dependent on EW0. (Right) Histogram of β. The samples are divided into three groups: those with EW0 values above 3000 ˚A, those below 1000 ˚A, and an intermediate group. A K-S test comparing th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prediction for the maximum contribution from AGN to observed EW0. We assume that all sources host an SMBH with a typical MBH/M⋆ from the M∗–MBH rela￾tion. AGN contribution decreases with EW. In particular, high-EW emitters have little AGN contribution. This sug￾gests t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Spatial distribution of Hβ+ [Oiii] emitters with the color showing the EW values. The contours show the mean projected distance ¯b5th of 150, 100, and 50 kpc in the outside-in order, defined by 2p 1/(πΣ5th), where Σ5th is given as 4/πr2 5th. This indicates the l…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O., P´ erez-Montero, E., & V ´ ılchez, J

    Amor ´ ın, R. O., P´ erez-Montero, E., & V ´ ılchez, J. M. 2010, ApJL, 715, L128 Amor ´ ın, R. O., Rodr ´ ıguez-Henr ´ ıquez, M., Fern´ andez, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L25

    2010

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 121

    Atek, H., Siana, B., Scarlata, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 121

    2011

  3. [3]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12

    2023

  4. [4]

    G., Cava, A., et al

    Barro, G., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22

    2019

  5. [5]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143 14 K. Daikuhara et al

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  7. [7]

    J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.16934

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Maseda, M. V. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4451

    work page 2022

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, v1.8.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, v1.8.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13

    2023

  3. [11]

    I., Rinaldi, P., Iani, E., et al

    Caputi, K. I., Rinaldi, P., Iani, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 159

    2024

  4. [12]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

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

    2009

  5. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  6. [14]

    2008, ApJ, 680, 32

    Chary, R.-R. 2008, ApJ, 680, 32

    2008

  7. [15]

    2005, ApJL, 635, L5

    Chary, R.-R., Stern, D., & Eisenhardt, P. 2005, ApJL, 635, L5

    2005

  8. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

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

    2022

  9. [17]

    H., Leja, J., Tran, K.-V

    Cohn, J. H., Leja, J., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 141 De Barros, S., Oesch, P. A., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2355 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785

    2009

  11. [19]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999 Di Matteo, P., Bournaud, F., Martig, M., et al

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999 Di Matteo, P., Bournaud, F., Martig, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 31

    2013

  12. [20]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 632

    2005

  14. [22]

    Coe, D. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 763

    2007

  15. [23]

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

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5229

    2021

  16. [24]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 2312 —. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05295

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13

    2023

  19. [27]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Shapley, A. E., Genzel, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 45

    2013

  20. [28]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

    1996

  21. [29]

    G., Franx, M., et al

    Fumagalli, M., Patel, S. G., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 757, L22

    2012

  22. [30]

    M., Hunt, L., et al

    Geda, R., Crawford, S. M., Hunt, L., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 202

    2022

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L11

    Carniani, S. 2023, ApJL, 954, L11

    2023

  24. [32]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 101

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101

    2011

  25. [33]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279

    2003

  26. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4838

    Greig, B., & Mesinger, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4838

    2017

  27. [35]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39

    2015

  28. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    2023

  29. [37]

    M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109

    2004

  30. [38]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04270

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L., & Erb, D

    Henry, A., Scarlata, C., Martin, C. L., & Erb, D. 2015, ApJ, 809, 19

    2015

  32. [40]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581

    2014

  33. [41]

    I., Guseva, N

    Izotov, Y. I., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X. 2011, ApJ, 728, 161

    2011

  34. [42]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 468

    2020

  35. [43]

    A., & Windhorst, R

    Jansen, R. A., & Windhorst, R. A. 2018, PASP, 130, 124001

    2018

  36. [44]

    C., Hayes, M

    Jung, I., Ferguson, H. C., Hayes, M. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02388

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

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

    1998

  38. [46]

    J., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J

    Kim, K. J., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., & Yang, H. 2021, ApJ, 914, 2

    2021

  39. [47]

    J., Bayliss, M

    Kim, K. J., Bayliss, M. B., Rigby, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L17 Labb´ e, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L19

    2023

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05362

    Llerena, M., Amor ´ ın, R., Pentericci, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05362

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

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

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14155

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  43. [51]

    P., Tang, M., et al

    Mainali, R., Stark, D. P., Tang, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 719 High Equivalent Width Emitters at z ∼ 7 15

    2020

  44. [52]

    V., van der Wel, A., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Maseda, M. V., van der Wel, A., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 29

    2018

  45. [53]

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

    Maseda, M. V., Bacon, R., Lam, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5120

    2020

  46. [54]

    A., Naidu, R

    Mason, C. A., Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., & Leja, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2669

    2019

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 67

    2023

  48. [56]

    E., Treu, T., et al

    Morishita, T., Abramson, L. E., Treu, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 141

    2019

  49. [57]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 50

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Trenti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 50

    2020

  50. [58]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.05018 —

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.05018 —. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

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

    2020

  52. [60]

    1998, Nature, 392, 253 —

    Noguchi, M. 1998, Nature, 392, 253 —. 1999, ApJ, 514, 77

    1998

  53. [61]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  54. [62]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G...

    2014

  55. [63]

    C., et al

    Ravindranath, S., Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 963

    2006

  56. [64]

    I., Costantin, L., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Costantin, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 143

    2023

  57. [65]

    I., Iani, E., et al

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

    2024

  58. [66]

    W., Bouwens, R

    Roberts-Borsani, G. W., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 143

    2016

  59. [67]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

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

    2023

  60. [68]

    E., Bunker, A

    Saxena, A., Robertson, B. E., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A68

    2023

  61. [69]

    J., Katz, H., et al

    Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14532 S´ ersic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 72

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Kubo, M., & Harikane, Y. 2016, ApJ, 821, 72

    2016

  63. [71]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 26

    Shim, H., & Chary, R.-R. 2013, ApJ, 765, 26

    2013

  64. [72]

    2011, ApJ, 738, 69

    Shim, H., Chary, R.-R., Dickinson, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 69

    2011

  65. [73]

    J., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 254 —. 2014, ApJ, 784, 58

    2016

  66. [74]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 94

    2022

  67. [75]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 428

    1998

  68. [76]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L18

    Stiavelli, M., Morishita, T., Chiaberge, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L18

    2023

  69. [77]

    J., Hainline, K., et al

    Tacchella, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hainline, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 74

    2023

  70. [78]

    S., et al

    Tadaki, K., Iono, D., Yun, M. S., et al. 2018, Nature, 560, 613 van der Wel, A., Straughn, A. N., Rix, H. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 111

    2018

  71. [79]

    2023, A&A, 678, A173

    Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., Bergamini, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A173

    2023

  72. [80]

    M., Lovell, C

    Wilkins, S. M., Lovell, C. C., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4014

    2023

  73. [81]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64

    2023

  74. [82]

    A., Cohen, S

    Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Jansen, R. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 13

    2023

  75. [83]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 171

    Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 171

    2017

  76. [84]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07940 16 K

    Zhang, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07940 16 K. Daikuhara et al. T able 5.Physical properties of H β + [O iii] emitters with spatially offsets. ID RA DEC Rest-frame EW 0 log10(M⋆) ∆MS d(Line-UV) d(Line-stellar) d(UV-stellar) [˚A] [M ⊙] [...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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